My take on ideal specs for doubles

[Attila_the_gorilla]

I've experimented quite a lot with various rackets, weightings etc and here's my conclusion:

1. A good doubles racket has a lower twistweight than a good singles racket. Manoevrability is a priority if you play traditional doubles. This means that any lead added to the hoop of most modern midplus frames is best placed at 12 o'clock. Of course there are exceptions, mostly in the WTA, who play doubles like singles, slugging from the baseline.

2. A good doubles racket has a high swingweight. This is important because of the compact nature of the strokes, I still want to have some pace when I get the chance to put away a high volley. I know some very talented doubles players who simply cannot pack any punch at the net due to lack of power in their racket, and I know to always expect the drop volley. Lower level players are tempted to swing big on their volleys for extra pace, which is a recipe for errors.

3. A good doubles racket is comfortably headlight. This is widely acknowledged. This makes the high swingweight still relatively easy to manoevre. You don't wanna go too headlight though, cos it will hurt your serve and groundstrokes. Exactly how headlight will depend on how you like to play your doubles. Obviously the way to achieve this headlight balance is by adding weight to the handle. Silicone is best.

This high swingweight and very HL balance combination is what makes good doubles rackets heavier than singles rackets, in terms of static weight. But more manoeuvrable thanks to the balance and the lower twistweight.

4. A good doubles racket is stiffer than a good singles racket. In doubles, especially at the net, I'm trying to use and deflect the incoming pace. Whereas in singles, from the baseline, I want to absorb incoming pace and generate my own, to ensure better depth control. Higher stiffness also helps with directional control on those blocked shots and little nudges around the net.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

I've experimented quite a lot with various rackets, weightings etc and here's my conclusion:

1. A good doubles racket has a lower twistweight than a good singles racket. Manoevrability is a priority if you play traditional doubles. This means that any lead added to the hoop of most modern midplus frames is best placed at 12 o'clock. Of course there are exceptions, mostly in the WTA, who play doubles like singles, slugging from the baseline.

2. A good doubles racket has a high swingweight. This is important because of the compact nature of the strokes, I still want to have some pace when I get the chance to put away a high volley. I know some very talented doubles players who simply cannot pack any punch at the net due to lack of power in their racket, and I know to always expect the drop volley. Lower level players are tempted to swing big on their volleys for extra pace, which is a recipe for errors.

3. A good doubles racket is comfortably headlight. This is widely acknowledged. This makes the high swingweight still relatively easy to manoevre. You don't wanna go too headlight though, cos it will hurt your serve and groundstrokes. Exactly how headlight will depend on how you like to play your doubles. Obviously the way to achieve this headlight balance is by adding weight to the handle. Silicone is best.

This high swingweight and very HL balance combination is what makes good doubles rackets heavier than singles rackets, in terms of static weight. But more manoeuvrable thanks to the balance and the lower twistweight.

4. A good doubles racket is stiffer than a good singles racket. In doubles, especially at the net, I'm trying to use and deflect the incoming pace. Whereas in singles, from the baseline, I want to absorb incoming pace and generate my own, to ensure better depth control. Higher stiffness also helps with directional control on those blocked shots and little nudges around the net.

4 is debatable... it depends on ones tastes... Ive often thought the Donnay Blue 99 would be an incredible doubles stick. That thin beam is a huge asset in doubles.

 

[LeeD]

A good doubles racket, for me, is the racket I'm used to and play singles with.
12 oz, 325 SW, around 5 points head light, stiffness from 60--72, head size from 97 -105.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

4 is debatable... it depends on ones tastes... Ive often thought the Donnay Blue 99 would be an incredible doubles stick. That thin beam is a huge asset in doubles.

Why is a thin beam a "huge" asset in doubles?

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

A good doubles racket, for me, is the racket I'm used to and play singles with.
12 oz, 325 SW, around 5 points head light, stiffness from 60--72, head size from 97 -105.

I've seen you play doubles. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[sma1001]

I've experimented quite a lot with various rackets, weightings etc and here's my conclusion:

Very interesting post thanks. Looking forward to the debate!

 

[LeeD]

But I can beat YOU in doubles, given equal partners.
Sure, I don't hit groundstrokes while playing doubles. That is a good thing.
And yes, I missed some conti return of serves, but I might not have been "on" that day.
Hey, I didn't double fault.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

But I can beat YOU in doubles, given equal partners.
Sure, I don't hit groundstrokes while playing doubles. That is a good thing.
And yes, I missed some conti return of serves, but I might not have been "on" that day.
Hey, I didn't double fault.

Please don't hijack a genuine discussion with your exceptional ignorance. Thanks.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Why is a thin beam a "huge" asset in doubles?

When demoing it I felt like it was exceptionally quick on volleys... that thin beam was really nice for that. Ultimately serves and returns (placement 1st) are more important of course.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

When demoing it I felt like it was exceptionally quick on volleys... that thin beam was really nice for that. Ultimately serves and returns (placement 1st) are more important of course.

I'd have thought that quickness is part of the manoevrability and will most likely show in the racket twistweight being lower.

Beam thickness and flex are not strictly related. The St. Vincent PS 85 was very thin but relatively stiff. Same with Fed's 90 back in the day. Both have a lowish twistweight.

 

[LeeD]

"Unless Attila is a 4.5 level doubles player", of course.

 

[LeeD]

How about this more rational reply?
Singles vs doubles.
You still serve, you hit ROServes, you hit at least one groundie on points played towards you, and you have to hit passing shots.
Now, why would anyone want a different racket from the one he's used to playing singles?

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

Just **** off from this thread. Totally clueless attention hungry old loser.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

I'd have thought that quickness is part of the manoevrability and will most likely show in the racket twistweight being lower.

Beam thickness and flex are not strictly related. The St. Vincent PS 85 was very thin but relatively stiff. Same with Fed's 90 back in the day. Both have a lowish twistweight.

im not equating stiffness and beam width. i merely stated i liked the ultra maneuverability of the thin beam blue 99... mostly because i get a lot of reaction volleys. in college i was a doubles specialist but i dont like the idea of having a separate doubles stick. Some do though.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

im not equating stiffness and beam width. i merely stated i liked the ultra maneuverability of the thin beam blue 99... mostly because i get a lot of reaction volleys. in college i was a doubles specialist but i dont like the idea of having a separate doubles stick. Some do though.

So in that case you are not really arguing against my 4th conclusion, which is about frame stiffness?

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

So in that case you are not really arguing against my 4th conclusion, which is about frame stiffness?

right but I also think it's not a rule that holds for everybody. some people volley much better with the more flexible frame than they do a stiffer one.

For some people it's the opposite. That depends on the type of technique that you were taught in many ways. I was taught a very old school way so I'm used to punching the ball so that it has some or stick on it. whereas some people who are used to stiffer racquets when they first started playing often times don't get the same punch on the ball if they don't have that stiffness.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

right but I also think it's not a rule that holds for everybody. some people volley much better with the more flexible frame than they do a stiffer one.

For some people it's the opposite. That depends on the type of technique that you were taught in many ways. I was taught a very old school way so I'm used to punching the ball so that it has some or stick on it. whereas some people who are used to stiffer racquets when they first started playing often times don't get the same punch on the ball if they don't have that stiffness.

Yeah that makes sense. It is easier to use the incoming pace to your volleys with a stiffer racket, which is my point. Somewhat similar to the high swingweight, but stiffness has other benefits too, namely better directional control on the compact strokes you play a lot in doubles.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Yeah that makes sense. It is easier to use the incoming pace to your volleys with a stiffer racket, which is my point. Somewhat similar to the high swingweight, but stiffness has other benefits too, namely better directional control on the compact strokes you play a lot in doubles.

depends, im often trying to absorb and bleed off pace on volleys and greater dwell time lets you do cool directional things... it all depends how you play. I have a lot of finesse at the net. Many of the flexy frames have enhanced dwell time.

 

[LeeD]

Yet, NONE of you use a different racket solely for doubles, and another just for singles.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

Yet, NONE of you use a different racket solely for doubles, and another just for singles.

I have them weighted differently. For singles I use lead tape at 3 and 9 too, more on clay, less on fast courts. Balance is less headlight as well.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

depends, im often trying to absorb and bleed off pace on volleys and greater dwell time lets you do cool directional things... it all depends how you play. I have a lot of finesse at the net. Many of the flexy frames have enhanced dwell time.

I agree with that. A couple of guys I play with have great hands and feel around the net, brilliant drop shots and funky touches. They both play with very low powered rackets, one of them with a very flexy one too, not sure about the other. I can't play that very classy game, mine is much simpler doubles. Look for a high volley or overhead and kill it hahh.

 

[skeeter]

I've experimented quite a lot with various rackets, weightings etc and here's my conclusion:

1. A good doubles racket has a lower twistweight than a good singles racket. Manoevrability is a priority if you play traditional doubles. This means that any lead added to the hoop of most modern midplus frames is best placed at 12 o'clock. Of course there are exceptions, mostly in the WTA, who play doubles like singles, slugging from the baseline.

2. A good doubles racket has a high swingweight. This is important because of the compact nature of the strokes, I still want to have some pace when I get the chance to put away a high volley. I know some very talented doubles players who simply cannot pack any punch at the net due to lack of power in their racket, and I know to always expect the drop volley. Lower level players are tempted to swing big on their volleys for extra pace, which is a recipe for errors.

3. A good doubles racket is comfortably headlight. This is widely acknowledged. This makes the high swingweight still relatively easy to manoevre. You don't wanna go too headlight though, cos it will hurt your serve and groundstrokes. Exactly how headlight will depend on how you like to play your doubles. Obviously the way to achieve this headlight balance is by adding weight to the handle. Silicone is best.

This high swingweight and very HL balance combination is what makes good doubles rackets heavier than singles rackets, in terms of static weight. But more manoeuvrable thanks to the balance and the lower twistweight.

4. A good doubles racket is stiffer than a good singles racket. In doubles, especially at the net, I'm trying to use and deflect the incoming pace. Whereas in singles, from the baseline, I want to absorb incoming pace and generate my own, to ensure better depth control. Higher stiffness also helps with directional control on those blocked shots and little nudges around the net.

Any weight given to some who think that a good doubles stick (assuming one is in the camp that there are advantages to using different sticks for singles and doubles) should be a larger head than a singles stick (at 4.0 level)?

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

Any weight given to some who think that a good doubles stick (assuming one is in the camp that there are advantages to using different sticks for singles and doubles) should be a larger head than a singles stick (at 4.0 level)?

Generally the problem with larger rackets is the higher twistweight, and resulting manoevrability issues. Unless they're very light, in which case they'll have other problems.

It's easier to find a small sweetspot with volleys than with groundstrokes.
A good singles stick needs to have greater torsional stability than a good doubles stick.

 

[fuzz nation]

I grew up playing a lot of serve and volley tennis on grass courts, so I built a predisposition for this so-called "doubles racquet", even as a singles player. One of my personal all-time greats for doubles or serve and volley singles was the ProStaff 6.1 Classic. Stiff (maybe a 70 or 72 rating?), perhaps 10 pts. HL, and a stock weight of about 12.8 oz. strung. Punching the ball around the court with this frame was especially easy and I could volley with MUCH authority using this racquet, too.

The new direction for me came as I started building a stronger baseline game. More play on hard courts brought new priorities - getting to the net often meant rallying from the back court until I could attack a short ball. The 6.1 Classic was a strong hitter, but frustrating in terms of hitting full strokes with consistency. Tried a Volkl C10 - similar layout with a lot more flex - and the boost in baseline control was profound for me.

While the C10 was a most welcome addition at the time, I've found that some measure of stiffness in my racquet works better for doubles work. My other regular player is the Volkl O10 325g - stiffer through the hoop and also customized for more stability and extra HL balance. Usually prefer this one for doubles, even though is has a slightly lighter feel to it than the C10.

I can't recommend a different racquet for singles vs doubles for everyone by a long shot, but I've noodled around enough through the years that I've found a better fit using a certain frame for my singles and another sort for doubles.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

I'm not even trying to suggest using a different racket for singles and doubles, cos that may be hard to get used to your frames. It's more about if you play mostly doubles, then these are the kind of specs I would be looking at.