LapsedNoob
Professional
If only you knew.
90 square inch too small for modern game?
- Thread starter rb120134
- Start date
If only you knew.
oble
Hall of Fame
:lol: he absolutely baffles me..
Rock Strongo
Legend
I don't understand why this is even allowed. But apparently, we're all terrible players because one person says so.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
But they never are equal. How many stock 98 sq. in. or bigger racquets have you ever played with that are more stable than say, a KPS88?
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Not if the walls of the beam of the larger racquet are thin and the beam is hollow so there's not much weight there. That's how they make these huge racquet so light in weight. Compare that to a PS 6.0 85 with PWS that has a lot of weight at 3 and 9. Lots of weight there to make the frame very stable.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Only assuming if the off center impact is exactly the same distance from the center axis in both cases. For example, if the impact is near the edge of the frame on an 85 sq. in. frame (or about 4 inches from the center axis), the frame will twist less than if the impact was also near the edge of the frame on an Oversize racquet (or about 6 inches from the center axis) due to the greater torsional force from the impact being further away from the center axis with the bigger frame.
Last edited:
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
Yeah and if you hit the frame of and oversize racket, it will twist more than if you hit the dead centre of a 65in wood racket. And?
Just stop.
Just stop.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
How is that possible when he's never played me nor even seen me play? Oh yeah, he's just "ASSuming" something he has no knowledge of. For all he knows, I could be an ex-ATP pro. He has no idea. You don't see me making claims of triple-bageling him, do you? Why? Because I've never played him nor have I ever seen him play.
But that's what he does. He's been touting on here that bigger racquets are more stable than smaller racquets for years, which is misleading. People go out and buy a 100LS and wonder why it's so much less stable than the PS 90 they were using.
There's a good reason why they make bigger racquets lighter - it's because making a big racquet heavy makes it unplayable. Thus, it doesn't matter what the reason is, the bigger racquets that you buy in the store are going to be less stable than the Mids you buy in the store. That's what people care about. If people have to add lead tape to make a racquet more stable then that means it was unstable to begin with! I don't need to add lead tape to my PS 6.0 85 to make it more stable because it's already so stable. In fact, I find the PS 6.0 85 to be more stable than the PS 6.0 95 despite the fact that the 95 has a wider beam and a much bigger head.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
You can't claim that bigger racquets are more stable than Mids but with an asterisk (*- only if you add enough lead tape to the frame). It's like claiming that a Toyota Camry is faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo with an asterisk (*- only if you put a Ferrari V-12 engine in the Camry). Well, you can't buy a Camry from your local Toyota dealer with a Ferrari V-12 engine in it so the point is moot. And even if you could squeeze a big, powerful engine into the Camry, it still won't perform like a 911 Turbo because it's still front wheel drive, still has a Camry chassis and suspension, and still handles like a Camry. So it would be undriveable, just like adding a lot of weight to a big racquet makes it unplayable. In fact, Wilson knows this, which is why they came out with the lighter PS97 at the same time as the heavier RF97A - because they knew that a big heavy racquet would be unplayable for most people.
Last edited:
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
95 - 100 seems to work pretty well for the entire ATP. You should tell them their large and heavy rackets are unplayable.
I never said anything about stock rackets. All I say is that a small racket needs to have a lot more weight than a large racket, to have the same stability. There are limits to the amount of weight you can add to the racket, because it will have a severe impact on your swing speed. That's why successful players use larger rackets.
How do I know I would triple bagel you? Because you're an idiot. An idiot off the court is an idiot on it.
I never said anything about stock rackets. All I say is that a small racket needs to have a lot more weight than a large racket, to have the same stability. There are limits to the amount of weight you can add to the racket, because it will have a severe impact on your swing speed. That's why successful players use larger rackets.
How do I know I would triple bagel you? Because you're an idiot. An idiot off the court is an idiot on it.
Karstic
Rookie
No. Rotational inertia is proportional to the mass times the distance from the axis, regardless of where the impact occurs.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
So how many people on this board play on the ATP Tour? None? So what does what ATP Tour players do have anything to do with the people on this board? I'd bet there are some professional race car drives who could handle a Camry with a Ferrari engine in it, but guess what? I doubt most of the people on this board can.
Most people already complain that even a stock RF97A is too heavy so how many of them would add lead tape to it? I actually find it to be too light and I would add lead tape to it, but I doubt many others here would.
Sure, the guy who doesn't even understand that you need to be a better player to use a Mid than use a bigger racquet is calling other people "idiots"? That's precious.
So please stop making blanket statements that bigger racquets are more stable than smaller racquets. In the real world, that's just not true. Modifying your racquet like the pros do is not the real world for the great majority of tennis players.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Torque is Force times Distance. The impact is the force and where the impact occurs is the distance from the axis. So for the same force, the greater the distance from the axis the impact occurs, the greater the torque. And the greater the torque, the more the racquet's handle will want to twist in your hand as you're trying to hold on to it during impact.
Karstic
Rookie
This is true, and the torque applied to the racket is the same for both frames, but the greater the distance the mass of the frame is from the axis, the greater the inertial resistance to twisting as a result.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
No, it's not. You may want to reread my post (quoted it again above). The torque applied to the bigger racquet is greater than the torque applied to the smaller racquet (6 inches from the axis vs. 4 inches from the axis) since the ball impact is at the edge of the frame (edge of stringbed) in both cases.
Still, the further the mass away from center the greater the moment of inertia, meaning less twisting and more stability. You argument doesnt make sense, since it is still more stable than any mid, given the rest is equal. If you dont hit in the sweetspot of a mid you have more torque aswell. Any given distance to the sweetspot regarding the impact of the ball has to be equal on both rackets, otherwise you create an artifical advantage.
Furthermore, you are right that most stock mids are more stable due to their mass compaired to stock tweeners, thus you dont need to add lead tape for stability. You argument is true, but doesnt have anything to do with Attilas argument, which is true aswell. Given the same specs, bigger head size will be more stable, due to moment of inertia.
Why you deem bigger rackets with lead inferior to mids is a riddle to me. In the end the bigger racket with lead will be more stable on the court and that is where it actually counts. Seriously, who the heck cares about stock rackets handing in the stores when you play against someone who leaded his tweener to 380g? I mean, what are you going to tell him on the court? That his racket is less stable cause its bigger? Come on....get real. What counts is on court performance of a racket and lead tape is part of that.
BTW, why are you always saying you would lead up the RF97A? How does this matter? Lucky you, you got a live arm being able to swing it, but so do others. I leaded up my PS90 and my RF97A aswell. I am so manly.
via Imgflip Meme Maker
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
The point is that pros play with rackets that bring results. Foolish people don't.
So you think people on this board would get better results with a Ps85 than a Wilson 6.1 95 or a Prince tour 95?
Exactly. So it makes absolutely no sense to play with a ps85 which needs a lot of weight to make it as stable as a quality 95.
Huhh? Anyone can use anything. You use a mid and you lose. So how are you a better player than the guysbthat bagel you?
You're the one making unqualified blanket statements. I'm giving you thorough education if the details.
Karstic
Rookie
That post was in response to Post 114, not Post 108, and has no relevance to it.
Edited to add: Wilson's PWS was all about increasing rotational inertia, and therefore stability. I remember drooling over the Wilson Ultra when it first came out.
Yes, I am that old.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Check your post #112. You quoted my post #108 when you responded to it. And how could you have been responding to my post #114 when you responded earlier with your post #112 before I even wrote post #114?
Yes, PWS adds weight and increases cross section of the beam in the areas that increase stability, just like adding lead tape at 3 and 9 adds weight and increases stability.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Most people on this board cannot play with the racquets that the pros play with because they cannot handle the 360-400 swingweights that the pros play with.
Yet, people have to add lead tape to the 95's to make them stable, whereas there's no need to do so with the 85. So which is naturally more stable? And even at a higher stock weight, the 85 is way more maneuverable than most 95s after adding enough lead tape to make them as stable as a stock 85.
No, correction: YOU use a Mid and YOU lose. You sure ASSume a lot, don't you? Why do you assume that no one else on this board is a better tennis player than you are and thus can win with a Mid? Do you think either Sampras or Federer would lose to you if they used a Mid against you? LOL
Really? What is this then:
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
That's why 95-100 rackets work better. Not only for pros. A larger racket needs much less weight to achieve the same stability as a smaller racket.
Huhh? What? You're making things up as usual. Do you know how much weight Sampras used on his 85? On a Wilson 6.1 95 you need nowhere near as much to achieve the same results.
Hahh you tell me, buddy.
I'm not talking about anybody else but specifically the most ignorant hopeless idiot in the history of internet forums. A loser who goes by the name BreakPoint. That's a blanket statement that needs no qualification, the evidence is well documented for all to see, in over 40000 posts of mindless drivel.
Karstic
Rookie
Check your post #112. You quoted my post #108 when you responded to it. And how could you have been responding to my post #114 when you responded earlier with your post #112 before I even wrote post #114?
Yes, PWS adds weight and increases cross section of the beam in the areas that increase stability, just like adding lead tape at 3 and 9 adds weight and increases stability.
Post #108 was quoted in post #112 because it was offered up as a refutation of my comment on rotational inertia. In it though, you seemed to want to equate a four inch and six inch miss-hit in two separate rackets. Post #114, where you made valid observations on torque, was not referenced until post #115. Perhaps you should review your college physics texts for the difference between force (torque) and inertia. I'll probably do that myself tomorrow. Right now, more bourbon.
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
That's what he does. It's comical.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Because that was the whole point of my post #108:
So my point is that if you hit the ball near the edge of the frame of a 115 sq. in. Oversize racquet, it will twist more than if you hit the ball near the edge of the frame of an 85 sq. in. Midsize racquet. That has to do with the torque force, not the inertia.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
How many 95-100 sq. in. racquets with a swingweight of only 321 are as rock solid stable as the PS 6.0 85? The answer? None!
Did I mention Sampras? I'm talking about recreational players using the PS 6.0 85. And most people who add lead tape to the PS 6.0 85 do it to increase its swingweight, not its stability as it's already rock solid stable in stock form. Whereas, most people who add lead tape to big racquets do so to increase their stability since they are so unstable to begin with. Sampras wanted to obliterate the ball and hit winners and aces at will. That's why he added lead tape to increase his swingweight to 400. It was not about stability. It was about ball crushing.
I would but I doubt you're able to comprehend it.
Yes, you who makes unfounded blanket statements but calls others "idiots" for making blanket statements? You may want to look uo the word "hypocrisy" in the dictionary. It's not my fault that your IQ is not high enough to comprehend my posts. Sadly, everything must appear to be "mindless drivel" to those without a mind.
Last edited:
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
You might wanna look up twist weight numbers, though clearly your happiness requires a head firmly planted in the sand. I've met religious radicals with minds more open than yours.
I know your response, save the keyboard: Your objective, agenda-less feeling is more accurate than common sense and science.
You've dug yourself into a hole and you're determined to keep digging rather than learn and move on.
I know your response, save the keyboard: Your objective, agenda-less feeling is more accurate than common sense and science.
You've dug yourself into a hole and you're determined to keep digging rather than learn and move on.
Minion
Hall of Fame
Phew....y'all can sure go at it
In every league i've played in and watched - couple of hundred players, i've not seen one with a racquet smaller than 95sq. The 6.1 95's are very popular among them, but the majority plays with either Babolat or Prince - 100sq.
I'd say here, the most popular would be first, 95sq, then 100sq. for some reason the 98's are not that popular, save for a couple of Blades and Graphene Radicals.
I still hit with my original Max 200G from time to time (but just for fun), and I still maintain that there is no sweeter feeling racquet. But it is just not practical to play league or competitions with. I can play longer, more relaxed, and with so much less effort with , say, a Prince Warrior 100.
So, why would I want to make things more difficult for myself if I don't have to
In every league i've played in and watched - couple of hundred players, i've not seen one with a racquet smaller than 95sq. The 6.1 95's are very popular among them, but the majority plays with either Babolat or Prince - 100sq.
I'd say here, the most popular would be first, 95sq, then 100sq. for some reason the 98's are not that popular, save for a couple of Blades and Graphene Radicals.
I still hit with my original Max 200G from time to time (but just for fun), and I still maintain that there is no sweeter feeling racquet. But it is just not practical to play league or competitions with. I can play longer, more relaxed, and with so much less effort with , say, a Prince Warrior 100.
So, why would I want to make things more difficult for myself if I don't have to
ringwraith
Rookie
Yes, the world's best player played with a 90 sq inch racquet for a long long time. Ofcourse, its viable. Why else would he play with it otherwise?
It's all personal preference and there is no point arguing over it. Smaller heads are more precise, are more maneuverable and have more feel. Larger heads are more forgiving and have easier free power. That's all there is to it really.
Topspin Shot
Legend
LapsedNoob
Professional
Geez the ignore function chopped three full pages off of this thread.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Again, numbers measured in a lab on an inanimate machine that has nothing to do with a real person actually playing tennis are not meaningful. That's why stiffness and swingweight numbers measured in a lab on a machine often don't match the actual experience of an actual person actually playing tennis out on an actual tennis court.
Everyone who has ever played with the PS 6.0 85 knows that it's a rock solid stable frame regardless of any twistweight numbers measured in a lab on an inanimate machine. So you can keep twisting away if you want but people with actual experience know the truth. Again, if big racquets were stable to begin with, nobody would need to add lead tape to them to make them stable.
Last edited:
Mick
Legend
for amateurs, unlike the pros, there are so many levels, you can use a 65 sq-in racquet and beat a lot of players if your level is higher than theirs.
Yesterday, I took a T-2000 to the courts. The other player was using an oversize racquet and he was the one who had problem hitting the ball.
Yesterday, I took a T-2000 to the courts. The other player was using an oversize racquet and he was the one who had problem hitting the ball.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
in the modern game a 90 inch racquet is a handicap
the handicap comes from the smaller sweet spot, which makes defensive shots a lot harder to turn into neutral or offensive shots
why do you think pros use midplus racquets
federer uses a 97 now, murray djokovic and dimitrove all use over 95 inch racquets
and nadal, the best clay courter ever, uses 100
small racquets are an unneeded handicap
the handicap comes from the smaller sweet spot, which makes defensive shots a lot harder to turn into neutral or offensive shots
why do you think pros use midplus racquets
federer uses a 97 now, murray djokovic and dimitrove all use over 95 inch racquets
and nadal, the best clay courter ever, uses 100
small racquets are an unneeded handicap
LapsedNoob
Professional
But BreakPoint has numbers, big arguments, and 40k posts. Clearly we are all mistsken here..,
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
last time this **** happened they closed the thread rememeber, i was in it
breakpoint is just a sore loser and rants about the cheating that poly and midplus racquets create
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Yes but other things equal, the bigger racket will have bigger twistweight.
coolschreiber
Hall of Fame
Federer is from a different planet. To get an idea of his racket head speed, his racket is a blur even in slow motion
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plIo9IfIvtA
Scroll further into the video to see slo mo.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Other things equal, that is true.
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
Breakpoint, you've been repeating the same thing over and over again. That the personal feeling of a few misguided delusional individuals is more representative of real-life experience than cold hard facts. Give us something new. I own a PS 85 by the way, and my experience with it aligns perfectly with the science. Twist weight is a lot more representative of real life stability than swingweight is of power. Why? Because there are many ways to swing a racket, but an off center shot is an off center shot, no matter how you look at it. Whether it's a fixed racket or swinging racket or a volley or groundstrokes, the numbers will give perfect demonstration of relative stability of various rackets.
It does not correspond with your fanatical religious ideals unfortunately. Not much you can do about it, start a cult or something and hope the members are as keen on self-delusion as you are.
It does not correspond with your fanatical religious ideals unfortunately. Not much you can do about it, start a cult or something and hope the members are as keen on self-delusion as you are.
LapsedNoob
Professional
But we all know it won't stop. Before long there will be a handful of quote-laden rebuttals.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I don't know, why do they? Aren't they handicapping themselves not using 115 sq. in. OS racquets? Think about how much bigger the sweetspot is than a 95 sq. in. racquet. :shock:
Oh, and a small racquet is only a handicap if you're not good enough to use one.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Really? You just joined this board in April 2015. There have been no threads that I've posted in that have been closed since you joined. Unless you're a banned poster disguising yourself with a new user name.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
But they don't make bigger racquets that have other things equal to smaller racquets.
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
All other things do not even need to be equal.
Twistweight values:
Wilson PS 85: 12.32
A few popular player's rackets, IN STOCK FORM.
Wilson PS95: 14.31
Wilson PS 97 RF Autograph: 14.9
Wilson 6.1 95 (16x18 ): 14.77
Wilson 6.1 95 (18x20): 14.31
Wilson Blade 98 (18x20): 14.19
Wilson Blade 98 (16x19): 14.52
Yonex VCORE Tour 97: 14.14
Yonex VCORE Tour G 330 (Wawrinka): 14.56
Prince Tour 95: 14.27
Prince Response 97: 14.48
I could go on and on and on, but spare me the trouble.
Twistweight values:
Wilson PS 85: 12.32
A few popular player's rackets, IN STOCK FORM.
Wilson PS95: 14.31
Wilson PS 97 RF Autograph: 14.9
Wilson 6.1 95 (16x18 ): 14.77
Wilson 6.1 95 (18x20): 14.31
Wilson Blade 98 (18x20): 14.19
Wilson Blade 98 (16x19): 14.52
Yonex VCORE Tour 97: 14.14
Yonex VCORE Tour G 330 (Wawrinka): 14.56
Prince Tour 95: 14.27
Prince Response 97: 14.48
I could go on and on and on, but spare me the trouble.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
So is playing with your hands.
