Why do racquets with a small head size have such high prestige among some people?

[connico]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

I watched the Stosur-Sharapova match from Tokyo last night. The commentators said exactly the same thing I said in my thread from 2.5 years ago. They said Stosur takes advantage of the modern technology in strings and racquets more than just about any other player on the WTA Tour and that she wouldn't be able to play as well without them.

lol... if you gave all the players in the WTA and ATP a wooden racquet they all wouldn't play as well...

Seriously... WTF are you on about?

[Vcore89]

If, if the standard for today is a wooden racquet with 65 sq in face they would be playing better than the olden days because of their superior training, conditioning and nutrition. Needless to say however, they wouldn't be producing those wicked spins and bazooka serves with a Barbie!

[Red Sunset]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

oh god, what have I done?

(I am become death, destroyer of threads )

Haha, Darksiders style.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by connico

lol... if you gave all the players in the WTA and ATP a wooden racquet they all wouldn't play as well...

Seriously... WTF are you on about?

But some would play a lot worse than others due to the equipment change. It comes down to who maximizes the use of the modern equipment more.

[Broly4]

Those who claim that it's more prestigeous, are just admiting that performance wise bigger heads are better.

[UCSF2012]

A midsize isn't a Harvard degree, now. There's no prestige in a midsize. However, there is shame in an oversize.

[Vcore89]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

A midsize isn't a Harvard degree, now. There's no prestige in a midsize. However, there is shame in an oversize.

However, the biggest winner seems to be the mid pluses? I wonder what M. Chang is using at the Champions Tour (over 107?)?

[Hi I'm Ray]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

There's no prestige in a midsize. However, there is shame in an oversize.

Riiight. So going by that load of BS, there's probably something wrong with this positive review that Chris gave the classic POG OS http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Revi...GROReview.html & Agassi who was the first and only 1 of 2 male tennis players to ever achieve the career golden slam, should be ashamed of himself for playing with an OS.

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ray

Riiight. So going by that load of BS, there's probably something wrong with this positive review that Chris gave the classic POG OS http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Revi...GROReview.html & Agassi who was the first and only 1 of 2 male tennis players to ever achieve the career golden slam, should be ashamed of himself for playing with an OS.

They really should be ashamed. Same goes for all the grown men playing granny racket. 110 sq in and 10 oz. Grow some muscle for crying out loud.

[UCSF2012]

Graf uses a more manly racket than Andre. Tisk, tisk.

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by Vcore89

However, the biggest winner seems to be the mid pluses? I wonder what M. Chang is using at the Champions Tour (over 107?)?

Chang is using the AeroPro

[Vcore89]

The thing is, Andre started out with wooden racquets also, so surely he can handle not only oversized racquets and he also played the racquets Steffi used.

[Vcore89]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

Chang is using the AeroPro

Thanks, good to know, guess he would've chosen the elliptical headed Barbies back then if he had the choice.

[Hi I'm Ray]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

They really should be ashamed. Same goes for all the grown men playing granny racket.

Graf uses a more manly racket than Andre. Tisk, tisk.

Right up there with Break Point

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Broly4

Those who claim that it's more prestigeous, are just admiting that performance wise bigger heads are better.

I don't know anyone who claims that using a smaller headsize is "more prestigious", myself included. Most people who use smaller racquets use them because they either play better with them or they just like the feel of them or some other characteristic of them. Prestige never even enters the equation.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ray

Riiight. So going by that load of BS, there's probably something wrong with this positive review that Chris gave the classic POG OS http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Revi...GROReview.html & Agassi who was the first and only 1 of 2 male tennis players to ever achieve the career golden slam, should be ashamed of himself for playing with an OS.

Yes, he should, Especially since even with his big 107 sq. in. racquet Agassi couldn't beat Sampras with his tiny 85 sq. in. racquet in ANY of the many, many times they played each other at the US Open and at Wimbledon. That's pretty shameful.

[Hi I'm Ray]

Haha, proves my point. UCSF2012 = Break Point

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ray

Haha, proves my point. UCSF2012 = Break Point

Hmmm....then why would UCSF2012 constantly slam most of my posts?? The guy hates my views.

[MikeHitsHard93]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Hmmm....then why would UCSF2012 constantly slam most of my posts?? The guy hates my views.

You must be schizophrenic. Lol

[Broly4]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

I don't know anyone who claims that using a smaller headsize is "more prestigious", myself included. Most people who use smaller racquets use them because they either play better with them or they just like the feel of them or some other characteristic of them. Prestige never even enters the equation.

Prestige is what is at stake in the title of this tread.
The preference of a smaller head has to do with feel and game style, not so much with perfomance, no modern player (heavy topspin) could play better with an 85-90 racquet than with an 95-100 (all other specs being equal). On the other hand, if you have a classic game style, it's possible that you get not only better feel but also a better performance from a mid head size racquet.
Break Point saved.