BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
Jolly, should I switch to Clash 98 and stop using the RF 97A?
Personally I like the Clash 98 better. It’s easier to play with and softer on my aging joints!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Jolly, should I switch to Clash 98 and stop using the RF 97A?
which beer should i focus on at the beer truck this weekendJust listen to me, I have all the answers.
J
Jolly, should I switch to Clash 98 and stop using the RF 97A?
which beer should i focus on at the beer truck this weekend
Jolly
How do I know if the Clash 98 is for me? I absolutely loved everything about the RF97A, but it left my connective tissue sore.
ill let you know, first match is at 11. its gonna be like 40 degreesWhat are my choices?
J
Who are the White Claws for?@J011yroger this aint goin well. we’ve been out-sandbagged
which beer should i focus on at the beer truck this weekend
The Clash 98 is a semi-automated weapon that should be banned. Coming from the RF97A & Blade 18x20, I hardly have to lift a finger to generate power & spin in the Clash. That's also its downfall. If I put in full effort like that of the Blade and RF97A, the ball would hit the fence. Overall, super comfortable and fun racquet to hit with tho. It's just not really a player's racquet.
Anything from Deschutes!which beer should i focus on at the beer truck this weekend
I'd agree with this. The Clash 98 is easier to generate pace & spin but it doesn't hit a heavy ball. The Blade otoh bludgeons the ball. To sum it up, The clash hits a faster ball but the Blade hits a heavier ball.I just checked TW power map and the Blade v7 18x20 has more power, sw, and twist weight than the clash 98.
How are you guys getting more power using the Clash 98?
I favour a classic feel: played with the PS85 in the mid 90s, and have had TGK 238.1s for the best part of the last decade after a break. They flex, and then some.
I’m struggling to find a demo of the Clash. Those of you who have hit with the older frames… is the feel of the Clash in any way comparable, or is this something new that I’ll be shouting at to get off my lawn?
So we're saying it'll give me a level of protection if I mix in with those dirty Babolat whores?It doesn't feel like anything.
It's like wearing a condom.
J
the clash feels VERY different from a PS85. It’s a unique feel but it’s very fun to hit with.I favour a classic feeI’m struggling to find a demo of the Clash. Those of you who have hit with the older frames… is the feel of the Clash in any way comparable, or is this something new that I’ll be shouting at to get off my lawn?
What's the difference between a fast and a heavy ball?I'd agree with this. The Clash 98 is easier to generate pace & spin but it doesn't hit a heavy ball. The Blade otoh bludgeons the ball. To sum it up, The clash hits a faster ball but the Blade hits a heavier ball.
What's the difference between a fast and a heavy ball?
I would guess the fast ball gets there quicker but doesn't keep accelerating, while the heavier ball gets there a little slower but keeps accelerating(momentum).What's the difference between a fast and a heavy ball?
But I thought the clash is supposed to have more spin than the blade? Maybe the higher launch angle is what "gives it more power".Okay, I'll take a swing at this one too.
On any hard court surface, the rate of spin of a topspin ball **after** the bounce will be directly proportional to the ball's forward speed. That's because a hard court's surface is rough enough to fully engage the surface of the ball. Sometimes on a very heavy underspin shot, where the underspin makes the ball come in at a shallow angle, the ball can come off the court with still some underspin or with no spin. A topspin shot dives towards the court and the contact pressure is high enough that there is no sliding between the ball and the court.
So, if Nadal hits his 5000 RPM topspin forehand and the ball comes off the court at 60 MPH, and I hit a 1000 RPM topspin forehand and it also comes off the court at 60 MPH, they will have the exact same spin rate **after the bounce**. However, his incoming ball may only need to be going 70 MPH in order to bounce at 60 MPH, because it's already spinning at nearly the speed it needs to. My incoming ball may need to be going 80 MPH in order to bounce at 60 MPH, because more forward energy needs to go into adding the extra rotational speed.
So when a player describes the opponent hitting a heavy ball, what they really mean is that they are playing against someone who hits with more spin than they may be used to or are expecting from the visual look of the swing or the visual speed of the ball traveling through the air. If they are used to someone who hits a 1000 RPM topspin, they may see that 80 MPH shot and expect it to come off the ground at 60 MPH. However, if Nadal were to hit his 5000 RPM forehand at 80 MPH, it may come off the court at 70 MPH. This causes a player to be late and/or make less than perfect contact, which creates a jarring impact and gives the impression of "heaviness".
Heavier racquets deflect away from the ball less during contact, and that can enhance string movement of the mains along with facilitating overspin of the ball as it rebounds away from the stringbed. The extra spin generated can fool the opponent, who then catches the ball a bit late and with less perfect contact. More of the ball's kinetic energy is transferred into the frame, resulting in higher impact shock, with the result the player says "Wow, that's a heavy ball!"
Seems more likely that the rate of topspin after the bounce would be proportional to the ball's total speed plus its spin before the bounce.Okay, I'll take a swing at this one too.
On any hard court surface, the rate of spin of a topspin ball **after** the bounce will be directly proportional to the ball's forward speed. That's because a hard court's surface is rough enough to fully engage the surface of the ball. Sometimes on a very heavy underspin shot, where the underspin makes the ball come in at a shallow angle, the ball can come off the court with still some underspin or with no spin. A topspin shot dives towards the court and the contact pressure is high enough that there is no sliding between the ball and the court.
So, if Nadal hits his 5000 RPM topspin forehand and the ball comes off the court at 60 MPH, and I hit a 1000 RPM topspin forehand and it also comes off the court at 60 MPH, they will have the exact same spin rate **after the bounce**. However, his incoming ball may only need to be going 70 MPH in order to bounce at 60 MPH, because it's already spinning at nearly the speed it needs to. My incoming ball may need to be going 80 MPH in order to bounce at 60 MPH, because more forward energy needs to go into adding the extra rotational speed.
So when a player describes the opponent hitting a heavy ball, what they really mean is that they are playing against someone who hits with more spin than they may be used to or are expecting from the visual look of the swing or the visual speed of the ball traveling through the air. If they are used to someone who hits a 1000 RPM topspin, they may see that 80 MPH shot and expect it to come off the ground at 60 MPH. However, if Nadal were to hit his 5000 RPM forehand at 80 MPH, it may come off the court at 70 MPH. This causes a player to be late and/or make less than perfect contact, which creates a jarring impact and gives the impression of "heaviness".
Heavier racquets deflect away from the ball less during contact, and that can enhance string movement of the mains along with facilitating overspin of the ball as it rebounds away from the stringbed. The extra spin generated can fool the opponent, who then catches the ball a bit late and with less perfect contact. More of the ball's kinetic energy is transferred into the frame, resulting in higher impact shock, with the result the player says "Wow, that's a heavy ball!"
But I thought the clash is supposed to have more spin than the blade?
Seems more likely that the rate of topspin after the bounce would be proportional to the ball's total speed plus its spin before the bounce.
thats what she saidceteris paribus
Is she an economist?thats what she said
The issue I'm facing is that while I like the Clash 98, I also like swapping out original grips with a smaller leather grip + overgrip. This adds weight and I don't really want to end up with something that is crazy headlight lol. Nor did I like adding weight to my Clash 100 which made it feel weird, so I'm not sure if I'd be up for adding weight to the hoop of the 98.
Just played a 4.5 doubles match with the 98. What a beauty. Not perfect, but we have to stop looking for perfect. For me, it was too light. I was way too early on returns and my serve took a set to normalize. But it was comfortable on my old man elbow. I didn’t lose control on groundies. When I hit long, it was a technique issue. It could have been a tad more stable when I was attacked at the net. Like others, I prefer the Blade 98 18x20, but the Clash 98 is a very close second.The only flaw was that I couldn't get much gas on my big serve. Spin serves were great. I suspect it was a timing issue not a racquet issue.
J
Just played a 4.5 doubles match with the 98. What a beauty. Not perfect, but we have to stop looking for perfect. For me, it was too light. I was way too early on returns and my serve took a set to normalize. But it was comfortable on my old man elbow. I didn’t lose control on groundies. When I hit long, it was a technique issue. It could have been a tad more stable when I was attacked at the net. Like others, I prefer the Blade 98 18x20, but the Clash 98 is a very close second.
Noon, 3 and 9?I think it would be a beast with just a touch of lead.
J
Noon, 3 and 9?
10 and 2?
Just played a 4.5 doubles match with the 98. What a beauty. Not perfect, but we have to stop looking for perfect. For me, it was too light. I was way too early on returns and my serve took a set to normalize. But it was comfortable on my old man elbow. I didn’t lose control on groundies. When I hit long, it was a technique issue. It could have been a tad more stable when I was attacked at the net. Like others, I prefer the Blade 98 18x20, but the Clash 98 is a very close second.
For some reason, I struggle to volley with the Clash 98. I have no such problem with the Blade tho. It could be the thicker frame issue.
What's the issue?
J
I think he's got the same issue I have with thicker frames - feels slower coming around, and more of a less stable/hollow feeling on harder shots being hit at you. Rather than a thin beam which always feels solid, and moves through the air a little quicker. Just my opinion though....
I need thin beam as I found out
Coming around what? He is talking about volleys.
J
q: what type of volleys?Coming around what? He is talking about volleys.
J