Can a racquet that is good for a lanky player like medvedev or zverev be good for a player with shorter arms like verdasco or nishikori?

Djokovicfan

Semi-Pro
i was thinking about demoing meds racquet but im 6’0 with avg lankyness and med is 6’6 and his arm is probably a foot longer than mine so i would assume it would be pretty much impossible for his racquet to work well with my body mechanics. No?
 

Booger

Hall of Fame
Just FYI Med plays with an older Tecnifibre Dynacore 305, not whatever his current paint job is.

But no, racquets don't generally correlate with height. I think Karlovic and Schwartzman used very similar setups at one point.
 

socallefty

Legend
Don’t over-think it. Use a racquet that is light enough for you to swing at full racquet head speed (RHS) while it is heavy enough to be stable against your typical opponent’s shots. Height is not the only determining factor in choosing which racquet is right for you - strength, technique etc. play a role too.
 

Demented

Semi-Pro
I'm only 5'9" with pretty average arms and I moved up from a 27 inch to a 28 inch model of the same racket (Prince Phantom 100->100G LB) and it's made a night and day difference in my arm health. I had to really torque the racket harder with 27 to get the pace I was looking for. The extra leverage makes it a lot easier.
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
I'm only 5'9" with pretty average arms and I moved up from a 27 inch to a 28 inch model of the same racket (Prince Phantom 100->100G LB) and it's made a night and day difference in my arm health. I had to really torque the racket harder with 27 to get the pace I was looking for. The extra leverage makes it a lot easier.
Just get the swing going that tad bit earlier to make the longer lever effective.
If our hosts had decided to stock the newer PK Kinetic Ki Q+ 5x as they did in the 2019 assortment I would already be working on getting out ahead for MOI in just a .5 inch extended version.
 

Djokovicfan

Semi-Pro
very conventionally proportionate physically.
Lol. Verdasco doesnt have short arms but he is not even close to lanky. Also theres people 6 foot 5 who have arms shorter than people who are 5’10. Being taller doesnt mean you automatically will have better reach than someone shorter.
But theres nothing wrong with not having long arms in tennis. You get better leverage over theracquet with shorter arms than you do with longer arms, everything else being equal.

But i think that the combination of having short arms and a two handed backhand is a death sentence for tennis ability. If you dont have long arms you better have a one handed backhand so you can reach out much farther on your backhand. Otherwise you have to run so much farther to get in position for a 2hbh.

i would bet anything that feds ability to conserve energy and not move more than needed in 5 setters owes itself to his 1hbh.
 

Pumpkin

Semi-Pro
I'm only 5'9" with pretty average arms and I moved up from a 27 inch to a 28 inch model of the same racket (Prince Phantom 100->100G LB) and it's made a night and day difference in my arm health. I had to really torque the racket harder with 27 to get the pace I was looking for. The extra leverage makes it a lot easier.
Sorry can I just ask, were you hitting too long with the 27?
 

Demented

Semi-Pro
No, I was hitting with good spin and too much height/not enough depth. The increased length and swing weight got me back to a better median between the two. My ball now crosses the net at about ~3 feet of clearance or less and then hits the other court and jumps up higher than the original arc. It's funny watching people adjust for the perceived incoming bounce height based on my ball path and then the ball jump up and over their shoulder.
 

n8dawg6

Legend
Don’t over-think it. Use a racquet that is light enough for you to swing at full racquet head speed (RHS) while it is heavy enough to be stable against your typical opponent’s shots. Height is not the only determining factor in choosing which racquet is right for you - strength, technique etc. play a role too.
color of the racquet is also an important consideration
 

Demented

Semi-Pro
I actually had a wooden racket when I was kid. It was my dad's. I haven't hit a ball with one in 30 years though. All kidding aside, length of racket actually makes a really big difference... 28 inches changes the entire swing path needed to accomplish your goal.
 

Djokovicfan

Semi-Pro
I'm only 5'9" with pretty average arms and I moved up from a 27 inch to a 28 inch model of the same racket (Prince Phantom 100->100G LB) and it's made a night and day difference in my arm health. I had to really torque the racket harder with 27 to get the pace I was looking for. The extra leverage makes it a lot easier.
Using a longer racquet doesnt increase leverage. It decreases it. Try seeing how much leverage you have swinging a pole vaulting pole by grabbing the end with one hand
 

Djokovicfan

Semi-Pro
I am going to say this. It is not the racquet but the player.
Holy sheizer ive never heard this said before. Nobel prize in the science of originality coming your way my friend.
Fine, I challenge you to a duel.. I'll provide you with a genuine 1960's era wooden racket and I'll use my current setup. I'm sure you will prevail...
Pwned
This is a classic case of overthinking gear.
Gear is very important if you want to be the best player you can be. Have a doubles team switch racquets and see how well they play lol. Pro and high level players are finely tuned machines almost like formula 1 cars. Even just a little variation in equipment can drastically change how well a player plays. If you are just smacking balls around with a friend then yeah the racquet doesnt matter much. But even then, having a suitable racquet that feels natural and easy to swing will make playing a million times more fun.
 

Demented

Semi-Pro
Using a longer racquet doesnt increase leverage. It decreases it. Try seeing how much leverage you have swinging a pole vaulting pole by grabbing the end with one hand
I think your confusing torque and leverage. A longer racket when swung with the same amount of effort takes longer to speed up but has more force because the contact point is moving faster. That's why you have to prep earlier with a longer stick.
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
to play like Meds or Hercats you need racquet head speed with less of the torque of yesteryear
perfect timing of course but equally great counterpunching abilities that yet fail on clay.

Ever wonder why young kids can hit the ball harder and faster than oldies that have played the
game for 4 times as long and where good players in their youth? These weakling kids are able
to whip the ball better than any muscular adult and maximize the racquets power and spin.

Most commentators used to say Nadal style will wear him out yet the amount of whip he creates
is nothing of the torque they thought he was using. On further analysis Nadal is very efficient in
using max racquet head speed with the least amount of effort.

Federer is probably the only player to whip the ball with such a heavy stick vs Nadal and Nico
The plusher the stick the more you have to arm the ball than use your wrists like the tip of a whip.
Fed vs Nadal was almost equal in spin and actually Fed surpassed Nadals FH spin in that famous AO
but lower net clearance and higher average speed which is astonishing and yet hard to keep up.

look at Nico Basilashvili and Schwartzman, very similar FH sroke travel but Diego has
a longer racquet to make up for the leverage . Both very long strokes on the FH yet
Diego cant hit the same average speeds as Nico as he relies on more consistency
than do or die like Fernando Gonzo used to play before the Stefanki effect.

Playing this way is easier with modern racquets and I found I can crush the ball better with a
Yonex sv95 than a Prince textreme 95 s1 but the Prince allows me more feel and better level
with less errors daily than the SV95. The SV95 is hard to give up though just ask Shapo
who would be more consistent with his old Willy 95 and some alu power as Evans manages to.

Similar to Iga Swiatek she played better with a Prince but hits harder and has less feel with
the Technifibre. Ferrer played more consistently with a longer Prince then failed badly
pushing for more with an PD then a Wilson.
Tsonga for example was a rising beast with the head but then all that muscle and torque
went to a babolat and the rest is history. Nole had some tune up time from willy to head
and seemed to crush more winners with the blade but percentages always win in any career.

Personally prefer feel everyday over crazy pop and more errors but someone like Meds is rare
and could probably pick up any racquet and adjust his torque and whip to suit anything except
on the clay for now yet that could change yet Tsitsipas has no issue there. I guess they are
the best 2 contrasts to the game one is more beef the other more bones.
Seems on clay you cant rely on the counter-punching style that hard courts allow.

Choose Plush for Torque or Stiff for whip. Finding your balance depends on your
character, style and strengths. Its very complicated choosing the right racquet good luck
very few can help or have the time to perform the analysis and methodical process required.
 
Last edited:

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
Gear is very important if you want to be the best player you can be. Have a doubles team switch racquets and see how well they play lol. Pro and high level players are finely tuned machines almost like formula 1 cars. Even just a little variation in equipment can drastically change how well a player plays. If you are just smacking balls around with a friend then yeah the racquet doesnt matter much. But even then, having a suitable racquet that feels natural and easy to swing will make playing a million times more fun.
I hate to cloud the issue with facts, but the fact is the vast majority of pros do not play with finely tuned rackets. You mention doubles players. Fact is, the majority of them don't do anything to their frames other than add lead and a leather grip (maybe). That's the reason you see the doubles guys pretty much all use one of 3 or 4 frames. Off the shelf frames. Fact is, Djokovic got to be a world class player through ability, not equipment. That he has tailored equipment now is really a testament to how wildly overpaid he is, not his need for same. Djokovic would be the same player he is with a stock racket weighted to his spec. At that level, it's all between the ears. And the belief that his gear is no longer a factor is between the ears. It's a benefit of making $200M/year.
 
Last edited:

Djokovicfan

Semi-Pro
I think your confusing torque and leverage. A longer racket when swung with the same amount of effort takes longer to speed up but has more force because the contact point is moving faster. That's why you have to prep earlier with a longer stick.
When you put 10 foot tires on an monster truck, you have to re-gear the transmisdion because the same torque applied to bigger wheels will result in less force at the road/tire boundary. And this idea is not different from the concept of leverage. A 10 foot tall tire will effectively reduce the leverage the crankshaft has over the wheels, even though the crankshaft is sending the same torque. Think of your hand as the crankshaft and a 10 ft long racquet as the 10 foot tall tire. The crankshaft/hand can only provide the same torque no matter what. (Your hand does not become stronger when you use a 10 foot long racquet). I get what you are saying but i think you mean to say that a longer racquet will have more inertia/momentum than a short racquet when moving at the same angular velocity as the short racquet. This is true as far as i understand. But the small racquet having less rotational inertia will accelerate faster in angular velocity under the same hand torque. If you ignore certain considerations you can say that the hand will be able to impart the same angular momentum to both the short and long racquets under the same hand torque for the same length of time.
i hope that makes sense. In short i would just say that nothing is free in physics. You dont get to shortcut angular momentum and torque considerations by just using a longer racquet; everything is a trade-off.
 

Djokovicfan

Semi-Pro
to play like Meds or Hercats you need racquet head speed with less of the torque of yesteryear
perfect timing of course but equally great counterpunching abilities that yet fail on clay.

Ever wonder why young kids can hit the ball harder and faster than oldies that have played the
game for 4 times as long and where good players in their youth? These weakling kids are able
to whip the ball better than any muscular adult and maximize the racquets power and spin.

Most commentators used to say Nadal style will wear him out yet the amount of whip he creates
is nothing of the torque they thought he was using. On further analysis Nadal is very efficient in
using max racquet head speed with the least amount of effort.

Federer is probably the only player to whip the ball with such a heavy stick vs Nadal and Nico
The plusher the stick the more you have to arm the ball than use your wrists like the tip of a whip.
Fed vs Nadal was almost equal in spin and actually Fed surpassed Nadals FH spin in that famous AO
but lower net clearance and higher average speed which is astonishing and yet hard to keep up.

look at Nico Basilashvili and Schwartzman, very similar FH sroke travel but Diego has
a longer racquet to make up for the leverage . Both very long strokes on the FH yet
Diego cant hit the same average speeds as Nico as he relies on more consistency
than do or die like Fernando Gonzo used to play before the Stefanki effect.

Playing this way is easier with modern racquets and I found I can crush the ball better with a
Yonex sv95 than a Prince textreme 95 s1 but the Prince allows me more feel and better level
with less errors daily than the SV95. The SV95 is hard to give up though just ask Shapo
who would be more consistent with his old Willy 95 and some alu power as Evans manages to.

Similar to Iga Swiatek she played better with a Prince but hits harder and has less feel with
the Technifibre. Ferrer played more consistently with a longer Prince then failed badly
pushing for more with an PD then a Wilson.
Tsonga for example was a rising beast with the head but then all that muscle and torque
went to a babolat and the rest is history. Nole had some tune up time from willy to head
and seemed to crush more winners with the blade but percentages always win in any career.

Personally prefer feel everyday over crazy pop and more errors but someone like Meds is rare
and could probably pick up any racquet and adjust his torque and whip to suit anything except
on the clay for now yet that could change yet Tsitsipas has no issue there. I guess they are
the best 2 contrasts to the game one is more beef the other more bones.
Seems on clay you cant rely on the counter-punching style that hard courts allow.

Choose Plush for Torque or Stiff for whip. Finding your balance depends on your
character, style and strengths. Its very complicated choosing the right racquet good luck
very few can help or have the time to perform the analysis and methodical process required.
Interesting post man. What do you think makes med meat and tsitsipas bones?
 

Djokovicfan

Semi-Pro
I hate to cloud the issue with facts, but the fact is the vast majority of pros do not play with finely tuned rackets. You mention doubles players. Fact is, the majority of them don't do anything to their frames other than add lead and a leather grip (maybe). That's the reason you see the doubles guys pretty much all use one of 3 or 4 frames. Off the shelf frames. Fact is, Djokovic got to be a world class player through ability, not equipment. That he has tailored equipment now is really a testament to how wildly overpaid he is, not his need for same. Djokovic would be the same player he is with a stock racket weighted to his spec. At that level, it's all between the ears. And the belief that his gear is no longer a factor is between the ears. It's a benefit of making $200M/year.
I think theres plenty of racquets out there that if djokovic grew up playing with them he would be nowhere near his level of success. If he had a decent players racquet growing up then yeah i agree with you, but if you gave him some sledgehammer oversize racquet go grow up with and get used to he would suck compared to himself today. And once a pro is used to their racquet, changing anything major will throw them off just as much as if you shortened a pro golfers clubs before a big event. Verdasco seems to be on the fence about which racquet he plays best with and i think that has hurt his game pretty badly. Once you are lock stock on what your nervous coordination expects from your racquet, changing anything about it would be like pissing in your cornflakes. You would know immediately something was wrong.
I heard a pro skateboarder talk about how changing wheels from 52mm to 53mm completely messed up the timing of his ollie and flip tricks to the point he couldnt even skate. Tennis is just as precision oriented at the top level.
 

Demented

Semi-Pro
When you put 10 foot tires on an monster truck, you have to re-gear the transmisdion because the same torque applied to bigger wheels will result in less force at the road/tire boundary. And this idea is not different from the concept of leverage. A 10 foot tall tire will effectively reduce the leverage the crankshaft has over the wheels, even though the crankshaft is sending the same torque. Think of your hand as the crankshaft and a 10 ft long racquet as the 10 foot tall tire. The crankshaft/hand can only provide the same torque no matter what. (Your hand does not become stronger when you use a 10 foot long racquet). I get what you are saying but i think you mean to say that a longer racquet will have more inertia/momentum than a short racquet when moving at the same angular velocity as the short racquet. This is true as far as i understand. But the small racquet having less rotational inertia will accelerate faster in angular velocity under the same hand torque. If you ignore certain considerations you can say that the hand will be able to impart the same angular momentum to both the short and long racquets under the same hand torque for the same length of time.
i hope that makes sense. In short i would just say that nothing is free in physics. You dont get to shortcut angular momentum and torque considerations by just using a longer racquet; everything is a trade-off.
I think you're missing the big picture here. With the longer lever, the same torque takes longer to get the racket head up to speed but the maximum speed is indeed higher. In the monster truck example, if you went from 9 foot tall tires to 10 foot tall tires, the maximum cruising speed without changing the transmission ratio will increase from say 55 mph to to 62 mph. Yes it will take 22% longer to reach 62 than it did 55 but your top speed is definitely higher. In tennis all the matters is the rotational racket head speed at contact, not how long it takes to get there. The trade off is that you have to prep earlier and swing earlier to meet your deadline.
 

Djokovicfan

Semi-Pro
I think you're missing the big picture here. With the longer lever, the same torque takes longer to get the racket head up to speed but the maximum speed is indeed higher. In the monster truck example, if you went from 9 foot tall tires to 10 foot tall tires, the maximum cruising speed without changing the transmission ratio will increase from say 55 mph to to 62 mph. Yes it will take 22% longer to reach 62 than it did 55 but your top speed is definitely higher. In tennis all the matters is the rotational racket head speed at contact, not how long it takes to get there. The trade off is that you have to prep earlier and swing earlier to meet your deadline.
Yeah i would agree with that. I was just saying that it makes more sense to refer to leverage as something that decreases as the racquet gets longer.
 

time410s

Semi-Pro
I think you're missing the big picture here. With the longer lever, the same torque takes longer to get the racket head up to speed but the maximum speed is indeed higher. In the monster truck example, if you went from 9 foot tall tires to 10 foot tall tires, the maximum cruising speed without changing the transmission ratio will increase from say 55 mph to to 62 mph. Yes it will take 22% longer to reach 62 than it did 55 but your top speed is definitely higher. In tennis all the matters is the rotational racket head speed at contact, not how long it takes to get there. The trade off is that you have to prep earlier and swing earlier to meet your deadline.
This but the thread in generall is getting to be one of thsoe back and forth things with a lot of noise. While some of what has been said has merit, at the pro level and whatever level, you will always find an outlier to whatever convention you think was true and it will mess with you if you let it. I'd follow your instinct or curiousity and see what the results are for you. Sometimes a longer racket with a more head-light balance can feel just as nice in the sense of swinging it but if you get a different racket entirely and it's also longer, who knows what variables are at play for you? Could be much more going on than just the length.

No good reason 27 should be the standard for everybody. Why is it? It just is. They picked a number and mass produced and that's what everyone got used to. If they picked 28 then the same thing would be the case for that. Why it's 27 I don't know but I'm sure there's a lot of history to it, more history than real proven science, anyway.

I hit with rackets too heavy to me but they cleaned up my swingpath. Just because you're using something a little out of your league doesn't mean you can't grow into it or benefit from it. Don't let people talk you out of your curiousity too much. I'm about to order some extended lengths as well. Maybe 28, maybe longer but I'll be sure to keep them as light as I can so I can ease into weighing them up if I want to but I'll take my time.
 

Demented

Semi-Pro
Another advantage of the 28 is that if you're over hitting or getting pressured, you can choke up an inch on your forehand and it becomes a lower swing weight really headlight racket that carves the ball. You can keep the benefits of the extra serve pop and better 2 handed backhand while switching in and out of the forehand.
 

time410s

Semi-Pro
Another advantage of the 28 is that if you're over hitting or getting pressured, you can choke up an inch on your forehand and it becomes a lower swing weight really headlight racket that carves the ball. You can keep the benefits of the extra serve pop and better 2 handed backhand while switching in and out of the forehand.
I getcha, like you can tuck in and whip it around while still benefiting from the extended reach for use in a brushy/whippy swing under pressure.

I guess that's a natural trade-off. I've been playing around with bent and strait arm forehands recently and I wonder how it'll feel to hit strait with such a long boy.
 

Djokovicfan

Semi-Pro
Im kinda glad 27 is a given tho. If racquets came in all different lengths i would endlessly be in persuit of the right length racquet. Id rather just shut up and deal with it.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Why don't the really tall players all use 28" racquets to maximize their serves?
Bc the longer the racket, the less control you have.
Which is why most of the big drivers on the PGA tour use shorter than average driver shaft length (and well below the max length allowed).
 
Top