What has been lost with the lack of mid-size racquets?

[socallefty]

There are hardly any mid-size racquets being made anymore and it has become rare to see a 90-93 sq inch racquet on the pro tour or in college tennis. The majority of advanced and recreational tennis players play with 95-100 sq inch racquets these days and only seniors seem to play with larger size racquets. I understand that 95-100 sq inch racquets have a bigger sweet spot and are more forgiving of off-center shots than the older 90-93 sized mids. But, has something been lost in terms of benefits of smaller racquets that players just have to compromise on?

After starting with wood in the Seventies, I used to play with a Dunlop Max200G in the Eighties (about 85 sq inches) and then didn’t play tennis during the Nineties - when I started playing again 20 years ago, I switched to a mid-plus 98 sq inch racquet and have stuck with that head size ever since. I seem to recall volleying better with the smaller racquet and maybe serving better - but, I don’t know if it is because I was younger and quicker with a more flexible back. What do other players remember as the benefits of smaller head-size mids at 93 sq inches and below that has been lost? I know that some of you still play with classic racquets and would like to hear comments comparing against mid-plus racquets.

Let’s talk about racquet head-size differences and not flexibility as in general, older and smaller racquets were more flexible than modern racquets. There are still many flexible mid-plus racquets today (including pro stocks) and I would like comments purely on head size differences between mids and midplus racquets.

 

[flanker2000fr]

I learnt to play 40+ years ago and played through the 80's with "classic" racquets like Kneissl White Star Masters 10 / Adidas GTX Pro or Pro T / Puma Boris Becker Pro / Prince Graphite Pro.

After a 20+ year hiatus, I picked the sport again 3 years ago, and I quickly veered towards mid sized frames, being the Prince Phantom 93P (in both string patterns). The biggest thing for me was the traditional feel and solidity at impact I was getting from a sub 95 sq. in. frame with a box beam and a hefty static weight. The accuracy, too, was great. But in truth, as much as I like playing with these frames, they are really demanding to play with. So I have been transitioning over the past 8 months to a 100 sq. in.: first, the Prince Phantom Pro 100P, then a PCG100, and I have just received an Angell TC100 63RA. What I am trying to to is to get this traditional feel and connection to the ball of a mid, but in a easier package to play with. It's hard to argue with the extra tolerance provided by those few extra sq. in., especially those days when the feet aren't moving as quickly.

 

[socallefty]

Mid-plus racquets can have a box beam and high static weight above 12 ounces also - you can always add lead tape also. So, is the “traditional feel” and solid impact possible to get from a mid-plus 98-100 sq inch racquet with those specs? I would guess that the answer is yes and that’s why it is not clear to me if just the smaller 90-93 sq inch head size itself offers other benefits. Many times, the smaller head-size is combined with other characteristics like flexibility (low stiffness), box-beam, high static weight, high SW that available in mid-plus racquets also and it is hard to isolate what benefit the small head size provides.

 

[snoflewis]

we stopped seeing threads asking how to extract more power out of a 12.5oz 90 sq in frame. that's nice to see.

 

[Boubi]

Control and precision
You can find this in the current prestige mid though

 

[socallefty]

Are mids more maneuverable than a midplus racquet with similar weight, swingweight and beam size? That’s the only advantage that I can conceptually think of for a mid compared to a midplus if all other specs and racquet design details are the same and head size is the only difference. Would a mid be more headlight to have the same SW as a midplus having the same static weight and beam width and therefore would it be easier to generate faster racquet head speed?

I can see how a more maneuverable racquet might make volleying and serving better if it has similar stability and swingweight when you hit the sweet spot. And those are exactly the benefits I seem to remember from the Max200G I played with thirty years ago. Also, this might make it easier to generate power with a heavy, flexible racquet if you hit the sweet spot - since the sweet spot is smaller, this might not be enough of an advantage for baseline players who might prefer a bigger, stiffer racquet which is exactly what has happened in the last twenty years. Are there serve-and-volleyers and net-rushers who still play with mids for this reason?

 

[1stVolley]

The issue of a smaller sweet spot is more relevant in today's game with its greater emphasis on topspin groundstrokes. Back in the day, we hit flatter shots and there was less precision required than when hitting heavy topspin with the racquet face striking the ball at a more oblique angle.

Another thing that smaller head racquets have is a smaller twistweight. So on off-center hits there will be more torque transferred to your arm. Could this be another reason seniors gravitate toward oversize racquets with their greater twistweight?

 

[Dartagnan64]

Another thing that smaller head racquets have is a smaller twistweight. So on off-center hits there will be more torque transferred to your arm. Could this be another reason seniors gravitate toward oversize racquets with their greater twistweight?

The biggest reason seniors gravitate to OS frames is forgiveness. That makes up for failing vision and reflexes. The second biggest reason is power which makes up for the loss of flexibility and muscle power with age. I don't think torque being transferred to the arm weighs in at all.

 

[Steve Huff]

1stVolley has a very valid point. The move to power and spin, heavy ground strokes has in a lot of cases, made the volley obsolete, not even needed by some. That's where the mid size rackets shined.

 

[Hit 'em clean]

The issue of a smaller sweet spot is more relevant in today's game with its greater emphasis on topspin groundstrokes. Back in the day, we hit flatter shots and there was less precision required than when hitting heavy topspin with the racquet face striking the ball at a more oblique angle.

Another thing that smaller head racquets have is a smaller twistweight. So on off-center hits there will be more torque transferred to your arm. Could this be another reason seniors gravitate toward oversize racquets with their greater twistweight?

This... more topspin and power. The game has moved on with the advent of poly strings. Players can take huge cuts and basically swing much faster and are able to keep the ball in. As a result of that type of play... larger sweet spots provided the add forgiveness and larger racquet face to allow for more extreme topspin and power. To attempt the same with a smaller racquet head would lead to a lot more framed shots. Fed used to frame quite few shots back when he was using the 85 and 90sq in heads. Not that is was a lot, but more so than you might expect.

 

[aaron_h27]

Larger head size is more forgiving because those rackets have a higher twist-weight in stock form, however you can add weight at 3 & 9 to a 90 head size frame and make it equally stable to a stock 100 sq inch racket. The difference being the 90 inch racket will be much heavier because of the extra weight at 3 & 9 . The 90 inch racket would have a higher ceiling because of the extra control & accuracy. better for aggressive play. People should use the heaviest, smallest headsize they can compete with. High twistweight(aka. forgiveness) is not needed for some players with good hand-eye coordination, it makes the racket less manuverable & too powerful for some. While it's true you can get more spin from a larger head with all things being equal, you lose accuracy and honestly if you put a spin friendly set-up in a mid, the difference is negligible. High level players need accuracy & spin, too much spin can be a bad thing. I don't see a reason to go over 100 personally.

 

[aaron_h27]

This... more topspin and power. The game has moved on with the advent of poly strings. Players can take huge cuts and basically swing much faster and are able to keep the ball in. As a result of that type of play... larger sweet spots provided the add forgiveness and larger racquet face to allow for more extreme topspin and power. To attempt the same with a smaller racquet head would lead to a lot more framed shots. Fed used to frame quite few shots back when he was using the 85 and 90sq in heads. Not that is was a lot, but more so than you might expect.

It's a myth that Fed framed shots because he used a small headsize, he framed shots because never added any lead to 3 & 9. Del Potro, Djokovic, Cilic all use mid's and don't shank the ball that frequently. Djok has a ton of lead at 3 & 9, and uses a 95 18x20 frame. That racket is not forgiving at all. He makes it forgiving by adding weight on the sides. Sampras had a ton of lead at 3 & 9, never had a shanking problem. Safin used a 89.5 sq inch head with lead at 3 & 9, never had a shanking problem.

Sam Stosur on the WTA used a 98 sq inch head and was known for shanking balls, if the racket has too low of a twistweight for a particular player they will shank regardless of the headsize, but the low twistweight makes it good for topspin. You have to find a balance.

EDIT : Hewitt used a 90 inch racket until 2016, then switched to a 93. Dimitrov used a 93 until 2017.

 

[lim]

No MP/tweener I've played with had the plow, control, and FEEL of a mid imo. Maybe PSC 6.1 95 but it doesn't have anything on the scalpel like slice or pin point precision of a mid.
At the end of the day none of these qualities are top priority to league/rec players where power/spin/rhs >>> everything else.

 

[Steve Huff]

Aaron--I think the original post was considering 98 and 100 sq in rackets "larger", and was talking about the lack of 90-93 sq in frames. Even high level players (like Federer, Nadal, etc) use these larger headed frames now. Not just because you can hit more spin, but returning it requires a more forgiving frame with a larger sweet spot. If you've ever read about Nadal's forehand, it not only jumps higher, but can jump into a right-hander's forehand by 2-3 feet. You don't want something with a sweetspot the size of a dime to return it, even if you have great hand-eye coordination.

 

[aaron_h27]

Aaron--I think the original post was considering 98 and 100 sq in rackets "larger", and was talking about the lack of 90-93 sq in frames. Even high level players (like Federer, Nadal, etc) use these larger headed frames now. Not just because you can hit more spin, but returning it requires a more forgiving frame with a larger sweet spot. If you've ever read about Nadal's forehand, it not only jumps higher, but can jump into a right-hander's forehand by 2-3 feet. You don't want something with a sweetspot the size of a dime to return it, even if you have great hand-eye coordination.

Murray and Djokovic fare quite fine against Nadal with 95 sq inch frames. Djokovic is using a 18x20 also, which would be similar to a 90 sq inch 16x19 frame in terms of the string bed. Larger head size isn't for everybody. Spin isn't the end all be all.

 

[Slowtwitcher]

90-95 racquets are very unforgiving without lead at 3-9. But once you get the twistweight up, can't really beat the "feel" of these racquets.