90 square inch too small for modern game?

Pros using 90

Hi,
But if Pete used a pro staff 85 and was number 1 why
isnt there now an attacking player aside Federer that uses
a 90 or maybe an 85 that is in the top 10?
 
Ihatetennis said:
there is no data that can prove that i cant hit as much top spin

im pretty sure i can hit more topspin if i soley tried to hit topspin on my shots

and i played and comfortably returned 120+ mph serves from my coach with a n90

when i was 14 i used a k90 for 7 months without trouble


i can play with any racquet, but why would i hinder myself with outdated technology?
Click to expand...

You play with George Goldhoff? Do you play at RCI?
 
I think this thread has got amusingly off topic.

What was the question again....is a 90 square inch too small for modern game?

Simple answer I think......no, if you can play your best tennis with a 90 rather than a 95, 97, 98 or 100, then the 90 is the one to use.

Surely 'modern tennis' is the style of play you need to adopt in order to beat your opponent. When I say 'modern tennis'...what I mean is, the style and strategy that is required that day....that could be baseline rallying, SV, drop shots, slices.....all sorts.

Sometimes just hitting long baseline rallies isn't enough. So it's perhaps more about using the racquet that you can do everything the best with.
 
It's about the combination of power and spin. Borg had to sacrifice power to hit topspin lobs all day. Whereas with today's equipment it's possible to hit with a combination of power and spin that Borg could only dream of.
 
Povl Carstensen said:
No it is physics.
Click to expand...
That's why I said you can't change the laws of physics with technology.

Technology was the point of discussion, not physics.

To the original point, when it comes to tennis racquets, there is no "outdated technology" as asserted by Ihatetennis because there is no outdated physics that applies to tennis racquets. A bigger racquet is not "technology".
 
BreakPoint said:
That's why I said you can't change the laws of physics with technology.

Technology was the point of discussion, not physics.

To the original point, when it comes to tennis racquets, there is no "outdated technology" as asserted by Ihatetennis because there is no outdated physics that applies to tennis racquets. A bigger racquet is not "technology".
Click to expand...

lol no matter how you look at it, there is a lot of technology that goes into creating bigger racquets.

a pure drive isnt just a 100 in pro staff

it uses different technology



and my racquet is a 345gram 4 pt hl radical mp, its plenty easy to hit returns back solidly
 
rb120134 said:
Hi,
But if Pete used a pro staff 85 and was number 1 why
isnt there now an attacking player aside Federer that uses
a 90 or maybe an 85 that is in the top 10?
Click to expand...

Because players can now hit with topspin AND power, and also the court surfaces and balls were slowed down or made to bounce higher. They can rip balls cross court or down the line.
Also in consideration is the strokes and what racquets we grew up with.
The heavy powerful topspin that comes with bigger heads really took off only from the turn of the century in 2000 when those (properly coached) kids matured with (with modern windshield wiper, helicopter swings) strokes optimized midplus/large heads to hit strong spin and power, honed on mid-plus and large racquets. This is unlike the older players who had drastic changes in head size and insufficient coaching to utilize (say by hitting flatter because of we started with smaller racquet heads) the new technology.
Combined with polys, the newer players can just rip returns and passing shots to make most any attacking player reconsider all out attack.
Even the resurgent Federer (with the bigger racquet) doesn't attack with the regularity that he did in 2001 at Wimbledon for the same reason, he has obviously increased his serve and volley to about 23% of serves as of last year, compared to just 17 times in 2011.

No one is saying technology is changing the laws of physics. New technology takes advantage of new factors(poly strings, kevlar, graphene, new ways of molding graphite etc) which allow players to hit harder with more spin. That plus the more knowledgeable sport science (nutrition, exercise etc), means players have improved in the last 25-35 years. And that knowledge has trickled down to the recreational player even.
 
Sardines said:
Open strings patterns obviously will increase power and spin. Another way of adding power and spin is to hit with more racquet face tilt while swinging faster because the top spin you generate allows you hit harder and still keep it in. And a bigger head allows you more sweet spot and head tilt. Obviously up to a point too much head tilt will put the ball in the net.
Tennis is a game of inches and having a bigger sweet spot can give you that extra power/spin you need to improve your consistency by a few percent.
If you look at the the power zones of the RF97 with the PS90, you can see the RF97 has about 10 in sq more in the powerzone. With an additional ½ inch of width, you can hit with more topspin within the bigger power zone.

1QavOyI
1QutugP


As with you, I could return big serves with my K90 and PS85, especially with blocks and slice. However, I noticed even though I'm 4 years older and a tad slower, I could hit more aggressive returns with the bigger head more often. I'm not talking about 20-30% miraculous winners but maybe like maybe 4-5 more 1st serves returned deeper and faster per set. Combined with a slightly, more consistent (since I'm hitting in the sweet spot more often), easier swinging and bigger serve (heavier spin with the same pace), and similarly improved groundstrokes. Suddenly those little improvements resulted more points won on serve and returns.
This is why I went to be bigger head. Minute improvements which added up to better results overall. Ultimately, it also depends on the game style and the mental and physically ability to adjust and change.
Click to expand...

This is my whole argument clearly in that the Pro Game needs 90Sq only racquets.

This 5 sq inches makes a big difference as its the ball surface area, I know this clearly using a weighed up Ai98 or APD v1
versus my range of preferred 90 sq inch frames that vary from R-22, PS90 and many others.

if any can source them online pls watch comparisons using todays slo mo vids showing Fed hitting just outside the sweetspot on his strokes using the old 90 vs Nadal, Murray and Djokovic using 95-100, these comparos prove that Fed was at a disadvantage when returning serves, outstretched shotsm, volleying and on the run in todays game regardless of his age.

Hitting near the frame on the bigger racquets players are able to get the ball back in play or even winners while Feds shanked or missed the target severly hitting the same spots near the frame.

This 5-10 sq inches less would change the game, bringing more errors from the back of the court than guaranteed in balls.

Even Agassi has gone back to the relic POG with new poly for amazing tennis even with his old slow porky physique
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVNUUJ1wQv0

90sq inches just for Pros is a must or we will see Coric hackers on every spot in the top 100 very soon.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the catch. Obviously I can't subtract worth a square inch.:oops: As for the rest of your assertions, I'm not sure if it's facetious or serious, but personally, the effort to slow the game down has affected the way tennis is played in the elite level.
However, from a statistical point of view, counter punchers/grinders will usually make up a larger percentage of players because it's the easiest game to achieve early in the career. The standouts are the ones who add dimensions to their games, as Djokovic has by improving his serve, attacking game etc.
racquetreligion said:
-
This 5 sq inches makes a big difference as its the ball surface area
Click to expand...
 
Article about sampras

On the bottom there is a link posted about Pete Sampras talking about the modern game and about the evolution of racket technology.

http://www.rappler.com/sports/world...sampras-laments-modern-one-dimensional-tennis

One thing I found interesting was this quote:

"People say it's harder to do it with the technology. But I think technology would have helped me out

"If I used these racquets that Rafa Nadal is using, it's easier to serve, easier to volley. I could serve harder, longer. It would have been easier.

/////////////


I tend to agree on his point because, it goes both ways.
More modern rackets do have more power and they do help you out on most shots in the book. So why not get more help? Why can't it go both ways?

This is my opinion on the matter.
 
hyperion99 said:
On the bottom there is a link posted about Pete Sampras talking about the modern game and about the evolution of racket technology.

http://www.rappler.com/sports/world...sampras-laments-modern-one-dimensional-tennis

One thing I found interesting was this quote:

"People say it's harder to do it with the technology. But I think technology would have helped me out

"If I used these racquets that Rafa Nadal is using, it's easier to serve, easier to volley. I could serve harder, longer. It would have been easier.

/////////////


I tend to agree on his point because, it goes both ways.
More modern rackets do have more power and they do help you out on most shots in the book. So why not get more help? Why can't it go both ways?

This is my opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
Well, ask any of Sampras's opponents if he needed any help on his serve. :)
 
BreakPoint said:
Well, ask any of Sampras's opponents if he needed any help on his serve. :)
Click to expand...

Well ask Sampras if he thinks he could've been better

The beauty of the best tennis players as well as the curse

Is that they are never satisfied with anything, a 2% increase in power is something worth having
 
I had an injury on my hitting hand. I had not played for a month. Today was my first day back on the tennis courts and My hand was not fully healed.

First, I tried hitting with a Wilson PS85, then a Babolat Aeropro 100. Both were strung with Dunlop Black Widow 16 Poly string.

The Babolat was so much more comfortable to hit with than the Wilson PS85 :shock:
 
BreakPoint said:
And ask me if i could've won the lottery last week if I had only bought a ticket.

"could've" does not equal reality.
Click to expand...

What does equal reality is using history to make judgement and decisions

5 sq in adds 5%+ on room for error

In tennis 5% can do a lot

If you hit 5%more returns well then you would have a 5% greater chance to break

Federer switched and got back into top 2 in the world

Stats prove what your fallacies cant
 
BreakPoint said:
Just hit the ball 1/2 inch over net, like I do. :)

And if the ball bounces high and short (which is usually the case when your opponent hits massive topspin), just hit down on it. :)
Click to expand...

Hitting the ball .5 in over the net... You must lose a lot Huh

Try playing a ball that is still rising while going over the net that peaks at 8 feet and bounces 3 feet from the baseline with heavy topspin


pro players don't hit flat anymore, it's much harder to play a high bouncing ball than a bullet flying an inch over the net


I can redirect the bullet easy, I can't do much more with something pushing me back 6 feet
 
Mick said:
I had an injury on my hitting hand. I had not played for a month. Today was my first day back on the tennis courts and My hand was not fully healed.

First, I tried hitting with a Wilson PS85, then a Babolat Aeropro 100. Both were strung with Dunlop Black Widow 16 Poly string.

The Babolat was so much more comfortable to hit with than the Wilson PS85 :shock:
Click to expand...
You should never string a PS 85 with poly strings. Heck, even a stiffer multi doesn't work for me in it. I need ultra soft strings in the PS 85 to make it work for me.
 
Ihatetennis said:
What does equal reality is using history to make judgement and decisions

5 sq in adds 5%+ on room for error

In tennis 5% can do a lot

If you hit 5%more returns well then you would have a 5% greater chance to break

Federer switched and got back into top 2 in the world

Stats prove what your fallacies cant
Click to expand...
Um...Federer was #1 when he used the Tour 90. Heck, he was #1 in 2012, the last year he used the Tour 90 without back injury. He beat prime Djokovic at 2011 French Open and 2012 Wimbledon using his Tour 90. How has he done lately against Djokovic with his RF97A? :oops:

You only need 5% more room for error if you need it. If you don't need it, that 5% is wasted. If you shoot a bull's eye every time you shoot, do you need to make the bull's eye 5% bigger?
 
I'm sure they showed all these figures and arguments to Fed to get him to switch. Charts, graphs, computers don't always translate to the court. For example, I could have a motorcycle that has more power on a dyno, but is completely hard to ride, vs one that has less power on the dyno, but can turn faster lap times. A bigger, spinier, more powerful racquet may not always translate to games won on the court.
 
Last edited:
Ihatetennis said:
Hitting the ball .5 in over the net... You must lose a lot Huh

Try playing a ball that is still rising while going over the net that peaks at 8 feet and bounces 3 feet from the baseline with heavy topspin


pro players don't hit flat anymore, it's much harder to play a high bouncing ball than a bullet flying an inch over the net


I can redirect the bullet easy, I can't do much more with something pushing me back 6 feet
Click to expand...
Um....you can't even get to those bullets because they are traveling so fast from corner to corner. You can't redirect a ball you can't even touch. A ball that goes 8 feet over the net gives you way more time to run down. Did you miss the part in geometry class when they taught you that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? :)
 
BreakPoint said:
Um....you can't even get to those bullets because they are traveling so fast from corner to corner. You can't redirect a ball you can't even touch. A ball that goes 8 feet over the net gives you way more time to run down. Did you miss the part in geometry class when they taught you that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? :)
Click to expand...

You're a 4.5 not a 5.0+

I'm pretty sure you can't hit a ball with pin point accuracy

And while you're right, you must not have learned physics and newtons laws

A flat ball will bite against any court other than grass, so the momentum willbe killed. The ball will slow down after the bounce and if you don't hit it super deep, then you have a ball that slows down and is in the perfect swing zone for your opponent

Toospin however will make the ball bounce off the ground faster and the ball will keep more momentum
 
BreakPoint said:
Um....you can't even get to those bullets because they are traveling so fast from corner to corner. You can't redirect a ball you can't even touch. A ball that goes 8 feet over the net gives you way more time to run down. Did you miss the part in geometry class when they taught you that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? :)
Click to expand...


Today there was a documentary on nadal where many pros and former pros talked about the reason it's so hard to beat nadal is because of how hard it is to hit the heavy topsin, how it feels heavy on their racquets
 
BreakPoint said:
And you have proof that I'm "lying" that we don't know about?

And, yes, some players are better than others, or haven't you heard?
Click to expand...

Racquet technology can be given 5-20% of the credit in a win

Depends on the strokes though




Breakpoint you're a falling 4.5

I'm a rising 5.5, you can't compete good juniors, you're too old and I doubt you have the consistency with no net clearence
 
Ihatetennis said:
Racquet technology can be given 5-20% of the credit in a win
Click to expand...
If that's true, then don't you think something is seriously wrong with the sport? In no sport should the equipment be credited 5-20% with the win. Sports are supposed to be about the athlete, not the equipment. Can you imagine if Michael Phelps gave his speedo 5-20% of the credit for his gold medals? LOL

Ihatetennis said:
I'm a rising 5.5, you can't compete good juniors, you're too old and I doubt you have the consistency with no net clearence
Click to expand...
I guess you've never heard of one Jimmy Connors? You know, the guy who won 109 ATP titles - more than Federer, Nadal or Djokovic will ever win?
 
BreakPoint said:
Hasn't that been my point all along? That if you're good, you can still win with a Mid (or a wood racquet) because it's not about the racquet?
Click to expand...

The way you phrase this, "you can still win with" makes it sound like even you think it's a disadvantage. I don't know if this is what you're actually saying or not because this type of thing shifts with what point you're trying to make and who you're arguing with at the time.

Let's say you have identical twins who had identical coaching and as close to the same game as possible. If they play 100 sets with the same racquet, they end up pretty close to 50-50.

If you give one of them a graphite racquet and one a wood racquet, who would you say would be more likely to win?

What about if you gave one of them an 88sq inch and the other a 98?
 
FitzRoy said:
The way you phrase this, "you can still win with" makes it sound like even you think it's a disadvantage. I don't know if this is what you're actually saying or not because this type of thing shifts with what point you're trying to make and who you're arguing with at the time.

Let's say you have identical twins who had identical coaching and as close to the same game as possible. If they play 100 sets with the same racquet, they end up pretty close to 50-50.

If you give one of them a graphite racquet and one a wood racquet, who would you say would be more likely to win?

What about if you gave one of them an 88sq inch and the other a 98?
Click to expand...
It's only a "disadvantage" to those not good enough to use it. To those good enough to use it, it's not a disadvantage, it's a weapon.

Just like nunchuks may be a disadvantage to those not good enough to use them, but is a weapon in the hands of someone good enough to use them. :)


9Drn.jpg
 
BreakPoint said:
It's only a "disadvantage" to those not good enough to use it. To those good enough to use it, it's not a disadvantage, it's a weapon.

Just like nunchuks may be a disadvantage to those not good enough to use them, but is a weapon in the hands of someone good enough to use them. :)
Click to expand...

Are you saying that between the hypothetical twins in my scenario, you would expect them to be pretty even with one playing with a graphite racquet and one with wood?

One with mid, one with midplus?

Let's say, hypothetically, that in their learning of tennis, they alternated evenly between using classic wood racquets, graphite mids, and graphite midplus, so they are roughly equally comfortable with all three.
 
Ihatetennis said:
Racquet technology can be given 5-20% of the credit in a win

Depends on the strokes though




Breakpoint you're a falling 4.5

I'm a rising 5.5, you can't compete good juniors, you're too old and I doubt you have the consistency with no net clearence
Click to expand...

BP is a 4.5? Where did that come from? Also, aren't you a 2 star high school player?
 
Its easy to eliminate hackers you take inches away from their racquets and make them look at the ball again

90sq inches is the future of non hacker tennis
 
A couple times a year, I use my Jack Kramer Pro staff. 65 square in wood racquet.

I still use a SW forehand grip and my usual eastern BH grip. Continental for everything else. I feel it has less power, is harder to hit second serves, and the sweetspot is pretty small, but if you focus and hit cleanly, it's not bad. It was tougher to adjust to net cord shots and also the occasional bad bounce on clay, which I imagine, would be the hardest surface to use a wood racquet.

I didn't try to go for any crazy and powerful shots, just tried to make clean contact and mostly sliced backhands deep unless my opponent came to the net or I was going for a more aggressive shot or return.

Overall, I enjoyed hitting with hit. Played a set and a couple tiebreaks with it last week:
JK Kramer Prostaff on clay court
 
Yea, I did the same.
I played a couple of hits with the Jack Kramer and was surprised how good it felt.
Well, once my opponent threw heavy spin balls at me, I had a hard time, but simple rallying was pretty nice.
 
BreakPoint said:
If that's true, then don't you think something is seriously wrong with the sport? In no sport should the equipment be credited 5-20% with the win. Sports are supposed to be about the athlete, not the equipment. Can you imagine if Michael Phelps gave his speedo 5-20% of the credit for his gold medals? LOL
Click to expand...

Ooops, you stepped onto a landmine there noobs :twisted:

The Speedo LZR Racer suit debacle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer

The LZR Racer Suit (pronounced as 'laser') is a line of high-end swimsuits manufactured by Speedo using a high-technology swimwear fabric composed of woven elastane-nylon and polyurethane. The line was launched on 13 February 2008. The technology is patented in Italy, and protected worldwide.

Endorsed for competitive use by FINA prior to the Beijing Olympics, the suit reportedly can lower racing times for a competitor by 1.9 to 2.2 percent. This and other high performance body suits have since been banned from FINA competitions.

The suit was developed by Mectex, an Italian company, in association with the Australian Institute of Sport, with the help of Speedo's sponsored athletes. NASA's wind tunnel testing facilities and NASA fluid flow analysis software supported the design.

The line was launched on 13 February 2008, and marketed as "the world's fastest swimsuit." It was the focus of Speedo's campaign for the 2008 Summer Olympics, spearheaded by Michael Phelps of the United States. They created a holographic[clarification needed] video of Michael Phelps wearing the suit which was displayed in London, Sydney, New York, and Tokyo on the day of the suit's release. Michael Phelps exclaimed, "When I hit the water [in the LZR swimsuit], I feel like a rocket." Within a week of its launch, three world records were broken by swimmers wearing the suit.

The Beijing Olympics proved to be an unprecedented success for the LZR Racer, with 94% of all swimming races won in the suit. 98% of all medals won at the Beijing Olympics were won by swimmers wearing the suit. In total 23 out of the 25 world records broken, were achieved by swimmers competing in the LZR suit. As of 24 August 2009, 93 world records had been broken by swimmers wearing a LZR Racer, and 33 of the first 36 Olympic medals have been won wearing it.

* * * *

Just to prevent any misunderstanding from your part:

When the wiki text above says "lower racing times for a competitor by 1.9 to 2.2 percent" it is a measure comparative advantage between those who have the suit and those who have not. This was a major issue at the time, since this technology was only available to Speedo endorsers. As such, the suit's percentage wise contribution to the medals and records set at the time can be set way above 5-20%.
 
Last edited:
Surion said:
Yea, I did the same.
I played a couple of hits with the Jack Kramer and was surprised how good it felt.
Well, once my opponent threw heavy spin balls at me, I had a hard time, but simple rallying was pretty nice.
Click to expand...

Against someone that is at a lower level, the wood racquet is not a big disadvantage for me Against someone like the banned TW poster formerly known as maximagq, I would not use the JK Pro Staff.
 
My thoughts on the issue, coming from someone who's currently oscillating between the K90 and a larger Tecnifibre 315Ltd midplus.

I love the K90. It feels flexy, solid, and wonderful when you pure 3-4 balls in a row. Also great around the net and for shots where you don't have the full racquet head speed to generate momentum. I was content to play with it for the foreseeable future, but I ended up finding two 315 Ltd's being sold locally for a fantastic price and thought I'd take a gander, lead them up to 12oz, and check out what the hype is all about... And I do understand now what that classic K90 feel is like when it's ported over to a much lighter midplus that still has a ton of flex.

I have an easier time in extended points, I find it way easier to generate spin on the forehand and the second serve, and I don't find it too clubby after 1h of playing. I miss the weight around the net, but I am adding lead slowly here and there to reach a swingweight I'm comfortable with.

Essentially, I think the results speak for themselves. Those in this thread who say the 90 isn't a handicap, I think mathematics, physics, and pragmatic experience at both the 5.0+ level as well as the ATP tour disagree with you. Those who say it is necessary to play with a modern frame, I think the success of Federer in the modern game also disagrees. He played for years with a ~12.8oz, 350SW Tour 90 and had one of the nastiest serves & forehands on tour, in terms of variety, consistency, spin on both angles, etc etc...

The larger midplus frames make it less demanding on the athlete, no questions asked. But you're not going to bump from 4.0 to 5.0 just by switching from a Tour 90 or PS85 to a Pure Drive. At most, you will have an easier time playing against your fellow 4.0's. That being said, I don't know where I am going to go from here. My US K90s are 375g, 32.5 cm strung with one pro overgrip - and that means bye bye racquet head speed over the course of a three set match against a hard hitting 5.5 baseliner.

Moral of this long ramble is to know yourself and what you realistically can/cannot use. Over time I will likely switch to a lighter midplus, because let's be real here, none of us are Federer or Sampras, the last two players to win a boatload of slams with a classic oldschool 85-90.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
  • Locked
Is there any reason to pick 90 square inch over 95?
2 3
Replies
134
Views
14K
yescomeon
Y
T
Big Difference In Control From 110 to 100?
Replies
3
Views
746
LeeD
L
counter_puncher
The 98 Square Inch Racquet Club
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
Boblarryjrthird
B
R
Why did Federer stick with a 90 square inch for so long?
2
Replies
72
Views
11K
1HBH into the net
1
zill
90 squre inch vs 100 square inch with tension differences
Replies
6
Views
885
Hmgraphite1
Hmgraphite1
Back
Top