Is it time to stop making faster racquets?

[10sLifer]

My friend Vic made this vid recently. Tired of hearing about racquet companies bragging about faster racquets.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=025aUsaAaAI

What do you guys think?

[TheCheese]

How exactly does racket speed relate to Nadal's knee injury?

[10sLifer]

Faster racquets = Less time to recover = quicker movements. Really didnt feel like it was that complicated.

[Wilander]

Originally Posted by 10sLifer

Faster racquets = Less time to recover = quicker movements. Really didnt feel like it was that complicated.

hardly rocket science...

[TheCheese]

Faster racket speed =\= faster ball speeds necessarily.

These faster rackets generally become this way by reducing their mass. With less mass you can apply less force to the ball with the same racket speed. The way I see it, the faster rackets just effect the amount of spin you can impart on the ball, not necessarily the power. We all know heavier rackets have more power or "plow through".

If anything, it's the strings to blame for increased ball speeds because it allows players to generate more spin and be able to control shots that are hit harder and harder.

[LeeD]

The PLAYERS are bigger, stronger, more fit, and taught the game more than ever.

[chrischris]

Originally Posted by LeeD

The PLAYERS are bigger, stronger, more fit, and taught the game more than ever.

Amen. Johnny Mac is that you?

On a serious note, for sure.

Shoes are better too. Movement and pace is key.

Imo the old game was nicer to watch though.
Emerson, Gonzalez, Rocket Rod, Muscles then Nasty, Panatta, Orantes and later Pozzi, Mecir,Sangunetti all had tons of feel and allcourt ability.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by TheCheese

Faster racket speed =\= faster ball speeds necessarily.

These faster rackets generally become this way by reducing their mass. With less mass you can apply less force to the ball with the same racket speed. The way I see it, the faster rackets just effect the amount of spin you can impart on the ball, not necessarily the power. We all know heavier rackets have more power or "plow through".

If anything, it's the strings to blame for increased ball speeds because it allows players to generate more spin and be able to control shots that are hit harder and harder.

Correct. Racquets are not the problem. Many pro's do not use what we would consider a powerful setup.

[Borrelli]

My plead to Vic - please have a salad! Your going to get injured playing with that oversized belly.

[Razoredge]

Originally Posted by LeeD

The PLAYERS are bigger, stronger, more fit, and taught the game more than ever.

You think Raonic would be able to serve like he is now with old rackets? LOL

[Borrelli]

Originally Posted by Razoredge

You think Raonic would be able to serve like he is now with old rackets? LOL

You talking wood or racquet's from the 90's? Because when are we saying that racquet technology has advanced so drastically? From wood? definitely. From the 90's? not so much. I'm sure Raonic would serve just as fast with any of the popular 90's sticks.

I think the slower court surface which has resulted in a baseline defensive style of game along with the longer schedule is to blame more for injury than racquet tech.

Edit: I would say strings have had a much larger impact on the game than racquet technology.

[LeeD]

I stood about 30' from ColinDibley in 1977 when he hit 149mph at the GoldenGatewayTennisClub in SF. Colin is an ape armed monkey, maybe 6'3", but only when he was slouched over, normal for him. His wingspan was probably just under 7'6".....almost like MichaelJordan's.
PrimoCarnera glassed his DunlopMaxply with extra glass at the throat thru to include the whole head, but only laminates, not a wrap. I watched that too, from FTC's stringing booth.
Colin was maybe in the top 30 men's pro at the time. VictorAmaya, a lefty monster at 6'6", served serveral serves at 144, but broke TWO rackets in less than 20 serves.
Milos, if he could get a racket that lasted, would serve harder, but not much more than a couple mph's.
Sweetspot on wood rackets were much higher, farther from the player's hand, and players could change string tension to match their preferences with the old softer wood rackets.

[jokinla]

So certain rackets make me faster, I gotta try those.

[TennisCJC]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

Correct. Racquets are not the problem. Many pro's do not use what we would consider a powerful setup.

Why do you say pros don't use a "powerful setup". There's a thread here at TW that has a list of pro racket specs - balance, length, and weight. Average strung weight is 12.6, average length is 27.3 and average balance is 7.9 HL. These specs would result in a racket far more powerful than the retail rackets that we buy. ATP swing weight is high but I don't have an actual average. My experience based on what I've read is ATP players are typically in the 340-390 range for swing weight. Even Nadal who plays a lighter racket - around 12 oz - has been documented as having a swingweight in the 350-360 range as his racket is far less HL. So, pros have a swingweight say around 360 and their racket head speed is much higher than us mere mortals. A swingweight of 360 with a fast RHS would really wallop the ball - very, very powerful.

Basically, the pros are playing with heavy and powerful rackets.

[mmk]

Originally Posted by TennisCJC

Why do you say pros don't use a "powerful setup". There's a thread here at TW that has a list of pro racket specs - balance, length, and weight. Average strung weight is 12.6, average length is 27.3 and average balance is 7.9 HL. These specs would result in a racket far more powerful than the retail rackets that we buy. ATP swing weight is high but I don't have an actual average. My experience based on what I've read is ATP players are typically in the 340-390 range for swing weight. Even Nadal who plays a lighter racket - around 12 oz - has been documented as having a swingweight in the 350-360 range as his racket is far less HL. So, pros have a swingweight say around 360 and their racket head speed is much higher than us mere mortals. A swingweight of 360 with a fast RHS would really wallop the ball - very, very powerful.

Basically, the pros are playing with heavy and powerful rackets.

And the wood racquets were heavier yet (at least mine are), with I'm assuming correspondingly high swingweights. Of course, they were also more flexible.

[tennisoh]

Originally Posted by LeeD

I stood about 30' from ColinDibley in 1977 when he hit 149mph at the GoldenGatewayTennisClub in SF. Colin is an ape armed monkey, maybe 6'3", but only when he was slouched over, normal for him. His wingspan was probably just under 7'6".....almost like MichaelJordan's.
PrimoCarnera glassed his DunlopMaxply with extra glass at the throat thru to include the whole head, but only laminates, not a wrap. I watched that too, from FTC's stringing booth.
Colin was maybe in the top 30 men's pro at the time. VictorAmaya, a lefty monster at 6'6", served serveral serves at 144, but broke TWO rackets in less than 20 serves.
Milos, if he could get a racket that lasted, would serve harder, but not much more than a couple mph's.
Sweetspot on wood rackets were much higher, farther from the player's hand, and players could change string tension to match their preferences with the old softer wood rackets.

This sounds like such a fairy tale, and it probably is to a certain degree. For one, I hardly doubt a 6'3" guy has anywhere near a 7'6" wingspan. Even a 7 foot wingspan would be a complete shock, since most of the time when they measure NBA guys the player with the biggest differential will only be +8 or +9 inches.

Speed measurement was still coming along at the time as well. I know it's virtually impossible to ever verify this, but when compared to just the evolution of other sports (think pitching speed, vertical leaps, 100 meter dash times), I doubt anyone in the wood racquet era hit much harder than 140 mph, if that. None of these numbers thrown out were from reliable speed measuring devices.

[dominikk1985]

the rackets didn't get much faster in the last decade.

pros also don't play particularly powerfull sticks. there are much lighter, larger and stiffer models at the market than the pro rackets which are generally quite small and heavy compared to rec sticks.

[HRB]

First off, that is a pretty rude punk a** reply...then again I don't respond to these post much because I find most of you guys to be blow hards.

This old coot should realize that just about every pro except the enigma (Nadal) uses 12oz. plus racquets, so what the hell is he talking about? Basically this is what he is saying...the game is too fast, so tennis is too hard on your body, and he for some strange reason is focused on the racquets? The pros rarely actually use anything designed or made in the past 5 years...Paint Job oldies but goodies dominate the ranks.

Gains in athleticism, fitness, and strength are the reasons the game is so physically grueling...these guys would hit a rocket ball with anything, it is just in the modern game their opponents have the speed and strength to actually get to it!

[West Coast Ace]

Originally Posted by HRB

Gains in athleticism, fitness, and strength are the reasons the game is so physically grueling...these guys would hit a rocket ball with anything, it is just in the modern game their opponents have the speed and strength to actually get to it!

Agree with this. But if the ATP sped the balls and courts up to shorten the points, it would help.

Can't hold back the progress of the tennis stick tech - golf tried and got destroyed in court.

And since these 'discussions' always come back to Nadal, his 8 hr practices with ankle weights, probably did more to him than anything. Or maybe bad knees runs in the family?

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by tennisoh

Speed measurement was still coming along at the time as well. I know it's virtually impossible to ever verify this, but when compared to just the evolution of other sports (think pitching speed, vertical leaps, 100 meter dash times), I doubt anyone in the wood racquet era hit much harder than 140 mph, if that. None of these numbers thrown out were from reliable speed measuring devices.

One reason that serves appear to be higher these days is that the radar guns are so much better than those used in 1977. They pick the ball up much earlier off the racket before they have lost speed due to air resistance. Maybe up to 10% added to the speed in the "juiced" radar guns like at some Davis Cup venues.
As far as the rackets, in Philippousis' test, it only made a 2 or 3 mph difference from wood to graphite.