Andre Agassi-Oversize Racquets For Most Players

[Conquistador]

For a while I have been wondering why Andre agassi would use an oversize racquet. I have since came to the conclusion that Agassi won a lot with it--so why aren't more people using them. Everyone can benefit from the pop that these racquets bring. Most serve and volley players should use an oversize IMO. The benefits from an oversize allow big hitters to become giants.

Explain to me the biggest benefit from using an oversize racquet compared to a midplus(say 100 for example compared to a 110) I would like to know the obvious benefits--because doesnt it look like Agassi was a revolutionary without a revolution???

 

[PGSanta76]

As with everything else when it comes to specs, it's a trade off. The advantage of a larger sweet spot and hitting area is great, but all thing being equal it comes at the cost of stability. I grew up on POGs and the Donnay Pro 1, so I do like OS frames. With that said, I find that the vast majority of OS sticks lack stability; couple that with the fact that the modern trend for frames has been one towards lighter, stiffer frames...and it's easy to see why most OS frames are not very popular with advanced players.

 

[Edward DFW]

As with everything else when it comes to specs, it's a trade off. The advantage of a larger sweet spot and hitting area is great, but all thing being equal it comes at the cost of stability. I grew up on POGs and the Donnay Pro 1, so I do like OS frames. With that said, I find that the vast majority of OS sticks lack stability; couple that with the fact that the modern trend for frames has been one towards lighter, stiffer frames...and it's easy to see why most OS frames are not very popular with advanced players.

lead fixes the stability problems... since i leaded up my tt warrior os i have not had it twist in my hand

 

[mg.dc]

OP -

You have a good point! I've been thinking about this too. I don't have the answer though.

Perhaps it's a combination of product marketing and player psychology? Over the past few days I've been thinking that I should ditch my Babolats and get a POG OS with a full bed of ALU Power and crush the ball like no other.

 

[fortunecookiesjc]

I cant get the same feel with 1hb, although ive gotten to a point i want to try a lot of other racquets. Im comfortable right now just curious.
So im moving from my ag100 and taking a summer break and trying out OS or maybe something like 98.

 

[big ted]

smaller head racquets also give more racquet head speed which many advanced players prefer..

 

[Conquistador]

smaller head racquets also give more racquet head speed which many advanced players prefer..

Really, Agassi's head weight was 13.1 ounces--more than most players today with a 95 inch racquet...and Agassi's racquet was 107 square inches....I mean look at how smart Agassi was--his heavy 107 inch racquet to me is something that everyone should do. The bigger size and the heavy weight probally make Agassi the smartest player of all time..Look at the money he won...now take a player of today-and give him what agassi had setup for his racquet and you can get a star. See--everyone is too scared to go to the 107-110 because people will laugh...but by adding weight--you have an all star racquet.

 

[fortunecookiesjc]

I have the Agassi OS Limited edition and I had at one point the LM OS and they were awesome to use and than i switched to one hander and it felt kind of weird but thats just me.

 

[shogun90]

Funny, I was just thinking about this subject. I'm looking at my Aero 112 and thinking should I try using it vs the MG Extreme Pro. Might need to string it up higher to tame it though. But the thought of adding weight to it intrigues me now.

 

[matchmaker]

Conquistador,

The answer is simple "classy" people use mids.

 

[Conquistador]

Conquistador,

The answer is simple "classy" people use mids.

So you are saying Agassi had no class?

 

[TheLambsheadrep]

When you look at the advantages of an oversize, why would you not use one? at least something over 100inch2. the rackets I use are mainly 102inch2 or 107inch2, and they are so solid and get so much pop. theres more room for error (which everyone who has ever shanked a ball even once has to admit is a good thing) and more spin potential. I base a lot of my tennis of Agassi, and why not? he was an amazing tennis player and will always be known to be. he started the trend of hitting the ball on the rise, which is so hard to do but very effective. even if you watch the strokes tho, hitting a ball on the rise is a whole diff motion then hitting it at its peak or on the fall.

 

[Nanshiki]

Most of the players at his time were still using natural gut at more reasonable tensions, so they had to use smaller racquets for control... he used kevlar at first (apparently) and then Luxilon at high tension, so he could bash away even with an oversized.

I think the real reason more 'serious' players don't use oversized (even though the majority of beginners and club players do) is because 1. they're looked down upon as being for beginners 2. there are only a few really good "player's" oversized racquets, and they don't even make the best of them anymore (the Radical Tour)...although the POG OS is still made.

 

[Grampy]

I have since came to the conclusion that Agassi won a lot with it--so why aren't more people using them. Everyone can benefit from the pop that these racquets bring. Most serve and volley players should use an oversize IMO. The benefits from an oversize allow big hitters to become giants.

Your logic makes no sense. Sampras won "a lot" too, using an 85 headsize racquet. Laver, one of the only players to have won a grand slam several times, used even smaller headsize. Therefore, we should all switch back to wooden racquets, right?

Also, not everyone can benefit from the "pop" an oversize brings. Most serve and volley players do not use an oversize. And the benefits of an oversize do not allow big hitters to become giants, whatever that means...

 

[Conquistador]

Your logic makes no sense. Sampras won "a lot" too, using an 85 headsize racquet. Laver, one of the only players to have won a grand slam several times, used even smaller headsize. Therefore, we should all switch back to wooden racquets, right?

Also, not everyone can benefit from the "pop" an oversize brings. Most serve and volley players do not use an oversize. And the benefits of an oversize do not allow big hitters to become giants, whatever that means...

Oversize racquets allow big hitters to hit a flatter shot. Baseliners are the ones who benefit. Look it up Grampy. Most players do not hit the center of the racquet every time. An oversize with weight allows the racquet to be stable and therefore--you get a more solid response. The more weight allows you to swing harder as well, the opportunities are endless when it comes to 14 ounce oversized racquets--you see a lot can be done with a racquet like that.

 

[Jim A]

that Fed guy seems to be doing ok with a 90 in headsize, I think the last time he didn't make a semifinal at a GS event, Dubya was still a 1st term president

 

[fortunecookiesjc]

i tthink he s talking about more recreational players?

 

[crash1929]

look at the two people who are going to have the grand slam:
aggassi- racquet head bigger than everyone elses
federer- racquet head smaller than everyone else.

the juice is in the tail.

 

[NLBwell]

You have mentioned the positives of an oversize racket. Some negatives are:
With the larger stringbed, you do get more power, but there tends to be a "hotspot" in the middle where the ball flies - sometimes unpredictably. The smaller the headsize, the more predictable the rebound off the stringbed. (you could string with poly at extremely high tensions, maybe, but you lose all the advantages you were looking for in the first place)
The sweetspot is closer to the grip, thus reducing leverage and power, especially on serves. Oversize rackets are generally not used by big servers. (You could increase the length of the racket an inch or two, but it could get pretty unwieldy.)
The torsional stability gained by the larger head size - moving weight away from the center axis of the racket - also means that the racket is not as maneuverable.
So, there are pluses and minuses, they are not necessarily better or worse for any type of player.

 

[mtommer]

Explain to me the biggest benefit from using an oversize racquet compared to a midplus(say 100 for example compared to a 110) I would like to know the obvious benefits--because doesnt it look like Agassi was a revolutionary without a revolution???

IME there is no benefit by going larger - or smaller for that matter. I used a Ti Radical OS before I broke all* mine. Then I switched to the LM Radical OS (hated that racquet - to much flex) and then the Dunlop M-Fil 500 before settling on the M-Fil 200. 107, 107 and 105 aaaalllll the way down to a 95. I'm hitting my shots exactly the same way I was hitting them before (save for getting better over time). *I played with the last Ti Radical I have because it is still playable though there's a crack near the top of the hoop. No difference save for the feeling as the Ti Radical flexes more than my M-Fil 200. Maybe some others experiences are different but there was no apprecialbe change for me.

 

[ramseszerg]

You have mentioned the positives of an oversize racket. Some negatives are:
With the larger stringbed, you do get more power, but there tends to be a "hotspot" in the middle where the ball flies - sometimes unpredictably. The smaller the headsize, the more predictable the rebound off the stringbed. (you could string with poly at extremely high tensions, maybe, but you lose all the advantages you were looking for in the first place)
The sweetspot is closer to the grip, thus reducing leverage and power, especially on serves. Oversize rackets are generally not used by big servers. (You could increase the length of the racket an inch or two, but it could get pretty unwieldy.)
The torsional stability gained by the larger head size - moving weight away from the center axis of the racket - also means that the racket is not as maneuverable.
So, there are pluses and minuses, they are not necessarily better or worse for any type of player.

Does this hotspot give off a hollow sound when you hit it? Sometimes I find it and keepp hitting it repeatedly. Really takes the weight of shot away.

 

[Grampy]

Oversize racquets allow big hitters to hit a flatter shot. Baseliners are the ones who benefit. Look it up Grampy. Most players do not hit the center of the racquet every time. An oversize with weight allows the racquet to be stable and therefore--you get a more solid response. The more weight allows you to swing harder as well, the opportunities are endless when it comes to 14 ounce oversized racquets--you see a lot can be done with a racquet like that.

An oversize racquet does NOT allow 'big hitters' to hit a flatter shot. A flat shot can be hit with any size frame racquet. In fact, if you are a flat hitter, there is no need for the larger headsize as you are not brushing the ball like a topspin player does. James Blake is the perfect example of a flat hitter using a mid.

You are correct in that more weight in a racquet will give you a more solid response. Where you are wrong is assuming that OS racquets are heavier than mids when quite the opposite is true (of course any racquet can be modified). Compare the Wilson K90 to the k95, or the prince EXo3 Graphite mid to the larger 100sq EXo3. The smaller frame weighs more.

If you are referring to a beginner or intermediate player, I can see the benefits of having more surface area and higher power rating because at this level you haven't developed a full swing and the racquet-eye timing is not well tuned. But once you get to the advanced NTRP level 4.0 and above, there is no need for larger size, and power is developed by the player, not the racquet. So most pro's go for mid or mid+ racquets for the control.

 

[Power Player]

Agassi is my favorite player but I could never get into the OS heads. He used topspin, but not as aggressively as I like to. He was a very unique and gifted player who could crush the ball and not need as much spin as most people. The reason the Babs are so cool is because you can swing a 100 and it feels like a 95. Plus u can get that massive spin which really can cause havoc with ur opponent.

So in my mind agassis is just so unique that trying to replicate his stroke will be very very tough.

 

[bluegrasser]

For a while I have been wondering why Andre agassi would use an oversize racquet. I have since came to the conclusion that Agassi won a lot with it--so why aren't more people using them. Everyone can benefit from the pop that these racquets bring. Most serve and volley players should use an oversize IMO. The benefits from an oversize allow big hitters to become giants.

Explain to me the biggest benefit from using an oversize racquet compared to a midplus(say 100 for example compared to a 110) I would like to know the obvious benefits--because doesnt it look like Agassi was a revolutionary without a revolution???

I'd say return of serve which was AA's strength, also you can get great spin on those sticks even though it has a closed pattern.

 

[JayP]

lead fixes the stability problems... since i leaded up my tt warrior os i have not had it twist in my hand

My pog os 1977 was unstable as a "tuning fork" thats what my friend saud about it. Deffo twisted in my hands alot, but now ive added lead to the frame at 3and9+handle and will see if it plays better. Hopefully it will play nice.

 

[big ted]

i was looking at a tennis physics book, and from a scientific standpoint, the oversize racquet (like POG), outperforms smaller racquets in power, stability, spin, etc... so maybe the original poster is onto something.. there is a trade-off of maneuverability tho

 

[Imago]

Really, Agassi's head weight was 13.1 ounces--more than most players today with a 95 inch racquet...and Agassi's racquet was 107 square inches...

I never came to like that 690 Bumblebee at 443 g. But if I add 30 g at 3 and 9 it will become HH...

 

[dak95_00]

I started playing with a Wilson Sting 2 which was 85. A teammate in high school had a Prince Graphite OS. I had a very loopy inside to outside forehand swing back then. My teammate let me use his racquet. In a period of 30 minutes it flew out of my hand twice on forehand swings because I hit the back of my leg on my forward swing. The first time I thought it was a fluke. The second time I realized I couldn’t use a big racquet and I couldn’t afford to buy my teammate a new racquet. That was the end of my large racquet experience for 20 years. My strokes are much more compact these days.

 

[movdqa]

Really, Agassi's head weight was 13.1 ounces--more than most players today with a 95 inch racquet...and Agassi's racquet was 107 square inches....I mean look at how smart Agassi was--his heavy 107 inch racquet to me is something that everyone should do. The bigger size and the heavy weight probally make Agassi the smartest player of all time..Look at the money he won...now take a player of today-and give him what agassi had setup for his racquet and you can get a star. See--everyone is too scared to go to the 107-110 because people will laugh...but by adding weight--you have an all star racquet.

Federer did well with a 90 and Sampras with 85s. So there's a lot of variety in what's best for people.

The other downside of the OS is the lower SS.

 

[n8dawg6]

holy corpse thread!

 

[mhkeuns]

For a while I have been wondering why Andre agassi would use an oversize racquet. I have since came to the conclusion that Agassi won a lot with it--so why aren't more people using them. Everyone can benefit from the pop that these racquets bring. Most serve and volley players should use an oversize IMO. The benefits from an oversize allow big hitters to become giants.

Explain to me the biggest benefit from using an oversize racquet compared to a midplus(say 100 for example compared to a 110) I would like to know the obvious benefits--because doesnt it look like Agassi was a revolutionary without a revolution???

I always thought it was Bolletieri’s influence on his students thinking Agassi, Chang and Seles all used the Prince Original Graphite OS when they started. That said, I thought the Midsize Prince Graphite was the wild child and the OS provided more control.

I just think certain rackets are made more user-friendly at certain headsizes, and the Prince Graphite and Head Radical OS were may be those kind of rackets, where the OS out performs the mid.

 

[IowaGuy]

I always thought it was Bolletieri’s influence on his students thinking Agassi, Chang and Seles all used the Prince Original Graphite OS when they started.

What about Jim Courier and his ProStaff 85 ?

 

[NLBwell]

Federer did well with a 90 and Sampras with 85s. So there's a lot of variety in what's best for people.

The other downside of the OS is the lower SS.

Federer did well with an 85 also.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Doesn't matter what the pros use. Their impeccable timing and coordination limit the risk of mishits.

The question is: for the average recreational player what would be the best racket size to minimize the effects of mishits yet maintain adequate precision.

This very thing has been going on in golf for decades. Scratch players use forged blades since they are very accurate if you hit the ball off the dime sized sweetspot. Hackers use game improvement irons since the enlarged sweetspot offers better distance control on mishits even if pin seeking accuracy suffers. Everyone uses giant headed light drivers since you can swing them harder for distance and the slight accuracy issue is mitigated by the prodigious distance.

The analogy in tennis is: The worse your timing and coordination OR the faster your swing, the bigger the racket size to offset the negative impact of framing balls. But only escalate that frame size to the point where control is still maintained to adequate degrees.

In golf, as a mid handicapper, I can't play blades well, but I lose accuracy with oversize game improvement irons, so I play midsize perimeter weighted irons. In tennis as a 3.5, I frame way too many shots with an 85 sq in frame and find 95-105 as the frame size sweetspot for accuracy and reduced mishits. Oversize frames tend to fly and spray at my swing speed.
A 5.0 player on the other hand likely needs control over power and has coordination to strike a smaller sweetspot routinely. He might find an 85-93 inch frame to his liking. A female 2.5 on the other hand would be lost with such a frame and with reduced coordination and swing speed would likely get more help advancing her game with a 115 inch frame.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[eelhc]

Keep in mind that in terms of pure square inches, the difference between a midplus (98) to an oversized (105) is not really all that much. If the racquets were a circle, it's just the difference of a 5.59" vs 5.78" radius circle. Most frame shots with a midplus racquets will likely be frame shots with OS racquets.

There is a huge difference though in the beam width and stiffness though. Most modern OS racquets also tend to have thicker beams and higher stiffness. More energy returned to the ball, more power, less control.

There's also string pattern. A larger racquet with a denser string pattern might actually be more control oriented. For example the Blade 104 18x19 vs Blade 98 16x19.

Lots of other factors. Frame size by itself does not determine playing characteristics.

 

[Frans Bleker]

I think you should use the head size as small as your coordination and timing can handle on a fast court and still gives you enough power on a slow court.

 

[Don't Let It Bounce]

I always thought it was Bolletieri’s influence on his students thinking Agassi, Chang and Seles all used the Prince Original Graphite OS when they started.

Nah, Agassi started with wood. The others probably did, too, but I don't know for sure.

The Graphite had already gained popularity on the pro tour, and among the few recreational players who could afford one in those days, a few years before those folks came along. Here is a 1981 (when Prince frames were OS-only) magazine ad:

Pro players might have preferred 95 to 100 head sizes then, too, if they'd been available, but during the 80s Prince held a patent on larger-than-standard head sizes that included everything from 85 up to 125. Some companies, like Wilson, paid Prince to produce their own OS frames, but most made 85 sq" frames (or smaller) that fell outside the patent.

 

[Don't Let It Bounce]

Explain to me the biggest benefit from using an oversize racquet compared to a midplus(say 100 for example compared to a 110) I would like to know the obvious benefits...

I know Conquistador is long gone, but the question still arises from time to time, and I've always liked player's OS's like the Graphite for at least one reason that seems to come up only rarely in the discussion.

For me, it isn't so much the sweet spot size: if anything, I prefer a uniform response across the string bed to a "sweet spot". It also isn't power: with an oversize head and player weighting, I usually look for lower stiffness or increased density (or whatever weird magic gives the Prince Graphite the control it has) to calm things down a little.

The main two benefits I want from a player's OS are a maximized spin window (often mentioned) and monstrous twist weight (rarely mentioned). The width of the hitting surface is a much bigger factor than racket weight in determining twist weight, so much so that many modern ultralight OS's have twist weights equal to or greater than player midplusses, so an OS with player weighting will be more resistant to off-center hits (of which I have plenty) than anything else.

The third benefit for me, probably a corollary of the first two, is psychological comfort. It just feels like it's going to be harder to get a ball past me with this giant shield in my hands!

 

[mhkeuns]

What about Jim Courier and his ProStaff 85 ?

Maybe he was the oddball of the crowd? I was just guessing.

 

[PT630Wannabe]

I have a Radical Tour OS (Candycane) and it's quite nice on the forehand but I cannot hit a backhand with it. I also find that the larger surface area just seems to leave more acreage to twist in my hand. A ball hit on the sides of the string bed just twists in a way my Prestige Mids and Rad Tours (MP) do not.

 

[JayP]

I have a Radical Tour OS (Candycane) and it's quite nice on the forehand but I cannot hit a backhand with it. I also find that the larger surface area just seems to leave more acreage to twist in my hand. A ball hit on the sides of the string bed just twists in a way my Prestige Mids and Rad Tours (MP) do not.

Had the same problem with my pog os. I added 8 grams at 3 and 9 and 2 grams at 12, 6 grams at rhe handle to cohnter balance. makes a huge difference. My stick had a 335 swingweight before now it has a 355 and i can still use it just takes time to get used to. No more twisting and more comftable.

 

[PMChambers]

What the top pros use definitely influence sales.
Most OS racquets are designed for pushers, not that they have to just that's the market. They tend to be too light, to rigid and to open. This leads to low control which suits some players but not all.
However, there is no reason racquet manufactures can't lower stiffness, reduce openness either by tighter string grouping or more strings and increase the weight for stability and plow. This might happen as Blade 104 seem popular.

 

[big ted]

I always thought it was Bolletieri’s influence on his students thinking Agassi, Chang and Seles all used the Prince Original Graphite OS when they started.

u may be right considering his camp was sponsored by prince in the earlier years.. the camp was then sponsored by donnay when agassi switched to donnay..

 

[IowaGuy]

u may be right considering his camp was sponsored by prince in the earlier years.. the camp was then sponsored by donnay when agassi switched to donnay..

This still doesn't explain how Courier ended up with an 85 inch Wilson Pro Staff?

 

[myke232]

I think it comes down to Agassi's return of serve, which he was probably the best at of all time. So the racquet was probably suited to that mostly...

 

[Anton]

For a while I have been wondering why Andre agassi would use an oversize racquet. I have since came to the conclusion that Agassi won a lot with it--so why aren't more people using them. Everyone can benefit from the pop that these racquets bring. Most serve and volley players should use an oversize IMO. The benefits from an oversize allow big hitters to become giants.

Explain to me the biggest benefit from using an oversize racquet compared to a midplus(say 100 for example compared to a 110) I would like to know the obvious benefits--because doesnt it look like Agassi was a revolutionary without a revolution???

Bigger face doesn't give more pop. It gives bigger spin window but also more vague stringbed.

There is basically a general consensus that somewhere between 95-105" is the optimal racket face size. Smaller is not well suited for spin game, bigger sizes are kinda clunky and not necessary.

 

[n8dawg6]

its not like there was just a lot to choose from at the time ...

 

[big ted]

This still doesn't explain how Courier ended up with an 85 inch Wilson Pro Staff?

I don't think they were required to use prince but i suppose the option was available... krickstein & arias didn't use prince either and they were two of bollietterris original pupils

 

[Turbo-87]

Not to contribute to an old thread, but I could never get comfortable with an OS. I always felt like I was wielding an Egyptian fan when serving and I just didn't like that feeling. 97-100 ended up being my preferred size. I can appreciate a larger sweetspot and larger surface area to overcome mishits but this size just didn't work well for me.

 

[NLBwell]

Bigger face doesn't give more pop. It gives bigger spin window but also more vague stringbed.

There is basically a general consensus that somewhere between 95-105" is the optimal racket face size. Smaller is not well suited for spin game, bigger sizes are kinda clunky and not necessary.

Longer strings give more power and less control since the stringbed deflects more.