Feds Racquet

BreakPoint said:
A faster heart rate will wear you out faster. A slower heart rate means that your body isn't working as hard. Taken to the extreme, if you had a zero heart rate you'd be dead and you can stay dead for a very long time. LOL

For example, Borg had an extremely low heart rate for his age at a resting rate of only 35 beats per minute. He could play tennis forever. In fact, he said that he never got tired playing tennis regardless of long he played. The guy could play three 4-hour matches back-to-back without being tired at all. That's why almost nobody could beat him on clay. He would just outlast you no matter how long it took. He always won the war of attrition.
Click to expand...
A low heart rate has very little to do with age

A fast heart rate has very much to do with age

A low heart rate is attributed to having better efficiency delivering oxygen to your muscles, a stronger heart has a lower resting heart rate

As you get older your max heart rate declines and becomes slower


resting heart rate has nothing to do with aging and everything to do with fitness

Max heart rate has to do with both
 
smalahove said:
I'm not questioning the fact that ultra-marathoners are pt in their 30s. I am however pointing out their bodies have been slowly deteriorating.
Click to expand...
As everyone's does regardless of their training etc.

smalahove said:
However, everyone who's run or cycled any longer distance knows this simple fact: you have to train the distance. I can guarantee you, as soon as there's money in these events, you'll see a rapid decline in age and increase in speed.
Click to expand...
That is the thing though, older athletes can often more than make up for it because they have a more fine-tuned routine for training, recovery, nutrition etc. Their race-experience and mental approach/limits are a significant factor also.

As for money entering the races lowering the age - anyone can do a quick google and find the obvious counter-argument as you just have (in fact your comment above looks like it was virtually copy and pasted some of an item I found in 30 seconds). The fact remains the younger guys are not making the dent in endurance events that the significant increases in money which have already happened should see using that logic.

smalahove said:
And those "thousands of top triathletes in their 20s", how do their careers stack up in comparison to the ultra-marathon winners?
Click to expand...
How do you mean stack up? How many events have they entered/won? How long? How much money have they made? If it's along those lines then it's pointless arguing - why would anyone be an international kayaker if money was any indication of their success, effort or talent. Ditto for swimming... The shorter events in triathlons obviously have more commercial appeal because people with short attention spans can appreciate them more and desk jockeys can aspire more realistically to completing one one day. It does not mean those athletes would have been better than the older guys at longer events if they're committed to those events instead. History shows those who tried generally didn't succeed.

I know literally dozens of people who have run multiple marathons - most decent level amateur type runners (2.50-3.20 pace). Not one of them could achieve times in their 20s that they could in their early-mid 30s. VO2Max is only part of the equation - it just happens to be the one which can be definitively measured quite easily so people focus on it way too much (similar to serve speeds in tennis).

I'm not disagreeing with you in any way that age-related physical decline happens - rather that the various aspects of it have very different life-spans and peaks. Some are affected greatly by prior training or sheer genetic luck (go ask people in Kenya about the one region within Kenya from where many of the greatest long-distance runners come from). A person's lucky (or unlucky) genetics play a far bigger role in their potential for physical performance and how it changes from 25-40 than VO2Max does. The tired old notion that because Federer is 34 he must be declining in endurance is completely unprovable and not backed by empirical examples. If people said his top speed had waned a bit it would be far more defensable based on examples/studies (not to mention would be easier to measure).
 
Last edited:
Ihatetennis said:
A low heart rate has very little to do with age

A fast heart rate has very much to do with age

A low heart rate is attributed to having better efficiency delivering oxygen to your muscles, a stronger heart has a lower resting heart rate

As you get older your max heart rate declines and becomes slower


resting heart rate has nothing to do with aging and everything to do with fitness

Max heart rate has to do with both
Click to expand...
True.
 
Bobby Jr said:
I know literally dozens of people who have run multiple marathons - most decent level amateur type runners (2.50-3.20 pace). Not one of them could achieve times in their 20s that they could in their early-mid 30s. VO2Max is only part of the equation - it just happens to be the one which can be definitively measured quite easily so people focus on it way too much (similar to serve speeds in tennis).

I'm not disagreeing with you in any way that age-related physical decline happens - rather that the various aspects of it have very different life-spans and peaks. Some are affected greatly by prior training or sheer genetic luck (go ask people in Kenya about the one region within Kenya from where many of the greatest long-distance runners come from). A person's lucky (or unlucky) genetics play a far bigger role in their potential for physical performance and how it changes from 25-40 than VO2Max does. The tired old notion that because Federer is 34 he must be declining in endurance is completely unprovable and not backed by empirical examples. If people said his top speed had waned a bit it would be far more defensable based on examples/studies (not to mention would be easier to measure).
Click to expand...

Really quick, wozniacki ran 6 minute miles for an entire marathon... if we have more strong athletes start younger im sure average age would become lower in any event.

in triathalons and marathons and iron mans.... the ones who are making it big and winning are older yes, but they also start later in life.


I am in a xc camp every summer to build up conditioning and get better, my coach is a professional triathlete

He didnt start competing and training until he was 22 because he wasnt given the option for it, he ran xc since he was 6 and had sub 15 minute 5k times, but never did anything more because its not easily accessible


If we had athletes start at the same time, we would have younger champions

being the best at anything takes a minimum 10000 of effort assuming youre the most talented naturally gifted person to play

10000 still takes around 6 years to achieve, assuming its the only thing you do

if the youngest winner was 25 right, in what an iron man or something?... that means he had to start training at least at 19,


i agree with the fact that 25-35 shouldnt be very different, but if we use endurance athletes as a comparison it really isnt fair

how many of them have been doing the same thing for 25 years? probably a good amount, but how many of them started earlier than tennis players?

unless we adress the fact that tennis players destroy their bodies at the same pace just sooner than endurance athletes, then we wont be able to really compare the 2



federer has been doing high impact high energy tennis since he was little, endurance is low impact over a long period of time. both types of athletes start at different times in their lives
 
Ihatetennis said:
A low heart rate has very little to do with age

A fast heart rate has very much to do with age

A low heart rate is attributed to having better efficiency delivering oxygen to your muscles, a stronger heart has a lower resting heart rate

As you get older your max heart rate declines and becomes slower


resting heart rate has nothing to do with aging and everything to do with fitness

Max heart rate has to do with both
Click to expand...
How can it be both? How can a low heart rate have nothing to do with age but a fast heart rate has everything to do with age? That's a paradox. That implies that a person can have both a slow and a fast heart rate at the same time at the same age.

So if your heart rate declines as you get older, as you stated, then your heart must be becoming more efficient at delivering oxygen to your muscles as you get older, as you also stated.
 
BreakPoint said:
How can it be both? How can a low heart rate have nothing to do with age but a fast heart rate has everything to do with age? That's a paradox. That implies that a person can have both a slow and a fast heart rate at the same time at the same age.

So if your heart rate declines as you get older, as you stated, then your heart must be becoming more efficient at delivering oxygen to your muscles as you get older, as you also stated.
Click to expand...
I said resting heart rate vs max heart rate

anyone can have a low resting heart rate

Only a younger athlete can have a faster max heart rate

Which part don't you understand?
 
We're still talking about Feds racquet, right? Obviously a few are still chasing rabbit trails.

It would be funny to see Fed switch to the new Wilson 95 being released in February 2016.
 
It was in another thread about Wilson releasing a Burn racquet comparable (only slightly lighter) to the Six One 95 in February '16. I'm sure he won't be switching, but it's fun to think about.
 
TennisHound said:
It was in another thread about Wilson releasing a Burn racquet comparable (only slightly lighter) to the Six One 95 in February '16. I'm sure he won't be switching, but it's fun to think about.
Click to expand...
Oh, OK. I thought you meant a new Pro Staff 95, since that's what Federer has always used.
 
Ihatetennis said:
Really quick, wozniacki ran 6 minute miles for an entire marathon... if we have more strong athletes start younger im sure average age would become lower in any event.

in triathalons and marathons and iron mans.... the ones who are making it big and winning are older yes, but they also start later in life.


I am in a xc camp every summer to build up conditioning and get better, my coach is a professional triathlete

He didnt start competing and training until he was 22 because he wasnt given the option for it, he ran xc since he was 6 and had sub 15 minute 5k times, but never did anything more because its not easily accessible


If we had athletes start at the same time, we would have younger champions

being the best at anything takes a minimum 10000 of effort assuming youre the most talented naturally gifted person to play

10000 still takes around 6 years to achieve, assuming its the only thing you do

if the youngest winner was 25 right, in what an iron man or something?... that means he had to start training at least at 19,


i agree with the fact that 25-35 shouldnt be very different, but if we use endurance athletes as a comparison it really isnt fair

how many of them have been doing the same thing for 25 years? probably a good amount, but how many of them started earlier than tennis players?

unless we adress the fact that tennis players destroy their bodies at the same pace just sooner than endurance athletes, then we wont be able to really compare the 2



federer has been doing high impact high energy tennis since he was little, endurance is low impact over a long period of time. both types of athletes start at different times in their lives
Click to expand...

Man, this thread is getting crazy. Inicially, this thread was about Fed's racquet and now they are talking about sports medicine, VO2, heart rate and things like that!

DAMN!!!!
 
Ihatetennis said:
You said he used a 95
Click to expand...
Um...no. We were talking about a new "Wilson 95" that Federer may use. Federer would use a Pro Staff 95 but not a Burn 95, since he's always used a Pro Staff. Didn't you see "Pro Staff" in italics? Follow along. But I knew someone not paying attention would point out that Federer never used a Pro Staff 95. Yes, that's the point because we're talking about a new racquet Federer may switch to.
 
BreakPoint said:
Um...no. We were talking about a new "Wilson 95" that Federer may use. Federer would use a Pro Staff 95 but not a Burn 95, since he's always used a Pro Staff. Didn't you see "Pro Staff" in italics? Follow along. But I knew someone not paying attention would point out that Federer never used a Pro Staff 95. Yes, that's the point because we're talking about a new racquet Federer may switch to.
Click to expand...
Lmao

Federer won't switch, he's reached 3 grandslam finals at 33 and 34 with 97 and wonshanghai with It
 
BreakPoint said:
Oh, OK. I thought you meant a new Pro Staff 95, since that's what Federer has always used.
Click to expand...

You're sentence structure is a joke, we all know he's always used a 90...but it's not always been a pro staff lmao. He's used a pro stock personal 90 and a prostaff 85. Pro staff is just a name given to a line of rackets, but if he doesn't use that model then it's not a pro staff. His 90 chsnged a couple times over the course of his career and is similar to prostaffs i think his first one was, but when he changed to a k factor pj his racket also changed
 
Ihatetennis said:
You're sentence structure is a joke, we all know he's always used a 90...but it's not always been a pro staff lmao. He's used a pro stock personal 90 and a prostaff 85. Pro staff is just a name given to a line of rackets, but if he doesn't use that model then it's not a pro staff. His 90 chsnged a couple times over the course of his career and is similar to prostaffs i think his first one was, but when he changed to a k factor pj his racket also changed
Click to expand...
Basically,he wrote that Federer has been playing with PS95 all of his career. Off course,he'll never admit that he was wrong.
 
Ihatetennis said:
You're sentence structure is a joke, we all know he's always used a 90...but it's not always been a pro staff lmao. He's used a pro stock personal 90 and a prostaff 85. Pro staff is just a name given to a line of rackets, but if he doesn't use that model then it's not a pro staff. His 90 chsnged a couple times over the course of his career and is similar to prostaffs i think his first one was, but when he changed to a k factor pj his racket also changed
Click to expand...
Yes, Federer has always used a Pro Staff. All the Tour 90s are Pro Staffs. They are all based upon the Pro Staff 6.0. It doesn't matter what Wilson chooses to call them, we all know they are all Pro Staffs. A dog doesn't become a cat just because you call it a "cat'. Wilson finally relented and wised up and went back to calling the 90 a "Pro Staff".

Oh, and I assumed everyone in this thread knew that Federer has never used a 95, which is why we were discussing that it would be something new for him. Sorry that you didn't know.
 
BreakPoint said:
I guess reading comprehension and following posts in a thread are beyond your capability?
Click to expand...
Bro, you wrote he used a 95 which we all know he didn't

You have terrible sentence structure

And no, all rackets are rackets, only if you call something a name is it that. If not it's simply a custom racket.

The bmw m1 is based off of lamborghinis

We don't call it a lambo because of that. We call it a bmw

He used a custom racket similar to the ps, but it's not because it was never called a ps
 
Ihatetennis said:
Bro, you wrote he used a 95 which we all know he didn't

You have terrible sentence structure

And no, all rackets are rackets, only if you call something a name is it that. If not it's simply a custom racket.

The bmw m1 is based off of lamborghinis

We don't call it a lambo because of that. We call it a bmw

He used a custom racket similar to the ps, but it's not because it was never called a ps
Click to expand...
Um..if Federer had used a Pro Staff 95 his entire career, why would he bother switching to a Pro Staff 95? Duh!

And I've written probably 10,000 posts on how great Federer played with his 85 and 90's, so yeah, of course I would write that he used a 95 his entire career. LOL

Here's a tip: Learn how to read. People don't italicize words for no reason. Poor reading comprehension is not going to get you into med school.
 
Last edited:
BreakPoint said:
Um..if Federer had used a Pro Staff 95 his entire career, why would he bother switching to a Pro Staff 95? Duh!

And I've written probably 10,000 posts on how great Federer played with his 85 and 90's, so yeah, of course I would write that he used a 95 his entire career. LOL

Here's a tip: Learn how to read. People don't italicize words for no reason. Poor reading comprehension is not going to get you into med school.
Click to expand...
youre a joke of a person. If you can't type why are you on the Internet. Italics are used for many things, but they don't restructure a sentence to say what you want it to say.

Go ask for a refund, your college education is a joke.
 
Ihatetennis said:
youre a joke of a person. If you can't type why are you on the Internet. Italics are used for many things, but they don't restructure a sentence to say what you want it to say.

Go ask for a refund, your college education is a joke.
Click to expand...
Sorry that you're unable to follow a conversation in a thread and was never taught that italicizing a word emphasizes that word.

Yeah, the guy that's been advocating that Federer stay with the 90 that he's been using for a dozen years thinks that he used a 95 for his entire career? LOL I thought someone who's not the sharpest knife in the drawer would make a stink about that. So congratulations! You're the winner! :p

Oh, and a "Wilson 95" is vague, and a "Pro Staff 95" is not a "Burn 95". Not to mention that there wasn't even a Pro Staff 95 on the market for almost 10 years that Federer was using the Tour 90's. LOL
 
BreakPoint said:
Sorry that you're unable to follow a conversation in a thread and was never taught that italicizing a word emphasizes that word.

Yeah, the guy that's been advocating that Federer stay with the 90 that he's been using for a dozen years thinks that he used a 95 for his entire career? LOL I thought someone who's not the sharpest knife in the drawer would make a stink about that. So congratulations! You're the winner! :p

Oh, and a "Wilson 95" is vague, and a "Pro Staff 95" is not a "Burn 95". Not to mention that there wasn't even a Pro Staff 95 on the market for almost 10 years that Federer was using the Tour 90's. LOL
Click to expand...
there was a prostaff 95 before he came on tour and there was the 6.1 95 in many forms

I can read just fine, and i know youre a 90 in fanboy. But your sentence structure was awful.
 
Ihatetennis said:
there was a prostaff 95 before he came on tour and there was the 6.1 95 in many forms

I can read just fine, and i know youre a 90 in fanboy. But your sentence structure was awful.
Click to expand...
The 6.1 95 is not a box-beam Pro Staff, which is the only real Pro Staff. Everyone knows Federer never used the 6.1 95. Totally different racquet from the 6.0 box-beams.
 
BreakPoint said:
Yes, one came out in 2012 after an almost 10 year hiatus. The PS 6.0 95 was discontinued in 2003.
Click to expand...
well. ps were discontinued in 2003 except for kps87

so if he changed in that time to something based off of a ps it isnt a ps because it was never sold as a ps

it was a box beam custom frame
 
Ihatetennis said:
well. ps were discontinued in 2003 except for kps87

so if he changed in that time to something based off of a ps it isnt a ps because it was never sold as a ps

it was a box beam custom frame
Click to expand...
It was a Pro Staff. Everyone knows that.

Even Darren Cahill, who knows a lot about racquets, used to always say how Federer's Tour 90 was a "30 year-old racquet".
 
Ihatetennis said:
H22 and h19 are not blades, even if you call them blades
Click to expand...
That's my point. Federer has always used a "Pro Staff", regardless of what name Wilson chose to market it under. Just like Wilson can choose to market a racquet as a "Blade" even though it's actually something else. Heck, Wilson even chose to call the Tour 90 a "nCode Six-One Tour" even though it was never a 6.1.
 
BreakPoint said:
That's my point. Federer has always used a "Pro Staff", regardless of what name Wilson chose to market it under. Just like Wilson can choose to market a racquet as a "Blade" even though it's actually something else. Heck, Wilson even chose to call the Tour 90 a "nCode Six-One Tour" even though it was never a 6.1.
Click to expand...
Except it was because that's what was sold retail with that name

Federer switched rackets definitely when he switched pjs circa 2007

His racket was not a ps if it was never sold retail as a ps

If it's based off of one...it's still not it

An h22 is based off of the prestige line, does it make it a prestige?

Tecnifibre tfight 315 ltd 2013 has head pallets and is based off of a prestige, is it a prestige? No it's not

If it isn't labled as one and sold retail it is not one.

Names are just names used to market, If they offered a ps90 and the racket code and prostock code were the same, then yes it would be a ps. Otherwise no chance even if it's based of of it.
 
Ihatetennis said:
Names are just names used to market, If they offered a ps90 and the racket code and prostock code were the same, then yes it would be a ps. Otherwise no chance even if it's based of of it.
Click to expand...
How do you know they are not?

Names are just made up for marketing. What it actually is is what it actually is.

The Tour 90's were never 6.1's, it doesn't matter that Wilson chose to call them the "nCode Six-One Tour" and the "K-Factor Six-One Tour", everyone knew they were Pro Staffs. When Wilson realized they weren't fooling anyone, they gave up and went back to calling it the "Pro Staff 90". They are all the same racquet because they are all from the same mold.
 
BreakPoint said:
How do you know they are not?

Names are just made up for marketing. What it actually is is what it actually is.

The Tour 90's were never 6.1's, it doesn't matter that Wilson chose to call them the "nCode Six-One Tour" and the "K-Factor Six-One Tour", everyone knew they were Pro Staffs. When Wilson realized they weren't fooling anyone, they gave up and went back to calling it the "Pro Staff 90". They are all the same racquet because they are all from the same mold.
Click to expand...
And tecnifibres have head pallets and head molds but are not heads

I'm not saying his racket wasn't basically a pro staff

But you can't just call something that never went retail a prostaff.

His racket is a pro stock custom frame100% when it comes down to it. Was he using a 30 y/o design as a base for it, maybe. But that doesn't mean it is default a ps

The k90 is not a ps, it is a k90

Names are just names, but because thjgs are similar, we can't go labeling them as things they are similar to. If so we could label chinese bmw knock off SUVs and x5 bmws the same thing because they use the same shape and mold, but we know they're not the same even if everything is identical
 
Ihatetennis said:
And tecnifibres have head pallets and head molds but are not heads

I'm not saying his racket wasn't basically a pro staff

But you can't just call something that never went retail a prostaff.

His racket is a pro stock custom frame100% when it comes down to it. Was he using a 30 y/o design as a base for it, maybe. But that doesn't mean it is default a ps

The k90 is not a ps, it is a k90

Names are just names, but because thjgs are similar, we can't go labeling them as things they are similar to. If so we could label chinese bmw knock off SUVs and x5 bmws the same thing because they use the same shape and mold, but we know they're not the same even if everything is identical
Click to expand...

I use a K90. It is a Pro Staff. I know because I've also used/use the PS 6.0 85 and the PS 6.0 95. They are all the same, just different head sizes.

If the PS 90 is a Pro Staff then the K90 is a Pro Staff as they are the same racquet from the same mold made by the same company.
 
Ihatetennis said:
Except it was because that's what was sold retail with that name

Federer switched rackets definitely when he switched pjs circa 2007

His racket was not a ps if it was never sold retail as a ps

If it's based off of one...it's still not it

An h22 is based off of the prestige line, does it make it a prestige?

Tecnifibre tfight 315 ltd 2013 has head pallets and is based off of a prestige, is it a prestige? No it's not

If it isn't labled as one and sold retail it is not one.

Names are just names used to market, If they offered a ps90 and the racket code and prostock code were the same, then yes it would be a ps. Otherwise no chance even if it's based of of it.
Click to expand...
H22 is more Radical line type of racket,H19 has got more similarity with Prestige line
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jorel
Fed's oblong racquet
Replies
2
Views
1K
PrestigeClassic
P
danbrenner
Feds racquet upgrade enabled #18
Replies
31
Views
5K
gino
gino
burn1986
Feds racquet has affected his game
2 3
Replies
103
Views
12K
Povl Carstensen
P
H
How heavy is roddick's racquet? effect on swtiching racquet?
Replies
1
Views
3K
willm873
W
mtommer
Why doesn't Nadal change his racquet?
Replies
40
Views
7K
Djokolate
Djokolate
Back
Top