Huge news about Federer's racket!!! - Page 11

BreakPoint · 08-25-2011, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediMindTrick

That doesn't mean anything, 99% of the pros will never win a GS anyway, no matter what racquet they use. The point is that the last 6 GS have been won with a "optimum head size" racquet and 99% of the pros use this "optimum head size". The rest is ancient history.

Exactly!

Now repeat after me:

It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet............etc...

BTW, when Federer won his 16 Slams, the other 99% of pros were already using what you claim to be the "optimum head size". Why couldn't they also win multiple Slams or even win a single Slam?

BreakPoint · 08-25-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediMindTrick

Lately (last 6) 100% of the GS have been won with "optimum head size" racquets. The K90 is only holding Federer back at this point, he needs to get into the "optimum head size" range.

Um...the last 6 Slams were won by Nadal and Djokovic. They were won by people, not by a tennis racquet.

No other pros can move like Nadal and Djokovic.

BreakPoint · 08-25-2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonBot

To be fair midsize raquets have only won more grand slams in the last twenty or so years (modern graphite raquet era) by virtue of the combined 30 from Pistol Pete and Federer. At least for the men's game- if you take them out of the running you will see the majority being won by a midplus frame with some mids and oversizes along the way. I am having a difficult time thinking of the last grandslam that was won with something other than a midplus (assuming you take fed out of the mix), but would venture a guess it was probably Agassi with an OS.

Safin won the AO in 2005 with a Mid.

Other people who have won Slams with a 85-90 sq. in. racquet:

Edberg
Courier
Hewitt
Safin
Ivanisevic
Stich
Krajicek
Gomez
Evert
Pierce

alcheng · 08-25-2011, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Safin won the AO in 2005 with a Mid.

Other people who have won Slams with a 85-90 sq. in. racquet:

Edberg
Courier
Hewitt
Safin
Ivanisevic
Stich
Krajicek
Gomez
Evert
Pierce

Plus:

Becker (93)
Graff
Lendle (his tiny head adidas racquet)

zapvor · 08-25-2011, 12:12 PM

it's amazing to see how the guys used to do it with such heavy small sticks. but i guess the pace wasn't as crazy either

BreakPoint · 08-25-2011, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alcheng

Plus:

Becker (93)
Graff
Lendle (his tiny head adidas racquet)

True about Graf but Lendl's Slam wins were with a racquet smaller than 85 sq.in. and more than 20 years ago. I've always thought Lendl's Adidas racquet looked to be about 70 sq. in., but I think it was actually 75-80 sq. in.

BreakPoint · 08-25-2011, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapvor

it's amazing to see how the guys used to do it with such heavy small sticks. but i guess the pace wasn't as crazy either

The pace was even faster because they played on faster courts, e.g., faster grass, indoor carpet, faster hardcourts, etc., and they could hit the ball very hard with those heavy racquets.

zapvor · 08-25-2011, 12:20 PM

i would say maybe bounce faster. but pace wise i dont think so. guys today take huge huge swipes

BreakPoint · 08-25-2011, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapvor

i would say maybe bounce faster. but pace wise i dont think so. guys today take huge huge swipes

But they don't hit the ball flat, like the older pros used to do. Hitting flat produces maximum pace.

jmverdugo · 08-25-2011, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

The pace was even faster because they played on faster courts, e.g., faster grass, indoor carpet, faster hardcourts, etc., and they could hit the ball very hard with those heavy racquets.

Then I guess video recording was slower those days...

AlpineCadet · 08-25-2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Exactly!

Now repeat after me:

It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet,
It's not about the racquet............etc...

BTW, when Federer won his 16 Slams, the other 99% of pros were already using what you claim to be the "optimum head size". Why couldn't they also win multiple Slams or even win a single Slam?

What the hell are you talking about? How is it not about the racket when RF switched from the PS85 to Tour 90 and became number 1? He did it once and another 3-5 sq. inches should give him more hitting space, along with more action/pace. There's not much to deny here ESP. when it comes to racket headsize now that there's def. buzz that he's switching to an even larger frame.

HiroProtagonist · 08-25-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlpineCadet

What the hell are you talking about? How is it not about the racket when RF switched from the PS85 to Tour 90 and became number 1? He did it once and another 3-5 sq. inches should give him more hitting space, along with more action/pace. There's not much to deny here ESP. when it comes to racket headsize now that there's def. buzz that he's switching to an even larger frame.

Uh...ya try putting a PS85 on top of a K90 if you ever get the chance and see how much of a difference there is.

Even a 90 compared to a 100 there is very little difference, head shape probably makes a bigger impact, more round vs. oval, but the whole head size thing is just personal preference that has been hyped into a psychological barrier for some.

BreakPoint · 08-25-2011, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlpineCadet

What the hell are you talking about? How is it not about the racket when RF switched from the PS85 to Tour 90 and became number 1? He did it once and another 3-5 sq. inches should give him more hitting space, along with more action/pace. There's not much to deny here ESP. when it comes to racket headsize now that there's def. buzz that he's switching to an even larger frame.

Fish switched from Adidas clothes to K-Swiss clothes and now is Top 10 in the world. It must have been the clothes, right?

Prove that Federer wouldn't have become #1 anyway if he had stayed with his PS 6.0 85. Go ahead, we're waiting.

His results in Slams after switching to the Tour 90 were terrible for a year until he won Wimbledon. Look it up. Compare his results in the year or two prior to switching.

Djokovic becoming #1 and winning his first Wimbledon must have been also due to a racquet switch too, right?

West Coast Ace · 08-25-2011, 04:20 PM

Break Point, you have a better chance of teaching a Lab to speak Italian than to convince these people. Why do you bother?

Praetorian · 08-25-2011, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast Ace

Break Point, you have a better chance of teaching a Lab to speak Italian than to convince these people. Why do you bother?

+1

10chars

CrackerJack · 08-25-2011, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Safin won the AO in 2005 with a Mid.

Other people who have won Slams with a 85-90 sq. in. racquet:

Edberg
Courier
Hewitt
Safin
Ivanisevic
Stich
Krajicek
Gomez
Evert
Pierce

So then, should the current crop of players use 85-90 sq inch frames if they want to win slams?
Why do most atp professionals use 95-100 sq inch frames when the evidence is so obviously not in favour? I'm confused?

Pwned · 08-25-2011, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrackerJack

So then, should the current crop of players use 85-90 sq inch frames if they want to win slams?
Why do most atp professionals use 95-100 sq inch frames when the evidence is so obviously not in favour? I'm confused?

Because they want to? The racquet isn't going to make a difference. Especially something as small as 3-5sqin.

DonBot · 08-25-2011, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Safin won the AO in 2005 with a Mid.

Other people who have won Slams with a 85-90 sq. in. racquet:

Edberg
Courier
Hewitt
Safin
Ivanisevic
Stich
Krajicek
Gomez
Evert
Pierce

Bringing the WTA into this? I know I think heavy mid sized frame when I think of championship women's tennis rofl

BreakPoint · 08-25-2011, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonBot

Bringing the WTA into this? I know I think heavy mid sized frame when I think of championship women's tennis rofl

If even weaker, slower women can win Slams from the baseline using a small, heavy mid-sized racquet, what's the stronger, faster men's excuse?

Hollywood2 · 08-26-2011, 12:54 AM

I hope Wilson brings back the 17mm beam width or smaller instead of the 17.5mm for better agility. Even though it's a small difference I noticed from extensive testing it takes slightly more time to prepare for the shot with the BLX (17.5mm) compared to the Ncode (17mm). Your swing slows down a tad with the BLX because of the beam width and I don't like that at all.

With the weight being what it is a thinner beam makes the racquet more nimble and this is why I stayed with the Ncode 6.1.

Anyone else with comments, as I haven't seen any discussions regarding the beam width.

Cheers.

08-25-2011, 12:12 PM	#205
zapvor Legend Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: tennis courts Posts: 7,913	it's amazing to see how the guys used to do it with such heavy small sticks. but i guess the pace wasn't as crazy either __________________ Member of TW MAC. yes, we are better than you. and we bout to hop on a court to make another 'mil

08-25-2011, 12:20 PM	#208
zapvor Legend Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: tennis courts Posts: 7,913	i would say maybe bounce faster. but pace wise i dont think so. guys today take huge huge swipes __________________ Member of TW MAC. yes, we are better than you. and we bout to hop on a court to make another 'mil

08-25-2011, 04:20 PM	#214
West Coast Ace Legend Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 9,375	Break Point, you have a better chance of teaching a Lab to speak Italian than to convince these people. Why do you bother? __________________ "I jump in it!" Russian Billionaire, DirecTV Commercial...

08-26-2011, 12:54 AM	#220
Hollywood2 New User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 70	Beam size. I hope Wilson brings back the 17mm beam width or smaller instead of the 17.5mm for better agility. Even though it's a small difference I noticed from extensive testing it takes slightly more time to prepare for the shot with the BLX (17.5mm) compared to the Ncode (17mm). Your swing slows down a tad with the BLX because of the beam width and I don't like that at all. With the weight being what it is a thinner beam makes the racquet more nimble and this is why I stayed with the Ncode 6.1. Anyone else with comments, as I haven't seen any discussions regarding the beam width. Cheers.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode