Thick beamed rackets... Why???

got spin?

got spin?

Banned
Why would you want to play with a thick beamed racket??? (24mm and higher) As far as im concerned it just makes frames and shanks happen more often. Why not play with a thin beam and reduce frames and shanks. If you like the stiffness then im sure manufacturers can make a thin beam racket with a stiffness of 70 or higher... the speed pro is a PERFECT example! Why don't the manufacturers just make high powered rackets that are stiff with a thin beam??? All thick beamed rackets I've hit with I tend to frame more often, (I.E. Pure Drive, Extreme, APD and others) Than playing with say a Pure Storm LTD or a Six one or even a Donnay! Im just wondering why would you play with a thick beam when all it does is increase frame tendencies!
 
got spin? said:
Why would you want to play with a thick beamed racket??? (24mm and higher) As far as im concerned it just makes frames and shanks happen more often. Why not play with a thin beam and reduce frames and shanks. If you like the stiffness then im sure manufacturers can make a thin beam racket with a stiffness of 70 or higher... the speed pro is a PERFECT example! Why don't the manufacturers just make high powered rackets that are stiff with a thin beam??? All thick beamed rackets I've hit with I tend to frame more often, (I.E. Pure Drive, Extreme, APD and others) Than playing with say a Pure Storm LTD or a Six one or even a Donnay! Im just wondering why would you play with a thick beam when all it does is increase frame tendencies!
Click to expand...

I personnally love thin beams myself and tends to stay away from thick beam frames since the feel is soo much better off a thin frame.
 
...See I'm biased when it comes to racquet beams,....I think thick beams even LOOK ugly:shock:,.....(but thats just one more of my issues,..:neutral: )
 
My RQiS 1 Tour's frame is tapered and goes out 25mm in the hoop and down to 19 in the shaft. It's for sure a different frame.

I love it though! I don't find that my shanking is any more prevalent with it then with lets say my KPS88 which has a super thin beam.

It's all in your mind! If your really noticing it, then move your wrist over 2-3mm and you won't frame any more then you would with a thin one. :) Doesn't seem like much, hey?

-Fuji
 
Its been shown that 'ugly sticks' are inherently less powerful,............

.........OK,.....I made that up,.......
 
LOL! By that logic the Youtek Prestige Mid should be one of the most powerful rackets ever made! I absolutely LOVE the look of that stick.

-Fuji
 
Fuji said:
My RQiS 1 Tour's frame is tapered and goes out 25mm in the hoop and down to 19 in the shaft. It's for sure a different frame.
Click to expand...

OP mentioned the PD, Extreme, and APD which like the RQis also have variable thickness/tapered beams, which allow the frame to be more stiff in the head for example and more flexible in the throat. when you rely only on using very stiff materials in a thin, constant beam the stiffness isn't actually constant along the entire length of the racket, it flexes more at the tip. Bab RDC ratings don't take where the frame flexes into account.

take a look at the super-widebodies of the 80's to see the most extreme examples of using beam shape/profile to influence stiffness. Wilson Profile had a dual tapered beam to be extremely stiff at the throat, Prince CTS Thunderstick was thickest at the tip, Head Genesis had a wavy profile to be thicker at the shoulders and and tip but flex near the sweetspot.
 
Last edited:
goran_ace said:
OP mentioned the PD, Extreme, and APD which like the RQis also have variable thickness/tapered beams, which allow the frame to be more stiff in the head for example and more flexible in the throat. when you rely only on using very stiff materials in a thin, constant beam the stiffness isn't actually constant along the entire length of the racket, it flexes more at the tip. Bab RDC ratings don't take where the frame flexes into account.

take a look at the super-widebodies of the 80's to see the most extreme examples of using beam shape/profile to influence stiffness. Wilson Profile had a dual tapered beam to be extremely stiff at the throat, Prince CTS Thunderstick was thickest at the tip, Head Genesis had a wavy profile to be thicker at the shoulders and and tip but flex near the sweetspot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! I think a huge part is where it flexes as to the overall feel of the stick as well.

-Fuji
 
Depents they feel clunky but my forehand is a rocket with a thick beamed racket so it depends but thin beams tend to feel better imo
 
Cheaper for the manufacturer to use thick beams to make stiff rackets.
If you mishit all the time, roll your shots off the frame, maybe go for bigger heads, like 100's.
 
got spin? said:
Why would you want to play with a thick beamed racket??? (24mm and higher) As far as im concerned it just makes frames and shanks happen more often. Why not play with a thin beam and reduce frames and shanks. If you like the stiffness then im sure manufacturers can make a thin beam racket with a stiffness of 70 or higher... the speed pro is a PERFECT example! Why don't the manufacturers just make high powered rackets that are stiff with a thin beam??? All thick beamed rackets I've hit with I tend to frame more often, (I.E. Pure Drive, Extreme, APD and others) Than playing with say a Pure Storm LTD or a Six one or even a Donnay! Im just wondering why would you play with a thick beam when all it does is increase frame tendencies!
Click to expand...

It's the weight issue. Mostly, and I mean mostly thick beam appeals to beginners because of it's inherent power and lightweight which is what they need while still learning their movements. The contruction of thick beams means less flex hence more power with less material so it's lighter. On the other hand, It takes more material to make say a 17 mm to get it to the stiffness rating of 70 or higher. Good luck finding a 17 mm that weighs less than 10 oz. Of course, during the early days of tennis, everybody have to learn with the heavy wooden racket with the really small head so there goes my analogy out the door! :)
 
The 'feel' of thick beamed frames is subjective... I had the original MgExtreme filled with about 20g of silicone and it was definately not 'hollow' feeling... very solid.

My problem with thick beams is how they move through the air... especially on serve... I just can't serve with them... they feel ... 'blind'... for lack of a better adjective... hard to gauge with high swing speeds.
 
I hate thick beams..tried my best to like them..bought them for a while, but I am old school and prefer the thin ones. I get more racquet face on the ball and more control as well. I just can do more to the ball with a thin beam.
 
goran_ace said:
Head Genesis had a wavy profile to be thicker at the shoulders and and tip but flex near the sweetspot.
Click to expand...

that's what i used in college! the last time i took it out and hit with it, it really felt odd. oh well, i won my match with it! it's kinda like head's fxp stuff, but different than the stick i use now (thinnest at the throat so it flexes there).

anyway, i remember when widebodies first became popular in the early 90s, part of the hype was that they were more "aerodynamic" than a traditional 19mm racquet, therefore, more racquet head speed. now who really has the numbers and who knows if its significant to we mere mortals, but that was part of the widebody appeal.
 
vandre said:
that's what i used in college! the last time i took it out and hit with it, it really felt odd. oh well, i won my match with it! it's kinda like head's fxp stuff, but different than the stick i use now (thinnest at the throat so it flexes there).

anyway, i remember when widebodies first became popular in the early 90s, part of the hype was that they were more "aerodynamic" than a traditional 19mm racquet, therefore, more racquet head speed. now who really has the numbers and who knows if its significant to we mere mortals, but that was part of the widebody appeal.
Click to expand...

So true! I've played with my Wilson PSC 6.1 95 for years and never really look back and it's right there inbetween at 22mm beam. I bought a really used Federer's Wilson BLX six.one tour 90 and decided to totally scrape/sanded/remove the entire paint job and spray painted it black- took me a while because the original paint is baked on but the result was awesome! It feels like playing a PS 6.0 85 but lighter so it's much more maneuverable. :)
 
got spin? said:
Why would you want to play with a thick beamed racket??? (24mm and higher) As far as im concerned it just makes frames and shanks happen more often. Why not play with a thin beam and reduce frames and shanks. If you like the stiffness then im sure manufacturers can make a thin beam racket with a stiffness of 70 or higher... the speed pro is a PERFECT example! Why don't the manufacturers just make high powered rackets that are stiff with a thin beam??? All thick beamed rackets I've hit with I tend to frame more often, (I.E. Pure Drive, Extreme, APD and others) Than playing with say a Pure Storm LTD or a Six one or even a Donnay! Im just wondering why would you play with a thick beam when all it does is increase frame tendencies!
Click to expand...

I don't think about the thickness of my PDRGT. It's stable, forgiving and powerful. I have never shanked on the thickest part of the frame on a properly struck shot and I hit a powerful forehand with a load of spin.

-SF
 
klementine79 said:
The 'feel' of thick beamed frames is subjective... I had the original MgExtreme filled with about 20g of silicone and it was definately not 'hollow' feeling... very solid.

My problem with thick beams is how they move through the air... especially on serve... I just can't serve with them... they feel ... 'blind'... for lack of a better adjective... hard to gauge with high swing speeds.
Click to expand...

actually this is a perfect description. I found myself second guessing how hard I've hit a shot with a thicker beam racquet.
 
SFrazeur said:
Had one of those for a short time. Even when hitting against a backboard it felt like it could easily snap.

-SF
Click to expand...

Still have a Gamma F 9.5 with a 17 mm beam, nearly as firm as a PS 6.0, damped, sweet. Does not have the feel of the PS though.
 
Power Player said:
I hate thick beams..tried my best to like them..bought them for a while, but I am old school and prefer the thin ones. I get more racquet face on the ball and more control as well. I just can do more to the ball with a thin beam.
Click to expand...

Bloodshed said:
I personnally love thin beams myself and tends to stay away from thick beam frames since the feel is soo much better off a thin frame.
Click to expand...

I concur. Thin beams give the best feel.
 
I'll make one exception on one racket I was "forced" to use when I broke the string on my PSC- it was the old Head Flexpoint 4 which has surprisingly controllable power. It was way up there at 27mm straight beam. I end up winning my match with very few shanked and over the fence shots. :)
 
Light rackets tend to be thick framed so they can be more stable. I'd think that the thick frame on a light racket absorbs and disperses a shot impact much better than otherwise.
 
Ronaldo said:
Most forgot about the Wilson PS 5.5 Spin with a 15 mm beam. The tuning fork
Click to expand...
SFrazeur said:
Had one of those for a short time. Even when hitting against a backboard it felt like it could easily snap.

-SF
Click to expand...

I was not a fan of the Wilson Hammer 5.5 Spin (was not a PS) at all. Felt quick through the air but completely unstable. A little lead didn't help and major customization wasn't worth the time or effort since a stock PSC 6.1 already did everything better.

One kind of odd thing to add. If you hold your racket by the throat in the ready position with your opposite hand, this one felt really weird in your hand due to the thin beam and completely round shape of the beam (it wasn't just a rounded off rectangle, it felt like a circle).

pic of the racket on this thread: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=214216
 
Last edited:
got spin? said:
Why would you want to play with a thick beamed racket??? (24mm and higher) As far as im concerned....
Click to expand...

"As far as I'm concerned" - this gives some indication that thick beams are merely a personal issue. I see plenty of weekend warriors with thick beamed rackets having a great time on court - give them a low powered thinner beamed racket and they would be lost. The point has been made before that controlling stiffness by beam width seems to be cost driven, therefore those players who prefer stiffer, more powerful rackets have to use ones with thicker beam widths. It's horses for courses.
 
goran_ace said:
I was not a fan of the Wilson Hammer 5.5 Spin (was not a PS) at all. Felt quick through the air but completely unstable. A little lead didn't help and major customization wasn't worth the time or effort since a stock PSC 6.1 already did everything better.

One kind of odd thing to add. If you hold your racket by the throat in the ready position with your opposite hand, this one felt really weird in your hand due to the thin beam and completely round shape of the beam (it wasn't just a rounded off rectangle, it felt like a circle).

pic of the racket on this thread: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=214216
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction, been too many years since demoing the 5.5 Spin.
 
I look at it this way, if I hit the ball cleanly, all the time, it doesn't matter if the the racket is thin or thick beamed. If I do frame the ball, it's because my timing, or technique is off - and I shouldn't rely on a racket's miniscule propensity to shank the ball or not, as a determinant on ball hitting success. If you have to go onto the court thinking, "shanking with this racket give me a better chance of winning than with a thick beamed racket", I think you have bigger fish to fry. Personally when I shank, it just think my chances of winning the point has pretty much gon down to nil, and if I do win the point, I just chalk that up to luck, rather than skill, or the racket's beam width has anything to do with it.
 
Yenster said:
Doesn't it supposed to provide for stability?
Click to expand...

LOL! I wish! The KPS88 has one of the thinnest beams I've ever played with, I think it's 17mm, and that thing is a ROCK! It's never had one moment in my hand where it's twisted out of place! It has the highest inertia of any frame I've ever had the pleasure to hit with.

(Btw, is your rating actually 7.5, or are you just kidding? :) I'm just curious, not trying to attack or anything.)

-Fuji
 
Thick beam, thin beam, skinny beam, who really cares? What really matters is only my side of the court, if you can beat me with whatever racket you're using, you'll get my respect! Bottom line is, whatever works for you be happy with it.:)
 
Most tour professionals use a 98 square inch THIN Beam. Feel is everything to the top players in the world. You cannot tell me that a Dunlop Aerogel 500 Tour has the same feel as a Head Youtek Speed Pro. The thin beam is preferred because all of those players hit with a ton of pace and hit the ball solid every time. Thin beams are the way to go on the main tour.
 
There have been a few heavy and flexy wide beams I have really liked but for the most part they usually are just to light and stiff. Wide beams do have a different feel though. I can only describe it as a hollow feeling. Which is not a bad thing...just different. They are ussually good stability wise though. One of my all time favorites is a very flexible and heavy wide beam racquet.
 
Thick beams suck and almost ruined tennis. Thankfully, the trend is back to normal, thinner beams. Yes, normal. No need for a fat-assed racquet.
 
I think, before we blindly condemn thick beamed, lightweight, big hoops, we should consider that maybe half the market NEEDS them to hit a decent ball.
Half the market is old men, old women, weak and injured tennis players. A thick beam allows a short stunted swing to hit a decent ball.
Maybe, possibly, some of YOU are going to get old some day. YOU will be seeking a racket with more power and easier swing by that time. Believe it.
 
LeeD said:
I think, before we blindly condemn thick beamed, lightweight, big hoops, we should consider that maybe half the market NEEDS them to hit a decent ball.
Half the market is old men, old women, weak and injured tennis players. A thick beam allows a short stunted swing to hit a decent ball.
Maybe, possibly, some of YOU are going to get old some day. YOU will be seeking a racket with more power and easier swing by that time. Believe it.
Click to expand...

I don't mind if cos. make them as long as they continue making decent racquets. I'm old, have 4 herniated discs from a car accident and ligament damage in my knee and will never use a thick beamed racquet. The thick racquet craze for 15+ years saw very few options for those who like more traditional offerings. Hell, every manufacturer already has too many racquets that overlap and most are awful, thick and muted...
 
There are tapered beams, that are pretty thick (25mm @ widest point) that hit beautifully, and arguably better than alot of constant/thinner beams. For example Fischer had been doing this with there 98" size since the 90's, many people can attest to their racquets having phenomenal playing characteristics.

The Yonex RQis tour is another frame with super low power level and the same type of tapered beam worth mentioning. Just goes to show you its never been the thickness of a beam that defines its playing characteristics.
 
stevewcosta said:
I don't mind if cos. make them as long as they continue making decent racquets. I'm old, have 4 herniated discs from a car accident and ligament damage in my knee and will never use a thick beamed racquet. The thick racquet craze for 15+ years saw very few options for those who like more traditional offerings. Hell, every manufacturer already has too many racquets that overlap and most are awful, thick and muted...
Click to expand...

Muted string feel has to be more important than beam width. Name racquets made in the past 20 yrs with good tactile feel off the strings.
 
There will always be a market for thick beamed racket. And so is old school thin beamed players racket so I'm fine with that. Nadal's racket of choice is not particulary thin at 23/26/24 mm and guess what, he's no# 1 and hardly shank his shot. Federer's racket of choice, the six.one tour 90 at 17+ mm and guess what, he shank more balls with it! Here's the topper, they're both pros so who are we mere mortals complain about racket thickness!!!:)
 
LeeD said:
I think, before we blindly condemn thick beamed, lightweight, big hoops, we should consider that maybe half the market NEEDS them to hit a decent ball.
Half the market is old men, old women, weak and injured tennis players. A thick beam allows a short stunted swing to hit a decent ball.
Maybe, possibly, some of YOU are going to get old some day. YOU will be seeking a racket with more power and easier swing by that time. Believe it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that 'note of cheer' Lee,..... :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • Poll Poll
Are narrower beamed rackets more accurate?
Replies
23
Views
3K
TaihtDuhShaat
TaihtDuhShaat
D
  • Poll Poll
thick or thin beam??
Replies
6
Views
1K
BLiND
B
D
thick or thin beam??
Replies
5
Views
895
stevewcosta
S
S
Thick vs Thin beams
Replies
42
Views
9K
flanker2000fr
flanker2000fr
P
Stiffness and Beam Width for racquets.
Replies
1
Views
766
ollinger
ollinger
Back
Top