Standardization of tennis racquets ??
- Thread starter NoBadMojo
- Start date
BreakPoint, the talk is about racquets, and would standardization of these racquets make the game fair. Don't go on different tangents. I am stating that the standardization of these racquets would not be fair because someone is bound to be naturally good with this certain standardized racquet.
The point is if it's fair or unfair. Nothing more, nothing less. Not all these different tangents of, "well if this... and that..." It's about if it's fair or unfair.
You should play handball if you don't like racquets. Wether you like it or not -- this is a fact. Racquets have strengths and weaknesses based off their specifications.
Indeed. Bill Tilden was a very good baseline basher. He sucked at his backhand. He isolated himself and came back with a stronger backhand. And he was the most dominating player. There's a reason why he's in the hall of fame.
The point is if it's fair or unfair. Nothing more, nothing less. Not all these different tangents of, "well if this... and that..." It's about if it's fair or unfair.
You should play handball if you don't like racquets. Wether you like it or not -- this is a fact. Racquets have strengths and weaknesses based off their specifications.
Indeed. Bill Tilden was a very good baseline basher. He sucked at his backhand. He isolated himself and came back with a stronger backhand. And he was the most dominating player. There's a reason why he's in the hall of fame.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
AngeloDS said:
But why would anyone be naturally good with any racquet? I mean nobody is born with a racquet in their hands are they? I think everyone learns how to play with a certain racquet, and no one is predisposed to one type of racquet or another. So if they standardized racquets, everyone would just have to learn how to use that standard racquet, if they want to play in tournaments. Good players shouldn't have too much trouble doing that.
Thank you for staying on point. Now why would anyone be naturally good with a certain racquet? People are born with intangibles, aka "genius." There are reasons why some people can't do certain things -- even with hard work.
Tennis is not a sport for everyone, and same holds true for almost everything.
Tennis is not a sport for everyone, and same holds true for almost everything.
Deuce
Banned
It's entertaining to see to what extremes people will go to 'prove' that their perspective is the 'right' one.
Some are saying that regulating racquets would be ridiculous, because then we would only have one racquet by one manufacturer that we would all have to use. Of course, this is pure bunk. We are talking about the standardization of headsize, aren't we? That's how I interpret it, at least, based on the numerous discussions on the subject. Maybe throw in length, as well. Weight, balance, flex, feel, composition, along with string and tension would continue to be variable. So much for the 'theory' of there being just one racquet... sigh...
Others complain that any regulating of racquets would offer an "unfair advantage" to certain players who could handle playing those racquets best. Based on this enlightening 'theory', tennis was entirely unfair during the entire wood racquet era.
Again - we're talking about regulating the head size of racquets. The other racquet related variables would continue to be variable - as they have been all along, to the present day.
Still others dread the possible return of "boring" Serve & Volley tennis if racquet head sizes become smaller, citing Serve & Volley players playing only each other, and speaking as if Serve & Volley would entirely replace Baseline tennis. No mention at all is made of re-introducing the natural variety of the game, where both Serve & Volley and Baseline play exist, and complement each other.
All of the above are examples of people voluntarily ignoring elements which do not aid their position; ignoring the reality in favor of narrow, self serving, - and unfounded - perspective.
Let's get real, people. Don't pretend there is only one side to an argument - instead, present both sides, and defend the one you choose to defend. Don't manipulate the facts to make 'your side' look better, for perspectives which are based on this type of action are viewed not as reasoned, but as desperate.
Some are saying that regulating racquets would be ridiculous, because then we would only have one racquet by one manufacturer that we would all have to use. Of course, this is pure bunk. We are talking about the standardization of headsize, aren't we? That's how I interpret it, at least, based on the numerous discussions on the subject. Maybe throw in length, as well. Weight, balance, flex, feel, composition, along with string and tension would continue to be variable. So much for the 'theory' of there being just one racquet... sigh...
Others complain that any regulating of racquets would offer an "unfair advantage" to certain players who could handle playing those racquets best. Based on this enlightening 'theory', tennis was entirely unfair during the entire wood racquet era.
Again - we're talking about regulating the head size of racquets. The other racquet related variables would continue to be variable - as they have been all along, to the present day.
Still others dread the possible return of "boring" Serve & Volley tennis if racquet head sizes become smaller, citing Serve & Volley players playing only each other, and speaking as if Serve & Volley would entirely replace Baseline tennis. No mention at all is made of re-introducing the natural variety of the game, where both Serve & Volley and Baseline play exist, and complement each other.
All of the above are examples of people voluntarily ignoring elements which do not aid their position; ignoring the reality in favor of narrow, self serving, - and unfounded - perspective.
Let's get real, people. Don't pretend there is only one side to an argument - instead, present both sides, and defend the one you choose to defend. Don't manipulate the facts to make 'your side' look better, for perspectives which are based on this type of action are viewed not as reasoned, but as desperate.
S
SageOfDeath
Guest
Standards are overrated. In an attempt to bring a fair game by limiting a player to only one type of racquet, I believe that it would make it unfair. Its actions would undo its cause. Breakpoint, I get what you are saying, its the skill, strategy, athletism that should be tested not the equipment. But in a sport that is not so popular, to make it easier for less competetive play, for players who don't take lessons or don't play often, just once in a while for fun, a racquet that makes it easier for them to play with. These players maybe don't intend to take lessons, don't have time or otherwise and want a quick fix that will make the game more fun for them.
In competitive play, what do you propose the racquet everyone should use be? Are you proposing only ONE racquet with the specs absolutely the same? My oh my, racquet companies won't like that at all!
Or are you proposing stricter rules on the specs?
My real question is this, what real advantages do any racquets really hold for competitive players? If bigger headsizes are truly an advantage then why doesn't everyone just use bigger headsizes? Push the limit, just get a weed racquet? Because like AngeloDS, perhaps people are better with certain racquets, born that way. Its unexplainable. Maybe that's why people aren't using bigger headsizes because they truly are better with maybe a mid? If that's true, the game is fair because players are using the equipment choice at their discretion within the limits. And if any player as you say should be good enough to use any racquet and people aren't born with these "intangibles" , which I agree to an extent, then why not go for a racquet that will give you the most? Aim for the biggest headsize to minimize the mishits because you can always tame the power with more spin. And isn't that what a player wants? Free power and more spin?
Back to why I partly agree with any player should be able to use any racquet. Sure a good player can play tennis with any racquet but does that mean they will play just as well with one racquet as another? There doesn't need to be anything wrong with your technique to find a certain racquet to have disadvantages compared to another.
In competitive play, what do you propose the racquet everyone should use be? Are you proposing only ONE racquet with the specs absolutely the same? My oh my, racquet companies won't like that at all!
Or are you proposing stricter rules on the specs?My real question is this, what real advantages do any racquets really hold for competitive players? If bigger headsizes are truly an advantage then why doesn't everyone just use bigger headsizes? Push the limit, just get a weed racquet? Because like AngeloDS, perhaps people are better with certain racquets, born that way. Its unexplainable. Maybe that's why people aren't using bigger headsizes because they truly are better with maybe a mid? If that's true, the game is fair because players are using the equipment choice at their discretion within the limits. And if any player as you say should be good enough to use any racquet and people aren't born with these "intangibles" , which I agree to an extent, then why not go for a racquet that will give you the most? Aim for the biggest headsize to minimize the mishits because you can always tame the power with more spin. And isn't that what a player wants? Free power and more spin?
Back to why I partly agree with any player should be able to use any racquet. Sure a good player can play tennis with any racquet but does that mean they will play just as well with one racquet as another? There doesn't need to be anything wrong with your technique to find a certain racquet to have disadvantages compared to another.
Off-topic sorry, but I couldn't resist with all the smaller headsize and bigger headsize talk.
Here's my theory: People hit at a certain spot away from their body.
For me, I feel a lot of players hit at a certain spot away from their body. Let's say 2 ft from their belly button at so and so spot to the right. If they're hitting that spot consistently, racquet headsize should not matter when it comes to being able to hit the ball. They are hitting the same spot.
The more you play, the better you'll get at concentrating a high percentage of shots at that certain spot. When you first start off, you'll be hitting within the general area a low percentage (obviously).
Now where the ball hits on the racquet will vary from each shot. What I mean is if you're hitting the center of a 85 sq. in racquet, move up to an oval shaped racquet that's 100 sq in. You obviously won't be hitting the center. Rather, where you would normally be hitting with that 85 sq. in. which would be like way below the sweet spot.
Now that will affect how the ball is if you're not hitting the sweet spot. And will affect ones ability to play.
But the question is if hitting this spot away from your body is learned or if it's natural and automatically there. Such as shoes won't affect the length of your stride. Rather, your leg sizes, hips, habits and other factors. But they will affect the comfortability with your walk.
From my personal experience. I started off with an oval shaped racquet, I could never hit the sweet spot. I could hit with it, but never reach potential because I wasn't able to hit that spot. Even with all the practice over the summers playing everyday for about 2-3 hours after school. Playing during lunch. Never could. So, I went to the local racquet shop. My colored strings (purple at the time) were faded at a certain spot. Looked around and lined the racquets up from the butt. Found a racquet where I could hit the sweet spot. And it turned out great.
Here's my theory: People hit at a certain spot away from their body.
For me, I feel a lot of players hit at a certain spot away from their body. Let's say 2 ft from their belly button at so and so spot to the right. If they're hitting that spot consistently, racquet headsize should not matter when it comes to being able to hit the ball. They are hitting the same spot.
The more you play, the better you'll get at concentrating a high percentage of shots at that certain spot. When you first start off, you'll be hitting within the general area a low percentage (obviously).
Now where the ball hits on the racquet will vary from each shot. What I mean is if you're hitting the center of a 85 sq. in racquet, move up to an oval shaped racquet that's 100 sq in. You obviously won't be hitting the center. Rather, where you would normally be hitting with that 85 sq. in. which would be like way below the sweet spot.
Now that will affect how the ball is if you're not hitting the sweet spot. And will affect ones ability to play.
But the question is if hitting this spot away from your body is learned or if it's natural and automatically there. Such as shoes won't affect the length of your stride. Rather, your leg sizes, hips, habits and other factors. But they will affect the comfortability with your walk.
From my personal experience. I started off with an oval shaped racquet, I could never hit the sweet spot. I could hit with it, but never reach potential because I wasn't able to hit that spot. Even with all the practice over the summers playing everyday for about 2-3 hours after school. Playing during lunch. Never could. So, I went to the local racquet shop. My colored strings (purple at the time) were faded at a certain spot. Looked around and lined the racquets up from the butt. Found a racquet where I could hit the sweet spot. And it turned out great.
tom4ny
Professional
maybe standardize on an oversize 100% all graphite - 25mm vacuformed boxbeam - even balanced - 10 oz stick. NO CUSTOMIZATION ALLOWED. same strings, same tension .... everything must be equal in order to be truly fair.
that would be the most fair as each player would have exactly the same specs with the most minor manufacturing tolerances available.
if its about being fair, then it should be about being the most fair to the most people.
the most skilled would rise to the top in this scenario and lesser players would not beat better players as the racquet is the EXACT same and skill will ultimately decide who's better.
we're not arguing for increasing difficulty right? we're arguing for fairness and equality in racquets with tennis skill being the deciding factor.
this seems to me, the best way to accomplish that.
that would be the most fair as each player would have exactly the same specs with the most minor manufacturing tolerances available.
if its about being fair, then it should be about being the most fair to the most people.
the most skilled would rise to the top in this scenario and lesser players would not beat better players as the racquet is the EXACT same and skill will ultimately decide who's better.
we're not arguing for increasing difficulty right? we're arguing for fairness and equality in racquets with tennis skill being the deciding factor.
this seems to me, the best way to accomplish that.
mucat
Hall of Fame
We should standardize tennis racket to
longer length (30 in.),
with tiny head (50 sq in.),
extremely flexible (almost bamboo stick like)(very low power),
super light weight (7oz.) (very low power)
and killer high tension (80 lbs).
The game will become extremely challenging, and certainly filter out the weaklings (most of us will die of tennis elbow). Whoever left will be the real men...
longer length (30 in.),
with tiny head (50 sq in.),
extremely flexible (almost bamboo stick like)(very low power),
super light weight (7oz.) (very low power)
and killer high tension (80 lbs).
The game will become extremely challenging, and certainly filter out the weaklings (most of us will die of tennis elbow). Whoever left will be the real men...
Deuce said:
Hi Duece, if you might read the original post which clearly states a standardization of racquets specificationwise, you may agree that more than headsize was suggested. I think you would agree that specifications include many more elements than headsize. This is someone elses sugestion and not mine, and I tried to portray his suggestion as fairly as possible and didnt mention anything at all about how demanding this standard racquet might be. Twist things all about as you like..people can do this with any written words I think.
nononsense
Banned
Hey I'm a serve & volleyer yet I voted NO. The game wouldn't be that challenging and fun because I'd win too easily if things were standardized!
jonolau
Legend
They did something quite similar with a new motor racing series called A1 Grand Prix. All the cars are bog standard from the same manufacturer, and the only thing seperating the men from the boys were the drivers.
The results: it was far from a level playing field because some drivers were so competent that they totally dominated the series.
Therefore, goes to show that choice of equipment is an arbitrary point. The player's skills are pivotal.
The results: it was far from a level playing field because some drivers were so competent that they totally dominated the series.
Therefore, goes to show that choice of equipment is an arbitrary point. The player's skills are pivotal.
jonolau said:
This would be the only fair way to standardize tennis racquets, but if you did this and came up with say a 85headsize, Fed would be even more dominating, and Nadal (and others) with his abrupt swings would have to dramatically change his stroke production, otherwise he could barely make contact. As it is now, when he breaks strings, he breaks them surprisingly close to the frame rather than close to the middle. He seems to need every bit of his 100 headsize.
jonolau
Legend
Yes, perhaps I didn't put too much thought into my closing statement. Certain specifications would be a match to some players' strengths ...
Comes back to the same thing, no matter what it will still be difficult to create a level playing field, and in fact, may tend to lend biases ...
So, NO to standardization.
Comes back to the same thing, no matter what it will still be difficult to create a level playing field, and in fact, may tend to lend biases ...
So, NO to standardization.
tom4ny
Professional
prince original graphite 110 (or facsimile there of) strung with polyester strings at 65 lbs. no customization allowed except for grip size. but no overgrips or guaze or anything. if you sweat more than the other guy, deal with it. we want equality here. no complaining allowed either
ya know, i was against the whole concept and thought it silly on the merits but i am starting to see a way to accomplish fairness in equipment. ;-)
merry christmas. family time now. peace out and be well.
ya know, i was against the whole concept and thought it silly on the merits but i am starting to see a way to accomplish fairness in equipment. ;-)
merry christmas. family time now. peace out and be well.
Tim Tennis
Professional
BreakPoint said:
Good points. Here is why. Bascially the percentages are against it. To serve and volley it takes a very good serve to be successful against today's great returners/athletes. If a s/v gets a weak return they will win the point a very high % of the time. If a player stays back and gets a weak return they will still win the point a very high % of the time, so why bother. Also sometimes a weak mishit return can be an outright winner against a serve and volleyer whereas if you stay back you are still in complete control of the point. When you come to the net you give the return man an absolute advantage if he can set up to hit the return. He knows exaxtly where you are going to be. He can hit at your feet, go down the line, (preferred play), go cross court or hit a topspin lop.
Here we go. The only reason for a player be a pure serve and volleyer in today's game is to cover up a weakness from the baseline. They just do not have the ground strokes off of both sides to compete from back there. Also they do not have the stamina to hold up in gruling rallies. They have to win the points quickly. Don't get me wrong, I love these guys. They are just doing what gives them the best chance to win, given their capabilities.
You said, "In my opinion, S&V requires more athletic ability than just running side to side hitting from the baseline." Now reverse it and you will understand what I am trying to say. Why can't the serve and volleyers win from the baseline?
Anyhow that is my opinion.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
AngeloDS said:
Pole vaulting is not a sport for everyone either, that's why I don't pole vault. If you're not good at tennis, perhaps you should try something else? I'm not good at a lot of sports and that's why I don't play them. I am good at tennis and that's why I play it. It's simple as that. In general, as in life, people should do what they're good at, and avoid things that they're not good at. We'd all be a lot happier people if we all abided by that.
Besides, just because I'm not good at pole vaulting, I don't ask them to allow me to use a spring loaded, more powerful pole that allows me to vault higher so that I can be competitive, do I? I just don't pole vault.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
jonolau said:
What? Isn't that the definition of fair? The better or more competent players are supposed to dominate the field. We're NOT saying that fair means that everyone should win an equal amount. We're saying that the better players should win more and the poorer players should lose more. That's what makes it fair, because the equipment doesn't influence the outcome, and the people who are supposed to win - do win - because they are indeed the better players. That's the way all sports, and life in general, should work.
I mean, it's supposed to be a meritocracy, and not communism, after all.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
NoBadMojo said:
That means that Federer is indeed the better player. If someone can hit the sweetspot and NOT mishit as often with a midsize racquet as with an OS racquet, then I would say that he's the better player since he obviously has the better eye-hand coordination. And to me, and in most sports, the better players are the ones with the better eye-hand coordination.
Take baseball for example, the baseball players with the better eye-hand coordination typically have the higher batting averages and the more home runs. And baseball players with high batting averages and more home runs are considered the better baseball players, aren't they? Barry Bonds would think so. Same should be true of tennis players. If you have great eye-hand coordination, you should have no trouble hitting the sweetspot regardless of the size of the racquet. If you can't hit the sweetspot consistently then you're just not as good of a tennis player as someone who can.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
BTW, have you guys thought about all the time, money, effort, confusion, frustration, indecision, etc. you would save yourselves if there was a standard racquet? No more going on the demo treadmill ever again! No more never ending search for your "holy grail", since the standard racquet would be EVERYONE'S holy grail, whether you like it or not! No more wondering if some new hyped-up technology would help your game! No more lusting after the new racquets! No more blaming your racquet when you lose and regretting not buying that other racquet! No more suspescion that your opponent was using a better or more powerful racquet! Whether you win or lose, you'd always know that, without an inkling of doubt, it was ALL YOU!!! Wouldn't that be great??
BreakPoint, no one is saying that you can or cannot, I won't stop you -- go ahead. Though, if you did; it would be unfair. Which is the main reason for the argument. Fair or unfairness. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't see what you're trying to prove. Other than argueing for the sake of argueing. Especially when you go on those stray-tangents.
I don't see what you're trying to prove. Other than argueing for the sake of argueing. Especially when you go on those stray-tangents.
Venetian
Professional
This is too funny. As if your racquet choice is going to make you a better player. People get stomped all day by some 17 year old kid with a PD and then come to TW and complain about his lack of technique and how he only beat them because he uses a tweener racquet.
These are the same people that shank a forehand and then look at their racquet in disgust, as if to say, "What are you doing?!".
These are the same people that shank a forehand and then look at their racquet in disgust, as if to say, "What are you doing?!".
bcsax123
Semi-Pro
I agree.tom4ny said:prince original graphite 110 (or facsimile there of) strung with polyester strings at 65 lbs. no customization allowed except for grip size. but no overgrips or guaze or anything. if you sweat more than the other guy, deal with it. we want equality here. no complaining allowed either
ya know, i was against the whole concept and thought it silly on the merits but i am starting to see a way to accomplish fairness in equipment. ;-)
merry christmas. family time now. peace out and be well.
Deuce
Banned
Ed... My idea of standardizing, or regulating, racquets is doing so in the areas of length and headsize only - in other words, going back to the racquet equivalencies (and differences) of the wood era. This is not to say I think we should go back to playing with those same wood racquets - what I am saying is that whatever length and head size is chosen as the standard, the weight, balance point, and materials/stiffness would NOT be regulated. To me, this makes far more sense than does having everyone playing with exactly the same frame. There must be room left for some personal preference, where there is really no accompanying decided advantage - so any weight, balance, and composition would be acceptable.
Obviously to them, their equipment matters very much.
Consider yourself corrected.
This practice of the larger/longer/lighter racquet is being used in order to level the playing field; to compensate for weaknesses in ability. Though some may not like the way I phrased that, this is precisely what the defenders of larger frames are saying - that they use these frames because it gives them an advantage. Yet some of the same people are saying that larger frames don't give any advantage. It's difficult to follow one who is going in two directions at once.
I equate the situation of larger frames to what has been going on with children in the past few years - how the 'self-esteem movement' has gone out of control, to the point where children are no longer receiving failing grades in school, and no longer engaging in competitive sport - because failure and defeat are "so terrible" for the child's psyche. This is, of course, complete and utter BS - all it does is shelter the children from the realities of life - some of which happen to be uncomfortable - and teaches them that one can receive reward without ability or effort. The larger/longer/lighter racquet is based on the same theory. The larger racquet plays the same part as the 'policy' to 'protect' children from failure and defeat. And the way that some people are commenting in this thread shows that they are afraid of being made to play with a smaller frame - because then their weaknesses will be exposed, where now they are at least partially hidden by the larger frames. They say that being made to play with smaller frames "is not fair" - but in reality, it is the same as giving children an 'F' grade if that is what they deserve, rather than allowing them to pretend that they have succeeded where they have not.
Well... why do the great majority of pro players religiously stick to one racquet model, then? With most of the pros, you'd have to kill them to take away their racquet, no matter what paint it's got on its surface.Davai said:
Obviously to them, their equipment matters very much.
Consider yourself corrected.
This practice of the larger/longer/lighter racquet is being used in order to level the playing field; to compensate for weaknesses in ability. Though some may not like the way I phrased that, this is precisely what the defenders of larger frames are saying - that they use these frames because it gives them an advantage. Yet some of the same people are saying that larger frames don't give any advantage. It's difficult to follow one who is going in two directions at once.
I equate the situation of larger frames to what has been going on with children in the past few years - how the 'self-esteem movement' has gone out of control, to the point where children are no longer receiving failing grades in school, and no longer engaging in competitive sport - because failure and defeat are "so terrible" for the child's psyche. This is, of course, complete and utter BS - all it does is shelter the children from the realities of life - some of which happen to be uncomfortable - and teaches them that one can receive reward without ability or effort. The larger/longer/lighter racquet is based on the same theory. The larger racquet plays the same part as the 'policy' to 'protect' children from failure and defeat. And the way that some people are commenting in this thread shows that they are afraid of being made to play with a smaller frame - because then their weaknesses will be exposed, where now they are at least partially hidden by the larger frames. They say that being made to play with smaller frames "is not fair" - but in reality, it is the same as giving children an 'F' grade if that is what they deserve, rather than allowing them to pretend that they have succeeded where they have not.
Deuce said:
My point was about the fact that skill wins matches at the 4.5 and above level not the racket. The fact that many pros wouldn't seperate themselves from their rackets shows that the rackets have grown on them not that it's the racket that wins the match. In other words is there a correlation between ranking and rackets, or NTRP level and rackets.
Alafter
Hall of Fame
I dunno. I dont think racquet will have that much of an effect. If you think your opponent has the better racquet, go ahead and switch and see if that works.
By the logic of standardized racquet, it means there is a certain best racquet out there, and everyone will switch to it sooner or later.
I think to standardized things, maybe we should divide pros into weight groups and height groups. Now THAT would be something. It'll be like boxing.
By the logic of standardized racquet, it means there is a certain best racquet out there, and everyone will switch to it sooner or later.
I think to standardized things, maybe we should divide pros into weight groups and height groups. Now THAT would be something. It'll be like boxing.
Deuce
Banned
Davai... if any of the pros picked up a racquet other than the one they play with... or strung at a significantly different tension than that at which they usually play... their play would suffer.
Perhaps some would be able to adapt to a new racquet and/or new string/tension in time, but a large percentage would not be able to adapt. Therefore, their equipment is a very important element in what they do on court.
Alafter wrote:
"I think to standardized things, maybe we should divide pros into weight groups and height groups. Now THAT would be something. It'll be like boxing."
Well, no... In boxing, increased height and weight are a decided advantage. Not so in tennis.
Perhaps some would be able to adapt to a new racquet and/or new string/tension in time, but a large percentage would not be able to adapt. Therefore, their equipment is a very important element in what they do on court.
Alafter wrote:
"I think to standardized things, maybe we should divide pros into weight groups and height groups. Now THAT would be something. It'll be like boxing."
Well, no... In boxing, increased height and weight are a decided advantage. Not so in tennis.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
We agree, so far. (Regarding being entertained....)Deuce said:
It's not true advocacy on my part; it's demonstrating the absurdity of the "Standardizing" side's POV, to make a point. (The point being the question, "Where do you stop standardizing? You've stated your limits ... but a handful of your compatriots in this debate would impose stricter rules.)
And I bet you knew that....
Nice try, but you missed again. On other threads we have beat this to pieces, but even woodies had a great deal of variety in how they played.
We agree that variety in styles is good. Where I disagree -- apparently with you, Jeff Rink, Martina Navratilova, et al is ... I believe we'll see S&V come back. Playing preferences certainly appear to have a cyclical pattern to them ... in my 30+ years of playing.
This is curious. I agree with everything I quoted from you ... except for the need to even regulate head size. Apparently you believe all levels of players' games are enhanced by the MP and OS frames. Is this an accurate rendering of your POV?
Maybe at the club level and below ... but not above the club level. From roughly 4.0 up, it's merely a matter of personal preference.
(In my case, I like the feel of my MP ... now that I've leaded it to my liking. I don't like the feel of any of the current OS frames. I used to greatly enjoy one particular 110 ... but MatchMate went out of business....)
You seem to think the "advantage" somehow manifests in better play. My advantage with my MP is more one of "feel" than anything else.
You have posted (on another thread) that you choose to stick with a Mid because of the greater challenge it presents you. While I don't share your motivation, I am not trying to "regulate" away this intrinsic benefit of yours. Why would you see a need to regulate away my improved feel?
I'll agree this is the case -- at, and below, the club level. But somewhere between 4.0 and 4.5, I cannot agree ... and I don't think you can produce and evidence to support your claim (above 4.0).
If Sam likes Mids, great. If Joe likes OS frames, great. What's the problem?
No. It's simply that they *like* having the variety of options. ("Today's fringe benefits are tomorrow's expectations.") The (small fringe movement's) cry to return to smaller frames, is seen as limiting our choices. No "fear" is involved.
- KK
tom4ny
Professional
this is my opinion, not fact.
1 - tennis should be a sport that is enjoyed by people of all levels, particularly those just starting and those with lesser ability which i am guessing is the majority of people.
2 - racquets help as well as hinder ones ability. that is why it is important to select the right racquet for your ability at a your current skill level.
3 - yet a racquet can only do so much. yes, it can reduce margin for error and bring increased power to a game but ultimately it is the skill (physical and mental) that a player currently possesses and also develops over time with increased play and training, that maximizes the benefits gained from the right frame for them.
4 - there are standards now, they're just different from the standards that used to be.
5 - the game has changed and when i read the opinions from the proponents for standardizing (back to the way things were?), i do not think that it is so much about being fair but more about a longing for and appreciation of the way the game was played in the past. nothing wrong with that.
i enjoyed tennis back in the 70's and 80's when i was a child growing up. i also enjoy it now and the amatuer and professional level but my reasons for enjoyment have changed with the times.
lastly, having more choices is always better than having less (imho).
dont worry be happy
1 - tennis should be a sport that is enjoyed by people of all levels, particularly those just starting and those with lesser ability which i am guessing is the majority of people.
2 - racquets help as well as hinder ones ability. that is why it is important to select the right racquet for your ability at a your current skill level.
3 - yet a racquet can only do so much. yes, it can reduce margin for error and bring increased power to a game but ultimately it is the skill (physical and mental) that a player currently possesses and also develops over time with increased play and training, that maximizes the benefits gained from the right frame for them.
4 - there are standards now, they're just different from the standards that used to be.
5 - the game has changed and when i read the opinions from the proponents for standardizing (back to the way things were?), i do not think that it is so much about being fair but more about a longing for and appreciation of the way the game was played in the past. nothing wrong with that.
i enjoyed tennis back in the 70's and 80's when i was a child growing up. i also enjoy it now and the amatuer and professional level but my reasons for enjoyment have changed with the times.
lastly, having more choices is always better than having less (imho).
dont worry be happy
Deuce. no problemo. I agree with you that the every one makes the team and gets acknowledged thing is harmful for kids. It discourages individuality, and these kids are going to get harsh surprises when they go into the real world and are exected to perform. I used to coach a high school tennis team. The team had a no cut policy. Kids were showing up just to say they were on the tennis team, and it was bringing the kids who were serious about the game down, not to mention that these kids who had no tennis abilities and werent really even interested in tennis might actually have skills in art or music or something else the teachers should be drawing out of them and getting them into. I quit after one season. i think being on the team is something that should be earned.
But..if tennis players using hi tech gear are getting an advantage, all they have to do is go play someone better (who is likely also using something modern) and get their butt handed to them..so that's the end of that argument I think. It's all relative. If someone wishes to have their game dragged down because they dont want to keep up with the modern game, that's on them..and they shouldnt complain about people playing within the rules as those people havent made the rules. If people dont like the game the way it is, they should simply quit.
Since people around here like analogies. Lets talk baseball. You can use materals other than wood for bats up to the pro level, and that seems to work and to keep the pro game under control and so that the back fences dont have to be moved back another 50 feet or so or the pitchers mound moved in. In golf, the large headed oversized drivers has rendered many classic traditional courses obsolete for the pros. Golf has reacted by designing new courses which stretch out to 7500 yards so the PRO's can play them. If they are using a traditional classsic course for a tourney, they shrink the fairways width down to 20 yeards at times in an effort to take the Driver out of the hands of the pros. What has tennis done to make the pro game more enjoyable and a true reflection of ablity? Zippo..Nada. That is why I propose that for the pro tour only, that racquets be limited to a combination of height and width not to exceed 36" (ain't gonna happen, but I think something has to be done as the game lacks variety). At least the other sports have adapted.tennis does nothing
For the rest of us non pros, I say let people use whatever they want. We need to encourage more people to play tennis rather than less. There would be far less playing with a standard racquet, especially if the standard racquet was something demanding
But..if tennis players using hi tech gear are getting an advantage, all they have to do is go play someone better (who is likely also using something modern) and get their butt handed to them..so that's the end of that argument I think. It's all relative. If someone wishes to have their game dragged down because they dont want to keep up with the modern game, that's on them..and they shouldnt complain about people playing within the rules as those people havent made the rules. If people dont like the game the way it is, they should simply quit.
Since people around here like analogies. Lets talk baseball. You can use materals other than wood for bats up to the pro level, and that seems to work and to keep the pro game under control and so that the back fences dont have to be moved back another 50 feet or so or the pitchers mound moved in. In golf, the large headed oversized drivers has rendered many classic traditional courses obsolete for the pros. Golf has reacted by designing new courses which stretch out to 7500 yards so the PRO's can play them. If they are using a traditional classsic course for a tourney, they shrink the fairways width down to 20 yeards at times in an effort to take the Driver out of the hands of the pros. What has tennis done to make the pro game more enjoyable and a true reflection of ablity? Zippo..Nada. That is why I propose that for the pro tour only, that racquets be limited to a combination of height and width not to exceed 36" (ain't gonna happen, but I think something has to be done as the game lacks variety). At least the other sports have adapted.tennis does nothing
For the rest of us non pros, I say let people use whatever they want. We need to encourage more people to play tennis rather than less. There would be far less playing with a standard racquet, especially if the standard racquet was something demanding
S
SageOfDeath
Guest
People must have missed my post on why I think that standardizing racquets would not be fair. I kept an open mind on why it would be fair but obviously others stay adamant with their opinion.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
To the Pro-Standardization bunch:
Certain rackets, with virtually the same dimensions have different playing characteristics ... different "feel". How stringently will you regulate your new rules?
- KK
Certain rackets, with virtually the same dimensions have different playing characteristics ... different "feel". How stringently will you regulate your new rules?
- KK
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Kaptain Karl said:
I'd say different "feels" are fine. As much differences in "feel" as there used to be in wood racquets is OK. Almost all wood racquets had the same head size and shape, same length, and same beam width. Power levels also did not vary widely as they do today. The main differences were in weight, balance, flex, and "feel", although these differences weren't nearly as great as they are today with the large variety of modern racquets. Standard racquets could have the same slight variations as wood racquets had, IMHO.
Deuce
Banned
Ed wrote:
"For the rest of us non pros, I say let people use whatever they want. We need to encourage more people to play tennis rather than less. There would be far less playing with a standard racquet, especially if the standard racquet was something demanding."
Tennis was quite a popular participation sport back in the 70s and first half of the 80s - arguably more popular than it is today... and 95% of people who played back then played with a standard size frame.
As I've said earlier - in this thread, or one of its clones - people today want everything to be easy and convenient. Instant gratification with minimal - or no - effort. This is true in just about every element of life - certainly not just tennis. This is why people are whining that a standard size - or even a Midsized - racquet is "too difficult to play with". To these people, I say 'stop whining about wanting things to be easier'. Players of yesterday were built of the same basic ingredients as we today - muscle and bone and veins and arteries and skin, etc. - and they fared quite well with heavy, standard sized frames. Those who couldn't play with those frames didn't play tennis - simple as that. But today, as I mentioned, in this sickening 'Politically Correct' culture, it seems that everyone MUST be included in everything - no one can be left out - everyone has to be able to participate in everything, or else it "isn't fair". This 'philosophy', of course, inherently lowers the standard - the standard must be lowered in order to allow everyone to participate. I view the longer and larger headed racquets as being a product of the lower standards, where everyone must participate. And I don't think that's a good thing. I say bring back the philosophy of the 'old days', where if one possessed the ability to participate at a competitive level, one played, and if one did not possess that ability, one didn't play - one instead explored other aspects of life, some of which one would no doubt possess a fine ability for.
"For the rest of us non pros, I say let people use whatever they want. We need to encourage more people to play tennis rather than less. There would be far less playing with a standard racquet, especially if the standard racquet was something demanding."
Tennis was quite a popular participation sport back in the 70s and first half of the 80s - arguably more popular than it is today... and 95% of people who played back then played with a standard size frame.
As I've said earlier - in this thread, or one of its clones - people today want everything to be easy and convenient. Instant gratification with minimal - or no - effort. This is true in just about every element of life - certainly not just tennis. This is why people are whining that a standard size - or even a Midsized - racquet is "too difficult to play with". To these people, I say 'stop whining about wanting things to be easier'. Players of yesterday were built of the same basic ingredients as we today - muscle and bone and veins and arteries and skin, etc. - and they fared quite well with heavy, standard sized frames. Those who couldn't play with those frames didn't play tennis - simple as that. But today, as I mentioned, in this sickening 'Politically Correct' culture, it seems that everyone MUST be included in everything - no one can be left out - everyone has to be able to participate in everything, or else it "isn't fair". This 'philosophy', of course, inherently lowers the standard - the standard must be lowered in order to allow everyone to participate. I view the longer and larger headed racquets as being a product of the lower standards, where everyone must participate. And I don't think that's a good thing. I say bring back the philosophy of the 'old days', where if one possessed the ability to participate at a competitive level, one played, and if one did not possess that ability, one didn't play - one instead explored other aspects of life, some of which one would no doubt possess a fine ability for.
Deuce
Banned
Karl - your words are in BLUE, mine in BLACK.
It's not true advocacy on my part; it's demonstrating the absurdity of the "Standardizing" side's POV, to make a point. (The point being the question, "Where do you stop standardizing? You've stated your limits ... but a handful of your compatriots in this debate would impose stricter rules.)
I am writing from my perspective only here - the perspectives of my "compatriots in this debate" are both beyond my control as well as beyond my adopting, as they do not belong to me.
'Standardizing' itself is neither absurd nor ridiculous. Standardizing to the point of there being only one single racquet which everyone must use - that is a rather absurd extreme.
Nice try, but you missed again. On other threads we have beat this to pieces, but even woodies had a great deal of variety in how they played.
Yes - which is precisely why I have proposed (you somehow conveniently missed my criteria for standardization which I outlined in earlier posts) that we regulate - or standardize - only racquet length and head size, while allowing variations in weight, balance, and composition/ingredients/flex. This would allow much variety within racquets, without giving any racquet a decided advantage over others. This is how it was in the days of wood racquets.
We agree that variety in styles is good. Where I disagree -- apparently with you, Jeff Rink, Martina Navratilova, et al is ... I believe we'll see S&V come back. Playing preferences certainly appear to have a cyclical pattern to them ... in my 30+ years of playing.
I don't believe that the future can be based on the past - especially not something as ambiguous as S&V returning at 'some point' in the future. If some things in tennis have been cyclical (such as?) over the history of the sport, I believe that this can be thrown out the window due to the fact that the game has changed far more radically in the past 25 years than it had in its entire history prior to 1980. The main reason for this - I don't believe it is a mere co-incidence - is the change in the main piece of equipment (the racquet) over the past quarter century.
This is curious. I agree with everything I quoted from you ... except for the need to even regulate head size. Apparently you believe all levels of players' games are enhanced by the MP and OS frames. Is this an accurate rendering of your POV?
Essentially, yes, it is accurate. I do not believe that a larger headed and/or longer racquet is an advantage for ALL players - there are most certainly those who play better with smaller headed frames. I do, however, believe that larger headed/longer racquets give a decided advantage to the majority of players of all levels.
Maybe at the club level and below ... but not above the club level. From roughly 4.0 up, it's merely a matter of personal preference.
The larger racquet is an advantage for the majority of players at all levels. The majority seem to agree, as they are using the larger racquets - there must be a reason for this. And the way some have posted in this and other similar threads, they definitely do not want to play with a racquet with a smaller head size. The reason for this - quite obviously - is that, by playing with a smaller frame, they feel they will lose the advantage that the larger racquet gives them. Again, this is seen at all levels.
(In my case, I like the feel of my MP ... now that I've leaded it to my liking. I don't like the feel of any of the current OS frames. I used to greatly enjoy one particular 110 ... but MatchMate went out of business....)
You seem to think the "advantage" somehow manifests in better play. My advantage with my MP is more one of "feel" than anything else.
You have posted (on another thread) that you choose to stick with a Mid because of the greater challenge it presents you. While I don't share your motivation, I am not trying to "regulate" away this intrinsic benefit of yours. Why would you see a need to regulate away my improved feel?
One of the reasons I play with a small headed racquet is indeed due to the added challenge it brings. But I also love the feel of racquets from the 80s - and most racquets from the 80s are in the 80 to 90 sq. in. range.
I would never regulate feel. If you enjoy the way your racquet feels, I would have absolutely no objection, under standardization, to you playing with a racquet made up of exactly the same ingredients as your current frame - only with a smaller head (and shorter length, if applicable). You would thus retain the feel of your current frame, and would, of course, be able to customize the weight and balance to your personal preference. Thus your feel, and many of your choices, are maintained - just not any which give the racquet a decided advantage.
I'll agree this is the case -- at, and below, the club level. But somewhere between 4.0 and 4.5, I cannot agree ... and I don't think you can produce and evidence to support your claim (above 4.0).
This is a cheap ploy - the old "you can't produce evidence". This is written, of course, to suggest that you CAN "produce evidence". The fact is, however, that, short of an exhaustive, profound research, which would take many months, if not years, to accomplish, neither you nor I nor Navratilova nor McEnroe nor anyone else can "produce evidence" to confirm our respective perspective - mainly because we are discussing just that - personal perspective.
If Sam likes Mids, great. If Joe likes OS frames, great. What's the problem?
The problem, as I have mentioned an infinite number of times, is that we cannot measure who among Sam and Joe possesses the greater tennis ability unless all outside factors are rendered neutral, thus leaving personal, individual ability as the only measurable variable. As the goal of competition is to determine the player or team which possesses the greatest ability, no unequal element should obstruct this process.
No. It's simply that they *like* having the variety of options. ("Today's fringe benefits are tomorrow's expectations.") The (small fringe movement's) cry to return to smaller frames, is seen as limiting our choices. No "fear" is involved.
You say "limiting our choices" - and this is true. But it is only limiting the choices in length and head size. I believe that there are far too many choices in racquets right now. The majority of players on this message board are virtual slaves to the racquet companies - using "the best racquet on Earth" for an entire year (if that long), before switching to the next pretender to the throne of 'Holy Grail'. The racquet industry is out of control, spitting out replacement models every few months. This is a far, far cry from the comparative sanity of the racquet industry a short 20 years ago.
By regulating the length and head size of racquets, there would still be plenty of choices available in other elements - weight, balance, materials/ingredients/flex... this is all that was needed in the wood racquet era - when participatory tennis was arguably more popular than it is today - so why isn't this enough choice for us? Because we, as a culture, are spoiled to the point of requiring convenience at every corner, and reward without effort.
As for fear... when I read posts whining that it would not be fair to regulate racquet head sizes, I sense a definite fear that presently hidden weaknesses would be exposed if using a racquet with a smaller head size.
If not fear, what then is the objection to smaller head sizes? If racquets with larger head sizes do not offer a decided advantage over racquets with smaller head sizes, what exactly is the attraction to larger head sizes, then? Why do players who currently use larger head sizes vehemently object to moving to a smaller head size? If, as you claim, there is no advantage to the larger head size, why are so many using them? Why do so many object to a switch to a smaller head size?
It's not true advocacy on my part; it's demonstrating the absurdity of the "Standardizing" side's POV, to make a point. (The point being the question, "Where do you stop standardizing? You've stated your limits ... but a handful of your compatriots in this debate would impose stricter rules.)
I am writing from my perspective only here - the perspectives of my "compatriots in this debate" are both beyond my control as well as beyond my adopting, as they do not belong to me.
'Standardizing' itself is neither absurd nor ridiculous. Standardizing to the point of there being only one single racquet which everyone must use - that is a rather absurd extreme.
Nice try, but you missed again. On other threads we have beat this to pieces, but even woodies had a great deal of variety in how they played.
Yes - which is precisely why I have proposed (you somehow conveniently missed my criteria for standardization which I outlined in earlier posts) that we regulate - or standardize - only racquet length and head size, while allowing variations in weight, balance, and composition/ingredients/flex. This would allow much variety within racquets, without giving any racquet a decided advantage over others. This is how it was in the days of wood racquets.
We agree that variety in styles is good. Where I disagree -- apparently with you, Jeff Rink, Martina Navratilova, et al is ... I believe we'll see S&V come back. Playing preferences certainly appear to have a cyclical pattern to them ... in my 30+ years of playing.
I don't believe that the future can be based on the past - especially not something as ambiguous as S&V returning at 'some point' in the future. If some things in tennis have been cyclical (such as?) over the history of the sport, I believe that this can be thrown out the window due to the fact that the game has changed far more radically in the past 25 years than it had in its entire history prior to 1980. The main reason for this - I don't believe it is a mere co-incidence - is the change in the main piece of equipment (the racquet) over the past quarter century.
This is curious. I agree with everything I quoted from you ... except for the need to even regulate head size. Apparently you believe all levels of players' games are enhanced by the MP and OS frames. Is this an accurate rendering of your POV?
Essentially, yes, it is accurate. I do not believe that a larger headed and/or longer racquet is an advantage for ALL players - there are most certainly those who play better with smaller headed frames. I do, however, believe that larger headed/longer racquets give a decided advantage to the majority of players of all levels.
Maybe at the club level and below ... but not above the club level. From roughly 4.0 up, it's merely a matter of personal preference.
The larger racquet is an advantage for the majority of players at all levels. The majority seem to agree, as they are using the larger racquets - there must be a reason for this. And the way some have posted in this and other similar threads, they definitely do not want to play with a racquet with a smaller head size. The reason for this - quite obviously - is that, by playing with a smaller frame, they feel they will lose the advantage that the larger racquet gives them. Again, this is seen at all levels.
(In my case, I like the feel of my MP ... now that I've leaded it to my liking. I don't like the feel of any of the current OS frames. I used to greatly enjoy one particular 110 ... but MatchMate went out of business....)
You seem to think the "advantage" somehow manifests in better play. My advantage with my MP is more one of "feel" than anything else.
You have posted (on another thread) that you choose to stick with a Mid because of the greater challenge it presents you. While I don't share your motivation, I am not trying to "regulate" away this intrinsic benefit of yours. Why would you see a need to regulate away my improved feel?
One of the reasons I play with a small headed racquet is indeed due to the added challenge it brings. But I also love the feel of racquets from the 80s - and most racquets from the 80s are in the 80 to 90 sq. in. range.
I would never regulate feel. If you enjoy the way your racquet feels, I would have absolutely no objection, under standardization, to you playing with a racquet made up of exactly the same ingredients as your current frame - only with a smaller head (and shorter length, if applicable). You would thus retain the feel of your current frame, and would, of course, be able to customize the weight and balance to your personal preference. Thus your feel, and many of your choices, are maintained - just not any which give the racquet a decided advantage.
I'll agree this is the case -- at, and below, the club level. But somewhere between 4.0 and 4.5, I cannot agree ... and I don't think you can produce and evidence to support your claim (above 4.0).
This is a cheap ploy - the old "you can't produce evidence". This is written, of course, to suggest that you CAN "produce evidence". The fact is, however, that, short of an exhaustive, profound research, which would take many months, if not years, to accomplish, neither you nor I nor Navratilova nor McEnroe nor anyone else can "produce evidence" to confirm our respective perspective - mainly because we are discussing just that - personal perspective.
If Sam likes Mids, great. If Joe likes OS frames, great. What's the problem?
The problem, as I have mentioned an infinite number of times, is that we cannot measure who among Sam and Joe possesses the greater tennis ability unless all outside factors are rendered neutral, thus leaving personal, individual ability as the only measurable variable. As the goal of competition is to determine the player or team which possesses the greatest ability, no unequal element should obstruct this process.
No. It's simply that they *like* having the variety of options. ("Today's fringe benefits are tomorrow's expectations.") The (small fringe movement's) cry to return to smaller frames, is seen as limiting our choices. No "fear" is involved.
You say "limiting our choices" - and this is true. But it is only limiting the choices in length and head size. I believe that there are far too many choices in racquets right now. The majority of players on this message board are virtual slaves to the racquet companies - using "the best racquet on Earth" for an entire year (if that long), before switching to the next pretender to the throne of 'Holy Grail'. The racquet industry is out of control, spitting out replacement models every few months. This is a far, far cry from the comparative sanity of the racquet industry a short 20 years ago.
By regulating the length and head size of racquets, there would still be plenty of choices available in other elements - weight, balance, materials/ingredients/flex... this is all that was needed in the wood racquet era - when participatory tennis was arguably more popular than it is today - so why isn't this enough choice for us? Because we, as a culture, are spoiled to the point of requiring convenience at every corner, and reward without effort.
As for fear... when I read posts whining that it would not be fair to regulate racquet head sizes, I sense a definite fear that presently hidden weaknesses would be exposed if using a racquet with a smaller head size.
If not fear, what then is the objection to smaller head sizes? If racquets with larger head sizes do not offer a decided advantage over racquets with smaller head sizes, what exactly is the attraction to larger head sizes, then? Why do players who currently use larger head sizes vehemently object to moving to a smaller head size? If, as you claim, there is no advantage to the larger head size, why are so many using them? Why do so many object to a switch to a smaller head size?
Venetian
Professional
All the arguments for standardization seem to in some way mention the "wood era". The 70's are gone, let them go. Changes have come about because people wanted them. Wood was only used because better materials weren't found for racquets yet. Variety is good!
Also, the sport of tennis is not going to revert 30 years because a few 40-somethings on an online tennis forum don't want to adapt.
Also, the sport of tennis is not going to revert 30 years because a few 40-somethings on an online tennis forum don't want to adapt.
Deuce
Banned
Venetian, it was established several months ago that you not only never experienced the wood racquet era, but also that, in viewing it on videotape, you found it incredibly boring. I believe you even described the 1980 Wimbledon Final as being incredibly slow and boring.
You didn't experience tennis at all during the wood racquet era - not as a fan, or as a player - so I don't think it's your place to be speaking about adaptation - at least not in this context, or with this subject.
Tell us how much you love today's tennis, and today's racquets - that's all fine. But when you have nothing to compare either 'perspective' to, this inherently makes your 'perspective' a very limited and narrow one. Telling people how much 'better' the game and the racquets are today than they were yesterday when you weren't around to experience yesterday is akin to telling everyone that Vanilla ice cream is better than Chocolate and Strawberry - when you've never tasted Chocolate or Strawberry.
You didn't experience tennis at all during the wood racquet era - not as a fan, or as a player - so I don't think it's your place to be speaking about adaptation - at least not in this context, or with this subject.
Tell us how much you love today's tennis, and today's racquets - that's all fine. But when you have nothing to compare either 'perspective' to, this inherently makes your 'perspective' a very limited and narrow one. Telling people how much 'better' the game and the racquets are today than they were yesterday when you weren't around to experience yesterday is akin to telling everyone that Vanilla ice cream is better than Chocolate and Strawberry - when you've never tasted Chocolate or Strawberry.
Venetian
Professional
Deuce said:
I've never seen the match you mentioned. Also I have stated several times that I have seen many taped matches from that era and have also tried wooden racquets several times. So I have experienced it. Game, set, and match.
Also note that vanilla ice cream did not replace chocolate or strawberry.
I wasn't alive 500 years ago and yet I know that guns are much more efficient weapons of war than bows.
Deuce
Banned
Venetian said:
I remember from your posts in a previous thread some months ago that you have very little to no respect for the history of tennis - be it 20 or 30 years ago, or 100 years ago. To you, that was nothing more than a slow, boring game.
"I've watched it on tape, so I've experienced it"?
"I've tried wooden racquets several times"?
Wow - such profound experience. You must know everything about what it was like to play back then. You must know what choices of racquets people had, and what were the differences between racquets. And, of course, since you have "tried wooden racquets several times", you of course know how to play with wood - that is, how to get the best out of a given wood racquet when facing a player who knows how to get the best out of the same weapon. Not to mention, of course, that since you've "tried wooden racquets several times", you know exactly what it is like to adapt from standard size wood to standard size metal to standard size graphite to midsize graphite to oversize metal to midplus graphite to oversize graphite... And, of course, you've seen exactly how the game has changed over the years - after all, seeing it on tape is just like living through it.
Yup - you're just a wealth of experience.
Go buy yourself some perspective, kid.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
Yeah. I must have missed this. (I'm already confused by the number of threads discussing this -- or a very closely related aspect of this -- thread.) Thanks for your recommended standards (again).Deuce said:
But you, yourself, are making the claim that tennis' popularity of 20 years ago was (at least contributed to by) smaller framed rackets. (I infer a suggestion that those "glory days" of the past could be somewhat revived in our future if we returned to smaller head sizes.) If I'm inferring correctly, your two claims are in opposition to each other.
Quickly, and off the top of my head....
1 - Men's attire: Long pants, shorts, shorter shorts, "longs" (I think calling them "shorts" when they are below the knee is silly.) then (Nadal's) long pajama pants.
2 - The US Open: Fast court (grass), slow court (clay), fast court (hard)
3 - The many (rapid) cycles of popular string preferences: gut / synthetic / gut.
4 - Popular game styles: Tilden (baseliner) Kramer (Serve & Volley) the last five years, or so (baseline).
Oh??? I remember Kramer -- and those S&V-ers who followed him was scorned by the "Country Club crowd." (Then, they "joined him.")
The court dimensions are still the same. Scoring is still the same. The ball is yellow (only) now. [I still remember white balls being noticably easier to see at night and indoors. Why'd they stop making them?] But it's still the same in performance. The players are (generally) more fit -- and, as been pointed out on numerous other threads -- tennis isn't even getting the "athletic cream." We do not attract the athlete in our sport ... yet, those we get are more fit (again, generally) than 25 years ago. And the racket composition and size has changed.... Doesn't really seem all that "radical" to me.
Okay. Thanks for clarifying your position.
We will not agree that the 4.0-and-up players are generally benefitted.
1 - (As I've already posted) I don't see this "advantage" as being so much advanced play as a preference for how the racket ... or the player ... "feels" to the player while using "racket X" over racket Y. (Which isn't any different than it was 25 years ago.)
2 - It seems to me you are confusing correlation and causation. Just because more players seem to prefer MP and OS frames, it does not necessarily mean these players' games are advanced BY these larger headed frames. I don't believe you are drawing an accurate conclusion to say "more are choosing MPs and OSs, therefore the MPs and OSs are advancing these players' games" (which is how I read your argument).
I aslo acknowledge the "psychological benefit" to an individual player can confuse causation and correlation. (Which is why I don't think either one of us will prove our case.) If Jane *believes* she plays better with an OS, guess what? She'll be correct.
Just as I admit an anti-Prince bias which has lasted since "good 'ol Howard" introduced them: Since the mid-70's I have demoed a variety of Prince rackets. I hated every one. And I have a hitting partner who plays a *very* similar game to mine ... and I cannot comprehend how he can do it with a Prince. The answer must be ... my bias is overwhelming the fact: Princes can actually be used just as well as any other stick. (But I still hate them.)
Okay. We understand each other's ... attraction ... to "feel".
But wait! I prefer the MP version of the exact same stick I use over the OS version. I prefer the MP because the feel is more to my liking. It seems to me, you are attributing my feel to the materials only. I think the good feel comes from the size, too.
(I know I quoted part of this twice.)
Stop!
This argument of yours is built upon a premise with which I disagree. I disagree with your premise that the racket alone gives a "decided advantage." Therefore, I cannot assent to your proposed standard.
Sorry for the "cheap ploy." I really wasn't trying to be a "Sophist" with that. And I cannot produce *evidence* to support my POV either. I have only my own observations as a competitive player (30+ years) teacher (12) and coach (4). And I'll even stipulate that I disagree with a more "weighty" source: Mac. He has way more experience than I ... and I think he's wrong on this issue.
"That's business." I'm content to let the Market run itself. (I do agree that the choices are probably daunting to the Newbie. And some 15 year old kid at Sports Authority is probably NOT the best guide for a neophyte's choice of stick.) But that's also part of "the market."
In some arenas (politics, faith, world affairs) this type of argument appeals to me. Not in a Market discussion....
Deuce, while you and I will probably not come to agreement ... I appreciate your thoughtful discourse.
- KK
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Oh, come on! If MP and OS racquets didn't give you guys a decisive advantage and help you play better and win more, then why is there this inexplicable fear of using anything less than 95 sq. in., and why are some of you acting like Charlton Heston, as the President of the NRA, holding up your MP or OS racquets over your heads and yelling - "You'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands!"?
Have you seen the size of a tennis ball? It's pretty darn small compared to the size of an OS racquet's hitting surface, isn't it? Why do you guys need something so big to hit something so small? I mean people had no trouble hitting the sweetspot with their 65 sq. in. wood racquets, so why do people now NEED a 115 sq. in. racquet to hit the same tiny little ball? Are people's eye-hand coordination that much worse today than 30 years ago? Or have people just gotten lazier?
Have you seen the size of a tennis ball? It's pretty darn small compared to the size of an OS racquet's hitting surface, isn't it? Why do you guys need something so big to hit something so small? I mean people had no trouble hitting the sweetspot with their 65 sq. in. wood racquets, so why do people now NEED a 115 sq. in. racquet to hit the same tiny little ball? Are people's eye-hand coordination that much worse today than 30 years ago? Or have people just gotten lazier?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
BTW, I forgot to mention in my earlier post on wood racquets (Post #88 ), another similarity amongst wood racquets. That is, they mostly also had the same string pattern, that is, very, very dense (by today's standards) which made them even less powerful, if they weren't low-powered enough due to the small stringbed and super flexible frames (RDC 25 - 35?). Can you imagine an 18x20 string pattern on a 65 sq. in. head? It's funny how people today complain that an 18x20 pattern on a 98 sq. in. Head LM Radical MP is too dense to play with.
Similar threads
