TimeToPlaySets
Legend
What are they gaining by giving up a larger sweet spot ?
Why do people use 93 instead of 100 ?
- Thread starter TimeToPlaySets
- Start date
F
FRV
Guest
I use 97 because Federer, otherwise I'd probably use 100.
I think better players can afford a smaller sweet spot in order to gain more control.
I think better players can afford a smaller sweet spot in order to gain more control.
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
Why is 93 more maneuverability? It is lighter?
But the Phantom 93P is a heavy racket.
But the Phantom 93P is a heavy racket.
F
FRV
Guest
Doesn't help control?
F
FRV
Guest
Nothing's a given for me. Always need to do my research for racket technology haha.
shamaho
Professional
well... usually 93" are head-light balanced, so that plus the smaller head... less resistance...makes it much more meneuverable...
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
How does a small head help control ?
Directional or distance?
I don't see how it affects direction.
You hit it somewhere on the strings.
It should not matter if the area outside of that contact point is 5 inches or 500.
Directional or distance?
I don't see how it affects direction.
You hit it somewhere on the strings.
It should not matter if the area outside of that contact point is 5 inches or 500.
rafa_prestige89
Professional
Control and good feeling!
ScotianTennis
New User
I find 100 too big and clumsy for my single handed backhand. Changing from speed pro to prince tour 95.
Jakesteroni
Semi-Pro
Easy, it looks cooler. Next question please.
spinerella
New User
precision and control
Game style will come into play, I suspect those moving to smaller heads aren’t your pushers and grinders, probably more likely to be aggressive baseliners or all court players; dare I say serve and volleyers?
Personally there’s just a kind of feel I like to have in my racket that helps me enjoy playing more, it’s why I gravitate to box beams. It probably makes little difference to my results, but it’s a way for me to personalize my equipment. I’m happy to give up the forgiveness and free power to feel that buttery precision on all my shots.
Personally there’s just a kind of feel I like to have in my racket that helps me enjoy playing more, it’s why I gravitate to box beams. It probably makes little difference to my results, but it’s a way for me to personalize my equipment. I’m happy to give up the forgiveness and free power to feel that buttery precision on all my shots.
teachingprotx
Legend
Control control control
teachingprotx
Legend
85 is Prefered but I’ll go 90 95 if it’s extremely flexy
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
Control and feel.
It’s why people don’t play with 130 sq in frames. Less control and feel.
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
Who does 93 have more control than 130 ?
You are still using the same 2 inches of string where the ball contacts.
In theory, the racket could be a mile wide. You're still only using that 1% of the strings.
So, why does extra unused string surface matter?
You are still using the same 2 inches of string where the ball contacts.
In theory, the racket could be a mile wide. You're still only using that 1% of the strings.
So, why does extra unused string surface matter?
vsbabolat
G.O.A.T.
You’re just trolling.
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
That means you can't answer a simple question.
dsb
Rookie
Why does an 18x20 have more control than a 16x19 in the same head size? Less string bed deflection... and while you may be using the same 2 inches of string, the larger headed racquet has longer strings that will bend more for any given tension.
mad dog1
G.O.A.T.
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
While that was not my question, let me consider 18x20 vs. 16x19.
18x20 has more density of strings, so the ball hits more strings upon contact?
Is that why there is less deflection? Since ball force is spread out to more strings.
How does this translate to more control? Isn't control depending on the swing itself?
If the strings deflect the same amount for a given force, who cares if it deflects a lot or little?
It is still consistent.
18x20 has more density of strings, so the ball hits more strings upon contact?
Is that why there is less deflection? Since ball force is spread out to more strings.
How does this translate to more control? Isn't control depending on the swing itself?
If the strings deflect the same amount for a given force, who cares if it deflects a lot or little?
It is still consistent.
tigonian02
New User
I’ll answer this Q. You SHOULD hit the same inch or two every ball strike, but no one is perfect. Even the pros miss. With a smaller head, you may hit a ton of frame, increasing the chance for error. With a bigger head you may just hit strings outside the sweet spot.
In my opinion, I like the feel and pocketing of a lot of smaller head sizes, but I find that it seems more suited for people with a 1hbh, which I do not have.
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
Right, so that is an advantage of the 130.
Why would you not use 130 then?
As you said, even pros miss the center
Why would you not use 130 then?
As you said, even pros miss the center
dsb
Rookie
You should hit with a 130... you'd probably get a better feel for the answer to your question.
There's stuff you can measure, and stuff you can feel... Theoretically, a smaller head might have more control, but if you can't hit the center it's going to be worse for you than the larger head. Same thing with the 16x19 v. 18x20... If the way you hit the ball takes better advantage of the greater spin potential of the 16x19 it may offer you more control than the 18x20 version despite having greater string bed deflection.
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
I like the Agassi avatar !
Addxyz
Hall of Fame
If you do a cursory google on the question, most posts that turn up talk about the string deflection and the variablilty of the deflection. Bigger heads will have more variability because of the longer string lengths. Same thing with the different string patterns. More strings will deflect less giving better control at the expense of power.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
Why would string deflection vary, given a constant force?
String deflection should only vary if the ball comes in at a different speed or swing speed changes.
But it should stay constant for a given head size or string pattern, unless those are magically changing during a point!
String deflection should only vary if the ball comes in at a different speed or swing speed changes.
But it should stay constant for a given head size or string pattern, unless those are magically changing during a point!
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
The bigger the hoop size the more movement the strings have which increases the variability in energy transfer to the ball. Surely someone that plays golf would know that muscle back blades offer better feel and control over oversize cavity back irons. Larger frames improve power and are more forgiving on offcenter shots but sweet spot strikes will always be more precise with a smaller frame.
Everything is a compromise.
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
Blades vs cavity back have nothing to do with the size of the racket.
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
What makes you think this?
jmacdaununder2
Legend
Nostradamus minus his valium?
time_fly
Hall of Fame
The smaller head and thinner beam make the frame easier to maneuver than bigger / thicker racquets of the same weight. That’s because dispersing the weight over a bigger area makes rotation of the frame more difficult. I expect that most of the players that like the 93 also are older and originally learned to play with more classic mid-sized racquets so it seems more familiar to them as well. I played generally 80 - 90” frames in HS as far as I recall, so I feel very comfortable with a smaller head from muscle memory. Whether it’s wise for me to still play such a racquet in a match is another question.
flanker2000fr
Hall of Fame
Strings are longer, and more spaced (for an identical string pattern) on a larger frame, thus increasing trampoline effect, thus being more powerful. Reverse applies on smaller frames, resulting in more control and accuracy.
A basic 2mn search would have returned that explanation, if you had bothered. But I suppose it's more fun to post here and antagonize people.
asifallasleep
Hall of Fame
Racquet choice is very personal. It is however possible that someone would have more control with a 130 frame vs a 93, based on the other specs of the frame and the skill level of the user. It's possible that if Agassi used a smaller frame he may have had less control.........................................conventional wisdom disagrees.........................but there are far too many factors that go into properly hitting a tennis ball. I think everyone here is stating the accepted playability results in regard to head size, beam thickness, string pattern, etc, their own personal experiences........etc.............but i do get where the OP is coming from. Initially I was in total disagreement, but i no longer feel that way.
TennisHound
Legend
Very good points. Should you use a shovel or a backhoe?
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Because with the larger head size there is more trampoline effect, the smaller racket has a more stable stringbed.
Addxyz
Hall of Fame
Not sure if you're being serious in this thread or if you've just never taken college physics.
Take the equation from this page: https://www.amesweb.info/Physics/Calculate-Tension-Two-Ropes-Different-Angles.aspx and play around with identical mass, but different tensions. Let me know what you get for the different angles (you can assume α and θ are identical for simplicity).
For example, a 1kg mass at angle 45degrees will result in a tension of 6.9N. If you increase the tension to say 10N, the angle increases to around 60degrees. This means that at a higher tension with identical mass, the line gets pulled straighter (less deflection). This follows the common theory that stringing tighter gives move control because there's less deflection.
Now do another experiment, take a short string and a long string. The short string / rope should be easy to keep taut. The longer string / rope should be harder to keep taut. The shorter string should deflect less than the longer string at the same tension. The result shows that at identical tensions, the shorter string (on the smaller head) should deflect less than the longer string (on the larger head).
BTW, I hope the real physics majors can chime in on this.
graycrait
Legend
Delusional machismo.
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
it is entirely the same principle. Iron byron testing has shown that on sweet spot strikes muscle back small headed irons show less variance than oversize cavity backs largely because the face of the iron can distort more in the cavity back.
Again because of more variance in string bed motion due to the longer strings further away from the edges of the racket.
That's largely based on whether you hit the sweetspot most of the time or not. If you mis hit a lot then you will have more control with a larger frame. If you hit the sweet spot a lot you will get more control with the smaller head. It's why pro golfers use smaller headed irons and hackers use oversize cavity backs. The hacker would lose too much distance on off centre hits. Similarly the tennis player that hits off centre alot will lose too much power with small frames and hence a perceived lack of control.
proracketeer
Professional
because they can
Definitely trolling, or maybe just clueless?
flanker2000fr
Hall of Fame
I fell for that too. But now that I've seen TTPS' behavior on several threads, it quite clear the only thing he looking for is a wind up.
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
Still don't understand the string deflection assumptions. Let's use a literal trampoline example. Drop a bowling ball into it from 100 feet above. Massive deflection. But, The ball should bounce exactly the same distance every time. Now tighten the trampoline. Now less bounce, but predictable less bounce every time. Both are equally controlled. Deflection has nothing to do with control since the result is identical every time. Predictable means control since the swing will adapt to the amount of deflection.
