Beam width contributing to shanking?

[racquet_jedi]

Does anyone think that beam width can affect the amount of mis-hits?

[Midlife crisis]

If you're going to mis-hit, you're going to do so no matter how thin the beam is. A thickly beamed racquet is going to stick out about 14 mm from the stringbed, and a thinly beamed racquet is going to stick up about 10 mm from the stringbed. The only way to hit a ball on the sweetspot if it is going to be pass the frame between 10-15 mm away is to hit the absolute most skimming of shots that are probably one in a thousand, if even that.

A thinner beam will let you mis-hit a ball on the frame and have a better chance of it going somewhat in the direction you've intended, but it is still a significant mis-hit.

[[d]ragon]

only thing it affects is slicing. sometimes a thick frame can get in the way but it depends on your technique

[rooski]

Originally Posted by racquet_jedi

Does anyone think that beam width can affect the amount of mis-hits?

Yes...depending on your stroke type. If you hit a lot of topspin and you hit the ball a little to the side of the sweetspot you can catch the frame as you pass thru the ball. I hit with heavy topspin off both sides with my thin nBlades but if I switch to a Pure Drive I will occassionally get side hoop contact. This never happens with the Blades.

[Bencia]

you guys are correct. I shank the ball way more with my 110 sq. inch TT Scream than I do with my 105 sq. inch O3 red because the scream is much wider. That is large in part due to my frequent use of the slice and a quick low to high swing on both sides.

[Shashwat]

Originally Posted by Midlife crisis

If you're going to mis-hit, you're going to do so no matter how thin the beam is. A thickly beamed racquet is going to stick out about 14 mm from the stringbed, and a thinly beamed racquet is going to stick up about 10 mm from the stringbed. The only way to hit a ball on the sweetspot if it is going to be pass the frame between 10-15 mm away is to hit the absolute most skimming of shots that are probably one in a thousand, if even that.

A thinner beam will let you mis-hit a ball on the frame and have a better chance of it going somewhat in the direction you've intended, but it is still a significant mis-hit.

I agree with everything he said.

[Alafter]

None. If you hit with the ball that close to the edge of the frame or on the frame itself, the ball's on its unpredictable path already anyways.

[Bencia]

Originally Posted by Alafter

None. If you hit with the ball that close to the edge of the frame or on the frame itself, the ball's on its unpredictable path already anyways.

that is true if you don't hit low to high.

[Alafter]

Well balls dont exactly slide across the racquet face y'know, whether you're hitting topspin or slice or flat

[Bencia]

Originally Posted by Alafter

Well balls dont exactly slide across the racquet face y'know, whether you're hitting topspin or slice or flat

can you tell me why a slice is called a slice?

[matchmaker]

Originally Posted by Midlife crisis

If you're going to mis-hit, you're going to do so no matter how thin the beam is. A thickly beamed racquet is going to stick out about 14 mm from the stringbed, and a thinly beamed racquet is going to stick up about 10 mm from the stringbed. The only way to hit a ball on the sweetspot if it is going to be pass the frame between 10-15 mm away is to hit the absolute most skimming of shots that are probably one in a thousand, if even that.

A thinner beam will let you mis-hit a ball on the frame and have a better chance of it going somewhat in the direction you've intended, but it is still a significant mis-hit.

I agree. The difference in feel and in aerodynamism is more of a factor than the actual possibility of framing a shot due to beam width. Maybe it can be a mental factor to think you have more millimeters sticking out from the stringbed.

Now what is interesting is that most thick-beamed racquets have a rather tubular form whereas the thinner beamed often have a box beam. So if you take a cross section of the frame, you will discover that while they stick out more vertically they are horizontally thinner in comparison to the box beams, which are vertically shorter but maybe horizontally wider.

Anyone getting my point? Take a Wilson K90 and say a Kblade...

[Alafter]

Originally Posted by Bencia

can you tell me why a slice is called a slice?

And can you?

[Bencia]

Originally Posted by Alafter

And can you?

yes I can. It is because a slice is a swing that has the racket slicing downward. during this motion a thick frame can interfere and frame the ball.

[Alafter]

Originally Posted by Bencia

yes I can. It is because a slice is a swing that has the racket slicing downward. during this motion a thick frame can interfere and frame the ball.

Slice is because the motion is like slicing, that is correct.

But if you frame the ball, that dont mean the ball slides across the racquet surface. That just means bad hitting on the player's part.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-GzW401yri4&feature=related

She did a good slice, and even in slow motion, the ball isnt any sliding across the racquet face. The ball, even for a slice, makes a one time contact with thr racquet face.

[Bencia]

Originally Posted by Alafter

Slice is because the motion is like slicing, that is correct.

But if you frame the ball, that dont mean the ball slides across the racquet surface. That just means bad hitting on the player's part.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-GzW401yri4&feature=related

She did a good slice, and even in slow motion, the ball isnt any sliding across the racquet face. The ball, even for a slice, makes a one time contact with thr racquet face.

you are correct but I am willing to bet you that a racket with a wider frame will frame more slices than a thinner one. My slicing motion is the same regardless of the racket I use and I know for a fact that I frame more slices on a wider racket than a thinner one as I mentioned with the wide 110 inch TT scream and the thinner 105 O3 red.

[Alafter]

Originally Posted by Bencia

you are correct but I am willing to bet you that a racket with a wider frame will frame more slices than a thinner one. My slicing motion is the same regardless of the racket I use and I know for a fact that I frame more slices on a wider racket than a thinner one as I mentioned with the wide 110 inch TT scream and the thinner 105 O3 red.

That'll disappear with practice and not making bad contact for slices. Good luck!

[Bencia]

Originally Posted by Alafter

That'll disappear with practice and not making bad contact for slices. Good luck!

it has nothing to do bad contact and everything to do with science. as you said, a slice goes in a downward motion. This downward motion can lead to interference from the frame and while that can be avoided by good practice, you still have a higher risk of framing a slice on a wide frame than you do with a thin one.

[saram]

Originally Posted by racquet_jedi

Does anyone think that beam width can affect the amount of mis-hits?

Yes, mis-hits have everything to do with beam width and absolutely NOTHING to do with taking your eye off of the ball and looking where you are going to hit it.

[Indy Tennis]

A friend of mine, solid player, tried a wide body (Prince Shark DB) and kept hitting the frame on his serve.

Went back to a ProKennex Laver Type C and the problem disappeared.

[anirut]

Well, a thick-beam is in a way good, you know. It allows you to use the beam itself to shank a low to high topspin ...






... and send the ball flying over the fence to fall on a guy's head on the other court.