Discussion in 'Classic Racquet Talk' started by Autodidactic player, Mar 24, 2012.
I saw the Natural frame used & decided to get one. After a 1/2 hr lesson from Trent,I found it fairly easy to use.
No I do not play matches with it, but when players with double handed backhands have problems I get them to hit with it, to get their stroke back. I also use it to help people find the feel of hitting up & out on the serve.
I never cared for the Haandler, the H shaped two handled frame. I was told that the bottom handle was designed more as a counterweight. I saw that frame used effectively by a Senior player for several seasons.
Worst racket ever is in the eyes & hands of the hitter I guess.
Interesting ..well you're a tolerant and patient man to give it a chance.
I love hitting with random things, old wood racquets, kids racquets, I even played some of my tennis students once using a wooden post from an old real estate sign by the court…but somehow that thing rubs me the wrong way. Who knows maybe it would freak out your opponent enough to win some feee points.
supposedly that thing played quite well...
I have one. It was used by a a rather strong player who had sponsorship, when he taught one summer.
I have found no benefit from the offset head.
That thing looks like an aluminum racquet I had as a kid after I smashed it into the ground once.....it went from being shaped like a POG to that squished shape.
My parents were so unimpressed with the tantrum they refused to buy me a new one, so I actually played with it for a couple more years
I️ like the Ergonom. Slice backhands are nice with the soft flex of this frame.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In the late 90s Wilson made this really thin 'spin' racket which was as I recall less then 10mm thick. I remember Lillywhites in London having racks and racks of them on sale at bargain prices. Should have bought one at the time for novelty value. There was a review of it on Tennis Warehouse, yes I'm sure I remember reading it.
The Hammer 5.5 "Spin" had a 15 mm constant beam, with a 12 mm bridge. There were some thinner-beamed composite frames before, namely the earliest BBC and Fox products, but none of those had a beam profile that was as thin (when viewed from the side) as it was narrow (when viewed from the front) from top to bottom. Indeed, the rounded beam cross section combined with the 95 SQ.IN head made the Spin look way thinner than it actually was, especially when displayed next to its "High Beam" stablemates, which were considered state-of-the-art at the time.
The only racquets with lower profile beams are those pre-composite-era 12-13 mm tubular steel designs.
I've never played with mine, so can't comment on whether or not it belongs on this list of shame. However, it feels surprisingly stiff when handled despite its minimalist beam profile.
Yep. I've seen that Hammer.
It actually plays quite well.
Usually whatever racquet I am using my hand when I play!
As an ntrp 3.5 (rackets of choice Prince tour diablo mid, Rossignol f250 & Babolat pure control tour) the Federer & Nadal frames are very overrated imo. Fed frames feel nice, but very impractical. Nadal frames feel like playing with garbage can lids imo.
Worst presentable frame I've ever hit with- Head graphene Instinct MP. Man it was awful, demo felt nice in hand at the store, when hitting felt much cheaper than it actually was.
Separate names with a comma.