Why more 5.0s use midsize than pros?

NLBwell

Legend
Because many are older than the pros and learned their game with smaller headsized rackets. I have tried to switch and couldn't - I'm back to my Kennex Black Ace with 86" headsize.
 
I think there's a lot of truth to that. With "today's game" of heavy topspin, the smaller the head size, the greater the disadvantage (when it comes to hitting the string and not hitting frame).

Plus, pro's play for money. Club players often play with what they think will make them a better player. Truthfully, I really don't know what percent or 5.0 players use midsize frames. I've only seen a few.
 

kalic

Professional
Older players learned tennis with midsizes, and that's ok.Young are just Fed-fans, and think that racquet is key of his amazing strokes (they even don't know that Fed never uses n90 and k90, that's paintjobs).
 

AndrewD

Legend
Not saying this is the main reason but I do believe one factor to consider is that ,at the levels below 5.0, people tend to play a flatter (lower bouncing) game whereas at the 5.0+ level they tend to play with more and much heavier (heavier doesn't mean loopy) topspin. Tougher to counter that high bouncing, heavy top with a midsize but not as tough when dealing with a flatter, lower ball.

Again, I'm not saying that's the sole reason, just something to consider.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Because many are older than the pros and learned their game with smaller headsized rackets. I have tried to switch and couldn't - I'm back to my Kennex Black Ace with 86" headsize.
Not saying this is the main reason but I do believe one factor to consider is that ,at the levels below 5.0, people tend to play a flatter (lower bouncing) game whereas at the 5.0+ level they tend to play with more and much heavier (heavier doesn't mean loopy) topspin. Tougher to counter that high bouncing, heavy top with a midsize but not as tough when dealing with a flatter, lower ball.

Again, I'm not saying that's the sole reason, just something to consider.
I totally agree with both comments.
 

keithchircop

Professional
at the levels below 5.0, people tend to play a flatter (lower bouncing) game whereas at the 5.0+ level they tend to play with more and much heavier (heavier doesn't mean loopy) topspin. Tougher to counter that high bouncing, heavy top with a midsize but not as tough when dealing with a flatter, lower ball.
Exactamundo.

That's why it is possible to improve your game AND be competitive with a mid especially at 4.0 and under. At those levels, how often will you meet someone whose balls will bounce heavy, penetrate ten feet till your shoulder height on hard-courts? At 3.5 and below, you'll meet players with late preparation, swinging off their back leg - no wonder they need 10oz sticks to generate some power and hit the ball over the net. And so many people on these boards believe you're doomed to be a 2.5 forever unless you use an OS.

Here's the difference between a 90 and a 107:



{sarcasm}No way a 3.0 can advance with a mid...{/sarcasm}
 
Last edited:

bubbatex

Rookie
Not to hijack either - but as an old guy coming back to the game, I certainly want an advantage. I have a 110 now, but it is too stiff for my arm. If you take the common recommendations that I have read here - I am looking for a flexible racket with the most weight I can swing comfortably. Most rackets I find that meet those specs are around 95-100.

I have just embarked on this quest and I could be wrong - but that is just the way it seems right now to me. The bigger the head, the lighter the racket and an older arm could use more weight thus you have to choose a smaller head.
 

10sfreak

Semi-Pro
Not to hijack either - but as an old guy coming back to the game, I certainly want an advantage. I have a 110 now, but it is too stiff for my arm. If you take the common recommendations that I have read here - I am looking for a flexible racket with the most weight I can swing comfortably. Most rackets I find that meet those specs are around 95-100.

I have just embarked on this quest and I could be wrong - but that is just the way it seems right now to me. The bigger the head, the lighter the racket and an older arm could use more weight thus you have to choose a smaller head.
Bubbatex, have you tried the POG OS? Very arm-friendly, 107 in., around 12 oz. Wish I hadn't sold mine years ago...:-(
 

bubbatex

Rookie
Bubbatex, have you tried the POG OS? Very arm-friendly, 107 in., around 12 oz. Wish I hadn't sold mine years ago...:-(
OK, I will show my ignorance now - what is a "POG"? Prince? I have all of the other acronyms figured out but that one! Thanks.
 

Yonex.

Semi-Pro
*I am a 4.0, serve and volley. Sometimes baselines, and I use a PS85 Taiwanese. I play better with a 80s in. racquet than a oversize. It is kind of hard to believe your theory's.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
That means a lot of players reached 3.5 using mids, which is something some people around here deem impossible.
right..they get to the 3.5's and are forever stuck there stuffed <in part> by their bad choice in gear. lots of people also say they use a mid sized frame because anything larger is just too powerful. it's very easy to hit most any racquet long..just takes a bit of bad technique. they hit more balls in the court with their midsize frame with their bad technique so I guess that does give them better control in an odd sort of way

the reverseness of racquet selection
 
Last edited:

Glorious

New User
It's all about what makes you feel most comfortable and allows you to play your best tennis. If you prefer a 90 or an 85, then go for it. If you prefer a racket 95 or greater then use that.

-Mark
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I think there's a lot of truth to that. With "today's game" of heavy topspin, the smaller the head size, the greater the disadvantage (when it comes to hitting the string and not hitting frame).

Plus, pro's play for money. Club players often play with what they think will make them a better player. Truthfully, I really don't know what percent or 5.0 players use midsize frames. I've only seen a few.
Not saying this is the main reason but I do believe one factor to consider is that ,at the levels below 5.0, people tend to play a flatter (lower bouncing) game whereas at the 5.0+ level they tend to play with more and much heavier (heavier doesn't mean loopy) topspin. Tougher to counter that high bouncing, heavy top with a midsize but not as tough when dealing with a flatter, lower ball.

Again, I'm not saying that's the sole reason, just something to consider.
The comment about hitting the string and not hitting the frame was hilarious! Don't tell that to those who believe that going from a 90 to 95 will not matter at all in this respect.

Today, even physically short and undeveloped juniors who take lessons regularly can hit a high bouncing top spin from either wing. Granted they are not Nadals, but I have seen adults struggle with their 1 handed backhand trying to return this. A bigger head gives you much more stability when taking this kind of ball, which is curving higher and away.
 

bluegrasser

Hall of Fame
Not to hijack either - but as an old guy coming back to the game, I certainly want an advantage. I have a 110 now, but it is too stiff for my arm. If you take the common recommendations that I have read here - I am looking for a flexible racket with the most weight I can swing comfortably. Most rackets I find that meet those specs are around 95-100.

I have just embarked on this quest and I could be wrong - but that is just the way it seems right now to me. The bigger the head, the lighter the racket and an older arm could use more weight thus you have to choose a smaller head.
Radical or Prestige IMO...
 

dacrymn

Professional
Just putting it out there, but age does not necessarily mean skill. Just pointing that out, as many of you are making that allusion.
 

keithchircop

Professional
it's very easy to hit most any racquet long..just takes a bit of bad technique. they hit more balls in the court with their midsize frame with their bad technique
Or maybe they can keep the ball in with an nBlade 106 but don't want to turn themselves into topspin monkeys.
 

Klatu Verata Necktie

Hall of Fame
I knew that the thread would turn into an indictment of players who use mid sized racquets as posuers. Some players prefer to use sticks with small heads. Many more prefer mid plus frames which range betwee 95 and 100 inches.

Most of the 4.0 to 5.0 players that I know in South Florida use mid plus racquets. I use an old Prestige. I chose what works best for me.

My point is that it is an illusion that so many 4.0 to 5.0 players use small head sizes. It seems like many players are using mid sized frames because they tend to be a vocal group on these forums.

I don't know too many people who use mid sized frames, so I welcome the opportunity to have discussions with like minded people on the web.
 

couch

Hall of Fame
I knew that the thread would turn into an indictment of players who use mid sized racquets as posuers. Some players prefer to use sticks with small heads. Many more prefer mid plus frames which range betwee 95 and 100 inches.

Most of the 4.0 to 5.0 players that I know in South Florida use mid plus racquets. I use an old Prestige. I chose what works best for me.

My point is that it is an illusion that so many 4.0 to 5.0 players use small head sizes. It seems like many players are using mid sized frames because they tend to be a vocal group on these forums.

I don't know too many people who use mid sized frames, so I welcome the opportunity to have discussions with like minded people on the web.
Definitely agree.
 

cys19

Semi-Pro
I haven't tried many racquets, but I get a general impression that mid-sized frames tend to have thin beams, which translates into more feel. I first noticed this when I demoed the LM Prestige Mid. Could it be that these mid-sized players prefer feel over spin?
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
. an older arm could use more weight thus you have to choose a smaller head.
Perhaps you've been drinking the TW forum KoolAid. Older arms usually benefit from lightrer racquets not heavier racquets as older arms typically cant handle the higher swingweights of most midsized frames, nor do they generate the power they used to and can benefit from something lighter and stiffer..midsized frames are often heavier frames. Also midsized frames have smaller sweetzones and miss hitting with a racquet is never very good for an older arm...or any arm for that matter

There are comfortable frames with larger heads

If you know what your ideal swingweight range is and what headsize you can typically reliabnly hit the sweetzone on, most everything else can take care of itself and racquet selection isnt so confusing and difficult
 

bubbatex

Rookie
Perhaps you've been drinking the TW forum KoolAid. Older arms usually benefit from lightrer racquets not heavier racquets as older arms typically cant handle the higher swingweights of most midsized frames, nor do they generate the power they used to and can benefit from something lighter and stiffer..midsized frames are often heavier frames. Also midsized frames have smaller sweetzones and miss hitting with a racquet is never very good for an older arm...or any arm for that matter

There are comfortable frames with larger heads

If you know what your ideal swingweight range is and what headsize you can typically reliabnly hit the sweetzone on, most everything else can take care of itself and racquet selection isnt so confusing and difficult
Yep, I was on that koolaide......but, for me that scenario makes sense. I can't swing a lighter stick as good as I can a heavier one. My problem is I have not been playing long enough (again) to figure out exactly what my idea weight is. Gotta swing more sticks!
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Not to hijack either - but as an old guy coming back to the game, I certainly want an advantage. I have a 110 now, but it is too stiff for my arm. If you take the common recommendations that I have read here - I am looking for a flexible racket with the most weight I can swing comfortably. Most rackets I find that meet those specs are around 95-100.

I have just embarked on this quest and I could be wrong - but that is just the way it seems right now to me. The bigger the head, the lighter the racket and an older arm could use more weight thus you have to choose a smaller head.
Definitely don't go for more than 100 and less than 11 oz strung. Otherwise you will become another old guy wearing an elbow brace and icing all the time.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
I just attended the United States Clay Court Championships for 45's. This was 128 draw. I saw only one guy using a frame larger than 100 square inches. Most of these guys were using 90-98 square inch frames. >>> On clay of all things (oh my!). Most of these guys are 5.0 plus players with a few ex ATP pros.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=161872

By the way, for the poster who said 3.5 players are stuck at 3.5 because of their frame selection>>> buy a clue. They are stuck at 3.5 because they don't want to improve>>> not because of their frame selection. If that is the case, how do you explain so many 3.5 players using big bubbas who are stuck at 3.5??

ps: Only two Volkls. :)
 
Last edited:

bubbatex

Rookie
Definitely don't go for more than 100 and less than 11 oz strung. Otherwise you will become another old guy wearing an elbow brace and icing all the time.
I am already that guy! Does this not contradict what Mojo said above? However, those numbers are in line with my "comfort zone".
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
I just attended the United States Clay Court Championships for 45's. This was 128 draw. I saw only one guy using a frame larger than 100 square inches. Most of these guys were using 90-98 square inch frames. >>> On clay of all things (oh my!). Most of these guys are 5.0 plus players with a few ex ATP pros.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=161872

By the way, for the poster who said 3.5 players are stuck at 3.5 because of their frame selection>>> buy a clue. They are stuck at 3.5 because they don't want to improve>>> not because of their frame selection. If that is the case, how do you explain so many 3.5 players using big bubbas who are stuck at 3.5??

ps: Only two Volkls. :)
your post doesnt make any sense and isnt relevant to this particular discussion.

.........................
 

WChiang

Rookie
I just attended the United States Clay Court Championships for 45's. This was 128 draw. I saw only one guy using a frame larger than 100 square inches. Most of these guys were using 90-98 square inch frames. >>> On clay of all things (oh my!). Most of these guys are 5.0 plus players with a few ex ATP pros.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=161872

By the way, for the poster who said 3.5 players are stuck at 3.5 because of their frame selection>>> buy a clue. They are stuck at 3.5 because they don't want to improve>>> not because of their frame selection. If that is the case, how do you explain so many 3.5 players using big bubbas who are stuck at 3.5??

ps: Only two Volkls. :)
Good points. (Yours is a great thread with the pics/videos btw, drakulie, thanks)

The frame size fixation by some on the board has become laughable and is bad information. Many players as they get older stay with their heavier frames and avoid arm injury by not making a switch to lighter and often stiffer racquets. I also attend many Open level tournaments (and over 45/50 events) and numerous players use 90 and 95 racquets. This is fact and to ignore it and say otherwise is foolish. Of course there are 98 frames too and a few 100's. ITS NOT A BIG DEAL. I thought this head size stalking had disappeared, LOL. (Of course I rarely see Volkls too, drak, ;) ..)
 

Cervantes

New User
Why I Think...Because I am...

My coaches always said that the pros have such developed power in their technique, they're always looking for control. Having said this, Sampras, I understand, used a small, stiff frame for control, weighted up for power. So figgur...
 

quest01

Hall of Fame
There are hardly any pros that use a 90 sq inch racket. Federer used a 90, Hewitt used to use a 90 and someone on the WTA tour uses a 90. (I dont remember her name) I dont even know any club players and people that i play against that use a 90. The only people i have seen use 90s are traditionalists and Federer fanboys.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
r they hit more balls in the court with their midsize frame with their bad technique so I guess that does give them better control in an odd sort of way
But guess what? Hitting more balls in at any level below 5.0 usually means winning the match.
 

Klatu Verata Necktie

Hall of Fame
I think the premise of the thread is flawed. It's unlikely that more 4.0 - 5.0 players use mid sized frames than the pros, it just seems that way because like minded people discuss their frames on these boards.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Older arms usually benefit from lightrer racquets not heavier racquets as older arms typically cant handle the higher swingweights of most midsized frames, nor do they generate the power they used to and can benefit from something lighter and stiffer..midsized frames are often heavier frames.
"Lighter and stiffer" also usually equals tennis elbow for older players with old arms and tendons.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
There are hardly any pros that use a 90 sq inch racket. Federer used a 90, Hewitt used to use a 90 and someone on the WTA tour uses a 90. (I dont remember her name) I dont even know any club players and people that i play against that use a 90. The only people i have seen use 90s are traditionalists and Federer fanboys.
Right..in the real world <the non TW Forum world>, midsized frames are rarely even discussed other than as a trip down memory lane...they're pretty much a non factor. Lots more oversized frames being used at the club level than mids for sure. Lots more club level players posting on the forum than 5.0's. Point of fact is that there isnt a single thing a midsized frame does that cant be done with a larger/more realistic headsize and you lose the disadvantages of a mid in the process. Thankfully, I havent had to give a midsized lesson in about 6 years. This forum just isnt very indicative of the real world. There are some other players on the ATP using a mid..players like Safin, but noteworthy is the fact that these players rankings have slipped. of course the reverseness of racquet selection rule always applies

people are sure free to use whatever they like and for whatever reasons they like, but what is bad, is the bad info parsed on this forum by the midsized zealots <some of whom wont even acknowledge things like Hewitt actually making the move to a MP headsize>. these people are the ones who flip things around saying that those of us who actually know what we are talking about are the ones causing the trouble around here when they are the ones misdirecting people who come here looking for decent advise and attacking people for giving good advice
 

vkartikv

Hall of Fame
One of my hitting partners switched from an i.radical MP to a k90. He is a solid 4.5 but his game has suffered since the change. It's been over 10 weeks and he is still suffering from pain in his wrist and balls landing very short on the court. You would think 10 weeks is more than enough to settle into your groove with a racquet. He changed purely because Federer uses it and he wants his game to mirror Federer's.

I, on the other hand took all the advice on this board with a pinch of salt and moved from the PS 85 to a more forgiving and spin-handling 200G, albeit with a denser string pattern. Is my game better? Definitely. Would I go back to a mid? Certainly not - why change a winning formula that's comfortable and full of fun (which is what rec players look for)? Did I do the right thing? I didn't by using an 85 which was not suited for my level of play but am certainly moving in the right direction by using a bigger head that helps me handle those college kids' extreme topspin better.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
One of my hitting partners switched from an i.radical MP to a k90. He is a solid 4.5 but his game has suffered since the change. It's been over 10 weeks and he is still suffering from pain in his wrist and balls landing very short on the court. You would think 10 weeks is more than enough to settle into your groove with a racquet. He changed purely because Federer uses it and he wants his game to mirror Federer's.

I, on the other hand took all the advice on this board with a pinch of salt and moved from the PS 85 to a more forgiving and spin-handling 200G, albeit with a denser string pattern. Is my game better? Definitely. Would I go back to a mid? Certainly not - why change a winning formula that's comfortable and full of fun (which is what rec players look for)? Did I do the right thing? I didn't by using an 85 which was not suited for my level of play but am certainly moving in the right direction by using a bigger head that helps me handle those college kids' extreme topspin better.
now we're getting some real world practical applications. along the same lines, one of my regular hits <a 5.0 at the time> changed to the n90 and since then his level of play has also eroded. he is the ideal candidate for this frame..very strong and very grooved flatter strokes and mild grips and plays at least 4 times a week. he's too stubborn to change back to something reasonable. i wish he would as he's not much of a challenge for me anymore. i am sure things like this will get flipped right around it will be said that some players games have improved since making the change to a mid, but that is much less likely and far more rare and the trend is quite clearly the other direction.

beyond my n90 friend, i have hit with a small handful of mid users over the past 5 years. one is a 3.5 teaching pro who was using an iPrestigeMid but who has moved on to a MP, another played the singles draw at Wimbledon and WAS swinging PMacs frame at the time..i am hard pressed to think of others at the moment. this was by playing at/teaching at resorts where people visit from all over the world. almost hit with the venerable Craig Clark but he chickened out <teasing>....or am I?????? ;O

I bet there are pockets where midsized frames are being used...that doesnt mean the people have made a good choice in choosing the mid frame. yes, i know the k90 may be a TW best seller, but again, that doesnt mean the people buying these frames have made a good choice...kFactor often = FedFactor
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I just attended the United States Clay Court Championships for 45's. This was 128 draw. I saw only one guy using a frame larger than 100 square inches. Most of these guys were using 90-98 square inch frames. >>> On clay of all things (oh my!). Most of these guys are 5.0 plus players with a few ex ATP pros.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=161872

By the way, for the poster who said 3.5 players are stuck at 3.5 because of their frame selection>>> buy a clue. They are stuck at 3.5 because they don't want to improve>>> not because of their frame selection. If that is the case, how do you explain so many 3.5 players using big bubbas who are stuck at 3.5??

ps: Only two Volkls. :)
Didn't you mention in the other thread that the lone guy with the big Bubba defeated the Volkl guy?
 

Klatu Verata Necktie

Hall of Fame
One of my hitting partners switched from an i.radical MP to a k90. He is a solid 4.5 but his game has suffered since the change. It's been over 10 weeks and he is still suffering from pain in his wrist and balls landing very short on the court. You would think 10 weeks is more than enough to settle into your groove with a racquet. He changed purely because Federer uses it and he wants his game to mirror Federer's.

I, on the other hand took all the advice on this board with a pinch of salt and moved from the PS 85 to a more forgiving and spin-handling 200G, albeit with a denser string pattern. Is my game better? Definitely. Would I go back to a mid? Certainly not - why change a winning formula that's comfortable and full of fun (which is what rec players look for)? Did I do the right thing? I didn't by using an 85 which was not suited for my level of play but am certainly moving in the right direction by using a bigger head that helps me handle those college kids' extreme topspin better.
It's tough to extrapolate the reason for his decline in performance because there are so many different factors that go into a racquet. Yes, the difference may have been the smaller head size, but it may also have been the change in stiffness, string pattern, beam size, static weight, swing weight, etc.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
But guess what? Hitting more balls in at any level below 5.0 usually means winning the match.
"Lighter and stiffer" also usually equals tennis elbow for older players with old arms and tendons.

Hopefully people understand that my not responding to your posts directed at me, do not indicate that I agree with what you've said...most usually, it's the opposite
 
Last edited:
Top