Why do racquets with a small head size have such high prestige among some people?

[Broly4]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

I would love to play against someone who plays the modern game. As is, I've never seen topspin come at me. I've never seen a kick serve. Never seen a serve jump over my head. I've only seen extreme underspin. At the San Francisco Open, there were two guys that put noticable topspin. Everyone else hit flat.

What I see a lot of is people using AeroPro strung with polyester hitting flat.

That's not the case where I live/play, I play a power top spin game (not consider myself an open level player), I break strings (black code 1.30) each three sets. I've lost to some proficient flat hitters, but chances are they won't be able to handle the weight of my ball, what I happen to prefer are dense string patterns sticks, 16x19 are too lively to me, and because of my full western forerhand grip I hit with top spin even with the cover on

[Broly4]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

That's exactly it. Not everyone plays the "modern game". Plenty of recreational players out there do not. Heck, even that WTA pro Hsieh beat Robson in the final of the WTA tournament in Guangzhou last week by hitting slice forehands.

BTW, guys like Borg and Vilas were hitting with plenty of topspin with their 65 sq. in. racquets and super dense 18x20 string patterns back in the 1970's. Sampras also generated more spin on his serves than most other pros with his 85 sq. in. racquet back in the 1990's.

It's true, although Borg and Vilas did so with slower swing speeds, and supreme technique.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Broly4

It's true, although Borg and Vilas did so with slower swing speeds, and supreme technique.

It's much harder to swing 14 oz.+ wood racquets as fast as the 11 oz. modern racquets of today. Borg and Vilas also generated all that topspin without the use of poly strings and with incredibly dense stringbeds (if you can imagine how dense an 18x20 pattern is in a tiny 65 sq. in. head).

[Broly4]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

It's much harder to swing 14 oz.+ wood racquets as fast as the 11 oz. modern racquets of today. Borg and Vilas also generated all that topspin without the use of poly strings and with incredibly dense stringbeds (if you can imagine how dense an 18x20 pattern is in a tiny 65 sq. in. head).

So you are saying that with more of a modern racquet and string, they would produce far heavier top spin, ergo they would have played better

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by Broly4

So you are saying that with more of a modern racquet and string, they would produce far heavier top spin, ergo they would have played better

That's NOT what he's saying, but it's probably true.

If they play better with wooden rackets, they'd probably still be using those rackets today.

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by Broly4

That's not the case where I live/play, I play a power top spin game (not consider myself an open level player), I break strings (black code 1.30) each three sets. I've lost to some proficient flat hitters, but chances are they won't be able to handle the weight of my ball, what I happen to prefer are dense string patterns sticks, 16x19 are too lively to me, and because of my full western forerhand grip I hit with top spin even with the cover on

That's what these guys claim too.

[Broly4]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

That's what these guys claim too.

Maybe but it's quite easy to tell those claims apart

[UCSF2012]

Every guy seems to have a huge forehand. Massive spin. Puts Tsonga to shame. No one seems to be honest and realistic,...."I hit like a girl, I'm not gonna lie. Super flat, and I even put my hips into it...."

Even in the videos of their match play, high school girls hit harder than they do. Definately serve better.

[Vcore89]

The boys and girls (10 to 16 year olds) today hitting with a Roddick-like forehand can impart top spins (h-u-g-e) that would put to shame most adults with their Barbies at hand. Can they do the same with a much smaller headed racquet, I don't know, I'll have to see it to believe it. On the otherhand, boys and girls switching to Dunley (Dunlop) Biomemetics while still swinging with the same ''biceps curl'' forehand aren't revving it quite like the Barbies. Why is that? Hmmm...it doesn't make me wonder.

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by Vcore89

The boys and girls (10 to 16 year olds) today hitting with a Roddick-like forehand can impart top spins (h-u-g-e) that would put to shame most adults with their Barbies at hand. Can they do the same with a much smaller headed racquet, I don't know, I'll have to see it to believe it. On the otherhand, boys and girls switching to Dunley (Dunlop) Biomemetics while still swinging with the same ''biceps curl'' forehand aren't revving it quite like the Barbies. Why is that? Hmmm...it doesn't make me wonder.

Youngsters have been launching forehands hard and long since the beginning of time. Nothing new. Nothing's changed since the advent of the Pure Drive.

I had monster shots when I was 15, and all I had was a PS 6.1 95 Classic. Of course, we didn't have polyester strings back then so keeping it in the court was a bit hard.

[pkshooter]

Its more fun to play with a small head because the lack of power allows me to wack the ball with out having to worry about supplying the right amount of topspin. I'd probably play my best with a midplus, but it requires so much more concentration when i'm out there and just wanna hurt the ball. I think its a personal thing, because i just want to play better if i'm using a mid because it makes me feel federesque

[Vcore89]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

Youngsters have been launching forehands hard and long since the beginning of time. Nothing new. Nothing's changed since the advent of the Pure Drive.

I had monster shots when I was 15, and all I had was a PS 6.1 95 Classic. Of course, we didn't have polyester strings back then so keeping it in the court was a bit hard.

Well exactly, nothing's changed since the intro of Pure Drives!

Are we suppose to conclude that Barbie's elliptically-shaped 100s (100s--specific) nailed it? I doubt even with a downsized elliptical head, say down to 85 or 90, Barbies aren't gonna produce those monstrous spins. Just compare their 98s.

Anyways, as you say you're launching spinning forehands since you were 15, are you still doing the same or hitting it flatter these days?

From time to time I do the ''biceps curl'' forehand but I really like to whack it flatly most of the time.

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by Vcore89

Well exactly, nothing's changed since the intro of Pure Drives!

Are we suppose to conclude that Barbie's elliptically-shaped 100s (100s--specific) nailed it? I doubt even with a downsized elliptical head, say down to 85 or 90, Barbies aren't gonna produce those monstrous spins. Just compare their 98s.

Anyways, as you say you're launching spinning forehands since you were 15, are you still doing the same or hitting it flatter these days?

From time to time I do the ''biceps curl'' forehand but I really like to whack it flatly most of the time.

I didn't have a monster topspin forehand. I had a monster forehand I couldn't control: won as many points as I lost. That was the 6.1 95 back in the late 90's. Today, I hit with more than ample topspin (ball visibly jumps on landing) but I'm trying to add flat shots to my arsenal. Flat is so much more consistent, and it takes less effort.

The most spin I've ever gotten on groundies came from the KPS88. My lighter frames like the Prestige Pro, EXO3 Graphite 93, and BLX 6.1 95 produced medium spin. This leads me to believe spin comes from mass, not the lack there of.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Broly4

So you are saying that with more of a modern racquet and string, they would produce far heavier top spin, ergo they would have played better

We will never know. Since they grew up using wood racquets, all of their stroke mechanics were geared for small, heavy wood racquets. Who knows how they would have adapted to huge, light modern racquets.

[Vcore89]

Just imagine how their wooden racquets would snap even more with the stiff polys of a few years back (good there are softer polys now available today).

[Relinquis]

I play with both a 93" Prince and a 100" Wilson Tweener. I play the same with each, they just feel different.

I want to transition a 90" next and maybe also get the PS85 to hit with occasionally as that's what Federer and Sampras have used. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. I also want to try a Yonex mid.

[TennisCJC]

I have played 95-98 for last 10 years. Started with wood, played OS 110 when they came out, tried wide 100, and went back to thin beam 95-98 for last 10 years.

A 93 inch racket can have a big sweetspot if it has sufficient Swingweight and Twistweight - note the stock blx 90 has a bigger power zone than the stock APDGT - Fed's vs Rafa's due to better swingweight on blx 90.

If you have not tried a 93, then try one. You get the feeling that the ball goes exactly where you told it to go. Very clean and very crisp. You do not get this feeling from a wider body, open string pattern, 100" racket.

I am very tempted to try the new volkl o10 mid 93. It looks sweet.

[Anton]

Proffessionals have one main objective - win.

Recreational players should have one main objective - enjoy the game.

Racket doesn't have to be the most competitive for me to enjoy playing with it.

[rafafan20]

Same reason why blades have "prestige" among golfers, doesn't mean it helps your game though

[lstewart]

I came into tennis in the early 1970's playing with standard size wood or aluminum rackets. Played college tennis from 1976-1980, and was starting to face the Prince rackets then. Went to larger head sizes in the early 1980's. Played with all sizes over the years. Generally felt like a 98 thin beam players frame was the best of all worlds for me. Now am 54 and still a strong player, but not as fast as the top young guys. My son is a 17 year old tournament player, other guys I hit with are generally 20's with the huge power modern game. I can play well and hit consistant with one of the 85-90 frames, but can't generate the power to win points quickly with them. If I was playing other guys my age, I would be fine with that set-up. But to be competitve against the modern game, and counter my lack of ability to run down huge shots, I've got to have a big game as well, and the ability to hit huge shots. So I'm playing a 102 thin beam frame with alot of weight added. I get more power and can hit winners against these guys. If I dig out a thin beam 90 frame, I can hit very well with it, but can't win a point quickly from the baseline. Consistancy does not help much if you opponent hits an outright winner on the 3rd or 4th shot. But I agree, most anyone can play well with any size frame, just have to work with it and fine tune the string and tension.