Federer must make the switch or he will descend even more

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by sureshs

He should switch to the 95 version

I say going back to the 85 would be even better for him.

[mellowyellow]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Hmmm....Nadal swings with as high or even higher racquet head speed and he uses a 100 sq. in. racquet, which is even bigger than the 95 you are recommending.

BTW, a racquet cannot generate spin unless you swing it fast at an angle REGARDLESS of the size of the racquet. Just plain physics. So, no, a larger racquet WILL NOT generate more spin with less racquet head speed than a smaller racquet - all else being equal.

Yes it will, longer string bed and more open though same 16/19 pattern would all equate into a more lively playing stringbed.

[mellowyellow]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Not true at all. Federer's opponents have said that his balls jump more than other player's except Nadal's.

That is bull s___, and his 2nd serve is on average the least jumpy. Even when they jump they do not move through the court like the other 3, they are half court sitters, especially if from a more defensive posture. This is mainly the BH side I am and have been referring to, the forehand is fine, though it does now seem to be missing some finishing power at 31.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

I say going back to the 85 would be even better for him.

Too risky. It does not lend itself easily to topspin.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

Yes it will, longer string bed and more open though same 16/19 pattern would all equate into a more lively playing stringbed.

"All else being equal" means the same string spacing in the stringbed.

Longer strings will give you more power but not more spin. A bigger racquet may help amateurs without the timing nor eye-hand coordination of Federer to swing more aggressively at the ball with less fear of framing the ball and thereby generate more spin. But that's not a result of the bigger racquet itself, it's the result of the more aggressive swing. Federer doesn't have this problem. His timing and eye-hand coordination are so good that he can swing just as aggressively at the ball even with his smaller racquet.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

That is bull s___, and his 2nd serve is on average the least jumpy. Even when they jump they do not move through the court like the other 3, they are half court sitters, especially if from a more defensive posture. This is mainly the BH side I am and have been referring to, the forehand is fine, though it does now seem to be missing some finishing power at 31.

Are you kidding? Federer has one of the best kick serves on tour. That thing kicks like a mule and pull righty 2HBH players way off the court in the ad side.

His backhands don't have as much spin as say Gasquets because Federer uses an Eastern backhand grip and he is basically half-volleying the ball from the baseline. Gasquet stands way back with a semi-western grip and whips way up on the ball as it's falling. Completely different techniques. He is basically a clay court player. 17 Slams to not even a single Slam final tells you which is the better technique.

[mellowyellow]

[quote=BreakPoint;6804070]"All else being equal" means the same string spacing in the stringbed.

Longer strings will give you more power but not more spin. A bigger racquet may help amateurs without the timing nor eye-hand coordination of Federer to swing more aggressively at the ball with less fear of framing the ball and thereby generate more spin. But that's not a result of the bigger racquet itself, it's the result of the more aggressive swing. Federer doesn't have this problem. His timing and eye-hand coordination are so good that he can swing just as aggressively at the ball even with his smaller racquet.[/QUOTE]

Why would they be the same when the frame is different in size? Why can it help some people and not others?
That makes no sense, should mean he could do even more. If the string is longer it can impart more power, but not spin? REALLY? Are you serious?
Not on the bh on less than neutral ground.

[mellowyellow]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Are you kidding? Federer has one of the best kick serves on tour. That thing kicks like a mule and pull righty 2HBH players way off the court in the ad side.

His backhands don't have as much spin as say Gasquets because Federer uses an Eastern backhand grip and he is basically half-volleying the ball from the baseline. Gasquet stands way back with a semi-western grip and whips way up on the ball as it's falling. Completely different techniques. He is basically a clay court player. 17 Slams to not even a single Slam final tells you which is the better technique.

Sometimes when he is playing really well, but average no I do not think so. Except for Murray and that is partly because of his frame and string pattern. Through the last 2 years it has been his 2nd serve problems that have kept him from winning more than anything.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Too risky. It does not lend itself easily to topspin.

What's so great about topspin? Nadal hasn't been able to defend a single title off of clay with all of that topspin.

Besides, I can generate more topspin with an 85 than with a 90.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

Why would they be the same when the frame is different in size? Why can it help some people and not others?
That makes no sense, should mean he could do even more. If the string is longer it can impart more power, but not spin? REALLY? Are you serious?
Not on the bh on less than neutral ground.

Yes, I'm serious. Do you understand WHY longer strings give you more power? Now why would it give you more spin? The width (gauge) of the string may give you more spin but not the length.

Who would be helped more by a class on swimming 101? A beginner or Michael Phelps? Federer can't "do more" with something he doesn't need.

[mellowyellow]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

What's so great about topspin? Nadal hasn't been able to defend a single title off of clay with all of that topspin.

Besides, I can generate more topspin with an 85 than with a 90.

More BS. Where is the chest waders emoticon?

[mellowyellow]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Yes, I'm serious. Do you understand WHY longer strings give you more power? Now why would it give you more spin? The width (gauge) of the string may give you more spin but not the length.

Who would be helped more by a class on swimming 101? A beginner or Michael Phelps? Federer can't "do more" with something he doesn't need.

Basic physics, if it can impart more energy it can impart more spin.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

Basic physics, if it can impart more energy it can impart more spin.

I thought so. You don't understand why.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

More BS. Where is the chest waders emoticon?

The PS 6.0 85 is one of the most spin friendly racquets I have ever used. Topspin, slice, kick, you name it. The thing is a beast on spin. I see my balls kick off of the court more with the 85 than with the 90.

[mellowyellow]

Go watch slomos, and explain how a string can impart more energy into a ball but not more spin. If that energy can be translated into a flat shot, when at an angle how does it not get translated into spin in full or in part?

[mellowyellow]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

The PS 6.0 85 is one of the most spin friendly racquets I have ever used. Topspin, slice, kick, you name it. The thing is a beast on spin. I see my balls kick off of the court more with the 85 than with the 90.

You clearly not palying any other frames. The Speed Pro and RDS001 both impart way more spin and controllable power, the Volkl DNX 10 is way better in spin, is softer frame and more powerful when equally weighted/balanced. Fischer Pro No.1, ACT 98 and Revolution Pro 98 all impart more spin and controllable power. IS better than Prestige of any generation and RD7 logs (could never balnce them right either). Marginally better than HPS 5.0 on spin (16x20) pattern. Better than PT280 (Austria or Chinese) Not as good as Genesis 660, or Prince vortex... those 2 were with synthetics too, not full polys like the rest. All 85/90 play has been with Alu Power/Original or RPM, or some hybrid from that group.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

Go watch slomos, and explain how a string can impart more energy into a ball but not more spin. If that energy can be translated into a flat shot, when at an angle how does it not get translated into spin in full or in part?

Tell Bjorn Borg that it's nearly impossible to impart tons of topspin with a 65 sq. in. racquet. He will laugh at you.

Longer strings give you more spin due to the trampoline effect. The trampoline effect doesn't give you more spin. Brushing up on the ball does. You can brush up on the ball with any size racquet.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

You clearly not palying any other frames. The Speed Pro and RDS001 both impart way more spin and controllable power, the Volkl DNX 10 is way better in spin, is softer frame and more powerful when equally weighted/balanced. Fischer Pro No.1, ACT 98 and Revolution Pro 98 all impart more spin and controllable power. IS better than Prestige of any generation and RD7 logs (could never balnce them right either). Marginally better than HPS 5.0 on spin (16x20) pattern. Better than PT280 (Austria or Chinese) Not as good as Genesis 660, or Prince vortex... those 2 were with synthetics too, not full polys like the rest. All 85/90 play has been with Alu Power/Original or RPM, or some hybrid from that group.

I've played with all of those racquets you've listed above. No, none of them gave me more spin than the PS 6.0 85.

[mellowyellow]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Tell Bjorn Borg that it's nearly impossible to impart tons of topspin with a 65 sq. in. racquet. He will laugh at you.

Longer strings give you more spin due to the trampoline effect. The trampoline effect doesn't give you more spin. Brushing up on the ball does. You can brush up on the ball with any size racquet.

So the men from the 70's that hit balls equal to what Sanchez Vicario hit has what to do with this topic? You could literally insert Vicario into those matches with her racquets and she would be very competitive with them.


Say again... seems your bs has come full circle and you forgot what bs you already said or were talking about. Your last post merely proves that you have no clue about tennis or racquets in general. This has been beat to death and Fed will continue to get beat in physical slams by these guys, probably a bigger more forgiving frame would help against those few players that can out hit him push him around, it likely would not hurt his game any against lesser oposition...

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

So the men from the 70's that hit balls equal to what Sanchez Vicario hit has what to do with this topic? You could literally insert Vicario into those matches with her racquets and she would be very competitive with them.

Ha ha ha....this proves that the statement you made below is actually referring to yourself:

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

Your last post merely proves that you have no clue about tennis or racquets in general.

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

This has been beat to death and Fed will continue to get beat in physical slams by these guys, probably a bigger more forgiving frame would help against those few players that can out hit him push him around, it likely would not hurt his game any against lesser oposition...

Yes, because tennis is all only about the racquet. LOL