~~~~~ The 90 Sq. In. Club ~~~~~

So, if Federer is as good as everyone says he is, why would he need a bigger racket? For that matter, Nads really doesn't need a 100. I'm sure with a PS 85 within the weight/balance he likes, Nads would be doing exactly what he's doing now. The proof is in the pudding as a variety of pros have come and gone using the PS 85.

IMO, Fed uses what he feels most comfortable with. Does he need to change frames? Only Fed can answer that.

.
Some really great points here. You are a purist and appreciate the beauty of the sport. I respect that.

But to the Pros who do this for a living...well they need to win. And most have chosen racquets larger than 90.

At our level I can understand playing with small heads to feel the beauty of the strokes....but I also like to win. I must confess even more important than the beauty.

But I really do respect your points and your appreciation for the old ways and smaller heads.
 
Some really great points here. You are a purist and appreciate the beauty of the sport. I respect that.

But to the Pros who do this for a living...well they need to win. And most have chosen racquets larger than 90.

At our level I can understand playing with small heads to feel the beauty of the strokes....but I also like to win. I must confess even more important than the beauty.

But I really do respect your points and your appreciation for the old ways and smaller heads.
Thanks for that, seroiusly.

However, I do have to say that about 5 years ago, I got a wild hair and played an entire year of league, men's, mixed, and combo with a Head Vilas. I bought one, and wound up buying 4 more. I strung them all with natural gut at 58. I played 4.5, two levels of mixed, and two of combo. I won more than I lost by a considerable margin. I was amazed at how hard my first serves actually were.

Net of this is, I don't think the head size makes that much of a difference once you get to a certain level, even less at the pro level. Why do pros play with an average 100 sq in frame? That answer is twofold and very easy......

1.) $'s - the pros get paid to play with frames. Even if they don't, which I fully understand that the majority don't, they play with what is manufactured which brings me to my second point:

2.) the average head size manufactured now is right at 100 square inches

Guess what? A few years ago the average head size was 95 and a few years before that, the avearge head size was 90 and before that 85 and before that 80.

During each of those periods, from the onset of graphite larger than wood heads, pros have played with whatever the average was. They do this because that's what the manufacturers are trying to sell.

To prove my point, when the Prince frame was introduced, it was 110 square inches. Howard Head had no intention of making anything smaller than that. He basically had two pros, Gene Mayer and Pam Shriver. Pam Shriver, at the age of 16, got to the US Open finals and lost with a Prince which later became the Classic. It was the aluminum one with the green throat. Flexible as hell and all in all a terrible frame IMO. When the Graphite was introdcued, Prince picked up Gene Mayer who had been pretty much a journeyman until he changed.

But, there never has been a mass defection to the 110 square inch frame. If bigger really is better, why not? My point is that manufacturers drive the head size and what the 'normal' frame on tour is. To really seal the deal, they have gotten so good at building frames now that they can tailor the frame's power to whatever the pro wants regardless of what is really being sold.
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rabbit,

I respect that you love the old ways.

However my personal belief is to change with the times. We each must march to our own drummer.

You believe the days of yore were better, but I like the modern game better.
Its a basuc difference of opinion.

I do see the beauty in your philosophy and I am sure a good player can play with a spoon......but why should he?

Now if you just want to enjoy the pure beauty of hitting a correct stroke with a small head then more power to you. But like the Pros I need to win.....and like the Pros a bigger head is just more forgiving...in my opinion.
 
Well you do have a point. If you are looking just for enjoyment for the "purity" of the strokes then I understand. I on the other hand play for both enjoyment and winning.....and I really do enjoy winning. So thats why I use a 100 square inch racquet.

But I cant comment on nadals game or any Pros game ...they are so many levels above me that I dont have the balls. Maybe the balls on your court are big enough to comment on Nadals talents....but definitely not mine.

In any event I would rather win a 100 square inch like Nadal did than lose with a 90 inch like Federer did.

But I understand where you are comong from.....its more aout enjoyment for you than winning. I think thats kind of cool.
Don't get me wrong, I also enjoy winning as much as anyone else and I do win quite a lot with my 90. But the difference is that I don't HAVE to win because I don't depend on winning tennis matches to put food on the table. If I lose, it's no big deal. I can still pay my rent next month. :)
 
Don't get me wrong, I also enjoy winning as much as anyone else and I do win quite a lot with my 90. But the difference is that I don't HAVE to win because I don't depend on winning tennis matches to put food on the table. If I lose, it's no big deal. I can still pay my rent next month. :)
I guess we all play for different reasons. There are the purists who play for the beauty of the game and then there are the competitive players whos main goal os to win.

I am of the later type and therefore I choose a head with a larger size. I really don't care how beautiful my strokes look ...I just want to win.

I do give you guys a lot of respect...playing for the sheer beauty of the game is quite admirable. Maybe someday I will mature to be a purist but right now ....I just want to win.
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rabbit,

I respect that you love the old ways.

However my personal belief is to change with the times. We each must march to our own drummer.

You believe the days of yore were better, but I like the modern game better.
Its a basuc difference of opinion.

I do see the beauty in your philosophy and I am sure a good player can play with a spoon......but why should he?

Now if you just want to enjoy the pure beauty of hitting a correct stroke with a small head then more power to you. But like the Pros I need to win.....and like the Pros a bigger head is just more forgiving...in my opinion.
Sorry, let me be clearer. What I tried to say was this. Back when the average head size was 80 sq in, the majority of pros played with that head size, not 110. When that average pushed to 90, the majority of pros played with 90. Now it is 100 and the majority of pros are playing with that.

My intent was to demonstrate that $'s and manufacturers push the players in a certain direction, not any need for a larger frame. Truth be told, they'd play with 66 square inch frames if the sport mandated it and play well.

It has nothing to do with old school versus today.
 
I guess we all play for different reasons. There are the purists who play for the beauty of the game and then there are the competitive players whos main goal os to win.

I am of the later type and therefore I choose a head with a larger size. I really don't care how beautiful my strokes look ...I just want to win.

I do give you guys a lot of respect...playing for the sheer beauty of the game is quite admirable. Maybe someday I will mature to be a purist but right now ....I just want to win.
I guess what I wrote above didn't quite sink in with you. I want to win, too. That's why I use a 90 - because I win more with it than I do with a 100. But if I don't win - I'm not going on welfare, I'm not going to kill myself, and I'm not going to switch to a 100.
 
I guess we all play for different reasons. There are the purists who play for the beauty of the game and then there are the competitive players whos main goal os to win.

I am of the later type and therefore I choose a head with a larger size. I really don't care how beautiful my strokes look ...I just want to win.

I do give you guys a lot of respect...playing for the sheer beauty of the game is quite admirable. Maybe someday I will mature to be a purist but right now ....I just want to win.
Yes. But I do not think you understand where the sub-100 sq in crowd is coming from.

Sure, the purist in me wishes we all played with Maxplys, Kramers, Challenge No. 1s and Donnay Allwoods. I still have a few, and I love them. The beautiful game. But I'm not playing matches with them.

The guy in me who wants to use technology and be like Rafa? He kinda wants a bright yellow Babolat for Christmas. But I do not play my best with it, so I'm thankful for the demo process.

The guy in me who wants to play his very best and maximize his results chooses a 90 or a 95 inch, thin-beamed stick with a HL balance and a mass in the high 360s or low 370s. The brand really does not matter.

Oh, and only obliquely realted to this topic, but I feel it's like grips size: to each his own. My hand size indicates I ought to use a size 5 and a quarter, maybe a 5 and 3/8. But I play my best with a 4 and 3/4. So that's what I use.
 
I guess what I wrote above didn't quite sink in with you. I want to win, too. That's why I use a 90 - because I win more with it than I do with a 100. But if I don't win - I'm not going on welfare, I'm not going to kill myself, and I'm not going to switch to a 100.
Well I am sort of confused. Don't the Pros want to win? I mean the original question was why do you think that majority of pros do not play with a 90 inch. Your answer was:

No, I have never wondered why. They are pros, I'm not. They depend on playing tennis to make a living. I do not. I play tennis for the enjoyment, they do not. It's their job.

There are also very few pros still left that possess the necessary technique to use a small headed racquet. Just look at Nadal, he wouldn't be where he is today if used his same technique but with Federer's racquet.
And now you seem to be saying something different. So I am a bit confused. maybe you could clarify it a bit more?
 
Sorry, let me be clearer. What I tried to say was this. Back when the average head size was 80 sq in, the majority of pros played with that head size, not 110. When that average pushed to 90, the majority of pros played with 90. Now it is 100 and the majority of pros are playing with that.

My intent was to demonstrate that $'s and manufacturers push the players in a certain direction, not any need for a larger frame. Truth be told, they'd play with 66 square inch frames if the sport mandated it and play well.

It has nothing to do with old school versus today.
I see so you are saying that in actuality there is no difference between Lendl adidas 66 inch (or whaterver it was) and the K90. The only difference is the $$$$$?????
 
I see so you are saying that in actuality there is no difference between Lendl adidas 66 inch (or whaterver it was) and the K90. The only difference is the $$$$$?????
To a pro, no not a lot. Of course pros have different tastes in flex, weight and balance. But, do you really think a world class pro male or female, needs an extra large hitting surface? You don't really believe that the pros shank the majority of their shots requiring a larger head do you?

Agassi preferred an OS when he started, but toward the end of his career, he experimented with Mids and MidPluses.

My point, which I seem to be very ineffectual in making, is that pros since the introduction of larger than wood frames have used primarily whatever manufacturers pushed on them. Back in the early 80s, the predominant head size was right around 80 sq in. The vast majority of pros in the early 80s used an 80 sq in head. Later, 85-90 square inches became the dominant head size and the average head size on tour was 85 - 90 square inches. Ten years or so ago, the average head size was 95 square inches and yep....95 square inches was what most pros used. Today, it's 98 - 100 square inches and again you see the pros using that size.

Sampras refused to change and consequently got free rackets but no $'s. The difference now is that manufacturers can produce a layup and weight/balance that are exactly what a pro wants. So, if you purchase a Babolat Pure Drive, it may have very little in common with the Pure Drive a world class pro uses.
 
Well I am sort of confused. Don't the Pros want to win? I mean the original question was why do you think that majority of pros do not play with a 90 inch. Your answer was:

And now you seem to be saying something different. So I am a bit confused. maybe you could clarify it a bit more?
Why is this confusing? The pros HAVE to win. It's their job. Their livlihood depends on them winning. They don't win, they don't eat.

I like to win but I don't have to win. That's the big difference.

You'll soon realize that winning meaningless tennis matches is not the most important thing in life.
 
Last edited:
90 or 95 does not make a difference to you?
It's more about mass and balance for me. Now, 85, I can tell. But 90s are good with me, especially if it's the Dunlop aerogel 1hundred. I play well with 90s like the HEAD Prestige mid and the 93s by Volkl. 95s like the Dunlop ag200 and the Babolat PS Ltd are great for me, too. Same with the Fischer M-Comp 95. 98s like the Fischer Pro no. 1 feel 95 ish to me.

Well, hope you find what you're looking for.
 
Exactly my point!

I would rather win with a 100 square inch racquet and use the "wrong" technique.

Wheras you are a "Purist" and play for the beauty of the sport.

I respect that...we just have different goals.
But isn't it better to use a 90 and win using the "right" technique, like Federer does?

Everyone talks about the beauty and artistry of Federer's game and strokes, but no one talks about Nadal's game nor strokes that way. Isn't it best to look "beautiful" AND win? :) But hey, if you don't have the game nor strokes then I guess you don't have much of a choice. :(
 
But isn't it better to use a 90 and win using the "right" technique, like Federer does?

Everyone talks about the beauty and artistry of Federer's game and strokes, but no one talks about Nadal's game nor strokes that way. Isn't it best to look "beautiful" AND win? :) But hey, if you don't have the game nor strokes then I guess you don't have much of a choice. :(
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

This one statement you made is a microcosm of the diffence of opinions between us and maybe between 100's and 90's.


Your question: Isn't it best to look "beautiful" AND win?

The answer: In my opinion is a resounding NO and in your opinion is a resounding YES


To me a win is a win....whether I gut it out with heart or win with beautiful artisitic strokes makes no difference......

In fact I personally would rather win with heart than artistry....but thats just me.

Do you know what they call the medical student who graduates at the bottom of his class?....

They call him Doctor. It may not have been pretty but the outcome is the same.
 
Sign me up. The AG100 is my new main stick. Haven't had this much fun in years (ever since I got my first PS 85, back in the late 80s; before that it was a JK PS woodie).
 
whats with people buying k90s lol theres alot of people out there that buy it and do a terrible job using it makes me sad :(

any pro staff 90 users out there o_O?

and PRO STAFF 90 FTW XD love my stickk

one question is the k90 a little lighter on the follow through than the pro staff 90?
 
Dunlop AG100
Fischer Vacuum Pro 90
Prince CTS Graduate 90
Prince CTS Lightning 90
Prince CTS Precision 90
Prince Graphite Pro 90
Prince Spectrum Comp 90
Pro Kennex Laver Heritage Type C 93
Wilson Pro Staff Tour 90

Fave: AG100


Previously owned:
Head i.Prestige Mid
Prince CTS Approach 90
Pro Kennex Redondo Type C 93
Yonex RDX 500 Mid
 
whats with people buying k90s lol theres alot of people out there that buy it and do a terrible job using it makes me sad :(

any pro staff 90 users out there o_O?

and PRO STAFF 90 FTW XD love my stickk

one question is the k90 a little lighter on the follow through than the pro staff 90?

well if u love the PS90 why not try k90?
the sweet spot feels as if its 2x bigger and u get a whole load of spinnnn


COUNT ME INNN!!!
PS90, K90, PS85
 
well if u love the PS90 why not try k90?
the sweet spot feels as if its 2x bigger and u get a whole load of spinnnn


COUNT ME INNN!!!
PS90, K90, PS85
ummm hope fully that will be the second racket i will use cause i only have 1 ps90 :( i want another but im just gonna buy the newer model i guess lol

cuz their basically the same price ps90 is 200 and k90 is 200 lol
 
What if ??

Aside from those who began using wooden then to graphite...if you had played with a 90 or smaller earlier in your tennis do you think you would have been better now? I remember a friend who used a ps 85 back in HS and we all thought he was crazy cause we all had that power craze back then...Though he was the top guy in our HS and top 10 in the state -go figure. I figure aside from his talent how much credit goes into the racquet in developing the proper technique.

Also side question...apart from me and my friend i don't see ppl use the 90's at our uni tournies and such. Most are from 95 and above.Babolats are the flavour of the month where i'm at. Is it the same in your case? I Just feel left out :(
 
Last edited:
Aside from those who began using wooden then to graphite...if you had played with a 90 or smaller earlier in your tennis do you think you would have been better now? I remember a friend who used a ps 85 back in HS and we all thought he was crazy cause we all had that power craze back then...Though he was the top guy in our HS and top 10 in the state -go figure. I figure aside from his talent how much credit goes into the racquet in developing the proper technique.

Also side question...apart from me and my friend i don't see ppl use the 90's at our uni tournies and such. Most are from 95 and above.Babolats are the flavour of the month where i'm at. Is it the same in your case? I Just feel left out :(
i see higher level players using mid size rackets but not many. usually the number ones on the team would use mid size. i do use a mid size but i didnt start with it went from oversize and slowly went down. i do believe it did help me obtain better technique. i agree with you most people in my area as well use babolat or head.
 
I would like to join! I started with an AG100, but wanted something heavier. Now I'm either using a RDS 001 mid, POG mid, or exo3 graphite mid. All of which weigh from 12.5-12.8oz
 
Well I cannot decide what I want to play with... either the PS 6.0 85, the Dunlop 200g or my PS Tour 90. Can I still be part of the club... or do we need to start a 90sq/in or less club?
 
Wilson K90

After trying some 102 sq. in. and 95 sq. in racquets, went to this. Ordered just one as I was afraid of its weight. Hit with it and loved it.

Two more, brand new ones, in the mail :)
 
First one $149 unstrung, for the second one I agreed to a price of $125, unstrung. I got them from one of Wilson's authorised online dealers (check their website for the list), not from the famous auction site.

You need to be lucky with your grip size though, new ones are extremely rare now.

I should have known better and got one more when I originally purchased my first one from TW...but I feared I wouldn't like the racquet. Took a couple of weeks for the racquet to be delivered where I lived...by the time I decided that this one is a keeper, it was out of stock in TW :(
 
Top