How come most racquet updates are not well received here?

BBM

Rookie
So one thing I’ve noticed after a while following this forum is that people are very nostalgic of older sticks... as if racquet manufacturers are completely nonsensical and have been mostly crapping on their products over time.

Few examples I can think of from the biggest brands, from reading stuff here:

Babolat: have pretty much ruined everything, especially crapping on APD and Soft Drives. Nevertheless they sell like mad

Head: have also pretty much crapped on everything especially since Graphene, and people can’t help but to put the PT57A on a pedestal (great stick but no use for most people under at least 5.0 level)

Wilson: CV is the worst, ruined everything. RF97A and Ultra Tour work well but it’s funny that they’re also no use for anyone but very advanced players.

Yonex: DR98 was perfect, ruined the Ezone after that, and 95D is amazing and no longer make sticks like that

Anyway, either this group is a very specific and small niche, or all major manufacturers do a terrible job with testing, prototyping, group studies and what not in order to figure out what to do next (which I think is very unlikely).

Can’t think of the last crowd pleaser that has caused a major stir both online and offline with the masses. Is that ever possible to achieve??




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

McGradey

Hall of Fame
New Blades are a massive hit on here. There are other examples.

This place is populated by hardcore enthusiasts and gear heads who value different things to the average tennis player who buys the brand and the paintjob. A small minority in the consumer pool.

You’ll notice similar patterns on other hobbyist forums.
 
Last edited:

Znak

Hall of Fame
It's like music albums, they can't all be hits... but when one is you don't forget it.
 

TennisHound

Legend
So one thing I’ve noticed after a while following this forum is that people are very nostalgic of older sticks... as if racquet manufacturers are completely nonsensical and have been mostly crapping on their products over time.

Few examples I can think of from the biggest brands, from reading stuff here:

Babolat: have pretty much ruined everything, especially crapping on APD and Soft Drives. Nevertheless they sell like mad

Head: have also pretty much crapped on everything especially since Graphene, and people can’t help but to put the PT57A on a pedestal (great stick but no use for most people under at least 5.0 level)

Wilson: CV is the worst, ruined everything. RF97A and Ultra Tour work well but it’s funny that they’re also no use for anyone but very advanced players.

Yonex: DR98 was perfect, ruined the Ezone after that, and 95D is amazing and no longer make sticks like that

Anyway, either this group is a very specific and small niche, or all major manufacturers do a terrible job with testing, prototyping, group studies and what not in order to figure out what to do next (which I think is very unlikely).

Can’t think of the last crowd pleaser that has caused a major stir both online and offline with the masses. Is that ever possible to achieve??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sounds like you just about covered everything
 

TagUrIt

Hall of Fame
Because most tennis players are comfortable with what they have and frown upon, damn near resent change. Tennis is ever evolving and so should we, nothing wrong with new technology. Play with whatever you choose, but the OP is right about the criticism anytime something new is announced.
 

TagUrIt

Hall of Fame
Every 2 years there’s something and most technology is dubious at best

I don’t completely disagree, however I like new innovations, even if it’s only cosmetic. A racquet can be revamped just from creating new paint jobs, graphics etc.
 

Return_Ace

Hall of Fame
It's just the standard TT product lifecycle.

I remember back when I was a junior on here everyone was slating the new Liquidmetal series from Head.

"Nowhere near the heritage of the PC600"
"Feels nothing like the Radicals of yesteryear"
"Must be a terrible line since none of the pros are using, look at all the painted LM ridges"
"I cut up this LM racket and there's no special material, you're paying for nothing"

I come back now and there's a general fondness for the entire range.

People in general will complain about change, and more often than not it's tied to the hyperbole used in marketing. Once people get over that (usually by getting pissed at the next latest and greatest marketing campaign), they start to appreciate what was actually there.

The backlash about the subsequent Flexpoint range was basically the same repeat and when I started seeing more compliments towards LM rackets.

Head have just made the "mistake" of reworking their Graphene range for multiple iterations (probably because despite all the naysayers, the marketing actually worked :unsure:). If they'd changed each of the Graphene ranges names, they'd probably be better regarded.
 

Alexh22

Professional
You see a common trend here is actually the fact companies do not care if their products can help you to play good tennis in any extent. they want to use the cheapest material to achieve the highest price. There is no basic integrity or decency involved. Some people still buy in.

For instance, Once head started to tell you they made their sticks with titanium or graphene you instantly know something shady is going on. they even drill holes on frames and call it new technology. if head can at least be honest and let Djoker endorse what he actually uses: constant beam Radical MPs 18x 20, this line will survive and do well. they hide the fact and ended up just killed the radicals and went bananas with their fancy new speed name and paint jobs.

head made it worse for consumers and it reflected on themselves. same story with vcore 95D.

Wilson sells RF97 till this day and I commend them for not ruining a proven model through all these years.
 
Great post/topic. Racket industry is a business and the mass-produced frames appeal to the middle of the bell curve... which is by definition is the largest population hence the most profit. Lower skill level players are not sensitive to equipment changes/updates and therefore they dont care, companies continue to make $.
The introduction of poly strings in the late 90s and becoming mainstream in the early 2000s was a blessing in disguise. When combined with new stiff, light rackets the incidence of arm injuries naturally went up. This swung the pendulum back to creating 'old school' low RA, heavier, thin beam comfy frames which we all welcomed.
The fact is most posters on here have a racket setup they love and dont feel like scouring eee bhey as their stock gets depleted. Plus switching to a 'similar' racket and duplicating a setup is a rabbit hole which may confound arm health These new updates are useless to posters on here and more advanced players in general.
All we want is for these older and/or popular frames to still be available (pt57a, dr98 etc) - but this is not consistent with the industry's current business model, hence we whine.
 

weelie

Professional
How many brands and types do we need of corn flakes? One. But, for a company to grow, you need more products and gimmicks to reach more people. I sold you two rackets this year, to sell you more, I need to have something different next year, or otherwise you will only come back 5 years later.

Then again, if I already love the original corn flakes, what's to persuade me otherwise? It's basically the same stuff in different packing anyway, but if you are used to one way, you stick to that ...until you are bored or some marketing hits to you at the correct time and you buy into it.

I guess a racket can only be perfect to some people or some of the time. New products are exciting, but they are not universally better. Improvements are incremental and take a long time, both in products and in one's tennis game. So the discussions are about "Oh I found the holy grail" / "Oh yes, I agree!" " "I don't agree" / "I do" / "I don't". And the same people will be writing the samae about some new product a year later...
 
D

Deleted member 769694

Guest
Racket doesnt make as much of a difference as ppl may think. I still put the grip at #1
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
Great post/topic. Racket industry is a business and the mass-produced frames appeal to the middle of the bell curve... which is by definition is the largest population hence the most profit. Lower skill level players are not sensitive to equipment changes/updates and therefore they dont care, companies continue to make $.
The introduction of poly strings in the late 90s and becoming mainstream in the early 2000s was a blessing in disguise. When combined with new stiff, light rackets the incidence of arm injuries naturally went up. This swung the pendulum back to creating 'old school' low RA, heavier, thin beam comfy frames which we all welcomed.
The fact is most posters on here have a racket setup they love and dont feel like scouring eee bhey as their stock gets depleted. Plus switching to a 'similar' racket and duplicating a setup is a rabbit hole which may confound arm health These new updates are useless to posters on here and more advanced players in general.
All we want is for these older and/or popular frames to still be available (pt57a, dr98 etc) - but this is not consistent with the industry's current business model, hence we whine.
Poly strings were around in the 1980’s. Yes, most people don’t care how the racquets play. Aesthetic looks and the associated pro endorsements is what matters sadly. There is a very small population that actually cares about performance and how the racquet feels.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
Only a handful of good racquets come out every year, and those are remembered, dozens of others fall by the wayside.

J
The problem is when there is a good racquet that comes out it will be discontinued after 2 years because that’s the business model now of the industry. Although Wilson has bucked that trend with the RF97 and it would appear with the Ultra Pro (Tour).
 
Last edited:

Alexh22

Professional
How many brands and types do we need of corn flakes? One. But, for a company to grow, you need more products and gimmicks to reach more people. I sold you two rackets this year, to sell you more, I need to have something different next year, or otherwise you will only come back 5 years later.

Then again, if I already love the original corn flakes, what's to persuade me otherwise? It's basically the same stuff in different packing anyway, but if you are used to one way, you stick to that ...until you are bored or some marketing hits to you at the correct time and you buy into it.

I guess a racket can only be perfect to some people or some of the time. New products are exciting, but they are not universally better. Improvements are incremental and take a long time, both in products and in one's tennis game. So the discussions are about "Oh I found the holy grail" / "Oh yes, I agree!" " "I don't agree" / "I do" / "I don't". And the same people will be writing the samae about some new product a year later...
To respond directly about getting consumers to buy more sticks. What companies like head did was killing good products and tried to sell garbage. The direct outcome is people buy zero instead of 2 or maybe 5 over a few years. They loose big without realizing this. These companies are filled with “market genius and sales experts”, they are so out of touch with the average consumers.
 

max

Legend
I think the racquet companies are forced to generate a market for product sales. . . hence "improved" versions.

If they didn't do that, we'd use the same racquet for the next ten years. And the companies would not survive.
 

weelie

Professional
The direct outcome is people buy zero instead of 2 or maybe 5 over a few years. They loose big without realizing this. These companies are filled with “market genius and sales experts”, they are so out of touch with the average consumers.

This I think shows the annual revenue of Head: https://www.statista.com/statistics/200403/revenue-of-head-since-2005/
It appears to have remained the same over the period. I think Graphene rackets came out in 2013 (and I assume these are the new editions you did not like?) and 2013 shows a rebound.
The average consumer likes to buy what’s new and in fashion, what’s on sale, what has the same colors as what the idol is playing. Thinking different would be a risk. If they still produced the same models in Austria, they would probably be already bankrupt, or else they would target a small wealthy niche and sell at a lot higher price.

Are all the older better Head rackets sold at a heady premium online, compated to current new ones? That would be some kind of a indication of an existing market if those sold for more than recent ones. Also I don’t think Made in Austria is any better than Made in China, per se, but probably in aftermarket sales there is a premium for that.
 
Last edited:

CosmosMpower

Hall of Fame
The problem is when there is a good racquet that comes out it will be discounted after 2 years because that’s the business model now of the industry. Although Wilson has bucked that trend with the RF97 and it would appear with the Ultra Pro (Tour).

The entire ultra line was pretty much a commercial failure, all the hype on these forums was from people thinking it was similar to a h19 pro stock and it wasn't.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
The entire ultra line was pretty much a commercial failure, all the hype on these forums was from people thinking it was similar to a h19 pro stock and it wasn't.
H19 refers to the mold. The Ultra Tour is using the H19 mold. It wasn’t a commercial failure as I have seen a lot of Ultra Tours. Also the rest of the Ultra line are widebody racquets and 100 sq.in and is quite popular. Do you own an H19?
 
Last edited:

MRfStop

Hall of Fame
I don’t completely disagree, however I like new innovations, even if it’s only cosmetic. A racquet can be revamped just from creating new paint jobs, graphics etc.
The new Ultra Pro is the same racquet as the Ultra Tour spec wise but it is now black, white, blue. That's $120 more for the same racquet other than paint
 

Miki 1234

Semi-Pro
So one thing I’ve noticed after a while following this forum is that people are very nostalgic of older sticks... as if racquet manufacturers are completely nonsensical and have been mostly crapping on their products over time.

Few examples I can think of from the biggest brands, from reading stuff here:

Babolat: have pretty much ruined everything, especially crapping on APD and Soft Drives. Nevertheless they sell like mad

Head: have also pretty much crapped on everything especially since Graphene, and people can’t help but to put the PT57A on a pedestal (great stick but no use for most people under at least 5.0 level)

Wilson: CV is the worst, ruined everything. RF97A and Ultra Tour work well but it’s funny that they’re also no use for anyone but very advanced players.

Yonex: DR98 was perfect, ruined the Ezone after that, and 95D is amazing and no longer make sticks like that

Anyway, either this group is a very specific and small niche, or all major manufacturers do a terrible job with testing, prototyping, group studies and what not in order to figure out what to do next (which I think is very unlikely).

Can’t think of the last crowd pleaser that has caused a major stir both online and offline with the masses. Is that ever possible to achieve??




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
well people here are very critical but
head gravity line , v7 , clash had some great feedback, just to name some....
This kind of racquets are something new and improved , at least for rec players.
 

Alexh22

Professional
This I think shows the annual revenue of Head: https://www.statista.com/statistics/200403/revenue-of-head-since-2005/
It appears to have remained the same over the period. I think Graphene rackets came out in 2013 (and I assume these are the new editions you did not like?) and 2013 shows a rebound.
The average consumer likes to buy what’s new and in fashion, what’s on sale, what has the same colors as what the idol is playing. Thinking different would be a risk. If they still produced the same models in Austria, they would probably be already bankrupt, or else they would target a small wealthy niche and sell at a lot higher price.

Are all the older better Head rackets sold at a heady premium online, compated to current new ones? That would be some kind of a indication of an existing market if those sold for more than recent ones. Also I don’t think Made in Austria is any better than Made in China, per se, but probably in aftermarket sales there is a premium for that.

Very interesting find. FYI Wilson s figures are in the 700M USD range which almost doubles what head gets yearly. Garbage in garbage out.
I agree it is in-relevant as to where they are made. Fed s racquets are made inChina since day one and here goes 20 GS later. On the other hand Making those retail head sticks in Austria or US and doesn’t make a difference. They are still garbage with a much higher price tag.
 

Return_Ace

Hall of Fame
Very interesting find. FYI Wilson s figures are in the 700M USD range which almost doubles what head gets yearly. Garbage in garbage out.
I agree it is in-relevant as to where they are made. Fed s racquets are made inChina since day one and here goes 20 GS later. On the other hand Making those retail head sticks in Austria or US and doesn’t make a difference. They are still garbage with a much higher price tag.

I mean, I can't seem to see the figures you're quoting here (and I have zero idea how anything is found on that website) but...

What period are we comparing to here? The same period? Because that graph is from 2005-2013.

Whilst I won't say it's Head's "heyday", it's supposedly a strong period that ranges from Flexpoint (maybe not so much) through to the first Graphene.

Considering at least that the Microgels and Youtek IGs seem to be fondly remembered, doesn't exactly say much.

Likewise, it's not like we're comparing revenue from just the Tennis division, are we? As such, I'm not sure total revenue is indicative of anything considering how diversified both company's product portfolios are.

well people here are very critical but
head gravity line , v7 , clash had some great feedback, just to name some....
This kind of racquets are something new and improved , at least for rec players.

Shhhh, people here will point out that because there are barely any Pro's that are using these new rackets that it's a sign of them being bad.

Just look at all the PJs and "classic" rackets that are being used on the tour.

Maybe it's actually that us rec. players can't handle so much "feel" in a racket without the years of training that the pro athletes go through, and don't want us to suffer from sensory overload :unsure:.
 

TagUrIt

Hall of Fame
The new Ultra Pro is the same racquet as the Ultra Tour spec wise but it is now black, white, blue. That's $120 more for the same racquet other than paint

I looked at the prices of the new Wilson Ultras I didn't see that it's more expensive than the older model. Where did you see a $120 increase?
 

TagUrIt

Hall of Fame
I belive he meant 120$ more than the old model, today, on sale.


I gotcha, I just checked the prices on the Wilson website. To be fair, almost all new racquets are in that $229-$250 and sometimes the changes are miniscule, but they are changes. If a person is a fan of a racquet and they like the way it plays, they'll generally pay for the updated model. Besides no ever said tennis was a cheap sport.

I recently demoed 7 Yonex racquets. The 2018 EZONES and the 2020 EZONES played completely different.
 

Rocket54

New User
Great post/topic. Racket industry is a business and the mass-produced frames appeal to the middle of the bell curve... which is by definition is the largest population hence the most profit. Lower skill level players are not sensitive to equipment changes/updates and therefore they dont care, companies continue to make $.
The introduction of poly strings in the late 90s and becoming mainstream in the early 2000s was a blessing in disguise. When combined with new stiff, light rackets the incidence of arm injuries naturally went up. This swung the pendulum back to creating 'old school' low RA, heavier, thin beam comfy frames which we all welcomed.
The fact is most posters on here have a racket setup they love and dont feel like scouring eee bhey as their stock gets depleted. Plus switching to a 'similar' racket and duplicating a setup is a rabbit hole which may confound arm health These new updates are useless to posters on here and more advanced players in general.
All we want is for these older and/or popular frames to still be available (pt57a, dr98 etc) - but this is not consistent with the industry's current business model, hence we whine.
Love your statement in the second last sentence that the updated frames are 'useless to ...... more advanced players in general.' Talk about broad assertion and racquet elitism! I have been using the new Gtaphene 360+ Prestige MP for several weeks and find it a great frame. It plays very old school. People need to keep an open mind and not condemn frames without giving them sensible consideration.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
I mean, I can't seem to see the figures you're quoting here (and I have zero idea how anything is found on that website) but...

What period are we comparing to here? The same period? Because that graph is from 2005-2013.

Whilst I won't say it's Head's "heyday", it's supposedly a strong period that ranges from Flexpoint (maybe not so much) through to the first Graphene.

Considering at least that the Microgels and Youtek IGs seem to be fondly remembered, doesn't exactly say much.

Likewise, it's not like we're comparing revenue from just the Tennis division, are we? As such, I'm not sure total revenue is indicative of anything considering how diversified both company's product portfolios are.



Shhhh, people here will point out that because there are barely any Pro's that are using these new rackets that it's a sign of them being bad.

Just look at all the PJs and "classic" rackets that are being used on the tour.

Maybe it's actually that us rec. players can't handle so much "feel" in a racket without the years of training that the pro athletes go through, and don't want us to suffer from sensory overload :unsure:.
I guess the 90’s and early 2000’s people were better tennis players back then. As time goes on people are becoming worse. :unsure:
 

Return_Ace

Hall of Fame
I guess the 90’s and early 2000’s people were better tennis players back then. As time goes on people are becoming worse. :unsure:

Of course, haven't you seen all the talk about how Sampras was a better player in his prime than any of the current Big 3, and that the previous eras were simply more competitive with an overall higher level?

:sneaky:
-

On a more serious note, not actually following your train of thought here... :oops::unsure:
 

weelie

Professional
I mean, I can't seem to see the figures you're quoting here (and I have zero idea how anything is found on that website) but...

What period are we comparing to here? The same period? Because that graph is from 2005-2013.

Likewise, it's not like we're comparing revenue from just the Tennis division, are we? As such, I'm not sure total revenue is indicative of anything considering how diversified both company's product portfolios are.

True... that was just a total revenue figure, so don't know what the racket sales were.

I was just trying to inject some data into the discussion, as it seems to be centered on the idea that in the old days products were good and now they are crap and nobody buys them.

I can understand Wilson being bigger than Head. But is it because they sell good rackets ("Fenderer's real racket"), or is it just because they have better resources (Federer, the most universally marketable tennis player on their roster)? Wilson total sales have increased 2014-2018, but that was mainly due to an increase from 2014 to 2015: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...0222143923/Amer-Sports-Annual-Review-2018.pdf No idea about racket sales.

At least total racket sales in US appear to be declining: https://www.statista.com/statistics/258666/tennis-equipment-wholesale-sales-in-the-us/'

https://www.marketwatch.com/press-r...rowth-trends-and-forecast-20192024-2019-03-25 says:
"The worldwide market for Tennis Racquet is expected to grow at a CAGR of roughly 0.9% over the next five years, will reach 350 million US$ in 2024, from 330 million US$ in 2019, according to a new study.'"
 

Return_Ace

Hall of Fame
True... that was just a total revenue figure, so don't know what the racket sales were.

I was just trying to inject some data into the discussion, as it seems to be centered on the idea that in the old days products were good and now they are crap and nobody buys them.

My comment wasn't aimed at your post, I think as you've mentioned that trying to inject data into a discussion can be useful.

Although it then invariably boils down to debating how to interpret said data instead :unsure:.

My point was more with regards to comparing one company's revenue compared to another as a sign that their rackets are bad. I mean in that case, everyone should just buy Wilson, forget the small companies like Angell as well.

Likewise, I was also questioning how you can say Head is making "garbage" by analysing revenue figures from 5 years ago... from when Head were selling what are now considered to be some of their better rackets.
 

weelie

Professional
Likewise, I was also questioning how you can say Head is making "garbage" by analysing revenue figures from 5 years ago... from when Head were selling what are now considered to be some of their better rackets.

My assumption was that 2013 was the start of the "garbage" (or Craphene)... and data for shows at least that year was not worse than the previous ones.

Head 2015 annual report:
"Total Net Revenues increased by €16.7 million, or 4.7%, to €375.4 million from €358.7 million in the comparable 2013 period. This increase was due to higher sales in all divisions.

Racquet Sports revenues increased by €4.7 million, or 3.3%, to €149.5 million from €144.8 million in the comparable 2013 period. This increase was mainly due to higher volumes for tennis racquets and Head balls, a favourable product mix for racquets and balls and higher revenues for accessories, partly offset by exchange rate movements."
 

NicoMK

Hall of Fame
Like many of us here I guess, I own old magazines from the 80s and the 90s. Sometimes I like to read them.

When I see the rackets that were made in those days compared to what we have now, I feel very nostalgic.

I'd say that 90 percent of what is manufactured these days are "dubious AT BEST" as I read previously.

But, as I also read in this topic (well said) : most consumers don't give a sh** as they buy a brand (many of them being Babolat or Wilson) and a paintjob.

Gosh, rackets looked so good 30 years ago.
 

NicoMK

Hall of Fame
I guess the 90’s and early 2000’s people were better tennis players back then. As time goes on people are becoming worse. :unsure:

I don't know if they were better players but on a personal point of view, I think that tennis was much better in those days, including in the 80s.

Now the tour is a joke. I was watching some of the tournaments recently and the poor guys played in front of empty stadiums.

Why? Because the game is boring, the players are robots and because most people are only interested in Nadal, Federer and Djokovic, as media and sponsors have told people to be for the last 15 years.

That's why they will have Fed, Nadal, Djoko and Serena play until their mid 60s. And everyone will love that.
 

tennis347

Hall of Fame
I have become selective and picky about the racquet I use these days probably due to the amount of different racquets being manufactured currently. I grew up playing around 1990 and love the flexible thin beam frames. It has been over the last few years that the new trend is heading towards frames with a RA in the high 50's to lower 60's. When Wilson came out with the new Blade v7 line I was very excited and currently enjoying playing with the Blade 98 v7 16 x 19. I don't care for firm feeling frames because I don't like the feel and have some arm issues. My criticisms has mainly been related to the feel of the current racquets that I have tried.
 

NicoMK

Hall of Fame
I don't care for firm feeling frames because I don't like the feel and have some arm issues. My criticisms has mainly been related to the feel of the current racquets that I have tried.

Same for me here. When demoing these "modern" sticks, I just feel nothing. I'd play with a frying pan, it would be the same. Or maybe I'm just too old for that :cry:.
 

tennis347

Hall of Fame
Same for me here. When demoing these "modern" sticks, I just feel nothing. I'd play with a frying pan, it would be the same. Or maybe I'm just too old for that :cry:.

I totally agree with you. At the age of 53, I will only play with plush and forgiving frames. Most of the modern frames do lack feel because of the stiffness. I also no longer play with poly strings anymore due to arm issues.
 

BBM

Rookie
There’s obviously a huge hatred for stiff frames here (despite this trend probably helping the average player win matches). Large part of why some recent launches have been getting so much love is the return to more flexible frames.

So here’s something that confuses the hell out of me.. Why is it then that the RF97A gets so much love when it‘s actually right there in Pure Aero / tweener RA realm?

Why is it that Sir Roger (and many other players) use relatively stiff frames and people keep saying high RA = piece of crap??




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Return_Ace

Hall of Fame
So here’s something that confuses the hell out of me.. Why is it then that the RF97A gets so much love when it‘s actually right there in Pure Aero / tweener RA realm?

Why is it that Sir Roger (and many other players) use relatively stiff frames and people keep saying high RA = piece of crap??

Because people will tell you that whilst he uses that mold, the layup is obviously softer.

Same with what people say with some of the pro's using Babolat's on tour :unsure:

Disclaimer : I have zero knowledge with regards to any of this.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
There’s obviously a huge hatred for stiff frames here (despite this trend probably helping the average player win matches). Large part of why some recent launches have been getting so much love is the return to more flexible frames.

So here’s something that confuses the hell out of me.. Why is it then that the RF97A gets so much love when it‘s actually right there in Pure Aero / tweener RA realm?

Why is it that Sir Roger (and many other players) use relatively stiff frames and people keep saying high RA = piece of crap??




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like stiff racquets. Small head, stiff shaft, fast strokes.

J
 

Hansen

Professional
There’s obviously a huge hatred for stiff frames here (despite this trend probably helping the average player win matches).
there is especially a hatred for frames with a crappy and harsh feel. the manufacturers nowadays are able to achieve this kind of feeling even if the ra (which is a bad indicator of feel or flexibility througout the frame anyway) is in the low 60´s, hats off. also its a myth that you have to choose between good feel or good performance. the new blade v7 is a perfect example of this, comfortable but not underpowered.
 

BenC

Professional
There's a lot of marketing with each release, and it's hard to tell what's meaningful and what's nonsense.

Wilson's CV marketing is dying out and FeelFlex is new shiny word. BLX came about because basalt is cheaper than graphite.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
Whatever you find that you like, buy 8 and store 6 while playing with 2. As those break or such, grab another 2.

Oh, and a few dozen grommet sets too. Those become a premium for past racquets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top