BreakPoint said:
I didn't say that pros today should be using small 14 oz. racquets, did I? Not even McEnroe uses one. The Maxply McEnroe is 11.3 oz. and 98 sq. in, and I didn't notice any lead on his racquet. What I'm saying is that because he learned to play with a wood racquet, his strokes, timing, and footwork had to be better than if he learned using a bigger, lighter, more powerful racquet, and that's why he still so good today. He can use the same strokes that have been ingrained in him, but with a modern racquet, he can now hit with even more margin of error, more precision, more accuracy, and even more power. People who learned on a big, light, powerful racquet likely never developed that level of accuracy and footwork since it wasn't necessary to get the ball over the net, and thus, they will likely lose some accuracy as they age and their arms and legs get weaker and slower.
Again, can you imagine Roddick being able to still play on the ATP tour at 47, singles or doubles? His game is dependent on power rather than precision, and he'll lose a lot of that power as he ages. Unfortunately, he never had to learn how to be very precise because he just bludgeoned people with his powerful, big-headed racquet instead.
BP, I'm not addressing this specifically to you, merely quoting your post because it's illustrative and conveniently located.
There are two distinct paths of logic at play here, and people are arguing either one or the other -- and for the most part, people on both sides are doing it logically. But people don't seem to realize that the modern game, combined with the realities of human physiology, require one to see TWO paths of logic with respect to both racquets and swing mechanics.
YES, it's true that the modern game -- especially played at its most competitive -- is a game of violent, full-body swings, and is probably most effectively played with "tweeners" (or at least, non-players frames, in the traditional sense). The evidence for this is that virtually all the best players in the world (and at each level along the way) play that violent game, and play it with non-players' racquets.
And YES, it's true that the "traditional", fundamental game is friendlier to the human body, lends itself to a lifetime of enjoyment, and is probably best learned and played with a players stick.
Those things DON'T contradict each other. What they suggest is that one has to make a choice, and the earlier in one's development one does so, the better off he will be.
If one wishes to compete at the highest levels -- if one wants to be able to compete as a junior with the best, biggest-hitting juniors...if one wants to be able to compete at the collegiate level...and of course, if one has legitimate professional aspirations -- the odds say he should learn to use a more powerful, more modern racquet, and he should learn to use it in the modern power-game sense. It is NOT the only way to play, but the odds are WAY stacked against you if you make any other choice. Few people cut in competitive tennis to begin with, and of those that do, WAY over 90% are cutting it this way. One has to be an exceptional talent to do otherwise. In addition, the "traditional" game takes longer to master, and chances you'll fall too far behind your power-bashing peers and fall out of the game entirely are excellent.
On the other hand, if one wishes to cultivate a lifetime of enjoyment recreationally, a more body-friendly game and racquet are probably well-advised. As you learn your wooden-era, weight-transfer fundamentals, you'll probably not be as well-developed (gamewise) as the best big bangers. You'll probably wind up with an empty tropy case as you go along...BUT...you'll have a game that translates itself well into middle age, and older age...and also one that lends itself to doubles tennis (which is where so much recreational tennis is played, anyway).
History is seeming to show that if you want to be competitive at the HIGHEST levels in today's game, yet you still want to play an older-style, players racquet, fundamental game, you need to have unbelievable amounts of talent. McEnroe, Federer, Sampras. These guys aren't called tennis legends for nothing. They have talent nobody on these boards ever will.
For most of the rest, it's a choice.
I don't think those who vocally advocate the use of heavy, flexible, fundamentally-friendly players frames are doing a disservice to anybody. Those racquets probably AREN'T the best choice for those looking to burn their candle brightly but quickly. But then, the odds say that anybody asking the question here in the first place is probably going to be a lot better served by cultivating the style of game that will reward them throughout their lives. By advocating that style of play, and that style of racquet to everyone who asks, the advocator is doing a long-run favor to at least 99% of people who ask.
But then, I also don't think those who rail against players frames in favor of the modern game and modern racquets are off their rockers, either. It's human nature to want to be a competitive as possible, as quickly as possible. and for those whose goal THIS is, they are probably well-advised to take this path.
It's all a matter of what your goals are. (Though I'd say many more people would be better off if they worried about what their goals SHOULD BE, instead.)
