90 square inch too small for modern game?

[Cavvallini]

90-95 head sizes require YOU do all the work, not the racquet. The so-called "modern game" is basically poor/quirky stroke mechanics that new, light, big-head frames allow players to get away with when they're juniors, e.g. Kyrgios, Nadal, Sock et al.

Then there's Federer. He dominated the "modern game" for several years using a 90, low powered frame. He routinely returned Roddick's Babolat fueled 1st serve and routinely OUT-HIT Roddick and others like him, e.g. Gonzalez, from the baseline.

How was he able to do this?? MECHANICS. Federer might flick his wrist on contact but everything else about his stroke is textbook use of his entire body to generate pace. The small head size gave him the precision to match.

What changed in the game was not its "modern-ness". What changed was the strength and athleticism of a few players- Djoker, Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka sometimes - who were able to outhit Federer from most places on the court. With Nadal it all boiled down to FH-BH imbalance.

So, Federer went up in size and power because he either couldn't or didn't want to get physically stronger, the way Sampras did.

Sampras used the same 85'' 1980s tech frame from '90-2002. He routinely demolished oversized frame opponents, from Chang to Agassi to Muster (except on clay). The 1997 AO final saw Sampras' small 85'' frame dismantle Muster's 100 in arguably Sampras greatest display of all-court tennis.

So how did Pete do it? Mechanics, even with a less than textbook 1HBH. And physical strength. If you watch Sampras over the years you see how much bigger, stronger and more explosive he became, peaking in '99 and declining every year after that.

Now having said all that, YONEX makes at least one frame that plays with the classic solid, mid-size feel of past Wilson's and Heads, but with more surface area for greater spin.

As a KPS 88 user, I can tell you spin is not a problem, especially with lead tape applied at 10 and 2, to expand the sweet spot. RHS comes from you becoming stronger, not bulkier, but stronger in endurance and explosiveness. Core work is very important for tennis, as well as shoulders for a 1HBH. Obviously leg strength and endurance are the foundation for everything.

 

[Cavvallini]

And I'll add, physical strength in tennis is a delicate maneuver because tennis is fundamentally an endurance, balance, agility sport, so more muscle does not necessarily mean BETTER.

Look at Andy Murray this year against Djoker in Oz and Miami. Murray is physically more muscled than he's ever been. He's also heavier, slower and less agile than he's ever been. In both matches, the lighter, wiry Djoker basically broke Murray down PHYSICALLY, then Murray mentally checked out- like body blows from a boxer leading to a KO upper-cut or left-hook.

Another example is Serena Williams at 20 compared to 28. Contrary to popular opinion on these boards, she's NOT fat. She's just considerably more muscular now than she was 10 years ago, and considerably less AGILE.

Federer is an interesting example as well because he definitely became stronger and more muscled but it was always very balanced, which is why he's still playing at such a high level now.

So be mindful with weight-training. Too much is actually worse than not-enough, in tennis.

 

[LapsedNoob]

But still, pros just don't use them anymore. That tells you what you need to know about their application at high levels.

 

[struggle]

I gather that when people think of a 90in vs a 95 or 97in
racket, they think the racket is 5-7 inches wider.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

I gather that when people think of a 90in vs a 95 or 97in
racket, they think the racket is 5-7 inches wider.

It doesn't need to be that much wider to make a big difference in sweet spot size, comfort and stability. Just check the twistweights of rackets of different sizes. In a similar weight class, the larger racket is invariably more stable with a higher twist weight.

 

[BreakPoint]

"90 square inch too small for modern game?"

Yes, if you wanna win.

You mean: Yes, if you're not a good player.

 

[BreakPoint]

Honestly the best option right now is the RF97 - It is a player's racket designed for the modern game.

Actually, IMO, the RF97A is a modern racquet designed for the modern game - like so many others are.

 

[BreakPoint]

Why hulking around a 360g monster, while the PS97 is there?

Nah....the RF97A is too light (even at 360g) and needs lead tape. :shock:

 

[BreakPoint]

But when I am able to hit the center of the PS 90 the feel is incredible pure.

Yup, and feel is the name of the game and priority one.

 

[BreakPoint]

It's just sheer ignorance to call smaller rackets more stable.
That is Breakpoint material.

If I were silly enough to be using a PS85, I'd need to weight it to about 400 grams to make it as stable as my Prince Tour 95 at 360 grams. This is purely because of the smaller racket's inherent lesser stability.

Your experience does not match that of almost everyone who plays with Mids. Almost everyone who plays with Mids touts how much more stable they are then most larger frames. I've played with many hundreds of different Mids, MP's and OS's and the Mids are definitely more stable.

 

[BreakPoint]

Sampras used the same 85'' 1980s tech frame from '90-2002. He routinely demolished oversized frame opponents, from Chang to Agassi to Muster (except on clay). The 1997 AO final saw Sampras' small 85'' frame dismantle Muster's 100 in arguably Sampras greatest display of all-court tennis.

1. Actually, Sampras started using the PS 85 around 1987 or so and he used a Donnay 85 sq. in. clone of the PS 85 for a few years before that.

2. Sampras actually never lost to Muster on clay. He beat Muster at the 1991 French Open.

3. You mean against Moya (not Muster) at the 1997 Aus Open.

 

[BreakPoint]

But still, pros just don't use them anymore. That tells you what you need to know about their application at high levels.

But how many of us here play at those "high levels"?

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

You mean: Yes, if you're not a good player.

So only bad players try to maximise their potential. Right. The entire ATP and WTA are hopeless hacks, unlike Breakpoint who plays with a PS 85.

Your experience does not match that of almost everyone who plays with Mids. Almost everyone who plays with Mids touts how much more stable they are then most larger frames. I've played with many hundreds of different Mids, MP's and OS's and the Mids are definitely more stable.

Oh the powers of self-delusion.
If they weren't delusional idiots, they wouldn't be playing with useless rackets.

 

[LapsedNoob]

But how many of us here play at those "high levels"?

We don't but who is to say OP isn't aiming for that? Like most talented young players he is probably not aiming for merely aging rec player status.

 

[HRB]

Let's keep it simple. You can play the "modern game" with WHATEVER works for YOU.

However, why do you think over 90% of the Pros and over 90% of the new models on the market are over 93 square inches? Conspiracy? Racquet manufacturers keeping us from what works best? NO

Demand determines the supply...so very apparent. Virtually no one is opting for a spec below 93 square inches anymore.

People use what gives them success (or sadly what gives Pro's success), and that clearly isn't a mid anymore for the majority.

If it works for you then no need to join the crowd, if you are struggling then why not see what all the fuss is about? Worst case scenario you go back, best case you improve.

 

[rb120134]

Hi,
I have always bought rackets without trying them,
this applies to both the pure drive and pro staff 90.
When I had the pure drive, I wanted another racket,
I have a slight preference for heavier rackets, I am also a
huge Federer fan. So the pro staff 90 came quickly in sight.
I am always really selective in a bit of weird way. Last time
a friend and I switched racket, he had a Babolat aeropro drive.
Since Nadal is a big rival of Federer i was not to keen on using it.
When I used the Babolat for some reason it feels so wrong, it is like a
religion. Wether I play better with it or not, it is not satisfying me. The
feeling when I used the Babolat is weird but really strong. When I use the pro
staff 90 it is quite satisfying just because my favorite pro uses/used it, if I can do
well with the pro staff 90 that is like 100% satisfaction. But am I stupid or
just stubborn?

 

[rb120134]

In my mind I have created a system to select rackets,
for instance I wouldn't want to play with Djokovic or Nadal rackets
just for the fact I am not their biggest fan. On the other hand
i might give the Yonex Vcore tour 330 gram a go because I find
Wawrinka a really good player and the racket is heavy with a big
head size. But still would prefer a racket that Federer used
or in a worst case scenario a Wilson racket.
I know I sound like a fool but this is just my feeling.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Hi,
I have always bought rackets without trying them,
this applies to both the pure drive and pro staff 90.
When I had the pure drive, I wanted another racket,
I have a slight preference for heavier rackets, I am also a
huge Federer fan. So the pro staff 90 came quickly in sight.
I am always really selective in a bit of weird way. Last time
a friend and I switched racket, he had a Babolat aeropro drive.
Since Nadal is a big rival of Federer i was not to keen on using it.
When I used the Babolat for some reason it feels so wrong, it is like a
religion. Wether I play better with it or not, it is not satisfying me. The
feeling when I used the Babolat is weird but really strong. When I use the pro
staff 90 it is quite satisfying just because my favorite pro uses/used it, if I can do
well with the pro staff 90 that is like 100% satisfaction. But am I stupid or
just stubborn?

To each his own. If you have fun and enjoy playing that is the most important.

 

[MisterP]

You should be able to find a setup using the plethora of modern technology at our disposal to get most of the control and feel you get from a 90 sq in frame while also getting modern levels of spin, power and forgiveness.

 

[coolschreiber]

I love hitting with my 90's for fun, especially my K90s and prestige mids. If you're very fit you could even play competitively at rec level with it, bunch of guys at my club do. But if I played for a living, I'd never play with a mid, its too demanding.

 

[BreakPoint]

So only bad players try to maximise their potential. Right. The entire ATP and WTA are hopeless hacks, unlike Breakpoint who plays with a PS 85.

By definition, if you're "better" then you don't need to use something that's "easier" to play with. You only need something "easier" to play with because you lack the superior skills to play with something not as easy to play with.

Oh the powers of self-delusion.
If they weren't delusional idiots, they wouldn't be playing with useless rackets.

Yes, everyone who plays tennis is "delusional". I've never met anyone who hit with a PS 85 or Tour 90 who said it was less stable than the MP racquet they were using.

 

[SpinToWin]

I recently tried the PS97LS.

Was it easier to play with than my PS 90? Yes.

Did I play better than with my PS90? No.

Ease of play does not imply level of play.

People glorify modern equipment, but it's the archer and not the bow, it's just that the bow should fit the archer, and if modern equipment fits your game, great! But if more classic racquets fit your game, go for it and don't hesitate because of what some people say.

Every racquet has its appeal. Every players has different needs. There is no inferior racquet really (when we consider racquets from more recent years), so just choose whatever works best and don't listen to what some know-it-all dweebs on the internet say.

 

[ChicagoJack]

Every racquet has its appeal. Every players has different needs. There is no inferior racquet really (when we consider racquets from more recent years), so just choose whatever works best and don't listen to what some know-it-all dweebs on the internet say.

me thinks this wins the interwebs.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

So only bad players try to maximise their potential. Right. The entire ATP and WTA are hopeless hacks

You only need something "easier" to play with because you lack the superior skills to play with something not as easy to play with.

Yes the ATP and WTA are lacking skills.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

By definition, if you're "better" then you don't need to use something that's "easier" to play with. You only need something "easier" to play with because you lack the superior skills to play with something not as easy to play with.


Yes, everyone who plays tennis is "delusional". I've never met anyone who hit with a PS 85 or Tour 90 who said it was less stable than the MP racquet they were using.

Hahh it does turn out that after all, the entire ATP and WTA lack tennis skills and that's why they try to maximise their potential. Idiot.

As for the comment on stability, you can say whatever you like, the numbers don't lie. Twist weight equals stability. All else is just hot air coming out of your dogmatic mouth.

 

[JLyon]

busted out my AG100's yesterday and played the best I have in a while while using the Midplus Rackets, it is all personal preference in the end

 

[GatorTennis]

I think whatever you have confidence in should be fine. I've played with a Prince 90 or 92 or whatever the size on theirs was and I've played with 100sq in racquets. When I played a lot, I used the midsize and had a ton of success, but I only played doubles.

Currently, I don't play as much, and I find myself at the baseline more. So I switched to a modern frame. I think most people would agree that this is a pretty safe rule of thumb. If you are a baseliner, you would likely be better served with a modern racquet. Back in the day, Agassi used OS racquets.

I know an older player who was a 4.5 not too long ago and he played with an OS and he would only S&V and play doubles. He created some ridiculous angles with that frame.

Basically, I find it hard to really argue with many out there. It's such a subjective issue.

 

[Cavvallini]

1. Actually, Sampras started using the PS 85 around 1987 or so and he used a Donnay 85 sq. in. clone of the PS 85 for a few years before that.

2. Sampras actually never lost to Muster on clay. He beat Muster at the 1991 French Open.

3. You mean against Moya (not Muster) at the 1997 Aus Open.

BP, thanks for the detailed addendum. I completely forgot about him beating Muster at RG. He beat Muster and Moya in '97 Oz, SF and F. There's also another video of him vs Muster from '97 but later in the year in Paris and Pete was absolutely destroying the ball and Muster, esp. in the 1st, which he won 6-1. He probably got bored and dropped the 2nd then took the 3rd 6-2. This match, esp. the 1st set was absolutely one of the greatest exhibitions of all-court tennis outside of a Slam- ever. But then again Pete had a few more like this in '97, so it's hard to rank.

Granted, he's using natural gut and a non-windshield wiper forehand but he absolutely dictated Muster's ball back to him over and over, from both wings, baseline, serve, return, volleys.....everything.


I say this so the OP can take a look around and see what the possibilities are/were.

 

[Cavvallini]

Actually Pete had some kind of injury in the 2nd set in that Muster Paris match.....

 

[BreakPoint]

Yes the ATP and WTA are lacking skills.

Yes, because if they REALLY had superior skills, they should be able to beat everyone with a 65 sq. in. wood racquet. Since they don't possess these "superior skills", they need a racquet which does more of the work for them, like an APD or PD.

There's a reason why people say that - "Federer can beat most recreational players with a frying pan." It's to illustrate how much superior his tennis skills are than that of most recreational players. In fact, didn't Roddick ACTUALLY beat a recreational player with a frying pan once? :shock:

 

[BreakPoint]

Hahh it does turn out that after all, the entire ATP and WTA lack tennis skills and that's why they try to maximise their potential. Idiot.

As for the comment on stability, you can say whatever you like, the numbers don't lie. Twist weight equals stability. All else is just hot air coming out of your dogmatic mouth.

A 10.0 player would be able to beat a 7.0 pro with a wood racquet. The 7.0 pros are not as good as the 10.0 players so they have to use big, powerful modern racquets to compensate for their lack of superior 10.0 skills.

You mean like swingweight is supposed to mean how heavy a racquet swings and stiffness is supposed to mean how stiff a racquet plays? Yet, in actual play, a high swingweight racquet can swing light and a high stiffness racquet can feel flexible. Numbers measured in a lab using a fixed racquet and no human hitting the ball mean nothing. What actually matters is actual humans playing actual tennis out on an actual tennis court. That's why no one who has ever hit with a PS 85 or Tour 90 or KPS 88 has come away complaining how unstable those frames are. It's quite the opposite - they gush over their stability. That's also why people have to add so much lead tape to these bigger racquets in order to try and make them more stable. Then they find with all that added weight, these big racquets become unwieldy and hard to maneuver. After having hit with literally many hundreds of different racquets of all sizes - almost all Mids are more stable than most MPs and OSs in stock form.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

Yes, because if they REALLY had superior skills, they should be able to beat everyone with a 65 sq. in. wood racquet. Since they don't possess these "superior skills", they need a racquet which does more of the work for them, like an APD or PD.

There's a reason why people say that - "Federer can beat most recreational players with a frying pan." It's to illustrate how much superior his tennis skills are than that of most recreational players. In fact, didn't Roddick ACTUALLY beat a recreational player with a frying pan once? :shock:

But the point is that Federer doesn't play with a frying pan. Why? Because everyone who wants to win tries to get the most possible help from his equipment. EVERYONE, regardless of skill level. Otherwise they'd be handicapping themselves, which is plain stupidity. Best left for people like you who have no interest in competing.

A 10.0 player would be able to beat a 7.0 pro with a wood racquet. The 7.0 pros are not as good as the 10.0 players so they have to use big, powerful modern racquets to compensate for their lack of superior 10.0 skills.

10.0 players also use modern rackets. I would triple bagel you with a PS85, but I choose to play with a Prince Tour 95 because unfortunately not all my opponents are ******s like you.

You mean like swingweight is supposed to mean how heavy a racquet swings and stiffness is supposed to mean how stiff a racquet plays? Yet, in actual play, a high swingweight racquet can swing light and a high stiffness racquet can feel flexible. Numbers measured in a lab using a fixed racquet and no human hitting the ball mean nothing.

I've heard it all now. The numbers correspond very well with real-life experience and common sense. Wider racket - more weight on the perimeters - higher twistweight - greater stability. Simple.

That's why no one who has ever hit with a PS 85 or Tour 90 or KPS 88 has come away complaining how unstable those frames are. It's quite the opposite - they gush over their stability. That's also why people have to add so much lead tape to these bigger racquets in order to try and make them more stable. Then they find with all that added weight, these big racquets become unwieldy and hard to maneuver. After having hit with literally many hundreds of different racquets of all sizes - almost all Mids are more stable than most MPs and OSs in stock form.

We've been through this before but you didn't learn your lesson. In a given weight class, a larger racket is almost always more stable than a smaller one. You'd better learn this sentence by heart, to avoid making a complete fool of yourself again.
There are exceptions like the Babolat PSLTD GT, which is quite large at 95 in but has terrible weight distribution and is very unstable despite its decent overall weight. And nobody plays with that racket for that very reason.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Yes, because if they REALLY had superior skills, they should be able to beat everyone with a 65 sq. in. wood racquet. Since they don't possess these "superior skills", they need a racquet which does more of the work for them, like an APD or PD.

There's a reason why people say that - "Federer can beat most recreational players with a frying pan." It's to illustrate how much superior his tennis skills are than that of most recreational players. In fact, didn't Roddick ACTUALLY beat a recreational player with a frying pan once? :shock:

And Federer changed to a bigger racket.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

almost all Mids are more stable than most MPs and OSs in stock form.

Because most of them are heavier in stock form. I think we have been over this.

 

[BreakPoint]

And Federer changed to a bigger racket.

Federer is not a 10.0 player. He's only a lowly 7.0 player. If he were a 10.0 player, he could switch to a wood racquet and still win Slams. :shock:

 

[BreakPoint]

Because most of them are heavier in stock form. I think we have been over this.

Exactly! So to claim that bigger racquets are more stable than smaller racquets is misleading because hardly any of them exist.

Go to your pro shop and get a demo of a Tour 90 and just about any 95-105 sq. in. racquet and you'll find the Tour 90 to be more stable.

 

[BreakPoint]

But the point is that Federer doesn't play with a frying pan.

Yet, Federer could beat YOU with a frying pan. Why? Because he possesses much superior tennis skills than you do.

10.0 players also use modern rackets. I would triple bagel you with a PS85, but I choose to play with a Prince Tour 95 because unfortunately not all my opponents are ******s like you.

So you just admitted that if you were REALLY good, you'd be able to triple-bagel anyone with a PS 85. The fact that you can't but have to use something bigger in order to just win proves that you are NOT "really good".

I've heard it all now. The numbers correspond very well with real-life experience and common sense. Wider racket - more weight on the perimeters - higher twistweight - greater stability. Simple.

How does a wider racquet give you more weight on the perimeters if it's hollow and the beam weighs even less?

We've been through this before but you didn't learn your lesson. In a given weight class, a larger racket is almost always more stable than a smaller one. You'd better learn this sentence by heart, to avoid making a complete fool of yourself again.

And how many big racquet weigh as much as as a KPS88 in stock form? They make bigger racquets lighter for a reason - they become difficult to swing and maneuver if you make them heavy. That's why the heads of most big racquets flutter and twist when you hit off-center. That never happens with a PS 85 nor Tour 90 nor KPS88.

 

[smalahove]

And Federer changed to a bigger racket.

The difference between the two frames is staggering.
The RF97A is a monster. It strongarms the Pure Drive Roddick.
After playing it for a while, I am amazed Fed took such a leap.

Just look at the power zones:

PS 90:

RF97A:

I grew up with mids. I love the feel and looks of my Graphite Pro 90, which I still have two frames from my youth. Most beautiful Prince ever.

But for competition in the big leagues, the mids are dead.

 

[Nevarin]

So you just admitted that if you were REALLY good, you'd be able to triple-bagel anyone with a PS 85. The fact that you can't but have to use something bigger in order to just win proves that you are NOT "really good".

And how many big racquet weigh as much as as a KPS88 in stock form? They make bigger racquets lighter for a reason - they become difficult to swing and maneuver if you make them heavy. That's why the heads of most big racquets flutter and twist when you hit off-center. That never happens with a PS 85 nor Tour 90 nor KPS88.

Wtf, dude. He clearly said he would triple bagel YOU, never that he would do so against everyone else. YOU =/= EVERYONE.

Furthermore it is totally logical that if a big racket is light its not as stable as the average mid, since they are heavier. if you create a 100sq racket with the same weight distribution + weight than one with a 85sq the bigger one will be more stable, but less maneuverable. No one said light and bigger rackets are generally more stable, obviously stability is a function of mainly weight and weight distribution, then maybe head size, but overall weight is more important. You are just arguing the obvious. Are you bored?

I love small, classic rackets, but what you are doing is trying to bend the laws of physics to fit your view on rackets. Furthermore, whoever beats you with a bigger racket is still the better player. The player who wins was better in that match. Period. Never heard Federer complain in defeat that his opponent was using a bigger racket. Why so? Because thats ridiculous.

What is your playing level btw? I am not going to mock you, i am just interested what leads you to your opinion.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

It's the most futile mission on the internet to try and talk sense into this guy.

Nobody that matters plays with stock light rackets. Everybody knows you need weight. But in a given weight class, larger rackets are usually more stable. Not talking about manoevrability or feel or heightened religious experience, just stability. That is the single reason players don't use 85 in today's game.

 

[LapsedNoob]

Wtf, dude. He clearly said he would triple bagel YOU, never that he would do so against everyone else. YOU =/= EVERYONE.

Furthermore it is totally logical that if a big racket is light its not as stable as the average mid, since they are heavier. if you create a 100sq racket with the same weight distribution + weight than one with a 85sq the bigger one will be more stable, but less maneuverable. No one said light and bigger rackets are generally more stable, obviously stability is a function of mainly weight and weight distribution, then maybe head size, but overall weight is more important. You are just arguing the obvious. Are you bored?

I love small, classic rackets, but what you are doing is trying to bend the laws of physics to fit your view on rackets. Furthermore, whoever beats you with a bigger racket is still the better player. The player who wins was better in that match. Period. Never heard Federer complain in defeat that his opponent was using a bigger racket. Why so? Because thats ridiculous.

What is your playing level btw? I am not going to mock you, i am just interested what leads you to your opinion.

And now you know why the guy with the most posts it usually ignored by everyone else.

 

[BreakPoint]

It's the most futile mission on the internet to try and talk sense into this guy.

Nobody that matters plays with stock light rackets. Everybody knows you need weight. But in a given weight class, larger rackets are usually more stable. Not talking about manoevrability or feel or heightened religious experience, just stability. That is the single reason players don't use 85 in today's game.

Really? Lack of stability is the "single reason" that players don't use the PS 85 anymore? Not lack of power? Not lack of margin of error? Not lack of a big sweetspot? Not lack of stringbed surface area for spin? Not lack of light weight for modern loopy strokes? Not lack of forgiveness?

The PS 85 is still one of the most stable racquets available today, regardless of vintage.

If "everybody knows you need weight", then how come the racquet manufacturers don't know this but continue to make almost all of their racquets way too light? Haven't they figured this out by now? The answer is that big racquets have to be light or else they become too hard to maneuver. Thus, in the real world (one in which most tennis players have never even heard of lead tape), bigger racquets are less stable than smaller racquets because bigger racquets that weigh as much as a KPS88 generally don't exist. Heck, my local pro shop doesn't even sell lead tape.

 

[BreakPoint]

Wtf, dude. He clearly said he would triple bagel YOU, never that he would do so against everyone else. YOU =/= EVERYONE.

Furthermore it is totally logical that if a big racket is light its not as stable as the average mid, since they are heavier. if you create a 100sq racket with the same weight distribution + weight than one with a 85sq the bigger one will be more stable, but less maneuverable. No one said light and bigger rackets are generally more stable, obviously stability is a function of mainly weight and weight distribution, then maybe head size, but overall weight is more important. You are just arguing the obvious. Are you bored?

I love small, classic rackets, but what you are doing is trying to bend the laws of physics to fit your view on rackets. Furthermore, whoever beats you with a bigger racket is still the better player. The player who wins was better in that match. Period. Never heard Federer complain in defeat that his opponent was using a bigger racket. Why so? Because thats ridiculous.

What is your playing level btw? I am not going to mock you, i am just interested what leads you to your opinion.

So he can triple-bagel me with a PS 85 but would lose to all those that are worse than me? That makes a whole lot of sense, especially since he's never played me before so has no idea of my skill level.

Again, if he was REALLY good, he should be able to triple-bagel not only me with a PS 85 but everyone else that he plays with. Since he can't, he's obviously not as good as he thinks he is but needs more help from his bigger racquet.

For example, Federer would triple-bagel everyone Attila plays with using a PS 85. Why? Because Federer is REALLY good! Federer doesn't need a bigger racquet to triple-bagel everyone Attila plays with. Can't say the same for Attila, thus he NEEDS the bigger racquet.

Attila is arguing about racquets that don't exist. Can you name twenty different modern 95 sq. in. or bigger racquets than weigh over 12.7 oz.? Add lead tape you say? You can also add tape to smaller racquets as well. So given the same amount of lead tape added (for fairness and consistency), the smaller racquet will still be more stable.

 

[BreakPoint]

And now you know why the guy with the most posts it usually ignored by everyone else.

So somehow your own personal opinion is tantamount to the opinions of "everyone else"? :???:

 

[Nevarin]

So he can triple-bagel me with a PS 85 but would lose to all those that are worse than me? That makes a whole lot of sense, especially since he's never played me before so has no idea of my skill level.

Again, if he was REALLY good, he should be able to triple-bagel not only me with a PS 85 but everyone else that he plays with. Since he can't, he's obviously not as good as he thinks he is but needs more help from his bigger racquet.

For example, Federer would triple-bagel everyone Attila plays with using a PS 85. Why? Because Federer is REALLY good! Federer doesn't need a bigger racquet to triple-bagel everyone Attila plays with. Can't say the same for Attila, thus he NEEDS the bigger racquet.

Attila is arguing about racquets that don't exist. Can you name twenty different modern 95 sq. in. or bigger racquets than weigh over 12.7 oz.? Add lead tape you say? You can also add tape to smaller racquets as well. So given the same amount of lead tape added (for fairness and consistency), the smaller racquet will still be more stable.

First of all, he didnt say anything about opponents worse than you. If you read exactly what he said, he meant that not all his opponents are *******-something like you, aka a probably relativly rude way to tell you he thinks your skill level worse than his or his peers skill level.

Second, just because someone talks about rackets that do not exist in stock form, doesn't mean that he talked about big rackets in general being more stable, simply because of their head size.

Why a smaller racket with lead tape is your comeback argument, i cannot understand. in reality, you compair to rackets based of their real life specs. If you want to find out if headsize makes a difference you rule out everything else besides headsize. In your experiment the bigger rackets needs weight to be at the small rackets specs, but for fairness we had lead tape to the smaller racket, making them unequal in mass again, which we wanted to rule out in order to find what headsize actually means for stability.
your experiment basiclly has more to do what mass does to stability than headsize, which we dont care about right now since we already agreed that mass is the bigger factor. We want to rule out mass, we add lead tape to the bigger racket,but not to the smaller frame make them have the same mass and if possible weight distribution, so we can see how stability depends on the headsize.

if the same racket with a 100sq or with a 90sq got equal weight distribution, the bigger one should be more stable. think moment of inertia. thats why they feel more sluggish aswell. Sluggishness basically gives you stability, if you can move it the same manner. A sluggish racket means it is resisting other forces, like off-center hits, in a better fashion. Is that not stability?

your question for 20 modern rackets that meet those specs is weird aswell. if you dont want to talk about every iteration of some racket, you would have a hard time finding 20 different racket of any type. Thats a rather lame arguement as it has nothing to do with real life since in reality leadtape is available to put on any frame. Even if you lead up for mid to 5kg, i could still lead up any 110sq racket to 5kg. Bigger racket will still be more stable, but i guess thats dimishing returns at that weight

 

[proracketeer]

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Exactly! So to claim that bigger racquets are more stable than smaller racquets is misleading because hardly any of them exist.

Go to your pro shop and get a demo of a Tour 90 and just about any 95-105 sq. in. racquet and you'll find the Tour 90 to be more stable.

But other things equal, bigger is more stable.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Federer is not a 10.0 player. He's only a lowly 7.0 player. If he were a 10.0 player, he could switch to a wood racquet and still win Slams. :shock:

Relevant knowledge, fascinating, thank you.

 

[Surion]

BreakPoint is such a ******, just ignore his crap.

 

[max]

I'm missing how a larger frame of equal weight to a smaller frame, is somehow MORE stable.