Djoker's Racket tech/adviser on all things pro/rec, you shouldn't use the RF :)

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
Who are all these wimps struggling with 330g sticks with glass elbows? The RF97a was too light for me…

Anyhow i find it ironic all this talk of light racquets and hurt arms. Nothing protects the arm like a heavier racquet.

Also its not clear if he is talking strung or unstrung weights. Seriously doubt joker is 328g strung.

Also you know most mistakes rec players make is accelerating too fast and light rackets magnify that error.
Sarcasm, I am guessing?
In my novice opinion weight might help tennis elbow, maybe, not a cure all, if I was to blame equipment instead of technique, I would first look to string type, string tension, and flex, but I'm not sure the video really focuses on tennis elbow, the comments in this thread had a little discussion of it.
 

Curtennis

Semi-Pro
I get your point on 4 1/4 grip size but hand size and grip preference is personal. I have some rackets at 13oz in 4 1/4. Also smaller grip size with added overgrips or a bigger aftermarket grip make it easier to make hl. Racket head speed has nothing to do with height, muscles, big hands.
You’re saying a 100 lbs 5’ man can generate the same RHS as someone 200 lbs 6’5”?
That’s a hot take.
 

Curtennis

Semi-Pro
I think people highly overestimate how heavy a RF97 is. Fed probably plays with a much heavier one, but the retail version isn’t that big a deal.

the swing weight is by far the most important weight metric and the RF comes in in the low 330s which is tied with an 18x20 V7 blade and many other racquets.

I don’t think the 340g static weight is meaningfully heavier than most other racquets on the market. If 310 is average and is what is recommended we’re at a 30g/1 ounce of static weight difference, not swing weight. My wrist bands weigh over an ounce while sweating in them. They don’t effect the way I play one bit.
Then again I’m a lot thicker than most tennis players so maybe I’m just speaking for myself.
 
I wonder why it hasn’t been listed on the Solinco site. Could TW be interested in stocking them.
i doubt TW will carry them. They had some of the previous frames and I bet they just don’t do enough volume to justify taking up space in the warehouse. Solinco can be slow to update their site but the frames are readily available to order.
 
You’re saying a 100 lbs 5’ man can generate the same RHS as someone 200 lbs 6’5”?
That’s a hot take.
Well does that mean that Isner and Opelka can hit the hardest. I don't think height or weight gives you RHS. Height helps with serve but plenty of short people can serve 120+. All most everyone I play with is bigger and stronger and I hit a heavier and harder ball.
 

Shroud

G.O.A.T.
Sarcasm, I am guessing?
In my novice opinion weight might help tennis elbow, maybe, not a cure all, if I was to blame equipment instead of technique, I would first look to string type, string tension, and flex, but I'm not sure the video really focuses on tennis elbow, the comments in this thread had a little discussion of it.
Fwiw. Swing weight lets me use the stiffest string type at extreme tension and still use the stiffest racquets.
Not being sarcastic. I am probably one of the weakest posters here but easily play with heavy racquets. The RF97a was too light and most of my serves went into the net with it. Except for the kicker.
 

Curtennis

Semi-Pro
Well does that mean that Isner and Opelka can hit the hardest. I don't think height or weight gives you RHS. Height helps with serve but plenty of short people can serve 120+. All most everyone I play with is bigger and stronger and I hit a heavier and harder ball.
I have no doubt that you hit heavier and harder than everyone you play.

With that said longer arms, which are a function of height, have better potential for faster RHS versus shorter arms. It doesn’t mean that someone with shorter arms is not capable of using their own arms at a higher level of efficiency though.

it’s no different than a 23” racquet versus a 27” racquet.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
His comments about the RF97 were because it was brought up specifically by the interviewer. His message in general wasn't anything most on here weren't aware of. Most guys playing the modern game use lighter frames and specifically the pros use lighter frames with higher swing weights. The older guys like Fed and Wawrinka were accustomed to high static and high swing weights. So he was not specifically crucifying the RF97 which the title of this thread suggests. The RF97 can be easy to use and difficult to use, based on ones ability, skill level and situational usage. His point was that you can get RF97 stability and plow without the high static weight and stiffness from many other manufacturers and frames. You don't see the RF97 or similar sticks at many tournaments because the young guys didn't grow up using such heavy sticks. That's it. It's a preference. My friend's 11 year old son uses the RF97 with no problems and plays numerous tournaments. He probably weights 110 pounds and if he can swing it with no problem what's the problem?
 

TennisDawg

Hall of Fame
His comments about the RF97 were because it was brought up specifically by the interviewer. His message in general wasn't anything most on here weren't aware of. Most guys playing the modern game use lighter frames and specifically the pros use lighter frames with higher swing weights. The older guys like Fed and Wawrinka were accustomed to high static and high swing weights. So he was not specifically crucifying the RF97 which the title of this thread suggests. The RF97 can be easy to use and difficult to use, based on ones ability, skill level and situational usage. His point was that you can get RF97 stability and plow without the high static weight and stiffness from many other manufacturers and frames. You don't see the RF97 or similar sticks at many tournaments because the young guys didn't grow up using such heavy sticks. That's it. It's a preference. My friend's 11 year old son uses the RF97 with no problems and plays numerous tournaments. He probably weights 110 pounds and if he can swing it with no problem what's the problem?
I prefer heavier frames. Not because I’m a 5.0 player but I’ve always liked heavy frames. I’ve played with pretty much all the Wilson Pro Staffs over the years, all 12.5 oz or more. I even had one that weighed over 13 oz. All these racquets are very headlight and have never given me arm or shoulder issues. I also know that you have to generate your own power. If you push the ball, the pro staff is your worst enemy. I’ve tried lighter frames and they don’t do it for me. It’s not a one-size fits all. It’s what you prefer.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
Fwiw. Swing weight lets me use the stiffest string type at extreme tension and still use the stiffest racquets.
Not being sarcastic. I am probably one of the weakest posters here but easily play with heavy racquets. The RF97a was too light and most of my serves went into the net with it. Except for the kicker.
Got it, ty fir the clarification. Are you playing heavy for 6 hours a day ( 2 singles matches in a tourney) or more a single doubles match here and there?
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
I think people highly overestimate how heavy a RF97 is. Fed probably plays with a much heavier one, but the retail version isn’t that big a deal.

the swing weight is by far the most important weight metric and the RF comes in in the low 330s which is tied with an 18x20 V7 blade and many other racquets.

I don’t think the 340g static weight is meaningfully heavier than most other racquets on the market. If 310 is average and is what is recommended we’re at a 30g/1 ounce of static weight difference, not swing weight. My wrist bands weigh over an ounce while sweating in them. They don’t effect the way I play one bit.
Then again I’m a lot thicker than most tennis players so maybe I’m just speaking for myself.
Well, the real question is what is a tennis match or day like for you? I loved using the RF for doubles, first time I had 2 singles matches in a day with 95 plus degree heat, it wasn't as much fun serving the final hour of each match, that's for sure.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
His comments about the RF97 were because it was brought up specifically by the interviewer. His message in general wasn't anything most on here weren't aware of. Most guys playing the modern game use lighter frames and specifically the pros use lighter frames with higher swing weights. The older guys like Fed and Wawrinka were accustomed to high static and high swing weights. So he was not specifically crucifying the RF97 which the title of this thread suggests. The RF97 can be easy to use and difficult to use, based on ones ability, skill level and situational usage. His point was that you can get RF97 stability and plow without the high static weight and stiffness from many other manufacturers and frames. You don't see the RF97 or similar sticks at many tournaments because the young guys didn't grow up using such heavy sticks. That's it. It's a preference. My friend's 11 year old son uses the RF97 with no problems and plays numerous tournaments. He probably weights 110 pounds and if he can swing it with no problem what's the problem?
Sure many can use it, his point, if you agree that someone who has sold rackets for decades, still does, gets paid to advise people on sticks, know more than we do, then his advice was people will play better with a more maneuverable racket. Part of that was his mention of the ball changes to slow the game down. Mostly though he said even 5 0s who use the RF well have told him his advice to go lighter made them better, sure they could "use" the RF. Your friends 11 year old would play better I bet with a lighter frame, but we will probably never know.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
I prefer heavier frames. Not because I’m a 5.0 player but I’ve always liked heavy frames. I’ve played with pretty much all the Wilson Pro Staffs over the years, all 12.5 oz or more. I even had one that weighed over 13 oz. All these racquets are very headlight and have never given me arm or shoulder issues. I also know that you have to generate your own power. If you push the ball, the pro staff is your worst enemy. I’ve tried lighter frames and they don’t do it for me. It’s not a one-size fits all. It’s what you prefer.
Glad you don't have TE, tennis elbow wasn't a big topic of the video really. Did you try lighter frames for a year or more? You would probably be a better player, but if you prefer heavy, tennis is supposed to be fun and use what is fun. I think we all though, are not usually the best judges of what is best for us, I really don't believe that. People are too flawed in judging themselves in all kinds of aspects in life and tennis is even more technical. Again though, play with what you like, very possible it isn't what makes you the best tennis player, but gives you the most pleasure from the game.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
Sure many can use it, his point, if you agree that someone who has sold rackets for decades, still does, gets paid to advise people on sticks, know more than we do, then his advice was people will play better with a more maneuverable racket. Part of that was his mention of the ball changes to slow the game down. Mostly though he said even 5 0s who use the RF well have told him his advice to go lighter made them better, sure they could "use" the RF. Your friends 11 year old would play better I bet with a lighter frame, but we will probably never know.
It's insane as you are suggesting that everyone in the world who uses the RF97 would play better if they all went to a lighter racquet. He could be the most knowledgeable man in the world about tennis, but racquet choice is a 100% personal decision. I for one cannot put forth that one man could know what racquet would best suit every person on the planet. Good heavens.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
Glad you don't have TE, tennis elbow wasn't a big topic of the video really. Did you try lighter frames for a year or more? You would probably be a better player, but if you prefer heavy, tennis is supposed to be fun and use what is fun. I think we all though, are not usually the best judges of what is best for us, I really don't believe that. People are too flawed in judging themselves in all kinds of aspects in life and tennis is even more technical. Again though, play with what you like, very possible it isn't what makes you the best tennis player, but gives you the most pleasure from the game.
How can you make this statement to TennisDawg in regards to changing to a lighter racquet? "You would probably be a better player,". Wow. Have you even seen him play, do you know him personally?
 
Last edited:

movdqa

Talk Tennis Guru
One nice thing about the RF97 is that you've been able to get the same model since 2014 though with different cosmetics. If you're the type of person who wants to settle on a racquet for the long run, the RF97 would get the job done. I'm am annoyed that most companies feel the need to tinker with their frames every year or every other year so that getting another copy means that you have to hunt down New Old Stock or go used.

There have been various models that I've seen that had long production runs like the PK Redondo Mid and PK Redondo Mid-Plus. But most manufacturers like to create churn so that players upgrade fairly often.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
One nice thing about the RF97 is that you've been able to get the same model since 2014 though with different cosmetics. If you're the type of person who wants to settle on a racquet for the long run, the RF97 would get the job done. I'm am annoyed that most companies feel the need to tinker with their frames every year or every other year so that getting another copy means that you have to hunt down New Old Stock or go used.

There have been various models that I've seen that had long production runs like the PK Redondo Mid and PK Redondo Mid-Plus. But most manufacturers like to create churn so that players upgrade fairly often.
All you need to do is wait for another Roger Federer to come along, have wilson sponsor that new fed and give him his own stick, hope you like it, then boom, it will be unchanged for a decade or so. Once fed retires, better stock up on the RF :)
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
How can you make this statement to TennisDawg in regards to changing to a lighter racquet? "You would probably be a better player,". Wow. Have you even seen him play, do you know him personally?
You have Djoker's racket tech saying that all players essentially would be better off not using the heft of the RF, that he reccommends even the 5.0s he knows use the regular Pro Staff, not the RF, and they thank him for that advice. It's not me, it's the decades of experience, the guy Djoker goes to, the guy who sees 100 different setups a week that says it for all players. So, maybe he is wrong, or maybe you or TennisDawg is wrong. Maybe TennisDawg is the one player in the world that knows what is best for his game, when even professionals seek advice from experts and take it.
I get it, you are surprised I would say that, using words like "insane". But, it's not too far fetched. Maybe TennisDawg is Federer and the RF is the absolute best stick for his game, but what is more likely? Do you think TennisDawg would be still be playing optimal tennis in hour 6 of a tournament with a hefty stick like the RF? maybe so, maybe not. The probability that more people who use the RF shouldn't be is significant in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
You have Djoker's racket tech saying that all players essentially would be better off not using the heft of the RF, that he reccommends even the 5.0s he knows use the regular Pro Staff, not the RF, and they thank him for that advice. It's not me, it's the decades of experience, the guy Djoker goes to, the guy who sees 100 different setups a week that says it for all players. So, maybe he is wrong, or maybe you or TennisDawg is wrong. Maybe TennisDawg is the one player in the world that knows what is best for his game, when even professionals seek advice from experts and take it.
Roman seems like a nice guy and very knowledgeable. Yeah, I cannot believe that every single pro in the world hasn't gone to Roman. I mean he can be the only one that is right and knows what is best for everyone. Even the players he's never met!!

The technicians that all the other pros use should be fired immediately. Hey, maybe Fed and Wawrinka should go lighter too. Also Gasquet, I mean they all could be No 1 if they just went lighter.

The irony is that Roman would say this is my opinion and I am not saying I am 100% correct for every one, as every player and their team would know what's best for them. In the video when asked about players he has no experience with he doesn't comment.

But you take a little bit of information and want to apply it to everyone and every situation.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
Roman seems like a nice guy and very knowledgeable. Yeah, I cannot believe that every single pro in the world hasn't gone to Roman. I mean he can be the only one that is right and knows what is best for everyone. Even the players he's never met!!

The technicians that all the other pros use should be fired immediately. Hey, maybe Fed and Wawrinka should go lighter too. Also Gasquet, I mean they all could be No 1 if they just went lighter.
Maybe so, I think this discussion has gotten a little intense for you, enjoy your day.
 

TennisDawg

Hall of Fame
Glad you don't have TE, tennis elbow wasn't a big topic of the video really. Did you try lighter frames for a year or more? You would probably be a better player, but if you prefer heavy, tennis is supposed to be fun and use what is fun. I think we all though, are not usually the best judges of what is best for us, I really don't believe that. People are too flawed in judging themselves in all kinds of aspects in life and tennis is even more technical. Again though, play with what you like, very possible it isn't what makes you the best tennis player, but gives you the most pleasure from the game.
Thanks for your permission. :-D
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
Thanks for your permission. :-D
No problem! Is there anyone in the world you would take advice from and change rackets if they said you would be better with a different one, like give it a trial for a month, hypothetically, or is that something that you wouldn't be interested in at all?
 

Fxanimator1

Hall of Fame
No problem! Is there anyone in the world you would take advice from and change rackets if they said you would be better with a different one, like give it a trial for a month, hypothetically, or is that something that you wouldn't be interested in at all?
I’m pretty sure that comment he made was his way of saying, he’s done with this conversation.
Has anyone ever told you that the way your tone comes off is arrogant and condescending? I mean, maybe people generally agree with you for the most part, but find your tone so offensive, that they want to confront you.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
I’m pretty sure that comment he made was his way of saying, he’s done with this conversation.
Has anyone ever told you that the way your tone comes off is arrogant and condescending? I mean, maybe people generally agree with you for the most part, but find your tone so offensive, that they want to confront you.
Ok, but I am still interested in whether he is open to 3rd party input on sticks, plus average member, just curious. I haven't been told until now on a tennis message board that my tone is arrogant, and yes people sometimes agree with me on tennis message boards, sometimes not, maybe more times than not. I try not to read a tone into any messages and therefore I probably don't write in a way that would make sure no tone is inferred, but I did plan on getting some pushback from people who use the RF, that's expected and I am wondering, sincerely, if rec players would hold onto the RF no matter what or if they are open to other ideas. Clearly a couple people who use the RF are not interested in my opinion, nor the video. [the gorilla profile photo is scary and makes me feel you are an alpha human (I won't assume your gender)]
 

Vicious49

Hall of Fame
I used the RF97 for almost 4 years. I was in the 3-3.5 range at the time. I didnt know much so demod some racquets and chose the RF97 because i seemed to play ok with it. I eventually got a bit better and started looking for other options because i realized my arm was getting worn down after 3 hours of playing with it. I wanted something similar but easier to swing.

Over the last almost year ive gone through dozens of racquets and realized i actually prefer control frames - 18/20 with thinner beams and a static weight between 325-345 grams. Ive settled on frames like the Ultra Tour and Blade as my go tos.

I am now about a 4.0 and realize i was relying more on the mass of the RF97 to get shots back instead of generating RHS. Even now i occasionally try to play with an RF97 and realize i cant generate the RHS or have the control I have with these other frames. Im glad I went with the RF97 instead of the super light oversized frames that most of the guys i was playing with at the time were using. They are still stuck in the same place and ive improved my game and moved on.
 

danbrenner

Hall of Fame
I think people highly overestimate how heavy a RF97 is. Fed probably plays with a much heavier one, but the retail version isn’t that big a deal.

the swing weight is by far the most important weight metric and the RF comes in in the low 330s which is tied with an 18x20 V7 blade and many other racquets.

I don’t think the 340g static weight is meaningfully heavier than most other racquets on the market. If 310 is average and is what is recommended we’re at a 30g/1 ounce of static weight difference, not swing weight. My wrist bands weigh over an ounce while sweating in them. They don’t effect the way I play one bit.
Then again I’m a lot thicker than most tennis players so maybe I’m just speaking for myself.
The RF is a telephone pole. Who are we kidding here. It doesn’t swing anything like a v7 blade. It swings more like an anvil from the looney tunes cartoons.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
Mark McGwire used a 35oz bat to hit 70 home runs in 1998

Barry Bonds used a 32oz bat to hit 73 home runs in 2001

Physicists have shown, from a simple collision analysis, that the optimum bat weight is between 15 and 18oz.


I don’t care what any expert says. Find whatever you gel with and learn it like the back of your hand
I guess you are saying don't listen to experts because Barry Bonds and Mark M used heavier bats than a physics study suggested. Well, wooden bats can't be made at that lighter weight according the study and metal ones of that weight are prohibited by NCAA rules.
My opinion is people don't know what racket js optimal or what they gel with, I would hope the guy Djokavich is paying and then advice he is following was more specific to tennis playing than if tennis was examined from a physics standpoint. Although I think there are tennis related physics studies related to rackets.
My motto would be play with the racket that is best for your game, what you gel with might bit be it or the average player isn't self aware enough to know.
 

Curtennis

Semi-Pro
I guess you are saying don't listen to experts because Barry Bonds and Mark M used heavier bats than a physics study suggested. Well, wooden bats can't be made at that lighter weight according the study and metal ones of that weight are prohibited by NCAA rules.
My opinion is people don't know what racket js optimal or what they gel with, I would hope the guy Djokavich is paying and then advice he is following was more specific to tennis playing than if tennis was examined from a physics standpoint. Although I think there are tennis related physics studies related to rackets.
My motto would be play with the racket that is best for your game, what you gel with might bit be it or the average player isn't self aware enough to know.
The point is two players used bats at the opposite end of the weight spectrum. Most all players use something between those two all stars. Yet on both extremes we have home run champions. It’s almost like there’s no magic equipment that is best. In fact it’s almost like it’s just up to individual preference.
 

bertrevert

Hall of Fame
no magic equipment that is best. In fact it’s almost like it’s just up to individual preference.
See I dunno it's just not that easy, wish it was.

I think many players, and certainly ones who report here, have found they can improve things (their game, one shot, lots of shots, their stamina/recovery whatever aspect) with different frames. There is something that fuels the search and it is more than just "preference"...

I don't think there's a formula but I certainly feel (I cannot objectively report) that I have made progress alongside, or hand in hand with changing racquets over time. Some have been experiments which didn't work out, some have lasted, but there always been the impression of progress (haha whether or not that's true in real terms!) which is what I'm after.

So I think equipment does bring a helluva lot to the table. THe things we see or eke out are indeed what racquet manufacturers play to: weigh, balance, SW, on and on - and given our changing physiques or mastery of the game over time it very much benefits us to keep striving. Like it is one form of paying attention to ones own game, as much as practice or turning up on time!
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
The point is two players used bats at the opposite end of the weight spectrum. Most all players use something between those two all stars. Yet on both extremes we have home run champions. It’s almost like there’s no magic equipment that is best. In fact it’s almost like it’s just up to individual preference.
For baseball, yes, those are good examples.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
All this talk about light racquets made me string up my super light Pro Staff 88. Yeah baby, 374 grams!!!!!
Hehe, I did just notice your taglines with rackets you have/use, no wonder you joined the discussion ;) btw, Blades, Pure Strikes, even the regular pro staff aren't necessarily "light" just lighter than the RF.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
See I dunno it's just not that easy, wish it was.

I think many players, and certainly ones who report here, have found they can improve things (their game, one shot, lots of shots, their stamina/recovery whatever aspect) with different frames. There is something that fuels the search and it is more than just "preference"...

I don't think there's a formula but I certainly feel (I cannot objectively report) that I have made progress alongside, or hand in hand with changing racquets over time. Some have been experiments which didn't work out, some have lasted, but there always been the impression of progress (haha whether or not that's true in real terms!) which is what I'm after.

So I think equipment does bring a helluva lot to the table. THe things we see or eke out are indeed what racquet manufacturers play to: weigh, balance, SW, on and on - and given our changing physiques or mastery of the game over time it very much benefits us to keep striving. Like it is one form of paying attention to ones own game, as much as practice or turning up on time!
Definitely, it's fun to talk baseball, but there are quite a few more dynamics with tennis rackets and the desired results when hitting a tennis ball. Ones who report here though about finding the right stick, especially the ones using lead are the ones I am riling up, I still say the rec player, would you trust the majority to know how to use lead, to swing around a 340 plus gram stick and be playing the best tennis they can play? I will give it to those who play 4-6 times a week and are really dialed in. But, even division 1 players don't lead their sticks up, neither do almost all that are UTR 10-12, that one poster recently detailed what they use, mostly blades, regular pro staffs, pure aeros, pure strikes, all stock, and a few Ezone 98 and Wilson Utrlas thrown in. So, maybe there is a magic spot at 4.0 or 4.5 for old guys who should use the Pro Staff RF, but I seriously doubt it is making them better tennis players. Not to mention leading up regular sticks.
 

Acegame

Rookie
One comment i find confusing. He said that they lowered the static weight of Djokovic' racket to make it more maneuverable. But then he added that they also changed the balance of the racket to keep the same swingweight. But if the swingweight is the same, then the maneuverability doesn't change right?
 
Definitely, it's fun to talk baseball, but there are quite a few more dynamics with tennis rackets and the desired results when hitting a tennis ball. Ones who report here though about finding the right stick, especially the ones using lead are the ones I am riling up, I still say the rec player, would you trust the majority to know how to use lead, to swing around a 340 plus gram stick and be playing the best tennis they can play? I will give it to those who play 4-6 times a week and are really dialed in. But, even division 1 players don't lead their sticks up, neither do almost all that are UTR 10-12, that one poster recently detailed what they use, mostly blades, regular pro staffs, pure aeros, pure strikes, all stock, and a few Ezone 98 and Wilson Utrlas thrown in. So, maybe there is a magic spot at 4.0 or 4.5 for old guys who should use the Pro Staff RF, but I seriously doubt it is making them better tennis players. Not to mention leading up regular sticks.
Most D1 guys I know and played with added lead. That was back in 2008, so I find it hard to believe customization has devolved now. Roman is an awesome dude and I think you’re misinterpreting what he said. Think about the group he describes: former college players now on Wall Street. That’s someone who used to 10+ hours a week plus conditioning and now plays a few times a month. Would they be better served using a lighter racquet than they did when playing collegiate tennis? Obviously. Does that mean everyone should be using a lighter racquet like you claim? Obviously not.

A high recoil weight is proven to be beneficial to arm health. You get that from a heavy and head light racquet, very light racquets actually transfer more harmful vibrations to your arm. If people follow the advice you’re giving then they’ll be more likely to end up with TE, not less. Plus, even a high SW and static weight racquet weighs less than a large cup of coffee, it’s not like we’re talking about herculean feats of strength here.....
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
Most D1 guys I know and played with added lead. That was back in 2008, so I find it hard to believe customization has devolved now. Roman is an awesome dude and I think you’re misinterpreting what he said. Think about the group he describes: former college players now on Wall Street. That’s someone who used to 10+ hours a week plus conditioning and now plays a few times a month. Would they be better served using a lighter racquet than they did when playing collegiate tennis? Obviously. Does that mean everyone should be using a lighter racquet like you claim? Obviously not.

A high recoil weight is proven to be beneficial to arm health. You get that from a heavy and head light racquet, very light racquets actually transfer more harmful vibrations to your arm. If people follow the advice you’re giving then they’ll be more likely to end up with TE, not less. Plus, even a high SW and static weight racquet weighs less than a large cup of coffee, it’s not like we’re talking about herculean feats of strength here.....
Surely some still do, but I hit ever so often with many now who don't, more don't than do, and I can't find the thread but someone here went to a tournament of UTR 10-12 players and they all used stock sticks (no RF) , he did the hard work of asking them all and asking the stringer at the tourney. I bet things have changed quite a bit since 2008 just like the video kind of detailed.

I also mentioned here if someone plays 4-5 times a week maybe they know the RF is the one for them and we can trust their judgment, I very much doubt those complaining about that assessment play 4-5 times a week, maybe they do. So, at least 80% of those using the RF don't play that often all year round, no way. The college players that play that often, the RF is no where near a top choice for current college nor academy kids on their way to college tennis. So, most everyone would also be in the "better served using a lighter racket".

I'm not giving any advice related to tennis elbow, that keeps coming up here, literally sir, with all due respect, the only advice I ever gave and continue to give is the Wilson RF autograph is not the best racket for the majority of those who use it. If that advice causes tennis elbow, I have no idea how because the alternatives I gave were Wilson Blades, Pure Strikes, the Pro Staff regular weight etc., those aren't really light rackets in my opinion and definitely not tennis elbow inducing.
 

emaz8724

Rookie
One comment i find confusing. He said that they lowered the static weight of Djokovic' racket to make it more maneuverable. But then he added that they also changed the balance of the racket to keep the same swingweight. But if the swingweight is the same, then the maneuverability doesn't change right?
If the swingweight remained the same, despite the lowering of the static weight to 326 g, then the balance changed to less headlight. Less headlight you’re still trading maneuverability for stability
 
Surely some still do, but I hit ever so often with many now who don't, more don't than do, and I can't find the thread but someone here went to a tournament of UTR 10-12 players and they all used stock sticks (no RF) , he did the hard work of asking them all and asking the stringer at the tourney. I bet things have changed quite a bit since 2008 just like the video kind of detailed.

I also mentioned here if someone plays 4-5 times a week maybe they know the RF is the one for them and we can trust their judgment, I very much doubt those complaining about that assessment play 4-5 times a week, maybe they do. So, at least 80% of those using the RF don't play that often all year round, no way. The college players that play that often, the RF is no where near a top choice for current college nor academy kids on their way to college tennis. So, most everyone would also be in the "better served using a lighter racket".

I'm not giving any advice related to tennis elbow, that keeps coming up here, literally sir, with all due respect, the only advice I ever gave and continue to give is the Wilson RF autograph is not the best racket for the majority of those who use it. If that advice causes tennis elbow, I have no idea how because the alternatives I gave were Wilson Blades, Pure Strikes, the Pro Staff regular weight etc., those aren't really light rackets in my opinion and definitely not tennis elbow inducing.
My mistake on the tennis elbow comment, I’m guilty of not reading all of the replies and thought it must have been mentioned based on the comments. Back to the topic at hand: I think you would be better served by quantifying what you mean by “lighter racquet” instead of using the subjectively multifarious “not the RF97.” The Wilson Blade you give as an alternative has a higher average SW (334 vs 333) and a higher TW (14.35 vs 13.94) than the RF97, for example.

I’ll use Djokovic’s racquet change as an example of being specific since that’s who Roman talks about in the interview. Nole removed a cross, extended the length from 26.75in to 27.1in, lowered the SW from 370 to 360, lowered the static weight from 359 to 353, and lowered the balance from 32.8cm to 32.3cm. The TW was also presumably lowered given the shorter strips of lead at 3&9, but no one really knows what that measurement was to begin with. It’s much easier to communicate an idea with concrete numbers like above.

Now given the alternatives you gave I’m assuming that you are using lighter to mean a lower static weight? I’m saying that because of the 3 racquets you mention all 3 have a higher TW, 2 have SW greater than or equal to the RF, and all 3 have a lower static weight by 20g or so. In that case you would be in line with Roman saying that the tour is going more polarized, which is to say that the SW is close to or greater than the static weight. Djokovic and Nadal both do this, while Federer uses a more depolarized setup.
 

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
I think Roman is just stating the obvious: most people, even with very good technique, will find it harder to play with very heavy sticks like the RF97 Autograph, the Yonex Vcore Pro 330 or the Prince Phantom 93P.

It's not that they won't be able to play with them, it's just that they are quite demanding, and unless one is in absolutely top physical shape, they'll tire after a set of competitive singles.

Without having to go all the way down to 300g sticks, there's probably a middle ground to be found for those players at 310g-320g static weight, plus a few grams of lead here and there to tune the balance / swing weight to desired specs.
 

bertrevert

Hall of Fame
I think Roman is just stating the obviouus [...], there's probably a middle ground to be found for those players at 310g-320g static weight, plus a few grams of lead here and there to tune the balance / swing weight to desired specs.
Yeh that's what I think the interview boiled down to.

Can I just interject that I very much agree with the FYB view that the Sampras/Fed frame when I'd come across them in the rec context were being used ineffectively by the wrong ppl... I have played many a player who just couldn't wield it, or looked like it didn't maximise their game is a nicer way of saying it. Or they start out fine and then about 30mins are gassed. Personally, think I had what was it the k95(?) for say about 6 months and that stiff heavy lump almost put me in my grave.

Given the long view, and Prokes is the man, what he/we are talking about here isn't just the RF but it goes back to Sampras.

Surely we all recall that black beauty popping up all over the place not in the hands of Samprasses?

Anyway back to the interview, the flip side of what he is saying holds a bit of a revelation: that there is this kind of sweetspot for most players around the 310-320? I'm a bit shocked by how specific that is. I've always thought it more broad but that yeh it tops out round about, but certainly before RF-level specs.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Professional
Yeh that's what I think the interview boiled down to.

Can I just interject that I very much agree with the FYB view that the Sampras/Fed frame when I'd come across them in the rec context were being used ineffectively by the wrong ppl... I have played many a player who just couldn't wield it, or looked like it didn't maximise their game is a nicer way of saying it. Or they start out fine and then about 30mins are gassed. Personally, think I had what was it the k95(?) for say about 6 months and that stiff heavy lump almost put me in my grave.

Given the long view, and Prokes is the man, what he/we are talking about here isn't just the RF but it goes back to Sampras.

Surely we all recall that black beauty popping up all over the place not in the hands of Samprasses?

Anyway back to the interview, the flip side of what he is saying holds a bit of a revelation: that there is this kind of sweetspot for most players around the 310-320? I'm a bit shocked by how specific that is. I've always thought it more broad but that yeh it tops out round about, but certainly before RF-level specs.
Very well put, better than I could express and I agree completely. I think rec adults are that similar, so that 310 320 sweetspot exists. How many rec players play more than 3 times a week and are doing like crossfit or top cardio training on off days? Those who play 4-6 times a week, retired?...still under 30? More likely are older. When I tried the rf for singles it wasn't even cardio that was an issue, I got weaker serves around hour 4 or 5 of singles in the summer.
 
Top