Why Is 27 Inch the Standard Length for Tennis Racquets?

[GasquetGOAT]

I've googled this question but no luck with finding a real answer.

Is 27 inch a scientificly determined optimum length for hitting a tennis ball?

or is it more of a historicly carried over length for a tennis racquet?

 

[RoarTT]

i have been wondering about this myself

 

[Rule26]

allegedly 27" because a racquet lengthwise plus the head sideways was the measurement for the net hight, in the days of wood.

 

[westy]

all head sizes are very different nowadays

 

[Shangri La]

allegedly 27" because a racquet lengthwise plus the head sideways was the measurement for the net hight, in the days of wood.

but how was the net height decided? and the dimensions of the court? oh.. and ball weight...

 

[Rule26]

but how was the net height decided? and the dimensions of the court? oh.. and ball weight...

LOL why ask why ..

 

[loubapache]

Probably just due to tradition and history.

But there are a few 27 and 36 numbers in the game.

Racket length: 27"
Singles court width: 27'

Net (middle) height: 36"
Doubles court width: 36'

Here is the real first metal racket (1889):
http://www.usatt.org/rackets/LT/LTWireStrung.gif

 

[Nellie]

A lot of racquets are not 27, with some shorter and some longer. I think that 27" represents a sweetspot in the bell curve of preferences that feels biologically right.

I think that like many sports, the final dimensions work out over time because the sport just works that way. Tennis would not be fun on a huge court because every shot could be a winner.

 

[anirut]

Why 27" ...

OK guys, I've just giggled this subject and found this in my wickedpedia:

The reason for a 27" tennis racket is because the average human arm when making impact with the ball feels most comfortable, as the azimuth of the forearm to the net post is optimum with a 27" racket.

The various 27's and 36's numbers found related to tennis are scientifically determined numbers of quacktum mathematics. The numbers are factors for the most abundant growth of tropical tomatoes that can be grown on a plot the size of a tennis court.

As for the ball weight and size ... ummm ... exactly ... that's the optimum weight and size of nourishing tropical tomatoes that can help ball boys and girls pick up balls without geting tired.

Sombody can take this subject further ...

OK, I'm outta here ...

 

[Chauvalito]

I think 27 is standard becaue British swords at the time tennis was being played by aristocrats were 27 inches long.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

Sombody can take this subject further ...
...

agree with you there

 

[NoBadMojo]

A lot of racquets are not 27, with some shorter and some longer. I think that 27" represents a sweetspot in the bell curve of preferences that feels biologically right.

I think that like many sports, the final dimensions work out over time because the sport just works that way. Tennis would not be fun on a huge court because every shot could be a winner.

OK guys, I've just giggled this subject and found this in my wickedpedia:

The reason for a 27" tennis racket is because the average human arm when making impact with the ball feels most comfortable, as the azimuth of the forearm to the net post is optimum with a 27" racket.

The various 27's and 36's numbers found related to tennis are scientifically determined numbers of quacktum mathematics. The numbers are factors for the most abundant growth of tropical tomatoes that can be grown on a plot the size of a tennis court.

As for the ball weight and size ... ummm ... exactly ... that's the optimum weight and size of nourishing tropical tomatoes that can help ball boys and girls pick up balls without geting tired.

Sombody can take this subject further ...

OK, I'm outta here ...

i think this is right. not what Anirut said as it has something to do with metaphysical and quantum mechanics and the supernatural...afterall, tennis spelled backwards is sin-net explain that one away

seriously, ithink through the evolvement of the game, a 27" racquet performs the best given the available materials....the american football has evolved and changed shape over time.
years ago, longer racquets were all the rage for a brief period of time...2.5 inches longer and such....if the longer racquets performed better, they would still be making 28.5" racquets......or if Fed used one......

 

[Kaptain Karl]

I think anirut explained it very well. (Even if he *did* leave out the influence of the Magna Carta. But I'd agree that's splitting hairs....)

Oh!!! "Sin-net"!!! How could I have forgotten that one...? Thanks, NoBadMojo!

- KK

 

[takl23]

It's what is the comfortable to us as humans. Odd example, but think about the 20oz soda bottle, it just looks the right size and is comfortable to hold. Like Poland Spring water bottles that are 16 ounces, it's just not quite enough. Over time and many countless R&D dollars companies have come to the conclusion this is the right length.

Cheers,

Tim

 

[Kaptain Karl]

I like anirut's explanation a lot better....

- KK

 

[anirut]

Yo, KK!

The reason I left out the Magna Carta is because there're National Security reasons behind it. This has a lot to do with the Cockonium 635, a bio-isotope of the Warp Bug ...

...

 

[Kaptain Karl]

Oops! I'm not in trouble for mentioning it ... am I?

- KK

 

[anirut]

Oops! I'm not in trouble for mentioning it ... am I?

- KK

Probably not ... if your internet connection is shielded by Cockonium 632, a derivative of the 635 ...

If your connection's not shielded, still you won't have to worry, because you're KAPTAIN KARL THE GREAT!!!

 

[GasquetGOAT]

through the evolvement of the game, a 27" racquet performs the best given the available materials....the american football has evolved and changed shape over time.
years ago, longer racquets were all the rage for a brief period of time...2.5 inches longer and such....if the longer racquets performed better, they would still be making 28.5" racquets......or if Fed used one......

This makes sense. Any other takers?

 

[GasquetGOAT]

years ago, longer racquets were all the rage for a brief period of time...2.5 inches longer and such....if the longer racquets performed better, they would still be making 28.5" racquets......or if Fed used one......

Two of the current top 10 and one former No.1 are reportedly still using 28 inch length racquets.
Ferrer, Nalbandian and Ferrero.

 

[bubbatex]

allegedly 27" because a racquet lengthwise plus the head sideways was the measurement for the net hight, in the days of wood.

This has my vote - I read this somewhere else also. In the beginning, rackets were 27" long with heads that were 9" wide. Was it on purpose or just a coincidence? Who knows, but it makes sense to me.

 

[anirut]

OK, seriously, this has a lot to do with ergonomics.

If you give an 8-y-o kid a 27" racket, you'd see how awkward or cubersome the racket will be in the kid's hands. That's why they have junior rackets.

It has a lot to do with the most comfortable length for a user in relation to the user's height, or arm length.

This comfort factor was probably founded by accident by the tennis pioneers of the early days. In those days it might have been 26.5 or 27 or 28 ... I don't know, but I'm certain that it must have been stardardized some years later along with the head width.

 

[Rafanatic]

it feels like it

 

[GasquetGOAT]

If you give an 8-y-o kid a 27" racket, you'd see how awkward or cubersome the racket will be in the kid's hands. That's why they have junior rackets.

It has a lot to do with the most comfortable length for a user in relation to the user's height, or arm length.

That makes sense. But why does Marion Bartoli use an 29 inch racquet being only 5 ft 7? Don't think it's a comfortable length for her height.

 

[anirut]

That makes sense. But why does Marion Bartoli use an 29 inch racquet being only 5 ft 7? Don't think it's a comfortable length for her height.

There's an exception to every rule ...

BTW, whatever I wrote above are only MY assumptions, not facts.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

bump more assumptions and facts welcome

 

[Old_Crow]

That makes sense. But why does Marion Bartoli use an 29 inch racquet being only 5 ft 7? Don't think it's a comfortable length for her height.

Because she hits two handed from both sides.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

Because she hits two handed from both sides.

So should all 2HBH players take advantage of that extra hand on the grip and use extended length racquets (at least 28inch if not 29inch)? I mean isn't a longer racquet supposed to give you more power, spin and angle?

 

[Alexio92]

It is the standard length because that is what most average people can handle perfectly, just as a 7 year old will want a 24 inch as that is what he or she can handle or a 11 year old might want a 26 inch racket.

 

[Old_Crow]

So should all 2HBH players take advantage of that extra hand on the grip and use extended length racquets (at least 28inch if not 29inch)? I mean isn't a longer racquet supposed to give you more power, spin and angle?

I think it's nonsensical to say ALL players of any type should do anything. Tennis strokes are too individual. There are a reasonable number of well-known ATP pros using 28" racquets and they all seem to have two-handers: Nalbandian, Ferrer, Ferrero, Coria, etc. Of course, there are obvious exceptions in Nadal, Djoker, ad infinitum.

A more reasonable statement might be that players with 2HBH and 2HFH should consider extended racquets.

I think it's more complicated than just longer = more power (if it does, I'm not sure). There are tradeoffs in every decision and if pros thought they'd win more by playing 29" racquets, that's what they'd be using.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

I think it's nonsensical to say ALL players of any type should do anything. Tennis strokes are too individual. There are a reasonable number of well-known ATP pros using 28" racquets and they all seem to have two-handers: Nalbandian, Ferrer, Ferrero, Coria, etc. Of course, there are obvious exceptions in Nadal, Djoker, ad infinitum.

A more reasonable statement might be that players with 2HBH and 2HFH should consider extended racquets.

I think it's more complicated than just longer = more power (if it does, I'm not sure). There are tradeoffs in every decision and if pros thought they'd win more by playing 29" racquets, that's what they'd be using.

Right the word "all" is too conclusive. What I was meaning to say was "Should 2HBH players use extended length racquets since they have an extra hand on the grip for more stability and control?" As you have pointed out many well known pros are using 28" racquets. Davydenko is using an 27.5" Prince. And they all happen to be 2HBH players

 

[slider2828]

Hahaha... Actually I just found the real reason why its 27". Basically in the old days with wood racquets, the nets height is exactly 27" + the width of the wooden racquet. So that was regulation net height. So you can basically check the net heightwith the racquet standing up and putting the other racquet sideways on top of that hoop.

Grab a wooden racquet and try it!

 

[GasquetGOAT]

After further observations I've found different manufacturors make different length 27inch racquets. Wilson and Yonex for example make true to size 27inch (68.58cm) length but most Prince claimed 27inch racquets are actually 27 1/8 to 27 1/4 inch (nearly 69cm). Is this true?

 

[matchmaker]

That makes sense. But why does Marion Bartoli use an 29 inch racquet being only 5 ft 7? Don't think it's a comfortable length for her height.

because she plays doubledhanded both on the BH and the FH. In that case it is always indicated to play extended frames to have more reach.

 

[2handsbothsides]

I recall reading in a history of tennis book that in the late 1800’s the makers of racquets just got together and standardized on the 27” length to avoid having to produce too many variations and reduce stocking requirements.

This length obviously felt pretty good and natural for a group to reach consensus on that length. Remember back then it was not possible to produce light racquets that could hold up to the game.

Up to 1981 any racquet length was legal. In 1981 max length was limited to 32”. In 1997 max length was again reduced to 29” which is still in effect today.

I started playing in the early 80’s and experimented with many lengths given my natural 2 handed style. When the 29” rule was announced I actually had to cut down my extended Wilson 6.1’s about half an inch. I currently play my best tennis right at 28”.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

I started playing in the early 80’s and experimented with many lengths given my natural 2 handed style. When the 29” rule was announced I actually had to cut down my extended Wilson 6.1’s about half an inch. I currently play my best tennis right at 28”.

I wish I could play 28". Tried pog longbody never could get use to the length spraying ball everywhere. I never understood how Coria, Nalbandian, Ferrero play with such long racquets and still have so much control on the ball! Personaly I found the shorter the racquet the more directional control I have.

 

[fridrix]

Two of the current top 10 and one former No.1 are reportedly still using 28 inch length racquets.
Ferrer, Nalbandian and Ferrero.

How do they weight them up?

 

[GasquetGOAT]

How do they weight them up?

What do you mean?

 

[travlerajm]

The shorter the racquet, the more weight you can add to the hoop without going over your max swingweight.

The more weight you can add to the hoop (espec. at 3 and 9), the more stable your racquet.

The more stable your racquet, the better you can play.

The better you can play, the more fun you have.

The more fun you have, the more you get addicted to tennis.

The more addicted you become, the more you post in this forum.

I've found that 26.75" is about optimum.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

The shorter the racquet, the more weight you can add to the hoop without going over your max swingweight.

The more weight you can add to the hoop (espec. at 3 and 9), the more stable your racquet.

The more stable your racquet, the better you can play.

The better you can play, the more fun you have.

The more fun you have, the more you get addicted to tennis.

The more addicted you become, the more you post in this forum.

I've found that 26.75" is about optimum.

Makes sense to me. But can you explain why are so many pros using extended length racquets? Even Djokovic and Davydenko are using 27.5inch racquets.

 

[federer envies me]

Probably just due to tradition and history.

But there are a few 27 and 36 numbers in the game.

Racket length: 27"
Singles court width: 27'

Net (middle) height: 36"
Doubles court width: 36'

Here is the real first metal racket (1889):
http://www.usatt.org/rackets/LT/LTWireStrung.gif

it looks like the strings are metal too

 

[travlerajm]

Makes sense to me. But can you explain why are so many pros using extended length racquets? Even Djokovic and Davydenko are using 27.5inch racquets.

Djokovic is using a racquet slightly shorter than 27".

About half of all pros use extended length racquets, but how many of them have won a slam? I think Roddick is the only one. Every other slam winner I can think of uses standard length.

 

[RRR]

and the answer is.....

it's evolution. It evolved around the average human dimensions.
over the years 27 inches felt overall the most optimum, for the typcal human build. I often ask myself why court dimensions are the way it is. it is because of the size of the average human.the lenght of racket and the size of court are all based on the dimension of the typical **** sapiens and the desire to make the game interesting. a little bigger and too many aces will happen. too small and it might make it boringly easy. make the racket too short. too little power. too long ... unwieldy. just like a sword, i guess. it is based on human dimensions.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

27 is the result of a perfect cube = three raised to the power of three. Mathematicians obviously had something to do with this. This number is the 2nd smallest cube of a prime number, the smallest being 8 (two cubed). In the very early days of tennis, the mathematicians tried to get the aristocrats to use 8" rackets to satisfy some perverse desire for mathematical purity. Unfortunately, rallies were very short 'cuz the ball kept knocking those 8" rackets out of their hands. The math guys were forced to go with their 2nd choice...