Mid v Midplus The Duel

Mid or Midplus?


  • Total voters
    2

Mugatu

Rookie
travlerajm, maybe you're right but in reference to myself nd your quote; i used an rd-7 midplus for about 5 years.. plenty of flex there...
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
byealmeens said:
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.
Great post!

I agree 100% with everything you said, especially the part about smaller heads feeling easier to hit one-handed backhands with, and larger heads feeling less maneuverable simply due to the larger headsize.
 

TN1

Rookie
Well, I voted for MP only because you excluded OS. I play with an OS and love it. I have a Pro Tour 280 OS. Probably 107" and it's 365 g. I haven't demoed a racquet that comes anywhere close to it terms of feel. I probably have my own personal preference though as I don't like racquets that are "crisp". I like racquets in which dwell time is maxxed out. Of course you could argue that I can't hit the ball cleanly and I would probably agree with you. But when I'm on the run or some guy is pounding serves at me. I'll take the extra string bed area and use to take an actually swing at the ball. Also, I haven't come across any racquet that plays as well on off center hits too. Probably because I have a bigger sweet spot than any mid or MP racquet.

Oh yeah, I should state that my gameplay is a centered around my abilities to hit well off the baseline. So I rarely see the net. The only time I come up is to end a point and I haven't ever played anybody that has effectively "forced" me to come up consisitently.

I have to say though all these threads though make me want to demo more MP racquets though. Yeah, I am being "shamed" into testing MP racquets. Thinking about that nBlade and the FXP Prestige.
 

AndrewD

Legend
Personally, I find neither group - mid or midplus- better. All that I care about is finding a racquet with the right type of 'feel' whether it be mid or midplus. I find them equally easy to use at the net, on serve and on backhand or forehand. I disagree that one or other will make you a better player (although I don't agree with ultra light racquets), force you to concentrate more, improve your footwork or do anything that you wouldn't do otherwise.

That being said, the average club player (I repeat, the AVERAGE club player) struggles to generate enough spin on their shots, routinely hits off-centre (outside the sweetspot), has more bad days than good and doesn't have the time to practise as much or more than they play. So, for them, a midplus is most likely a better option. That doesn't make them better racquets only an oft times better choice for the average player.

However, in general, I don't really care either way. My only gripe is when people claim as gospel that you can only be a 'real' tennis player if you use one or the other.
 
TN1 said:
I have to say though all these threads though make me want to demo more MP racquets though. Yeah, I am being "shamed" into testing MP racquets. Thinking about that nBlade and the FXP Prestige.
Peer pressure is the best way to force people to do the right thing. :D You'll be cooler and more hip. Somebody up there mentioned something about a cantankerous middle aged man playing tennis. I have never seen one of those with anything other than a midsize, and usually some weird brand I never heard of. The happy ones are the ones playing with the bigger heads. Coincidence no?
 

Offshore

Rookie
AndrewD said:
Personally, I find neither group - mid or midplus- better. All that I care about is finding a racquet with the right type of 'feel' whether it be mid or midplus. I find them equally easy to use at the net, on serve and on backhand or forehand. I disagree that one or other will make you a better player (although I don't agree with ultra light racquets), force you to concentrate more, improve your footwork or do anything that you wouldn't do otherwise.

That being said, the average club player (I repeat, the AVERAGE club player) struggles to generate enough spin on their shots, routinely hits off-centre (outside the sweetspot), has more bad days than good and doesn't have the time to practise as much or more than they play. So, for them, a midplus is most likely a better option. That doesn't make them better racquets only an oft times better choice for the average player.

However, in general, I don't really care either way. My only gripe is when people claim as gospel that you can only be a 'real' tennis player if you use one or the other.
That pretty much sums it up for me also. I have used both, didn't have trouble with either one; but possibly the larger sweetspot or slightly lower swingweight of some midpluses work better for me most of the time (unless I am playing a lot and really on my game)
 
AndrewD said:
...the average club player (I repeat, the AVERAGE club player) struggles to generate enough spin on their shots, routinely hits off-centre (outside the sweetspot), has more bad days than good and doesn't have the time to practise as much or more than they play. So, for them, a midplus is most likely a better option. That doesn't make them better racquets only an oft times better choice for the average player.
Bulls-eye. Well said.

In the end, though, I really wonder how much difference it makes whether the avg club player uses a Mid or MP. A 3.5 or 4.0 player has other issues to address (footwork, stroke technique) that can improve their game much more than 5" or 10" of additional racquet head size imo...
 

jonolau

Legend
AndrewD said:
Personally, I find neither group - mid or midplus- better. All that I care about is finding a racquet with the right type of 'feel' whether it be mid or midplus. I find them equally easy to use at the net, on serve and on backhand or forehand. I disagree that one or other will make you a better player (although I don't agree with ultra light racquets), force you to concentrate more, improve your footwork or do anything that you wouldn't do otherwise.

That being said, the average club player (I repeat, the AVERAGE club player) struggles to generate enough spin on their shots, routinely hits off-centre (outside the sweetspot), has more bad days than good and doesn't have the time to practise as much or more than they play. So, for them, a midplus is most likely a better option. That doesn't make them better racquets only an oft times better choice for the average player.

However, in general, I don't really care either way. My only gripe is when people claim as gospel that you can only be a 'real' tennis player if you use one or the other.
Andrew, exactly the point!
 

donnyz89

Hall of Fame
i wont how many "im a real player so I'm gonna vote for mid because it makes me look like Roger" actually uses mid? I vote for midplus because its

1)more popular
2)more suited for today's power game
3)easier to play with

i mean honestly, are there even 10 different mid frames out there?
 

jonolau

Legend
Head_Rocketman said:
Jonolau just seems to want to argue, he's given nothing but argumentative posts that don't add anything to the discussion.
You have started a thread that contributes nothing informative. These topics have been tossed around for the longest time with no conclusions.

You have admitted by the fact of the title that this is a duel. I have stated my stand clearly, in case you chose to ignore it.
 

jonolau

Legend
BreakPoint said:
No thanks, I'll pass. I think I've said all I've got to say on this subject.
I thought you were to go give this topic a pass? Why are you contradicting yourself?
 
Midplus is really closing the gap, I bet two years ago it would be almost 3 to 1in favor of mids if you polled the board. Still over-representative of reality, because you surely don't see 1.1 mids for every midplus at the current rate at your local club on a typical day.

PS it look likes its 0.2 mids for every midplus for the current atp top 10.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
jonolau said:
I thought you were to go give this topic a pass? Why are you contradicting yourself?
I did pass. I'm allowing others debate the pros and cons of mid vs. midplus and have not posted my own opinion on the matter (except once in response to another member's post to say that I agree with it).

As far as contradicting oneself, try this post from yesterday and over 30 posts ago:

jonolau said:
I'm outta here ...
:confused:
 
donnyz89 said:
i wont how many "im a real player so I'm gonna vote for mid because it makes me look like Roger" actually uses mid? I vote for midplus because its

1)more popular
2)more suited for today's power game
3)easier to play with

i mean honestly, are there even 10 different mid frames out there?
I'll give you #2, but as far as 1 and 3... well more popular isn't always a good thing, and easier to play with may only describe social players. What do the competitive players have to say? Not necessarily pros or those in tournaments, just those that play competitively.
 

donnyz89

Hall of Fame
Head_Rocketman said:
I'll give you #2, but as far as 1 and 3... well more popular isn't always a good thing, and easier to play with may only describe social players. What do the competitive players have to say? Not necessarily pros or those in tournaments, just those that play competitively.
I dont think 50% of the pros use mid size racquets. not even close. and again, how many of the 45 actually uses mid as their main racquet? they are more demanding, sure they might produce good control but i feel like a lot of people are just voting because it makes them seem more like "players". no offense to those that really plays with mid. I can guarentee that a lot of those who voted for mid plays with midplus or even OS, let me know if i'm wrong.
 

kinsella

Semi-Pro
I am using a 93" head and when you hold it up to a 95" head, you can't tell the difference, but my 93 is "mid" so I voted mid. When they get a mid "right" it is just so sweet to me. That is my taste and not a statement that mid is better for everyone.
 
donnyz89 said:
I dont think 50% of the pros use mid size racquets. not even close. and again, how many of the 45 actually uses mid as their main racquet? they are more demanding, sure they might produce good control but i feel like a lot of people are just voting because it makes them seem more like "players". no offense to those that really plays with mid. I can guarentee that a lot of those who voted for mid plays with midplus or even OS, let me know if i'm wrong.
The poll wasn't for "what type of racquet do you use?" It's "which do you believe to be superior?", regardless of use.
 
Why would anyone use one racquet for competition but say another is superior? :confused: I think a midplus is superior therefore I use a midplus in competition.

Poll just got shoddy I had no idea people using midplusses were voting mid :evil:
 
lucky leprechaun said:
Why would anyone use one racquet for competition but say another is superior? :confused: I think a midplus is superior therefore I use a midplus in competition.

Poll just got shoddy I had no idea people using midplusses were voting mid :evil:
As has been a popular consensus in this thread, people use what they're comfterable with. It doesn't necessarily mean they believe it's the best they can use. As said by many mid supporters mids take time, lots more than midpluses, to be comfterable with and consistent. Just because someone uses one racquet, doesn't discredit they're opinion on what's superior.

And I didn't limit this thread to only those who play in tournaments or competitions, just those who play "competitively", or are serious about tennis.
 

Alafter

Hall of Fame
I hardly see how headsize gives more or less control over the ball...even if the technical theories say so.
 

Alafter

Hall of Fame
Head_Rocketman said:
As has been a popular consensus in this thread, people use what they're comfterable with. It doesn't necessarily mean they believe it's the best they can use. As said by many mid supporters mids take time, lots more than midpluses, to be comfterable with and consistent. Just because someone uses one racquet, doesn't discredit they're opinion on what's superior.

And I didn't limit this thread to only those who play in tournaments or competitions, just those who play "competitively", or are serious about tennis.
If it's not the best they can use, then GO and use the best they can use.

If time and practice is all it takes, then for gods sake go out there and USE a mid, get USED to it, and become the BETTER player that somehow these people believe is promised by the mid. HECK, I'd pick up a MID RIGHT NOW and use it if it's a 100% guaranteed deal that I become better at the game using this mid sized head.

Why are they sitting there fantasizing and worshipping this idea that if they use a mid have they can go out there and play better immediately or eventually? Are they sick?

If you SOMEHOW refuse to pick up a mid and play with it, stick with it, and somehow you still believe that mid is the better racquet you can use, or simply the better of the two sizes...then read around... this board has a lot of descriptions and terms for the mental condition you have.

"Just because someone uses one racquet, doesn't discredit they're opinion on what's superior." ...Provided you are a normal, healthy person--yes, it does.

And judging by the staggering amount of pros and just good players out there with infinitely variety of playing-style using both MID and MP, achieving amazing control over the ball, then racquet really doesnt seem to be the problem for them does it? I really wonder how many of them are kept awake at night thinking about the theoretical technical differences between the two headsizes and how it would theoratically effect their game tomorrow.
 

vkartikv

Hall of Fame
We are beating a dead horse here. I have come to the conclusion that I couldn't care less about someone's opinion about which is better. I have used both and like both for a variety of reasons.
 
vkartikv said:
We are beating a dead horse here. I have come to the conclusion that I couldn't care less about someone's opinion about which is better. I have used both and like both for a variety of reasons.
So why post on the thread if you "don't care." I love it when people post when they "don't care" cuz it does the exact opposite, and the "don't care" comment just makes them look like someone starving for the attention they get from the attitude perceived. If you don't care, don't post, that's all there is to it. For people actually wanting to discuss then contribute.
 

DrewRafter8

Professional
I've hit from everything from the small head size on my wood racquets to a 107 and I think that the head size doesn't matter as much as the size of the sweet spot. I prefer my wooden racquets to these huge mammoth sized racquets. Although I do like the smaller head sizes for a one handed bh that I only hit with these smaller head sizes. I also like them for serves and volleys, I feel that they are more maneuverable. Just my 2 cents worth.
 

jonolau

Legend
Head_Rocketman said:
So why post on the thread if you "don't care." I love it when people post when they "don't care" cuz it does the exact opposite, and the "don't care" comment just makes them look like someone starving for the attention they get from the attitude perceived. If you don't care, don't post, that's all there is to it. For people actually wanting to discuss then contribute.
You definitely have a sadistic streak in you ...
 
jonolau said:
You definitely have a sadistic streak in you ...
Sadistic?? Do you even know what that means? You don't. haha my goodness now you're calling people names that you don't even know, why are you even on this thread?
 

nViATi

Hall of Fame
Head_Rocketman said:
Sadistic?? Do you even know what that means? You don't. haha my goodness now you're calling people names that you don't even know, why are you even on this thread?
And now you are making a rear-end out of yourself.
 

jonolau

Legend
Head_Rocketman said:
Sadistic?? Do you even know what that means? You don't. haha my goodness now you're calling people names that you don't even know, why are you even on this thread?
Read this again:
Head_Rocketman said:
I love it when people post ... just makes them look like someone starving for ...
Aren't you the *** now??
 

jonolau

Legend
Head_Rocketman said:
.....I think jonolau is the one being an ***. His posts are useless, all he does is argue.
And this post is supposed to be useful? Let me give you some help here: I started my posts in a neutral manner and you were the provocative and argumentative one who started this thread looking for a DUEL. So, who's the argumentative one.

Wake up and smell the coffee, son.
 

Pomeranian

Semi-Pro
Good lord why does this discussion keep coming up? People purposly do this, maybe they enjoy talking about the same thing over and over again. I have seen no new arguements in this thread.



Define mid vs midplus? It's hard to isn't it? What's a mid? Anything less than 95? Does anyone honestly know the difference in head size between a 90 and a 100 sq inch? Unless you are consistantly hitting your frame on a smaller headsize, a bigger one won't make a big difference. Does anyone have a calculator to determine the sweetspot size of a racquet? That would be some interesting data.



There are obviously benefits from both mid and midplus. At the very least from this thread as evidence, what players precieve as benefits. Some people say the trampoline effect can be neutralized on a larger headsize by stringing at a higher tension. But doing so, wouldn't that reap away one of the great benefits of a larger headsize, more power? Less arm friendliness too. On the other hand people argue more control, I've seen people get less control on a mid. People who've been using the racquet for a long time, their uncontrolled swing plus their low powered racquet requires even more headracquet speed.



The downsides and benefits of a racquet depends on what racquet is appropriate for each player. Some random person or even small group of people, or even the majority, cannot determine what racquet is or is not appropriate for any player. Sounds too crazy? How can someone say, that no one can use a mid? Or how can they say, mids are better than any other racquet? Why isn't the arguement mid vs oversize? If people strongly believe in the benefits of a midplus because of it's "controlled power" then why not oversize since it maximizes those benefits. Or maybe I just made a point, people have different preferences and abilites to control a certain amount of power.



These discussions should stop unless they provide new information. These "discussions" turn ugly. Look, they already have. People are getting off topic calling each other names. Kind of weird really. You don't even know these people, why are you so offended? They know nothing about you, but people bite back. It doesn't matter which is better even if one is better. Why not have a discussion, 27 inch vs 27.5! Or Short People, Long Racquets. Or 27 inch vs 27.5, the Duel.



Lastly but not least, it's just some people over the internet. What they think doesn't really matter.






















PS I don't really care if this thread is unproductive compared to keeping it civil. Any more attacks on people and I will be reporting posts. Good tips for keeping it civil, don't say: WRONG, RIDICULOUS, or any of that I'm right you're wrong attitude. Instead say: I disagree or something that doesn't provoke people. The overall attitude of people is getting way too personal, I didn't think that was possible on a forum. So keep the forum civil and happy. :D G'day
 

anirut

Legend
And the winner is ...

I don't know.

Now, as the thread says "the Duel", why not someone who has both the mid and the midplus start hitting the rackets on each other and see which one breaks first?

Now, that's a duel.
 
anirut said:
I don't know.

Now, as the thread says "the Duel", why not someone who has both the mid and the midplus start hitting the rackets on each other and see which one breaks first?

Now, that's a duel.
Haha I guess that's one way of settling the matter.
 
Pomeranian said:
Good lord why does this discussion keep coming up? People purposly do this, maybe they enjoy talking about the same thing over and over again. I have seen no new arguements in this thread.



Define mid vs midplus? It's hard to isn't it? What's a mid? Anything less than 95? Does anyone honestly know the difference in head size between a 90 and a 100 sq inch? Unless you are consistantly hitting your frame on a smaller headsize, a bigger one won't make a big difference. Does anyone have a calculator to determine the sweetspot size of a racquet? That would be some interesting data.



There are obviously benefits from both mid and midplus. At the very least from this thread as evidence, what players precieve as benefits. Some people say the trampoline effect can be neutralized on a larger headsize by stringing at a higher tension. But doing so, wouldn't that reap away one of the great benefits of a larger headsize, more power? Less arm friendliness too. On the other hand people argue more control, I've seen people get less control on a mid. People who've been using the racquet for a long time, their uncontrolled swing plus their low powered racquet requires even more headracquet speed.



The downsides and benefits of a racquet depends on what racquet is appropriate for each player. Some random person or even small group of people, or even the majority, cannot determine what racquet is or is not appropriate for any player. Sounds too crazy? How can someone say, that no one can use a mid? Or how can they say, mids are better than any other racquet? Why isn't the arguement mid vs oversize? If people strongly believe in the benefits of a midplus because of it's "controlled power" then why not oversize since it maximizes those benefits. Or maybe I just made a point, people have different preferences and abilites to control a certain amount of power.



These discussions should stop unless they provide new information. These "discussions" turn ugly. Look, they already have. People are getting off topic calling each other names. Kind of weird really. You don't even know these people, why are you so offended? They know nothing about you, but people bite back. It doesn't matter which is better even if one is better. Why not have a discussion, 27 inch vs 27.5! Or Short People, Long Racquets. Or 27 inch vs 27.5, the Duel.



Lastly but not least, it's just some people over the internet. What they think doesn't really matter.






















PS I don't really care if this thread is unproductive compared to keeping it civil. Any more attacks on people and I will be reporting posts. Good tips for keeping it civil, don't say: WRONG, RIDICULOUS, or any of that I'm right you're wrong attitude. Instead say: I disagree or something that doesn't provoke people. The overall attitude of people is getting way too personal, I didn't think that was possible on a forum. So keep the forum civil and happy. :D G'day
.........With the questions you pose, you obviously have not read anything on this thread, as I defined mid and midplus. And who the heck are you to be threatening people by reporting them? There hasn't been anything on this thread to report. If it's not new to you, it's new to someone else, obviously it's new to those who wish to respond with sensible replies, or interested enough to keep the discussion running.
 
jonolau said:
And this post is supposed to be useful? Let me give you some help here: I started my posts in a neutral manner and you were the provocative and argumentative one who started this thread looking for a DUEL. So, who's the argumentative one.

Wake up and smell the coffee, son.
How could you "start your posts in a neutral manner" on MY THREAD before I called it a Duel? And it's not as though I meant the title to be meant in a vindictive way. It's a metaphor. The more you reply to someone berating you the more you get berated because of yourself. Oh I've smelt the coffee my friend, and I throw it back at you in disgust. (I don't drink coffee :) )
 

vkartikv

Hall of Fame
Head_Rocketman said:
How could you "start your posts in a neutral manner" on MY THREAD before I called it a Duel? And it's not as though I meant the title to be meant in a vindictive way. It's a metaphor. The more you reply to someone berating you the more you get berated because of yourself. Oh I've smelt the coffee my friend, and I throw it back at you in disgust. (I don't drink coffee :) )
Head rocketman, the best thing to do in a case like this is start a controversial thread and then not post after that but just watch others argue over it. You are just wasting your time now having to reply to each and every critique you have received, which was imminent.
 
vkartikv said:
Head rocketman, the best thing to do in a case like this is start a controversial thread and then not post after that but just watch others argue over it. You are just wasting your time now having to reply to each and every critique you have received, which was imminent.
Thanks for the advice kartikv haha I see that I should've done what you said a long time ago.
 

Pomeranian

Semi-Pro
Head_Rocketman said:
.........With the questions you pose, you obviously have not read anything on this thread, as I defined mid and midplus. And who the heck are you to be threatening people by reporting them? There hasn't been anything on this thread to report. If it's not new to you, it's new to someone else, obviously it's new to those who wish to respond with sensible replies, or interested enough to keep the discussion running.
I have read through this thread. Are you saying my replies are not sensible? I posted a neutral view of what I think but you seem to have obviously not read through it. You defined mid or midplus. Many people have different perspectives of what mid or midplus is so it cannot be properly defined. Even racquet companies have different definitions.

Maybe not yet but it's getting there, and has in the past. The information has been posted and anyone wanting to review all views sides (netural, mid, midplus) of this topic need only to search for it. Threatening? I am merely reminding, it's a duty as a forum member to report bad posts and I hope my post will prevent it from happening.


Yes this thread does have stuff to report. All so recent too. Some from you I might add.

"You definitely have a sadistic streak in you ..."

"Sadistic?? Do you even know what that means? You don't. haha my goodness now you're calling people names that you don't even know, why are you even on this thread?"

"And now you are making a rear-end out of yourself."

".....I think jonolau is the one being an ***. His posts are useless, all he does is argue."






Continue on with your discussion, ignore my post if you want to. But keep it civil, as the rules say you should.
 

Alafter

Hall of Fame
This thread was obviously started with the possibility that arguments, civil or not, will eventually occur. You would have to be pretty ******** to think otherwise. And of course, this topic DID develop into some nice argument, didnt it?

Obviously, my last post came in here as a join in the fight. Yes, I came to this thread FOR the arguments AND the fight. I read through the thread, I developed my view, and I wanted to express it, more or less against the idea of another person. Seeing how the thread is going, i see no point in holding back some light attacks--it adds spices.

Anyways, there's a point I'd like to express now. No matter what Head_Rocket said or started, he's REALLY got a one DAMNED GOOD POINT he has said on this thread: NOBODY is forcing you to read through these threads.

When you start the talk tennis warehouse > racquet webpage, they GIVE you the option to click topics to read.
Your option is to click and read this thread, or not.

Annoys you to see the topic "Mid vs. MidPlus"? IT's ONE GODDAMN LINE ON A webpage with a million other topics and questions. IGNORE THIS ONE TOPIC.

What really ticks me off are the people who come and post on these threads in the following manners:

1) posting how tired they are of this and then obviously joining the argument
2) posting like they were the people's police coming in with a holy purpose of enforcing some little minor rules and THEN obviously joining the argument...at the point where nobody is really asking for their involvement in the first place
3) posting their "I have the end of all discussions post here because I have the ultimate argument", and then when they receive retort they post a holier-than-thou-art attitude and adding how tired they are of such topics, and then keep on arguing.

Obviously, these are not all, there are more attitudes out there I havent listed yet.

Anyways, I just wish these %@#*ing people would quit posting in threads like these. Nobody's asking them to join in--I didn't see Head_Rocketman issuing invitations, or holding them at gunpoint, or insulting their families. They join in of their own free will, and then they act like they are the better persons than many others posting on this thread? Hypocrites.

If you are still posting about stuffs here, you OBVIOUSLY got some beef about this topic left that is still compelling you to join in the argument, or you SIMPLY want the argument. QUIT LYING. If you really didnt want to get involved because you didnt care about the topic, or you are too tired because you have argued this to its death in previous threads similar to this one (or any other reasons), you WOULDNT be posting here...at ALL.
 

prestigen

New User
MP is for those who can't play with Mid!... its so obvious.
The rule is: chose the heaviest racquet with the smallest head-size _that you can play with_.
 

Mugatu

Rookie
i pose this question to MP users:

why are your MP frames better than OS frames?

..then you have the answer to why mids are better than MPs..
 
Top