I currently don't see the downside of flexy racquets with 30 lb stiff poly string. Good spin, good power, good control. what else it there? Crap volleys (idc about this) and i hardly play touch shots.
If it works for you, don't mess with a good thing. I tried a soft co-poly at 35 pounds on a stiff frame. I actually liked it the first few days, but then I found out that poly does die even at low tension and it dies just as quickly. My arm can't tolerate it when it dies, and it doesn't give me enough playing time before that happens.
Depends on what individual players prefer and maybe how regularly they can restring their gear. I'm convinced that strings are at least as much of a contributing factor to any frame's measure of "arm-friendliness" as anything else, including the racquet's weight and stiffness. Even a soft frame coupled with harsher string will be significantly harder on the joints I think, so somebody who's more susceptible to elbow issues ought to proceed with caution when choosing string types. Racquets with a lot of extra flex have inherently less pop than others of similar heft and balance, but with more stiffness in their build. While stiffer gear might gain more control when strung with a less resilient poly, a soft racquet could lose too much of its response (its pop) with that sort of string. Again, it depends on the player.
I don't understand that line of reasoning either. In my experience, the longer dwell time offered by a more flexible gives me a much more predictable shot than a stiffer one would, offering more control. A lot of it is feel. Some people dislike the admittedly noodle-like response of flexier frames. I would contest, though, that touch shots are "crap"-I find that touch shots are often the strong points of more flexible frames. For reference's sake, my EXO3 Tours are strung in the high 30s, low 40s with a soft poly and I never have any issues with lack of power or control. Everything is there for me, personally, but like I said before: some people just don't like that flexible feel (or weight or balance or SW or beam width or headsize, etc.)
I'm not really sure? This is what I was told by a racquet technician. But I suppose since te racquets are "flexier" they bend more and sort of "whip" to the ball of your late??? Im not sure.
No, that's not it. Some people hate the feel, others love it. I particularly enjoy it, which is why I use the frame. I think not. If you're late, the racquet itself really won't correct your poor technique for you. Yes, you can adjust with spin or other factors, but those are user-produced, not racquet-produced.
I love flexy frames and natural gut strings. I don't think I have anything in the regular rotation that is more than a 50-51 RA. The great thing about it is that you can really hold the ball on your strings and change direction at the last second. But you need to be able to handle a heavier racket, and you need to have good technique because otherwise you will not get the depth and power you need, and you will likely have control issues (as mentioned above - poor technique really punishes the soft-frame user in my experience because the dwell time allows the ball to be more effected by the flaws in their strokes, where a stiff frame with less dwell time limits the interaction with the ball and the racket making flaws and inconsistencies less noticeable and seemingly 'improving' control maybe?). But how flexy is too flexy? My 33RA Rossi F200s might be pushing it. I think something just up in the 40s would be enough for me, but most people - it seems - think that anything under 60 is soft these days...
Oh, of course. That's very true. But there's a point at which you can't fault the racquet's qualities (especially RA) for your own mistakes. What turned you off from the power? I found there to be more than enough free pop, even when I was stringing at around 52lbs.
I've got one of mine strung bang on mid tension and one just below the bottom recomended, loads of power avaliable but as others have said the feel is very different to most frames produced and takes a number of hours to get used to if you're comming from most regular retail frames these days.
A stiffer racquet provides more power off the stringbed, ceteris paribus, than a more flexible racquet, but the stiffer racquet may also provide superior directional control because it bends less on impact. Some players have a hard time controlling the ball with flexible racquets for this reason.
Go to the EXO3 tour thread. You will see plenty of players who have tried, but simply cant live with the lack of power. I'm in that camp. I had my EXO tour leaded up to 12.8 oz, had it strung in the 40's and was still not happy with it for my game. I think you are not "getting it" because you have found something that works for your game. It's great for baseline grinding, the feeling of being able to swing out... and the ball stays in. Taking hitting long out of the equation is huuuuge. I get it! But that's not what I do. I look for opportunities to hit deep penetrating shots to the corners and dictate early.
I don't know anyone who would call my style baseline grinding, and I play rackets that are even more flexible than the PET. I can attack better with the flexible racket because I feel like I have great control and can really hit my shots with it. I will say that I don't think poly and soft rackets are effective at all for some people, you sound like one of them.
The scientists among us say that flex has nothing to do with power. Stiff racquets give the feeling of power as the ball leaves the racquet differently, but it doesn't go any deeper or faster.
True. But, could the scientists here also look at the system (total interaction of the stiffness of the racket frame combined with all of the other factors of the racket, string and player) and say that while stiffness does not innately effect pace or depth, there are factors from the stiffness level that play into the system and in real world testing suggest that they have a net effect of impacting pace and depth... It's all about how you look at the problem...
I luv 18g poly at 52lbs on my Redondo Mid. The feel is really cool - very responsive, crisp yet soft, pretty hard to describe. I'm going to be trying polys at lower tensions on the rest of my heavy frames in the near future..
But how flexy is too flexy? My 33RA Rossi F200s might be pushing it. I think something just up in the 40s would be enough for me, but most people - it seems - think that anything under 60 is soft these days...[/QUOTE] I'm really happy to hear someone say this because I strongly believe that high 50's low 60's is not very flexible at all, so its nice to here from someone who knows what a flexible racket is.I've used the PB 10 mid, microgel prestige mid, PSL, and B.B. London and they all feel stiff and hurt my arm.I've given up on these so call flexible rackets and now use only PK ionic rackets.
There is so much that goes into how the stiffness of a racket actually feels to a user, but in general I am of the opinion that high 40s/low 50s is about perfect with the right amount of mass and balance. Maybe 46 to 52, though again, my main rackets are 33, and while they are not my favorite at the net, they do so much for the rest of my game that I'm willing to make the trade off and be more selective on the shots I follow in to the net (and lowering my tension seems to be helping the volleys, so maybe I just need to dial that in...).
Hi Chyeaah, If you've found something that works for you, that is effing awesome. Seriously. You are among the lucky wanderers on the quest. However, since this IS a post requesting illumination on the downsides of a flexy frame, low tension, stiff string set up, I will offer some food for thought. There are no free lunches. If there were, we'd all be standing in the same line. Trade-offs .... there are always trade offs... for as far as the eye can see, from now till the the end of time when this place ends in the big rip, the big freeze, or the big crunch. In addition to what is posted below, lower tensions create more variation in rebound angle ie. loss of directional control. You could argue however that any increased spin found at the lower tensions, would be a decent trade - off. -Jack
