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

[Midguytenis]

Too much focus on specs, there are hundreds of professional players using 100sq rackets, 98sq, everyone has to find whatever works for them, it doesn't matter if it's 105sq 10 o, 99% here aren't hitting with pros, so heavy rackets won't make any difference rallying with 90 KM/H forehands.

[kaiser]

Originally Posted by El Zed

That's fine, Jack is indeed an interesting poster. Any thoughts on the topic?

I think Jack is doing an excellent job trying to explain the complex and sometimes not very intuitive physics behind racket power. Kudos for his efforts which I don't think get the credit here that they deserve. He has made clear that in terms of the inherent power that is attributable to the racket SW is by for the most inportant factor with stiffness coming a distant second. If I understand it correctly, stiffness has the most influence when you don't hit the ball in the center of the stringbed and especially at the top of the stringbed. Therefore his focus on the serve, because this is where stiffness should count the most (Jack, please correct me if I'm wrong). You are now making a big deal about 2 or 3 miles per hour extra you might get from a 'modern' stiff racket, but I bet that before reading Jack's explanation you would have thought it could easily be 5 to 10 miles per hour. You could give him credit for that.

[Lilguy1456]

To be honest guys, arguing about what style of racquet is best (an inherantly subjective conversation) is about as hopeless as arguing over what food is best or what music is best. Everyone is perfectly capable with finding REASONS for liking a racquet style more than another, but they are all specific to that individual's preference...

[bluegrasser]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Some people, like me, play tennis mostly for the "feel". Winning is nice but it's not the be all and end all. I'd much rather have good "feel" and lose than have bad "feel" and win. I'm not a pro so it's not like I need to win to put food on the table.

It's like sex. Do you have sex to "win" or more for the "feel"? If you have the right racquet set-up, hitting the sweetspot can sometimes "feel" better than sex.

Better than sex ? You got to be kidding > " Breakpoint " lol - but then again, you're mid age right Seriously, I get the point, even though I'm hitting with a PD now, to hit the sweetspot on a ' Prestige" racquet is ever so sweet, my problem is playing once a week in the winter, I can't find the %$$%$ thing.

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by kaiser

I think Jack is doing an excellent job trying to explain the complex and sometimes not very intuitive physics behind racket power. Kudos for his efforts which I don't think get the credit here that they deserve. He has made clear that in terms of the inherent power that is attributable to the racket SW is by for the most inportant factor with stiffness coming a distant second. If I understand it correctly, stiffness has the most influence when you don't hit the ball in the center of the stringbed and especially at the top of the stringbed. Therefore his focus on the serve, because this is where stiffness should count the most (Jack, please correct me if I'm wrong). You are now making a big deal about 2 or 3 miles per hour extra you might get from a 'modern' stiff racket, but I bet that before reading Jack's explanation you would have thought it could easily be 5 to 10 miles per hour. You could give him credit for that.

Well your response is interesting, as I was a bit surprised how termed Jack's comments comparatively more "pleasant" when he was the only one who actually engaged in personal attacks (despite his actual claims).

You are right, Jack did a very nice job reciting various passages from a book. Kudos to him. What Jack didn't do very well, despite his efforts, is answer the particular question before him. I don't quite think you understand what the point of the thread was, before getting derailed by Jack. Further, I think you fail to recognize that his latter points directly contradict his own earlier posts - hence my effort to glean exactly what he was trying to say. To summarize, the thread was intended to discuss the following premises:

1) That there is some performance gain from "modern" racquets (such as Babolats) versus the "classics";

2) These "classics" are largely revered, whereas a fair portion of modern racquets are viewed as necessary evils that should be discarded if we ever return to the golden days of 1980-90s graphite use and design;

Those are the points of the thread and what was discussed a few months back. Once this thread was revived, Jack joined the fray with his "riddle" - thereby stumping us plebeians - with the anticipated knowledge of why the careful selection of a racquet doesn't matter when it comes to an increases in power. Admittedly fascinating, and something I couldn't wait to understand. What we got instead was reference to a power table (provided by TW) that in fact clearly showed that despite differences in numerous variables, distinctions in power indeed existed (albeit in terms of dropping a ball onto a stationary racquet...). I still believe that this is disingenuous figure as an end-all-be-all if you're trying to extrapolate the ultimate power potential of racquet (as you yourself said, it fails to apply "the most important fact" - SW). Jack took offense to this, notwithstanding the fact that this was a tepid comment and on its face not even directed to him (just the worth of the measurement itself).

After pages of recitation, we eventually get to the point where he admits that there is a difference of power (2 to 4 mph), but in terms of serve speed and when hit at the tip of the frame. While an interesting fact, and again explicitly proving that a difference in power exists, the practical worth of this point is questionable as it presumes that consistently hitting with the tip of a racquet is desirable. More importantly, however, is the admission that power increases are more manifest elsewhere on the frame. If you can't see how this directly contradicts his initial thoughts and the supposed answer to his "riddle," I don't know what to say. Finally, I think it holds that if you gain 2-4 mph at the tip, and the power differences are more pronounced elsewhere on the racquet, then yes it could feasibly reach 5 to 10 mph. Apologies if a 2 to 4 mph gain isn't much for you, perhaps 5 to 10 may be, but then again it doesn't really matter because to others even a 1 mph gain is significant.

I'm not really sure if I care if there are any further posts on this thread, and frankly i'm tired and disappointed for spending so much time and energy on responding to Jack (or even typing this post). The main premise of nostalgia versus technology is what I was really interested in, and something that I believe most others are interested in (rather than a hyper technical discussion of specs). What I definitely don't want is pages worth of citations concerning a straw-man argument, exhibiting a flawed understanding of the material or an inaccurate application.

[Broly4]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Hi Broly

Yeah cool, I think I understand what you are hinting at. I think you are suggesting that since larger heads create much more power, you need to keep that important factor a constant to keep a level playing field. Apologies if I have mis-interpreted. But large heads don't create significantly more power, and The Power Comparison Tool, actually validates this. That is why I've intentionally pitted large heads against small heads, and stiff against flexible so that one might observe that all these factors matters only slightly, in comparison to swingweight, which is a much bigger deal. Swingweight is almost the whole deal. If you were looking to level the playing field and make this a fair fight, keeping swingweight a constant would be the way to do it. Keeping swingweight a constant is what I have illustrated in post # 134

While the differences to ACOR are slight... If you would like more clarity on how, why, and where large heads add a bit more power you could take a look at my post #126, points 3, 5, and 6.

Hope this helps

Jack

Hi Jack, I do agree that Sw is what makes the difference.
The tool however, works better when comparing sticks with the same head size.

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by El Zed

Well your response is interesting, as I was a bit surprised how termed Jack's comments comparatively more "pleasant" when he was the only one who actually engaged in personal attacks (despite his actual claims).

1. Please provide a post number or quote, where I engaged in a personal attack against you, or anybody else in this thread. I've doubled back thru the whole enchilada, and can't find anything that would support this claim.

2. Your recent posts contain quite few inaccuracies regarding the information I've presented. Some of your comments contain such egregious misinterpretations, and are so contrived, they almost seem to be deliberate misrepresentations. I hope this isn't the case. I will get to those items directly, but would like to address this issue first.

Kaiser - I appreciate your comments on 158, 162, Thanks!

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

1. Please provide a post number or quote, where I engaged in a personal attack against you or anybody else in this thread. I've doubled back thru the whole enchilada, and can't find anything that would support this claim.

2. Your recent posts contain quite few inaccuracies regarding the information I've presented. Some of your comments contain such egregious misinterpretations, and are so contrived, they almost seem to be deliberate misrepresentations. I hope this isn't the case. I will get to those items directly, but would like to address this issue first.

Get a life, Jack. At this point, it's evident you're the one that wants to argue - I'm simply not going to the engage. No further responses from me to you on this point, or thread - the past posts are all here (presuming of course that you don't edit your responses, as you have done previously).

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by El Zed

…. where he admits that there is a difference of power (2 to 4 mph), but in terms of serve speed and when hit at the tip of the frame. While an interesting fact, and again explicitly proving that a difference in power exists, the practical worth of this point is questionable as it presumes that consistently hitting with the tip of a racquet is desirable.More importantly, however, is the admission that power increases are more manifest elsewhere on the frame. If you can't see how this directly contradicts his initial thoughts and the supposed answer to his "riddle," I don't know what to say. Finally, I think it holds that if you gain 2-4 mph at the tip, and the power differences are more pronounced elsewhere on the racquet, then yes it could feasibly reach 5 to 10 mph. Apologies if a 2 to 4 mph gain isn't much for you, perhaps 5 to 10 may be, but then again it doesn't really matter because to others even a 1 mph gain is significant.

1. The commentary above is a misinterpretation of a quote, so epic in scale, and so contorted in it's meaning, the thought has occurred to me it might be intentional misrepresentation. I hope this is not the case. I actually prefer the notion that this is a genuine misunderstanding. If that is what is going on here, it might offer some insight as to why you've been so unsatisfied with my contributions.

2. I did not "admit to a difference of 2-4 MPH" You only arrived at that number because I threw that out as a table scrap in the course of a larger conversation. Before my arrival here you posed the idea of 5-10 mph difference btwn the old classics and a modern Babolat. (ElZed posts 1, 33) When I questioned your frame of reference, this was quickly re-drafted to " I'm not sure, could be .1 or could be 10 MPH". (post 129) Now that I have provided you with a credible frame of reference, you want to beat me over the head with it and do a little victory dance. What you fail to comprehend, because I have not discussed it with you, is that there are many layers to this onion. That 2-4 mph (and 4 is a generous number) represents the spread between specs of frames with wildly differing weight distributions, and overall specs.

2. The quote I provided, does not concern the ball velocity in the instance when the ball hits the tip of the frame during a serve. The speed of the tip of the frame is mentioned because during the service motion, the tip is traveling much faster than the center of the strings, and the bottom of the string bed is traveling slower than the middle and the tip. Thus, it's an expression of racquet head speed in an uber precise way. Here is the original quote in its entirety:

Quote 2 : "In order to serve a ball 100 mph, a player must swing the racquet at a relatively high speed. Most people would guess the racquet needs to be swung about 60 mph or so depending upon the power of the racquet. In fact, the tip of the racquet needs to be swung at about 100 mph, give or take a few mph, depending upon the weight and the weight distribution of the racquet. There is a surprising lesson in this result. That is, the power of the racquet, and the power of the strings has only a small effect on serve speed. The serve speed is just about the same as the tip, regardless of the strings or the racquet. A different string or different frame will change the serve speed by a few mph, but almost all of the power comes directly from the players arm."
-- Rod Cross, And Howard Brody, Chapter 20, Serving Speed, The Physics and Technology of Tennis.

3. One last informational side note, the fact that the tip is traveling faster than the center of the strings is an important concept. Stiffer frames offer incrementally more power, most noticeably in the top 10% of the string bed. The stiffness helps the frame to overcome the dead spot (see post 135) that exists in all frames near the tip. But during the service motion, the tip is traveling very fast, so the dead spot deficiency gets a big fat boost of juice from the racquet head speed. This goes a long way to explain why racquet stiffness is a much bigger contributor to power on a volley (the racquet head is moving slowly), and not such a big deal for a serve. This is one example demonstrating the value of understanding racquet-ball impacts which have nothing to do with player technique. These fundamental building blocks I have been discussing have real world, on court implications.

4. The speed of the tip of the frame, coupled with the high sw of wooden racquets also explains the following event. In 1997, in a comparative test done by Tennis magazine, [7] Mark Philippoussis, the six-foot-five, 217-pound Australian renowned for his powerful serve, averaged 124 mph when serving with his own composite racket. With a classic wooden racket, (where the stiffness ratings average in the low 30's) he averaged 122 mph. Now, here is the punchline. To somebody that understands the fundamental building blocks of ball-racquet collisions, (which I have posted in 133-134-135) this tale would not be difficult to figure out, the clues are there for anybody to observe. To somebody who understands the basics intimately, the tale makes perfect sense upon first mention. Yet you've consistently floated the idea that my presentation of the finer points of these fundamental building blocks is not only pointless, it is disingenuous. (posts 146,165) This could not be further from the truth.


5. Regarding the effort to characterize me as thread Hijacker: Prior to my arrival in the thread, one of the major issues was racquet power (see ElZed posts 1, 6, 11, 16, 17, 30, 33, 41, 44, 52, 66, 70, 87, 91, 93) Everything I've posted is on topic and relevant. In fact, my participation here was born from an invitation I extended, and which ElZed accepted, to discuss the basics of racquet power. (see posts 117, 119.)

6. I have no idea where this thread is going, but I will be sure to respond to any future posts that contain the slightest levels of revisionist history, misunderstanding, misrepresentations, or falsehoods directed at me. It's a tedious exercise, but I find those kinds of comments exceptionally motivating.

References

Link [1] Basic Facts about Frames and Strings,
-The United States Racquet Stringers Association
http://www.racquettech.com/top/basic_facts.html
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/lc/basicfacts.html

Link [2] Raw Racquet Power
By Rod Cross
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com...uet_power.html

Link [4] The Inch That Changed Tennis Forever
By Rod Cross
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com..._tennis_f.html

Link [5] Racquet Power Comparison Tool
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...mparepower.cgi

Link [7] Mark Philippoussis Serve Test, Wood Vs Graphite
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...899876,00.html

-Jack

[tlm]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

1. The commentary above is a misinterpretation of a quote, so epic in scale, and so contorted in it's meaning, the thought has occurred to me it might be intentional misrepresentation. I hope this is not the case. I actually prefer the notion that this is a genuine misunderstanding. If that is what is going on here, it might offer some insight as to why you've been so unsatisfied with my contributions.

2. I did not "admit to a difference of 2-4 MPH" You only arrived at that number because I threw that out as a table scrap in the course of a larger conversation. Before my arrival here you posed the idea of 5-10 mph difference btwn the old classics and a modern Babolat. (ElZed posts 1, 33) When I questioned your frame of reference, this was quickly re-drafted to " I'm not sure, could be .1 or could be 10 MPH". (post 129) Now that I have provided you with a credible frame of reference, you want to beat me over the head with it and do a little victory dance. What you fail to comprehend, because I have not discussed it with you, is that there are many layers to this onion. That 2-4 mph (and 4 is a generous number) represents the spread between specs of frames with wildly differing weight distributions, and overall specs.

2. The quote I provided, does not concern the ball velocity in the instance when the ball hits the tip of the frame during a serve. The speed of the tip of the frame is mentioned because during the service motion, the tip is traveling much faster than the center of the strings, and the bottom of the string bed is traveling slower than the middle and the tip. Thus, it's an expression of racquet head speed in an uber precise way. Here is the original quote in its entirety:

Quote 2 : "In order to serve a ball 100 mph, a player must swing the racquet at a relatively high speed. Most people would guess the racquet needs to be swung about 60 mph or so depending upon the power of the racquet. In fact, the tip of the racquet needs to be swung at about 100 mph, give or take a few mph, depending upon the weight and the weight distribution of the racquet. There is a surprising lesson in this result. That is, the power of the racquet, and the power of the strings has only a small effect on serve speed. The serve speed is just about the same as the tip, regardless of the strings or the racquet. A different string or different frame will change the serve speed by a few mph, but almost all of the power comes directly from the players arm."
-- Rod Cross, And Howard Brody, Chapter 20, Serving Speed, The Physics and Technology of Tennis.

3. One last informational side note, the fact that the tip is traveling faster than the center of the strings is an important concept. Stiffer frames offer incrementally more power, most noticeably in the top 10% of the string bed. The stiffness helps the frame to overcome the dead spot (see post 135) that exists in all frames near the tip. But during the service motion, the tip is traveling very fast, so the dead spot deficiency gets a big fat boost of juice from the racquet head speed. This goes a long way to explain why racquet stiffness is a much bigger contributor to power on a volley (the racquet head is moving slowly), and not such a big deal for a serve. This is one example demonstrating the value of understanding racquet-ball impacts which have nothing to do with player technique. These fundamental building blocks I have been discussing have real world, on court implications.

4. The speed of the tip of the frame, coupled with the high sw of wooden racquets also explains the following event. In 1997, in a comparative test done by Tennis magazine, [7] Mark Philippoussis, the six-foot-five, 217-pound Australian renowned for his powerful serve, averaged 124 mph when serving with his own composite racket. With a classic wooden racket, (where the stiffness ratings average in the low 30's) he averaged 122 mph. Now, here is the punchline. To somebody that understands the fundamental building blocks of ball-racquet collisions, (which I have posted in 133-134-135) this tale would not be difficult to figure out, the clues are there for anybody to observe. To somebody who understands the basics intimately, the tale makes perfect sense upon first mention. Yet you've consistently floated the idea that my presentation of the finer points of these fundamental building blocks is not only pointless, it is disingenuous. (posts 146,165) This could not be further from the truth.


5. Regarding the effort to characterize me as thread Hijacker: Prior to my arrival in the thread, one of the major issues was racquet power (see ElZed posts 1, 6, 11, 16, 17, 30, 33, 41, 44, 52, 66, 70, 87, 91, 93) Everything I've posted is on topic and relevant. In fact, my participation here was born from an invitation I extended, and which ElZed accepted, to discuss the basics of racquet power. (see posts 117, 119.)

6. I have no idea where this thread is going, but I will be sure to respond to any future posts that contain the slightest levels of revisionist history, misunderstanding, misrepresentations, or falsehoods directed at me. It's a tedious exercise, but I find those kinds of comments exceptionally motivating.

References

Link [1] Basic Facts about Frames and Strings,
-The United States Racquet Stringers Association
http://www.racquettech.com/top/basic_facts.html
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/lc/basicfacts.html

Link [2] Raw Racquet Power
By Rod Cross
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com...uet_power.html

Link [4] The Inch That Changed Tennis Forever
By Rod Cross
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com..._tennis_f.html

Link [5] Racquet Power Comparison Tool
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...mparepower.cgi

Link [7] Mark Philippoussis Serve Test, Wood Vs Graphite
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...899876,00.html

-Jack

I don't think you have enough references, not enough detailed information.

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

1. The commentary above is a misinterpretation of a quote, so epic in scale, and so contorted in it's meaning, the thought has occurred to me it might be intentional misrepresentation. I hope this is not the case. I actually prefer the notion that this is a genuine misunderstanding. If that is what is going on here, it might offer some insight as to why you've been so unsatisfied with my contributions.

2. I did not "admit to a difference of 2-4 MPH" You only arrived at that number because I threw that out as a table scrap in the course of a larger conversation. Before my arrival here you posed the idea of 5-10 mph difference btwn the old classics and a modern Babolat. (ElZed posts 1, 33) When I questioned your frame of reference, this was quickly re-drafted to " I'm not sure, could be .1 or could be 10 MPH". (post 129) Now that I have provided you with a credible frame of reference, you want to beat me over the head with it and do a little victory dance. What you fail to comprehend, because I have not discussed it with you, is that there are many layers to this onion. That 2-4 mph (and 4 is a generous number) represents the spread between specs of frames with wildly differing weight distributions, and overall specs.

2. The quote I provided, does not concern the ball velocity in the instance when the ball hits the tip of the frame during a serve. The speed of the tip of the frame is mentioned because during the service motion, the tip is traveling much faster than the center of the strings, and the bottom of the string bed is traveling slower than the middle and the tip. Thus, it's an expression of racquet head speed in an uber precise way. Here is the original quote in its entirety:

Quote 2 : "In order to serve a ball 100 mph, a player must swing the racquet at a relatively high speed. Most people would guess the racquet needs to be swung about 60 mph or so depending upon the power of the racquet. In fact, the tip of the racquet needs to be swung at about 100 mph, give or take a few mph, depending upon the weight and the weight distribution of the racquet. There is a surprising lesson in this result. That is, the power of the racquet, and the power of the strings has only a small effect on serve speed. The serve speed is just about the same as the tip, regardless of the strings or the racquet. A different string or different frame will change the serve speed by a few mph, but almost all of the power comes directly from the players arm."
-- Rod Cross, And Howard Brody, Chapter 20, Serving Speed, The Physics and Technology of Tennis.

3. One last informational side note, the fact that the tip is traveling faster than the center of the strings is an important concept. Stiffer frames offer incrementally more power, most noticeably in the top 10% of the string bed. The stiffness helps the frame to overcome the dead spot (see post 135) that exists in all frames near the tip. But during the service motion, the tip is traveling very fast, so the dead spot deficiency gets a big fat boost of juice from the racquet head speed. This goes a long way to explain why racquet stiffness is a much bigger contributor to power on a volley (the racquet head is moving slowly), and not such a big deal for a serve. This is one example demonstrating the value of understanding racquet-ball impacts which have nothing to do with player technique. These fundamental building blocks I have been discussing have real world, on court implications.

4. The speed of the tip of the frame, coupled with the high sw of wooden racquets also explains the following event. In 1997, in a comparative test done by Tennis magazine, [7] Mark Philippoussis, the six-foot-five, 217-pound Australian renowned for his powerful serve, averaged 124 mph when serving with his own composite racket. With a classic wooden racket, (where the stiffness ratings average in the low 30's) he averaged 122 mph. Now, here is the punchline. To somebody that understands the fundamental building blocks of ball-racquet collisions, (which I have posted in 133-134-135) this tale would not be difficult to figure out, the clues are there for anybody to observe. To somebody who understands the basics intimately, the tale makes perfect sense upon first mention. Yet you've consistently floated the idea that my presentation of the finer points of these fundamental building blocks is not only pointless, it is disingenuous. (posts 146,165) This could not be further from the truth.


5. Regarding the effort to characterize me as thread Hijacker: Prior to my arrival in the thread, one of the major issues was racquet power (see ElZed posts 1, 6, 11, 16, 17, 30, 33, 41, 44, 52, 66, 70, 87, 91, 93) Everything I've posted is on topic and relevant. In fact, my participation here was born from an invitation I extended, and which ElZed accepted, to discuss the basics of racquet power. (see posts 117, 119.)

6. I have no idea where this thread is going, but I will be sure to respond to any future posts that contain the slightest levels of revisionist history, misunderstanding, misrepresentations, or falsehoods directed at me. It's a tedious exercise, but I find those kinds of comments exceptionally motivating.

References

Link [1] Basic Facts about Frames and Strings,
-The United States Racquet Stringers Association
http://www.racquettech.com/top/basic_facts.html
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/lc/basicfacts.html

Link [2] Raw Racquet Power
By Rod Cross
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com...uet_power.html

Link [4] The Inch That Changed Tennis Forever
By Rod Cross
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com..._tennis_f.html

Link [5] Racquet Power Comparison Tool
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...mparepower.cgi

Link [7] Mark Philippoussis Serve Test, Wood Vs Graphite
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...899876,00.html

-Jack

Your commentary has been very persuasive, and I have no other option than to agree with your position that 2 to 4 mph of additional power is not actually additional power.

In all seriousness, Jack, you're embarrassing yourself. Does your ego really prevent you from just moving on? Do you have nothing better to do than attempt to argue a point that you yourself conceded? Let me try to explain this to you one final time - even a 1 mph gain in shot velocity is a gain in power. Whether 1 mph is significant (much less the 2 to 4 mph you yourself indicated) is a subjective question, and something that needs to be decided by each player. Nonetheless, that is still a performance benefit (in addition to some other factors cutting in favor of modern racquets). Not sure where the dispute is on this point, and why you are so hell-bent to argue questions of degree.

I'm no longer going to engage in a substantive discussion with someone who edits their comments ex-poste to reflect the tenor of the instant discussion. So, consider this discussion between us concluded. I'm sure the others on this board would appreciate it...

[Relinquis]

ChicagoJack,

Thank you very much to taking the time to write these insightful posts.

I found your posts on this topic useful in understanding a bit of the science behind racquet power and what specs matter, what specs don't and to what extent.

I would love to read more if you feel like starting your own thread about it in order to avoid arguments with "El Zed" that might derail you from getting your point across.

[MikeHitsHard93]

El Zed needs to get a life and stop being egotistical. You always start crap with random people.

Chicago jack- excellent job

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by MikeHitsHard93

El Zed needs to get a life and stop being egotistical. You always start crap with random people.

Chicago jack- excellent job

Who is starting crap with whom, Mike? Thanks for your opinion - by the way, you're welcome for my responses to you on racquet suggestions months back. I guess that was me starting crap with you right?

[El Zed]

You know what, guys, my intent wasn't to argue with anyone or to offend. So, Jack, again thanks for your input and if I offended you, I do apologize.

[kaiser]

Finally you're talking some sense.

[Relinquis]

Originally Posted by El Zed

You know what, guys, my intent wasn't to argue with anyone or to offend. So, Jack, again thanks for your input and if I offended you, I do apologize.

I respect this.

[MikeHitsHard93]

Originally Posted by El Zed

Who is starting crap with whom, Mike? Thanks for your opinion - by the way, you're welcome for my responses to you on racquet suggestions months back. I guess that was me starting crap with you right?

I appreciate your suggestions. I suppose I shouldn't use the word "everyone."

Thanks for apologizing. We can now move on lol.

[pshulam]

Originally Posted by Lilguy1456

To be honest guys, arguing about what style of racquet is best (an inherantly subjective conversation) is about as hopeless as arguing over what food is best or what music is best.

There are endless reviews and ratings by various institutions for practically all products and services, such as movies, music, schools, colleges, cars, electronics, mutual funds, software, doctors, lawyers, contractors, etc. Most people, I think, will look at the reviews or ask someone before buying.

Everyone is perfectly capable with finding REASONS for liking a racquet style more than another, but they are all specific to that individual's preference...

while it's true that one should select a racquet based on individual preference, a lots of people may not know their preference and are heavily influenced by reviews, ratings and comments.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

It's like sex. Do you have sex to "win" or more for the "feel"? If you have the right racquet set-up, hitting the sweetspot can sometimes "feel" better than sex.

How do you "win" at sex?