the process of recommending racquets

[rustyheadcsse]

I mostly have those of you who coach or work in pro shops in mind with this question, but curious for all perspectives.

When someone comes to you and says they are looking for a new racquet, how do you approach that conversation? Are there questions you ask every time? Things about their game? Do you have a best way for getting clarity about what they are trying to achieve with a switch?

As they answer those questions and express preferences - are there preferences you accept as gospel? Preferences you would push back on to say “you may think you want/need this, but there’s no way that’s what’s best for you?”

I’m very curious about the process of how racquets get recommended and how players decide on them. The process is so much less scientific and educated in tennis as compared to golf, and I’m curious what folks use in place of that data and empirical evidence.

 

[Soundbyte]

In general, I give them a medium range racket from each of the main categories: Power, Spin, Control. I've I know nothing about their preferences or play style, it something like this typically:
1. Pure Drive
2. Pure Aero or Pure Aero 98
3. Gravity / Blade

Why these specifically? Brand recognition for one. Most players want something that they see pros use, other players use, and from companies and rackets they recognize. Clients are WAY more likely to give the Pure Drive a test then the Solinco Blackout, even if I think the latter is a better racket. Once they offer feedback on those frames, I can guide them better to other frames. Kinda like a flowchart of sorts, but its constantly changing with each racket release!

For experienced players whom I know, its far more nuanced. Preferred specs? Balance? Swingweight? Swing style? Box beam preference? Stiffness and beamwidth?
You can really get into the weeds with specs and rackets. In fact, too many of us on here probably do so unnecessarily. But like golf, its a hobby that all of us amateurs probably take too seriously.

 

[DropvolleysRhard]

At my shop we start with weight. Try and find a weight or range of weights they can swing comfortably and athletically for 1-2 hours. Then we give the a range of frames at their weight or close to it. We usually try 100+ thicker beams for beginners and tweak these specs based on skill and tastes of player.

 

[PRS]

You have to take everything they say about their game with a grain of salt. It's a lot better if you've seen them play and actually know their level, because somebody can say they hit big with a lot of spin and be a 3.5 level player with an Eastern forehand. They may think they hit big and with a lot of spin, or maybe they actually do compared to who they play, but that's going to look a lot different than a 5.0 player saying the same thing.

But some things I always ask:

Level?
How often do you play?
Style of play?
Singles, doubles, or both?
What are you using now?
What do you like/dislike about it?
What are you looking to get out of a new racquet?
Any other racquets you have used, and what did you like/dislike?
Any brands you're particularly interested/not interested in?
Any racquets you're particularly interested/not interested in?
Any history/concern of injury?
What is your string setup?

 

[DropvolleysRhard]

Also I’d prefer if demos were all blacked out so less of the “I want that blue Yonex the guy serves 150 mph with” or similar biases.

 

[rustyheadcsse]

In general, I give them a medium range racket from each of the main categories: Power, Spin, Control. I've I know nothing about their preferences or play style, it something like this typically:
1. Pure Drive
2. Pure Aero or Pure Aero 98
3. Gravity / Blade

Why these specifically? Brand recognition for one. Most players want something that they see pros use, other players use, and from companies and rackets they recognize. Clients are WAY more likely to give the Pure Drive a test then the Solinco Blackout, even if I think the latter is a better racket. Once they offer feedback on those frames, I can guide them better to other frames. Kinda like a flowchart of sorts, but its constantly changing with each racket release!

For experienced players whom I know, its far more nuanced. Preferred specs? Balance? Swingweight? Swing style? Box beam preference? Stiffness and beamwidth?
You can really get into the weeds with specs and rackets. In fact, too many of us on here probably do so unnecessarily. But like golf, its a hobby that all of us amateurs probably take too seriously.

Really interesting approach. How do you account for stringing with the demos? Try to keep those somewhat standard across frames? Or just take setup into account when processing their feedback?

What percentage of experienced players do you come across who can even speak knowledgeably about the variables you mention? I’ve been a 4.5-5.0 player for a long time, and spent time around much better players and I can probably count on one hand the number who have expressed strong preferences about beam width or swingweight.

 

[PRS]

Also I’d prefer if demos were all blacked out so less of the “I want that blue Yonex the guy serves 150 mph with” or similar biases.

Yeah, that's what the top guys like RP do. It would be awesome to have the resources to do that, haha, although any experienced tennis players will be able to tell some things even if they're blacked out, like if you give them a pure aero or a Yonex racquet, kinda hard to hide those, haha.

 

[rustyheadcsse]

You have to take everything they say about their game with a grain of salt. It's a lot better if you've seen them play and actually know their level, because somebody can say they hit big with a lot of spin and be a 3.5 level player with an Eastern forehand. They may think they hit big and with a lot of spin, or maybe they actually do compared to who they play, but that's going to look a lot different than a 5.0 player saying the same thing.

But some things I always ask:

Level?
How often do you play?
Style of play?
Singles, doubles, or both?
What are you using now?
What do you like/dislike about it?
What are you looking to get out of a new racquet?
Any other racquets you have used, and what did you like/dislike?
Any brands you're particularly interested/not interested in?
Any racquets you're particularly interested/not interested in?
Any history/concern of injury?
What is your string setup?

Beyond just their game - do you take what they say they like with a grain of salt? It strikes me that a bias against brands is unlikely to be rooted in having spent a lot of time with that brand. Is it just easier to indulge those stated preferences, whether they are logical or correct or not?

 

[PRS]

Beyond just their game - do you take what they say they like with a grain of salt? It strikes me that a bias against brands is unlikely to be rooted in having spent a lot of time with that brand. Is it just easier to indulge those stated preferences, whether they are logical or correct or not?

If they have preconceived racquet or brand bias, I take it very seriously. Without the ability to let them demo blacked out, unmarked frames, I think it's extremely difficult to get someone to like a brand/racquet they have a bias against, even if it fits their game perfectly. Same thing with the reverse, if somebody really likes a certain brand or a certain racquet line for whatever reason (a friend uses it, favorite pro endorses it, doesn't really matter why), I'll indulge that, because they're more likely to have a good experience with that racquet, even if it doesn't fit their game as well as a different one.

But as for what they like/want in a racquet (power, spin, etc), yes, I do take it with a grain of salt. One person might say they want more power, but what they really want is the freedom to swing out and provide their own power, which might actually come from a more control-oriented racquet, and vice versa. Some people will get more power with a control racquet because they'll swing faster, and some people might get more control from a powerful racquet because they can swing in a more controlled fashion.

 

[rustyheadcsse]

Part of why I ask this, is having spent a lot of time away from tennis and with golf over the last several years, I have been sort of floored by how different the process of finding a new racquet is vs. the process of finding a new golf club.

When I bought a new driver, I went into a hitting bay, a very smart and well studied guy with a Trackman and a computer watched me hit balls into a screen with several different shaft/club head combos, with each swing generating dozens of data points. Ultimately he tells me which club works best for me. At no point am I really asked for my feelings or my preferences or whatever else. To the extent it does come up, I say “boy this one feels great” and the guy with the computer says “ok, well your dispersion with it is awful.” I ended up buying a Cobra driver - a brand I looked down my nose at and never would have tried on my own. Best club in my bag.

The tennis process is just entirely feel. I know there’s a massive difficulty with reliably collecting data in a much more dynamic sport. But even still, I’m sort of floored by how much player preference is indulged and trusted.

The golf process has made me a lot more skeptical of my own “feel” as I’m going through the tennis process. Of course the best feeling racquet in my bag is the feeling I get when I catch a forehand just right with my PS85. And of course the Prestiges feel amazing when I hit the sweetspot. But the best feeling I’ve ever had swinging a golf club is hitting a Mizuno blade on the screws. I just know that I’m going to shoot 3-5 shots better if I sell the blades and put something with a cavity back in the bag. Chasing that feeling can be really detrimental to your game!

 

[Soundbyte]

Really interesting approach. How do you account for stringing with the demos? Try to keep those somewhat standard across frames? Or just take setup into account when processing their feedback?

What percentage of experienced players do you come across who can even speak knowledgeably about the variables you mention? I’ve been a 4.5-5.0 player for a long time, and spent time around much better players and I can probably count on one hand the number who have expressed strong preferences about beam width or swingweight.

Very few. Most tennis players don't care. As much as we light to think everyone is a gear head, most players aren't. I've come across D1 players who use the same racket line because "I've always used it and never thought to change." Most rec players tend to want to copy the pros, so they want 'the rafa racket' or 'the one federer used' etc. They don't care otherwise. Or you ask them what they currently play with and they say "a Wilson."

I've known 2 other players IRL who are into gear as much as me. And they are both stringers and players. I find the stringers care more about rackets/gear in general as they tend to stay on top of gear and notice the trends of their clients.

 

[PRS]

Ideally I would have blacked out/unmarked frames and a smart court tracking all the data points like shot percent, depth, spin, pace, etc, on all different shots and we could make it a little more about the data, but that's just not as realistic for tennis as it is golf. You need a full court, a steady hitting partner, and all the technology on said court. Plus there are a lot of different shots to hit with the same racquet. Most people aren't going to have the time or money to do that, or even have a place to go to that offers that, so you have to go more on feel with tennis compared to golf.

 

[Soundbyte]

Part of why I ask this, is having spent a lot of time away from tennis and with golf over the last several years, I have been sort of floored by how different the process of finding a new racquet is vs. the process of finding a new golf club.

When I bought a new driver, I went into a hitting bay, a very smart and well studied guy with a Trackman and a computer watched me hit balls into a screen with several different shaft/club head combos, with each swing generating dozens of data points. Ultimately he tells me which club works best for me. At no point am I really asked for my feelings or my preferences or whatever else. To the extent it does come up, I say “boy this one feels great” and the guy with the computer says “ok, well your dispersion with it is awful.” I ended up buying a Cobra driver - a brand I looked down my nose at and never would have tried on my own. Best club in my bag.

The tennis process is just entirely feel. I know there’s a massive difficulty with reliably collecting data in a much more dynamic sport. But even still, I’m sort of floored by how much player preference is indulged and trusted.

The golf process has made me a lot more skeptical of my own “feel” as I’m going through the tennis process. Of course the best feeling racquet in my bag is the feeling I get when I catch a forehand just right with my PS85. And of course the Prestiges feel amazing when I hit the sweetspot. But the best feeling I’ve ever had swinging a golf club is hitting a Mizuno blade on the screws. I just know that I’m going to shoot 3-5 shots better if I sell the blades and put something with a cavity back in the bag. Chasing that feeling can be really detrimental to your game!

Benefit of golf is that every shot starts with a stationary ball. Tennis doesn't.
Also, lets not forget that the video analytics is a huge marketing event for golf shots. Golfers have money and spend money (MUCH more than tennis players). It feels fancier to walk into a golf center, have a "golf pro" offer suggestions while you used their "state of the art" equipment/simulator.
You hit a driver 18 times during a round of golf. You might a forehand that many times in a single rally. Can't really compare the two.

 

[rustyheadcsse]

At my shop we start with weight. Try and find a weight or range of weights they can swing comfortably and athletically for 1-2 hours. Then we give the a range of frames at their weight or close to it. We usually try 100+ thicker beams for beginners and tweak these specs based on skill and tastes of player.

Does swingweight get any consideration in this process? Or just entirely focused on static weight?

 

[AmericanTwist]

I always ask what their level is, what string and tension, and why they dislike their current set-up first.

Everyone can play with any frame, but any particular frame will be more or less optimal than another frame for example. So many variables...

 

[rustyheadcsse]

Ideally I would have blacked out/unmarked frames and a smart court tracking all the data points like shot percent, depth, spin, pace, etc, on all different shots and we could make it a little more about the data, but that's just not as realistic for tennis as it is golf. You need a full court, a steady hitting partner, and all the technology on said court. Plus there are a lot of different shots to hit with the same racquet. Most people aren't going to have the time or money to do that, or even have a place to go to that offers that, so you have to go more on feel with tennis compared to golf.

Benefit of golf is that every shot starts with a stationary ball. Tennis doesn't.
Also, lets not forget that the video analytics is a huge marketing event for golf shots. Golfers have money and spend money (MUCH more than tennis players). It feels fancier to walk into a golf center, have a "golf pro" offer suggestions while you used their "state of the art" equipment/simulator.
You hit a driver 18 times during a round of golf. You might a forehand that many times in a single rally. Can't really compare the two.

I totally get it. The logistics are something close to impossible. But I think the two things that are kind of striking are:

1. That in the absence of access to that kind of data, the approach has just been to fully default to feel. Data is certainly the most useful counter to a person’s sense of feel, but can it really be the only one?

2. That while the market for this level of data about frames might be small, it certainly isn’t zero. A company like Angell producing custom made to spec frames exists! Surely there must be some appetite for additional data!

One of the things that exists in golf is a site called MyGolfSpy. They run a lot of club testing robotically. A mechanical arm swings a club with a standard input, with standard balls on a range and every data point is recorded - ball speed, variance, RPMs, etc. Surely a similar thing could exist in tennis - one setup in one place where you generate that data with a series of racquets with the same strings at the same tension with the numbers published would still be useful data in a decision making process, no? Maybe I’m chasing a data driven solution too far in a sport that just isn’t fit for it.

 

[PRS]

I totally get it. The logistics are something close to impossible. But I think the two things that are kind of striking are:

1. That in the absence of access to that kind of data, the approach has just been to fully default to feel. Data is certainly the most useful counter to a person’s sense of feel, but can it really be the only one?

2. That while the market for this level of data about frames might be small, it certainly isn’t zero. A company like Angell producing custom made to spec frames exists! Surely there must be some appetite for additional data!

One of the things that exists in golf is a site called MyGolfSpy. They run a lot of club testing robotically. A mechanical arm swings a club with a standard input, with standard balls on a range and every data point is recorded - ball speed, variance, RPMs, etc. Surely a similar thing could exist in tennis - one setup in one place where you generate that data with a series of racquets with the same strings at the same tension with the numbers published would still be useful data in a decision making process, no? Maybe I’m chasing a data driven solution too far in a sport that just isn’t fit for it.

One thing I also ask after they demo a racquet, other than just how they liked the racquet and how it played, is how they're hitting partner (hopefully somebody they've played with a bunch) felt they played with the new racquet(s). That can help get some input other than just feel, cause the hitting partner might notice different things, such as increased pace, depth, spin, consistency, etc that wasn't noticed by the person demoing the racquets.

 

[Soundbyte]

I totally get it. The logistics are something close to impossible. But I think the two things that are kind of striking are:

1. That in the absence of access to that kind of data, the approach has just been to fully default to feel. Data is certainly the most useful counter to a person’s sense of feel, but can it really be the only one?

2. That while the market for this level of data about frames might be small, it certainly isn’t zero. A company like Angell producing custom made to spec frames exists! Surely there must be some appetite for additional data!

One of the things that exists in golf is a site called MyGolfSpy. They run a lot of club testing robotically. A mechanical arm swings a club with a standard input, with standard balls on a range and every data point is recorded - ball speed, variance, RPMs, etc. Surely a similar thing could exist in tennis - one setup in one place where you generate that data with a series of racquets with the same strings at the same tension with the numbers published would still be useful data in a decision making process, no? Maybe I’m chasing a data driven solution too far in a sport that just isn’t fit for it.

For golf, the goal is: does this club help me get the lowest score.

For tennis, the main data point really should be: do I win the most matches with this frame?

But again, there's far more variation in tennis swings (grip styles, speed/trajectory of the incoming ball, movement of the player [on the run vs in the wheelhouse], etc) than golf.

Tennis Warehouse has its University with large amounts of data. But admittedly I don't know how they gather that information.

 

[CaliCaveman]

If they have preconceived racquet or brand bias, I take it very seriously. Without the ability to let them demo blacked out, unmarked frames, I think it's extremely difficult to get someone to like a brand/racquet they have a bias against, even if it fits their game perfectly. Same thing with the reverse, if somebody really likes a certain brand or a certain racquet line for whatever reason (a friend uses it, favorite pro endorses it, doesn't really matter why), I'll indulge that, because they're more likely to have a good experience with that racquet, even if it doesn't fit their game as well as a different one.

But as for what they like/want in a racquet (power, spin, etc), yes, I do take it with a grain of salt. One person might say they want more power, but what they really want is the freedom to swing out and provide their own power, which might actually come from a more control-oriented racquet, and vice versa. Some people will get more power with a control racquet because they'll swing faster, and some people might get more control from a powerful racquet because they can swing in a more controlled fashion.

Great points here.

Ive been playing now for about 1.5 years after stopping in my late teens early 20’s. When I started we were given the Clash v2 as a starting point but they gave me a full bed of poly. Instant arm issues as I was learning all over it felt like. Went to multi and that fixed the arm thing but I could not control anything. As I got better, I realized I need something else and thought I needed different string setups and tension which didn’t help. Then after demo’s of like 6 rackets, the blade felt fantastic and gave me the control I really needed.

So I thought I needed a powerful racket at first but really I needed control and I can swing out with a good poly (tour bite) and I’m getting much better performance. Of course my strokes are better and poly isn’t an issue now either.

It’s certainly a process getting what you need vs what you think you want/need out of a setup.

With all the trial and error and the game improving/changing, I even string my own stuff now with the hope I have many years left and it gives you freedom to try things to dial in the gear.

It really takes time to figure out what’s right for one’s game especially if you’re on a game improvement path.

 

[DropvolleysRhard]

Does swingweight get any consideration in this process? Or just entirely focused on static weight?

Swing weight does factor in but with newer players we don’t really focus too much as long as they can swing it for 1-2 hours comfortably and athletically. Then after we get the static range we focus more on that based on if they want more maneuverability, more pop, etc.

 

[jimmy8]

People tell me that their arm hurts and they use Babolat. They want an arm friendly racket and I recommend lower RA rackets from Head and Wilson.