Control racquets
- Thread starter GSorach
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 18x20 control control racquet
I would say it's a bit of an "it depends" and the balance of contribution can vary.
First, as much as frame size may be the baseline, I find that frame shape also dictates the level of control. Examples: Yonex VCore 95 plays as open as most oval-shaped 97's; Prince TT100P plays more like a 98. String pattern then defines the behavior within the confines of head size and shape, and matters just about equally in determining the level of control, plus additional items that only it can contribute to, such as launch angle and spin access. So the two play off of one another, and it's tough to weight them independent of one another.
If I had to pick based on today's frames: with head sizes standardizing around 97-100, I'd say string pattern would be the more influential of the two.
Just my two cents.
First, as much as frame size may be the baseline, I find that frame shape also dictates the level of control. Examples: Yonex VCore 95 plays as open as most oval-shaped 97's; Prince TT100P plays more like a 98. String pattern then defines the behavior within the confines of head size and shape, and matters just about equally in determining the level of control, plus additional items that only it can contribute to, such as launch angle and spin access. So the two play off of one another, and it's tough to weight them independent of one another.
If I had to pick based on today's frames: with head sizes standardizing around 97-100, I'd say string pattern would be the more influential of the two.
Just my two cents.
Last edited:
After thinking for a bit, it's a good question...
String pattern
You can take any head size and add control with a denser pattern.
I insert Agassi's oversize racquet with a 20x21 pattern as evidence.
Alternatively you can put a more open pattern on a small headsize to give power and spin.
The original Pro Staff 85 with its 16x18 is my evidence there.
Obviously a very interdependent relationship
I'd like a Pure Aero with an 18x20, probably play terrible
String pattern
You can take any head size and add control with a denser pattern.
I insert Agassi's oversize racquet with a 20x21 pattern as evidence.
Alternatively you can put a more open pattern on a small headsize to give power and spin.
The original Pro Staff 85 with its 16x18 is my evidence there.
Obviously a very interdependent relationship
I'd like a Pure Aero with an 18x20, probably play terrible
Came here to say this. It's all important, but beam width is the biggest difference maker IMO.
Injured Again
Hall of Fame
The most important factor in a control racquet is that it does what you expect it to. That can mean that to someone who is very good but also plays with something like a Bubba, as you see many older age group competitors do, what most recreational players define as a control racquet will not provide them control because it won't behave like they expect on various different shots.
For most recreational players, it's probably the string type. I'd bet most recreational players, and probably most players in general, will perform much better with their familiar string in a different racquet than their preferred racquet with a different string.
kimguroo
Legend
String pattern density but it usually goes with headsize too. Never seen super centered string density in middle and wide string density at off-center. Usually 95-98 gives good controls. Old prestige and rebel 95 was the most control oriented rackets which I remember (Have not played controlled rackets for a while since I am getting old haha).
10S-Junkie
Semi-Pro
Last edited:
I’m imagining what a Prostaff 97 18x20 plays like.After thinking for a bit, it's a good question...
String pattern
You can take any head size and add control with a denser pattern.
I insert Agassi's oversize racquet with a 20x21 pattern as evidence.
Alternatively you can put a more open pattern on a small headsize to give power and spin.
The original Pro Staff 85 with its 16x18 is my evidence there.
Obviously a very interdependent relationship
I'd like a Pure Aero with an 18x20, probably play terrible
graycrait
Legend
Grafil Injection
Hall of Fame
Of the two options, I've voted Head-Size. More precisely I would say:
Mass > Head-size > Beam design (box) > Strings. Based on my current list of the typical cell size of different rackets, string density and pattern seem to have very little affect on control. For example RF97 and PS97 are open patterns (16x19) with very open string-beds (1.5sqi average cell size), but have great control. And most of my classic rackets that are 85s actually have stringbeds that are as open as most current 98s, but they have far more control. What's also definitely clear is that the pattern does not always link to the density of the stringbed. Some 16x19s are tighter than some 18x20s, there is just a lot of area with no strings around the edges.
Mass > Head-size > Beam design (box) > Strings. Based on my current list of the typical cell size of different rackets, string density and pattern seem to have very little affect on control. For example RF97 and PS97 are open patterns (16x19) with very open string-beds (1.5sqi average cell size), but have great control. And most of my classic rackets that are 85s actually have stringbeds that are as open as most current 98s, but they have far more control. What's also definitely clear is that the pattern does not always link to the density of the stringbed. Some 16x19s are tighter than some 18x20s, there is just a lot of area with no strings around the edges.
| CURRENT RACKETS | _ | Pattern | Head-Size | Average Cell Size of Central 100 Cells |
| Wilson | RF97 Autograph v2018 | 16x19 | 97 | 1.5 |
| Wilson | Six One 95S | 18x16 | 95 | 1.65 |
| Wilson | Six One Team v2016 | 18x20 | 95 | 1.25 |
| Wilson | Pro-Staff 97 | 16x19 | 97 | 1.5 |
| Wilson | Ultra Tour 97 | 18x20 | 97 | 1.125 |
| Head | Graphene 360 Radical Pro | 16x19 | 98 | 1.3 |
| Head | Graphene Touch Speed Pro | 18x20 | 100 | 1.15 |
| Dunlop | CV 3.0 Black | 16x19 | 100 | 1.3 |
| Volkl | Vsense 10 325 | 16x19 | 98 | 1.25 |
| Wilson | Pro-Staff Surge | 16x19 | 100 | 1.35 |
| Yonex | Ezone 98 2020 | 16x19 | 98 | 1.275 |
| Dunlop | Aerogel 200 (2007) | 18x20 | 95 | 1.1 |
| Wilson | Six One 95 (K-factor, 2008) | 16x18 | 95 | 1.325 |
| CLASSIC RACKETS | ||||
| Dunlop | MAX 200G Pro (1990 glossy) | 18x20 | 85 | 1.325 |
| Dunlop | MAX 300i (1986) | 18x20 | 85 | 1.325 |
| Dunlop | MAX 400i (1990?) | 16x19 | 85 | 1.325 |
| Yonex | RQ-180 Wide-Body (1990) | 16x19 | 92 | 1.45 |
| Rossignol | F-200 Carbon (1984) | 16x19 | 82 | 1.35 |
| Wilson | Profile 95 2.7 (1988) | 16x18 | 95 | 1.525 |
| Wilson | GTX 2000 (1986) | 16x19 | 85 | 1.325 |
| Dunlop | MAX 800i (1990) | 16x19 | 96 | 1.2 |
| Demo Rackets | ||||
| Dunlop | CX200 2018/2021 | 16x19 | 98 | 1.28 |
| Head | Graphene 360+ Extreme Tour | 16x19 | 98 | 1.3 |
| Yonex | Vcore 95 2021 | 16x20 | 95 | 1.2 |
| Wilson | Blade 98 v8 (2021) | 18x20 | 98 | 1.2 |
Last edited:
AmericanTwist
Professional
Neither. Flex is number 1 imho. Head size is a function of return capability and lever length and string pattern, spin, but tension can be increased and gauge can be lowered to lessen the trampoline effect. Head size and string pattern are factors, but a more flexible racquet will increase feel, spin, and while giving more margin. The trade off obviously is power.
It's taken me a few years of experimentation with all of these factors, and for non-pros a flex range of 57-67RA is good depending on style of play, string selection and tension. However, some can play with even stiff frames up to 74RA by stringing them very tight.
I've been hitting with my new to me Yonex R27s with 62RA flex strung tight, and they give me great control and pretty decent power from a 92 or 93 square inch frame. I also play with modern Yonex, Prince, and Wilson frames. I am adaptable so I switch amongst frames depending on whom I play and if dubs or singles. The variety of the game is what I think makes tennis so appealing.
It's taken me a few years of experimentation with all of these factors, and for non-pros a flex range of 57-67RA is good depending on style of play, string selection and tension. However, some can play with even stiff frames up to 74RA by stringing them very tight.
I've been hitting with my new to me Yonex R27s with 62RA flex strung tight, and they give me great control and pretty decent power from a 92 or 93 square inch frame. I also play with modern Yonex, Prince, and Wilson frames. I am adaptable so I switch amongst frames depending on whom I play and if dubs or singles. The variety of the game is what I think makes tennis so appealing.
Would you know the average cell sizes of prestige Mp graphene or TF40 tecnifibre- both 18x20 and 98 sqi?
Grafil Injection
Hall of Fame
Yes please. And do you know if the TF40 305 and 315 have the same spacing?
this is a great study. Do you know if the "Average Cell Size of Central 100 Cells" has been compiled by someone else ?
