Big racquets for sucky players?

F

fortissimo

New User
Could someone please tell me why, aside from pride/ego, convention/tradition, and "because that's what I heard from so-and-so," professional tennis players do not use racquets with head sizes bigger than 100, especially 108, 120 or even the big 137 square inch racquet? If it's better for a 3.0 player, why wouldn't it also be better for a 4.0, 5.0 or 6.0 player?

A person at a tennis store told me, "convention." Another person at another store told me, "because they're too heavy." But that makes no sense to me, because as I understand it, Federer used to use a club before switching to the new custom Wilson racquet this year. Heavy racquets are desirable depending on the player, not the level, right?

Thanks!
 
P.S. What really gets me: tennis regulations forbid anything larger than 137 sq inches, so it would stand to reason that no such rule would need to exist in the first place if using an enormous racquet weren't an advantage.
 
fortissimo said:
Could someone please tell me why, aside from pride/ego, convention/tradition, and "because that's what I heard from so-and-so," professional tennis players do not use racquets with head sizes bigger than 100, especially 108, 120 or even the big 137 square inch racquet? If it's better for a 3.0 player, why wouldn't it also be better for a 4.0, 5.0 or 6.0 player?

A person at a tennis store told me, "convention." Another person at another store told me, "because they're too heavy." But that makes no sense to me, because as I understand it, Federer used to use a club before switching to the new custom Wilson racquet this year. Heavy racquets are desirable depending on the player, not the level, right?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Federer's new 97 is even more of a club than his 90.

Higher level players use heavier racquets because the pace of the ball is so much faster so they need more of a weapon to counter all that momentum. All else being equal, heavier racquets have more power potential provided you can swing them just as fast, and the pros can.

Besides, look at the size of the tennis ball. It's tiny. Why would you need a racquet that's so much bigger than the tennis ball unless you were visually impaired? :)
 
The larger the racquet face, the larger the sweetspot. This results in less feedback on shots and less pinpoint accuracy. A large sweetspot is great for rec players, but for pros it would be more of a hinderance than anything. It's the same reason Pro golfers don't use game improvement clubs wih huge faces.
 
fortissimo said:
Could someone please tell me why, aside from pride/ego, convention/tradition, and "because that's what I heard from so-and-so," professional tennis players do not use racquets with head sizes bigger than 100, especially 108, 120 or even the big 137 square inch racquet? If it's better for a 3.0 player, why wouldn't it also be better for a 4.0, 5.0 or 6.0 player?

A person at a tennis store told me, "convention." Another person at another store told me, "because they're too heavy." But that makes no sense to me, because as I understand it, Federer used to use a club before switching to the new custom Wilson racquet this year. Heavy racquets are desirable depending on the player, not the level, right?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Cos sometimes bragging about having something bigger isn't better lol!

Bragging that you are using a Pete signature K88 is soooo much more macho then saying you use a granny stick.

Saying that what's good for a 3.0 would be good for a 4.0 and up is like saying training wheels are great for everyone. Generally, most beginners lack the strokes/timing to generate power and pace so a bigger, lighter stick would benefit them. However, as you get better and strokes are better timed with more physical conditioning, you should be moving onto to more control orientated frames.
 
Last edited:
how about putting it this way> big racquets for lazy players

1) cant be bothered to do full swing.
2) wants to exert the least force
3) spend less time tracking the ball to aim the sweet spot to the ball
 
Agassi, Chang, and all those pros who used POG were sucky players.

Monica Seles must have been the suckiest of all female pros.
 
scotus said:
Agassi, Chang, and all those pros who used POG were sucky players.

Monica Seles must have been the suckiest of all female pros.
Click to expand...
Sure were. None of them have ever been mentioned as the GOAT, like Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg, Connors, Lendl, etc. have - all of whom used standard-size racquets or Mids. :)

On the women's side - the ones mentioned as GOAT, such as Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Court-Smith, etc. also all used standard-sized racquets or Mids. :eek:
 
Great players who used oversize racquets:
Chang, Agassi, Seles, Serena Williams. It's just personal preference, so don't hate.
 
Also, 3.0 and 3.5 players don't have the same ball following skills as better players, and would tend to frame a lot of balls with a smaller head racket.
 
Use what you want and pay more attention to your game than worrying about what others use. I really couldn't care less what racket my opponent is using.
 
In general, larger racquets have more power and are more forgiving. Smaller racquets offer more control, but require more power from you and better technique. That said, new technologies blurr this somewhat which is why you see some pros moving to bigger racquets.
 
My two OS rackets, MGRadOS and Prince03Shark0s, have less power on groundstrokes than my Mfil200's, Aero500's, Bio300T's, and 4D300's.
On flat first serves, the longest, Prince, can serve the hardest flat serves and probably the spinniest topspin serves. But it takes a "mighty" swing.
My Aero500's hit the easiest power.
My 4DAero300's allow me to hit my hardest with confidence.
 
One of the few to successfully use a granny racket is Marion Bartolli.

Granny/grandpa sticks are big light stiff and wide.

Here's way pros and even advance intermediates don't use them much:

1. the longer strings cause a loss of control compared to smaller rackets. you can compensate by string them with stiff strings like poly and/or at higher tensions but you still will not get the precise control.
2. you must have more weight in the head of your racket to handle faster incoming shots. light rackets would not be good to return John Isner's serve or any ATP forehand or any really good USTA 4.0 FH for that matter.
3. you can not really compensate for a lack of mass in a light racket with stiffness. Power and stability are related to the mass (heaviness) of a racket and stiffness is no where near as effective in generating power or making a racket stable.
4. big heads are a placebo for rec players and offer little real benefits in reality. A 100" racket head with a high swing weight and high twist weight will have a bigger sweetspot than a 115" racket head that has a lower swing weight and low twist weight.

My view - no one needs more than 100" properly weighted and balanced. But, that's just my view.
 
fortissimo said:
Could someone please tell me why, aside from pride/ego, convention/tradition, and "because that's what I heard from so-and-so," professional tennis players do not use racquets with head sizes bigger than 100, especially 108, 120 or even the big 137 square inch racquet? If it's better for a 3.0 player, why wouldn't it also be better for a 4.0, 5.0 or 6.0 player?

A person at a tennis store told me, "convention." Another person at another store told me, "because they're too heavy." But that makes no sense to me, because as I understand it, Federer used to use a club before switching to the new custom Wilson racquet this year. Heavy racquets are desirable depending on the player, not the level, right?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
What kind of tennis store is this???

One time I went to a "tennis store", asked for my racquet to be strung 64/60 and got back a one piece string job
yuck.gif
 
To counter some argument's above....
HeadMGRadOS is a 107, has 58 flex and 318SW, at 10.8 oz.
HeadYouRadOS is close to those specs.
WilsonBlade104 is near those specs.
You guys can probably name more than 10 other OS rackets that are NOT powerful, have huge sweetspots, are soft flexing and easy to swing.
 
OP,

It's the clunkyness and therefore lack of precision is the downsize of oversize racket. As swing speed goes up, these aspects also magnify. That's why pros don't use them.

At rec level precision isn't as big a concern as, say, being able to get the ball on the string, being able to hit the ball in the general direction of intent. Precision isn't an issue when the ball is slow enough.
 
I'm looking more and more at the Blade 104 as time goes by....:)
But of course, I suck at tennis, being a lowly 4.0.
 
LeeD said:
I'm looking more and more at the Blade 104 as time goes by....:)
But of course, I suck at tennis, being a lowly 4.0.
Click to expand...

My wife uses the Blade 104 and crushes the ball with it. I've hit with it before and it definitely doesn't feel like a game improvement stick... It's just a little light for my taste.
 
LeeD said:
I'm looking more and more at the Blade 104 as time goes by....:)
But of course, I suck at tennis, being a lowly 4.0.
Click to expand...

The blade is alright for me. For any 98-104 size, I prefer big frame like the apd and would recommend for folks like LeeD.

I don't know if it's psychological or has an actual basis but thin frame seems more difficult to hit. Big frame gives a larger presence, both for the feel of your hands and peripheral vision. Believe it or not, I have actually enjoyed a ton of mis-hits that landed in to my surprise with my apdc.
 
I still use my 3 Aero500s (APD clones by Dunlop), weighted to just over 11 oz and 320 SW's. One used to be 325 in SW, but I cut out the LuxBB16 for PrinceSynGut17, which made the SW hugely lighter.
I"ve got a couple of OS rackets, MGRadOS and Prince03SharkOS, but I'm always mishitting with them lately.
 
LeeD said:
I still use my 3 Aero500s (APD clones by Dunlop), weighted to just over 11 oz and 320 SW's. One used to be 325 in SW, but I cut out the LuxBB16 for PrinceSynGut17, which made the SW hugely lighter.
I"ve got a couple of OS rackets, MGRadOS and Prince03SharkOS, but I'm always mishitting with them lately.
Click to expand...

Exactly, LeeD. I had a Speed and a Radical 98 but somehow I didn't enjoy them though I hit fine with them after a while. They didn't command a presence.

I'm not surprised if you hit better with the Dunlop 500 or any apd clone. All large oversize rackets also have big frames even if they are light for this reason. They're designed to give a solid presence. If thin frames do well, you'd see alot of Donnays used at the court already. Btw, I used to have a Red 98". I never gave it a decent chance of try. :)
 
BreakPoint said:
Federer's new 97 is even more of a club than his 90.

Higher level players use heavier racquets because the pace of the ball is so much faster so they need more of a weapon to counter all that momentum. All else being equal, heavier racquets have more power potential provided you can swing them just as fast, and the pros can.

Besides, look at the size of the tennis ball. It's tiny. Why would you need a racquet that's so much bigger than the tennis ball unless you were visually impaired? :)
Click to expand...

This is kind of a ridiculous question. A lot of recreational players - or even higher level players - don't have as good eye-hand coordination so a larger head size helps.

I believe this is one of the reasons tennis is not as popular as soccer or basketball. Those sports are fairly easy to play at a basic level. Tennis isn't, and the eye-hand coordination required is a big reason.
 
Down_the_line said:
This is kind of a ridiculous question. A lot of recreational players - or even higher level players - don't have as good eye-hand coordination so a larger head size helps.

I believe this is one of the reasons tennis is not as popular as soccer or basketball. Those sports are fairly easy to play at a basic level. Tennis isn't, and the eye-hand coordination required is a big reason.
Click to expand...
So then Pancho Gonzales had the most amazing eye-hand coordination in the history of mankind?

69155-004-D07A567C.jpg
 
Panch played in an era where EVERYONE used small rackets, and didn't know better about the advantages of bigger rackets.
If your primary hunting weapon was a slingshot, how can you know how much better a high powered rifle can be? You make the best with what you have.
 
LeeD said:
Panch played in an era where EVERYONE used small rackets, and didn't know better about the advantages of bigger rackets.
If your primary hunting weapon was a slingshot, how can you know how much better a high powered rifle can be? You make the best with what you have.
Click to expand...
Doesn't change the fact that the tennis ball back then was the same size as it is now so the relative size between the ball and racquet is what matters in eye-hand coordination. The conclusion is that players back then had much superior eye-hand coordination to players today.
 
BreakPoint said:
Sure were. None of them have ever been mentioned as the GOAT, like Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg, Connors, Lendl, etc. have - all of whom used standard-size racquets or Mids. :)

On the women's side - the ones mentioned as GOAT, such as Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Court-Smith, etc. also all used standard-sized racquets or Mids. :eek:
Click to expand...

BreakPoint said:
Doesn't change the fact that the tennis ball back then was the same size as it is now so the relative size between the ball and racquet is what matters in eye-hand coordination. The conclusion is that players back then had much superior eye-hand coordination to players today.
Click to expand...

I can only conclude that BreakPoint is a troll.
 
^^^^ So you disagree that the tennis ball is the same size but that only the racquet has gotten much bigger? So then the eye-hand coordination of the players have changed, right?
 
scotus said:
Agassi, Chang, and all those pros who used POG were sucky players.

Monica Seles must have been the suckiest of all female pros.
Click to expand...

90% of the OS racquets on the market have NOTHING in common with POG or the Radicals Agassi used...they were Heavy, Head Light, and Flexible....pretty much the same as the majority of "player sticks" with a few more inches.

Player improvement OS modern sticks are light, stiff, head heavy rocket launchers. No weight, combined with a large surface area for off center hits means YOU LOSE against physics when facing heavy paced shot.
 
BreakPoint said:
^^^^ So you disagree that the tennis ball is the same size but that only the racquet has gotten much bigger? So then the eye-hand coordination of the players have changed, right?
Click to expand...

Stop putting words into my mouth. Put them in yours instead. This way you can eat them.
 
The slower pace of the game would account for any superior eye-hand coordination.


BreakPoint said:
Doesn't change the fact that the tennis ball back then was the same size as it is now so the relative size between the ball and racquet is what matters in eye-hand coordination. The conclusion is that players back then had much superior eye-hand coordination to players today.
Click to expand...
 
Topspin Shot said:
Stop putting words into my mouth. Put them in yours instead. This way you can eat them.
Click to expand...
I didn't put any words in your mouth.

I'm asking you if past players had better eye-hand coordination than today's players since they were able to hit the same sized ball with racquets that were half the size as those used by today's players. Doesn't hitting a tennis ball with a 100 sq. in. racquet require much LESS eye-hand coordination than with a 60 sq. in. racquet? If so, then I agree with you. Players today "don't have as good eye-hand coordination so a larger racquet helps." But apparently players in the past used to have much better eye-hand coordination as evidenced by their uncanny ability to hit the same sized tennis ball using significantly smaller racquets.
 
Last edited:
Bartelby said:
The slower pace of the game would account for any superior eye-hand coordination.
Click to expand...
But today's grass is much slower than the old grass that Pancho Gonzales played on, as are almost all other surfaces. They don't even play on fast indoor carpet any more.

And people used to go to the net and hit lots of volleys when the ball is moving at a much faster pace than after the bounce which at its apex is nearly standing relatively still.
 
Topspin Shot said:
What the? I haven't been on this thread except to call you a troll.
Click to expand...
Oops...that was another poster. :oops:

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the size of the tennis ball has remained the same while the size of the racquets have increased 100%. What does that say about eye-hand coordination today versus in the past?
 
Down_the_line said:
This is kind of a ridiculous question. A lot of recreational players - or even higher level players - don't have as good eye-hand coordination so a larger head size helps.

I believe this is one of the reasons tennis is not as popular as soccer or basketball. Those sports are fairly easy to play at a basic level. Tennis isn't, and the eye-hand coordination required is a big reason.
Click to expand...

My view is this is the myth of the bigger head. You don't get more playable surface in general from a 110-115 than you would from a properly weighted and balanced 95-100 head. It is just you look down and see that big head and think "wow, I cannot miss with this". A few years ago TW sold a boris becker 98" that had a very high SW. The effective power zone was much bigger than the OS rackets. You could use the TW tools to view power zone and see the 98" had a much bigger power zone than almost all the stock OS rackets TW sold.

My view is it is more practical to use a smaller racket with proper weight and balance. It is easier to maneuver and handle and you can be more precise with the shorter strings.

There are exceptions, Gene Mayer, Agassi, Shriver and Chang all succeeded with OS frames. But, OS rackets are a very small percentage of the market at the pro and collegiate level.
 
I don't understand all this hate regarding OS rackets. I've used OS rackets, still have two I rotate into the equation monthly.
It's nice to be able to hit the ball if I haven't played in a week or two. OS gives a bigger hitting surface, even if the actual sweetspot is not much bigger than 98's or 100's. So, even a bad mishit can go IN, which is why we play the points, right?
And everything evens out in the end anyways. What little advantages and disadvantages of OS vs Mid+ vs tweener all show up, and cancel each other out.
What you can with one, you will lose in other areas with it.
 
BreakPoint said:
Sure were. None of them have ever been mentioned as the GOAT, like Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg, Connors, Lendl, etc. have - all of whom used standard-size racquets or Mids. :)

On the women's side - the ones mentioned as GOAT, such as Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Court-Smith, etc. also all used standard-sized racquets or Mids. :eek:
Click to expand...
Monica was #1 and pwning Graf when she was stabbed by a certain deranged person and she used a very large OS racquet.

Nadal also completely pwns Federer. So there goes that awesome water tight theory. Oh, you're banned, how unfortunate.
 
Sander001 said:
Monica was #1 and pwning Graf when she was stabbed by a certain deranged person and she used a very large OS racquet.

Nadal also completely pwns Federer. So there goes that awesome water tight theory. Oh, you're banned, how unfortunate.
Click to expand...

Could be a temp ban lol. E undead will return lol.
 
BreakPoint said:
Doesn't change the fact that the tennis ball back then was the same size as it is now so the relative size between the ball and racquet is what matters in eye-hand coordination. The conclusion is that players back then had much superior eye-hand coordination to players today.
Click to expand...

Not really today's game even the pros almost all play 95 or above and the speed and the spin produced is far superior than the day of small rkts,this variable certainly adds to the difficulty in striking the ball, so it is not just size of the ball and rkt head size. I am of the Connors era and would love to claim our generation had superior hand eye but that would be Baloney
 
BreakPoint said:
Oops...that was another poster. :oops:

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the size of the tennis ball has remained the same while the size of the racquets have increased 100%. What does that say about eye-hand coordination today versus in the past?
Click to expand...


What about the Rally ball. Lol
 
Funny to see this come up. I'm a 4.0 baseliner and have played with a 100" for years, but have recently been using an OS and having great results. Two recent outings led to the switch.

First was a tournament match where my 2HBH totally left me. I had some bad swings early and started not to trust it, which led to me decelerating into impact. That's when it totally fell apart.

A couple weeks later I was playing a practice set with a friend well below my level (weak 3.5). I generally play too passive, so this was a nice opportunity to practice being aggressive without having to worry about losing. Three games in and (surprise!) I'm down 1-2 on lots of errors trying to go big. I went to the changeover very frustrated. I knew I could win by playing passive tennis, but I need to learn not to play down to players like this. On a whim, I grabbed a POG 107 that I had in the bag but rarely hit with. It was a combination of hope that it would help, and wanting to punish myself for striking the ball so badly ("Okay, me, if you're going to play like a sucky 3.0, you might as well use an oversize like a sucky 3.0"). Like magic, my whole game turned around. Depth was easy, and I had confidence to accelerate through the ball, particularly on the backhand. I'm sure I lost fewer total points in the remaining five games of the set than the prior three.

I can't blame people for thinking oversize racquets are mostly for bad players. A part of me looks down at the racquet and says "I'm better than this, aren't I?". Still, it's about results. I think that personally I'm getting better results with the OS for two reasons. First, because I tend to play with excessive of topspin off both wings, taking a big, sloppy swing up the back side of the ball. The more the racquet is going quickly low to high right at impact, the more the extra width is useful. If I tended to hit more through the ball, I would get virtually zero benefit from the exra head size. Second, I tend to have confidence issues in matchplay, and with the OS I tend to accelerate into the ball without any fear that a slightly mis-timed shot will lead to an error. When I get tight with the midplus I tend to guide the racquet into the ball; with the OS I just let it fly. If I were just to rally with a friend, I don't notice much of a benefit with the OS, and the midplus is more fun to use. I just can't deny the actual match results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
The fallacy of heavy racquets?
2 3 4
Replies
196
Views
17K
socallefty
socallefty
Conquistador
Andre Agassi-Oversize Racquets For Most Players
2
Replies
70
Views
17K
graycrait
graycrait
A
Yonex Racquets for Juniors
Replies
2
Views
1K
royroy85
royroy85
S
Are tweener racquets appropriate for 5.0 players?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Bhagi Katbamna
Bhagi Katbamna
C
Are heavier racquets healthier for our arms / wrists?
Replies
35
Views
2K
tele
tele
Back
Top