why do people use demanding frames?

[Richie Rich]

But as I stated above, I'm talking about taking the exact same swing at the ball, but just with two different racquets: one wood, the other a Pure Drive. So everything else is the same, the only difference is the racquet. With which would you more likely hit the ball long?

have you actaully done this or is all just speculation on your part? just wondering

 

[BreakPoint]

have you actaully done this or is all just speculation on your part? just wondering

I played with wood racquets for over 12 years, and I've used modern racquets, including the Pure Drive, for longer than that. Since neither the ball nor my strokes have changed, I can confidently say that the Pure Drive has more power than a wood racquet and that with the same exact swing, the ball travels further with the Pure Drive than with the wood racquet. Why? Is that really hard for you to believe?

 

[chowdhurynaveen]

Freckles post:

"Back to your post chowdhurynaveen. An intermediate player can gradually learn how to use a player's frame. But how will you go about learning it's nuances when your hitting partner turns a simple rallye into a slugfest? The idea is to hit the ball back and forth and concentrate on hitting the sweet spot. But this guy wants to hit down the line winners and cross-court shots after every third shot."

In response to freckles post:

Theyre will always be players like this. Continue to play with him or pick a more compatable partner, dont get frustrated, have patience, get some coaching, and do some work....and youll end up kicking his butt in the end. Dont focus on beating him, focus on getting better, and the winning will come naturally.

 

[AngeloDS]

Yes, and some of us actually do. That's the point. Most people who learned to play using wood racquets have the technique necessary to use low-powered player's racquets.

Wrong, modern low powered racquets require a lot upper body rotation and strength. Not only this but also an incredibly loose & relaxed or layed back wrist.

Which is a common problem with a lot of people who also use such a demanding frame. The common problem being lower back pain because of the upper body rotation. If not that it's shoulder pain due to lack of upper body rotation & fitness. They require such to get the most out of them now at a competitive level.

Wood racquets are different. As you can watch from old videos and the "classic" technique is firm wrist, eastern grip, not much if any upper body rotation. Though, opening the body helps (not the same as upper body rotation) which is what was commonly done.

I know first hand because I started off learning the classic old school methods from my JV Coach, and it's what I also teach to the JV when I do assistant coaching. I know the modern game as well because the Varsity Coach taught us 90s tennis (power, variety and using the body more). My college coach teaches a hybrid but focuses more on mental game & volleying.

But as I stated above, I'm talking about taking the exact same swing at the ball, but just with two different racquets: one wood, the other a Pure Drive. So everything else is the same, the only difference is the racquet. With which would you more likely hit the ball long?

You created a moot point. If I used a western with an angled face the ball according to what you said(being the key) the Babolat would do fine but the Wood would most likely hit the net. On the other hand with an eastern and a completely open face the wood would do fine and the babolat would most likely hit out.

What do most people use these days? Semi-western forehand grip, with an angled face at about 45 degrees (swinging low to high) and some that choose to hit more flat at 90 degrees (swinging across their body more vertically around chest height). So it's perfectly fine in those conditions. A lot of people also use the western grip due to the fact some can't take the ball at hip height; it's better for higher balls and keeping them in due to spin.

Bill Tilden, Bill Johnston (considered to have a wonderful forehand) and others all from the 1920s used such used more extreme grips. Bill Johnston mostly because balls would come to shoulder height (which is what we see now in tennis today).

 

[Richie Rich]

I played with wood racquets for over 12 years, and I've used modern racquets, including the Pure Drive, for longer than that. Since neither the ball nor my strokes have changed, I can confidently say that the Pure Drive has more power than a wood racquet and that with the same exact swing, the ball travels further with the Pure Drive than with the wood racquet. Why? Is that really hard for you to believe?

no, not hard to believe - just wondering if you had done the comparison at the same time (hit with wood, put frame down, pick up pure drive, hit with pure drive). looks like you haven't and are just making an assumption.

 

[neo]

So I have a simple solution. Ban all of these modern racquets so that we get rid of players like Nadal and Roddick and have more players like Federer and Sampras.

Nadal's game is actually quite entertaining to watch, especially on clay. And Rodick's game is not entertaining to watch because of his overwhelming advantage on serve which has nothing to do with rackets. Sampras also had such advantage with his PS85. The solution to that problem would be changing service rules, like eliminating second serve, for example.

I am on your side of the argument in a sense that I personally prefer rackets with more control and less power, but I am totally opposed to the idea of restricting everyone else to using only such rackets. Manufacturers offer wider selection of rackets these days and wider selection of playing styles appear as a result, and I think that is good, not bad. As long as there are no power sources in the racket to propel it

Another thing I wanted to mention, just because your opposition in this argument (NBMJ) is completely obsessed with the subject and as a result resolves to absurd arguments and personal insults, doesn't mean you have to do the same. You are winning this argument as it is, and he just continues to embarrass himself.

 

[BreakPoint]

Wrong, modern low powered racquets require a lot upper body rotation and strength. Not only this but also an incredibly loose & relaxed or layed back wrist.

Which is a common problem with a lot of people who also use such a demanding frame. The common problem being lower back pain because of the upper body rotation. If not that it's shoulder pain due to lack of upper body rotation & fitness. They require such to get the most out of them now at a competitive level.

Wood racquets are different. As you can watch from old videos and the "classic" technique is firm wrist, eastern grip, not much if any upper body rotation. Though, opening the body helps (not the same as upper body rotation) which is what was commonly done.

This coming from someone that has NEVER used a wood racquet other than to hit a few balls for fun. Use a wood racquet exclusively for 12 years in competiton first and THEN come back here with your analysis. No body rotation nor strength needed to play with wood racquets? Gimme a break!!

You created a moot point. If I used a western with an angled face the ball according to what you said(being the key) the Babolat would do fine but the Wood would most likely hit the net. On the other hand with an eastern and a completely open face the wood would do fine and the babolat would most likely hit out.

What do most people use these days? Semi-western forehand grip, with an angled face at about 45 degrees (swinging low to high) and some that choose to hit more flat at 90 degrees (swinging across their body more vertically around chest height). So it's perfectly fine in those conditions. A lot of people also use the western grip due to the fact some can't take the ball at hip height; it's better for higher balls and keeping them in due to spin.

Did you even read what I said? I said some of us don't want to change our techniques. Why should we? If someone has been using the same technique for 30 years, why should they change? I'm talking about using the Pure Drive in the EXACT same way that you use a wood racquet. Would you agree that if you took a massive swing with an eastern grip, hitting the ball flat, that the ball is more likely to go long with the PD? Do you think Sampras would hit the ball long if he switched to a Pure Drive and continued to take big cuts with his forehand with his eastern grip and flattish shots?

 

[BreakPoint]

no, not hard to believe - just wondering if you had done the comparison at the same time (hit with wood, put frame down, pick up pure drive, hit with pure drive). looks like you haven't and are just making an assumption.

Does that make a difference? Sounds like you're just trying to nit pick at what I've said and to find holes in everything I say.

If you test drove a Toyota Corolla, and then a year later, test drove a Porsche 911 Turbo, is it safe to assume that the Porsche has more power and is faster than the Corolla even though you didn't test drive them side-by-side?

Just making an assumption....Puleeeeeze It sounds like you don't have a whole lot of experience with wood racquets.

 

[Richie Rich]

Does that make a difference? Sounds like you're just trying to nit pick at what I've said and to find holes in everything I say.

If you test drove a Toyota Corolla, and then a year later, test drove a Porsche 911 Turbo, is it safe to assume that the Porsche has more power and is faster than the Corolla even though you didn't test drive them side-by-side?

Just making an assumption....Puleeeeeze It sounds like you don't have a whole lot of experience with wood racquets.

it does make a difference to some people (i could really care less). an assumption is just that - an assumption. wasn't saying it was wrong (or right either). you made it sound like you were using the 2 racquets side by side. the fact that you were not should be noted. didn't realize you had such a problem with that.

for someone who nit picks other posters i'm surprised you are getting upset about this.

 

[BreakPoint]

it does make a difference to some people (i could really care less). an assumption is just that - an assumption. wasn't saying it was wrong (or right either). you made it sound like you were using the 2 racquets side by side. the fact that you were not should be noted. didn't realize you had such a problem with that.

for someone who nit picks other posters i'm surprised you are getting upset about this.

Sorry, but I never explicitly said I played with them "side-by side". I never gave any sort of time frame. I said "you hit with a wood racquet and then hit with a Pure Drive in the same way, which is more likely to hit the ball long?" You can do that at the same time, after a week, a month, a year, I don't think it really matters as long as you're using the same stroke.

 

[AngeloDS]

Sampras changed his technique, why not? One of the greats -- yes, he said, "I want to win Wimbledon." And switched to a one-handed backhand. So don't give me that or use it as an excuse.

If you're going to play competitively and play seriously. There are going to be changes. Unless you want to just play social tennis or whatever where it doesn't matter. Which sounds like what you do, talking about "Aww the game is so ugly now. No serve & volleying. Ahh this... Ahh that." Just complaining with such a narrow view. I've seen a lot of tennis and I've played a lot of tennis and I've only encountered what you've said at low levels. And you only talk about that, which makes me really doubt what you say.

Like I said go out and watch college tennis, college doubles, high school doubles or even A4 high school singles tennis. Heck even in USTA tournaments at higher levels is really fun to watch; to a point where watching matches makes me nervous! You'll see serve & volleying, beautiful angles & beautiful tennis. There's amazing tennis out there; but you fail to neglect that/never talk about it.

For me it seems like you play with crappy players (pointing to social tennis), watch tennis on television and such. Not much outside of that small view.

If you want to pull out that card that you've used a wood racquet for 12 years competitively. You need to come up with the proof. Until then, I won't believe what you claim. When you show me various awards, plaques, medals, trophies and such of what you claim. Then I'll give you that credit; I can show my various managing & assistant coaching awards, certificates and what not. I can show you my low level college matches I've played and lost or won. I can show my various trophies, medals and such that I've won from tournaments.

You act as if I'm naive; I'm not -- I know the game & the history of the game. I've learned the classic method & drilling first hand from a classic coach (who never even touched upon the modern game). It's what I also teach when I do assistant coaching for the new players on JV. I also know the modern game from my coaches (Varsity & College), and it's what I teach to V or higher JV players.

There's a difference between practical and impractical. You're on the fringes.

 

[BreakPoint]

Sampras changed his technique, why not? One of the greats -- yes, he said, "I want to win Wimbledon." And switched to a one-handed backhand. So don't give me that or use it as an excuse.

If you want to pull out that card that you've used a wood racquet for 12 years competitively. You need to come up with the proof. Until then, I won't believe what you claim. When you show me various awards, plaques, medals, trophies and such of what you claim. Then I'll give you that credit; I can show my various managing & assistant coaching awards, certificates and what not. I can show you my low level college matches I've played and lost or won. I can show my various trophies, medals and such that I've won from tournaments.

I've learned the classic method & drilling first hand from a classic coach (who never even touched upon the modern game). It's what I also teach when I do assistant coaching for the new players on JV. I also know the modern game from my coaches (Varsity & College), and it's what I teach to V or higher JV players.

So you're telling me that Sampras had been hitting with a two-handed backhand for 30 years when he was 12 years old? And who said anything about switching from a 2HBH to a 1HBH? I'm talking about switching racquets. If Sampras switched from his PS 6.0 85 to a Pure Drive and hit his trademark whipping, flattish, eastern grip forehand, would the ball more likely go long than before?

BTW, I played on my high school tennis team with a wood racquet and also played tournaments with one when I was a teenager. Here's my trophy. See isn't that nice and shiny? LOL

 

[Midlife crisis]

Did you even read what I said? I said some of us don't want to change our techniques. Why should we? If someone has been using the same technique for 30 years, why should they change?

Because things evolve.

Would you go to a doctor who says he's been doing things the same way for 30 years?

Would you go to a car mechanic who's been fixing things the same way for 30 years?

Would you go to a tennis instructor who's been teaching the game the same way for 30 years? (Yeah, this is admittedly a little bit of a dig.)

Just because you've been doing something the same way for a long time does not make it the best way.

 

[AngeloDS]

Prove that you played High School tennis with a wood racquet, that you played competitively with a wood racquet for 12 years. Until then I won't give you that credit.

I said some of us don't want to change our techniques. Why should we?

And who said anything about switching from a 2HBH to a 1HBH? I'm talking about switching racquets.

Which is it? Technique or racquets?

No body rotation nor strength needed to play with wood racquets?

While Wood Racquets were heavier. The techniques such as an eastern forehand grip, firm wrist and lack of upper body rotation is what allowed kids and even women to play tennis with them.

That's why the eastern forehand grip and the classic methods are usually taught first to new players. They're not as complex as modern techniques. And usually new players lack stability, strength and other various aspects needed for a foundation in tennis.

I can't say for sure 100% BreakPoint if Sampras used a Pure Drive. Neither can you. But if you're going to use that argument, you have to prove it. Show me a clip of Sampras hitting with a Pure Drive and hitting a ball out and what-not.

I'm not claiming -- just going with what you claim. You're the one claiming; and if you're going to claim something you need the proof.

 

[BreakPoint]

Just because you've been doing something the same way for a long time does not make it the best way.

But I never said that it was the best way. I said I'd rather stick with my low-powered, player's racquet and hit the ball the same way that I have been for 30 years rather than switch to a modern, big-headed, high-powered racquet and be forced to completely change my technique or re-learn a new technique just in order to use the new racquet. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

At 35, Sampras will not change his technique on his eastern grip forehand nor his serve motion, right? McEnroe, at 47, still uses the same continental grip on all of his shots that he always has and still hits the ball the same way. These guys will never change their techniques so they're not good candidates for racquets like the Pure Drive. Can you imagine Sampras or McEnroe switching to a Pure Drive and completely changing their techniques to start hitting the ball like Nadal? It's never going to happen. Do you get what I mean?

 

[BreakPoint]

Prove that you played High School tennis with a wood racquet, that you played competitively with a wood racquet for 12 years. Until then I won't give you that credit.

While Wood Racquets were heavier. The techniques such as an eastern forehand grip, firm wrist and lack of upper body rotation is what allowed kids and even women to play tennis with them.

That's why the eastern forehand grip and the classic methods are usually taught first to new players. They're not as complex as modern techniques. And usually new players lack stability, strength and other various aspects needed for a foundation in tennis.

I can't say for sure 100% BreakPoint if Sampras used a Pure Drive. Neither can you. But if you're going to use that argument, you have to prove it. Show me a clip of Sampras hitting with a Pure Drive and hitting a ball out and what-not.

I'm not claiming -- just going with what you claim. You're the one claiming; and if you're going to claim something you need the proof.

Prove to me that you even know how to play tennis. I don't need to "prove" anything to you.

BTW, it's precisely because wood racquets were heavy that body rotation was necessary to generate power. Not everyone has arm and shoulder muscles like Nadal does.

You know what? I've realized that you've got no clue what you're talking about.

 

[AngeloDS]

Watch 1980s tennis, I'm pretty sure you have the Wimbledon DVDs. So much lack of upper body rotation on forehands and even backhands. Heck, if you want to see it if you don't have it.

http://www.youtube.com -- type in the search 1980 Wimbledon.

They opened up their bodies, but it's not the same as upper body rotation.

I know the classic methods, drilling and technique first hand. I teach them as an assistant coach to new players on the JV Team.

I'm not going to be name calling but I'm just asking you to prove it; once you do I'll give you the credit. You really sink to a low level and attack people when cornered.

 

[BreakPoint]

Which is it? Technique or racquets?

Did Sampras switch from a 2HBH to a 1HBH because of the racquet? No!!!! He switched to become a better serve and volley player. Thus, it had NOTHING to do with changing his technique to accomdate a new, more powerful racquet. Besides, he hadn't been using a 2HBH for 30 years when he switched since he was only 12 years old. What are the chances that you can convince Agassi to switch from a 2HBH to a 1HBH or McEnroe to switch from a 1HBH to a 2HBH today? Like zilch!

 

[AngeloDS]

You see that's the difference. I don't need to watch '80's tennis because I was there and I did it. I played 70's and 80's tennis with a wood racquet and I know exactly how I hit the ball. Not too different from how I hit the ball today. I used to go watch the US Open live from courtside in the late 70's/early 80's, so no need for me to watch DVD's. You weren't even alive then but yet you somehow claim to be an expert on how to hit the ball with wood racquets.

PROVE IT. You have yet to prove anything.

Until then, I think you're lying through your teeth. Only when you do prove it, I will give you that credit.

Don't claim something with no evidence or proof to back it up.

I can say, "I was actually a pro tennis player from the 1950s. I was actually the #1 player in the world!" but where is the proof to back it up. There is none, so please stop claiming unless you have the proof.

This is how you act: "I played tennis for so long! It means I'm so good! It means I'm so much better. It means I'm too good!"

 

[cabernetjunkie]

oldguys,
thanks for the banter...and also thanks to couch and any other people here capable of having reasoned discourse whether we agree or not. couch clearly knows tennis and it becomes obvious to people who really know tennis, who else does and who is just defining themselves through the racquet they use and making noise..........frosty beverages sound good oldguys..let's bring CabernetJunkie...he's a most excellent drinker it seems and knows of a good source for some red. Hey Cabernet, if you're in here, do you agree the Spanish reds are coming on strong...Rioja/Crianza and such with the Tempranillo grape?

wishing all the decent people in here a stellar weekend, and for the rest of you , I leave you with this quote:

NBM,, I'm all for that. I have had alot of practice and yes I know of a great place that makes some really good wine. As far as the Tempranillo grape goes I have tried it a couple diff. times and if my memory serves me right it is real similar to a Sangiovese. The ones I tried were a little to acidic for my taste. You are right about the spanish reds they are coming on strong. I still have a weak spot for wines made in Austrailia(when i'm not drinking local wines)

As far as tennis goes i've noticed alot of attacks on you lately. Please dont pay them any attention, alot of us here like reading your posts and you help out alot around here. Hope all is well,
Take care
CJ

 

[anirut]

Hey, Cabernet, I'm learning about wines. May be I should get your help sometimes ...

As of now ... I just had two bottles of beer ... HAHA ... cheap me!

 

[newnuse]

Anirut,

Just stick with White Zinfandel, people who know their wines drink that stuff almost exclusively

Besides the foam, did you customize you Redondo in any other way???

 

[AndrewD]

I'll tell you what. You take a wood racquet and a Pure Drive and you take a huge, full, long, plow-through swing at the ball. With which racquet is the ball more likely to go long? Enough said.

And don't say you have to change your technique to hit with the Pure Drive. Why should we?

BTW, I hit plenty deep with my wood racquet. I certainly didn't need any more help. And why do I have to be more offensive with my wood racquet if my opponent is also using a wood racquet?

Seriously, all you do in any of these comments is reinforce that you lack one of the most basic skills in tennis - the ability to control the ball. You haven't got the simple talent to apply some degree of spin in order to keep the ball in the court so you label any racquet too demanding for your abilities as uncontrollable.

If your technique is built around you taking a big swipe at the ball and applying no spin to allow a margin of error then of course you need to make some adjustments to use a racquet like the Pure Drive. Doesn't matter what you use, if you play like that you're going to have to make some adjustments. Personally, I'd be suggesting you take some lessons but I very much doubt they'd help.

All of that makes me seriously question the reviews you've written for TW. If, as seems apparent, you lack the skill to control any racquet with a modicum of power and find the notion of using spin to create a margin for error too challenging how can you write a well-reasoned piece on anything built in the last 30 years.

i very much doubt you could be more offensive if you tried and I seriously do think you need help. As far as tennis goes, if you want to stick with a wooden racquet and think that is all you need to use then, please, knock yourself out.

 

[anirut]

Newnuse,

Thanks for the info on White Zinfadel.

Besides the foam, I'm experimenting with 'swing weight' and 'balance' now. I think I'm coming to realize that I'm more suited to high swingweight rackets. Will let you know more.

 

[maverick1]

I think I'm coming to realize that I'm more suited to high swingweight rackets.

You could get tennis elbow from increasing swingweight.

Last year I kept adding lead to the racket and kept getting more power. I went upto about 30 grams. Then I got Tennis elbow.
After that I peeled off all the lead, stopped playing for about a month. I now have only a very mild TE and it isn't get any worse.

 

[BreakPoint]

Seriously, all you do in any of these comments is reinforce that you lack one of the most basic skills in tennis - the ability to control the ball. You haven't got the simple talent to apply some degree of spin in order to keep the ball in the court so you label any racquet too demanding for your abilities as uncontrollable.

If your technique is built around you taking a big swipe at the ball and applying no spin to allow a margin of error then of course you need to make some adjustments to use a racquet like the Pure Drive. Doesn't matter what you use, if you play like that you're going to have to make some adjustments. Personally, I'd be suggesting you take some lessons but I very much doubt they'd help.

All of that makes me seriously question the reviews you've written for TW. If, as seems apparent, you lack the skill to control any racquet with a modicum of power and find the notion of using spin to create a margin for error too challenging how can you write a well-reasoned piece on anything built in the last 30 years.

i very much doubt you could be more offensive if you tried and I seriously do think you need help. As far as tennis goes, if you want to stick with a wooden racquet and think that is all you need to use then, please, knock yourself out.

I never said that no one can control racquets like the Pure Drive. I said that if you swing at the ball in the EXACT way with the EXACT same technique as a wood racquet, you are more likely to hit the ball long with the Pure Drive than with the wood racquet. Are you seriously disputing that? I said that some people DO NOT want to change their technique, the same technique that they've been using for 30 years, in order to accomodate a tweener racquet like the Pure Drive. They prefer to stick with their trusted, honed techniques and use lower powered player's racquets instead. Is that so hard to understand? Have you seen Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, or Sampras change their techniques recently?

You keep talking about controlling the Pure Drive using spin. Well some people don't want to hit with spin because they would have to change their techniques to hit with spin. Is that so hard for you to swallow? The last time I checked, Davenport, Agassi, Connors, Blake, Sampras and others made a pretty good living hitting the ball relatively flat.

I'll tell you what, after you've convinced Sampras and McEnroe to switch to Pure Drives and to completely change their techniques to hit more like Nadal, come back to me and perhaps I'll do the same.

BTW, I do hit with spin, not to the degree that Nadal does, but I do use spin to control the ball. I'm just making the point that a Pure Drive is much more powerful than a wood racquet. And to make a logical comparison of the inherent power in each, of course you have to use the same technique for both. If you have to change the technique in order to tame or reduce the power in one of them, it's no longer an apples-to-apples comparison, since other variables were introduced. If you can't tell the difference in power between a wood racquet and a Pure Drive, then I seriously doubt you have ever hit with a wood racquet before.

This has nothing at all to do with all the other racquets I've playtested for TW and how I use spin to control them. I test them using my own technique because that's what makes sense. Do you completely change your technique from more like Sampras' to more like Nadal's depending on which racquet you're demoing? Of course, not!! You're going to play your usual game with your usual technique to see how that frame fits in with your game. You look for a racquet that fits your game and technique, you don't change your game and technique to fit the racquet, do you? That's why you may like a certain racquet, but I'll hate that same racquet if our techniques are completely different. Do you seriously think Nadal would like the nSix-One Tour 90? But Federer obviously does. So who's right and who's wrong?

 

[mucat]

BreakPoint, why don't you just say you don't want to change, don't want to adapt and don't want to learn new techniques? That's what I got from your last post.

 

[chowdhurynaveen]

I dont think breakpoint wants change his technique, in the same way federer does not want to change to nadals technique/style of play, or vice versa. Just my humble interpretation.

I think we all need to relax a little bit or im afraid things will end up becoming personal. If that happens, its just going to push more posters away from this valuable forum.

 

[BreakPoint]

I dont think breakpoint wants change his technique, in the same way federer does not want to change to nadals technique/style of play, or vice versa. Just my humble interpretation.

I think we all need to relax a little bit or im afraid things will end up becoming personal. If that happens, its just going to push more posters away from this valuable forum.

That's exactly right, Naveen! You are one astute individual.

Federer doesn't want to change his technique so he found a midsize racquet that works for his game. He doesn't want to change to a Pure Drive and be forced to completely change his technique to be more like Nadal's. He doesn't want to have to adapt to the new racquet by having to put excessive spin on the ball in order to control it, like Nadal does. Instead, he uses a racquet that works with his existing technique. There are lots of people in the same boat. Not everyone wants or needs so-called "modern techniques", thus, not everyone needs "modern" racquets. Those of us that use "old-school" techniques do just fine using "old-school" racquets. Just ask Federer. I find his technique to be much more "old-school" than it is "modern".

 

[chowdhurynaveen]

Thanx BP!

 

[dragonxking]

people use demanding racquets because they are capable of satisfying its demands

 

[AngeloDS]

Federer doesn't want to change his technique? He has, and it's prevalent; but also he's stated that he's been working on technique and such with his coach in interviews. Recently with his backhands with the help of Tony; making him do various drills and changing a few things here and there (as stated in various interviews with roger). His backhands are a lot stronger. Not only this but he uses a lot more knee bend now in his serves than in the past.

Federer uses a lot of topspin; there's a reason why Nadal stands back further than normal when he plays Federer (5+ feet and sometimes even near the back of the wall heh). His forehands are like kick serves, if you don't step back or take them on the rise they will be at the shoulders or higher. Not only this but they pack power.

It's like Sampras's serve; deceiving but it has a lot of RPMs behind it.

Federer is more modern than classic. His grips aren't extreme nor' are they classic; a hybrid. What allows him to hit the way he does is the modern techniques. Hitting with a straight arm is not classic, hitting with an incredibly laid back wrist/loose wrist is not classic. Jumping on most of his forehands is not classic, nor are his sqush shots. His educated wrist flick & pronation during his forehand is not classic. His open stance is not classic (he uses an open stance more than he does a closed on forehands), and even the semi-open stance is modern (as it came more popular around the 90s). He uses a lot of upper body rotation in his shots, which is also not classic but modern (as it also came popular around the 90s. I'm pretty sure you know the story about the player who got injured and trained in a specialized chair and had to use upper body rotation. When he recovered and came back on the tour -- he dominated. And thus the era of the different stances to increase power + spin. Prior to that there wasn't such.). Federer while he can play almost any game -- he's been playing baseline a higher percentage of the time and that's his game; baseline tennis is not classic. He hasn't been too hot at the net and hasn't come to the net 50% or more of the time or served and volley a great percentage compared to his baseline tennis.

BreakPoint, if you're going to claim something like that or say something like that -- atleast be correct about it and have support. I'm not attacking you or calling you names (as you've done to several posters here); I'm asking for simple things. Proof, support and/or fact to what you say or claim.

 

[chowdhurynaveen]

Originally Posted by AngeloDS
Federer doesn't want to change his technique? He has

I dont think "change" is the correct word...too extreme. I believe improved or refined would be more accurate. Just my humble opinion.

 

[FitzRoy]

I think BP is trying to make a relatively simple point, though it may have become lost somewhere in this debate. What he's trying to say is that there are a variety of racquets available, all of which are made to suit various styles of swinging and different levels of skill. Low-powered racquets with small head sizes are now being called demanding frames, and the OP wanted to know why some people prefer to play with such frames. If I understand BreakPoint correctly, his point is that he's been playing tennis for a very long time, to the degree that his strokes are, for the most part, going to stay the same for as long as he continues to play. He likes a racquet type that suits this classical swing style - IE, a racquet that plays more like a wood frame. These frames are considered to be demanding frames, so BP prefers demanding frames. In short, BreakPoint's answer to the original question would be something like, "I use demanding frames because they're very similar to the racquets I've been using for most of my tennis life, and I'm comfortable with that style of play."

Semantics aside, how could anyone really have an issue with such a preference?

 

[NoBadMojo]

Seriously, all you do in any of these comments is reinforce that you lack one of the most basic skills in tennis - the ability to control the ball. You haven't got the simple talent to apply some degree of spin in order to keep the ball in the court so you label any racquet too demanding for your abilities as uncontrollable.

If your technique is built around you taking a big swipe at the ball and applying no spin to allow a margin of error then of course you need to make some adjustments to use a racquet like the Pure Drive. Doesn't matter what you use, if you play like that you're going to have to make some adjustments. Personally, I'd be suggesting you take some lessons but I very much doubt they'd help.

All of that makes me seriously question the reviews you've written for TW. If, as seems apparent, you lack the skill to control any racquet with a modicum of power and find the notion of using spin to create a margin for error too challenging how can you write a well-reasoned piece on anything built in the last 30 years.

i very much doubt you could be more offensive if you tried and I seriously do think you need help. As far as tennis goes, if you want to stick with a wooden racquet and think that is all you need to use then, please, knock yourself out.

aye..well said Andrew...very accurate

 

[jonolau]

Seriously, all you do in any of these comments is reinforce that you lack one of the most basic skills in tennis - the ability to control the ball. You haven't got the simple talent to apply some degree of spin in order to keep the ball in the court so you label any racquet too demanding for your abilities as uncontrollable.

If your technique is built around you taking a big swipe at the ball and applying no spin to allow a margin of error then of course you need to make some adjustments to use a racquet like the Pure Drive. Doesn't matter what you use, if you play like that you're going to have to make some adjustments. Personally, I'd be suggesting you take some lessons but I very much doubt they'd help.

All of that makes me seriously question the reviews you've written for TW. If, as seems apparent, you lack the skill to control any racquet with a modicum of power and find the notion of using spin to create a margin for error too challenging how can you write a well-reasoned piece on anything built in the last 30 years.

i very much doubt you could be more offensive if you tried and I seriously do think you need help. As far as tennis goes, if you want to stick with a wooden racquet and think that is all you need to use then, please, knock yourself out.

Very well laid out, Andrew.

 

[NoBadMojo]

NBM,, I'm all for that. I have had alot of practice and yes I know of a great place that makes some really good wine. As far as the Tempranillo grape goes I have tried it a couple diff. times and if my memory serves me right it is real similar to a Sangiovese. The ones I tried were a little to acidic for my taste. You are right about the spanish reds they are coming on strong. I still have a weak spot for wines made in Austrailia(when i'm not drinking local wines)

As far as tennis goes i've noticed alot of attacks on you lately. Please dont pay them any attention, alot of us here like reading your posts and you help out alot around here. Hope all is well,
Take care
CJ

thanks for the good words.

i dont like Sangiovese's either for the reason you say..too harsh and acidic, and I dont enjoy the aftertaste. My pallete is running more towards reds lighter than Cabs these days, maybe having someting to do with living in Forida, and thats a reason why I have been liking the Riojas and also Pinot Noirs..merlots dont stand up enough for my pallete usually and seem 'watery' to me. some blends of cab/merlot I like...now this stuff is all subjective...kind of like comparing the ball feel of diferent racquets...with most everythng else tennis, it is possible to be objective about i think...be well.
NBM

ps - the Crianza/Rioja I've been enjoying is Condeza de Leganza and the last time I bought a case, it was running around 8 bucks per bottle. Where can we try your wines?

 

[jonolau]

All of that makes me seriously question the reviews you've written for TW. If, as seems apparent, you lack the skill to control any racquet with a modicum of power and find the notion of using spin to create a margin for error too challenging how can you write a well-reasoned piece on anything built in the last 30 years.

I also have my strong reservations about the objectivity in his racquet reviews for TW. It is particularly disturbing to read his extreme disdain for certain brands (Volkl, in particular) and skewed support of others.

 

[BreakPoint]

I think BP is trying to make a relatively simple point, though it may have become lost somewhere in this debate. What he's trying to say is that there are a variety of racquets available, all of which are made to suit various styles of swinging and different levels of skill. Low-powered racquets with small head sizes are now being called demanding frames, and the OP wanted to know why some people prefer to play with such frames. If I understand BreakPoint correctly, his point is that he's been playing tennis for a very long time, to the degree that his strokes are, for the most part, going to stay the same for as long as he continues to play. He likes a racquet type that suits this classical swing style - IE, a racquet that plays more like a wood frame. These frames are considered to be demanding frames, so BP prefers demanding frames. In short, BreakPoint's answer to the original question would be something like, "I use demanding frames because they're very similar to the racquets I've been using for most of my tennis life, and I'm comfortable with that style of play."

Semantics aside, how could anyone really have an issue with such a preference?

Bingo, FitzRoy!!

I couldn't have said it better myself! Those are exactly my points! Thanks! But somehow you were able to summarize them in one simple paragraph, whereas, it's taken me countless posts and I still think half of the posters here still don't get it.

 

[NoBadMojo]

Don't prefer the dirt but I will play on it. I do have to play on it in the summer a lot so I've gotten used to it. The older I get, the better the dirt feels though.

Keep up the good work NBMJ. I'll have to take you up on the frosty beverage if I'm in your neck of the woods again. It's been a lot of fun going to Charleston the last couple of years; great city.

ya man..Charleston is a great place to visit. Do they play the sectionals at Kiawah? I remember they have the Southern Open there right? The other tourney not so far way is on Jekyll Island. They get some good players and this year Donald Young played in it which was quite a shock since it's just an open tourney with some good college players in it..i guy i play occassionally was in it and drew him in the 2nd round!
i too have come to appreciate the dirt, and it's never been my best surface until now. it;s been a fun challenge being a serve/volleyer hardcourter all these years to change my game to work best on hartru.., i think i'm about there and my body thanks me for it..thank you for the good wishes but pls watch those typos and run on sentences or folks will think your typing is even worser than mine

 

[couch]

ya man..Charleston is a great place to visit. Do they play the sectionals at Kiawah? I remember they have the Southern Open there right? The other tourney not so far way is on Jekyll Island. They get some good players and this year Donald Young played in it which was quite a shock since it's just an open tourney with some good college players in it..i guy i play occassionally was in it and drew him in the 2nd round!
i too have come to appreciate the dirt, and it's never been my best surface until now. it;s been a fun challenge being a serve/volleyer hardcourter all these years to change my game to work best on hartru.., i think i'm about there and my body thanks me for it..thank you for the good wishes but pls watch those typos and run on sentences or folks will think your typing is even worser than mine

I don't think they played any Sectionals matches at Kiawah, not sure though. We played our matches mainly in Mt. Pleasant. I think the best courts we played on were at the College of Charleston.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go back and check "all" my posts for "typos"; you never know where Yoda is going to be hiding. And I stated that I was no English major to start with. All I know is that if I had anything in my signature it would be grammatically correct.

 

[couch]

I'm sorry Drakulie, I'm lowering myself to your level. I will try to quit now and be the bigger person. And by the way it would be "worst".

 

[BreakPoint]

I also have my strong reservations about the objectivity in his racquet reviews for TW. It is particularly disturbing to read his extreme disdain for certain brands (Volkl, in particular) and skewed support of others.

You obviously either have not even read my reviews or you don't know how to read:

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP01.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP04.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP06.html

These are all the Volkl racquets I've playtested for TW. Look at the "Overall Rankings" at the bottom of each review.

Here's a quote for your enjoyment:

If I had to choose one of these three racquets to switch to from my PS 6.0 95, it would be the Volkl Tour 10 MP Gen II. It plays the closest to the PS 6.0 95, with similar static and swingweights, very headlight balances, and stiff throats and flexible hoops. This racquet almost feels like a modern version of the Dunlop Maxply Fort wood racquet that I grew up playing tennis with!

If I were you (and I thank God I'm not), I'd be a helluva lot more concerned about the objectivity of someone sponsored by Volkl (NBMJ) in praising and pushing all things Volkl on this board, as is contractually obligated.

Nice try in trying to discredit me. How ironic coming from someone who has ZERO credibility on these boards and who only a few months ago didn't even know what "stability" means in a tennis racquet (yes, I saw that thread, too).

 

[BreakPoint]

Seriously, all you do in any of these comments is reinforce that you lack one of the most basic skills in tennis - the ability to control the ball. You haven't got the simple talent to apply some degree of spin in order to keep the ball in the court so you label any racquet too demanding for your abilities as uncontrollable.

If your technique is built around you taking a big swipe at the ball and applying no spin to allow a margin of error then of course you need to make some adjustments to use a racquet like the Pure Drive.

So what you're saying is that you need to be a more advanced player, one who has mastered the art of spin, in order to control the Pure Drive? I thought the Pure Drive was a tweener, one originally designed for old housewives that only play occasionally, and is meant for less advanced and intermediate players? Perhaps then these less advanced players should be using the PS 6.0 85 as then they do not have to develop and master the spin technique (which takes a lot of time) in order to control it? Maybe the Pure Drive is just too "advanced" of a racquet for me then and the PS 6.0 85 should be called the "tweener"?

Here's a quote from Kreative's comparative playtest for TW which included the PD+:

Babolat Pure Drive +: Definitely the most powerful of the 3 racquets tested. Balls would sail beyond the baseline if I didn't consciously hit with a lot of spin to keep it in the court. Power was overwhelming on volleys.

Perhaps the PD+ is too advanced for this 3.5 player?

BTW, both playtesters rated the PD last out of the racquets they tested:

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/KREATIVE01.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/LEN01.html

BTW2, I've never written a playtest for TW on the PD, so how would you know how much spin I would use to control the racquet? Again, why adapt your technique to your racquet? Why not use the racquet that adapts to your technique?

 

[MasterTS]

I don't really care how demanding or undemanding the O3 Hybrid Tour... I'm using it cause it looks coooolio!

Theres a thing called style in tennis.. thats why I have a one handed backhand.. thats why I'm gonna use the O3 Hybrid Tour..

 

[fielders_80]

big hug everyone... big hug......

 

[FitzRoy]

I do have my eye sight set on my college coaches Prince Original Graphites OS's he's had for decades . I hit with them and found them to be amazing; but he strings it so high -- I didn't like that. He strings at 78 lbs or something :s. But he's had them for so long they've lost their stiffness and some properties which makes it feel really raw when you play. Also due impart that him and I are the same when it comes to grips; we prefer no under grip and just an overgrip to get that feel.

What college do you play for?

I love the POG OS, especially leaded up at 9 and 3.

 

[mucat]

That's exactly right, Naveen! You are one astute individual.

Federer doesn't want to change his technique so he found a midsize racquet that works for his game. He doesn't want to change to a Pure Drive and be forced to completely change his technique to be more like Nadal's. He doesn't want to have to adapt to the new racquet by having to put excessive spin on the ball in order to control it, like Nadal does. Instead, he uses a racquet that works with his existing technique. There are lots of people in the same boat. Not everyone wants or needs so-called "modern techniques", thus, not everyone needs "modern" racquets. Those of us that use "old-school" techniques do just fine using "old-school" racquets. Just ask Federer. I find his technique to be much more "old-school" than it is "modern".

I don't think it works this way. While different racket will require a player to adapt to hit in certain way, it would never be as extreme as from Federer to Nadal, heck, they are not even using the same grip. Federer is not "old school" at all, he hit far out in front, with all shoulder rotation and almost no arm (from looking at this famous slow motion video). Try hit that with a wood racket, the ball will have difficulty to get pass the net.

To adapt to different racket means adjusting swing path slightly to compensate for more or less spin and more or less pace. Most player has been doing it in a match, hitting deep ground, hitting short angle passing shot, flatten out the ball, heavy topspin moonball...etc. Those can be acomplish by adjusting the swing path slightly one way or the other.

 

[MasterTS]

Trust me, man, I'm not BreakPoint. I wasn't asking what college you went to because I wanted you to prove that you played in college. If you say you do, I have no reason to doubt you. I was just curious.

Well I'm neutral here.. but if I recall correctly Angelo plays for some none-NCAA school.. i think it's equivlant to a DIII school.. nothing much to talk about just cause he's a 'college player'

 

[mucat]

So what you're saying is that you need to be a more advanced player, one who has mastered the art of spin, in order to control the Pure Drive? I thought the Pure Drive was a tweener, one originally designed for old housewives that only play occasionally, and is meant for less advanced and intermediate players? Perhaps then these less advanced players should be using the PS 6.0 85 as then they do not have to develop and master the spin technique (which takes a lot of time) in order to control it? Maybe the Pure Drive is just too "advanced" of a racquet for me then and the PS 6.0 85 should be called the "tweener"?

I will answer this.

Most recreational players using powerful racket, they usually do not employ full swing and body rotation into their shot, so a powerful racket can create deep flat groundstrokes for them even they don't have proper techinque because of the power level of the racket.

However, when a player does employ full swing using a powerful racket, the ball will go out if not hitting with enough topspin. So the answer is more topspin, but it is very difficult to tame the power, because with a fullswing, slight mishit or slightly wrong angle of attack, the ball will be flying pass the baseline. So, it takes skills to control the power hitting with full swing.

The PS85 is a different animal to tame. Its small headsize and heavier weight will create problem to player with poorer hand-eye coordination, or weaker physique, etc. It is a totally diffierent problem.

Don't judge a player or yourself by the racket. Player's racket, tweeners, beginner's racket, they are all just names. Personally, I don't not like these definition, it gives players wrong ideas about rackets.