do you think racquet head sizes are getting too big?
- Thread starter Laver777
- Start date
DeShaun
Banned
Increasing head sizes was reportedly aimed in part at encouraging more people to take up and stick with the sport, so if it succeeded at doing this, I think that's for the better. It has resulted in the use of strokes with much more angular and much less linear momentum, but I think it is highly contestable to say that this result has changed the quintessential athletic profiles of who succeeds and who does not in tennis, because the game fundamentally does not appear to have changed enough to have begun selecting any more narrowly for this or that type of athletic skill than it did before oversized rackets...it is still all about footwork and movement. But the pace has quickened due to the greater number of angles one needs to cover. So, footspeed is more of an essential asset now than it ever was before.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Racquet head sizes started getting too big as soon as the sport started moving away from "standard" 65 sq. in. wood racquets. :shock:
perhaps i should include im more inclined to smaller racquets. i myself play with a 90 sq inch racquet and i think thats plenty big. i even think i could probably go for an 85 inch
Agent Orynge
Professional
I don't think they're getting bigger so much as converging towards a particular size. You can thank Babolat for the trend of 100 square inch heads floating around the market, which have by and large replaced the 102s and 105s. Midplus racquets are also shifting from 95 or 98 towards 100.
Last edited:
I love my 90 square inch racquets. Heck, I even like playing with 68 sq. inch woodies. However, I cannot stand playing with tweeners like the Babolat. It isn't challenging to hit a good shot with one of those, unlike with a true players racquet. No skin off my nose if you like 'em, but keep them out of my bag.
As for getting more people to play, I'd rather have fewer people playing. Fewer people playing means fewer terrible people taking up court time. I don't care if local stores carry tennis stuff, I can order from TW. Introducing bigger racquets means more people will buy them and more can be charged for them. Good for the companies, NOT good for the game.
As for getting more people to play, I'd rather have fewer people playing. Fewer people playing means fewer terrible people taking up court time. I don't care if local stores carry tennis stuff, I can order from TW. Introducing bigger racquets means more people will buy them and more can be charged for them. Good for the companies, NOT good for the game.
Uncle Emmitt
Rookie
its all personal preference. answer to the ? is no. There not playing with big bubbas on tour but those type racquets are great for people who can enjoy this great sport who probably wouldn't w a 65 woodie or even an 85 pro staff.
TheOneHander
Professional
I think that it's helped people stay with the game a little bit longer. If more people take interest in the sport, more of them will stick around. So if it's helping people enjoy tennis, I'm all for it.
Fixed it for you. Unless you want to count Cincy, the real fifth slam.
I'd have to agree partially. There are less 95s, but there are more 98s- the 300 line from Dunlop, the ever-popular Radicals and Prestiges (98s in name only, but marketing matters), Pure and Aero Storms-MPs seem to be either 98 or 100.
:-|:-|:-|:-|
Why is it not good for the game? It may not be good for you, but I think the more people who can at least learn a little about the game, the better. If tennis becomes more popular, it means more exposure and most importantly, better media coverage for large events.
And who cares how good the people are? Everyone has to start somewhere in tennis, and they deserve just as much court time as someone who's worlds better than them. You can't kick people off because they're beginners. It's like a 5.5 saying to a 4.0, "off my court. You suck, and therefore I deserve it more than you do.
+1
Ignoring the woodie/small headsize argument, I agree with this post. If they help people have fun, who cares?
Rogael Naderer
Semi-Pro
Agassi retired in 2006...
I hope you were good ever since you first picked up your first racquet with your comment like that.
vsbabolat
G.O.A.T.
I don't think the move away from wood was a bad thing. But I think the move away from the standard head size really changed how the game is played.
proracketeer
Professional
1988. The year before the widebodies...
It's been proven that tennis is one of the greatest activities you can participate in. I don't see anything wrong with these "terrible people" playing. Sure I don't like to play with people who aren't that good and can't keep a rally going, but I love the idea of more people playing this great game regardless of ability!
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
Exactly. Although there is a clear trend which has been going on for a while towards 98 and 100 sq inch heads, which has probably brought the overall average up, but has also resulted in a real reduction in the number of OS offerings, especially at the "player's racket" level.
I remember when Prince frames, and also a lot of wilson frames, were only offered in 85-90, or 105-110 OS.
fewer people playing means fewer supporters for tennis courts. which means you won't have courts to play on anyway.
fewer people playing means that tw wouldn't exist in its current form. heck, perhaps if no one played tennis, tw wouldn't exist at all.
meowmix
Hall of Fame
Considering that there are fewer really big rackets out there... I'd say that head sizes are actually getting a little smaller. Gamma Big Bubba Tour was actually a fairly playable, not too stiff, relatively heavy, BIG 137sqcm stick. Don't see any more of those around, do you? The OS's are also tending a little more towards 107 and 105 than they are the 115's of a few years ago...
MasturB
Legend
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Cincinnati
TheOneHander
Professional
I counted 19 95" head size frames in the ATP top 50, and 19 100" in there too. The remaining few mainly used 98" frames with one notable exception using a 90". So the vast majority are using 95s or 100s.
Please note that I counted Radicals and Prestiges as 95s. If I didn't, there would be 7 95" users and 23 98"/97" users in the top 50.
Please note that I counted Radicals and Prestiges as 95s. If I didn't, there would be 7 95" users and 23 98"/97" users in the top 50.
Last edited:
retlod
Professional
Translation: I am awesome, and I could still be awesome using 1950's technology. I can't stand it when other people approach my awesomeness using newer technology, because I feel threatened. I will continue to subtly insult those who rely on advances in equipment instead of awesomeness like mine, which they don't have. Go ahead and like your tweeners. I'll stick with liking my awesomeness.
Of the top 4 mens players on the tour ,3 play with 100 sq inch rkts. If you can play like Rodger ie hit sweet spot in competitive play more than 80%of time then the smaller head will be of advantage as more manueverable. However the modern game is pace strange bounces because of spin and varied surfaces , all leading one to play better with a 100sq inch rkt. Old arguement on these brds going back to NOBADMOJO a teaching pro who favored a largr sweet sopt rkt for most of us brought lots of discussion /rancour to the brds, not trying to recreate that. Enjoy what you play best with
klementine
Hall of Fame
I understand this logic.....
But, I have a crazy opinion that people should start with smaller size heads... learn proper technique and mechanics and then move onto to larger...
Kind-of like guitar....
If you ever want to shred on an electric-guitar... with low-action on the fret-board... and floating tremelos and such... Most teachers will start you off on a classic-nylon string acoustic... which has much higher action... wider fret board and in general is more difficult to play.
Then once you've gotten decent on a classical guitar the transition to electric is so much more fluid and beneficial.
Mid plus racquets are typically designed for baseline bashers and all court players while mid size racquets are designed for serve and volleyers and all court players. 100 square inch head sizes are the most popular head size and the most versatile, really the only real pro who uses a mid is Roger Federer and he's switching to a 95 sq inch racquet later this year. A midsize racquet is a lot harder to use then say a 100 square inch racquet, it's a huge difference.
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
There's an article by Cross and co. concerning the inch that changed the game which shows that the modern topspin game simply could not have been developed due to the width of wooden racquets.
85 is probably the minimum necessary to play the modern game so it's no surprise that nearly everyone plays between 95 and 100.
85 is probably the minimum necessary to play the modern game so it's no surprise that nearly everyone plays between 95 and 100.
Funny you say this because despite my own advice I just went out and bought a 98 racquet, even though I'm really a beginner.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Can you say sixteen?
klementine
Hall of Fame
Funny... I just did the opposite.
After 3+ years of playing with a mid... I recently switched to 100sq.in. head.
My strokes haven't changed... but I made the move for more of an open pattern and versatility.
Flex and beam width are #1 & #2 (respectively) on my check-off list for a racquet.
Agassi and Chang played OS princes, and heads (104-110) during their careers. I don't think rackets above 100 give pros an advantage due to lack of control and maneuverability.
I like the research above showing pros playing 95-100 as I like to play in that range. I am no pro but feel this range has enough power and still maintains control. Last 3 rackets have been 98, 95, and 97. Even beginners can play in this range in my opinion.
I like the research above showing pros playing 95-100 as I like to play in that range. I am no pro but feel this range has enough power and still maintains control. Last 3 rackets have been 98, 95, and 97. Even beginners can play in this range in my opinion.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Better translation: "I am better than you and have more natural talent than you so, unlike you, I don't need a "crutch" to help me to hit a little fuzzy yellow ball."
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Only if you don't know how to drive through the ball or are just not a very good player.
And you don't know if Federer is switching. If he did switch, he should go back to his 85 because he actually played better with it. Check YouTube.
T
TennisandMusic
Guest
Better translation: "I am better than you and have more natural talent than you so, unlike you, I don't need a "crutch" to help me to hit a little fuzzy yellow ball."
That's a load of bull. I can play with a wooden racquet (it's what I started with and never had any problem hitting the sweet spot, even as a kid), but if you are good enough you can use modern racquets to GREAT effect. They are simply awesome.
If you're so talented then man up and play me. So goofy, and yet, so transparent.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
So why do you have trouble hitting the sweet spot with it now?
TheOneHander
Professional
I agree with the last sentence, but I must say-Murray uses a 95" PT57A with a custom drill pattern, IIRC. I know it's a mid plus Prestige.
However, I think for the average club player, the whole "modern game" argument holds less weight than it does on the tour. Even 5.0s aren't hitting HUGE spin and pace. Has the game changed? Yes. But does that mean that people who like mids can't play well? No.
I just compared the headsize difference between my YTPM and my PDRGT+. The only way the smaller headsize will hurt you is if you're shanking the crap out of the ball down by the throat. There isn't much of a difference.
I would have to say, if you're trying to learn how to tear it up on an electric as the goal you have in mind, it would make sense to learn on a harder instrument to make sure your fundamentals are solid. However, most people who pick up a tennis racquet don't do it because they aspire to a high level of play-it may be out of curiosity to see if they like it, or as a social thing with friends, or to get in shape. Therefore, using an OS or larger headed racquet would keep them in the game longer.
Another point is that electrics get more exposure than midsize tennis racquets in their respective markets. People who are just getting into tennis normally don't have access to mids, but people who are getting into guitar do have tons of access to electrics because the former isn't mainstream while the latter is. From that perspective, it'd be harder to get someone started off with a mid thn it would to have a new musician working towards playing electric.
I'd have to disagree with the part about what kind of players headsizes are designed for. Rafter used a pretty big head size racquet, with the TT Warrior MP being modeled after it, but Courier and Safin used mids (PS85 and Prestige). A bunch of the claycourters used mids as well-Thomas Muster being a notable one. I think sticks are designed with a certain player in mind, but it's not a be-all end-all.
Second of all, Fed isn't switching :shock:
And by headsize, there are an equal number of players using 100s and 95s in the top 50-19 each.
TheOneHander
Professional
So why do you have trouble hitting the sweet spot with it now?
When did he say that? Show me where he said that.
And yes, it takes a little more effort to make a mid work. But if a player is good enough to hit the sweetspot on one racquet, he can hit it on another.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Because he now uses a 100 sq. in. racquet with a huge sweetspot instead of a 65 to 85 sq. in. racquet. If you can consistently hit the sweetspot with a 65 sq. in. racquet, why do you need to play with a 100 sq. in. racquet that gets in the way more?
TheOneHander
Professional
Because he now uses a 100 sq. in. racquet with a huge sweetspot instead of a 65 to 85 sq. in. racquet. If you can consistently hit the sweetspot with a 65 sq. in. racquet, why do you need to play with a 100 sq. in. racquet that gets in the way more?
Prepare to be shocked.
He might actually like it more. He might actually play better with it. Because some people play better with bigger racquets regardless of ability.
And second of all, you never answered my question directly. You are merely inferring.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Why does he like the bigger racquet more if it offers him no advantages in hitting the sweetspot?
I did answer your question. I was asking HIM a question, not making a statement. :???:
TheOneHander
Professional
I asked you, "when did he say that? Show me where he said that". You responded to neither of those things.
And I do not know why he likes it more. Why not ask him?
Prince came out with the 110 sq in racket (or 107? depending on how you measure it) in 1975. Far fewer players play with oversize rackets than there used to be. 95 to 100 seems to be the best for most players now. I believe the control and spin you can get from stiffer poly stings allow a bigger head size - where you would get flyers off the stringbed with multis and gut hitting flatter. (Agassi used to use kevlar before using poly) Players hitting harder and flatter need a smaller headsize to retain control. For guys with old-style strokes, especially if they hit hard, a smaller head size is more beneficial. A larger head racket can take advantage of the spin poly strings provide. Slower courts, poly strings, and bigger head sizes all go together.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Say what? I was asking him a question. If he had already said something, there would be no need to ask him a question, would there? :???:
JediMindTrick
Hall of Fame
What are you talking about, Nole and Murray are using 95" racquets. 6 out of the top 10 use 95".
I don't think the racquets are getting bigger, what happens is that the range is getting very narrow. Vast majority of pros are using racquets between 95 and 100 sq in. Bigger than 100 and smaller than 95 are extremely rare. This is a very narrow range so it looks like the pros have found an optimum racquet size.
TW Professor
Administrator
The "Spin Window" button on the New TWU Racquet Finder will show how much difference a bigger headsize will make. The spin windown depends on headsize (width), frame thickness, and the swing parameters (especially swing angle, speed, and racquet tilt). The idea of Cross's article is that extra size allows a player to swing faster, steeper, or tilt the face more and thus get more spin, all the while presenting the same hitting surface to the ball.
To see this, here is an example from the Racquet Finder:
I clicked on the first row to open the analysis window and then on the "Spin Window" button to get this screen:
Then I chose the Wilson K-Six-One 90 as a comparison racquet to get this screen:
You see that the Spin Window of the Pure Storm Team GT is .49 inches bigger than the KSix-One Tour 90. I want to alter the stroke of this racquet such that the window will be the same (same amount of racquet face presented to the ball) and see how much difference in the spin this will make. Do this by changing the parameters in the input box (only the bigger racquet allows entry) until you make the spin windows as close to the same as you can. There are many, many combinations that will do this. I altered randomly as follows:
As you can see, I ended up with more than twice as much spin and a deeper, faster shot...all with the same safety factor. In other words, just a small difference in spin window will make a huge difference in spin potential. And it was a small increase in headsize that made this all possible.
