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

[OHBH]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

But for me, "feel" = "performance". I judge a racquet by its "feel", first and foremost regardless of the results I get with it. If it doesn't "feel" good to me, I won't use it even if I win every match 6-0, 6-0.

Originally Posted by El Zed

To each his own. I am more willing to look past some vibrations or other subjective feel issues and to use a dampener for a racquet that can increase my accuracy and/or pace.

I don't know about you guys, but I never played I racket that improved my overall game where the shots themselves had bad feel or worse feel than a racket that plays worse. The two pretty much go hand in hand.

[Hi I'm Ray]

Haha, some ppl are so passionate about their equipment preferences. To me it doesn't really matter what I use or what my opponent uses, its about winning, results, and enjoying the game. Who really cares what Fed, Djoker, Nadal, Murray, etc., are using, its about their results.

The guy who said arm orgasms matter more that where the ball ends up sounds pretty weird, lol. The part about racket feel being better than sex is just plain over-the-top crazy talk. But I guess we should just let ppl enjoy the game however they want to - It doesn't matter if he just bageled himself hitting the ball into the net, he just got some!

Originally Posted by SFrazeur

Some people are just racquet snobs. -SF

Agree.

--------------------------------

These kind of threads pop up there pretty often and the topic seems to be mostly about tweeners vs classic frames. When I see ppl singling out Babs and saying only Babs suck, it seems like it has more to do with Fed fans being anti-Nadal.

[syke]

I have played with a PD 12, and I admit it is a fun racquet to play with. But I reckon it will be damming on the arm in the long run.

Or you can simply pick up a Yonex Vcore 100S. My poly strings had more than 20 hours of play and my arm is still feeling great...

[dje31]

It's probably helpful to compare & contrast the modern game to the classic / traditional game:

Classic / Traditional:

All-court game, mix of spins (top, flat, side, slice), gain advantage, close out points, net strategy, S&V;

Modern: Baseline-oriented, game of attrition, topspin-dominant, wear down opponent, force / wait for errors, minimal net play;

Now the types of strokes:

Classic / Traditional: Hit through the ball (pressuring, grinding), stepping into the ball, Eastern / Continental grips, 1HBH (predominantly);

Modern: Brushing the ball, open stance, hit off back foot, Western / Semi-Western grips, 2HBH, lots of arm / joint motion (shoulder, elbow, wrist);

And the types of racquets associated with each:

Classic / Traditional: Smaller heads (95 and lower), heavier static weights, more flexible, lower SW, more HL;

Modern: Bigger heads (98+), lower static weights, stiffer, higher SW, more even-HH;

You gotta pick the right tool for the job.

[dje31]

Continuing on the above, knowing I'm making sweeping generalizations, you can, if you have the ability, play either type of game with either type of racquet.

Further, I believe some of the joint issues with the modern game / racquets is related, but perhaps for different reasons than people suspect.

If you hit with a brushing motion, I contend you don't feel the stiffness of the racquet or strings...you'd feel that more with a traditional stroke (pressuring / grinding) on a modern racquet.

I believe the bigger issue is people taking crazy windshield wiper, exaggerated hyper strokes with the lighter sticks...that, and less mass means your body absorbs the shock, not the racquet.

But boy howdy, you can swing like a lunatic, and get crazy spin!

Conversely, playing the modern game with a more classic / traditional racquet, you'd probably have a harder time generating the kind of racquet head speed needed for that style of play...but it / might / be easier on the joints...maybe.

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by dje31

Continuing on the above, knowing I'm making sweeping generalizations, you can, if you have the ability, play either type of game with either type of racquet.

Further, I believe some of the joint issues with the modern game / racquets is related, but perhaps for different reasons than people suspect.

If you hit with a brushing motion, I contend you don't feel the stiffness of the racquet or strings...you'd feel that more with a traditional stroke (pressuring / grinding) on a modern racquet.

I believe the bigger issue is people taking crazy windshield wiper, exaggerated hyper strokes with the lighter sticks...that, and less mass means your body absorbs the shock, not the racquet.

But boy howdy, you can swing like a lunatic, and get crazy spin!

Conversely, playing the modern game with a more classic / traditional racquet, you'd probably have a harder time generating the kind of racquet head speed needed for that style of play...but it / might / be easier on the joints...maybe.

Your rationale makes sense, however, I believe that as one's "modern" stroke improves the exaggerated "windshield wiper" motion begins to become far less pronounced to where a player is - just - over the ball. This, I believe, speaks to your point about the swing being more of a deflection rather than a force through the ball, and therefore potentially less harmful. If people are truly playing with that exaggerated motion, while not bringing it down to capture topspin at more acceptable levels, then I can see the amount of concern regarding injury when coupled with stiffness. Particularly, if such shots are attempted at higher pace.

This leads me to the point that, hand-in-hand with the modern game's focus upon the baseline is the fact that the pace of shots have increased - whether it be in terms of serves, groundstrokes, etc. A corollary to this point is, essentially, the classic racquet's (in)ability to keep up in an absolute sense. While I love my classic racquets and while the PT280/630 is perhaps the most forgiving in a sense comparable to the APDGT, it's quite clear (even when adjusting for the use of different strings at different tensions) that the PT280/630 or PC600 just do not have that extra gear relative to the APDGT. While it's peak may be "good enough" when factoring in their numerous other qualities, this is nonetheless a notable deficiency on the part of the classics and indeed a selling point for the APDGT.

I hope my posts have not come across as slams against the classics. I feel they have obvious charm and merit in certain aspects of the game. Moreover, I believe they are more aesthetically pleasing (largely due to their more subdued colourways) and indeed have a bit of unique cachet relative to a racquet that can be picked up literally at any major sporting goods store. While I truly wish I could have remained with these racquets, I can't help but think that racquets such as the APDGT are indeed more suited to modern tennis and simply have a higher ceiling in terms of controlled power and access to spin. At the very least, they are undeserving of the "junk" status so commonly given to them.

[pattenww]

on the tw site it says that for the head microgel rad (notroiously low powered) that power potential at center of string bed at 38.5% Vs Babo Pure Drive 39.9% (Does not seem like much of a difference to me). In the sweet spot are rackets really that much more or less powerfull or is it all back to feel again? - the feeling of power..

[TimothyO]

Originally Posted by El Zed

Already acknowledged the mistake above. Of all the racquets sold on Tennis Warehouse, only 5 are in range of 12.5 to 13 oz. Of these, only 3 have a swing weight higher than the APDGT. Only is the APDGT so consistently derided for being a "light racquet," however.

Again, I appreciate that player's racquets are generally held to be above 12 oz strung, but you are making it sound like the APDGT is a titanium racquet or the TiS6 at 8/9 oz. It isn't, and it has a very respectable swing-weight. I don't necessarily consider it a negative that it doesn't have a high swing weight yet retains the plow-through associated with its swing weight.

Those weight values are correct but many frames in the mid to high 11 oz range seem almost intended for use as platforms for customization with respect to total static weight, balance, and SW, all of which can only be modified by adding weight. Often the result is about 12oz or higher when you add a heavier grip, overgrip, and some lead in the head. 3 grams is about 0.1 oz so several grams can quickly push an 11.5 oz frame towards 12 oz.

[sargeinaz]

I just play with what I like and thats usually thinner beamed rackets at 98in2 and lower that are 11.5oz strung or higher. I play for fun and I enjoy how those rackets feel and play with my eastern grips and all court game. I hate how the pure drive feels, it just feels like a tin can to me. But if someone wants to use one, I got no problems with that. Hit with whatever you like whether it's because your favorite player has it or because you like it or because you win with it. No difference to me.

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

Those weight values are correct but many frames in the mid to high 11 oz range seem almost intended for use as platforms for customization with respect to total static weight, balance, and SW, all of which can only be modified by adding weight. Often the result is about 12oz or higher when you add a heavier grip, overgrip, and some lead in the head. 3 grams is about 0.1 oz so several grams can quickly push an 11.5 oz frame towards 12 oz.

Perhaps my understanding is incorrect, but isn't "swingweight" still subject to variance by way of - amongst other things - the velocity of the swing. Thus, when measuring "swingweight," I appreciate that it's a function of a certain, unitary force (kept uniform during the test of all racquets), racquet (static) weight, and composition (as reflected by such things as "flex"). To this end, however, the very velocity of the swing is clearly affected by static weight and (to even a small degree) certain design properties (whether it is a consideration of aerodynamic properties or otherwise). Thus, isn't it correct that while we know the relative swingweights of racquets at the aforementioned uniform rate, we are ultimately unable to determine peak swingweight since this variable is highly player dependent? To this end, however, doesn't it make sense that the racquet with higher static weight and less aerodynamic properties would have a lower ceiling in this regard relative to - all other things being kept equal - a racquet with lower static weight and aerodynamic properties?

[bugeyed]

Originally Posted by El Zed

Perhaps my understanding is incorrect, but isn't "swingweight" still subject to variance by way of - amongst other things - the velocity of the swing. Thus, when measuring "swingweight," I appreciate that it's a function of a certain, unitary force (kept uniform during the test of all racquets), racquet (static) weight, and composition (as reflected by such things as "flex"). To this end, however, the very velocity of the swing is clearly affected by static weight and (to even a small degree) certain design properties (whether it is a consideration of aerodynamic properties or otherwise). Thus, isn't it correct that while we know the relative swingweights of racquets at the aforementioned uniform rate, we are ultimately unable to determine peak swingweight since this variable is highly player dependent? To this end, however, doesn't it make sense that the racquet with higher static weight and less aerodynamic properties would have a lower ceiling in this regard relative to - all other things being kept equal - a racquet with lower static weight and aerodynamic properties?

IMO Aerodynamics are not a factor with the racquet head speed normally encountered on court. The manufacturers will have you believe that aerodynamics will make a huge difference in racquet swing speed, but I don't buy it. I also believe that swingweight can be viewed as a constant from player to player & swing to swing.

Cheers,
kev

[TennisMD]

Originally Posted by pattenww

on the tw site it says that for the head microgel rad (notroiously low powered) that power potential at center of string bed at 38.5% Vs Babo Pure Drive 39.9% (Does not seem like much of a difference to me). In the sweet spot are rackets really that much more or less powerfull or is it all back to feel again? - the feeling of power..

This exactly correct another example the Volkl C10 pro a daunted and honored here at TW ( and I like the stick also) has at dead center only 0.6mph less speed than the maligned and often called" rocket launcher" PDR 2012 furthermore even as you get to the periphery of the rkts the PDR only offers 1.1 mph difference.
So as I have often stated there is an ideal rkt for everyone and that's the one that allows you to maximize your timing that rkt will produce an infinitely better feel, power and winner even if less powered or if it is more powered. A frequent comment here is the rkt is too powerful this in reality means poor technique a lesser talented player can sky ball out of the court with a 65 inch old wood rkt yet a Nadal or Roddick both very powerful individuals can keep their rocket launchers under control.
So my advice is find that perfect swing weight that allows you and your unique talent to maximize his/her timing to give you the best results.
I also agree that injuries are the result of many factors the least of which is the label Babolat, the most of which is poor technique. I have years ago developed medial epicondylitis when I was transitioning from triathlons to tennis so technique far below where I am now, now I can hit
With a PDR2012 all day long strung with Wilson champion series ( mix lux and gut) at sane lbs strung and no issues. The injury period was purely technique as I was 20 yrs younger, fitter, faster but not tennis skilled also rkt was a yonex with stiffness 60 95 sq inch and 12.5 oz way above my then skill level hence injury

[KenC]

Originally Posted by bugeyed

IMO Aerodynamics are not a factor with the racquet head speed normally encountered on court. The manufacturers will have you believe that aerodynamics will make a huge difference in racquet swing speed, but I don't buy it.

Has anyone ever looked at the APDGT next to another thin beam racquet, say the K90? Just look at the throat area. It is anything but aerodynamic. It is huge and probably much less aerodynamic than any thin beam racquet. But since Babolat markets it as the ultimate in aerodynamic design, the masses believe everything hook line and sinker.

Words to the wise: Don't religiously believe what companies say. They firmly embrace profits before people.

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by KenC

Has anyone ever looked at the APDGT next to another thin beam racquet, say the K90? Just look at the throat area. It is anything but aerodynamic. It is huge and probably much less aerodynamic than any thin beam racquet. But since Babolat markets it as the ultimate in aerodynamic design, the masses believe everything hook line and sinker.

Words to the wise: Don't religiously believe what companies say. They firmly embrace profits before people.

Funny enough, if you keep the racquet head flat (parallel) to the ground it does very well in cutting through. Smoothest feel in this regard with the exception of the Fischer Vacuum Pro 90. Perhaps you have more of a pronounced perpedincular stroke, where the thinner beam would be preferable.

[galain]

Originally Posted by TennisMD

A frequent comment here is the rkt is too powerful this in reality means poor technique

As far as I'm concerned this says it all.

There are some members on this board who can and do play at a very high level. I suspect that there are many more weekend warriors who really don't need to concern themselves all that much with 'getting pushed around' by the bigger modern game of their opponents. My opponents may hit the ball beyond my reach, whereupon they win the point. Or I'll hit the ball out or into the net, whereupon they win the point.

I honestly don't know that I've lost points because I wasn't able to put the ball away, or because my shot fluttered weakly back over the net due to the power coming from the other side. If I can't get to a ball, it's because the point was set up to take advantage of my bad position. This used to happen in the 1980's when I was playing as well. The only time I've ever felt totally overwhelmed was hitting against a former tour player (who used a Liquid Metal Prestige) who had such great control I felt like a puppet on a string. He was several orders better at the game than I will ever be, though, and I know I don't play regularly against former tour players like him.

At my level - weekend fixtures and the odd tournament - I can't see an enormous difference between today and 10 years ago.

If you're skilled enough to use a frame like the Pure Drive, good for you. If you prefer something with more feel, good for you. At the level I suspect most of here perform at regularly, it's not such a significant issue.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by El Zed

Funny enough, if you keep the racquet head flat (parallel) to the ground it does very well in cutting through. Smoothest feel in this regard with the exception of the Fischer Vacuum Pro 90. Perhaps you have more of a pronounced perpedincular stroke, where the thinner beam would be preferable.

How do you hit the ball over the net by keeping the racquet face parallel to the ground? By hitting the ball with the edge of the frame? LOL

[dje31]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

How do you hit the ball over the net by keeping the racquet face parallel to the ground? By hitting the ball with the edge of the frame? LOL

Now THAT is a small sweetspot.

[bugeyed]

Originally Posted by El Zed

Funny enough, if you keep the racquet head flat (parallel) to the ground it does very well in cutting through. Smoothest feel in this regard with the exception of the Fischer Vacuum Pro 90. Perhaps you have more of a pronounced perpedincular stroke, where the thinner beam would be preferable.

If the aerodynamics play a part, it would be during a serve motion. That's when the racquet would be traveling edge-on.

cheers,
kev

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by bugeyed

If the aerodynamics play a part, it would be during a serve motion. That's when the racquet would be traveling edge-on.

cheers,
kev

Yes, it's definitely involved during the serve but I also believe it's applicable during ground strokes as well.

To the other poster(s) that appears befuddled over keeping the racquet head closed during a portion/majority of the stroke, I believe that say's quite a bit about his preference for racquets, his interesting view on "feel," and apparent disregard if the ball goes straight into the net.

[D-money]

I personally like to spout off my opinions and try to pass them off as science and facts. So this is a perfect thread for me to join in for a debate but I'll pass. As a Bab user I might sound biased.