In defense of Babolat and the "Modern Game"....

[bugeyed]

ollinger "Babolats, simply stated, are bad for you. The stiffness will likely shorten your tennis career due to traumatic arthritis"

BreakPoint "It's well known that most Babolats are stiff and cause arm injuries."

Apparently there a few here that will believe anything they hear & repeat it as if they are actually well informed. The 2 posters here don't seem to acknowledge that Babolat makes several racquets that are not extremely stiff & that many other manufacturers make racquets as stiff or stiffer than Babolats stiffest.
I apologize if this offends some, but IMO gross generalizations & nonfactual statements are not very helpful.

Cheers,
kev

[OHBH]

Babalots are mostly cheap and stiff, and they do not give you any more power than a lot of players sticks. Tennis warehouse has already done the homework for you.
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...ry_compare.cgi

Now select a wilson prostaff 6.0 85 vs a APDGT and you will see that because of the greater mass the prostaff actually has a greater power potential than its so-called "modern" replacement. Even the pacific x feel pro 90 vacuum rates better in this regard.

Babolats are simply light and stiff so 3.0's can whip their arms around extra fast to generate good topspin and ruin their arms. Babolats goal is give the consumer great short term results in a demo to buy the stick and not return calls three months later when they complain about TE.

But better players do not need this gimmick as good technique and heavier rackets produce a more consistent heavy ball. That is why you see pros adding huge amounts of lead to the their frames-they want them to play more like the older players frames of yesteryear.

[sundaypunch]

This thread is a bit like trying to make a logical argument for why a cheeseburger is better than pizza.

[T.P3D0R]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

This thread is a bit like trying to make a logical argument for why a cheeseburger is better than pizza, at a pizza parlor.

Corrected for truth.

[MikeHitsHard93]

Cheeseburgers will ALWAYS be better than pizza in my book!

Anyway, to say that pros lead up their rackets so as to feel like the "rackets of yesteryear" is probably false. If they wanted the old racket feel, they would use the old rackets. Plain and simple. They add lead to make their rackets more stable and perform how they want them to. Vika isn't going to be able to return Serena's serve with an 11.3 oz racket

[tlm]

Originally Posted by El Zed

Although my "adventure" through various racquets has been significant, I admit it is nowhere near the extent of numerous other (if not most other) posters on here. To summarize, since the mid-to-late 90s, I have proceeded through the use of a then Head TiS6, POG Mid, PS85, Fischer Vacuum Pro 90 (MIA), Volkl C10, a litany of Head Prestiges/Pro Tours (including the Prestige Pro, Prestige Pro 600, Prestige 600, Prestige Classics, PT280s, PT630s) in addition to a few other random sticks (ESTUSA Powerbeam Braided and Microgel Radical MP). While I can appreciate the charm and/or specialty of most of those noted, I recently tried a few of the more popular Babolat sticks (i.e. the APDGT and the PDR 2012) - and things have indeed clearly changed.

Although the number of threads on Babolat are numerous, they are almost universally tainted by the comments of those with an inexplicable distaste/bias towards the company. While I appreciate that certain aspects of analyzing racquets are subjective, others clearly are not. In the more objective sense, and after accounting for the time needed to "dial in" as to the control of the racquet, the difference in HP between "modern" sticks and their 20th century brethren is stark - that's before accounting for things such as the added impact of more accessible spin.

This leads me to the following set of questions. First, if I can hit the same corner with an APDGT at +5/10 mph over a PC600 at a relative consistency, why in the world would I opt for the more "mature" and "powerless" stick? If I can do so, with added spin - why wouldn't I? If the claim is that you have to adjust for "accuracy" for the Babolat, don't you also "adjust" for power with the others? To this end, and IMHO, it's much (err, infinitely) easier to adjust for control with the APDGT than it is to adjust for power with, say, the Fischer Pro Vacuum. Yet, the Vacuum is fabled and the APDGT is reviled...

Not to offend, but perhaps this speaks directly to the nostalgia associated with some of the more "classic" sticks held by certain people (if not a significant number above a certain age). Again, while there is indeed a charm associated with these sticks, perhaps some of the posters here are doing a disservice to those truly looking to improve their game or to even commence their path along the route of tennis. To apply a different analogy, I don't think anyone would recommend Ayrton Senna's McLaren MP4/4 to a modern F1 driver, regardless of how "classic" that particular car was. Then again, perhaps the goal isn't necessarily to remain competitive/relevant in a modern sense...

There is some truth to what you are saying about some of the traditionalist that don't like the new age sticks.

But I don't agree that most players can hit the same shots with the same control using a pure drive compared to a lower powered stick. I know I cant, I love the power and spin that I get out of a bab, but there is nowhere near the control that I need to play my best.

Plus these stiff rackets are hard on the arm whether you believe it or not. When a racket has a stiffness rating of over 70 there is no way in hell that it can be arm friendly.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by OHBH

Babalots are mostly cheap and stiff, and they do not give you any more power than a lot of players sticks. Tennis warehouse has already done the homework for you.
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...ry_compare.cgi

Now select a wilson prostaff 6.0 85 vs a APDGT and you will see that because of the greater mass the prostaff actually has a greater power potential than its so-called "modern" replacement. Even the pacific x feel pro 90 vacuum rates better in this regard.

Babolats are simply light and stiff so 3.0's can whip their arms around extra fast to generate good topspin and ruin their arms. Babolats goal is give the consumer great short term results in a demo to buy the stick and not return calls three months later when they complain about TE.

But better players do not need this gimmick as good technique and heavier rackets produce a more consistent heavy ball. That is why you see pros adding huge amounts of lead to the their frames-they want them to play more like the older players frames of yesteryear.

I agree that babs do make it easier for people with short swings, but there is no way that the modern pro wants their rackets to play like those clunkers of yesteryear. Most would not even know what those clubs feel like because they grew up with modern rackets.

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by T.P3D0R

Corrected for truth.

Thank you both for adding nothing to the discussion. Now run along and post in another topic that isn't so beneath you both.

[TimothyO]

OP,

A good and thoughtful post to start the thread. Well done!

I'm guilty of damning Babolat in total but really should note that the (less popular) Pure Storm line is control oriented and mostly army friendly, especially the PSLGT.

The problem with their other lines imo is that many (not all) frames are very light, stiff, with large heads for huge power and a light swing feel.

For most rec players there are usually one of two results: elbow pain from poor form due to an inability to control that immense power except by arming the ball tentively...or elbow pain from an attempt to tame that power with full poly that, these being rec players, often remains in the frame long after it's dead and an even greater threat to arm health (they're not pros after all restringing after every match).

They seem designed for professionals with the skill to tame the power with great technique (especially great timing for topapin) and/or constant restringing with fresh, full poly. And yet every weekend I see members at our club banging away with their APDs and Pure Drives, usually with a brace in their wrist or elbow. A couple of weeks ago my son met another 12-year old mini-Nadal swinging an APD with full poly who grasped his arm in pain on several occassions.

Finally, like Wilson, Babolat QC is terrible. Trying to find two frames that play nearly the same is very difficult.

I enjoyed the Pure Storm products but the rest of the lines leave me cold (and in pain when I've tried them!)

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by tlm

There is some truth to what you are saying about some of the traditionalist that don't like the new age sticks.

But I don't agree that most players can hit the same shots with the same control using a pure drive compared to a lower powered stick. I know I cant, I love the power and spin that I get out of a bab, but there is nowhere near the control that I need to play my best.

Plus these stiff rackets are hard on the arm whether you believe it or not. When a racket has a stiffness rating of over 70 there is no way in hell that it can be arm friendly.

Thank you for your reply. I'm not saying that most players can hit the same shots with all sticks. On the contrary, I appreciate that that various sticks have their unique characteristics that indeed play into one's preference. What I am saying, however, is the apparent tendency of some to rate subjective "feel" over actual, objective performance. I have little issue admitting that the best frame in terms of what's been addressed as feel was the Fischer Vacuum Pro 90, but in now way shape or form is that racquet comparable in terms of pace and velocity of shots as the APDGT.

As to the stiff racquet argument, I accept the proposition that stiffer racquets may be more problematic - however, that's presuming that all else remains equal amongst the racquets at issue. Frankly, I believe we are largely unaware of such variables as layup - for instance, how much twaron does my Prestige Pro 600 actually include?

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by OHBH

Babalots are mostly cheap and stiff, and they do not give you any more power than a lot of players sticks. Tennis warehouse has already done the homework for you.
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...ry_compare.cgi

Now select a wilson prostaff 6.0 85 vs a APDGT and you will see that because of the greater mass the prostaff actually has a greater power potential than its so-called "modern" replacement. Even the pacific x feel pro 90 vacuum rates better in this regard.

Babolats are simply light and stiff so 3.0's can whip their arms around extra fast to generate good topspin and ruin their arms. Babolats goal is give the consumer great short term results in a demo to buy the stick and not return calls three months later when they complain about TE.

But better players do not need this gimmick as good technique and heavier rackets produce a more consistent heavy ball. That is why you see pros adding huge amounts of lead to the their frames-they want them to play more like the older players frames of yesteryear.

Mostly cheap in what way? Are they pure graphite, no, but their construction is no worse than say a Microgel Radical.

Also, and apologies if I'm mistaken, but the link you referenced doesn't necessarily help in that there is one set of variables for each of the four racquets. Of course the racquet with the greatest swing-weight is going to have the "heaviest" or "quickest" ball, but that's presuming you are approaching your shot in the same manner for a racquet with a swing-weight of 350 than one at 315. You're not. There is always going to be some variance - whether it is pure swing, racquet angle, etc. Again, apologies if I misunderstood the chart as I only spent a few seconds with it, but the aforementioned issue became evident rather quickly.

You're remaining points also don't ring true to me. First, you say that "Babolats are simply light and stiff so 3.0's can whip their arms around extra fast to generate good topspin and ruin their arms." Unstrung at 11.3 oz and a swing weight of 331 isn't "light." Afterall, the IG Prestige Mid has a swing-weight of only 317 in comparison. You next say that "Babolats goal is give the consumer great short term results in a demo to buy the stick and not return calls three months later when they complain about TE." Sorry, but I think your bias is shining through here.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by El Zed

Thank you for your reply. I'm not saying that most players can hit the same shots with all sticks. On the contrary, I appreciate that that various sticks have their unique characteristics that indeed play into one's preference. What I am saying, however, is the apparent tendency of some to rate subjective "feel" over actual, objective performance. I have little issue admitting that the best frame in terms of what's been addressed as feel was the Fischer Vacuum Pro 90, but in now way shape or form is that racquet comparable in terms of pace and velocity of shots as the APDGT.

As to the stiff racquet argument, I accept the proposition that stiffer racquets may be more problematic - however, that's presuming that all else remains equal amongst the racquets at issue. Frankly, I believe we are largely unaware of such variables as layup - for instance, how much twaron does my Prestige Pro 600 actually include?

I am a top spin player and love the spin and pop off the court that a bab gives me, but I will hit to many shots long in match play with these rackets which to me are rocket launchers.

If I use a racket like these I need to string it tight which just makes it worse on the arm. I am using a prince rebel 98 now which gives similar spin like a pure drive, but with much better control and comfort.

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

OP,

A good and thoughtful post to start the thread. Well done!

I'm guilty of damning Babolat in total but really should note that the (less popular) Pure Storm line is control oriented and mostly army friendly, especially the PSLGT.

The problem with their other lines imo is that many (not all) frames are very light, stiff, with large heads for huge power and a light swing feel.

For most rec players there are usually one of two results: elbow pain from poor form due to an inability to control that immense power except by arming the ball tentively...or elbow pain from an attempt to tame that power with full poly that, these being rec players, often remains in the frame long after it's dead and an even greater threat to arm health (they're not pros after all restringing after every match).

They seem designed for professionals with the skill to tame the power with great technique (especially great timing for topapin) and/or constant restringing with fresh, full poly. And yet every weekend I see members at our club banging away with their APDs and Pure Drives, usually with a brace in their wrist or elbow. A couple of weeks ago my son met another 12-year old mini-Nadal swinging an APD with full poly who grasped his arm in pain on several occassions.

Finally, like Wilson, Babolat QC is terrible. Trying to find two frames that play nearly the same is very difficult.

I enjoyed the Pure Storm products but the rest of the lines leave me cold (and in pain when I've tried them!)

Thanks for the reply and compliment, I appreciate it.

I guess, I should have prefaced my post by saying that I was fully a member of the "classic racquet" club to the point that even considering the use of a Babolat was near heresy. After actually giving them a prolonged demo - most notably the APDGT - it was clear that they are indeed great racquets if you're willing to accept the modern feel. I appreciate that people have an affinity for classics, but I can't get past the example of an old air-cooled Porsche being pit against a modern water-cooled variant. While one has certain unmistakable charm, the other is undoubtedly superior from a performance perspective. I completely appreciate that some people "gel" better with certain racquets than others - but for me, why would I not consider the APDGT superior to a PC600/PT630 if I can get similar control and +5/10 mph with the former?

I guess my ultimate goal was to maximize controlled power. I presumed (apparently incorrectly) that this was the primary goal of other players. I accept the preference of some for "feel," and the subjective nature of defining feel. But that being said, I believe lost in the whole "Babolat" bashing on this board is exactly what you just brought up - the immense potential of this stick once utilized correctly. Thus, it's apparently a question of risk/reward and what racquet has the most potential upside. After all, isn't this the whole appeal of a player's stick - the inherent belief that a racquet is capable of delivering superlative performance if one's ability is to that level? At a slightly reduced weight of 11.3 oz unstrung, the APDGT is further similar to a pro stock in that it affords some room for leading-up.

[OHBH]

Originally Posted by El Zed

Mostly cheap in what way? Are they pure graphite, no, but their construction is no worse than say a Microgel Radical.

Also, and apologies if I'm mistaken, but the link you referenced doesn't necessarily help in that there is one set of variables for each of the four racquets. Of course the racquet with the greatest swing-weight is going to have the "heaviest" or "quickest" ball, but that's presuming you are approaching your shot in the same manner for a racquet with a swing-weight of 350 than one at 315. You're not. There is always going to be some variance - whether it is pure swing, racquet angle, etc. Again, apologies if I misunderstood the chart as I only spent a few seconds with it, but the aforementioned issue became evident rather quickly.

You're remaining points also don't ring true to me. First, you say that "Babolats are simply light and stiff so 3.0's can whip their arms around extra fast to generate good topspin and ruin their arms." Unstrung at 11.3 oz and a swing weight of 331 isn't "light." Afterall, the IG Prestige Mid has a swing-weight of only 317 in comparison.

11.3 oz is the strung weight, not the unstrung weight. And there is a big difference in elbow safety between a heavy players racket with a higher swingweight and a lighter racket that compensates with a less headlight balance to achieve that 331 swingweight. There is a lot of info about specs and how they relate to elbow/shoulder/wrist safety here http://www.racquetresearch.com/

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by tlm

I am a top spin player and love the spin and pop off the court that a bab gives me, but I will hit to many shots long in match play with these rackets which to me are rocket launchers.

If I use a racket like these I need to string it tight which just makes it worse on the arm. I am using a prince rebel 98 now which gives similar spin like a pure drive, but with much better control and comfort.

Definitely understand the issue of comfort and have discussed it above. That being said, multi in the low 50s has rendered the racquet comfortable enough to the point that this is not a negative in my book. Again, however, I understand that's totally subjective.

In terms of your optimal shot with both the PD and the Rebel 98, which has the higher ceiling? If the PD, why not improve one's game to the point where you can hit consistently with it? Perhaps that is why people are so enamored with the APDGT - when they watch Nadal, they see what the racquet is capable of in various facets on a consistent basis. If the bar is too high with those attempting to model themselves after Nadal, then shouldn't this line of reason also carry over to those intending to replicate Federer/Sampras/Edberg/etc. with the Pro Staffs. Again, perhaps the vitriol is based off of the novelty of the aerodynamic design and its contrast - essentially - to every other racquet out there.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Readers

Not the shoulder, the heavier frames are bad for your shoulder not the stiffer ones.

But I have heard of Babolats also causing shoulder problems. The most well known one being Roddick. I guess if the shock and vibration are bad enough, it could transmit from your hand to your arm and up to your shoulder.

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by OHBH

11.3 oz is the strung weight, not the unstrung weight. And there is a big difference in elbow safety between a heavy players racket with a higher swingweight and a lighter racket that compensates with a less headlight balance to achieve that 331 swingweight. There is a lot of info about specs and how they relate to elbow/shoulder/wrist safety here http://www.racquetresearch.com/

You're indeed correct about the unstrung versus strung weight.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always been under the impression that static weight is less significant than swing-weight from a performance and health perspective. The former coming into play more predominantly in terms of muscle exhaustion (from the sheer process of holding an object with defined mass for a prolonged period). After all, in addition to its "feel," wasn't this one of the highly admired features of the Fischer Pro Vacuum 90 - it's relatively low swing-weight given it similar weight to other player's frames. Also, we need to keep some things in perspective - we're not discussing the difference between a 8/9 oz TiS6 with a wooden frame - we're talking about 11.3 oz frame versus frames in the low 12 oz range. Also, isn't it accepted that heavier racquets are more apt to cause shoulder/rotator cuff issues?

[Larrysümmers]

idk i like the feel of the Bab frames. i string apdc with poly at a smart low tension, or a synth gut around 54. i get pretty awesome pop off of my shots from all areas of the court. people have been getting tennis elbow since the days of 14 oz woodies and gut.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by El Zed

Ha! How can you say anything feels incredible if the shot goes into the net?

OK, you're obviously not getting it. Maybe you've never played with a racquet with incredible feel? Or maybe you're unable to discern the differences in feel between different racquets?

I'm talking about physical feel, not emotional feel. Like how you feel it physically when someone punches you in the gut, not emotional feel like when a girl breaks your heart. So it's NOT - "I just hit a blazing winner and won the match so I feel great!". IT'S - "I just hit the ball into the net and the sensation in my hand and arm feels like it's having an orgasm!".

So the "feel" most of us here are talking about is a characteristic of your racquet and string set-up, NOT your state of mind. Do you get it now?

[gopokes]

Arm and shoulder issues have been around since the dawn of the game. It doesn't get much more "arm-friendly" than a 14 oz Kramer or Maxply, with a flex of 40 (I'm guessing here) and strung with nat. gut, and yet folks came down with tendonitis et al. all of the time playing those sticks - myself being one of the legions of folks to search for more forgiveness in a lighter, more manageable package - ergo the prince pro, then graphite, and so on. So I think it's an issue of mechanics, prerequisite strength, sensible use, and adequate rest. Pitchers (and catchers) come down with pitcher's elbow, and they're not striking anything. So I think the stiffness issue is overrated when it comes to elbow issues honestly. I know others have had different experiences, but to me, it's an occupational hazard of the game, not so much of a specific type of racquet. The pros hit as many balls in a couple of weeks as most rec folks hit in a year or more - with pretty stiff set-ups; but then Jimmy Tennis drags his flabby ***** out to hit after watching the US Open, buys a Bab because Rafa uses it, hits with the crummiest technique imaginable, shanks 36 balls in a row, and then proclaims (to the internet, since nobody else will listen), "This Bab is SHITE! - it ruined my arm!!"
Nosiree, I think the Babos and others are ok - it's more the technique and relative fitness of its user that matters. Inadequate musculature = strained tendons, plain and simple.