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

[Rozroz]

Originally Posted by 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.

oh, come on!

[JohnB]

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.

It's true I believe. I once "altered" a BLX Six-One 95 to an Aero design by making the throat area triangular with pieces of paper. It was defenitely easier to whip upward, but it was tougher to hit straight thru. The beauty of this test was that I could alter the shape back and forth between a rectangular shape and a triangular shape. If I made it rectangular, it was more suited for flatter strokes.

[bugeyed]

I propose that a flat/square beam racquet, because of it's poor aerodynamic characteristics, is stabilized by the drag as it passes through the air. The racquet head is more stable on off center hits, because essentially it's polar moment of inertia is higher than if it had an aero design. The faster the swing, the more stable the racquet.

Cheers,
kev

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by El Zed

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.

Yes, I swing my racquet face perpendicular to the ground rather than parallel to the ground because I prefer to hit the ball with my stringbed rather than the edge of my frame. LOL

Does it matter where the ball goes if the "feel" comes from when the ball impacts your stringbed? If experiencing this incredible "feel" is what you're after, all you want to do is to hit the ball as many times as possible. Where the ball goes does not change the incredible "feel" you get on impact. Like I mentioned earlier, to some people, tennis is all about the "feel" you get to a bodily appendage, just like with sex.

[TennisCJC]

Originally Posted by 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.

Me too ^^^^

I have demo apdgt, demo wilson pro open, and have owned a prince 03 white and and older wilson wide body in the past. I get tempted by the call of extra power in lighter weight, but I usually return to thin beam 22 mm or less, 95-98in2, weight around 12 oz, and SW around 335.

The apdgt was a bad demo for me. I felt like it crushed groundstrokes when all setup but thought everything else - serves, volleys, touch, feel, and slices - were not good. I think the apdgt is basically suited to the pro who uses the older version of it - Nadal.

But, I am an oldster - 55 years young - so I grew up playing thin beam, flexible rackets with a fair amount of weight.

One thing I find unusual is if you count the top 20 ATP players, thin beamed heavy rackets under 100in2 still dominate.

[anubis]

Originally Posted by 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!



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.

+10internets

For me, its all about results. I also don't care what racquet someone uses. Games at the rec level, from 3.0 all the way up to 5.0 are won by keeping the ball in play. If you can't hit the ball in, then you can't win games -- simple as that. Therefore, you should choose the equipment that best allows you to keep the ball in.

Frankly, I don't understand why everyone thinks a "powerful racquet" is a big deal. IMO, you generate power through appropriate form and technique. I can hit the ball just as deep with a Babolat or a low-powered Head Prestige, just by adjusting the technique. In fact, my entire setup is low powered: Head Radical MP with low-powered syn gut strung @ 62 lbs. I have no difficulties hitting it deep when its necessary to do so.

Therefore, I think its wrong to choose a racquet solely on power alone, since you can get just as much power from any racquet. Your first order of business should be "can I keep the ball in?". If you can't, then you need to look at a lot of factors (in this order): 1. technique 2. string tension 3. racquet

Just my .02.

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by anubis

+10internets

For me, its all about results. I also don't care what racquet someone uses. Games at the rec level, from 3.0 all the way up to 5.0 are won by keeping the ball in play. If you can't hit the ball in, then you can't win games -- simple as that. Therefore, you should choose the equipment that best allows you to keep the ball in.

Frankly, I don't understand why everyone thinks a "powerful racquet" is a big deal. IMO, you generate power through appropriate form and technique. I can hit the ball just as deep with a Babolat or a low-powered Head Prestige, just by adjusting the technique. In fact, my entire setup is low powered: Head Radical MP with low-powered syn gut strung @ 62 lbs. I have no difficulties hitting it deep when its necessary to do so.

Therefore, I think its wrong to choose a racquet solely on power alone, since you can get just as much power from any racquet. Your first order of business should be "can I keep the ball in?". If you can't, then you need to look at a lot of factors (in this order): 1. technique 2. string tension 3. racquet

Just my .02.

Your concluding set of points are a bit of a non sequitur, which I don't think anyone really disputes. Of course, it doesn't matter if you hit a ball at twice the pace if you can't keep it in. That's not in dispute, it's fully accepted. My point is that the premise that you can't keep the ball in play with the APDGT while hitting with pace is false. Does it take "work" to do so consistently, yes. Does it take "work" to generate acceptable power levels with the PT280 or PC600, the answer there is also a yes. The question of which type/amount of work is more beneficial/preferable is subjective and what helps develop one's preference for a specific frame. For me, it's easier to control the APDGT than it is to hit the PC600/PT280 with equal power. This, however, does not render one racquet as being crap - which the often maligned APDGT is commonly regarded as.

Also, I believe there is some confusion about what I term as "power." A presumption in my point is that you are hitting equally deep shots with both racquets - therefore, I'm not discussing depth. What I am discussing is the pace of the shots (for instance, to the corners). Perhaps this helps you understand that, from my experience, the APDGT can hit the far corners at noticeable higher velocity than the classic raquets that I have used. In fact, just had a hitting session yesterday with a Prestige 600, Pro Tour 280 and a APDGT and again came to same conclusion. Finally, if you don't believe there is a variance in terms of racquet "power," I invite you to try an old Fischer Vacuum Pro 90 - with which you need considerably faster swings to approach the PC600/PT280 much less the APDGT. To me, trying to hit the Vacuum Pro 90 in a mannerer generating the pace incumbent to the APDGT is more potentially injury inducing than the tennis elbow issues discussed.

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Yes, I swing my racquet face perpendicular to the ground rather than parallel to the ground because I prefer to hit the ball with my stringbed rather than the edge of my frame. LOL

Does it matter where the ball goes if the "feel" comes from when the ball impacts your stringbed? If experiencing this incredible "feel" is what you're after, all you want to do is to hit the ball as many times as possible. Where the ball goes does not change the incredible "feel" you get on impact. Like I mentioned earlier, to some people, tennis is all about the "feel" you get to a bodily appendage, just like with sex.

Again, good luck with that. I wish you and your racquet the best...

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by bugeyed

I propose that a flat/square beam racquet, because of it's poor aerodynamic characteristics, is stabilized by the drag as it passes through the air. The racquet head is more stable on off center hits, because essentially it's polar moment of inertia is higher than if it had an aero design. The faster the swing, the more stable the racquet.

Cheers,
kev

I hear what you are saying and agree that there is apparently an element of drag at play (however, small) with the beam frames. After all, isn't this one of the ways how the "modern" Prestige variants are (slightly) more user friendly than the classics - namely, in terms of softer/rounder edges?

That being said, not so sure that I'm with you as to the latter point regarding stability. To this end, I believe your last point is a bit of a contradiction in that the aero design can in fact lead to a faster swing, if the requisite stroke is used. Moreover, if you extrapolated your point, would't this lead to the premise that an aircraft is more stable with higher drag (which, I don't believe is the case and is counter intuitive to efforts to reduce drag)?

[jaydog23]

Here is my two cents on what I believe the difference to be:

I myself have just started using the Prestige Classic 600 and am enjoying it thoroughly. You said that you were not getting enough power from you "classic" frame. Obviously, it would then behoove you to look for a racquet with more power, despite the arm injuries it may or may not cause in the future. I, on the other hand, find myself bombing shots out of the court with my "weak" prestige classic 600 strung at 56lbs. I have absolutely no reason to switch to a racquet that I can rip because 1) I don't play with huge topspin 2) I would have to use tighter string tension (further stiffening the whole setup) and 3) I can spin my left-handed serve out wide into the net separating two courts 75% of the time. Why would I choose to move anywhere from where I currently am?

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by jaydog23

Here is my two cents on what I believe the difference to be:

I myself have just started using the Prestige Classic 600 and am enjoying it thoroughly. You said that you were not getting enough power from you "classic" frame. Obviously, it would then behoove you to look for a racquet with more power, despite the arm injuries it may or may not cause in the future. I, on the other hand, find myself bombing shots out of the court with my "weak" prestige classic 600 strung at 56lbs. I have absolutely no reason to switch to a racquet that I can rip because 1) I don't play with huge topspin 2) I would have to use tighter string tension (further stiffening the whole setup) and 3) I can spin my left-handed serve out wide into the net separating two courts 75% of the time. Why would I choose to move anywhere from where I currently am?

Congrats, it's nice to be content with a stick isn't?

Funny this old topic should come up again, as I just played with the APDgt for the first time in a while since yesterday. I have it leaded up and blu-tack'd (in the handle) to a weight of about 13 oz. It's a beast of a stick, and frankly I was hitting some shots with pace that I don't believe I ever achieved before. But..... the stick isn't for me after all, and I'm back to the PT280. My original point still holds, however; the performance/ceiling of the stick merits greater respect than that largely afforded to it on here - it's a solid stick, and appropriately used by (admittedly, arguably) the top player in the world. If I was on the tour, I'd seriously consider making it my main stick - unless of course I was offerred more money by another company.

[jaydog23]

That is fair. I think the bias stems in part from the fact that people who use so-called "players' racquets" generally speaking have a more relaxed-looking game: you don't see Federer looking like he's just finished a 12-rep set of 50 lb. curls.... By the way, was it by any chance arm pain that made you switch?

Even more by the way, I noticed you have some posts regarding PC600's for sale. Are those still accurate because I'm interested!

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by jaydog23

That is fair. I think the bias stems in part from the fact that people who use so-called "players' racquets" generally speaking have a more relaxed-looking game: you don't see Federer looking like he's just finished a 12-rep set of 50 lb. curls.... By the way, was it by any chance arm pain that made you switch?

Even more by the way, I noticed you have some posts regarding PC600's for sale. Are those still accurate because I'm interested!

The only Prestige I have left is a Prestige 600 - the silver/grey/green one that immediately followed the Prestige Pro 600/Prestige Pro model (predating the PC600).

No, the switch had absolutely nothing to do with arm pain - actually never felt the APDgt was problematic in that regard (but then again, I do employ a WW stroke and a full western grip). Simply put, the PT280 provides the impression that I'm absolutely thumping the ball (with great accuracy), and I noticed I'm able to deliver an insanely heavy ball (moreso than the APDgt).

[THESEXPISTOL]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

It's well known that most Babolats are stiff and cause arm injuries. Most of the guys at my club that use Babolats either have to play with a strap or other contraption on their arm/elbow/wrist or are always out with arm injuries.

I second that, it's also true at my club.
As Rozroz said the fault is also from the poly strings at high tensions.
Many, and i mean lots of them, use polys at high tensions to tame the power of the racquet.

IMO nothing like an oldschool graphite racquet with a co-poly/multi stringjob at low-mid tensions. It feels like heaven.

[ChicagoJack]

This quote from the OP's opening post, Paragraph 4:

Originally Posted by El Zed

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

Aha! there's the rub. Differences in racquets don't typically account account for +5 to +10 differences in MPH. Even if you were to edge all possible parameters... head size, flex, mass, swingweight, length, string type, string tension, into the power friendly zone you'd be hard pressed to create a 10 mph difference in ball velocity.

Here is a Riddle : How fast does the tip of the racquet the need to be traveling in order to hit a 100 mph serve?

Hint: If the answer is about 60 mph, then we can say the players arm gets the racquet to 60, the racquet does the rest, and there is much to gain or loose with careful racquet selection. However if the answer is closer to 90 mph, then we can say that most of the speed of the serve comes directly from the players arm, and there is very little room for improvement with regards to max mph and careful racquet selection. Any guesses?

-Jack

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

This quote from the OP's opening post, Paragraph 4:



Aha! there's the rub. Differences in racquets don't typically account account for +5 to +10 differences in MPH. Even if you were to edge all possible parameters... head size, flex, mass, swingweight, length, string type, string tension, into the power friendly zone you'd be hard pressed to create a 10 mph difference in ball velocity.

Here is a Riddle : How fast does the tip of the racquet the need to be traveling in order to hit a 100 mph serve?

Hint: If the answer is about 60 mph, then we can say the players arm gets the racquet to 60, the racquet does the rest, and there is much to gain or loose with careful racquet selection. However if the answer is closer to 90 mph, then we can say that most of the speed of the serve comes directly from the players arm, and there is very little room for improvement with regards to max mph and careful racquet selection. Any guesses?

-Jack

Jack - are you really saying an APD or PD doesn't afford you more shot velocity, on a consistent basis, relative to some beloved classics - for instance the Vacuum Pro 90? I'm not talking about the seemingly rare perfect swing where the stars align, but normal "stressed" shots that are common place if not the norm during a match. Anecdotal perhaps, but a greater margin for error and a more lively stringed simply has an effect in my game. Now whether its 1 additional mph or 10, it's all relative and subject to how you want to delineate it relative to other factors. But if you wanted to win, and aren't forced to sacrifice control, added pace is surely an advantage.

Where the APD falls flat, to me, is that you never have this sensation of absolutely crushing a ball from the baseline - unlike say the PT280.

[equinox]

I haven't hit a ball since mid 2010.

A light weight babolat racquet and poor service technique killed my shoulder.

As BP said There's no free lunch, eventually the damage a babolat racquet does will catch up.

[ChicagoJack]

Any guesses on that riddle? The answer puts this whole conversation into perspective right quick.

[Roforot]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Any guesses on that riddle? The answer puts this all into perspective right quick.

-Jack

This is perplexing to me. I tried using a Pro1 and felt it had as much pop as my my PureDrive roddick from the baseline... felt a little less depth w/ my volleys (but close)... however I felt my serves did not have the same pace. 2nd serves were sitting up and ripped.

Now, here's where it gets interesting, I added 4g of lead at 12' o clock and my serves are pretty much on spot w/ the PDR!

Granted I don't have a radar gun, but I'm basing my assessment on what my opponents tell me and results (how many errors/short returns my serves produce). By my cheap radar gun (practice serves hitting the back fence) I find the modified Donnay to make a difference.

4grams is not a lot. What is it about 4g that makes a difference between my 2nd serve being serviceable and even forcing errors vs. sitting up to be punished?

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Any guesses on that riddle? The answer puts this whole conversation into perspective right quick. What I'm suggesting is that careful racquet selection has a much smaller effect on outgoing ball velocities than most here would suspect. The fact that nobody even has a guess, demonstrates that there is a whole lot of baseless assumption going on in here. -Jack

You almost sound like LeeD...

Here is the problem - you don't want to accept anecdotal evidence and that's all I have to offer. My post wasn't intended as an assertion that the APDgt results in an increase of 10 mph. on every shot, rather than inquiry as to why a racquet would be so reviled if it has the ability to improve one's game.

I accept the "feel" argument - frankly, that's why I've gone back to the PT280s. But I don't accept your argument of... well it's a small increase in speed/power, so it doesn't matter. If you were a professional, and you could increase velocity by 1/10th of a mph with no adverse effect, you would. Before you claim that no such difference exists, which I don't believe you will, I'll draw your attention to TW's own power level comparison utility...

Now time for my "riddle" - my last time out, I used a PT280 and APDgt spec'd out similarly (in terms of lead placement, balance, etc.) to nearly 13 oz. and both utilizing a full bed of BHB7 in 17. Rather consistently, the APDgt resulted in a faster ball, whereas the PT280 resulted in a heavier ball with greater spin. I use a full, WW stroke and western grip. Love the feel of the PT280, and can tolerate the APDgt - would love to get a ball just as fast with my PT280, but just can't. So explain that... and please understand that any answer other than "it's my imagination" or that "my perception is exaggerated" directly mitigates your point as the result comes from the same player with the same form/stroke.

Presuming that spin generation is "all technique" (a commonly regurgitated group thought on this board) your point regarding power therefore renders the evaluation of a racquet simply to terms of its feel/comfort and aesthetic appeal - frankly, just can't buy into that.