Advantages of a longer racquet.

[ccb]

I am long time observer of this message board, but know I feel like I have to give my "2 cents" worth. I am a vertically challanged (5'9") advanced player who in my prime years have been playing a with a standard length racquet (27 in) because there were no other options at that time period. Then in the mid 90's the extra length racquets came out and depending on the brand, the names varied from from "longbody, x-long, stretch, etc." With this new development, my game really took off. Unfortunately the manufacturing trend is now regressing back to the more towards the standard 27 in frames. You will no longer see too many player racquets that are 28+ inches being made. If there are, they are mostly beginner or "granny" sticks. Most advanced player racquets are 27.0 to 27.5 inches. I am trying to convice people why the advantages of using a extended length racquet outweigh the disadvantages especially if you are undersized like me and especially as your skills progress and meet better competition.

1) Ground strokes: Obviously you are able to get to more balls that would have otherwise been framed off your racquet or not reached all together - because of the extended. The power should also be theoretically more since the point of contact with ball is farther out - assuming all things are equal (ie-same head size, tension, weight). There is a sacrifice control, but nothing that I can't improve upon with practice. I have had adjust weights and balances my racquets to compensate for the increase in racquet length in order to maintain a similar feel to a normal lenght counterpart. Since just extending out an inch on your standard racquet will dramatically increase your swingweight even more magnified if the racquet is already head heavy. Yes there is a phase of adjustment that needs to be made with the extended length especially 28+ inch racquets. After playing with extended length for now 10 years, I don't think I can ever go back. As I get older, i realize I am losing some speed so the extra reach has allowed me to get to a few more balls. I figure the slight loss of theoretical control with the longbody can somewhat be compensated with changes in my racquet characteristics (ie string tension, width of frame, head size etc.) towards more control. Besides I cannot grow my arm an inch longer to get the balls I cannot reach and unfortunately I am not getting any faster with age.

2) Volleys: I have read on this board that this is where the disadvantage of the extended length really lies especially with passing shots aimed to close to the body. Unless you are playing predominantly doubles where you do have rapid volley exchanges so you don't necessarily want too long of a racquet. Most of the time when I am playing singles, and I lose the points at net not because of close hard body shots where I can't get out of the way, but because I can't reach the ball as I get passed either left or right or overhead. So the extra reach is a benefit.

3) Return of serve: Same idea as for volleys. although majority of time, the serves coming towards me are swung out wide one way or the other but very few are hard serves directly at me. Unless, the serve is at least 110 or so MPH, I can easily get a clean return.

5) Serves: This is where the extended length racquets shine. Because of my height, I know my serve will never be a major weapon. Yes, i know some will say- placement is more important, variety is more import, so on. But i can still work on those things with an extended reach that gives me more margin for error on serves. The was an individual on this board once who asked "Can a short person ever have a strong powerful serve" or something to that effect. The answer is "yes" if he is strong enough with the right technique, but his percentage of serves going in will be less than the taller player with the same strength and technique. That's why the better servers tend to be taller. You can only practice so much as a shorter player but your physical limitation can be a ceiling you can't go beyond. That's why I think the longer racquets can be an equalizer for the smaller player. There was an article from Aug 1995 in Tennis Magazine when the longbody racquets first came out. There was a quote from a physicist who basically said - for every inch of reach gained will result in 5% increase in service percentage. So my first serves have more variety due the increased angle of projectory of my serves into his service box and less double faults.

4) FYI: I have gone through a slew of extra length racquets - Micheal Chang oversize, Prostaff 6.1 stretch oversize, thunderbolt both mid and oversize, prokennex PK 5 oversize stretch, yonnex rd 10 long midplus, yonnex rd 7 long midplus, POG longbody mid and oversize. All are at least 28 inches. Even though I still go back and forth among my collection, my racuet of choice is the POG longbody oversize (not the midsize TW is selling - i found the head size to be too small for my extreme topspin from semi-western forehand. too many misshits.)

 

[SFrazeur]

I say this with all politeness but, I take expectation with what you would call "vertically challenged", I am 5'9", as well, I use a standard 27". The longest I would ever go would be 27.5" I personally would never go back to a 28" again.

 

[Soundog]

I'm 5'9" and I consider myself vertically challenged. I'm a midget compared to the best guys I play against who are all around 6'4" and with 200k+ serves. I agree with CCB absolutely and for singles, now only use extended rackets.

Another advantage I find is that I can generate more power and spin with heavy extended rackets and have no trouble matching the big guys on groundstroke power. The difference is that I do it with less effort. My current favourite is a standard 27" Yonex MP-Tour1 98 lengthened by 3/4 inch. It's perfect.

 

[calabi12]

You guys got to be kidding.

Unless you are playing pro or at a level like USTA 5.0 and above, 5.9 is NOT vertically challenged.

If you go around the courts, there are lots and lots of guys 5.4 to 5.9 range who are playing very successfully out there. The over 6.2 and above guys are not the majority out there.

If you are 5.9, somewhat athletic, and you work on foot steps and improve on court awareness, positioning and anticipation, you WILL be very successful.

Some of this is psychological. We sub 5.9 guys beat lots of 6.2 guys often. Do not let the other fellow’s height intimidate you. See if he can retrieve a few shots that go wide or at his feet that hug the ground.

Yes, the longer racquet definitely helps but it is not a must have. I play with a 27.5 racquet.

 

[anirut]

Hi ccb,

No offense, if for your height of 5'9" you're saying "vertically challenged" ...

Then I'm "vertically crippled" at only 5'6".

One guy at my club is probably 5'3" and his serves are absolute bombs, I tell you. And we are Asians, using only 27" sticks. I've tried extending my racket to 27.25" and it was awkward for me.

 

[ionutzakis]

ccb, I'm 5.7 and I know how frustrating is to serve with a 27 racquet. I now use the POG LB that TW sells now and my serving percentage has skyrocketed since using the LB.

Sure, at first it was difficult to serve, adjust to serve, cause the racquet head moves faster, but this takes 1-2 months. After that it's a joy to serve with a LB. Not to mention the monster topspin serves that you get with it.

2HBH are a breeze, and you can pound forehands all day long.

Only problem is at the net, but who comes to the net these days? Short balls close to the net are alse a drag, but if you choke the handle you're ok.

 

[BLiND]

I'm 5'9", and I consider myself a solid "Medium" hight compaired to all the other male players around me.

 

[Sigi]

Just to add my two cents, for me the biggest advantage of an extended racquet is that the sweetspot is elevated. As someone who grew up playing with a traditional 27" racquet, but on with a 83 sq. in. head, I was used to the sweetspot being further away from my body than today's larger head racquets. Quite simply, unless you have an inverted teardrop racquet, the larger the head size the closer the sweetspot is to your body.

Even today, I can pull out one of my old Kneissl Lendl Pros and serve bombs because the sweetspot is higher up, giving me more power.

 

[SteveI]

I'm 5'9", and I consider myself a solid "Medium" hight compaired to all the other male players around me.

Hi,

I am 6 feet tall and I use a 27.25 lenght frame and seem to get just that extra pop and reach on my serve. If I was 5' 9" or so I would be playing with 27.5 or 27.75 to obtain that extra reach and power on my serve and ground strokes. The only down side to the extra length frame seems to be on my one handed BH.. there can be some control issues over 27.5 inches. I do not seem to notice the extra length until I go over 27.5 inches.

Steve

 

[alfa164164]

I'm vertically challenged in the sense of finding clothes that fit (I'm 6'4").
I've recently been experimenting with a Dunlop Revelation Superlong +1.50.
My height combined with a 28.5" frame makes serving fun. I echo some of the sentiments of the original poster in that many of the benefits of longbody frames for shorter players also help the tall guys as well. The Dunlop Superlong frame helps getting to those wide balls and also provides good power with less effort. I may be hard pressed to go back to a std. length frame.

 

[Soundog]

You guys got to be kidding.

No I'm not. The guy I'm talking about did play challengers and satellites in Europe in his younger days. He's 30 now and past his best, but he still has a huge serve and groundstrokes. All he's missing now is a bit of consistency and fitness, but there's nothing wrong with the way he hits the ball.

The problem wasn't psychological either. I regularly beat bigger and stronger guys - who aren't any good - but this guy can play. The problem was that I just couldn't do enough damage from the back of the court. I was using a PS tour 90 ( with lead ) and never won a set - despite every game going to deuce or 30. He would blast away from the back of the court and I would have to defend at full stretch and at full run. Sooner or later, with a 90 inch head, I'd slightly mishit a defensive shot or catch it at the top of the frame and land the ball short, setting him up to win the point. I found that every shot of mine required too much effort. Just to keep him on the baseline, I had to hit everything harder than I was comfortable with, increasing my own error count as a result.

When I switched to the longer racket, I didn't have to put so much effort into generating pace and I found that my shots were doing a lot more damage and my defensive shots ( including mishits ) were all going deep. The result was that I won for the first time ever.

Fortunately, that sort of hard hitting baseline game is perfect for the long heavey racket. Such a racket is not so good when you come up against a player who hits with a lot of variation in spin and disguises it well - or when the court surface is bad with lots of bad bounces. If the ball doesn't bounce where you expect it to for whatever reason, you have to make small fast adjustments to the trajectory of the racket head which is harder with longer rackets.To counter this, I suggest using slightly bigger head versions of longer rackets.

The second thing is that I grew up with conventional wood rackets and developed hitting style that was biomechanically efficient for that type and weight of frame. Having developed the musculature for that style of hitting, lighter bigger head rackets never suited me, and it wasn't until I got my hands on a Yonex Pro RD 70 Long, that my natural hitting style came back. Also, as Sigi mentioned, the sweet spot was right back to where I was used to having it be.

Thirdly, after trying many different types of rackets I found that swing and static weight were the most important properties of a frame for me. The problem with most extended frames is that the manufacturers, in order to compensate for reduced manouverability, reduce mass in the heads of long frames so that the swing weight is comparable or lighter than standard length equivalents. This leads to most extended frames being being no more powerful and in some cases, less powerful than their standard length cousins because the lighter head has less mass than the standard length frame. This is very evident in the MP Tour1 which comes in 3 variations - 90" standard, 98" standard and 98" XF. The XF is just too light for me and has much less stability than the the other two because of this swing weight compensation.

I've found it is much better to take a standard racket and lengthen it. Swing weight can be adjusted by lead in the handle instead. That way the advantage of the extra length is not lost.

At the end of the day, a long racket is not going to suit everyone. Those with very explosive fast swings come to mind. I'm personally happy with long heavy frames because my swings are long and slow but I've come to realise that - in general - you should probably stick to a racket that is similar to whatever you grew up with because your muscles will have developed to suit that type of frame. If you radically change your type of racket, it is more than likely that you will end up having to change your hitting style and whole game to suit the new racket which is not always what you want.

 

[SFrazeur]

ccb, I know we got on your case a bit but, you should not let that stop you from posting.

 

[Z-Man]

I'm also a POG LB fan. There aren't many long player's racquets out there these days. Lots of pros are using them, but the racquet companies aren't pushing them. I think it's because their marketing cycle demands a new technology every year. The extra power of an LB can be tamed with a headlight balance and flexibility, and you can get stability if the racquet is around 12oz.

(I'm also 5'9" by the way)

For singles especially, I see a lot of advantages and few disadvantages. The only problem I can see is that in 4.5+ doubles, the way to win is to dominate the net. LB granny sticks volley really well, and the best volleyer in my area uses a stiff, head heavy 28inch racquet. However, the POG LB's advantages from the baseline are liabilities at the net. You must have excellent volleying form to punch through the court with this racquet. I am not a natural volleyer.

I'll always be a singles player, and singles tactics work in doubles up to a certain level, but as I try to get to the next level of doubles, I've become determined to improve my volleys--even at the expense of my ground strokes. I'm currently trying out a regular POG OS. I can't crank the 2-hander with it like I do with the LB, but it serves just as well if not better, and it volleys and slices much better. So for singles, the LB is my grail, but for high-level doubles, I think I’m going to need something that volleys better.

 

[BigServer1]

I'm vertically challenged in the sense of finding clothes that fit (I'm 6'4").

Yup. And a sports car that you can drive, and a shower that doesn't hit you in the stomach. I'm 6'3.5" and things like this can be tough.

BTW, isn't 5'9" the average height for an american male?

 

[Duzza]

That is funny, i read the first sentence then scrolled down to the first 5 posts relating to the term

 

[mdjenders]

I have a fast, whiplike FH and small/weak wrists, and I have found that any racquet longer than 27" will absolutely wreck my wrist/forearm. Basically, that little bit of added torque (moment arm) from swinging the racquet and more importantly, contacting the ball, is too much for me physically. I also think that standard length frames are MUCH more maneuverable on shots requiring a lot of wrist action, like extreme angles, heavy topspin 1h backhands, and running passing shots from both sides.

 

[Burt Turkoglu]

I use a 28 inch 12.5 ounce racket and play only doubles these days. I'm an old man (53 yrs. old). 5'9 and a buck and a half. I really appreciate the extra length serving. I have pretty compact strokes and am able to come in behind most 2nd serves and some 1st's. Volleying is the strength of my game. I choke up about an inch and volley great with this longer racket. I am borderline 4.5-5.0 doubles player.

 

[thanu]

I'm about 5'8, and I have been using mainly 28" racquets, some 27.5, and once in a while a 27". I think I've tried most of the racquets available (through the auction site I buy and sell racquets all the time). I stuck to the Chang racquets for a while (both graphite and ti), and then the diablp xp os. I tried the pog lb midplus due to all the hype, but didn't like it as much. Tried the pog lb os, and liked that a little more, but again wasn't a good fit for me. In my opinion, the best 28" racquet is the diablo xp os. I've demoed some 27.5" racquets and I serve better (still the weakest part of my game) with them (I'm switching to a 27.5" racquet). The added length really helps you get to a lot of balls, and it feels natural for my two hand backhand. 27" racquets feel too short now. The only downside to a 28" for me is on serve. The racquet feels TOO long, and I often choke up on my racquet to serve.

-Thanu

 

[ccb]

I knew when I posted this thread there will be a lot of people who would be offended by my comment "vertically challanged" which I suppose is a relative term. Just to followup, there will always be players who are smaller that will beat players that are bigger. The height/reach obviously are not the only or even the major factor that makes a given player superior to another player. Factors such as skill, athletic ability, fitness level, speed, age, etc. are very important as well.

When calabi12 said "there are lots and lots of guys 5.4 to 5.9 range who are playing very well out there. The over 6.2 guys are not the majority out there." I think you are missing the point. Majority of the club, high school, recreational players come in all shapes, sizes, abilities, and competitiveness so that is why you see excellent players who are 5.4 to 5.9 because that is reflective of the population as a whole. However, as your skill level goes up, into college and pro-circuit, the successful players tend to become taller compared to the equally skilled smaller counter part tennis player. A division one, and even two, college players are rarely smaller than 5'9". I am sure there will be exceptions as always. But on the other hand, I think being "too tall" will have its disadvantages - ie, mobility. Here too, there will also be exceptions - ie, marat safin. It has widely recognized that the ideal height for a tennis player is 6'1" such as roger federer. But again, i am NOT saying in order to be good tennis you have to be 6'1".

I didn't post this to be an issue of height or lack there of, but in a way the issue of whether to play with extended length racquet is intertwined with height and reach. The smaller top 100 pro players that have had modicum of success have used extended length racquets. The sub 5'9" male players -micheal chang (initially the POG oversize longbody - later marketed with his signature racquet), Coria (POG midsize longbody - now who plays with a specially made 28 inch version of Prince 03 tour), Rochus (POG midsize longbody), Grojean (?prestige in 27.5 and sometimes 28 in version), Santoro (not sure, but looks to me he uses a 28 inch version of something). I don't think Gaudio or Clement uses a 28+ inch length.

The extended length racquet can be an incredible equalizer for the smaller and I think it can allow you to do more things once you adjust to the length that you couldn't do before no matter how much you practice. As I continue improve as a tennis player, holding serve becomes more of a factor. At the club level, most people use the serve as the first stroke to start the point. So the chances of winning a service game becomes 50-50. As I got better, the my opponents service game become much more difficult to break, and because of my size, my own service game hit an invisible "ceiling" so it became much more difficult for me to hold my own serve and therefore had to work that much harder to break my opponents serve game. The extended length racquet definitely put a higher level of confidence in my own serves. In my experience I am holding 70 to 80% level of service at my level (5.5) when before it was only about 60% on a standard length racquet.