Are we kidding ourselves with mid rackets?

[henryshli]

Hi all, I would like to find out what your thoughts are on racket head size. I don't see many top pros using mid size rackets so why do we use them?

I do sometimes get the feeling that I'm using rackets that I like the feel of (and lose) rather than rackets that I win more often.

 

[Chyeaah]

Simple. People want to be like Fed.

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

I grew up using mids, got used to it, so I'm going to keep using mids. Simple as that.

 

[Fed Kennedy]

Its ok if you win

 

[Bartelby]

Fed's mid is one wide mid. It will be interesting to see comparisons with the new wide Yonex mid.

 

[Fed Kennedy]

I am watching fed vs ferrero on replay. Every world citizen should be forced to buy ps blx 90.

 

[henryshli]

I grew up using mids, got used to it, so I'm going to keep using mids. Simple as that.

Ok, so you are 100% confident that you have maximised your game using a mid sized racket?

 

[henryshli]

Simple. People want to be like Fed.

I do think there is a bit of that.

 

[Dgdavid]

where is the cut off? is a 95 regarded as a demanding headsize too along with the 85-93s?

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

Ok, so you are 100% confident that you have maximised your game using a mid sized racket?

Maybe, maybe not? And that's not a good argument to begin with. That's like telling someone who grew up using polyester strings to use natural gut. Because s/he would get so much more power. Or telling a habitual natural gut user to use polyester strings. Because s/he would get so much more control.

Tennis and sports in general is a practice of habits, and playing within one's comfort zone.

I do know that anything bigger than a 90 sq in swings awkward to me. It's like swinging a giant fan, or an umbrella. That alone is enough to make me not want to use a midplus frame.

Ex: BLX 90 vs BLX 95, nevermind the ball result (95 has way too much power for me), the way they feel during a swing is drastically different enough. I grew up playing mids, so I'm used to the smaller headsize. A bigger headsize feels alien to me.

 

[henryshli]

I understand that people get used to a mid racket, but are they hindered in anyway in terms of development? I just don't understand why there are more pros using MP than mid?

Is it simple because there more juniors etc using MP rackets than mid so the proportion of players turning pro is about right, or is it the case that juniors using MP become more successful (hence turned pro) than juniors using mid?

Are you of the view that there is fundamentally no advantage in using a MP over mid if one is good enough and therefore it is purely a matter of preference?

 

[henryshli]

where is the cut off? is a 95 regarded as a demanding headsize too along with the 85-93s?

consider it as a continuous spectrum! 95 is less demanding than 85. People always talk about the control and feel blah blah blah of a smaller head size so why don't more pros go for control and feel?

 

[-Bobo-]

Erm i feel that the plow through is the biggest benefit of mids, and mids don't play that differently for me except for maybe the DH backhand. To maintain same level of plow as head size increase you need to you need to increase either static weight and swingweight or lower balance and swingweight.

 

[Meaghan]

I think pros tend not to play with mids due to the quality of their opponents ball, its good to have something a little more forgiving......

Us on the other hand its less important as the quality is not the same, I think a lot more should play mids and think about placement and control over beating the sh1t out of the ball.

Played two youngsters last night in a league match, both using head mids, they were certainly not lacking any pace, it was good to see. They still lost tho to a couple off slightly older guys with 95's ha.

Like someone said above the yonex and wilson are wide and there's very little between 90" and 98's tbh.

 

[Gee]

I think pros tend not to play with mids due to the quality of their opponents ball, its good to have something a little more forgiving......

Us on the other hand its less important as the quality is not the same, I think a lot more should play mids and think about placement and control over beating the sh1t out of the ball.

Played two youngsters last night in a league match, both using head mids, they were certainly not lacking any pace, it was good to see. They still lost tho to a couple off slightly older guys with 95's ha.

Like someone said above the yonex and wilson are wide and there's very little between 90" and 98's tbh.

I agree.

The racquet headsize should suit your game. For instance a hard hitter with flat strokes and a big serve who doesn't like to play long rallies should fit a mid very well. (See players like Safin, Ivanisevic, Sampras). On the contrary a typical clay court player 'll more benefit from a bigger headsize.(Look at many Spanish players like Nadal, Ferrer, Moya, Costa, Ferrero).

Most pro players use a MP because it has more options, forgiveness, power and spin than a midsize. At pro level they simply need that at such a high speed rallies!

BTW I read the following from the book Technical Tennis from Rodd Cross and Crawford Lindsey (see page 133) that most pro players use a 95" headsize frame because there is no need to tilt the racquet head as far as 35 degrees and because a smaller head is more maneuverable.

 

[robbo1970]

I think the fact is, we are not pro's and therefore just use the rackets we like the feel of and the look of.

Its about enjoying the sport and if getting the most out of it is having fun with a mid, then that's what it's all about.

As for me, I currently use a 93 and if I hit that one peach of a shot out five attempts then thats more fun to me that hitting the same bland shot everytime.

I would never knock the midplus/oversize players (I use them too on ocassion), but this is my reason for staying mid....I just like the fun of it.

Old Skool Rulez!!

 

[TimothyO]

One might ask if we're kidding ourselves with MP racquets instead!

The MP's larger head provides easier access to spin in theory. But how many times have we read that spin is technique and not the hardware? If some belive we're kidding ourselves about mids and their greater precision then perhaps MP users are kidding themselves about MPs and ability to exploit spin.

It seems that today nearly every middle aged guy is using an MP and trying to hit crazy topspin like Nadal. They do a great job brushing the ball generating topspin but they also seem to generate a ton of UEs when they mishit and their shots often lack pace and penetration.

Instead of tring to smash the ball and keep it in court with top spin most of them would probably do better to hit flatter and focus more on precision which is the domain of the mids.

I currently use a modded Speed 300 with which it's very easy to generate crazy spin of all sorts. But through a happy accident I'm demoing the PS 6.1 95 (2012) and loving it. I can still hit top spinny shots, especially on serve, but it's far more precise than any MP I've used (other mids I've used are the AG 100 and BM 200 Lite).

Last night I hit with two of our top players on our ALTA team (mid level Bs) and one of our mid level guys. I used the PS 95 for the entire session (prior to the t-storms that rolled through!) and did far better than my hitting companions. As usual they were going for huge topspin groundies and massive serves...and generating UEs. I was focused on precision and ******* them off big time. But when I needed it the power and spin were still present with the 95 and with greater precsion. I repeatedly passed or jammed the opposing net player with powerful top spin shots even with the 95...more importantly the shots went where intended instewd of deflecting at weird angles.

In other words, while they were sraying shots I was getting them in and where I wanted them.

Hitting with great top spin, the perceived advantage of MPs, takes great timing. The difference in size between mid and MP isn't so great that one should rely upon that difference for safety margins rather than technique and timing. If your timing stinks with a mid then an MP isn't going to make you Nadal.

 

[TimothyO]

Most pro players use a MP because it has more options, forgiveness, power and spin than a midsize. At pro level they simply need that at such a high speed rallies!

BTW I read the following from the book Technical Tennis from Rodd Cross and Crawford Lindsey (see page 133) that most pro players use a 95" headsize frame because there is no need to tilt the racquet head as far as 35 degrees and because a smaller head is more maneuverable.

Good theory but Federer is second only to Nadal in RPMs.

Hardware definitely helps but maybe the MPs are leading regular folks to believe that hardware can substitute for timing and technique when hitting topspin.

 

[Larrysümmers]

its easier to hit the ball with a mp than a mid

 

[Wuppy]

I think anyone under a 4.5 using anything under a 100 sq in racquet is deluding himself.

 

[Jessekershaw]

I agree wholeheartedly that comfort and confidence will make up for whatever pros or cons you get from 5 or 10 sq/in.

For me, using a 95 growing up, I still generally prefer a racquet around that size. But I have tried some 100 racquets recently that were more round and thought it gave me more margin for going after topspin on my backhand returns without fear of mis-hit and also liked it at the net for those stretch volleys down low, especially in doubles. They made me feel more comfortable going after my backhand return. Maybe all in my head but that's kind of the point.

In the end I still play mostly with 93 or 95 but just ordered a demo of the PS 90. If it feels good in my hand the size is just a means to an end.

 

[zcarzach]

I think anyone under a 4.5 using anything under a 100 sq in racquet is deluding himself.

Interesting opinion. But there is something to be said for enjoying the game. For example, I could buy a brand new Challenger, get a 330 hp six cylinder and drive really fast. Or I could buy a 1966 Plymouth Satellite with a 318 v8. Less of a "driving machine", slower 1/4 mile times, but a more enjoyable driving experience for me (in my opinion).

I frequently play with wood racquets and I hit the ball just as hard (if not harder) than I do with my Yonex 98. My volleys are better with the heavy wood racquet. But most importantly, I have more fun with the old tech. It isn't delusion; some of us aren't out there winning millions with our 100 sq. in. racquets and don't need to maximize our games to the nth degree with new tech. If you are, more power to you.

 

[movdqa]

I made the switch from Mid to MP last year and it took a while. I think that the tradeoff is a little less accuracy (especially on the crosscourt flat backhand), but more spin potential, a little more forgiveness and more power. I think that the tradeoff has been worth the transition effort.

BTW, I see myself using the Prestige MP for the rest of my life after the effort in making the transition. I really, really, really hate changing racquets.

 

[TimothyO]

I think anyone under a 4.5 using anything under a 100 sq in racquet is deluding himself.

Why?

If you're talking hitting area then you're completely wrong. Perfect example:

Compare the 2012 Pro Staff 6.1 95 string bed to the 2012 BLX Surge SB (100").

The sweet spot on the 95" Pro Staff is significantly LARGER than the sweet spot on the 100" surge according to TW. Furthermore, if you compare the string beds visually by holding the two rackets next to each other, the rectangle formed by the Surge's SB is SMALLER than that of the PS.

The difference in width at the sweet spot is also VERY small, maybe 1/8".

In other words, the 95" PS is more forgiving than the 100" Surge when it comes to hitting area.

My son uses the 100" Surge and it's far more precise than other 100s I've tried and is nearly as precise as the ProStaff. The only reason he doesn't use something like the PS is weight as it pertains to serves (he's 10 years old and finds it easier to serve with a lighter frame). I'm demo'ing the 95 so can compare the SBs directly.

BTW...in your signature line you're confusing mean (average) with median.

 

[jmverdugo]

I think so ... yes, you are kidding yourselves.

 

[TimothyO]

I made the switch from Mid to MP last year and it took a while. I think that the tradeoff is a little less accuracy (especially on the crosscourt flat backhand), but more spin potential, a little more forgiveness and more power. I think that the tradeoff has been worth the transition effort.

BTW, I see myself using the Prestige MP for the rest of my life after the effort in making the transition. I really, really, really hate changing racquets.

I started with mids, currently use an MP, and find myself drifting back to mids, all for these reasons.

I was drawn to MPs for the spin potential, but also noticed the reduction in accuracy.

But now I'm drawn back to mids because they feel more versatile. You can still hit great spin with them but flat shots are more precise too. With MPs flats are more temperamental. Since you can't address every situation with a huge top spin forehand I feel that mids might be a better choice.

 

[Wuppy]

BTW...in your signature line you're confusing mean (average) with median.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6544500&postcount=48

 

[max]

I grew up using mids, got used to it, so I'm going to keep using mids. Simple as that.

This is really the deal, in the end, for me. I grew up using conventional sized (65 inch) frames; the mid always has seemed plenty large enough.

I would hate to be in the other situation; used to using a frying pan then whittling down to a mid!

 

[Anton]

There are a lot worse things then playing with a racket that has 10% smaller head size (the difference between a mid and a large midplus racket)

Like for example playing with a racket that is too light.

Mids are not very good for spin game but they are just fine for drive and volley game.

 

[henryshli]

I started with mids, currently use an MP, and find myself drifting back to mids, all for these reasons.

I was drawn to MPs for the spin potential, but also noticed the reduction in accuracy.

But now I'm drawn back to mids because they feel more versatile. You can still hit great spin with them but flat shots are more precise too. With MPs flats are more temperamental. Since you can't address every situation with a huge top spin forehand I feel that mids might be a better choice.

So is it not really true that MP rackets can help with consistency?

 

[ChipNCharge]

I think the problem with mids isn't necessarily the head size, but the fact their weight/swingweight is quite a bit higher (on average) than MPs.

 

[KenC]

So why is 100in. the "best" size? Shouldn't 110in. be 10% better? why not 120in.?

I hope I live long enough to see 200in. racquets that weigh in under 200 grams being the norm and future generations will be asking how the hell did they play with those AeroPro Drives way back then. Surely the 2025 Fluffy Drive model will be more forgiving and easier to swing than those old school racquets of 2012.

 

[jk816]

I started with mids, currently use an MP, and find myself drifting back to mids, all for these reasons.

I was drawn to MPs for the spin potential, but also noticed the reduction in accuracy.

But now I'm drawn back to mids because they feel more versatile. You can still hit great spin with them but flat shots are more precise too. With MPs flats are more temperamental. Since you can't address every situation with a huge top spin forehand I feel that mids might be a better choice.

I'm in the same boat; learned on mids, went to lighter MPs and then came back to heavier mids in the last few years. I currently have two different sticks in my bag, a PB10 Mid and a BB London. The London swings nice and is more forgiving while the PB10 is a taskmaster. But whenever I'm not using the PB10 I find myself missing the plowthrough and penetration the PB10 gives me.
Recently I had a hitting session with a pro and used both racquets and asked him to evaluate which racquet (in my hands) produced better or tougher balls for him to handle. He uses an MP himself and we both expected that in the end I'd probably hit more, better shots with the lighter MP (London). At the end he told me to stick with the Volkl, definitely.

 

[TimothyO]

So is it not really true that MP rackets can help with consistency?

It depends on the frame, the string, and the player.

Give a low to mid level player a powerful MP frame with powerful string and he's NOT going to be more consistent. On flat shots the deflection angle will be more INCONSISTENT and he'll lack the skill to hit with accuracy inducing spin consistently.

Even if he can hit with topspin or slice to bring some accuracy to his shots he won't be able to consistently exploit the more spinny nature of the MP since he lacks the court time needed to develop the timing.

Basically the argument folks are making here is that if you're a lower or mid level player you should use a larger string bed which is inherently less consistent compared to a smaller string bed, all else being equal.

Where a larger string bed MIGHT help is if it's denser (18x20) and with a less powerful/stiffer string so the rebound angle is more predictable, especially on flat shots. Then you have a larger surface area to strike and it's more predictable and doesn't rely upon spinning the ball for accuracy.

I've seen too many rec players tentatively tapping balls since their frame is so powerful AND large/unpredictable. The ones that know how to hit top spin are as likely to shank as hit a clean, consistent ball.

You veterans know what I'm talking about. They're the guys on Saturday morning hitting HUGE spinny forehands...in 2-3 shot rallies. Then someone launches the ball into the parking lot or into the net.

Yeah, their 100" Nadal racquet might be marginally more spinny than a smaller frame. But while they can hit the spinny shot they can't do it consistently. The ladies on our mid-level mixed team are always complaining about our line 1 men who hit like this: looks REALLY impressive but they often inflict more UEs and score very few winners.

I'm always in danger of being in that category with my Speed 300. Given my experience and skill I can certainly rip big top spin forehands. But under match conditions I need to be very carefully about WHEN I do that. Where others using an MP will try that with every ball I'll do it only when I'm most comfortable with the ball in my strike zone and my feet/shoulders set. Since I can hit that sort of solid top spin shot even with a mid while well prepared I'm thinking I should return to mids since, under match conditions, one is forced to hit so many shots when not perfectly prepared.

 

[jonestim]

I made the switch from Mid to MP last year and it took a while. I think that the tradeoff is a little less accuracy (especially on the crosscourt flat backhand), but more spin potential, a little more forgiveness and more power. I think that the tradeoff has been worth the transition effort.

BTW, I see myself using the Prestige MP for the rest of my life after the effort in making the transition. I really, really, really hate changing racquets.

One of the problems with the mid/midplus terms are that racquets come in all shapes and sizes and one person's/company's mid is another person's/company's midplus. Take the Prestige MP as an example. They market it as a 98, but it is really a 95. Hold it up over a POG 90/93 or Diablo Mid. The Prince racquet heads are wider by about 1/8" and just a bit shorter. The weight/swingweight may make them more demanding than the Prestige MP, but not the head size. I'll post a photo when I have time later.

 

[bad_call]

I made the switch from Mid to MP last year and it took a while. I think that the tradeoff is a little less accuracy (especially on the crosscourt flat backhand), but more spin potential, a little more forgiveness and more power. I think that the tradeoff has been worth the transition effort.

BTW, I see myself using the Prestige MP for the rest of my life after the effort in making the transition. I really, really, really hate changing racquets.

have the win stats gone up, down or the same since switching?

 

[Lambo]

its actually very simple. We are n ot kidding ourselves. I just find that I do not have the control if i play with anything over 93 or 94 inch headsize. Maybe I am not good enough to control a 100 inch or 95 plus inch racq. But for me mid is where its at.

 

[klementine]

Everyone should play with a mid size frame for a period of time.... learn it ..... love it.

Then go to MP's and rule Eternia from the castle of Grayskull.

 

[TimothyO]

Everyone should play with a mid size frame for a period of time.... learn it ..... love it.

Then go to MP's and rule Eternia from the castle of Grayskull.

But if using an MP are you required to then dress like He-Man?

:shock:

It might violate the dress code for some clubs!

 

[netguy]

I grew up using mids, got used to it, so I'm going to keep using mids. Simple as that.

The same here

 

[HEADfamilydynasty]

i have a teammate who is a basic beginner. he has a flowing(for a beginner) forehand with a high chopping slice. His original racket was 100", 11.2. i let him hit with my Redondo mid and he had no issues whatsoever. In fact, he improved dramatically. his slices went from Moon balls to floaters. His FH went up 5 MPHs but with no spin. His serve was more consistent and harder.

 

[Byakuya]

I think anyone under a 4.5 using anything under a 100 sq in racquet is deluding himself.

I'm a pretty small guy and I have small hands and skinny wrists. A large 100 sq in racquet has too much rotational inertia for my physical size to maneuver than a smaller frame size racquet. I have quicker swing and easier time swinging a small frame than a larger frame. I might not be generating the theoretically higher spin, getting more power from the larger racquet and living in the forgiveness of a larger head size, but it sure is easier on my game. I can't say that playing with a larger racquet will improve my game at all.

The larger 100 sq.in racquet will give them a larger sweet spot and let them hit a lot less dead balls, but I also think a lot of beginners don't really know what to do with a really large head size racquet. As if they are swingin around a really big fly swatter.

If they develop their accuracy and hand and eye coordination (which they will) they can easily be more comfortable with a smaller MP or mid racquet.

 

[tenapasi]

Just wondering.
How's the mids performing when using 2 Handed Backhand ?

 

[Wuppy]

I'm a pretty small guy and I have small hands and skinny wrists.

How small? I'm 5'8, 138 lbs, 6.5" wrists. Doesn't get much scrawnier than myself

 

[Geology_Rocks!]

IDK... the head sizes really aren't that far apart.

 

[frunk]

I don't like anything except for my KBlade tour, a mid. 90 is too small and 95 seems wonky and large. 98 sq. in and larger frames just look big and stupid in my eyes.

 

[drakulie]

I don't see many top pros using mid size rackets so why do we use them?

Not one player in the top 25 uses a Pure Drive, yet, it is the #1 selling racquet in the world.

To add, there are only 2 players in the top 25 using Babolat racquets (Nadal/Tsonga, APD), yet again, Babolat has the number 1 thru 5 selling racquets in the wolrd.

So, why on earth would anyone want to use Babolats?

 

[boramiNYC]

For eastern fh and 1hbh game, smaller head works wonders. Very grip and style dependent the headsize is. OTOH, 2hbh and SW and W style don't need fast turning head.

 

[gocard]

I've been switching between a 95 and 90/93 sq in heads. I don't find too much difference personally since the balances, weight and swingweights are roughly similar. There is a noticeable power difference though.

 

[Xonemains]

Not one player in the top 25 uses a Pure Drive, yet, it is the #1 selling racquet in the world.

To add, there are only 2 players in the top 25 using Babolat racquets (Nadal/Tsonga, APD), yet again, Babolat has the number 1 thru 5 selling racquets in the wolrd.

So, why on earth would anyone want to use Babolats?

easy, they want to be like RAFA and shout Vamos!! after they hit a winner like after 20 errors.