Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by Rafa4Ever, Sep 18, 2013.
I have no idea what you are poasting about my dood.
Hm, you responded quickly. I guess the nature of my response is pointless then.
I have a blx 90 with volkl cyclone 16g and about 2" of lead on both sides of the inner 12 o'clock. Improved my game drastically. I'm a weak ***** chick and can finally generate power with this racket. It literally forces you to play better if you want to use it. Been tempted to try the Volkl power bridge 10 mid for comparison since I loved my c8 pro in high school, it got me a state championship! Dunno how I feel about the new blx paint job. As long as the inside is the same, does it matter?
I know a serious player who was an actual NTRP 4.0 who switched from a 100 sq. in. Head to a Wilson 90 and is now crushing the ball with tons of topspin and they are going in, whereas before most of his shots would go out or into the net. Due to the switch, he's now an actual NTRP 4.5.
I know another serious actual NTRP 4.0 player who was using a 98 sq. in. racquet and also switched to a Tour 90 and is now an actual NTRP 4.5 due to the switch.
The smaller head and heavier weight just gave guys like this so much more control and power, and yes, even more spin.
a 4.0 level is not that heavy of a playing field at least in USTA. If his actual computer rating is a 4.5 then i would be surprised if he has an over 500 record at best in singles.
id like to see him try to play against heavy spin and 100+mph serves. if he can do it, its rare.
It certainly is here in California.
BTW, these are the guys generating the heavy spin with their Tour 90s.
id like to see them. im here in NJ and the 4.0 level isnt that great of player. there is a big gap between 4.0 and 4.5
You never will see them.
BP is known for posting tons of boisterous comments without ever backing up any of them.
trust me i know that already, most people on here are posting more then their playing...its almost black and white. if federer is having a hard time with a 90 why would a 4.0 player not?
Many of the 4.0 players here are ex-college players. Many of the 4.5 players here are ex-Div 1 college players. The level of play here is very high compared to NJ. I know because I played in NJ and NY for many years.
Because most 4.0 players don't have to play against Rafael Nadal. BTW, who DOESN'T have a hard time against Nadal regardless of the size of their racquet?
And how can you say Federer has a "hard time with a 90" when he won 17 Slams and has been #1 in the world longer than anyone else in tennis history by using a 90?
good point, but the 90 is too demanding for a regular player. the reason why no many guys play it cuase they are smart enough to know.
Not so sure about that since lots of guys here play with the 90.
What does "too demanding" mean anyway? Aren't you supposed to hit the ball in the center of the strings regardless of the size of your racquet? Any shot that's not hit in the center of your strings is not going to be a good shot regardless of the size of your racquet.
I'm a regular player, I think, and the 90 is working just great for me.
Maybe I'm just not smart enough to know better, but on the plus side, I win more matches!
I'm not sure what you mean by "too demanding".
Yes it is heavy, it has a decent swingweight, especially with a little lead under the bumper, so I guess it's not for little old ladies.
But if you're in decent shape and work out regularly, you should have no problem using this racquet.
In fact it's so easy, it practically swings itself!
And BTW, with the right strings and the right technique, you can generate insane amounts of spin with this, much more than I had expected before I tried it.
The USTA has asked me to stop playing league when I tested positive for GOAThood(tm). I have touched the Face of God with a KPS 89.
What s/he meant to say was: "I don't have game".
People who grew up playing with woodies, and frames like the PS85 look at the Pro Staff/Tour 90 series as forgiving.
Are you sure that you and R2 are the same person? You two post the same way...
Yes...I too enjoy success with Olde Tyme specs...it is truly fun to beat 3's-4's with these...but once I get up to playing 4.5's and such I'll pop up to my PS 95's or Rad TT's. It's called isolated cases, but to deny that the modern game is dominated by 95sq and above is to be delusional.
Oh...I get it, the 95% of top level juniors and pros are just fools, but Roger and all your buddies have it figured out!
BUT...... I DIGRESS...wasn't the point of this thread the fact that this is ONE FUGLY STICK??????:twisted:
Yes IT IS FUGLY :shock:
Wilson need to hire proper designers
95% of top level juniors also use 2HBHs. It's what the coaches teach them to use. They have no idea what they're missing.
I don't know of anyone who switched to a Tour 90 and their play got worse and went down in NTRP as a result, but I know of plenty of guys who switched to a Tour 90 (or to the even more demanding KPS88 ) and their play got better and went up in NTRP as a result.
Admittedly, when I first started playing tennis this was my racket of choice. I had not developed the coordination needed nor the complete arm strength to wield this (despite being very muscular from weight lifting as my hobby).
I switched over to the Pure Storm GT Tour, got more refined with my strokes... I went back to my K90 and now that my body has filled out more and I've refined my technique and timing, it works so well for me.
With the Pure Storm Tour GT, I was able to get more pop on my serve yes, but my groundies were flying everywhere. With my BLX90, I have much more control, about the same power on groundies, and more touch at the net. Serve I probably lost about 5 MPH (don't know if this is actually the case, since the Wilson is more stiff it doesn't feel like it's popping) but my direction is still there.
95% of top level juniors would also be terrible with a 1hbh...
Terrible w/ 1HBH or not (racquets aside), juniors or a 5.5 having to deal with a 200 ranked player (serving the purpose of hitting partner) in the world would be annihilated purely because they are not accustomed to playing opponents at that level. Give it 6 weeks to 2 months and they would eventually get better but still get schooled!
Yeah, that's what people told Pete Sampras when he was a junior.
They don't know what they're missing. Can you imagine if Wawrinka's, Gasquet's, and Haas's coaches refused to teach them 1HBHs when they were juniors?
Then ask yourself this...WHY THE HELL DO YOU HAVE TO SEARCH HARD TO FIND PLAYERS ON TOUR USING LESS THAN A 95sq in HEAD???? Do you just deny that the MAJORITY of successful players are using both head sizes above 95 AND 2 handed backhands? Take head remove from sand and stop being so damn stubborn!!!!
We get it..YOU love 90's and 1hbh...I happen to be able to play with both as well...but I don't stubbornly rip the MAJORITY who have more success than me and you could ever dream of without using either.
My point with you has always been your stubborn defense of what works for you, Roger, and a select few others as being the "best" and ignoring the facts!
I'd love to watch a top ranked junior FEMALE smoke you with a Blade 104 and a 2 hander off both wings...and yes...SHE WOULD!
actually looks like a reverse ncode 90 racquet... white being red/red being white...
gold trimmings - its ok... but yeah stocking up on last year racquet now haha
i play a 98 and hit a one handed backhand not a big deal.
the 90 is not for the normal player and i can guarantee you cant yield a 90 in a decent match. the 90 is too small... yes you get more control, yes you like the weight but the combination for more 99% of the tennis population can not use it. at least to its full potential.
here is a fact i heard from most tennis shops
#1 most demoed racquet Federer 90
#1 most purchased racquet Aero/Pure Drive
breakpoint got any youtube videos of you playing with your mids?
I do, you can go look at my thread. I hope you wont flip tables when you're done watching though...
i think your a solid player that being said your just hitting the ball back and fourth. though i did notice not a ton of sweetspot hits and maybe alittle less after the 8 minute mark.
though like i said your solid, whats your usta ranking? still doesnt sway my mind about the 90 cause your just hitting not playing.
Well I have my own beef with the USTA ntrp system (last year, I lost the only 2 league matches I could play in this 40+ people 4.0 team, and I was bumped down to a 3.5).
I'm currently a computer ranked 3.5 and I'm something like 10-2 this season. Got to the quarters of a 4.0 tournament too.
well maybe its by the scores you are winning by not the win as a total. maybe try a larger head, you could only go up from there, jk.
id say your a 4.0 but i saying once you break into the first doubles or singles matches with more serious guys the 90 will be tough to play with especially all the weight of that stick.
are you on the east coast?
Because they were taught to use 2HBHs and big racquets by their coaches. Look at how many people on this board who use 90s successfully who complain that their coach keeps trying to get them to switch to a bigger racquet.
Just from reading this thread alone proves that it's not just me, Roger, and a couple of others who play better tennis with a 90 than with a bigger racquet.
Oh, and a top ranked junior female probably has never faced a serve and volleyer in her entire life and would probably pee in her shorts not knowing what to do. :lol: LOL
so there is no meaningful reason for a professional tennis coach to tell someone to play a bigger head?
id like to see the youtube video of you play.... talk is cheap
If 99% of the tennis population cannot use a 12.5 oz., 90 sq. in. racquet, then how did heck did 100% of the tennis population manage to use 14.5 oz., 65 sq. in. wood racquets for hundreds of years? Are today's players just all weaklings who don't have any eye-hand coordination?
So I "can't yield a 90 in a decent match"? I won 75% of my 4.5 USTA league singles matches using a 90 or an 85, and in California no less, where the competition is much higher.
People buy the Aero/Pure Drive because they see the pros use them and because they are too lazy to develop their own power and eye-hand coordination. Look at how small the size of the tennis ball is compared to the size of the stringbed. If you can't hit the ball with a 90 (or an 85), you may want to make an appointment with an optometrist. :lol: LOL
He's a 3.5 in California. I told you the playing level here is much higher.
Yeah, it's easier to hit the ball over the net so their parents will continue to pay the coach. It's short tern myopia instead of long term vision.
you forget to mention the ball back in the wood racquet days didnt have as much spin or power. if a 90 was a racquet everyone thought was game improving then mostly everyone would have them.... there not.
weight not the issue you can play a 20oz racquet for i care my point is the head size.
you went back and quoted all my points except the youtube video... i know a few guys on here would like to see you play.
Exactly, you can play good tennis with anything, if your technique is sound and you give time to yourself in order to get used to the racquet.
However, even Breakpoint has to admit that some things are plausible and some things aren't. Using a Wilson 90 (or 85) competitively is a bad idea unless you have a huge serve and play mostly on fast courts.
Pancho Gonzales is considered by many to be the true GOAT, yet he didn't seem to have any problems with head size:
And neither did Vitas Gerulaitis:
BTW, pros like Borg and Vilas were hitting with tons of topspin with their 65 sq. in. racquets and Connors was crushing the ball with his. Lendl had one of the biggest forehands ever using a 78 sq. in. racquet and Sampras did too using an 85. Graf had the biggest forehand in women's tennis using an 84.
The anti 90 crowd doesn't get Breakpoint or Rogi.
Corrected for you.
look at that twig vitas has got ..lolz..looks like he got it as as little gift oot of a Christmas cracker..
I was looking at lendl-mcenroe uso1982 sf and you could see mcenroes lack of power with his wooden twig compared to the one lendl was using.
McEnroe doesn't have any power regardless of the racquet that he's using. That's just the way he plays - limp wrist on every shot and all. His game is totally based upon touch, angles, placement, net play, taking the ball early, and using your power against you. It is not based upon power. Lendl's game, on the other hand, is based upon power so he would hit with power regardless of the racquet that he's using.
HOLY SH#t YOU ARE INSANE!!!!!! No matter HOW MANY TIMES rational people point out to you that your opinions of the best racquet choices and backhand techniques do NOT JIVE with the facts you refuse to accept you may be wrong!!!! Hilarious...you "fight the fight" for a spec' that just about 95% of successful juniors and pros DON'T use....we get it...they were all "brainwashed" by their coaches...LMAO...ABSURD!!!!(did you ever ask yourself why the hell coaches would teach an inferior method if you were so correct, do you really think your idea of teaching a 1HBH on a sub 90 is revolutionary?) Your comment on the fact that in the OLDE DAYS people regularly used 14oz 65" sticks...WHO THE HELL CARES..it was boring slow paced moon ball tennis!
Again...this is coming from me, someone who ENJOYS A SUB 90" and can hit a decent 1HBH (although ripping a 2 hand winner down the line flat as a board gives so much more satisfaction)...so it must confuse you that me, someone who has had success with your preferred choice...STILL THINKS YOU ARE INSANE! Well..actually, since you think your serve and volley would scare a top ranked junior chick, then yeah...you are nuts. Her return of serve would blow by you before you took one step inside the baseline....DONE..you're irrational...I'll leave it at that.
1. Yet, 95% of GOAT candidates used racquets less than or equal to 90 sq. in. Are you saying they are not "successful"? Oh, and I certainly wouldn't take much credence in anything that 95% of juniors do.
2. If tennis using wood racquets is so boring, then why were way more Americans playing and watching tennis back in the 70's than they do today (despite the almost 50% increase in U.S. population since then)?
3. I would rather quit tennis than hit a 2HBH. I have no interest in contorting my arms like a pretzel nor in hitting the ball like 99% of girls do. The 1HBH is by far the most satisfying shot in tennis.
4. So Sampras would lose to a top ranked junior girl if he served and volleyed using a 90 because her returns would blow by him before he took one step inside the baseline? OK, whatever.
I am a 1HBH player and like you I love it. Having said that I have to add that I don't agree with you in points 1 and 3.
1. Of course a high % of GOATs used smaller headsize racquets, because those were the racquets used in their eras. I mean, can you imagine Laver using a 100sq. in. during his pro career? No! because they didn't exist!
3. Why do you despise 2HBH so much? It's a matter of preference, and as much as I like my 1HBH I am not too obstinate to recognise that the 2HBH handles the high balls better and is much more flexible about timing and footwork.
1. Bigger racquets were certainly available to Sampras and Federer. Even to Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Edberg, etc. Yet, Sampras with his 85 would crush Agassi with his 107 every single time they played at Wimbledon and the US Open.
2. The 1HBH is a natural shot, the 2HBH is not. The joy in playing tennis is in hitting the 1HBH. The 2HBH is about as natural as a two-handed serve. Would you get much joy from hitting two-handed serves?
Dude, take my advice, do not waste your time with this clown, see my post, he is insane!
I pointed out a junior would smoke him and he comes back with would a junior smoke Sampres? Is he on par with Pete????? His analogies are moronic and his unwillingness to admit that his choices in both sticks and technique are NOT what the modern game uses is just straight up denial. An argument with him will just leave you annoyed, and wishing you could smoke two handers by him every time he rushed the net!!!!:twisted:
Separate names with a comma.