Racquet Variety - Are we going backwards?

[rustyheadcsse]

I took a decade off from the sport and have been getting back into it in a real way over the last year or so. I’ve always had a penchant for tinkering with frames and my setup, and it appears that age (and disposable income) have only furthered those instincts. As I’ve started to come back, I’ve also been on a racquet hunt. I’m older, I’m worse, I don’t move as well - the Wilson Rok 93 from high school and the Flexpoint Prestige mid from college aren’t viable options for me anymore. So I’ve been searching for new frames on extended demos.

The observation I’ve had is how little variety seems to exist in players frames these days. It seems that every company has their 100 sq inch, 16x19, 300g, stiff spinny Pure Drive clone (Speed/Extreme, Ultra, Volkl 8, etc.) a 95-97 inch 16 main, stiffer model (Pro Staff, Pure Strike, Head Tour models, Percept) and a more flexible, denser pattern 98 inch model (Prestige, Blade, etc.)

I feel like 10-12 years ago we had more options. There was a lot more extended length stuff (Diablo Midplus, Prestige XL, extended length Pro Staffs, etc.), a lot more true midsize frames, and a lot more variety in general. Maybe this is just my memory going, but I feel like things have taken a step back and settled into some pretty distinct categories.

Am I missing something? Any recommendations for unique or under appreciated players or tweener frames with some unique characteristics to them? There are just so many different ways to hit a tennis ball at a high level that it strikes me as odd to see everything fall towards those 3 or so buckets that I noted. I’ve loved tinkering with weighted up versions of the Prince Vortex and the Dunlop CX200 OS lately. Would be curious for recommendations on any other unique frames, or thoughts about what may be driving this trend.

 

[Soundbyte]

I disagree wholeheartedly. While extended options may be less available, I think we're in the golden age of rackets.

There are dozens of options, great sticks from large and small companies alike. Yes, they tend to fall into similar categories (players, power, spin, game improvement, etc) but that's because those are the popular rackets that people want.

And to top it off, you can always go custom with Angell and have even more flexibility of choice.

You can still buy a 85" Pro Staff, 89.5" Prestige, POG OS, plus all the modern options.

Golden age of rackets IMO is right now.

 

[travlerajm]

80s was golden age.

Wilson Profile
Prince Thunderstick
Prostaff 85
POG OS
Spectrum Comp
Prestige mid
Matchmate
Wimbledon
Spaulding
and others

 

[ryushen21]

I disagree wholeheartedly. While extended options may be less available, I think we're in the golden age of rackets.

There are dozens of options, great sticks from large and small companies alike. Yes, they tend to fall into similar categories (players, power, spin, game improvement, etc) but that's because those are the popular rackets that people want.

And to top it off, you can always go custom with Angell and have even more flexibility of choice.

You can still buy a 85" Pro Staff, 89.5" Prestige, POG OS, plus all the modern options.

Golden age of rackets IMO is right now.

Exactly what he said.

 

[Soundbyte]

80s was golden age.

Wilson Profile
Prince Thunderstick
Prostaff 85
POG OS
Spectrum Comp
Prestige mid
Matchmate
Wimbledon
Spaulding
and others

That's just your nostalgia bias.

You can still purchase 3 of the ones listed. And you listed very specific sticks that you likely miss.

I could list all the models available TODAY and it would dwarf what was available in the 80s

 

[Power Player]

This is easily the best time ever for racquets, it’s not even close. You can even still buy a prestige classic mid.

 

[Crocodile]

I tend to agree with the original post - todays offerings are very safe and conservative in terms of variety. Probably the only real innovation is the Wilson Clash but even that has been tried before with Volkl releasing frames such as the Catapult 10, 6 and V10.
In the 80’s and 90’s for example we had the following:
1. Pro Kennex doing wood core frames and kinetic frames
2. Pro Kennex doing the micro ace
3. Pro Kennex doing the original destiny frames
4. Yonex doing isometric frames
5. Head doing twin tube frames, Director frame
6. Wilson doing the profile adopted from Kuebler
7. Prince doing CTS frames, ceramics, DB graph tech polymer bridge, vortex, morph beams, oversize frames
8. Snauwert Ergonom, Hi Ten, graphite Mids
9. Berglin Longstring tension adjustments
10. Volkl C10, V1, V Engine, Catapult, twin absorber handle systems, variable beams
11. Mad Raq and Power angle diagonal stringing
12. Puma Adjustable handle length system
13. Kniessl aero design frames
14. Wilson Triad frames
15. All sorts of different compositions including Boron, Twaron, braided graphite, ceramics, fibreglass
16. Dunlop and Mizuno injection moulding frames.
Yes the treatment of graphite and dampening has improved, but it’s more of a refinement. It also explains why the Volkl C10 Pro is still a great frame and why Murray still uses a PT 57A. Head’s original graphene frame and Volkl’s V Cell materials are hardly inspiring. I think Diadems idea if infusing Karibon rubber resin into their frames work and Angell’s aramid fibres in their K7 frames is brilliant. Paul knows how to design racquets

 

[Power Player]

I took a decade off from the sport and have been getting back into it in a real way over the last year or so. I’ve always had a penchant for tinkering with frames and my setup, and it appears that age (and disposable income) have only furthered those instincts. As I’ve started to come back, I’ve also been on a racquet hunt. I’m older, I’m worse, I don’t move as well - the Wilson Rok 93 from high school and the Flexpoint Prestige mid from college aren’t viable options for me anymore. So I’ve been searching for new frames on extended demos.

The observation I’ve had is how little variety seems to exist in players frames these days. It seems that every company has their 100 sq inch, 16x19, 300g, stiff spinny Pure Drive clone (Speed/Extreme, Ultra, Volkl 8, etc.) a 95-97 inch 16 main, stiffer model (Pro Staff, Pure Strike, Head Tour models, Percept) and a more flexible, denser pattern 98 inch model (Prestige, Blade, etc.)

I feel like 10-12 years ago we had more options. There was a lot more extended length stuff (Diablo Midplus, Prestige XL, extended length Pro Staffs, etc.), a lot more true midsize frames, and a lot more variety in general. Maybe this is just my memory going, but I feel like things have taken a step back and settled into some pretty distinct categories.

Am I missing something? Any recommendations for unique or under appreciated players or tweener frames with some unique characteristics to them? There are just so many different ways to hit a tennis ball at a high level that it strikes me as odd to see everything fall towards those 3 or so buckets that I noted. I’ve loved tinkering with weighted up versions of the Prince Vortex and the Dunlop CX200 OS lately. Would be curious for recommendations on any other unique frames, or thoughts about what may be driving this trend.

gravity pro is worth a look.

What drives the trend is the game evolving to being more about physicality, spin and power than in the past.

 

[Alcawrath]

I think there are two competing ideas being suggested here. It sounds like more experimental innovations were being produced in bygone eras when new materials were being combined with or replacing wood in racquets. I also think that modern options are about all you could ask for with the technology available today. It's like every single racquet line has an entire spectrum of available models to meet any player's needs. For example, Wilson makes the blade, but the blade in 16x19 or 18x20, in 98", 100", or 104", with variations on beam width and stiffness, a lightweight offering, an extended length offering, etc. And that is just a single racquet line in the vast lineup of a single company. When you consider the wide range of lineups for any company, let alone the wide range of competing companies, it does feel like there are options for just about every racquet characteristic that you could desire today. Heck, there's even a new wooden racquet (though it does cost over $1000). But I also see what some posters are claiming about innovative ideas coming out of the 80's when companies were trying new designs and materials to produce the 'racquet of the future.'

 

[rustyheadcsse]

I disagree wholeheartedly. While extended options may be less available, I think we're in the golden age of rackets.

There are dozens of options, great sticks from large and small companies alike. Yes, they tend to fall into similar categories (players, power, spin, game improvement, etc) but that's because those are the popular rackets that people want.

And to top it off, you can always go custom with Angell and have even more flexibility of choice.

You can still buy a 85" Pro Staff, 89.5" Prestige, POG OS, plus all the modern options.

Golden age of rackets IMO is right now.

To be clear - my issue isn’t that they fall into similar categories as that has always been true. It just feels like there is less variety within those categories.

 

[Soundbyte]

I think there are two competing ideas being suggested here. It sounds like more experimental innovations were being produced in bygone eras when new materials were being combined with or replacing wood in racquets. I also think that modern options are about all you could ask for with the technology available today. It's like every single racquet line has an entire spectrum of available models to meet any player's needs. For example, Wilson makes the blade, but the blade in 16x19 or 18x20, in 98", 100", or 104", with variations on beam width and stiffness, a lightweight offering, an extended length offering, etc. And that is just a single racquet line in the vast lineup of a single company. When you consider the wide range of lineups for any company, let alone the wide range of competing companies, it does feel like there are options for just about every racquet characteristic that you could desire today. Heck, there's even a new wooden racquet (though it does cost over $1000). But I also see what some posters are claiming about innovative ideas coming out of the 80's when companies were trying new designs and materials to produce the 'racquet of the future.'

Does "Auxetic", "servofilter", "kraibon", etc etc not count as innovative? I would argue all of this is largest marketing.

Do you really think Aerogel was in your Dunlop frame? Or liquidmetal in that generation of Head frames? Do we believe that Head really was leveraging piezoelectric fibers in their Intelligence line?

Wilson had its rollers, Prince it's O-ports... If all that technology was helpful and advantageous I imagine it'd be around today.

It's all marketing. Maybe marketing was better in the 80s? I don't know.

 

[Grafil Injection]

The 1970s and 80s certainly had more real technological variety. The differences in materials, head-sizes, beams and string-patterns were generally real attempts to make a better racket. Pros were using 68sqi woods against opponents with 110sqi graphite sticks. The technology kept advancing probably up until about the early 1990s since when the form and layup is virtually the same today. Thereafter, most developments were subtle based on balancing stiffness and dampening technologies to give a different, but no necessarily better, feel.

Today we certainly do still have a diverse number of sticks available. Not only do the big 8 or so companies have 5 or so ranges each with about 5 rackets (so 200 rackets), they also produce 100s of rackets no one on TTW would ever talk about for big-box stores. But in the 70s and 80s, the same was true. Hundreds of bog standard woods and aluminium frames were being made for department stores whilst the genuinely new rackets were also being sold in sports shops. So today the number of rackets is probably about the same, but the meaningful technological variety is certainly less.

 

[georgeyew]

Does "Auxetic", "servofilter", "kraibon", etc etc not count as innovative? I would argue all of this is largest marketing.

Do you really think Aerogel was in your Dunlop frame? Or liquidmetal in that generation of Head frames? Do we believe that Head really was leveraging piezoelectric fibers in their Intelligence line?

Wilson had its rollers, Prince it's O-ports... If all that technology was helpful and advantageous I imagine it'd be around today.

It's all marketing. Maybe marketing was better in the 80s? I don't know.

Prince o-ports are still around.

 

[Alcawrath]

The 1970s and 80s certainly had more real technological variety. The differences in materials, head-sizes, beams and string-patterns were generally real attempts to make a better racket. Pros were using 68sqi woods against opponents with 110sqi graphite sticks. The technology kept advancing probably up until about the early 1990s since when the form and layup is virtually the same today. Thereafter, most developments were subtle based on balancing stiffness and dampening technologies to give a different, but no necessarily better, feel.

Today we certainly do still have a diverse number of sticks available. Not only do the big 8 or so companies have 5 or so ranges each with about 5 rackets (so 200 rackets), they also produce 100s of rackets no one on TTW would ever talk about for big-box stores. But in the 70s and 80s, the same was true. Hundreds of bog standard woods and aluminium frames were being made for department stores whilst the genuinely new rackets were also being sold in sports shops. So today the number of rackets is probably about the same, but the meaningful technological variety is certainly less.

I'm genuinely asking because I wasn't alive in the 70s and 80s, were there really meaningful variations on available model lines like head size, beam stiffness, string pattern and weight & distribution like today?

 

[Grafil Injection]

I'm genuinely asking because I wasn't alive in the 70s and 80s, were there really meaningful variations on available model lines like head size, beam stiffness, string pattern and weight & distribution like today?

Head sizes, beam stiffness, string pattern and weight & distribution varied far more greatly in the 70s and 80s.

 

[Soundbyte]

So today the number of rackets is probably about the same, but the meaningful technological variety is certainly less.

I would argue if the technological variation is less today (and it probably is), would that not suggest the other technologies were worse / no good? Otherwise I imagine they'd still be around. So in essence, are we agreeing that there was more variation of poor quality rackets in the 70s/80s compared to today?

It's an interesting argument. But I also think of this argument is like the GOAT discussions for basketball era. Every generation thinks theirs was the best and you cant compare them effective to other eras. Perhaps it's the same here. Granted I remember the 90s/00s/10s/now frames, and still think we're in the best era for tennis gear.

 

[Mten]

This is my effort at something different/more progressive. I essentially ran away with the idea of the gravity pro. I wanted to make a control racket for more advanced players with the biggest sweetspot/hitting surface possible.

Here is a link to a review of it if anyone is interested

I've been a bit disappointed with the lack of brands really experimenting to make something better/different. So I took it into my own hands.....

 

[Grafil Injection]

'So in essence, are we agreeing that there was more variation of poor quality rackets in the 70s/80s compared to today?'

Yes, poor quality sticks today are mostly similar to each other, probably coming out of the same 1 or 2 factories.

 

[jxs653]

Yes, poor quality sticks today are mostly similar to each other, probably coming out of the same 1 or 2 factories.

If new line of racquets should come out to the market every two years, they need only to last two years and the quality should be adjusted--degraded--accordingly. That'd be the optimal equilibrium for the manufacturers.

I wonder how many brands have their own factory.

 

[WYK]

80s was golden age.

Wilson Profile
Prince Thunderstick
Prostaff 85
POG OS
Spectrum Comp
Prestige mid
Matchmate
Wimbledon
Spaulding
and others

I would say the late 90's into the 2000's were the golden age. You had a ton of player frames, and they were experimenting like mad.
You had hammers, longbodys, Babolat was busting out, loads of crazy over sized frames, Prince was as strong as ever, Slazenger was still making stuff, and Dunlop was still riding their Steffi and Mauresmo highs. I mean, Dunlop released the 300G, a stick with no power and was way too light for even club competition, and it won awards and the Pure Drive didn't. There's your transition cliff right there.
Estusa re-released the Becker Puma mold, Yonex had lost their mind and made everything under the sun, nearly all the racquets brands were still around having not yet been hammered into the dust by Nadal and Babolat and Wilson and Fed, Head actually had a wide array of models and just released the ubiquitous TiS6, Prince had longbodys from 95 sq inch to 110, Wilson had a 95 sq in 285g racquet with a swingweight of 325, and Henin was using a stick not hugely different from it, and some pros were waving around 85-90 sq in racquets on clay vs Pure Drives.
It was a wild transitional period where everything was being thrown at the board.

 

[Tranqville]

Major manufacturers precisely address the demands of a modern game. When you watch current advanced amateurs, junior and pro players on Youtube or live, you can see that the technique has advanced to more optimal style, and remarkably so. Even more remarkable is how many NTRP 4.0s and 3.5s hit technically sound modern strokes.

Your observation about raquet specs converging around very precise specs is correct - and that is result of the competitive market. Most successful racquets: Pure Drive, Pure Aero, Blade, ProStaff 6.1, Radical- established a standard. The goal of racquet manufacturers is not diversity for the sake of diversity. They want to sell units. So the model range reflects accurately.

The latest market trend you may have missed is the emergence of "white" category. Please let me quote my own post:

White communicates high-tech, purity, simplicity of use. It's a new, emerging racquet trend that adresses the shortcomings of previous generation of racquets for modern game (lack of comfort, feel, and control).

- Natively designed for modern topspin game
- Have some dampening tech (typically foam) for arm comfort and enhanced feel
- Combine power, control, and spin - not focused on a single attribute
- Moderately stiff, typically around 64-67 RA
- Controlled 16x19 or spinny 18x20 string patterns - again, to combine power, control and spin
- Beam design that combines aerodynamics, control, and power (like T-fights RS section)


Examples:

Prince ATS Textreme Tour
Wilson Shift
Solinco Whiteout
Technifibre T-Fight ISO
Babolat Pure Strike

 

[socallefty]

It has become evident what types of racquets you need to play high level tennis with poly strings. With a few exceptions, the specs have become standardized for advanced players frames - No more small head sizes below 95 or heavy oversized head frames, no >13oz weight, no <60 RA, no <19 beam width, no stock SW>340, no head heavy balance, no crazy open patterns with less than 16 mains, etc. Apart from classic racquet enthusiasts there are less and less players who want exceptions to these rules. But there are still old racquet models that had different specs outside of this range available from some brands - you just don‘t see new models released that don’t fit this range.

Babolat has ascended to the top of the racquet market without too many model families (Drives, Aeros, Strikes, a few VS versions) and the other brands are also streamlining their lines. If you can get mass market volumes with lesser number of product families, it is usually more profitable to keep manufacturing/design costs down.

It doesn’t affect me because I settled on 98 sq inch, 12-12.2 oz, SW 330-335, beam width 19-21mm, stiffness 64-67 RA, 6-8 points HL, 16 or 18 mains as my ideal range 24 years ago and there are always racquets from Babolat that have played well in this range - Pure Control, AeroStorm Tour, Pure Strike Tour G1/3 etc.

Change your stringjob to tweak your racquet’s performance.

 

[travlerajm]

It has become evident what types of racquets you need to play high level tennis with poly strings. With a few exceptions, the specs have become standardized for advanced players frames - No more small head sizes below 95 or heavy oversized head frames, no >13oz weight, no <60 RA, no <19 beam width, no stock SW>340, no crazy open patterns with less than 16 mains, etc. Apart from classic racquet enthusiasts there are less and less players who want exceptions to these rules. But there are still old racquet models that had different specs outside of this range available from some brands - you just don‘t see new models released that don’t fit this range.

Babolat has ascended to the top of the racquet market without too many model families (Drives, Aeros, Strikes, a few VS versions) and the other brands are also streamlining their lines. If you can get mass market volumes with lesser number of product families, it is usually more profitable to keep manufacturing/design costs down.

The “standardized” thing is the problem. Creativity in trying new concepts gets stifled because the manufacturers are selling more racquets that fit into a few narrow design paradigms.

 

[Fighting phoenix]

This is a really fun thread! Having grown up playing tennis in the 80s, I agree that there were a lot of weirder/experimental frames back in the day, but agree with other posters in that it was likely due to the continued transition away from wood racquets and experimenting with new materials (example - I remember loving the brief trend in "ceramic" racquets like the Prince one I had). What hasn't been said yet is that part of what's happening in the last decade or so is a focus on experimenting with strings, poly of course in particular.

I do think that we are in somewhat of a golden age of racquets in that there are soooo many great racquets these days and very few bad ones, but still would love to see a bit more variety in experimenting in new materials, and more true diversity by the big manufacturers across their lines (ie Head is a great example - there is very little difference in their racquets across their many lines).

 

[socallefty]

The “standardized” thing is the problem. Creativity in trying new concepts gets stifled because the manufacturers are selling more racquets that fit into a few narrow design paradigms.

These days the variety of strings has become much greater for soft polys and advanced players experiment with stringjobs to get the performance they want. A racquet is a stringed instrument and you can tweak its performance tremendously by changing strings, gauges, tensions etc. A particular stringjob just reveals a sliver of a racquet’s potential performance range for power, control, spin, comfort etc. The creativity seems to be high for string suppliers these days and the variety is endless if you are willing to try hybrids.

 

[travlerajm]

These days the variety of strings has become much greater for soft polys and advanced players experiment with stringjobs to get the performance they want. A racquet is a stringed instrument and you can tweak its performance tremendously by changing strings, gauges, tensions etc. A particular stringjob just reveals a sliver of a racquet’s potential performance range for power, control, spin, comfort etc. The creativity seems to be high for string suppliers these days.

It used to be that way with racquets too.

 

[rustyheadcsse]

It has become evident what types of racquets you need to play high level tennis with poly strings. With a few exceptions, the specs have become standardized for advanced players frames - No more small head sizes below 95 or heavy oversized head frames, no >13oz weight, no <60 RA, no <19 beam width, no stock SW>340, no head heavy balance, no crazy open patterns with less than 16 mains, etc. Apart from classic racquet enthusiasts there are less and less players who want exceptions to these rules. But there are still old racquet models that had different specs outside of this range available from some brands - you just don‘t see new models released that don’t fit this range.

Babolat has ascended to the top of the racquet market without too many model families (Drives, Aeros, Strikes, a few VS versions) and the other brands are also streamlining their lines. If you can get mass market volumes with lesser number of product families, it is usually more profitable to keep manufacturing/design costs down.

It doesn’t affect me because I settled on 98 sq inch, 12-12.2 oz, SW 330-335, beam width 19-21mm, stiffness 64-67 RA, 6-8 points HL, 16 or 18 mains as my ideal range 24 years ago and there are always racquets from Babolat that have played well in this range - Pure Control, AeroStorm Tour, Pure Strike Tour G1/3 etc.

Change your stringjob to tweak your racquet’s performance.

I think this gets at some of my objections. The idea of high level tennis is what needs defining here. At the pro level? Or high-major D1? There’s absolutely a way you have to play. But I think you can be a pretty successful club player up to 4.5-5.0 and play a lot of different ways, not all of which require the big topspin, huge serve, baseline power approach. For 99% of tennis players there are still a lot of valid ways to approach the game. And I don’t think the offering of racquets necessarily reflects that reality. Which is particularly ironic given that the truly elite players who need that modern approach to the game aren’t playing stock retail frames in an awful lot of cases.

I certainly get the business case for it. I’m just not sure it serves players all that well. I also think it is noteworthy that most of the innovation or break from these specs is coming from outside of the Big 3 manufacturers. Prince is doing some interesting stuff. Dunlop has some unique setups. ProKennex built so much of their reputation on outside of the box specs.