Racquet Snobs, O/S Racquets, and this Board

[ohplease]

a 1 oz difference isnt significant or very significant... its negligible! BreakPoint is very wrong in his analysis.

No kidding.

From the USRSA website:

(http://www.racquettech.com/members/tools/recoil_weight.html), "Recoil weight is the racquet's resistance to movement around its axis through its balance point (center of mass). This creates stability against the ball pushing your hand, wrist, and arm backward during a hit. In other words, it minimizes shock."

(http://www.racquettech.com/members/tools/hitting_weight.html): "Hitting weight is also known as effective mass and is the amount of the racquet's mass actually involved in the impact at any given location along the axis from butt to tip. If the ball hits at the balance point (or center of gravity or mass), the racquet behaves as its full mass. Anywhere else, it behaves as if it were lighter than the actual mass. At the tip, the hitting weight is generally about one quarter the actual mass. At the center of strings it is about half. The hitting mass is important because the power of the racquet at any given impact point depends on the hitting mass at that point. More mass means more power."

Again, balance and weight distribution ABSOLUTELY matter in how much shock or momentum you impart on the ball. How much? Let's look at an "11 oz" frame and a "12 oz" frame.

Recoil Weight LM Rad MP = 156.5
Recoil Weight nSixOne 95 = 175.7

Hitting Mass LM Rad MP = 164.8
Hitting Mass nSixOne 95 = 161.7

In this case, the 11 oz frame actually puts a little bit MORE mass on the ball than the 12 oz frame. That's weight distribution at work. You pay for that magic trick with less resistance to shock, but if the balance was shifted, the numbers would shift. Period. You can add 50 grams of lead on your frame. How much of that will actually contribute to the ball at contact depends on where you put it, right? Why doesn't that same reasoning apply in this case?

You'll have to ask the breakpoint. He's the one who passed high school physics.

It gets better:

TW power rating in LM Rad MP review = 72
TW power rating in nSixOne 95 review = 72

Maybe they don't know what they're talking about?

Just for information's sake, rackets traditionally considered big timber, with well deserved reputations for bludgeoning the ball (Yonex RD-7, Volkl C10 PT) have hitting masses ~180. Two ounces more static weight gets you maybe another 0.5 ounces in hitting weight.

 

[BreakPoint]

Again, balance and weight distribution ABSOLUTELY matter in how much shock or momentum you impart on the ball.

"Shock OR momentum"? What does shock have to do with momentum? When would you ever want to impart "shock" to the ball? I think you somehow have the two concepts confused. Shock does not equal momentum. Momentum is mass x velocity. Shock is a force that impacts a certain mass over a specific, usually short, period of time.

BTW, I'm certainly not arguing that more mass gives you more stability, more power, and more momentum (assuming same racquet head velocity). However, you seem to be arguing that less mass absorbs as much shock and vibration as more mass, which is just not true.

(BTW, FYI, I used to be a shock and vibration engineer for a very large manufacturing company.)

 

[ohplease]

(BTW, FYI, I used to be a shock and vibration engineer for a very large manufacturing company.)

I can see why you moved on to other things. You're really bad at this.

Let's speak more precisely: how much shock you receive or momentum you impart. Happy now?

And if we're going to speak imprecisely:

A 1 oz. difference in weight for a tennis racquet is very significant. If you play with a 11 oz. racquet and a 12 oz. racquet side-by-side, you should notice a significant difference in stability, control, shock and vibration, and sometimes even power.

BTW, I'm certainly not arguing that more mass gives you more stability, more power, and more momentum (assuming same racquet head velocity). However, you seem to be arguing that less mass absorbs as much shock and vibration as more mass, which is just not true.

 

[BreakPoint]

Let's speak more precisely: how much shock you receive or momentum you impart. Happy now?

I give up. I seem to be arguing with someone with zero knowledge of physics.

What does the shock you receive have anything to do with the momentum that you impart? Shock is a force, momentum is not a force. Did you know that F = ma, but that M = mv? You can have a lot of shock with no momentum, and vise versa, you can have a lot of momentum with no shock.

 

[Grimjack]

Everybody should play with the POG.

 

[rocket]

Everybody should play with the POG.

I agree with you, just because I regularly play with those myself (I'm so biased!!!)

 

[rocket]

I think we shouldn't forget about how we play tennis, when it comes to balance, weight & hitting area of a racquet. A top-spinner might need a lighter, bigger surface racquet as he/she presents more of a severe angle of the stringbed to the ball while whipping it up & through, whereas a flatter hitter presents a more open angle of the stringbed & "drives" the racquet right through the ball, thus needing less hitting area but more mass & control. That's probably why a 90 sq.in racquet has a denser string pattern & is heavier than a 98 + sq.in racquet with a more open string pattern, both from the same model.

Some ppl go for a bigger, lighter racquet because they're not as fast in their footwork as they used to be (e.g. seniors), or simply because they play at such a fast pace that they have to rely on their split-second reactions. Not all racquets are the same (though we can make do with any racquet) so the trick is to find one that suits our style of play & helps yield good results.

Tennis is my religion, is it yours?

 

[Kaptain Karl]

Everybody should play with the POG.

Ugh!!! (I've never liked any Prince racket's feel ... ever!) I'll take up [Gasp!!!] golf...!

- KK

 

[NoBadMojo]

I think we shouldn't forget about how we play tennis, when it comes to balance, weight & hitting area of a racquet. A top-spinner might need a lighter, bigger surface racquet as he/she presents more of a severe angle of the stringbed to the ball while whipping it up & through, whereas a flatter hitter presents a more open angle of the stringbed & "drives" the racquet right through the ball, thus needing less hitting area but more mass & control. That's probably why a 90 sq.in racquet has a denser string pattern & is heavier than a 98 + sq.in racquet with a more open string pattern, both from the same model.

Some ppl go for a bigger, lighter racquet because they're not as fast in their footwork as they used to be (e.g. seniors), or simply because they play at such a fast pace that they have to rely on their split-second reactions. Not all racquets are the same (though we can make do with any racquet) so the trick is to find one that suits our style of play & helps yield good results.

Tennis is my religion, is it yours?

Welcome..always good to have a new member of the Forum who understands tennis. great post..very accurate. clear you understand tennis.

Even expanding this to the pro level, it applies..take Nadal..here is a guy who breaks his strings much closer to the frame than to the center of the stringbed..he needs every bit of his 100headsize and he's a pro...he plays the modern spinny game

In general terms, the modern game is about power and fitness. With the power, you need spin for control unless you are so talented you can hit it hard and flat which the pros cant even do anymore (saying davenport hits it flat is wrong...she hits with much spin..it's only her ball flight which is flatter). To get the spin you need racquethead speed and that calls for lighter weights.....the balls are flying so fast out there these days you also need lighter to do the racquetwork on time. I realize there is the occassional exception like Fed...but he is better than anyone else in the world by a margin...but even Fed produces lots of misshits with his small headed frame, especially on the FH side.

There is a degree of reverseness here with the demanding midsized players frame crowd I think...when people are playing say 3.5 tennis, using a so called 'players frame' and playing other 3.5's using similar gear or having a hit with their aunt mary, there is generally much more time to setup for the shots and to get a flush hit, so you can get away with something demanding. also if they play other 3.5's who hit it very hard, as 3.5's they also make hundreds of UE's so just getting a couple balls in play can do the trick. play someone who can hit it hard and with control and get you out of position (a better player) and most people would say (unless they are a 5.0 or above) that they shouldnt be using small headed heavy frames. that's why TW and manufacturers and people like me suggest demanding frames be for better players...
I realize there are always exceptions when speaking in general terms. Please..no references to what people used 20 years ago...that was then and this is now

 

[vin]

rocket, Mojo ... I agree whole heartedly! What you say I have proven to myself the hard way.

 

[Pancho]

texcoug,
A 1 oz. difference in weight for a tennis racquet is very significant. If you play with a 11 oz. racquet and a 12 oz. racquet side-by-side, you should notice a significant difference in stability, control, shock and vibration, and sometimes even power.

In fact, many people notice the increase in stability from even a 0.1 oz. difference when they add lead tape to a racquet.

Yes, I agree with that.

I can't believe you all here think O3 Tour are light enough to be used by total beginners. Total beginners cannot even handle anything of that weight at all. That is why we have lighter racquets. You all are giving the wrong information saying that O3 Tour should be used by total beginners - such snobs! Ok, if that is so why don't you all recommend toital beginners to use POG, Wilson Prostaff 6.0 (the one that Sampras uses), Wilson nCode Six-One Tour (The one that Federer uses), Yonex RDS 001 (one that Hewiit uses), Yonex RDX 500? Such nonsense!

You all are sending the wrong message to beginners. Any total beginners reading here such seek advice from thier pros no some snob here saying they should use a POG or O3 Tour.

 

[Pancho]

Everybody should play with the POG.

Wrong message... Not for total beginners.

 

[Pancho]

Wow. Do I want to be remembered as the one who started this thread?
Also, based on your analysis, at what point would it support use of a 13 oz frame? 14 oz? 15?

Hehehe... Yes, you have started a wildfire. The truth really hurts - there are way too many racquet snobs out there in this forum, that they can't stand it anymore. I want to really comment you to have the guts to say out loud and to start the tread that there are such racquet snobs who think they know everything.

It is totally up to your skills which stick you wish to use. If you can handle a heavy stick and have the strokes to prove it - go for it! Everyone should use a stick that will work for them. Demo them first and make an informed decision with your pro/coach.

I have seen less skilled players (3.0 and 3.5) try players use heavier sticks like POG or Wilson Prostaff (the one that Sampras uses) and they can't handle the stick - they can't generate their own power and do not have good strokes. Improve your skills first! You can have the best heaviest stick but can't hit to save your life - don't just go for what the pros use or what snobs here use in this forum.

Besides, if you think it's a good stick. It will be a horrible one to another person - not everyone will ever agree with you. What counts is that it works for you.

Any total beginners out there? Don't just blindly go for a POG just because somone here says it's good .... demo it first and try it out for yourself.

 

[Ace&Gary]

Ugh!!! (I've never liked any Prince racket's feel ... ever!) I'll take up [Gasp!!!] golf...!

- KK

Ace: I think Prince makes golf sticks too!

Gary: Are you my kind of kaptain?
__________________
Ace: Prince O3 Pink, 5 Star Big Banger@69
Gary: Prince POG OS, Prince SGD 16@58

 

[BreakPoint]

Yes, I agree with that.

I can't believe you all here think O3 Tour are light enough to be used by total beginners. Total beginners cannot even handle anything of that weight at all. That is why we have lighter racquets. You all are giving the wrong information saying that O3 Tour should be used by total beginners - such snobs! Ok, if that is so why don't you all recommend toital beginners to use POG, Wilson Prostaff 6.0 (the one that Sampras uses), Wilson nCode Six-One Tour (The one that Federer uses), Yonex RDS 001 (one that Hewiit uses), Yonex RDX 500? Such nonsense!

You all are sending the wrong message to beginners. Any total beginners reading here such seek advice from thier pros no some snob here saying they should use a POG or O3 Tour.

The PS 6.0 85 and the nSix-One Tour are heavy and have small heads so I would not recommend them for beginners. The RDX 500 Mid is low powered and actually swings heavier than it weight and has a small head so I would also not recommend that one for beginners. The POG OS may be a possibility since it has a big head but some beginners may find it a bit tough to get around. I've never tried the RDS 001.

The O3 Tour MP, however, swings very light and has a big head so I would think many beginners should be able to handle that one.

BTW, how long have you been playing tennis? Is it less than 30 years?

 

[Pancho]

The O3 Tour MP, however, swings very light and has a big head so I would think many beginners should be able to handle that one.

This is total nonsense and wrong information. Have you seen total beginners trying to hit with that stick? I have - total beginners cannot handle such a stick and get so discouraged. O3 Tour is not for beginners at all. I hope no beginner here is seeing this. Beginners should try lighter racquets they can handle.

Any POG is not for total beginners at all. I can't believe the horrible recommendations people here are providing beginners. You will scare them away from tennis and doing them a disservice!

I have been playing for over 40 years and played men's league tennis for over 15 years. I have played with players of all levels.

Congrats to the person who started this fiery thread!!!!!!!!

 

[NoBadMojo]

I am glad for fresh blood posters like Texcoug and Pancho..they speak the truth and maybe their posts will help balance out those who offer up really horrible advice around here. Some of the really bad info is being doled out by people who are prolific posters though..maybe they think they win because they outpost the knowledable posters who just become bored with accurately discounting what they post and who dont have to have the last word even though they are right

 

[rocket]

Welcome..always good to have a new member of the Forum who understands tennis.

Thanks Mojo, good to be here & throw in my 2 cents every now & then.

 

[rocket]

rocket, Mojo ... I agree whole heartedly! What you say I have proven to myself the hard way.

Dude, congrats, you have found the type of racquet that works for you!

 

[rocket]

O3 Tour is not for beginners at all. I hope no beginner here is seeing this. Beginners should try lighter racquets they can handle.

My tennis novice bro-in-law loved to swing my PS 6.0 95, had no problem with its weight, but of course, had no technique to speak of. He just wacked at any balls coming his way, and some of them actually landed in.

But when I handed him my POG mid, the enjoyment stopped there. He was practically late on every shot, so he gave it back to me after a couple of min.

 

[Midlife crisis]

I've even had a revelation in the last week. When I restarted tennis after a 15+ year layoff, I did so with a granny stick. Over a period of about eight months, I gradually continued to weigh the racquet until it was 376 grams for its 28" length. The swingweight was probably closer to 400 than 350. It felt really, really good. I've been getting back a lot of the consistency, timing, footwork, and specialized fitness necessary for tennis and so have been playing more at the 5.0 level. In other threads, I've asked small-headed racquet proponents how often they mis-hit, because I said I did probably once every other rally, and really shanked one every couple of games, despite the 115 sq. in. headsize. It's because I'm now playing a "modern" game, compared to the more conventional game I played back in college with my Wilson Ultra II mid.

TW asked me to playtest a few racquets, and these have all been around 11 ounces. I used these in competition and, while I was unimpressed with the low weight of all of them, I realized I mis-hit quite a bit less.

I removed 21 grams from my primary racquet, about an equal amount from the hoop and the handle, resulting in a new weight of 355 grams. Playing with it last night, I mis-hit less and am able to generate more topspin during an extreme swing because I can physically swing it faster. I might have a bit more pop on the serve, and it definitely looks as if it has more movement. During play, I notice I struggle less to get the racquet into the contact zone when I'm rushed and twisted around, which is much more common as I play higher level players.

So, even at 6' and 200 pounds, and having weight lifted weights heavily for the past 25 years, a 13+ ounce racquet was too heavy for my style of play. Just another piece of anecdotal evidence, and I'll continue to use the racquet at its 12 1/2 ounce weight to see if there are any downsizes. So far, there don't appear to be, other than that it feels pretty light, and lighter than I would prefer.

 

[BreakPoint]

This is total nonsense and wrong information. Have you seen total beginners trying to hit with that stick? I have - total beginners cannot handle such a stick and get so discouraged. O3 Tour is not for beginners at all. I hope no beginner here is seeing this. Beginners should try lighter racquets they can handle.

If a grown man can't even swing a O3 Tour MP, then perhaps tennis is not his thing and should look for another sport to try, perhaps soccer or curling?

Tens of millions of people have learned to play tennis with racquets significantly harder to swing than an O3 Tour MP. Did people just all of a sudden become weaker and more spastic? Are these beginners hitting with ATP pros?

BTW, just because you saw an unathletic, uncoordinated weakling unable to use a O3 Tour MP does not mean that ALL beginners cannot use one.

 

[heycal]

I've even had a revelation in the last week. When I restarted tennis after a 15+ year layoff, I did so with a granny stick. Over a period of about eight months, I gradually continued to weigh the racquet until it was 376 grams for its 28" length. The swingweight was probably closer to 400 than 350. It felt really, really good. I've been getting back a lot of the consistency, timing, footwork, and specialized fitness necessary for tennis and so have been playing more at the 5.0 level. In other threads, I've asked small-headed racquet proponents how often they mis-hit, because I said I did probably once every other rally, and really shanked one every couple of games, despite the 115 sq. in. headsize.

You're a 5.0 who uses a 115 sq. in headsize? And one that just recently weighed like 13 ounces to boot? Is it me, or is this combination kind of wacky?

 

[Kaptain Karl]

You're a 5.0 who uses a 115 sq. in headsize? And one that just recently weighed like 13 ounces to boot? Is it me, or is this combination kind of wacky?

Nope. Not if you're following the "use what works; don't be a sheep" approach.

- KK

 

[Grimjack]

If a grown man can't even swing a O3 Tour MP, then perhaps tennis is not his thing and should look for another sport to try, perhaps soccer or curling?

Tens of millions of people have learned to play tennis with racquets significantly harder to swing than an O3 Tour MP. Did people just all of a sudden become weaker and more spastic? Are these beginners hitting with ATP pros?

BTW, just because you saw an unathletic, uncoordinated weakling unable to use a O3 Tour MP does not mean that ALL beginners cannot use one.

This is of course, accurate, and Pancho misunderstands what exactly it is about "beginners" frames that make them beginners' frames. It has nothing to do with weight, as the difference between a granny stick and Ivan Lendl's old bat is small enough that it wouldn't render an infant incapable of hefting it.

What a beginner's racquet is designed to do, and what a player's racquet absolutely ISN'T, is to bunt the ball in a general direction, and have the resulting flight of the ball go more or less in that direction, with a little bit of pace.

That's a beginner's trait, because that's about the only style of play that will allow a true beginner to get the ball in play in a reasonable fashion. Point and shoot, no fundamental mechanical understanding necessary. When a ball, even a fairly fast one comes at you, you can sort of hold the racquet out and direct the rebound where you hope it'll go. Try that with an 03 Tour, and you've got a lot of balls wangling off the court and into the fence, or dribbling into the net.

"Ultra Light Weight" is a marketing gimmick, nothing more. Beginner's frames weren't super light as recently as the Wilson Profile era. Heavy, stiff, powerful frames are actually far better suited to the "bunt and hope" game, which basically requires the racquet to do its best impression of a wall. But Head started the whole titanium thing, and on a whim, screamed, LIGHTER AND MORE POWERFUL!!! REVOLUTIONARY!!! And the suckers of the world bought in, because they had no idea about physics. They're still buying in today.

So anyway, nobody who refuses to acknowledge the idea that a POG (or other players frame) might be too heavy for a beginner is suffering from any lack of knowledge. In fact suggesting that lightness is an important factor (or a desirable trait) at all at that level showcases a certain ignorance of both marketing history and physical laws.

That said, there are plenty of good reasons to advise CERTAIN raw beginners away from a players frame, and plenty of good reasons for more advanced players to choose relatively lighter (or heavier) or relatively stiffer (or more flexible) or relatively bigger (or smaller) frames. Once you are adept enough to understand your own game, your reasons for choosing a particular frame composition can be a little more rational and important.

Despite all that, though, I still say everybody should just shut up and use the POG.

 

[NoBadMojo]

If a grown man can't even swing a O3 Tour MP, then perhaps tennis is not his thing and should look for another sport to try, perhaps soccer or curling?

Tens of millions of people have learned to play tennis with racquets significantly harder to swing than an O3 Tour MP. Did people just all of a sudden become weaker and more spastic? Are these beginners hitting with ATP pros?

BTW, just because you saw an unathletic, uncoordinated weakling unable to use a O3 Tour MP does not mean that ALL beginners cannot use one.

Breakpoint <and others> dont seem to understand that the ability to swing a racquet fast doesnt come from body mass..it comes from technique mostly.
I've taught former Div1 football players (lineman) who couldnt swing an 11oz frame fast enough to do much at all and 120Pound ranked kids who can smoke the ball with the same 11oz frame.

 

[Mulligan]

That said, there are plenty of good reasons to advise CERTAIN raw beginners away from a players frame, and plenty of good reasons for more advanced players to choose relatively lighter (or heavier) or relatively stiffer (or more flexible) or relatively bigger (or smaller) frames. Once you are adept enough to understand your own game, your reasons for choosing a particular frame composition can be a little more rational and important.

That makes too much sense! You must be one of those lunatic "tennis snobs"

It blows my mind on this board when alleged pros and some players deal in absolutes. No mids, no heavy racquets for 3.5's, you need light/stiff for the all new "modern game", etc. I think a little common sense is in order. Nice post.

 

[Rory G]

Well stated Grimjack. The bottom line is that a player's best racquet is a factor of his playing style, health, and goals. I have chosen, after many years of fiddlin', a spec that works best for me. A flexible, open string pattern, mid 11oz, 100' head frame. One older friend of mine uses an old Michael Chang longbody and just spanks the ball, another older friend uses some old Prince widebody. Each works for them. My nephew, an intermediate, just loves his HM200g (flat ball, good strength, good hand/eye coordination). This tennis snob c**p is a waste of energy.

 

[BreakPoint]

Breakpoint <and others> dont seem to understand that the ability to swing a racquet fast doesnt come from body mass..it comes from technique mostly.
I've taught former Div1 football players (lineman) who couldnt swing an 11oz frame fast enough to do much at all and 120Pound ranked kids who can smoke the ball with the same 11oz frame.

I agree. It's about technique. Pancho never said how big these beginners were. But if a former Div I football player can't swing an 11 oz. racquet fast enough, do you think that a racquet that's just an ounce lighter is going to make a big difference to him? It's his lack of technique and NOT his lack of strength, right? So a 12 oz. or a 10 oz. racquet would all be pretty much the same to this strong guy, right? If so, I think he's better off with the 12 oz. racquet since at least when he does make contact, they'll be some weight behind his shot.

 

[chess9]

This is of course, accurate, and Pancho misunderstands what exactly it is about "beginners" frames that make them beginners' frames. It has nothing to do with weight, as the difference between a granny stick and Ivan Lendl's old bat is small enough that it wouldn't render an infant incapable of hefting it.

What a beginner's racquet is designed to do, and what a player's racquet absolutely ISN'T, is to bunt the ball in a general direction, and have the resulting flight of the ball go more or less in that direction, with a little bit of pace.

That's a beginner's trait, because that's about the only style of play that will allow a true beginner to get the ball in play in a reasonable fashion. Point and shoot, no fundamental mechanical understanding necessary. When a ball, even a fairly fast one comes at you, you can sort of hold the racquet out and direct the rebound where you hope it'll go. Try that with an 03 Tour, and you've got a lot of balls wangling off the court and into the fence, or dribbling into the net.

"Ultra Light Weight" is a marketing gimmick, nothing more. Beginner's frames weren't super light as recently as the Wilson Profile era. Heavy, stiff, powerful frames are actually far better suited to the "bunt and hope" game, which basically requires the racquet to do its best impression of a wall. But Head started the whole titanium thing, and on a whim, screamed, LIGHTER AND MORE POWERFUL!!! REVOLUTIONARY!!! And the suckers of the world bought in, because they had no idea about physics. They're still buying in today.

So anyway, nobody who refuses to acknowledge the idea that a POG (or other players frame) might be too heavy for a beginner is suffering from any lack of knowledge. In fact suggesting that lightness is an important factor (or a desirable trait) at all at that level showcases a certain ignorance of both marketing history and physical laws.

That said, there are plenty of good reasons to advise CERTAIN raw beginners away from a players frame, and plenty of good reasons for more advanced players to choose relatively lighter (or heavier) or relatively stiffer (or more flexible) or relatively bigger (or smaller) frames. Once you are adept enough to understand your own game, your reasons for choosing a particular frame composition can be a little more rational and important.

Despite all that, though, I still say everybody should just shut up and use the POG.

Amen. Wonderful analysis.

-Robert
________
Cheap max speed 177 pellets 250ct

 

[BreakPoint]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I'm beginning to realize that perhaps it's more about expectations. 30 years ago, beginners were satisfied from trying to hit the ball somewhat like the pros they saw on TV at the time. Pros like McEnroe, Connors, Laver, Borg, Vilas, Newcomb, Smith, Ashe, Gerulaitis, Nastase, etc. They could hit the ball with a bit of pace with their wood racquets, and feel somewhat close to what they saw the pros doing.

Today, however, beginners see guys like Roddick, Gonzales, Agassi, Blake, Safin, Federer, etc. on TV and then they go out and expect to be able to cream the ball just like what they saw the pros doing. Of course, this is almost impossible for them to do with a small, heavy, low-powered player's racquet so they feel they have to use a big, light, powerful racquet so that they can kill every ball and feel like they're a pro. They're not as interested in starting off slow and using a smaller racquet to groove their strokes and improving their footwork and precision by using a more demanding racquet. They want instant gratification (what else is new?), so they want to look and hit like a pro ASAP. So they get the big powerful bad boy racquet and start wacking the ball without ever learning the proper techniques nor fundamentals.

Thus, I feel it's today's pros and their styles that are doing a disservice to the beginners trying to pick up the sport. Let's face it, few of us will ever be able to hit the ball like Roddick or Federer no matter how much we practice or how many lessons we take. It's just setting unrealistic expectations for these beginners so they end up taking shortcuts by buying more powerful racquets instead of being patient and slowly learning the proper techniques and fundamentals. Fundamentals that will last them a lifetime even when their legs, arms, and shoulders become weaker and allow them to play great tennis even into their senior years.

Perhaps it's the beginners' inability to hit just like the pros (although they try with the big racquets) that's keeping more beginners from picking up the game and why tennis has been losing popularity (at least in the U.S.) over the past 25 years?

 

[moist]

I have a friend who teaches golf. He says the hardest thing is that it's impossible to communicate the actual feeling of a proper swing. He can tell them what to do over and over, and things will look ok, but until it clicks there's not much else he can do.

In my case with tennis, my pro said everything was pretty good, but there were some things wrong with my forehand(this was with an o3 tour mp). For kicks I tried an n61 95. Right away I had more trouble hitting consistently. However, when I swung and hit right, it really clicked how the swing was supposed to feel. I just wasn't getting that feedback before. My forehand is now twice the weapon it was a couple of months ago.

With that said, I'm not saying heavier racquets can help everyone, or even more than a small percentage. People learn in different ways. I just know it helped me.

 

[fishuuuuu]

Nope. Not if you're following the "use what works; don't be a sheep" approach.

- KK

I like this one.

 

[Micky]

Hola moist:

Same with me. Only diff is that I bought the Tour Diablo.

Micky

 

[Midlife crisis]

You're a 5.0 who uses a 115 sq. in headsize? And one that just recently weighed like 13 ounces to boot? Is it me, or is this combination kind of wacky?

Nothing wacky about it. As KK says, it works for me. Strung up with poly at a fairly high tension, it's not a trampoline. I can hit serves into the low 120's, groundstrokes at 90+, yet the firmness of the racquet and strings gives me really good touch and I can hit a drop volley as well as I've seen at my level of play. It makes up for the fact that in my middle 40's, I'm not as flexible as I used to be, don't move as fast as I used to be able to, yet still gives me the ability to pound away like I always have, and now do so with levels of topspin that I never had in my previous life.

I've played with "player's racquets", and actually have a POG from the early 80's myself. I just prefer a really firm feel, especially in the upper half of the stringbed, and nothing gives me that outside of a super-stiff granny stick.

 

[heycal]

Nothing wacky about it. As KK says, it works for me. Strung up with poly at a fairly high tension, it's not a trampoline. I can hit serves into the low 120's, groundstrokes at 90+, yet the firmness of the racquet and strings gives me really good touch and I can hit a drop volley as well as I've seen at my level of play. It makes up for the fact that in my middle 40's, I'm not as flexible as I used to be, don't move as fast as I used to be able to, yet still gives me the ability to pound away like I always have, and now do so with levels of topspin that I never had in my previous life.

I've played with "player's racquets", and actually have a POG from the early 80's myself. I just prefer a really firm feel, especially in the upper half of the stringbed, and nothing gives me that outside of a super-stiff granny stick.

I'm not criticizing it at all, but I still say it's a wacky combination! What's next, someone posting that they use a 6 oz. racket with a 70" inch head?

 

[Midlife crisis]

Perhaps it's the beginners' inability to hit just like the pros (although they try with the big racquets) that's keeping more beginners from picking up the game and why tennis has been losing popularity (at least in the U.S.) over the past 25 years?

Tennis one sport where relatively few of the participating public ever see it performed at its highest level, and there's no other real way to compare one's self to a pro. With golf, you know Tiger can smack a drive 300 yards, and hit a 9-iron from 160 yards out, and on a golf course it's not difficult to see how much difference there between our level and his. However, you look at tennis and see how people drastically overestimate their serve speed, NTRP levels, and other abilities and there's just a disconnect with reality that is further reinforced by the illusion of television and how it foreshortens the court and slows down the ball. If anything, tennis alows people to think they perform more closely at a pro level than many/most other sports. Just witness that long thread with "TT Warrior" who thinks he'd only lose 2 and 2 to Agassi yet can't handle a 30 MPH serve.

Tennis is a very physically demanding sport, and the aging of the population and general decline in fitness makes it more and more difficult to get to and continue to play it at a high level. Tennis doesn't imply upper class like it used to. Being sweaty isn't as glamorized as it used to be, and so participation declines.

 

[Midlife crisis]

I'm not criticizing it at all, but I still say it's a wacky combination! What's next, someone posting that they use a 6 oz. racket with a 70" inch head?

I didn't take it as a criticism - I just tried to explain how I got there and why it works for me. Honestly, I see many players who have a similar style and I wonder why they don't use what I use. I guess I feel like I have one up on them!

By the way, another wacky fact is that I use a 4 7/8 grip. I got there by taking a 4 1/2 grip, putting on a full-size heat shrink wrap, then placing Babolat lead tape on the four main bezels (two thicknesses on the sides), then using another piece of heat shrink wrap just to cover the butt cap. I wrapped the handle part with a single layer of professional grade electrical tape, and then put a regular grip on top. It's a Frankenstein conglomeration of necessity.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

By the way, another wacky fact is that I use a 4 7/8 grip. ... It's a Frankenstein conglomeration of necessity.

Wow! And nice turn of phrase, there....

- KK

 

[AngeloDS]

Even with heavy racquets I see a lot of people still try to beat the hell out of the tennis ball and their muscles and body isn't built to handle such. It's not isolated with just light and medium racquets. I'd say it's like someone trying to lift more than they can and pull a groin haha.

Although on fundamentals. Not sure what new coaches are teaching but I had old coaches who played college level tennis, futures & satelites and such and still do. My college coach right now is in his late 30s and uses the same POG from the 80s he got. I'm going to be an assistant coach coming up for girls tennis season, and have managed the girls tennis season previously. I teach how I was taught except try to put it into laymans terms in how I do things.

My JV and V were in their 40s or 50s haha not sure but they had gray hair.

JV Coach - Footwork and Serve & Volley
V Coach - Power and Variety
College Coach - Consistency and Volley

To be honest I never watched tennis before I played tennis. What I learned from tennis (history wise) was from my JV Coach who liked Australian players and old school tennis. Lots of good old talks and old videos he'd share with me.

When I first started tennis I never had any power even from a Head Si7 I think it was? Pretty huge frame and one of the lightest frames out there. I had a two handed forehand, and a one handed slice backhand. I couldn't play baseline simply because I didn't have what it took. Offensive volleys and taking balls in the court. I never watched tennis didn't even know how to do anything.

I started out tennis with a light racquet and gradually moved up to what I have now. I've used all types of racquets and the difference maker for me is not the weight, or whatever. It's the head shape, that's my thing.

Weight I can get used to after 2-3 points with the racquet and then it feels normal to me. Head shape is a different story. I use my whole racquet bed for a variety of shots. Tip of the racquet for slices, middle for consistency and power, and such.

I demo various racquets before the girls season to test out. I use my left arm since it's more on their level. Since I can't serve, hit or do anything with my left arm. See how it works out. And then recommend some good racquets for beginners.

Although, I still can beat all the girls and all the guys on Varsity with a wooden racquet from the baseline with no volleying . Wood racquets pack a lot of power as much as my Babolat. My Jack Kramer wood racquet, I love it but the grip is so harsh on my hands.

Playing college level tennis now. I still see a lot of people using all types of racquets and such. The real difference I see mostly is in how people string their racquets :s. I've even gone with a hybrid setup. I string rather low with my Babolat, 50-52 lbs. While my college teammates string up in the 60s and near 70s.

 

[BreakPoint]

Tennis one sport where relatively few of the participating public ever see it performed at its highest level, and there's no other real way to compare one's self to a pro. With golf, you know Tiger can smack a drive 300 yards, and hit a 9-iron from 160 yards out, and on a golf course it's not difficult to see how much difference there between our level and his. However, you look at tennis and see how people drastically overestimate their serve speed, NTRP levels, and other abilities and there's just a disconnect with reality that is further reinforced by the illusion of television and how it foreshortens the court and slows down the ball. If anything, tennis alows people to think they perform more closely at a pro level than many/most other sports. Just witness that long thread with "TT Warrior" who thinks he'd only lose 2 and 2 to Agassi yet can't handle a 30 MPH serve.

Tennis is a very physically demanding sport, and the aging of the population and general decline in fitness makes it more and more difficult to get to and continue to play it at a high level. Tennis doesn't imply upper class like it used to. Being sweaty isn't as glamorized as it used to be, and so participation declines.

That may be true, but compare what pro tennis looked like on TV 30 years ago with what pro tennis looks like on TV today and I think you'll see my point. When I watch old videos of Borg vs. McEnroe, it looks as if they're playing in slow motion, and I feel more like I can hit the ball like that, too. But when I watch Roddick vs. Federer, I know there's no way I could ever hit a 150 mph serve or a 100 mph forehand that lands inside the baseline. I know this because I've been playing for 30 years and am very knowledgable about the sport. Most beginners do not have the benefit of this experience nor knowledge so they think they can also do the same things and hit the same shots that the pros do. So they get their big, powerful racquets and try to hit the heck out of the ball without learning the fundamentals of footwork, weight transfer, etc. Once they realize that they still can't play like the pros do nor even look like them, they get frustrated and most likely quit the sport.

For example, there was a guy that was posting here a couple on months ago that thought he could actually turn pro even though he only started playing the game in his 20's, had never played in a tournament, had never even played in a competitve match where they kept score, and claimed his serve averaged over 130 mph although he never had it clocked. I mean, Gimme a Break!!!!

 

[AngeloDS]

I disagree people tend to compare themselves to what they see from their peers rather than from Television. As well as since it's not televised as much, maybe 4 times a year a lot of the kids don't watch it. Maybe catch a glimpse here and there from news or whatever. And when tennis is shown it's shown at odd-ball hours of the day.

I've managed girls and going to be an assistant coach this coming season. I can't even count the number of times where a girl says, "I wish I could hit like her/him." I am a victim of that as well. Although, I can account many times where girls ask me who my favorite tennis players are and not even know them or even know current tennis stuff.

Oddly, a lot still don't even know about Sharapova and even less know about the better players such as Hingis, Davenport and such. A lot do know about Anna and such. And on the guys side don't even know about much. I didn't care for it either until I started talking to my JV coach on the way back from games. Talking about old school tennis and even pulling up old videos to watch he recorded decades ago. I didn't even know who Roddick was when I first played a big name. A lot of the younger people I've managed/coached and such didn't even know who Roger Federer is.

I still don't really care much for Tennis on Television -- I find it boring. It's alright, but I'm more interested in the final matches to be honest or the ones that seem to get a lot of buzz. I only care if I'm there watching it from High School, College, Pros and such but on Television just don't care too much for it.

Possibly older players in their mid 20s late 30s or older. But a lot of the young kids don't really care for tennis on television and such.

 

[Midlife crisis]

That may be true, but compare what pro tennis looked like on TV 30 years ago with what pro tennis looks like on TV today and I think you'll see my point. When I watch old videos of Borg vs. McEnroe, it looks as if they're playing in slow motion, and I feel more like I can hit the ball like that, too. But when I watch Roddick vs. Federer, I know there's no way I could ever hit a 150 mph serve or a 100 mph forehand that lands inside the baseline. I know this because I've been playing for 30 years and am very knowledgable about the sport. Most beginners do not have the benefit of this experience nor knowledge so they think they can also do the same things and hit the same shots that the pros do. So they get their big, powerful racquets and try to hit the heck out of the ball without learning the fundamentals of footwork, weight transfer, etc. Once they realize that they still can't play like the pros do nor even look like them, they get frustrated and most likely quit the sport.

For example, there was a guy that was posting here a couple on months ago that thought he could actually turn pro even though he only started playing the game in his 20's, had never played in a tournament, had never even played in a competitve match where they kept score, and claimed his serve averaged over 130 mph although he never had it clocked. I mean, Gimme a Break!!!!

But this doesn't explain why golf is so popular when it is clear every time they play that they can't play like the pros. It has to be even more of a frustrating sport to play. After all, there is no real opponent, just a ball, laying there, motionless and defenseless, waiting to have the poop knocked out of it, for the one in three times that a 20 handicapper even hits the ball sweet.

I think golf has marketed itself to the upper class more successfully. With the aging population and the tougher economic climate, the average age of a dedicated player must be in the 40's or higher. To be economically successful and that age usually means a more conservative outlook, one that is not as well served as by the image tennis has gotten away from. Back in the 80's, it was perceived as a gentleman's sport, with just a touch of the bad-boy attitude from Mac, Jimmy, Ilie, and a few others. Now, it's more of an in-your-face attitude on a daily basis, with flashy outfits which most middle aged americans won't wear, and which like the NBA, doesn't seem to resonate with the demographic where the money lies. However, it is still seen as a sign of success that someone can afford to go and watch these sports (not participate in the sport though), but undoubtedly the NBA's problems aren't all that different from tennis' problems, IMO.

I think where you and I feel differently is that I think technology has helped the sport by bringing more immediate success to those who are new to the game. It at least keeps them playing recreationally for longer, and increases the chances that they will really get bitten by the tennis bug. The demographic problem is probably beyond all of us.

 

[BreakPoint]

I disagree people tend to compare themselves to what they see from their peers rather than from Television. As well as since it's not televised as much, maybe 4 times a year a lot of the kids don't watch it. Maybe catch a glimpse here and there from news or whatever. And when tennis is shown it's shown at odd-ball hours of the day.

I've managed girls and going to be an assistant coach this coming season. I can't even count the number of times where a girl says, "I wish I could hit like her/him." I am a victim of that as well. Although, I can account many times where girls ask me who my favorite tennis players are and not even know them or even know current tennis stuff.

Oddly, a lot still don't even know about Sharapova and even less know about the better players such as Hingis, Davenport and such. A lot do know about Anna and such. And on the guys side don't even know about much. I didn't care for it either until I started talking to my JV coach on the way back from games. Talking about old school tennis and even pulling up old videos to watch he recorded decades ago. I didn't even know who Roddick was when I first played a big name. A lot of the younger people I've managed/coached and such didn't even know who Roger Federer is.

I still don't really care much for Tennis on Television -- I find it boring. It's alright, but I'm more interested in the final matches to be honest or the ones that seem to get a lot of buzz. I only care if I'm there watching it from High School, College, Pros and such but on Television just don't care too much for it.

Possibly older players in their mid 20s late 30s or older. But a lot of the young kids don't really care for tennis on television and such.

I think you might be the rare exception. I mean, how do you explain that 80% of the kids seem to be wielding Babolat Pure Drives and all are trying to hit the ball like Roddick?

I know I used to watch Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Vilas, etc. on TV all the time when I was younger and I even used to hit my backhand and volleys just like McEnroe. I even used a Dunlop Maxply Fort, but I started using it years before McEnroe switched to it.

 

[AngeloDS]

Eh, I don't see a lot of kids wielding Babolat Pure Drives. See a lot use Wal-Mart and retail chain racquets which are alright. Mostly Prince and Wilson brands is common. Maybe a few head racquets here or there.

I don't really see people trying to hit like Roddick or whomever. But I do see a lot of people just trying to hit the ball harder with their current techniques which doesn't work out that well.

Hitting things harder is pretty much natural in most people. A lot of kids don't play smart but play powerful. The logic is there the harder you hit the better it is. But obviously that isn't the case so you can't blame ignorance really, but you can show it which is how I get my messages across.

Although, I see a lot of kids being pressured during matches to be at the level of their opponent or player above it rather than their own. Feeling they can't beat them at their own level and such. Common case I really see.

My consistency is on point, and so is my power. I only release my power when I have the chance or opening but a lot of my points are won from volleys and hitting well placed angles or the opponent being out of position. I find myself playing High School kids at 30% power so I don't injure myself but still beating them 6-0 with no problems.

And a lot of girls that I've taught and managed always say, "I wish I could hit like you." or "I'll beat you some day!" And a lot follow my advice and do well. There's a thread in odds & ends or rants & raves that shows my credentials.

At the level I play now Power and Fitness is a key. And it's something I don't like too much but I can handle it and such easily with no problems. But it's not my favorite style. As I posted in the Rants and Raves section it's been cold here and a lot of power is sucked out.

I'm not a fan of power or touch tennis. I like variety tennis with medium pace which is why I liked managing girls tennis not a lot of power but showed them variety and such.

 

[BreakPoint]

But this doesn't explain why golf is so popular when it is clear every time they play that they can't play like the pros. It has to be even more of a frustrating sport to play. After all, there is no real opponent, just a ball, laying there, motionless and defenseless, waiting to have the poop knocked out of it, for the one in three times that a 20 handicapper even hits the ball sweet.

Well, like you said earlier, when Tiger hits a 300 yard drive, people know how far 300 yards is and when they get out onto the golf course, they can see how far that really is. In tennis, they don't announce the speed and distance of every shot on TV and the pros make it look so easy to hit the ball on TV, especially to beginners or those not knowledgable about the game. They don't really comprehend how hard it is from watching it on TV as they do with golf, I think. I think people understand that hitting a little ball into a little hole 20 yards away on uneven grassy ground is not easy. But they think smacking a tennis ball over the net looks pretty easy to do. They don't realize that their opponent is trying their hardest to prevent you from hitting the ball back. In golf, the ball doesn't move and doesn't fight back but just sits there waiting for you to take your sweet time to measure your shot and hit it.

So I think because of higher expectations going in, tennis can be more frustrating for beginners when they can't seem to hit the ball the way the pros seem to be able to so easily do on TV. With golf, the expectations may not have been that high to begin with so the fall off is not as steep. The bursting of that big bubble may be one reason why many beginners get so frustrated with tennis, and can't understand why they still can't hit the ball as easily as the pros they see on TV even though they've been playing for a whole month!

 

[vin]

If a grown man can't even swing a O3 Tour MP, then perhaps tennis is not his thing and should look for another sport to try?

If a grown man can't even accept the evolution of his sport, then maybe he too should look for another sport to try.

It's not just about being able to simply swing a racket. You have to be able to swing it well enough to meet the demands of your swing type. Since you seem to be stuck in your own realm of old school tennis, which is fine, it seems that you can't fully relate to the additional demands of some of the more modern swing types.

Anyone who has a spinny game is not going to be able to handle the same racket that they'd be able to if they played a more traditional game. I'm sure you already know that, so I guess you just resent it and want to undermine that type of game. Maybe you're getting sick of being spun off the court. :mrgreen:

How about letting people use what's comfortable and letting their natural style develop. That's how innovation happens!

 

[jonolau]

IMO, there is no harm in using a tweener racquet, and if you're getting a great game with no arm problems, then stick with it!

However, there's no denying that in order to up your game and have an all round serve & volley game, you will need better control at the net, and the much needed stablity and control comes from a player's racquet.

Using a player's racquet is just a transition and natural progression ... but only when you're mentally ready.

 

[vin]

However, there's no denying that in order to up your game and have an all round serve & volley game, you will need better control at the net, and the much needed stablity and control comes from a player's racquet.

Then why do you see doubles players like Arthurs and Paes using Pure Drives? I'm sure there are plenty more examples, but I don't pay much attention to the doubles side of the tour.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

However, there's no denying that in order to up your game and have an all round serve & volley game, you will need better control at the net, and the much needed stablity and control comes from a player's racquet.

Using a player's racquet is just a transition and natural progression ... but only when you're mentally ready.

Nonsense! I'm playing doubles this winter with three other guys who, like me, are 5.0+. (One is a "rated 5.5" but I've beaten him every time we've played singles. I don't think that makes me a 5.5. I think his rating is off a bit.)

But all of us are very solid net players. We have very many thrilling all-4-at-net points. Three of us play MPs; one uses an OS. And more guys in the top ranks of Colorado tennis play OS frames than Mids. (In fact, I can only think of three top Open Tourney guys in our state who play with Mids.) I'd say the mix within our Open Players is:
25% OS
65% MP
10% Mid

[Disclaimer: Due to our thinner air (altitude) the predominant styles of play are Attack the Net and S&V. Our players tend to be more adept at net than most of your flatlanders ... out of necessity.]

- KK