Should longer racquets be allowed?
- Thread starter Fugazi
- Start date
If it's more difficult to control, then it's a little silly to say it gives an advantage. Unless all players use exactly the same racquet, it will always be the case that someone's racquet may be better for serving, for example, than someone else's, or for returning, or whatever. It's not unfair since players can choose whatever they prefer.
Fugazi
Professional
I see your point El Diablo, it's not unfair since any player can choose to use a long body, and obviously you get the disadvantage of having less control, but it just introduces an unnecessary variation, a choice that people shouldn't have to make. It's an easy solution to get more power, and also an equalizer. I don't think that equalizers are a good thing.
JRstriker12
Hall of Fame
True, it's not like the good old days of tennis where your racket could be up to 32 inches in length
http://www.itftennis.com/technical/rules/history/racket.asp
Honestly, I don't think 1 or 2 inches in length really makes that much of a difference. I've never played anyone with a slightly longer racket and noticed much if any advantage. I've never played anyone and thought, "hey, they wouldn't have hit that winner/serve if his racket was 1 inch shorter."
floydcouncil
Professional
Funny!!! .....
How about a total wingspan idea, you got long arms?THen it's a short racket for you!
Tennis Dunce
Semi-Pro
I think it'd be more conducive for a taller a player the shorter the stick...like even a 26" junior stick (if you were 6'6" or something.
BobFL
Hall of Fame
Since I seem to keep losing to 5'6" players who are tough as nails, run like the wind, and bore me to death by hitting tons of balls and never missing, I propose we ban short players from the tennis courts, or at least handicap them with 28" long rackets so they actually try to hit winners instead of causing me to run back and forth along my baseline for hours to win ONE point.
Jeepers
Professional
They should be forced to wear stilts
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
To be fair, there IS a limit on length of racquet.
Plus, the beauty is we have a bit of choice. Players can use a 27", or a 27.5" (or whatever). Whichever suits their game.
I have tried a 27.5", and go back and forth. My forehand is better with a 27.5, my backhand is better with a 27". My flat serve is better with a 27.5", my spin serves are better with a 27". Net play is better with a 27". That said, NONE of the differences are dramatic.
SirGounder
Hall of Fame
In every sport there are different sizes for equipment. Different size baseball gloves/bats, width/length skis, etc. Then people choose what works best for them. People are free to use extended length racquets if they choose. If I play better with an extended length racquet and you play better with a standard then cool. Why not switch everybody to extended length racquets. It would be better for me.
Well, if we're going on the argument that a longer racquet gives an unfair advantage,
what about a player who is 5'11' playing someone who's 6'4".
If an additional half inch or so added to a racquet makes a difference, what about that taller player with an arm length difference of 6 inches? Also, I don't always have my hand on the same part of the handle for every shot. I choke up slightly for return of serves and especially for volleys. Back at the baseline I might hold the racquet with the butt cap in the middle of my palm if I have time to set up for a DTL shot with a little extra pop. We're only talking about maybe half inch variation in either direction from my normal hand position on the racquet, but I do it all the time.
what about a player who is 5'11' playing someone who's 6'4".
If an additional half inch or so added to a racquet makes a difference, what about that taller player with an arm length difference of 6 inches? Also, I don't always have my hand on the same part of the handle for every shot. I choke up slightly for return of serves and especially for volleys. Back at the baseline I might hold the racquet with the butt cap in the middle of my palm if I have time to set up for a DTL shot with a little extra pop. We're only talking about maybe half inch variation in either direction from my normal hand position on the racquet, but I do it all the time.
Last edited:
mp2002
Rookie
Taller players may have an advantage when it comes to reach, but there are a lot of trade offs. Low balls require tall guys to bend very low to maintain good form. This much knee bending and footwork requires a great amount of energy and can become quite tiresome. What i find in my own experience (I'm 6'4'') is that late in matches, balls struck low to ground end up in the middle of the net.
I don't know who has the advantage when it comes to overall court-coverage. Someone of average height may have much greater speed than someone in the mid six foot range. But then the tall guys can lunge and leap for a lot of shots that may look unreachable. Six of one half a dozen of the other i suppose.
I don't know who has the advantage when it comes to overall court-coverage. Someone of average height may have much greater speed than someone in the mid six foot range. But then the tall guys can lunge and leap for a lot of shots that may look unreachable. Six of one half a dozen of the other i suppose.
The Djoker
Semi-Pro
That logic doesn't make sense. Kids use small (lengthwise) racquets, adults (larger people than are kids) use a longer racquet, so wouldn't a large person (larger than an average adult) use an even longer racquet?
OldButGame
Hall of Fame
The fact that '27 in racquets predominate the market, and account for majority of sales implies that there is no real 'advantage' (or no big one) in extended length racquets.
If they WERE an advantage , 27 in would have long since become extinct.:neutral:
If they WERE an advantage , 27 in would have long since become extinct.:neutral:
stevewcosta
Professional
Fugazi...Fuhgettabout it! Long racquets are awful. In my opinion, they don't give any advantage. They may help very short people who need a bit of help in the reach department.
![[d]ragon](/data/avatars/m/26/26312.jpg?1574364787){kind=avatar}
[d]ragon
Hall of Fame
Longer racquets for reach is a total myth. Tell that to the many pro players who use extended frames and aren't short. And if you're hitting at the top of the stringbed, 1/2 or 1 inches isn't going to help you.
And it being worse for volleys is also a myth. Many top doubles players use extended frames.
The main advantage of using an extended frame is the leverage. The disadvantage is abit of mobility loss and a period of adjustment. But just like all other specs, it works for some people and not for others.
Tennis Dunce
Semi-Pro
the most important shot in tennis is the second serve
the second most important is the first serve
the third most important shot is the return of serve
and for all three the extended length is an asset and not a liability.
the second most important is the first serve
the third most important shot is the return of serve
and for all three the extended length is an asset and not a liability.
BobFL
Hall of Fame
Not necessarily. It could be a huge liability. It depends on who is holding an extended racquet.
Tennis Dunce
Semi-Pro
All things being equal.
BobFL
Hall of Fame
What things?
mp2002
Rookie
I don't know man. I've been using 27'' racquets my whole life. I don't think I'd have much of an advantage if I switched now. I know what you mean by all things being equal, but I've never sought out an extended length racquet to improve my game. I think you'd have to say it's a case to case basis.
I used to use the ChangOSExtended around 28".
Switched to TripleThreatOSExtended just longer than that, 28.5.
Now using 27" rackets, for the last 6 years.
The advantage of first serve speed and placement due to 1.5" is barely 5%.
Offset by the disadvantage of handily returning body shots and hip shots.
No advantage in return of serves.
No advantage in second serves.
I'm 5'11" and not very strong, so a stronger player might be able to wield the longer stick with control. I can't, so I went back to LMRadMids in '05.
Switched to TripleThreatOSExtended just longer than that, 28.5.
Now using 27" rackets, for the last 6 years.
The advantage of first serve speed and placement due to 1.5" is barely 5%.
Offset by the disadvantage of handily returning body shots and hip shots.
No advantage in return of serves.
No advantage in second serves.
I'm 5'11" and not very strong, so a stronger player might be able to wield the longer stick with control. I can't, so I went back to LMRadMids in '05.
JRstriker12
Hall of Fame
Meh... Demoed the PDR+ but bought the PDR standard.
Noticed a little more pop on the forehand, but the extra length totally threw off my timing with the serve.
As for return of serve, extended length could be a little more difficult on body serves and shots that kick into the body. Not by much, but no much of an overall advantage in other circumstances.
Fugazi
Professional
That's a natural advantage. I believe it's Ok to have these natural advantages. It's part of sports, of life. The bigger/stronger grizzly bears have more reproductive success than the others, and that's fine with me. If you're smaller, you need to develop other strengths. BTW I'm 5'11", so I'm not one of these giants that don't need more power.
Fugazi
Professional
Good point. I'm sure it ruined the game of a few players... I just don't think it was necessary to even make such racquets in the first place.
I'll admit that the headsize/strings argument is good though... Those factors can clearly provide an advantage, too.
Last edited:
Fugazi
Professional
It's an expression. It means that when you equalize all variables except racquet length, it will, on average, provide an advantage.
dominikk1985
Legend
I know there was some talk about the long bodies when chang started to use them.
What percentage of pros are using them? do rafa,rog,murray or djokovic use long bodies?
What percentage of pros are using them? do rafa,rog,murray or djokovic use long bodies?
i have a chang LB (28)
recently been playing the speedport black LB (27.5)
have gone recently to a LM Radical (27).
yes, there are some small advantages (differences really) to a LB racket, but i feel a standard can work just as well.
for example, in an oversize racket the sweetspot may be lower
than in a similar midsize racket. perhaps the extended length model will bring the sweetspot back to the same relative length, if you will..
recently been playing the speedport black LB (27.5)
have gone recently to a LM Radical (27).
yes, there are some small advantages (differences really) to a LB racket, but i feel a standard can work just as well.
for example, in an oversize racket the sweetspot may be lower
than in a similar midsize racket. perhaps the extended length model will bring the sweetspot back to the same relative length, if you will..
