Mid v Midplus The Duel

Mid or Midplus?


  • Total voters
    2
Here it goes. Yes I know this subject has been talked a lot on this forum, the subject of whether mid or midpluses are "better" is a popular discussion. But now I've put in a thread to end all threads. This is where you guys argue your points. Descriptions and reasons have been vague before, but hopefully this thread attracts those ready to debate.

Some arguments say that more athletic and natural players will do better with the mids. And that the larger head sizes are for the workhorses, those without finesse and natural ability. Another argument points out the generation gap. Some argue that the mids are for oldies that are used to them and larger head sizes are for the future generation and the new "in" thing.

As for my view, as a young tennis player, I believe that the mids are better, though I own a midplus. It stresses control, control, control, and it would seem at a certain point that is the most desirable aspect of a racquet. There may be an argument for power, but I think that should come from the player. What does the TW world think, post it here, this is your thread, Yo Mama!... haha oops just got excited I guess. (For those not "in the know" Yo Mama! is an American TV show on MTV, a show of competitve trash talking:) ) Let the arguments fly.
 
At least vote BreakPoint if you don't wish to express your opinion. I think I vaguely remember you on past threads about this subject, a supporter of mids? Your ideas would probably add nicely to the discussion.
 

brownbearfalling

Hall of Fame
In my personal experience I find the mids to be more maneuverable even when their weight is higher. Right now I play with the HPS 6.1 and find the mid prostaffs such as the nsix-one tour 90 and the Hyper Carbon tour 90 to be too flexy for my liking. The thing I like about the mids is how you can swing the racquet and it feels more areodynamic. I don't know if anyone else shares the same experience, but for shots like the short approach, I sometimes wish the HPS 6.1 would swing faster (imagine federer's short approach). I do admit it is a little tougher to play with, especially with serves. I too play with a MP right now the HPS 6.1 and haven't really gotten the chance to try a lot of the new racquets out in the market, I really want to try the prestige mids PC through Flexpoint. In short, I prefer the mids, but I've yet to find the one that feels right.
________
XXX SHARE
 
Last edited:
brownbearfalling said:
In my personal experience I find the mids to be more maneuverable even when their weight is higher. Right now I play with the HPS 6.1 and find the mid prostaffs such as the nsix-one tour 90 and the Hyper Carbon tour 90 to be too flexy for my liking. The thing I like about the mids is how you can swing the racquet and it feels more areodynamic. I don't know if anyone else shares the same experience, but for shots like the short approach, I sometimes wish the HPS 6.1 would swing faster (imagine federer's short approach). I do admit it is a little tougher to play with, especially with serves. I too play with a MP right now the HPS 6.1 and haven't really gotten the chance to try a lot of the new racquets out in the market, I really want to try the prestige mids PC through Flexpoint. In short, I prefer the mids, but I've yet to find the one that feels right.
That's the type of discussion I hope this thread incites. Let's keep it rolling, a little something to work with, or argue about:) : (This is quote off racquet research)
Are Big Head Racquets Better?

No. The increased length of string to be stretched in a large racquet head gives a more pronounced give to the string bed, and therefore presumably a longer dwell time (t) and a more pronounced trampoline effect (higher coefficient of restitution c), both of which are good. But the trade-off is that accuracy on off-center hits may be worse because the string bed is more deformable, and therefore the path of the rebounding ball is less certain. Also, the ball is not flattened against the strings as much, so it tends to just roll down the face when you stroke for topspin. Pete Sampras plays with an extremely small head racquet (85 square inches in area). The wood racquets were even smaller (65 sq in), and the tubular metal racquets that Jimmy Connors used were smaller still, and had a head size like a squash racquet. These world number ones are persuasive authority against big heads.

Another downside of big heads is that, due to their large width, there is a bigger chance for a badly off-center impact. With the ball so far from the centerline, the shot is a loser anyway, so better to let it miss than to have it hit way off to the side and cause a severe jolt.

If there is a weighting system at 9 and 3 o'clock, such as shoulder weighting by lead tape, this jolt can be minimized, but better not to let it occur in the first place. Accept that you will have to learn to hit the ball better, and don't rely on "forgiveness" to improve your game.

The consensus among physical therapists seems to be that big heads are a risk factor for tennis elbow. The pros who make their living winning tournaments do not favor them. The conclusion must be that big head racquets are not better.
 
lucky leprechaun said:
No third party candidates please.
Haha, yes lucky leprechaun. Nothing to Oversized fans, but I'd like to talk about mids and midpluses. These two headsizes seem to rival each other, and the fact that their specifications are almost similar makes the discussion even more intriguing about the value of both. True that Agassi uses an oversized, which doesn't discredit him at all, but the rivalry between mids and midpluses warrants "The Duel."
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
Head_Rocketman said:
Are Big Head Racquets Better?

No. The increased length of string to be stretched in a large racquet head gives a more pronounced give to the string bed, and therefore presumably a longer dwell time (t) and a more pronounced trampoline effect (higher coefficient of restitution c), both of which are good. But the trade-off is that accuracy on off-center hits may be worse because the string bed is more deformable, and therefore the path of the rebounding ball is less certain. Also, the ball is not flattened against the strings as much, so it tends to just roll down the face when you stroke for topspin. Pete Sampras plays with an extremely small head racquet (85 square inches in area). The wood racquets were even smaller (65 sq in), and the tubular metal racquets that Jimmy Connors used were smaller still, and had a head size like a squash racquet. These world number ones are persuasive authority against big heads.

Another downside of big heads is that, due to their large width, there is a bigger chance for a badly off-center impact. With the ball so far from the centerline, the shot is a loser anyway, so better to let it miss than to have it hit way off to the side and cause a severe jolt.

If there is a weighting system at 9 and 3 o'clock, such as shoulder weighting by lead tape, this jolt can be minimized, but better not to let it occur in the first place. Accept that you will have to learn to hit the ball better, and don't rely on "forgiveness" to improve your game.

The consensus among physical therapists seems to be that big heads are a risk factor for tennis elbow. The pros who make their living winning tournaments do not favor them. The conclusion must be that big head racquets are not better. (This is quote off racquet research)
Almost every part of this excerpt from racquet research is just BS. Here's the rebuttal:

1) The trampoline effect only applies if you string at the same tension. But if you maintain the same tension/stringlength ratio, the trampoline effect is about the same regardless of head size. So if your midsize racquet is 90 sq-in strung at 60 lbs, the equivalent tension in a 110 sq-in head would be 66 lbs = 60 x sqrt(110/90).

2) An off-center hit has a better chance being a good shot with a large head than with a small head. The reason is that a large head has a higher polar moment of inertia. In other words, it has more mass distributed further away from the centerline. This makes a large head racquet more stable. This is the reason that large head racquets can be stable even when they are very light. You never see a lightweight midsize racquet because it would be so unstable on off-center impacts that it would be impossible to get good control.

3) The only reason that largehead racquets tend to give people tennis elbow is that large-headed racquets tend to be stiffer and lighter. It has nothing to do with headsize. Your best bet for control and for arm safety is to use a large-headed, heavy, headlight, flexible racquet. Unfortunately, this type of racquet is hard to find. The closest stick available might be the POG OS, which happens to be the top-rated racquet according to racquetresearch.com's own ranking system! (not a coincidence!).
 

jonolau

Legend
... and the point of this poll is?

From the consumers' point of view: Buy whatever the pros are using.

From the racquet companies' POV: Sell whatever the consumer wants.

End of story.
 

mucat

Hall of Fame
travlerajm said:
Almost every part of this excerpt from racquet research is just BS. Here's the rebuttal:

1) The trampoline effect only applies if you string at the same tension. But if you maintain the same tension/stringlength ratio, the trampoline effect is about the same regardless of head size. So if your midsize racquet is 90 sq-in strung at 60 lbs, the equivalent tension in a 110 sq-in head would be 66 lbs = 60 x sqrt(110/90).

2) An off-center hit has a better chance being a good shot with a large head than with a small head. The reason is that a large head has a higher polar moment of inertia. In other words, it has more mass distributed further away from the centerline. This makes a large head racquet more stable. This is the reason that large head racquets can be stable even when they are very light. You never see a lightweight midsize racquet because it would be so unstable on off-center impacts that it would be impossible to get good control.

3) The only reason that largehead racquets tend to give people tennis elbow is that large-headed racquets tend to be stiffer and lighter. It has nothing to do with headsize. Your best bet for control and for arm safety is to use a large-headed, heavy, headlight, flexible racquet. Unfortunately, this type of racquet is hard to find. The closest stick available might be the POG OS, which happens to be the top-rated racquet according to racquetresearch.com's own ranking system! (not a coincidence!).

Why is it BS?
 

Mugatu

Rookie
mids are better in basically every way... i think in general, far more mid users have played with mid-pluses than mid-plus users have with mids (for decent lengths of time). most people just comment from subjective unsubstantiated points of view...

i've used both lots and can't see how midpluses are better overall for the life of me!! ..unless you struggle to hit the stringbed.. in which case give up
 

Mugatu

Rookie
and offcenter shots come off better on mids than MPs coz of the significantly greater stability. on MPs they just fly out or hit the net... u'd hav to play with one to know
 
Quite a few professionals and college players use a 90 or a 93. But it looks like more and more of them use a 95, 98 or a 100 sq inch head.

I was a dyed-in-the-wool mid-guy until recently. Loved the 93 head for the maneuverability and control against harder hitting opponents.

I have found the same feel in a 98 with a dense string pattern, plus it's a little more forgiving off-center. My returns and passes have improved. No real trade-offs in this case.

I probably would not be saying this if I had switched from a Tour 90 to an nBlade or something. But I switched from a Volkl to a Volkl. I guess it depends on the player and the stick.
 
Mugatu said:
mids are better in basically every way... ..unless you struggle to hit the stringbed.. in which case give up
I like mids, but trust me they're not better in every way, in two big ways: one of which you mentioned there. Bigger stringbed bigger forgiveness = bigger swing, and no I will not give up. The other is more power.

PS can i vote again?
 

jonolau

Legend
What level is this poll aimed at? I would assume that most the participants in this forum are at the social level, and there are few or no pros.

It is all a matter of preference what frames you like.

This argument will perenially be fought, and there will never ever be a resolution or middle road.

Each side has their points and all are valid.

It is all a matter of perceptions and whose lens you're peering from.
 

Mugatu

Rookie
lucky, i find the mid more forgiving in that off-centre shots don't have the same tortional effects on the racquet producing elbow discomfort. plus, i find off-centre shots much more controllable on the mid.

as for power, i'm not convinced. shots out of the centre of a mid feel like you've more "plow-thru" plus i find string-tension a far greater contributor to the power one derives from a racquet..
 
lucky leprechaun said:
I like mids, but trust me they're not better in every way, in two big ways: one of which you mentioned there. Bigger stringbed bigger forgiveness = bigger swing, and no I will not give up. The other is more power.

PS can i vote again?
You want to change your vote to the mid?
 

pinky42

New User
Head_Rocketman said:
Haha, yes lucky leprechaun. Nothing to Oversized fans, but I'd like to talk about mids and midpluses. These two headsizes seem to rival each other, and the fact that their specifications are almost similar makes the discussion even more intriguing about the value of both. True that Agassi uses an oversized, which doesn't discredit him at all, but the rivalry between mids and midpluses warrants "The Duel."
I wasn't talking about Oversized. I'm saying that no racquet is better. If Oversized had been on the list, I would have asked for a none of the above/all of the above.
 
pinky42 said:
I wasn't talking about Oversized. I'm saying that no racquet is better. If Oversized had been on the list, I would have asked for a none of the above/all of the above.
Why would a "none of the above" be on the list?
 

jonolau

Legend
Head_Rocketman said:
Why would a "none of the above" be on the list?
Why not? After all, oversized racquets are also being manufactured and sold commercially. They are also regularly used in social matches by all genders and ages ... I've used my wife's OS before and won matches against others using mids.
 
jonolau said:
Why not? After all, oversized racquets are also being manufactured and sold commercially. They are also regularly used in social matches by all genders and ages ... I've used my wife's OS before and won matches against others using mids.
We're talking about mids and midpluses, on the first page I described the rivalry between them.
 

jonolau

Legend
Head_Rocketman said:
We're talking about mids and midpluses, on the first page I described the rivalry between them.
By creating an exclusionary thread and resurrecting a topic that has been dragged through hell and high water, aren't you trying to flog a dead horse?
 
jonolau said:
By creating an exclusionary thread and resurrecting a topic that has been dragged through hell and high water, aren't you trying to flog a dead horse?
It's not an exclusionary thread. This debate is not heated between mid and oversized or even midplus and oversized. Oversized is generally thought of as a beginner's racquet. Yes I know Agassi uses one, but that is a rare exception on the pro tour, among the elite. The specs on the mid and miplus are so close, and I know you're gonna say so true on the midplus to oversize, but the fact that most competitve people don't use an oversized, leaves the argument to mid and midplus.
 
In theory, I would love a hundred-something headed frame that is flexible, headlight and pretty heavy overall. In THEORY.
Maybe I am a cantankerous middle aged guy, but I have never felt one that feels as 'stable', maneuverable and controlled as a mid or the right midplus.
 

Ripper

Hall of Fame
I don't get it. Why does this have to be a "duel"? It's like we need to convince the other person to change to what we use, in order to feel that we did, indeed, make the right decision. You know: "as long as the other guy is using something different, I could be wrong". Are we so insecure? Are we so stupid? Man, use whatever the heck you like and forget about what I'm using and/or what everyone else, who's not you, is using!!!!!!!!!!
 
Ripper said:
I don't get it. Why does this have to be a "duel"? It's like we need to convince the other person to change to what we use, in order to feel that we did, indeed, make the right decision. You know: "as long as the other guy is using something different, I could be wrong". Are we so insecure? Are we so stupid? Man, use whatever the heck you like and forget about what I'm using and/or what everyone else, who's not you, is using!!!!!!!!!!
Haha I guess that's taking the most simple argument for it "right racquet for right person." But they have different specs, and people would like to know the advantages and disadvantages of each, and whether one has more advantages. People's personal opinions, ideas and experiences are the best way to show those advantages and disadvantages. Truth of the matter is, if everyone took your viewpoint of "us[ing] whatever the heck you like", people wouldn't be getting the most out of their ability.
 
Re: RIpper's post no. 35...^ Yeah, but my tennis friends will think less of me if....

IF...

I do not wear the correct length Nike DRI-FIT shorts....if I use a tweener frame.
If I do not have even a gram of lead exposed,
if I do not imitate Nadal's sprint right before the first point of a match,
if I do not dribble the ball like Marcos,
if I forget my headband (even though my 'do does not warrant one),
if I do not have the same brand bag as my sticks,
if my Pro Staff is (gasp!) NOT a Saint Vincent,
if I serve with a pinpoint stance instead of the more effective platform stance,
if I use a two handed BH instead of a one,
if I listen to Dave Matthews when I could be enjoying Sigur Ros,
if I forget to meet with Truimph and Distaster and treat those two imposters just the same.
 
slice bh compliment said:
Re: RIpper's post no. 35...^ Yeah, but my tennis friends will think less of me if....

IF...

I do not wear the correct length Nike DRI-FIT shorts....if I use a tweener frame.
If I do not have even a gram of lead exposed,
if I do not imitate Nadal's sprint right before the first point of a match,
if I do not dribble the ball like Marcos,
if I forget my headband (even though my 'do does not warrant one),
if I do not have the same brand bag as my sticks,
if my Pro Staff is (gasp!) NOT a Saint Vincent,
if I serve with a pinpoint stance instead of the more effective platform stance,
if I use a two handed BH instead of a one,
if I listen to Dave Matthews when I could be enjoying Sigur Ros,
if I forget to meet with Truimph and Distaster and treat those two imposters just the same.
Hahaha nice one bh compliment, though this is about headsize and vanity aside, it's about the specs.

And don't let it get personal, just because you use a midplus and people say they are not as good as mids, don't bring the argument of no argument. Post your viewpoint.
 

jonolau

Legend
Head_Rocketman said:
Haha I guess that's taking the most simple argument for it "right racquet for right person." But they have different specs, and people would like to know the advantages and disadvantages of each, and whether one has more advantages. People's personal opinions, ideas and experiences are the best way to show those advantages and disadvantages. Truth of the matter is, if everyone took your viewpoint of "us[ing] whatever the heck you like", people wouldn't be getting the most out of their ability.
What ability? Look, we're talking about social players here on this forum, not ATP pros. Heck, if you can hit the ball over the net with a cricket bat, then so be it.

You can argue this point till the cows come home and you'll still never have the perfect answer. No point having this be-all end-all thread and opening up another can of worms.

Advantages and disadvantages of each? Do a search, there are a lot of informative and objective reviews in TW/TT.

Personal opinions, ideas and experiences? One man's meat is another man's poison.

There will always be different camps on this topic, and each one will have their point even in "objective reviews".

So, what was your original point?

I'm outta here ...
 
jonolau said:
What ability? Look, we're talking about social players here on this forum, not ATP pros. Heck, if you can hit the ball over the net with a cricket bat, then so be it.

You can argue this point till the cows come home and you'll still never have the perfect answer. No point having this be-all end-all thread and opening up another can of worms.

Advantages and disadvantages of each? Do a search, there are a lot of informative and objective reviews in TW/TT.

Personal opinions, ideas and experiences? One man's meat is another man's poison.

There will always be different camps on this topic, and each one will have their point even in "objective reviews".

So, what was your original point?

I'm outta here ...
Good and you should be, your're the argument of "no argument" I'm talking about. The discussion is whether people see more advantages to one than the other. All you've been saying is that you don't care and there is no difference. Of course there's a, so far 25 to 18 people say there's a difference, reviews and customer feedbacks say there's a difference. This thread brings them out thru the people who use them.
 
Head_Rocketman said:
Hahaha nice one bh compliment, though this is about headsize and vanity aside, it's about the specs.

And don't let it get personal, just because you use a midplus and people say they are not as good as mids, don't bring the argument of no argument. Post your viewpoint.
No worries. I already did post my viewpoint.

Mid in general. Or the RIGHT midplus for ME, which I have found to be the Volkl DNX 10. 98 head, but it moves like a mid. Dense pattern, so I do not lose any control and the string durability is good enough that I can comfortably use a 17 multi.
 

brucie

Professional
I vote mid plus which i class as up to 105, mid below 95! 95 i used for a long time i have never owned over 100 and currently use 100 im 16 and a good doubles player though i say so myself but not strong enough for the weight of 85 heads and federer 90s etc. i think most will benifit from 100 it maneuverable still and forgiving, so is 95 for that matter, but i think people have got to stop kidding themselves and play with what they play best with!

I think the rules shouldn't allow more than 110 however if you cant use that you cant play tennis! Simple
 
Mugatu said:
lucky, i find the mid more forgiving in that off-centre shots don't have the same tortional effects on the racquet producing elbow discomfort. plus, i find off-centre shots much more controllable on the mid.

as for power, i'm not convinced. shots out of the centre of a mid feel like you've more "plow-thru" plus i find string-tension a far greater contributor to the power one derives from a racquet..
I do notice that on mids, you can lead the crap out of them on the sides for torsional stability and still not lose the "character" of the racquet. For example, in my sampras idolizing days I leaded up my pro staff to sampras's specs and you talk about having no torsion at all. It would take a basketball to twist the racquet in your hand at impact. And the great thing was, I didn't miss a beat except the racquet of course felt much heavier and much stabler, but basically it still felt like the same racquet. If you try leading up your midplus or oversize too much at the 3 and 9 o'lock positions, it will lose the character of the racquet, will feel like a foreign object in your hand.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
Mugatu said:
mids are better in basically every way... i think in general, far more mid users have played with mid-pluses than mid-plus users have with mids (for decent lengths of time). most people just comment from subjective unsubstantiated points of view...

i've used both lots and can't see how midpluses are better overall for the life of me!! ..unless you struggle to hit the stringbed.. in which case give up
The reason so many people believe mids are better is because they've never bothered to take a flexible midplus or OS racquet (such as the O3 Tour for example) and customize the weight and balance so that it matches the weight and balance of the mid version. I agree that in stock form, the O3 Tour mid plays better than the midplus or the OS, but that's only because it is so much heavier. When the larger headed versions are weighted up properly in the handle to the 12 oz range, and the tension is increased to the same tension/stringlength ratio, the midplus and the OS become superior to the mid. This is true for any racquet as long as the flex profile is the same. I challenge all you skeptics to try this before you disagree - it just might open your eyes to the "pluses" of a midplus. The problem is that you've been comparing apples to oranges all along so that you were missing out on the sweeter apples.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
slice bh compliment said:
In theory, I would love a hundred-something headed frame that is flexible, headlight and pretty heavy overall. In THEORY.
Maybe I am a cantankerous middle aged guy, but I have never felt one that feels as 'stable', maneuverable and controlled as a mid or the right midplus.
The theory is correct. But you're right that there's no racquet on the market of this type that is balanced right in stock form.

Sadly, the racquet companies don't bother to focus on making good racquets like this. By far the best I've found is the Prince Graphite NXG OS, but even this racquet is still a little too light in the handle. It requires 7 to 15 g along the length of the grip to feel just right. The O3 Tour OS requires 25 to 35 g in the handle to feel decent. And the weight distribution of the Radical OS is so out of whack that I didn't even bother to try to tune that one! In contrast, the weight and balance of most mid and midplus versions are already tuned fairly well when you buy them off the shelf. This is why we end up have someone starting a thread that dismisses OS racquets altogether.
 

jlui21

Rookie
jonolau said:
What level is this poll aimed at? I would assume that most the participants in this forum are at the social level, and there are few or no pros.

It is all a matter of preference what frames you like.

This argument will perenially be fought, and there will never ever be a resolution or middle road.

Each side has their points and all are valid.

It is all a matter of perceptions and whose lens you're peering from.
This almost sums it up for me. There isn't a "better," but rather "what suits you more." Personally for me, I prefer mid size b.c of greater control and I don't lose too much power. Up until a few days ago, I always had a problem with overhitting so Mids seemed to be the solution. As I continue to plow through and try to improve, I am slowly realizing that my problems are intrinsically found within my strokes and not the stick.

Although I think this thread will never end and I find it pointless, I will vote and have contributed my thoughts because we do this out of love for tennis.
 

byealmeens

Semi-Pro
travlerajm said:
The reason so many people believe mids are better is because they've never bothered to take a flexible midplus or OS racquet (such as the O3 Tour for example) and customize the weight and balance so that it matches the weight and balance of the mid version. I agree that in stock form, the O3 Tour mid plays better than the midplus or the OS, but that's only because it is so much heavier. When the larger headed versions are weighted up properly in the handle to the 12 oz range, and the tension is increased to the same tension/stringlength ratio, the midplus and the OS become superior to the mid. This is true for any racquet as long as the flex profile is the same. I challenge all you skeptics to try this before you disagree - it just might open your eyes to the "pluses" of a midplus. The problem is that you've been comparing apples to oranges all along so that you were missing out on the sweeter apples.
I have customized many MP and Oversize frames to be over 12 ounces and HL to be more user-friendly. In almost every case I've had to string MUCH higher to get the same control as a mid strung below the middle of the recommended range. For this reason, I feel that players that require that additional control will do LESS damage to their arm using mids and stringing lower, than a MP or OS and stringing so high. I know many players that have hurt their arms using Bab PD's strung in the 70's.

I also think you need to consider the issue of maneuverability. As previous posters have mentioned, a smaller head is inherently more user-friendly around the net, on quick reaction returns, etc., and feel easier to use on a one-handed BH. This is something that customization will never improve in a MP or OS. They will always "feel" less maneuverable simply due to the larger headsize.
 
True byealmeens, a lot of people have commented on many parts of the specs, but not so much the headsize. Though it is only a few inches difference, it is a significant difference.
 
Top