Extended length more arm-friendly? Huh?

Bottle Rocket

Hall of Fame
I've got a question for you all...

In many of the thread about tennis elbow someone comes along and recommends that the player use standard length rackets. It seems like it is common knowledge that using extended length rackets is less comfortable than standard length rackets.

So my question is, why? Your elbow, shoulder, and arm know nothing of the length of the racket.

If I have a 25 inch racket and 30 inch racket I can make the 25 inch racket have the same swingweight as the longer one. Will it still be more dangerous to use?

It seems like the only time it could be worse is if you hit the very tip of the racket. Otherwise, if the swingweight is higher on the + racket, it seems like it would be much more comfy on most strokes. What am I missing?

Why does an extended length racket contribute to TE or GE?
 

fgs

Hall of Fame
bottle rocket,
i wouldn't say that an extended length is a priori more arm-friendly or not. i do think that it very much depends on each individual user and the proportions of his limbs and the mechanics of his stroke production. generally it can be assumed that an extended length would increase the leverage and thus stress on the joints, but on the other hand the sweetspot on a mid is slightly further away from the wrist than it is with an oversize, so that would patially compensate for an extended os racquet. the distance between impact point and wrist would be roughly the same in my opinion.
this is the reason (i mean proportions) why we have kids and junior racquets, so we try not to put their joints under stress that can be avoided and is not beneficial in any way. i had to learn with a lighter but still regular length racquet, and i dare say that i never dreamed of playing at the age of 8 as my son currently does with his 25" sticks.
 

Alafter

Hall of Fame
I agree with Bottle Rocky. In addition, I wanna ask why 27 is the magic number. I mean really, people are of different heights and lengths. Doesnt make any sense that there is no sense of proportionality.
 

haerdalis

Hall of Fame
The reason is torque. Longer lever means more torque. But as fgs points out the location of the sweetspot is what matters, not the actual length of the racquet. (If you hit the sweetspot that is).
 

fgs

Hall of Fame
i propose an interesting experiment: take a 27" racquet, put your elbow on the grip where you usually hold the racquet and aim your hand to the racquethead - you will be around the sweetspot. so it is a matter of proportions, of course related to techniques required to play this game. i see different lengths in raquetball, but quite similar ones in squash (never played any of these sports, just judging by the length of the racquets).
i think that racquetlength has been based on something empirical in the sense of a length that felt good for the vast majority of players. since statistics show that we have grown taller, it was just a question of time for longer racquets to appear. the game has also gotten much faster, so that might have prevented from getting to use too long racquets, but 27.5 are getting quite common these days.
 

keyBlade

New User
could it be that the manufacturer normally made the extended version lighter thus these racket tends to have lesser mass to absorb the shock from ball contact and since it is lighter and longer the manufacturer normally would have to make it stiffer as well, not a very good formula for arm friendliness.
 

fgs

Hall of Fame
keyblade,
i wouldn't say it is a general rule. the fact that they need to be a little stiffer does not really affect the playing characteristics, at least regarding the size (i'm thinking now of the 98 blade which is a little bit softer than the 106 blade, but you don't really feel it because the 106 compensates by means of larger stringbed). the weight as well is not really an issue, because we are talking about max. 1 inch = 2.54 cm, so there isn't really much weight coming into it. there are large racquets out there a lot lighter than a k90.
the stiffness has quite steeply risen from the days of wood, but there were racquets just as unfriendly way back then as there are today. you had all sorts of inlays, from fiberglass, to boron, graphite, kevlar in the 80's, that made (some of them) the racquets quite jarring.
 

keyBlade

New User
fgs,

you are right that isn't a general rule per se but it seems to be pretty common for big size + light weight to go hand in hand nowadays (if only it works the same on human anatomy:D ) In any case the nBlade 106 is definitely does not fit in this trend. Best of both world?
 

keyBlade

New User
opps! when I read the original poster's post he apparently has excluded the weight element in his argument so I shouldn't sway the discussion towards the wrong direction. Sorry.
 

keithchircop

Professional
we forgive you keyblade.

interesting thread. i always wondered why there aren't racquets for short people and others for tall people.
 

fgs

Hall of Fame
keithchircop,
in a certain way there are, because i understood that there are asian version available. these are not shorter though, but somewhat lighter.
regarding the length there is not much choice, because the best junior racquets in 26" are around the 250-260g range (like my sons prostaffs, or the new nblade 16"), and that definitely is too light in my opinion. i think that there are "shorter" people (no offense) that would enjoy a 26" racquet but around 300g. my wife for instance is 160cm, and such a racquet would be a good choice i think. i don't like the idea of leading up junior racquets because so much lead is no good, and also you wouldn't get a proper grip size.

have some more courts built in wonderful malta - last year i've been in mellieha, absolutely enjoyed it, but had a hard time finding a tennis court, so instead of two weeks as initially intended we came only for one week. the people are wonderful and i really gave a serious thought about moving to malta when retireing.:D
 

keithchircop

Professional
pity our paths didnt cross earlier - i'd have told you where to find the best courts!

there's a good club with natural grass courts in vittoriosa (south of malta). we've got two hard courts with trees all around, where i like to play, in kappara (centre) but they arent maintained often, unfortunately. can't beat playing with trees all around though.

the best quality hard courts are at the pembroke club (centre) and the marsa club (centre/south). these clubs are for hardcore (and poshy) tennis players. the marsa club has a good clay court as well.

also, practically every 4 or 5 star hotel has a well-maintained tennis court, and you know how many hotels there are. quite a few 3 star hotels have hard courts, which they maintain every 15 years or so...

we didn't have a winter this year - no rain. this global warming really affects an island in the middle of the mediterranean sea. gets unbearable in summer but you can play tennis in the sun in autumn/winter so who's complaining?
 
Last edited:

fgs

Hall of Fame
keithchircop,
i promised myself i'll come back and i'll definitely will do so. i'll let you know so maybe we can hit some. but i don't think i will be sooner than next year.
 

couch

Hall of Fame
I agree with Bottle Rocky. In addition, I wanna ask why 27 is the magic number. I mean really, people are of different heights and lengths. Doesnt make any sense that there is no sense of proportionality.

Do a search on "the inch that saved tennis" and that should answer your question. In short, it has to do with the old wood racquets and measuring the correct length of the center strap. The racquets were 27" long and the heads on "all" wood racquets were 9" wide. Therefore, you could measure the distance of the center strap by adding the 27" and 9" together to make 36": The length of the center strap.

I think that's kinda the jist of the article. It also has some other nice info in there.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Do a search on "the inch that saved tennis" and that should answer your question. In short, it has to do with the old wood racquets and measuring the correct length of the center strap. The racquets were 27" long and the heads on "all" wood racquets were 9" wide. Therefore, you could measure the distance of the center strap by adding the 27" and 9" together to make 36": The length of the center strap.

I think that's kinda the jist of the article. It also has some other nice info in there.

What is "center strap"?
 

Bottle Rocket

Hall of Fame
Thanks for the responses, especially fgs.

First off, Couch, that is not what that article was about. That wasn't the name of the article either. It was about the change in width (of the head) allowing players to change their swings and more importantly hit the ball differently (more top spin) with different grips, without clipping the frame.

Anyway, back to the length discussion...

If you compare a 27 inch wood racket to a modern 98 inch 27 inch racket, the center of the wood racket is a few inches farther towards the head than the 27 inch racket - not as far as it would be on a 28 inch frame.

The torque issue doesn't quite make sense to me in how it relates to arm-friendliness. It makes sense, but only if other issues are overlooked. I'd rather hit a baseball with a longer bat versus a shorter bat. Not only will I get the ball to go farther, but the impact will be lessened on my arm because of the inertia (MOI is related to the length^2) of the bat. So what part of a tennis swing is it that makes a 27.5 or 28 inch racket more dangerous?

Is it a difference in another spec of a racket besides the length that makes the + more dangerous? The mass? The few rackets I just took a look at (Pure Control), the plus size actually weighs more. Is swingweight the issue?

Is this a myth? Do racket ball and squash players ever get TE? How come baseball players don't get TE or GE? What about golf clubs? Look how long and light those are.
 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Is it a difference in another spec of a racket besides the length that makes the + more dangerous? The mass? The few rackets I just took a look at (Pure Control), the plus size actually weighs more. Is swingweight the issue?

That is why I use a 27.5 in racquet with a headsize of 100 si and 12 oz strung - but with a strung SW of only 335! This combination was possible only thru Vantage. Most stock sticks have higher static weight and much higher swingweight, or not enough static weight at all.
 

haerdalis

Hall of Fame
Thanks for the responses, especially fgs.

First off, Couch, that is not what that article was about. That wasn't the name of the article either. It was about the change in width (of the head) allowing players to change their swings and more importantly hit the ball differently (more top spin) with different grips, without clipping the frame.

Anyway, back to the length discussion...

If you compare a 27 inch wood racket to a modern 98 inch 27 inch racket, the center of the wood racket is a few inches farther towards the head than the 27 inch racket - not as far as it would be on a 28 inch frame.

The torque issue doesn't quite make sense to me in how it relates to arm-friendliness. It makes sense, but only if other issues are overlooked. I'd rather hit a baseball with a longer bat versus a shorter bat. Not only will I get the ball to go farther, but the impact will be lessened on my arm because of the inertia (MOI is related to the length^2) of the bat. So what part of a tennis swing is it that makes a 27.5 or 28 inch racket more dangerous?

Is it a difference in another spec of a racket besides the length that makes the + more dangerous? The mass? The few rackets I just took a look at (Pure Control), the plus size actually weighs more. Is swingweight the issue?

Is this a myth? Do racket ball and squash players ever get TE? How come baseball players don't get TE or GE? What about golf clubs? Look how long and light those are.
I think tennisplayers are in a weaker position at impact than golfers or baselball players. Stretch volleys etc. In golf and baseball the whole body is behind the shot and in golf the ball is also lying still.
Torque must be an issue with longer racquets. But as you said wooden racquets still have the sweetspot further from the hand.
 

fgs

Hall of Fame
bottle rocket,
i'd rather say we are looking at a myth regarding extended length racquets and te. i'd agree in those cases where the os or x version is much stiffer than the mp (see radicals), that the overall behaviour is more stressing to the joints, but that would be the case as well with a standard length high stiffness racquet.
the torque issue, as i already earlier pointed out, is not realistic, because on an os you would have the sweetspot closer to the wrist, so that is where torque is calculated and not the overall length.
the analogy with baseball batters is not so good because you have quite different planes of motion, the batting is a much more linear stroke than a topspin or a slice, and you are rather having a 2hbh stroke, but there is no fh or serve in baseball.
i ended up playing the 106 blade, which in fact is a "slightly extended length":D stick, but i think i love it because of the flex and the fact that the 106 headsize is so forgiving in respect to my ailing knees, which cannot set me up properly anymore.
 

couch

Hall of Fame
Thanks for the responses, especially fgs.

First off, Couch, that is not what that article was about. That wasn't the name of the article either. It was about the change in width (of the head) allowing players to change their swings and more importantly hit the ball differently (more top spin) with different grips, without clipping the frame.

Hey Mr. Bottle Rocket, didn't the article "mention" that in it? The article may not have been strictly about the length of tennis racquets but I'm pretty sure it mentioned it in the article. I did a search and couldn't find it so I'm going to post something in the Racquet Section and see if someone will post it again.

And please enlighten me on what the name of the article is then.
 

couch

Hall of Fame
Thanks for the responses, especially fgs.

First off, Couch, that is not what that article was about. That wasn't the name of the article either. It was about the change in width (of the head) allowing players to change their swings and more importantly hit the ball differently (more top spin) with different grips, without clipping the frame.

Anyway, back to the length discussion...

So I guess I WAS right afterall. :) Here's the article. I highlighted for you, Bottle Rocket, what I was talking about. It is the beginning of the second paragraph.



The inch that changed tennis forever

By Rod Cross
(Published January 2006)
The modern game of tennis is played at a furious pace compared with the old days when everyone used wood racquets. Just watch old film from the 1950s and you will see that the game is vastly different. Ken Rosewall and Lew Hoad barely broke into a sweat. Today's game has players grunting and screaming on every shot, calling for the towel every third shot, and launching themselves off the court with the ferocity of their strokes. The difference is obviously due to the change from wood to graphite racquets, which happened during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Everyone concluded that graphite racquets were much stronger, lighter, and more powerful, while the players themselves somehow became taller, stronger, and fitter. How else could the game have changed so drastically?
Racquet Width, Spin, and Power

The real reason for the change is more subtle. It's because racquets got wider. Wood racquets were always 9 inches wide and 27 inches long, so players could check the 36-inch height of the net by putting one racquet on top of another. Today's players can't do that. Most racquets are still 27 inches long, but they are now 10 to 12 inches wide. They are also lighter, which means they are less powerful, but it also means that players can swing them faster, which they need to do just to get back the power they lost when they became lighter.
When players started swinging their racquets faster, they noticed an interesting effect—they generated more topspin on the ball. A ball with topspin dives down more steeply into the court after it passes over the net compared with a ball without spin. Players noticed that the ball went in more easily, despite the fact that the ball was hit at about the same speed as with their old wood racquets. So they started hitting the ball even harder, which made the ball spin faster, and it still went in. Not only that, the added swing velocity wasn't resulting in mis-hits, due to the larger sweet zone and extra inch or two of frame clearance.
So what did they do next? The extra frame clearance allowed players to start swinging upwards at the ball to get even more spin, and they rotated the racquet in their hand to a Western grip in order to swing at even steeper angles to the ball. That grip gave them problems with their backhand, so they had to grip the handle with the both hands to tilt the frame back into a vertical position. The faster they hit the ball, the faster it spun, and the faster it spun, the harder they could hit it. That's why players today usually have both feet off the ground when they hit the ball, and it's why they need to grunt and scream.
Players were given an inch in the 1970s and they took a mile. The ball now spins 4 or 5 times faster than it did before the 1970s. An increase in just one inch allowed an amazing increase in spin due to steeper, faster swings and a tilting of the racquet forward by up to 5 degrees, all without clipping the frame. An example will make this very clear.
Five Times the Spin

When a ball bounces off the court it acquires topspin, even if it had no spin before it hit the court. In fact, it spins faster than most players can generate themselves when they hit a topspin return. In order to return the ball with topspin, a player needs to swing the racquet both forwards and upwards and fast enough to reverse the rotation of the spinning ball. If the player doesn't reverse the direction of the spin, then the ball will be returned with backspin—it is still spinning in the same direction but traveling in the opposite direction back over the net.
Suppose, for example, that the ball spins at 3,000 rpm (50 revolutions/sec) after it bounces off the court. That is a typical amount of spin when a ball hits the court at around 30 or 40 mph. Returned with a wood racquet, a player won't be able to swing up at a very steep angle without clipping the frame. He will still be able to reverse the spin, but he will get only 200 rpm or so of topspin by swinging the racquet upward fairly rapidly at about 20 degrees to the horizontal. A change in spin from 3,000 rpm backwards to 200 rpm forwards is a change of 3,200 rpm, which is a relatively big change, but it is only enough to return the ball with a small amount of topspin.
Now suppose the player switches to a 10-inch-wide racquet and swings up at 30 degrees to the ball. The player can do that and can also tilt the racquet head forward by about 5 degrees, with even less risk of clipping the frame than with a 9-inch-wide wood racquet being swung at 20 degrees with the head perpendicular to the ground. In this way, the player will be able to change the spin by about 4,000 rpm instead of 3,200 rpm, with the result that the spin changes from 3,000 rpm of backspin to 1,000 rpm of topspin. The result is therefore a factor of five increase, from 200 rpm to 1,000 rpm, in the amount of topspin. That's an amazingly big effect considering that the racquet increased in width by only one inch, or by only 11 percent.

200601racquet-tilt.jpg
Why Width Matters

A 9-inch-wide racquet swung with the strings in a vertical plane has about 8 inches of string in the vertical direction and about one-half inch of wood above and below the strings. A 10-inch racquet swung in the same way has about 9 inches of string in the vertical direction. The ball is just over two and one-half inches in diameter, so 3.1 balls can fit across a 9-inch racquet and 3.5 balls can fit across a 10-inch racquet. If the 10-inch racquet is tilted forward 27 degrees, then the strings extend 9 inches diagonally and 8 inches vertically, as shown in Figure 1. The racquet can therefore be swung upwards at 27 degrees or tilted forward by 27 degrees, and it will then present to the ball exactly the same area of string as a 9-inch racquet. No one tilts the racquet forward by as much as 27 degrees, but they now swing up into the ball at angles of 30 degrees or more to generate topspin. Tilting the racquet head forward slightly generates even more topspin.
Giving a player an extra inch of width allows the player to swing up at a steeper angle or faster or both. In that case the ball slides farther across the strings, so you really do need that extra inch. A change in 4,000 rpm rather than 3,200 rpm is therefore not surprising given the extra speed, angle, and tilt made possible by the extra one inch of width.
Going from a 10-inch to an 11-inch racquet does not deliver another huge increase in topspin. The reason is that if players tried to increase the upward speed of the racquet any more than they do now, the ball would sail over the baseline. They can do that for a topspin lob, but the forward speed of the racquet and the ball remains relatively small for a topspin lob. An 11-inch racquet will work better for topspin lobs but not for any other shot. On the other hand, 9-inch racquets were only just over the limit of being able to generate any topspin at all. Give a 9-inch graphite racquet to a player today and the result would be some serious clipping of the frame every few shots, though perhaps not as many as "old-timers" might expect because modern players are so practiced and skilled at steeper swings.
Further details are described in the new book Technical Tennis: Racquets, Strings, Balls, Courts, Spin, and Bounce, by Rod Cross and Crawford Lindsey, available from book store web sites or from the publisher at www.usrsa.com.
About us | Home | USRSA
Copyright © 2004-2007
 

Bottle Rocket

Hall of Fame
LOL couch... ;)

I asked why rackets were 27 inches. Your answer is that it was because that way you could measure the height of the net with the racket going lengthwise + it's head width.

That is mentioned in the article to prove racket heads are wider, not because that is why rackets are 27 inches! Racket length has nothing to do with any of that article. Racket length is not determined by the height of the net. If it was, you'd have to have a second racket to measure the ends of the net.

Anyway, heh, I think a large portion of that article is BS as I said in one of the more recent threads about it.

fgs, I think I agree... Most of this is a myth.
 

couch

Hall of Fame
LOL couch... ;)

I asked why rackets were 27 inches. Your answer is that it was because that way you could measure the height of the net with the racket going lengthwise + it's head width.

That is mentioned in the article to prove racket heads are wider, not because that is why rackets are 27 inches! Racket length has nothing to do with any of that article. Racket length is not determined by the height of the net. If it was, you'd have to have a second racket to measure the ends of the net.

Anyway, heh, I think a large portion of that article is BS as I said in one of the more recent threads about it.

fgs, I think I agree... Most of this is a myth.

Alafter just asked a question, "why are racquets 27" long" and I remembered that article stated that about the length and width of old wooden racquets. I never really knew that the old wood racquets' heads were exactly 9" wide. I always knew people would measure the center strap that way but never knew all wood racquets used to be made that way.

So why, then, are (most) racquets 27" long? Why is that the standard length???

I think we just got our signals crossed. Wouldn't be the first time for me. :)
 

Kevo

Legend
I don't know why 27" is the standard, but I do know that I would not expect a longer racquet to be more prone to cause TE. If a racquet is longer then it should flex more. The flex would soften impact. Of course this theory is based on identical frames with only length being different. You would have to judge two different frames on their own merits.
 
Top