Sampras - how many slams with a bigger head size racquet?

How many slams would Pete have ended up on with a bigger head size racquet?

  • 15

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • 16

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • 17

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • Total voters
    7

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Pete wrote in his book and has repeatedly said the biggest regret in his career was not switching to a bigger racket. He said that was a bigger regret for him than never winning the FO.
 

Pete Prime

Semi-Pro
Also Sampras said he served faster during his retirement than during his career, because of the newer racquets/strings.
The strings would have been as big if not bigger factor in him hitting the ball better post retirement. Imagine Pete's insane power and serve WITH the additional forgiveness of a bigger head, and added spin and power of poly that would give more pop AND a higher first + second serve percentage? Not to mention it would turn his bazooka forehand into a guided missile, Delpo style. HELL even his backhand (which he didn't grow up with) would turn into a good rally shot for point construction
 

Pete Prime

Semi-Pro
yeah after he was a geriatric and got way too erratic with the old stick.
I think the new one brought more stability to his game. He would have been even more monstrous during the Vacuum Era if he'd had it then. Could have gotten a Calendar Slam somewhere in there. Most likely wins French in '04 instead of getting crushed by Hipster Guga
 

Frankc

Professional
Very Disrespectful "what if" post - Sampras was/is a gifted genius who amazed us all ... why disrespect his gifts and work habits?
Why the babbling ?- just disrespectful, in the least.
 

Remioli

Rookie
Why do people (I assume old dudes) get mad when someone implies a player could've improved by upping his racket head size? If 85" rackets were as good as 95", they'd still be on tour. Pete absolutely would've improved if he'd upgraded to a 90 or 95. No way to know if he'd have won another slam though.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You lose feel and control with a bigger head. Not sure it helps Fed or Pete much at their best given how they played.
If born in the mid 80's, Fed would be forced to switch to the bigger racquet earlier.

Still, Delpo did just fine with Fed's small stick, so how come it wasn't a problem for him?
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
pete was only after records... at that time the record was 12 GS titles by emerson..
so he would have "petered out" (pardon my pun), after getting the record no matter
what racquet he used...
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Why do people (I assume old dudes) get mad when someone implies a player could've improved by upping his racket head size? If 85" rackets were as good as 95", they'd still be on tour. Pete absolutely would've improved if he'd upgraded to a 90 or 95. No way to know if he'd have won another slam though.
I think the question is usually whether making the switch is worth the loss of comfort. Federer knew that a bigger size would have benefits, but he also knew that the feel would change. He eventually took the chance and it was the right call. But there have probably been cases where someone tried a bigger racket and never got used to the feel.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
What is even the benefit of a smaller stick @Bender?
Two big ones IMO would be the better control and the ability to put more mass at the end of the racquet without making it sluggish to swing (a result of relatively lower twistweight). It could result in a very heavy yet manoeuvrable frame, resulting in a lot of potential power.

Downsides are quite well known so I'm guessing I won't need to mention those lol.
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
he said afterwards he wished he would have tried bigger racquets but that was when he was using poly too..
he strung his 85 prostaff with gut at 75+lbs.. can u imagine what he would have to string a bigger racquet with
to feel comfortable? plus it took federer 9mo of prototyping? and maybe 1.5 years to feel comfortable with the
new frame.. for some reason i dont think pete would have the patience for that.. if it brought his forehand or
serve down 5% he would dump it immediately
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Two big ones IMO would be the better control and the ability to put more mass at the end of the racquet without making it sluggish to swing (a result of relatively lower twistweight). It could result in a very heavy yet manoeuvrable frame, resulting in a lot of potential power.

Downsides are quite well known so I'm guessing I won't need to mention those lol.
I always forget one the downside of that on is lol
 
Top