The Complete Idiot's Guide to.....

[Azzurri]

Chossing a tennis racquet. The stuff on this site is a lot different as to what "experts" on this board claim. Lots to learn. Hope this is not a thread that was already beaten like a dead horse....

for instance on tennis elbow: Type of racquets to choose from

First, the bottom line: heavy and head-light is best. Best for performance, best for avoiding injury. Here are average values from the database of 296 racquets in October 1999. Elbow Crunch is a measure of elbow safety (should be low), and Work is the effort needed (should be low) for ball speed. The conclusion is clear: heavy and head-light = good // light and head-heavy = bad.

http://www.racquetresearch.com/

 

[raiden031]

I think people here agree with the site in whats best in a racquet. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that newbies should use newbie racquets, because newbie racquets are crap.

 

[haerdalis]

I dont think people normally suggest newbies should use a certain type of racquet. newbies can be good or bad. "Newbie" racquets are for people who have played for a while and reached a level which isnt all that good. Then picking such a racquet can help.

 

[raiden031]

I dont think people normally suggest newbies should use a certain type of racquet. newbies can be good or bad. "Newbie" racquets are for people who have played for a while and reached a level which isnt all that good. Then picking such a racquet can help.

Newbie as in new to tennis, not new to the board.

 

[Tennis Man]

Yeah, thanks for bringing it back. It will help to avoid some useless posts here .

Is a Lightweight Racquet a Good Idea?

No, a lightweight racquet is a dumb idea, as pro customizers attest. Weight is not bad. You need weight to return a "heavy" ball (lots of pace and spin). Wimpy racquets can't put much pace on the ball if you don't have time to develop a long stroke, such as when you are stretched wide. Pete Sampras uses a racquet that is 14 oz. and evenly balanced, and when he is going for a putaway, he chokes down so the swingweight is even higher. Andre Agassi uses one that is 13.2 ounces and 5/8 inch (5 points) head-light. Mark Philippoussis uses one that is 13.5 ounces and is 3/4 inch head light. Lest you think that these heroic sticks are as unwieldy as the sword of Goliath, remember that the lightest wood racquet was 13 ounces. Ladies and children used them.

Are Big Head Racquets Better?

No. The increased length of string to be stretched in a large racquet head gives a more pronounced give to the string bed, and therefore presumably a longer dwell time (t) and a more pronounced trampoline effect (higher coefficient of restitution c), both of which are good. But the trade-off is that accuracy on off-center hits may be worse because the string bed is more deformable, and therefore the path of the rebounding ball is less certain. Also, the ball is not flattened against the strings as much, so it tends to just roll down the face when you stroke for topspin. Pete Sampras plays with an extremely small head racquet (85 square inches in area). The wood racquets were even smaller (65 sq in), and the tubular metal racquets that Jimmy Connors used were smaller still, and had a head size like a squash racquet. These world number ones are persuasive authority against big heads.

and so on ...

 

[haerdalis]

Well I dont think I said anything about newbie in the sense of new to the board.

 

[raiden031]

Well I dont think I said anything about newbie in the sense of new to the board.

Then I'm not sure what your point was. Newbie racquets are usually really light and head-heavy and meant to promote bad technique because they ensure that mishits still go over the net and that it doesn't require a full swing to hit with sufficient power. These racquets are meant for new players, hence the term "newbie". How can a newbie be good when they just started?

 

[Swissv2]

I think they need to update that website. The material I see is from 2002.

 

[haerdalis]

Well I have coached tennis for close to 20 years and I have seen all kinds of newbies. I have had 18 year old guys who have played alot of sports before and I have had 50 year old ladies who never tried any sport. My point was that newbies can come in many different kinds. So what I meant was that those forgiving racquets may work well for someone who is not very good and dont have much room for improvement. Which is not always the case with a newbie.

 

[Azzurri]

I agree the site needs some updating, but the information they provide seems more logical than some people that post here. If I had a nickel for every time I read a 3.5 player can't handle the PS 85 or K90...I would have a few bucks in my pocket. I am beetween a 3.5-4...always played small heads. I could never...never play with those thick widebody or 110 inch heads.

 

[EricW]

It's all just preference, slappano. Most 3.5 players won't play their best tennis with a PS85 or a N90. You may be one that does play their best tennis with a demanding stick like a PS85, but if you don't play your best tennis with it, you're messing up your progression and you won't get as good as quick. Being an inbetween 4.0-4.5, and being around a 3.0-3.5 with my left hand, I know that I could never play with my N90 or your PS85 with my left hand, without using ****ty technique. It's just that lesser players alot of times use demanding racquets because they want to emulate better players.

 

[sureshs]

Pete Sampras plays with an extremely small head racquet (85 square inches in area).

No, he plays with a 90 si now and says it is much better (see another thread).

 

[raiden031]

but if you don't play your best tennis with it, you're messing up your progression and you won't get as good as quick.

I am taking best tennis to mean best match performance. Why do you have to win to improve? If using a less-demanding racquet means you can worry less about proper technique, you will plateau until you correct the technical flaws.

Being an inbetween 4.0-4.5, and being around a 3.0-3.5 with my left hand, I know that I could never play with my N90 or your PS85 with my left hand, without using ****ty technique. It's just that lesser players alot of times use demanding racquets because they want to emulate better players.

I don't understand how a more demanding racquet leads to poor technique. I would think you need to have proper technique in order to get results with a demanding racquet. In fact to the contrary, a less demanding racquet will allow you to succeed with good or bad technique.

 

[sureshs]

I have visited the site. It is very, very dated. The basic conclusions are true, but things have changed a lot. Many ATP and WTA pros are playing with lighter and big headed racquets, and intermediate racquets have much better cushioning technologies than before. The dilemma is light weight vs comfort, but new materials and technologies are making the tradeoff be not that difficult.

 

[Azzurri]

I have visited the site. It is very, very dated. The basic conclusions are true, but things have changed a lot. Many ATP and WTA pros are playing with lighter and big headed racquets, and intermediate racquets have much better cushioning technologies than before. The dilemma is light weight vs comfort, but new materials and technologies are making the tradeoff be not that difficult.

So that's why all the tennis players are using PJ's? They are using all those older racquets. I don't get your point. You seem bright....you know all this new tech stuff is baloney. Agassi, Safin, Fed, Hewitt..are all using older racquets.

 

[sureshs]

So that's why all the tennis players are using PJ's? They are using all those older racquets. I don't get your point. You seem bright....you know all this new tech stuff is baloney. Agassi, Safin, Fed, Hewitt..are all using older racquets.

I don't think the site was meant for pros, but for rec players.

And other pros like Roddick, Nadal, Clisters, Sharapova are using modern racquets. (Of course they may be as heavy as the old ones, but the trend is towards lighter ones.)

What I am saying is times have changed. You don't need to play with a 12.5 oz 90 si racquet for arm comfort any more. There are numerous lower weight and larger head choices available today.

 

[Azzurri]

It's all just preference, slappano. Most 3.5 players won't play their best tennis with a PS85 or a N90. You may be one that does play their best tennis with a demanding stick like a PS85, but if you don't play your best tennis with it, you're messing up your progression and you won't get as good as quick. Being an inbetween 4.0-4.5, and being around a 3.0-3.5 with my left hand, I know that I could never play with my N90 or your PS85 with my left hand, without using ****ty technique. It's just that lesser players alot of times use demanding racquets because they want to emulate better players.

Here is the thing. Started playing in the early 80's with some metal racquet. First real racquet was the Max 200g. I played that all the way through H.S. I was easily a 4-4.5 player. I then switched to a PS 85 and an Ultra 2. Used those until 1996 (that's around 13 years). I switched to a Agassi Radical Twin Tube (98 head size). Quite a step up....it was the yellow and gray one. I played that for (on and off) 4 years-maybe 5. I picked up the game again in 2004 after 4 years off. I had my radical and a Max 400i in my bag...that's it. Played with the radical all summer until a string broke. Wala! I played the small headed 400i....the power and placement was totally different. The weight was different too. I was able to hit much heavier shots. My buddy mentioned after the match even though he won I had never given him such a struggle. I knew I played better, but he said my spin and weight of my shots had changed. He is easily a 5.5 player and I have yet to beat him. From that day I sold my radical and have tried many, many small headed racquets. I hope the Kfactor 90 is the last one for a while. I never got better with the radical..never. My serve lost pop (I had a really nice serve in HS and thought it was just from lack of play that my serve now was nothing compared to it in the early days). Well my serve is not quite as hard, but it still kicks. I tried my friends hammer.....noooo good.

 

[Azzurri]

I don't think the site was meant for pros, but for rec players.

And other pros like Roddick, Nadal, Clisters, Sharapova are using modern racquets. (Of course they may be as heavy as the old ones, but the trend is towards lighter ones.)

What I am saying is times have changed. You don't need to play with a 12.5 oz 90 si racquet for arm comfort any more. There are numerous lower weight and larger head choices available today.

I understand that. What I mean is why does it seem most players have a PJ and are using older model racquets? Look at Blake. I don't think the modern racquets are any different than 2002. C'mon...you don't believe in that "liquidmetal" or "ncode" or "kfactor" or whatever they are naming their materials. I don't think it has changed a bit. Look at pro's racquets from 10 years ago and now. I bet the size, weight, etc. are very similiar. Don't look at the stock model either. Blake, Fed, Safin and many many others don't use stock models.

 

[Azzurri]

There are numerous lower weight and larger head choices available today.[/QUOTE]

how many 9 oz racquets are solid enough to handle a 100 mph serve?

One of my friends wanted to try and play tennis again. He was probably a 2.5 to 3.0 player a few years back. I lent him my wife's 9.6 oz Head racquet. I belted my 2 first serves right at his forehand...his racquet popped out of his hands twice. He said the racquet is a joke. I agreed...he went to the pro shop and demoed an Ncode 95. Racquet was not dropped once. I also had a few more solid serves to his forehand. Just an example of a light racquet (head size 100).

 

[EricW]

I am taking best tennis to mean best match performance. Why do you have to win to improve? If using a less-demanding racquet means you can worry less about proper technique, you will plateau until you correct the technical flaws.



I don't understand how a more demanding racquet leads to poor technique. I would think you need to have proper technique in order to get results with a demanding racquet. In fact to the contrary, a less demanding racquet will allow you to succeed with good or bad technique.

It's argueable but what I think is when you have a heavy small sweetspot/headed racquet, you will compensate, as a lesser player that can't produce good shots consistently, to try and get that consistency by: slowing the swing, using improper technique, etc. Also, a lesser player is usually physically weaker than a greater player who plays alot with a fast/smooth swingspeed and powerful shots/serves, meaning they can handle the extra weight where a lesser player usually cannot. Also technique can handle racquet weight just as raw strength can, so if they have bad technique and aren't very physically strong, they might compensate somehow, and not play their best with a racquet thats too heavy for them

Bottom line is a 3.5 can't hit as consistently, or as powerful as a better player, and to get that consistency and win matches they will compensate by playing higher precentage tennis, but with a racquet they can't handle which makes them play with ****ty technique, hit a plateau, etc

It's just preference though, if you are very physically strong, have good technique and just can't seem to consistently use that good technique, or whatever, you might be playing with a racquet suitable for you, the PS85.

 

[sureshs]

I understand that. What I mean is why does it seem most players have a PJ and are using older model racquets? Look at Blake. I don't think the modern racquets are any different than 2002. C'mon...you don't believe in that "liquidmetal" or "ncode" or "kfactor" or whatever they are naming their materials. I don't think it has changed a bit. Look at pro's racquets from 10 years ago and now. I bet the size, weight, etc. are very similiar. Don't look at the stock model either. Blake, Fed, Safin and many many others don't use stock models.

I think the pro level racquets have either not changed much, or the gimmicks don't matter at their levels, so there is no point changing. Also, since they customize their racquets to exactly what they want, what is the point in starting all over unless there is a big advantage?

But recreational level racquets have changed a lot. To be frank, I don't play with anything less than 11.9 oz strung (with dampener and overgrip), but I hear that the Ncode NForce, Prince 03 white, 03 blue etc which are lighter are actually quite comfortable. Read the O3 white threads and posters rave about the comfort. This was not the case a few years ago, when a racquet of that weight would cause tennis elbow. The only light comfort sticks then were the Triads or the V1 Classic, and I did not find the Classic comfortable.

 

[sureshs]

how many 9 oz racquets are solid enough to handle a 100 mph serve?

None.

But see another thread on serve speeds. Teaching pros say that 3.5s serve in the 60s for the first serve, they just don't admit it.

 

[EricW]

Here is the thing. Started playing in the early 80's with some metal racquet. First real racquet was the Max 200g. I played that all the way through H.S. I was easily a 4-4.5 player. I then switched to a PS 85 and an Ultra 2. Used those until 1996 (that's around 13 years). I switched to a Agassi Radical Twin Tube (98 head size). Quite a step up....it was the yellow and gray one. I played that for (on and off) 4 years-maybe 5. I picked up the game again in 2004 after 4 years off. I had my radical and a Max 400i in my bag...that's it. Played with the radical all summer until a string broke. Wala! I played the small headed 400i....the power and placement was totally different. The weight was different too. I was able to hit much heavier shots. My buddy mentioned after the match even though he won I had never given him such a struggle. I knew I played better, but he said my spin and weight of my shots had changed. He is easily a 5.5 player and I have yet to beat him. From that day I sold my radical and have tried many, many small headed racquets. I hope the Kfactor 90 is the last one for a while. I never got better with the radical..never. My serve lost pop (I had a really nice serve in HS and thought it was just from lack of play that my serve now was nothing compared to it in the early days). Well my serve is not quite as hard, but it still kicks. I tried my friends hammer.....noooo good.

Reading this post, it's obvious that you've made the right choice, i'm talking more about players who havent played tennis all that long, or are just using a N90 or PS85 to emulate Sampras or Federer.

You've got it all figured out, but some players that havent played all that long wouldn't benefit from a demanding racquet, it would ruin their progress, they would compensate for the added weight and added difficulty

The rule of thumb is just to play with what you play your best tennis with, not the most matches won, but the best tennis, even though usually the best tennis = most matches won but sometimes you might switch to a racquet thats more suitable for you and you lose some consistently but you hit much better shots and in the longrun you will benefit from that.

 

[sureshs]

See this post today from NBMJ a 5.0 player about the DNX Power Arm, which would have been a joke a few years ago.

------------------------------------
i spent some time with this frame. i'm a 5.0 and had fun using it, I pulled it out for a doubles match and waited for the responses would take some getting used to..the key to a frame like this is swing it fast and load it up with spin and it turns into quite a weapon...flatter balls like serves and sliced shots are another matter. hit it a little late and balls will fly off the map, but it's light enough not to worry so much about that

It is a great frame for someone who cant generate much head speed as it's easy to hit the ball deep in the court with compact flatter swings.

You can feel the Poiwer Arm flexing and it does take away the shock of what otherwise might be a stiff nasty hit. it's very comfortable for something so stiff and light..a very uniquely engineered racquet

 

[Azzurri]

I think the pro level racquets have either not changed much, or the gimmicks don't matter at their levels, so there is no point changing. Also, since they customize their racquets to exactly what they want, what is the point in starting all over unless there is a big advantage?

But recreational level racquets have changed a lot. To be frank, I don't play with anything less than 11.9 oz strung (with dampener and overgrip), but I hear that the Ncode NForce, Prince 03 white, 03 blue etc which are lighter are actually quite comfortable. Read the O3 white threads and posters rave about the comfort. This was not the case a few years ago, when a racquet of that weight would cause tennis elbow. The only light comfort sticks then were the Triads or the V1 Classic, and I did not find the Classic comfortable.

ok..that makes sense.

 

[Azzurri]

None.

But see another thread on serve speeds. Teaching pros say that 3.5s serve in the 60s for the first serve, they just don't admit it.

I have not had my serve clocked in 10 years. When I did get it clocked (local indoor court was able to get a device that clocked serves) I hit 10 or more serves. They only counted the ones that were in. My high was 105 and the avg was (if I remember correctly) 98/99. I thought I was the sh^% until my buddy served 115. I believe my serve still has juice, but not the consistency (what little I had). However, I was more like a 4/4.5 back then.
I would assume 3.5 players hit way harder than 60's....seriously, I can still pitch 67 mph (machine in Philadelphia last year). I know most, if not all serves I face from decent players are coming in at way more than 60 ish MPH.
I'm no expert....just my opinion.

 

[Azzurri]

Reading this post, it's obvious that you've made the right choice, i'm talking more about players who havent played tennis all that long, or are just using a N90 or PS85 to emulate Sampras or Federer.

You've got it all figured out, but some players that havent played all that long wouldn't benefit from a demanding racquet, it would ruin their progress, they would compensate for the added weight and added difficulty

The rule of thumb is just to play with what you play your best tennis with, not the most matches won, but the best tennis, even though usually the best tennis = most matches won but sometimes you might switch to a racquet thats more suitable for you and you lose some consistently but you hit much better shots and in the longrun you will benefit from that.

I agree Eric....play with what you are playing winning tennis. I could see where a person new to tennis would have a very difficult time handling a players racquet.