Unstable Racquets = urban legend

[NoBadMojo]

i really have never understood all this talk of racquet stability. all the racquets discussed and offered by TW are stable racquets.....uranium can be unstable ....as long as you hit the sweetspot of any of the racquets that TW offers, you have a very stable frame..if you mis-hit alot, depending upon how badly you mis-hit, the racquet can twist on you. i think most people are aware that racquets with more mass twist less on impact when mis-hit (so maybe that is what they mean by a stable racquet) i also dont buy into the theory that you need a heavy racquet to deal with someone who hits the ball hard..that's myth IMO. i think the more appropriate/relative term is sweetspot size...not to be harsh, but when people deem a racquet unstable, what they are really saying is 'i can't find the sweetspot with this thing' and these people need to refine their stroke production and/or play with a larger headed frame (or one of the same size w. a larger sweetspot) as long as their egos allow them to do so. IMO.

 

[ferrari_827]

I think the hoop design has alot to do with it. The hoop of some frames look flimsy, like a coat hanger, and these can even feel unstable if you hit in the sweetspot due to lack of mass.

But all frames twist if you hit off-center, but those with more head mass will resist twisting better. As for sweetspot, I feel a racket can have a small sweetspot but still feel stable, and inversely you can have a large sweetspot but the frame feels wobbly or unstable.

 

[alfa164164]

It may just be semantics, but I think the stability classification (or lack thereof) is usually directly related to the rackets weight.
Maybe "plow-through"-ability is a better term.
I agree that regardless of weight, a racket will feel good (and stable) if you hit the sweetspot.

 

[Rabbit]

I guess I'm one of those people who can't find the sweet spot with some frames then. I have played against some Div 1 college players and found that the weight of the frame makes a big difference. If I play with a light frame, I find that my arm has to do the bulk of the work to keep the ball going in the direction I want it to. When I play with around a 13 ounce frame, I just have to line the frame up and swing. I think the plow factor may be a better description than stability although stability certainly applies when discussing volleys.

 

[NoBadMojo]

i guess everyone's experience is different.....i didnt have my bats with me and did a hitting lesson w. a ranked pure drive junior....so i picked up a Cat4 which weighs like nothing....i experienced nothing at all in the realm of instability by the common definition and this kid had the standard smoke the forehand game..i did have some obvious timing problems at first. even the pros more and more are going sub 13 oz and even sub 12 oz these days..companies really can make racquets both lightweight and solid these days. i do agree tho that heavier racquets do hit heavier balls. as to ferari's comment about a coat hanger frame? i dont realy know what that means other than maybe you are implying that because a frame is thin beamed that it must be flimsy, lack mass, and be unstable (whatever that means)...some of the heavest frames happen to have the thinnest beams, just because something is thicker doesnt mean it is stronger and weighs more..some of the walls of these wider beamed frames are wafer thin and weigh nothing....maybe that is why i have always enjoyed thinner beamed frames..they just feel more solid to me, like there is more stuff in there....maybe some people associate headlight w. unstable and the coat hanger mystique but to each their own....roddick doesnt seem to get pushed around much w. his sub 12oz setup i know there is no way i could prepare soon enough and get the bat around quickly enough to play a Div1 player with a 13oz bat..the ball just comes so fast these days....you da man rabbit and i think you are right..there is no way elmer fudd could dust the wascily wabbit w. a bigger heavier gun.

 

[Tenny]

roddick doesnt seem to get pushed around much w. his sub 12oz setup

It seems Roddick plays 'stock (uncustomized) PD' but I saw there are long strips of lead tapes on his PD (7-8 inches?). So, it should be heavier than PD's original weight, IMO.

T.

check some of babolat ad with Roddick in tennis magazine.

 

[ej]

I do think that racquets have a native feel; and I do think we receive very direct sensory information that allows us to tell the difference-in-stability between a 13+ oz Wilson Ultra 2 and a hollow Head I S2. Every racquet transmits different quantities of feedback (or shock) depending on compostion, weight, weight-distribution, handle-construction and string density. The word "stability" is one way for us to ask questions about the feel of a racquet.

However, your point about technique is not mute. Sometimes I wish there was only one type of racquet and one type of string. If this was the case, when we had a bad day, instead of endlessly tweaking our tension and string choice and grams of lead, we'd have no choice but to focus on mechanics.

 

[bcaz]

I agree with Mojo's point about stability, but I still think racquet mass makes a difference when volleying against fast, heavy passing shots and on big serves. These are shots where, of course, it's great to find the sweet spot, but the first order of business is to get the strings in front of the ball and hope the racquet fights the ball back.

 

[altawolfe]

i really have never understood all this talk of racquet stability. all the racquets discussed and offered by TW are stable racquets.....uranium can be unstable ....as long as you hit the sweetspot of any of the racquets that TW offers, you have a very stable frame..if you mis-hit alot, depending upon how badly you mis-hit, the racquet can twist on you. i think most people are aware that racquets with more mass twist less on impact when mis-hit (so maybe that is what they mean by a stable racquet) i also dont buy into the theory that you need a heavy racquet to deal with someone who hits the ball hard..that's myth IMO. i think the more appropriate/relative term is sweetspot size...not to be harsh, but when people deem a racquet unstable, what they are really saying is 'i can't find the sweetspot with this thing' and these people need to refine their stroke production and/or play with a larger headed frame (or one of the same size w. a larger sweetspot) as long as their egos allow them to do so. IMO.

Huh?
All racquets are stable in the sweetspot, i.e., questions about stability are in fact questions about off-center hits, i.e., what's your point? When someone asks if a frame is stable, they are asking how it feels when they hit outside the sweetspot, i.e., they are asking how much the frame torques and twists and vibrates off-center. Even Agassi and Federer hit the ball off-center. People have a right to ask how THE WHOLE stringbed feels. Even the best players make reaction volleys or running stabs.

If I want to know how to hit the ball in the sweetspot, I make a post in the instruction section. If I want to know if the prostaff 6.0 95 has an unstable upper hoop, I make a post here. . .

 

[Redflea]

Agree w/altawolfe...it's about how the racquet feels/reacts to those shots when you don't hit it sweet that I am thinking of when I talk about stability...definitely a weight component in that.

Semantics and context are important, which nobadmojo's post points out very well...a lot of the comments/terms thrown around here are wide open to varied interpretations depending on the underlying meaning implied and inferred.

 

[NoBadMojo]

i do think it is a matter of symantecs. when i think of instability, i think of torque and twisting. and if people are feeling that sensation, then they really do need something w. a bigger sweetspot and to work on their stroke production rather than declare a frame 'unstable'. also some people seem to connect very headlight frames w. instability for some reason. maybe others view instability as the racquet becoming dead or boardy or non responsive on mis-hits. i dont view that as instablity. i know that when i mis-hit i tend to do that by hitting a little high in the stringbed (mostly when serving) so i like a frame that doesnt feel dead in the upper hoop to me..that's one reason why i've never been a fan of the Yonex headshape and enjoy the classic Volkl headshape. my .o2.

 

[David Pavlich]

I think Ed has it right about the stability factor. It's the reaction of the frame on off-center hits (I should know...I use the frame as much as the strings :? ).

Where I disagree is whether or not a heavier racquet is able to handle pace better. It's physics, basically. A ball moving at 80 mph that is sent back by a 12 oz frame is going to deflect less than an 11 oz frame, all things being equal.

Of course, if the person can't catch up to the ball because he or she can't overcome the weight of the frame, then it's a moot point.

BUT....it all comes back to what you are most comfortable with.

David

 

[man-walking]

Weight is crucial, and so ... mass distribution too, of course! But...
I would say technically, stable racquets are those that during center or off-center shots feels a more centered recoil than a lateral or twisted one.
So I think is more a matter of how the racquet design delivers the energy of ball rebound... so we should consider weight, weight distribution, flexyble parts, frame design...

For example there are racquets very different in concept in the throat area, do you think that at same weight and balance they all give the same stability response ?
Naaah...