demanding racquets and training/development

[wallymann]

if a player is at the point of merely trying to get better (and not worried so much about winning) then why not use a demanding players racquet?

methinks that using a relatively demanding racquet will only serve to reinforce the proper techniques that lead to a better game in general.

• learning with a small sweet-spot will reinforce even more the need to hit the ball with the sweet spot.
• learning with a low-powered racquet will reinforce the proper timing and mechanics to generate power.
• learning with a heavy-ish racquet will reinforce the need for proper timing to ensure consistent ball contact.
• learning with a heavy-ish racquet will strengthen the arm/shoulder/body more than a light racquet.
• etc...

i dont see anything wrong with that!

 

[roddickslammer]

Sometimes the heavyness can destroy technique though if you are not strong because a junior will develop a stroke that drags across the ground because of the heavyness of the racquet. Like a forehand but it is sorta draged up because its to heavy for them to do a proper shot.

 

[wallymann]

excellent point!

Sometimes the heavyness can destroy technique though if you are not strong because a junior will develop a stroke that drags across the ground because of the heavyness of the racquet. Like a forehand but it is sorta draged up because its to heavy for them to do a proper shot.

it makes sense for the stick to not be overwhelming in it's demands.

 

[norbac]

I have a friend who wants to start playing, he's never played before and is 17 years old. Any idea what racket he should start with? A Walmart racket?

 

[Kirko]

if a player is at the point of merely trying to get better (and not worried so much about winning) then why not use a demanding players racquet?

methinks that using a relatively demanding racquet will only serve to reinforce the proper techniques that lead to a better game in general.

• learning with a small sweet-spot will reinforce even more the need to hit the ball with the sweet spot.
• learning with a low-powered racquet will reinforce the proper timing and mechanics to generate power.
• learning with a heavy-ish racquet will reinforce the need for proper timing to ensure consistent ball contact.
• learning with a heavy-ish racquet will strengthen the arm/shoulder/body more than a light racquet.
• etc...

i dont see anything wrong with that!

its all true. when I learned tennis there was only wood & not many options with in the spectrum of wood frames too. when I turned 14 yrs. and started to have form and hitting balls deep in play time after time I said to myself I'm becoming a "player" not a junk ball loser. having form from the older days menat not getting tired so quiclky and looked so good and all the health benefits came with it. eg. staying thin and strong. I don't find the player's frames demanding at all. only one frame I thought was kinda taxing was the dunlop muscle weave 200G. but, my pall uses it and he really makes the ball "cry" when it comes off the string bed. you are 100% right!

 

[retrowagen]

I agree too. Smaller-headed frames demand accuracy, which requires good shot prep, footwork, timing, and concentration.

Heavier frames (but not too heavy) ultimately are less damaging on the body to use, once one's overall musculature catches up with the demand.

Training with such "demanding" equipment filters out bad technique and form and can assist in building game attributes which can take a player much further. It's the classic short-term versus long-term gains argument.

 

[furyoku_tennis]

Sometimes the heavyness can destroy technique though if you are not strong because a junior will develop a stroke that drags across the ground because of the heavyness of the racquet. Like a forehand but it is sorta draged up because its to heavy for them to do a proper shot.

in terms of weight, you're supposed to use the heaviest racquet possible that you're comfortable with, so it shouldn't drag and deteriorate form.

 

[GPB]

I have a friend who wants to start playing, he's never played before and is 17 years old. Any idea what racket he should start with? A Walmart racket?

Yeah sure. Then if he enjoys it, have him get something small and heavy to teach proper mechanics.

 

[t0nym4c]

I have a friend who wants to start playing, he's never played before and is 17 years old. Any idea what racket he should start with? A Walmart racket?

Get him a wooden racket lol.

 

[Nellie]

True - you do see some players with lighter more powerful racquets stagnate by developing a style of poking at the ball. However, going to a heavier racquet by itself will not cure technical problems.

I agree that almost no player needs to buy a begineer racquet, but I do not see a need for anything beyond an intermediate racquet for most players.

With virtually every pro and top ranked junior in the the world going the 98^2 inch+ racquet, I don't really see the benefits of the smaller racquets. With modern tecniques that rely on brushing of the ball instead of hit the ball flushly, you are only going to limit your development. You are definately seeing lighter larger racquets used more frequently as players get loopier swings.

• learning with a small sweet-spot will reinforce even more the need to hit the ball with the sweet spot.

The sweet spot on a 90" racquet is about the size of a dime. Most players rarely hit the sweet spot, and instead learn to live/like with the lower surround areas.

• learning with a low-powered racquet will reinforce the proper timing and mechanics to generate power.

I see many players with demanding racquets simply over swinging to get the ball over the net. also, per comment above, it will discourage you from learning good top spin that is the basis of the modern game.

• learning with a low-powered racquet will reinforce the proper timing and mechanics to generate power.

Or you can learn to hit the ball late and to do wierd adjustments to compensate

• learning with a heavy-ish racquet will strengthen the arm/shoulder/body more than a light racquet.

or cause you to get permanently injured due to poor technique

 

[furyoku_tennis]

sounds like this really depends on the player and their playstyle.

 

[mawashi]

It really depends on the player. If they think they can play better after using a more demanding frame then I say go ahead cus that's what made me try out the AK90 even though I know it's too much a frame for me.

The other opinion is they can improve more by just getting used to their current frame n not mess about with the racquet.

All depends...

mawashi

 

[Keifers]

if a player is at the point of merely trying to get better (and not worried so much about winning) then why not use a demanding players racquet?

methinks that using a relatively demanding racquet will only serve to reinforce the proper techniques that lead to a better game in general.

• learning with a small sweet-spot will reinforce even more the need to hit the ball with the sweet spot.
• learning with a low-powered racquet will reinforce the proper timing and mechanics to generate power.
• learning with a heavy-ish racquet will reinforce the need for proper timing to ensure consistent ball contact.
• learning with a heavy-ish racquet will strengthen the arm/shoulder/body more than a light racquet.
• etc...

i dont see anything wrong with that!

I agree. There are limits and caveats, of course, with each item on your list... and the player should work actively on improving his/her technique (using a more demanding stick alone won't do it).

It's such a shame to see friends hitting with truncated stokes or too much wristiness because they're still using light, stiff, powerful racquets that they've really outgrown.

 

[Keifers]

With virtually every pro and top ranked junior in the the world going the 98^2 inch+ racquet, I don't really see the benefits of the smaller racquets. With modern tecniques that rely on brushing of the ball instead of hit the ball flushly, you are only going to limit your development. You are definately seeing lighter larger racquets used more frequently as players get loopier swings.

Call me old-fashioned but I hope not everyone will be playing with the modern, loopier strokes after us flat-hitters retire. Tennis would then be a baseline-only game, wouldn't it? Forget all court, and definitely forget serve-and-volley.

The sweet spot on a 90" racquet is about the size of a dime. Most players rarely hit the sweet spot, and instead learn to live/like with the lower surround areas.

Sorry, but this is not true, at least in my experience. The AG100 and RDX 500 Mid have sweet zones comparable to 95" frames. And others have reported generous-size sweet zones in other 90 inchers.

 

[wallymann]

ever the optimist, eh!

True - you do see some players with lighter more powerful racquets stagnate by developing a style of poking at the ball. However, going to a heavier racquet by itself will not cure technical problems.

I agree that almost no player needs to buy a begineer racquet, but I do not see a need for anything beyond an intermediate racquet for most players.

With virtually every pro and top ranked junior in the the world going the 98^2 inch+ racquet, I don't really see the benefits of the smaller racquets. With modern tecniques that rely on brushing of the ball instead of hit the ball flushly, you are only going to limit your development. You are definately seeing lighter larger racquets used more frequently as players get loopier swings.




The sweet spot on a 90" racquet is about the size of a dime. Most players rarely hit the sweet spot, and instead learn to live/like with the lower surround areas.




I see many players with demanding racquets simply over swinging to get the ball over the net. also, per comment above, it will discourage you from learning good top spin that is the basis of the modern game.



Or you can learn to hit the ball late and to do wierd adjustments to compensate



or cause you to get permanently injured due to poor technique

your handle oughta be "sunshine"! ;-)

 

[fuzz nation]

I took up with heavy "training racquets" a couple of years ago when I decided that I needed to overhaul my game. Although I needed to punch the clock and put in the hours to get better, the hefty gear was a big help. My footwork in particular had to be better or I simply couldn't make my strokes work.

While I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying this approach to their training, I also agree that it's not for everyone. One piece of advice that I put right at the top of the list for anyone trying a small, heavy frame is to only use it in hitting sessions at first. Don't use it in a competitive setting without getting your timing and muscle memory somewhat adjusted to it. Rushing a heavier, unfamiliar racquet to the ball during points can make for an unhappy shoulder, sore wrist, or even a torn ab from serving too hard (I've done it).

Given my personal experiences along with those of some of the strong players and teaching pros that I know, I'd actually caution anyone against a racquet that's too light before trying one that's particularly heavy. Generating enough inertia in an "underweight" frame to work a ball well can easily lead to strains and even tears from over-swinging. In fact, I'd argue that a player can more readily develop weird adjustments, etc. with a light frame than an especially heavy one.

 

[defrule]

Using a n90 here. At first if was quite a heavy racket, I don't mean heavy that I can't handle it but just noticable different in weight. For a 12pt headlight racket, it certainly didn't feel like it.

I used the racket during training sessions and found my timing was a bit off especially in a forehand but more training fixed that.