Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by Attila_the_gorilla, Jul 7, 2014.
I think it was bp can hear the different amount of kevlar. So the strings sounded different.
I think, not sure by any means, that Courier is behind the startup. It gives the players money, hopefully keeps tennis in the spotlight (though based on attendance numbers judged solely by pitiful number of spectators it all may may not last too on long), and players help out a friend and the sport they love. *shrug* Hard to say what the actual motivation is.
Sometimes you have different philosophies about racquets depending what stage of you tennis life you are in. I know that after I lost an important match playing with the Prestige MP, I was fed up with it and crusaded for a more powerful racquet with at least a 16x19 pattern. After going full circle with my tirade (after months and demoing an ungodly amount of racquets) my philosophy of my situation changed, as did my racquet (to a slightly heavier, smaller headed racquet, w/ 16x19 pattern). I also found out more about what I like in a racquet, and that my tastes are completely different than everyone else's.
I've heard the same thing regarding it being Courier's venture. Can't imagine Sampras needing the money, whereas I recall seeing some new accounts where any additional income might help Philappoussis.
Maybe it's some mix of charity work, fanning the last embers of competitive fire, and a little pocket money.
And yes! about the spectators, at least from what you can see on TV. They may have full nosebleed sections, but the number of empty money seats gives a really bad impression.
That's a good point. I was using and was very happy with the KBlade 93 Tour until I played a match against some ADP-wielding 4.5 with wicked pace and spin. Couldn't find the sweet spot on my racquet to save my life (yeah, it's actually because I suck blah blah blah).
Losing that match 3 and 3 set me off on a three year road trip through MP land.
Um...Yes, it is a fact I heard a difference. Do you not understand that's not the same statement as - "The fact is there is a difference and I heard it."?
In the first statement, the "fact" is the "hearing", not the "difference".
Besides, if you couldn't even hear the difference between Djokovic's and Dimitrov's racquets, then I wouldn't expect you to hear the difference between Federer's old and new racquets, either. In both cases, it's quite obvious and exactly as expected since they are very different racquets, and at least in Federer's case, very different string tensions.
I thought you can hear the percentage of basalt content?
Oh, and i think that poster was making fun of you.
i have no idea what you are rambling on about. i think you have me confused with someone else. i just remember perusing a thread with some sort of silly argument going on in it...
I can hear the difference between a apdgt and the apd original without cortex. Over my surround system in my movie room it sounds like little crispy crunches besides the string sound every time Nadal hits. But anytime a real cortex racket hits it makes a poof sound under the string sound.
Kinda like how break point can hear the different string tensions over his old crt tv.
Yeah that's one option for power. But that may only work until you come up against a big server or an even bigger hitter and need to do some defending/blocking. That's why power is best if it comes from a higher swingweight, as long as you can wield it comfortably. A light racket can get pushed around on returns, defense and volleys.
Power is a sweet temptation and instant gratification.
Me with "Prestige" against a guy with Pure Drive and his power topspin.
I borrow his pure drive and hit with it. The ball just sounds different zipping
thru air in the space. So much for the "prestige". Feeling all mighty.
Yep, Mc hit it "crisply" or "softly" but I don't remember him ever belting the ball off the ground. It was amazing to watch him live and see the feel, variety, placement and lack of pace. An absolute freak of nature. I think he played with pretty heavy rackets - about 13 oz, HL and loose gut strings.
In 2006, at the age of 47, McEnroe won an ATP tournament in doubles with Jonas Bjorkman. I watched every single one of his matches during the tournament from courtside. He was by far the best player out of the four on the court in every single match. Most of his opponents were at least 20 years younger than him. He served great and his volleys were just sublime. He could precisely place the ball just an inch out of an opponent's reach no matter where he was on the court. He literally made his opponents look like amateurs and probably should have charged them for the tennis lesson.
McEnroe never looked like he had the technique to reliably hit with power. I always thought his stroke technique was awful.
Then again, McEnroe was the main reason tennis turned me off when I first started watching it. Couldn't get past what a jerk he seemed to be, and had no interest in a game that rewarded such antics.
It's why NoPoint is the only account on my ignore list. I'd genuinely encourage everyone to try it.
All the kooky assertions, non-sequiturs, straw men, and irrelevant minutae immediately disappear.
He can then nitpick and bloviate to his Aspergery heart's content, and we'll never know it happened.
Well, if you can achieve a better winning percentage than even the GOAT Federer with "awful technique", then I guess there's nothing wrong with playing with "awful technique".
But it's his unique technique that allows him to take the ball incredibly early which puts his opponents under pressure, allows him to use his opponent's own power against them, enables him to place the ball on a dime, gives him sharp angles and variety, and his short strokes mean they never break down and he never mishits. It's genius. Brad Gilbert called McEnroe the most talented tennis player he ever played against.
yup, some things just aren't going to change. it's a shame really. over the years, how many threads have been derailed, hijacked, locked or deleted because of one person going down a never ending rabbit hole with irrelevant minutae?
Brad Gilbert would say that given their extremely lopsided head to head.
That said, no denying the guy's talent
Gilbert had a much more lopsided H2H against Lendl but he never thought Lendl had much talent at all. Gilbert also thought Connors had almost no talent but only won because of his intensity. :shock:
Meanwhile, most of your posts are about me rather than the topics at hand. Did you mention "derailing" threads? I guess "some things just aren't going to change."
Interesting thread topic. I haven't read the whole thing, but I'm curious about your argument, given that your signature suggests that you use a Babolat Pure Storm LTD, which has to be among the lowest powered control sticks on the market over the past several years. If that is still true, then how to reconcile this with your argument (which I don't agree with at all, on the surface, by the way?
Another thing - huge difference between control racquets that have lead added for power, and stiff power racquets.
The pros use control racquets with flex for more dwell time and then boost the power with lead. They then use poly to add more control to the stick.
So there is a lot to it. It can be a little more complex than people initially think.
Do you have a source or quote for those statements? I know McEnroe said Lendl had little talent (but how could you possibly be such a good ball striker with little talent), but Gilbert?
High swingwqeight is not the same as high powered. a high swingweight Frame can be high powered but a high SW Frame generates power because you swing it fast.
if you have the strength to swing a high SW Frame fast it will generate more power than a lighter Frame because it Transfers more energy.
a high powered Frame is stiffer and generates energy by itself.
Gilbert mentioned it in his book - "Winning Ugly".
What I recall from "Winning Ugly" about Lendl
I remember that Gilbert recounted his first match with Lendl, and his feeling that there was nothing special about Lend's shots until about 2-2 in the opening set. He said that Lendl was moving the ball around and hitting with good control and depth. And then Lendl notched it up a gear or two, balls were flying by Gilbert for winners, and the next thing he knew Lendl had won by 2 and 2 or something like that. And Gilbert never beat Lendl.
The point of this, for Gilbert, is that Lendl's approach was to start methodically to find a good rhythm. He (Lendl) did not go for lines or winners but wanted to hit his way into the match.
I hope my recollection is correct
Having played against him in juniors, I can attest to how much of a jerk he was. But he was an extremely talented jerk.
Where did he develop that disgusting looking technique of his? Was everyone hitting the ball like that, of that American generation? I know his fellow pros at the time (Borg and Lendl) had much smoother looking strokes.
I'm still relatively new to the game, and still finding out what works best. And also when I started, I thought this low-powered racket would be quicker to learn with.
A high swingweight racket generates more energy at a given swing speed than the same racket with a low swingweight. Swingweight is power. Even more so if you're a technical player that doesn't swing fast, you need the power and stability that a higher swingweight provides against big hitters.
Some young pros nowadays seem to play with lighter rackets and rely purely on swingspeed for power and stability. Genie Bouchard seems to be one of those. That can work when you have time to set up for full swings, but against big hitting opponents and/or big servers you need help from the racket's swingweight.
McEnroe's efficient stroke mechanics means that he expends much less energy while redirecting his opponent's power and uses it against them. You can pressure your opponents by either hitting the ball hard or by taking the ball early. McEnroe was a master of the latter.
I'm not saying it wasn't effective, of course it was. Just that his strokes look stunted and extremely unaesthetic.
Maybe my English is bad but I'm assuming "stunted and extremely unaesthetic" means beautiful right?
When I see McEnroe hit, I see a deeply accomplished park hack with a good serve. I cannot imagine his stroke mechanics ever being considered beautiful.
You know, a lot of the players I see with 'control frames' are actually happy with them because the lack of power compensates for their poor technique.
If they had a powerful frame, their flat bat swats would all go sailing long, but because they are playing with what they think are 'appropriate' frames for their level, they are fine.
If they had better technique and developed some decent spin, well....
for beginner children, we use red balls, but for adults.. hehe
I agree to some extent that better matches are played with well structured points for the viewer and player for sure but!!!!
Lets take the example of Nadal, he uses a weighed up APD with no cortex BS marketing just a PJ, 64-65 flex not 69 retail, 54mains by 52 crosses, 3 grams at 12 and almost 340gsm to 350gsm if he uses an extra over grip (2 total to help with blisters) but unconfirmed as far as I know.
I have played with those specs and controlling the ball is quite a feat without using excessive brushing on the ball for topspin and footwork to help you balance properly or any late hit is history.
The way Nadal hits the ball makes full use of this power and spin.
I usually prefer the HPC600 or 630 with around 370gsm over the years but
I can certainly see how Nadals style of play makes full use of his stick which
is also helped with the slowing down of courts and balls.
Deep, compelling, and rich
I would consider Mac's skills at the net to be a thing of beauty. Aesthetics? Who cares? Borg had a very unorthodox backhand but his passing shots were also a thing of beauty. I was never a big fan of Mac until I saw him play live. Incredible talent
Early in McEnroe's career, his strokes looked more conventional to the times. He also looked as though he was working a lot harder to cover the court. The short backswings and more measured court coverage seemed to be his way of maximizing efficiency. He had figured out how to win with less effort. The game has obviously changed, but he had changed attacking tennis of the time. At his best, he took his groundstrokes inside the baseline, half-volleying everything. Chip and charge? He took serves early, short backswing, coming over the ball with a full follow through and came to the net. In 84 he was approaching on Lendl's first serve with that technique. Tennis was an attacking game back then on hard courts and grass. His stokes were a product of taking the attacking game to a higher level. A level others couldn't reach without his hand-eye coordination.
I will never be a pro. There's more than one way to maximize potential. You go right ahead learning to control that Big Bubba.
Have a nice day,
A physical fact is that a headlight high swingweight racquet gives the same ball speed with less effort. So you consume less energy and effort by playing with such a racquet. To get enough headlight balance, the weight of the racquet will also be high. That's why pros play with heavy racquets, and so should everybody! The ease to create pace.
More on deriving the formula for the work done to get a desired pace onto ball: http://www.racquetresearch.com/work.htm
Hahhh neither will I. But it's not about Big Bubba. I play with a 95 in, 18x20 racket, for its lower trajectory. It suits my attacking style. Of course it's pretty heavy to give me comfort, stability and power. Not always easy to control but getting better all the time.
Separate names with a comma.