Would Stosur be nearly as good without all the technology?

pmerk34

Legend
Agreed, but I always think this point is taken too far in the direction of devaluing those great volleyers' skills (not that you are necessarily doing that).

Not many people during the aforementioned eras could volley like Mac and Edberg and Cash against even the top players in their eras like Lendl, Becker, Connors, Borg, etc. Volleying against top players may be harder today, but it was never exactly easy and it's not like just anybody could rush the net against Lendl or Connors (for example) and enjoy instant success. Even if it's more difficult today, it was difficult then too.

I often hear that these great volleyers would be toast today because of the consistent pace and the dipping nature of highly spinny strokes. But, I've rewatched a lot of McEnroe and especially Edberg matches and they took a lot of vollyey below the net, many down low. Not every volley was hit in no-doubt territory above the net. And, there were players who hit with considerable (if less than today) spin and dipped shots, and players who blasted the ball.

I'm not arguing with you're general point - today's volleyers, overall, have it much tougher and would find consistent success much harder to come by.

But, I still think volleying could and should be an important part of a player's arsenal and the downturn in volleyers' collective fortunes isn't due only to more consistent spin and pace coming off players' rackets. Also, as has been noted endlessly, the slow down in surfaces. Put Boris Becker or Sampras against a Nadal-type on slick grass or speedy indoor carpet and, and I'd think they'd do okay. yes, the Nadal-types would get more passing shots past them, get more good returns back, but I hardly think the balance would be so immutably shifted that Becker and Sampras could never win.

Also, I just don't think volleying as a gamestyle is really tought that much any more, so there are few elite volleyers. Clearly, every tennis player learns to volley (the actual stroke), but fewer really learn how to incorporate it into their game other than when hitting a huge approach followed by an easy knock-off volley or when forced into net against their will and having to make a deperation volley.

It's a skill that takes a while to develop and without repeated "reps" in the form of repeated trips to the net, a player will never develop into a great volleyer. Beyond the actual volley, a player has to learn and develop anticipation at the net, passing patterns of his opponents, lateral and forward movement at the net, percentages of where to lean on which approach shots.

But, no player does repeated "reps" any more in match play, thus volleying suffers. This is only exacerbated by junior tennis, where all players, naturally, want to be successful from an early age, and being an elite volleyer rally takes physical maturity. High-spin groundstrokes are the norm and a 5 foot tall 12-year old boy can more quickly develop those groundstrokes than an impressive volleying game. The 5-foot tall 12-year-old on the other side of the net who isn't even tall enough to have a good serve to set him up for volleying is going to usually lose the battle if he comes to net. So, everyone is sort of forced to play the same game, the same game we see on the ATP tour, at a much lower level, of course.

A friend of mine went to Macci's academy for one year in 1990 or 1991 as a teenager.. They were taught "Rush and Crush" tennis. Serve big, hit big and finish the point at net. Everything was move forward becuase that is what worked at the time. This is before the slowing down of the balls, courts and the take over of Babalot and Luxilon. They were taught what won. Now baseline play wins.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Who cares, everybody has the same capabilities of using the same technology, so in the modern game, time wise that is where we are, if you use what is modern to a better skill set how can that be a flaw against you?
Instead of Babolat paying Nadal and Stosur to use their racquets and strings, to be fair, Nadal and Stosur should really be paying Babolat a cut of their prize monies. :shock:
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Part of this is a safety issue, extreme power that fielders especially at little league and highschool level cannot handle.
Have you ever been smacked in the face with a 100mph forehand coming off of a Babolat racquet in doubles? You could easily be blinded.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Actually easier is beneficial at the ameteur level and this is what drives the sport. You have to make the sport somewhat user friendly otherwise people loose interest quickly. On the pro level, now some new strokes are hin heavy spin, I have heard MacEnroe say to volley one of Nadal"s ground strokes is exceedingly difficult. He has also stated that Nadal has become one of the best volleyrs on tour( recently stated during Nadals last match) so so much for the Bab APD is a poor volleying stick, irregardless that Nadals layup may be different than stock it is not an 85 sq inch rkt.
So I am in the over 50 club as is MacEnroe and an appreciation for the modern game I possess.
Hmmm....wood racquets were not nearly as user friendly as today's modern racquets yet many more people were interested in tennis during the wood era than they are today.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I don't get how her frame is any more an advantage than Serena's?
Serena couldn't play the way she does with a wood racquet, either.

Also, Serena uses old-school full natural gut strings, not the Babolat RPM Blast poly strings that Stosur uses to give her massive spin on her forehand and huge kick on her serves. There's no way Stosur could get that much kick on her serves with a 14 oz., 65 sq. in. wood racquet with gut strings.
 

TennisMD

Professional
Have you ever been smacked in the face with a 100mph forehand coming off of a Babolat racquet in doubles? You could easily be blinded.

You introduced the other sport, I am not trying to compare what gives you the most damage but a direct hit in the eye with either wood or todays rkts you will seriously injure your eye. I am just quoting what some sports journals say and why they object to aluminum bats. Anyway far afield from the original point you try an make about denigrating somebodies success because of the rkt they use. My point is if the Babs are such a secret sauce anybody and everybody should use them
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
You introduced the other sport, I am not trying to compare what gives you the most damage but a direct hit in the eye with either wood or todays rkts you will seriously injure your eye. I am just quoting what some sports journals say and why they object to aluminum bats. Anyway far afield from the original point you try an make about denigrating somebodies success because of the rkt they use. My point is if the Babs are such a secret sauce anybody and everybody should use them
The point is, they shouldn't be allowed to. Just like aluminum bats are not allowed in MLB.

BTW, how many 100mph forehands did you see during the wood era?
 

TennisMD

Professional
Hmmm....wood racquets were not nearly as user friendly as today's modern racquets yet many more people were interested in tennis during the wood era than they are today.

Since I have not looked up how many were playing tennis in the 70s and early 80s I cannot argue vehemently against your quote. However I do remember the 70s well and Tennis then, at the highschool level, at least in the North east corridor was a geek sport, I do not think this is true today. Maybe some of the Marketing folks with seasoning ie age can comment on the popularity of the sport of Tennis
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Since I have not looked up how many were playing tennis in the 70s and early 80s I cannot argue vehemently against your quote. However I do remember the 70s well and Tennis then, at the highschool level, at least in the North east corridor was a geek sport, I do not think this is true today. Maybe some of the Marketing folks with seasoning ie age can comment on the popularity of the sport of Tennis
It is well known that tennis popularity in the U.S. was at it's peak in the 70's. It's been downhill ever since bottoming out in the 90's. It's come back a bit but is still well below its popularity in the 70's.

Tennis is still considered a "sissy" sport today. The real "jocks" in high school play football or basketball.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
A friend of mine went to Macci's academy for one year in 1990 or 1991 as a teenager.. They were taught "Rush and Crush" tennis. Serve big, hit big and finish the point at net. Everything was move forward becuase that is what worked at the time. This is before the slowing down of the balls, courts and the take over of Babalot and Luxilon. They were taught what won. Now baseline play wins.



That was the style that won America plenty of slams during the 90s under Sampras, Agassi, and Courier. Sampras was the epitome of rush and crush tennis in the 90s.



Now that style of play does not work anymore, and now tennis is a far more athletic sport than before where movement determines the winner of a match more often then not (just look at the top 4, the best 4 movers in the game by far).



I think that BP has a point in some respects. The game has obviously gone way off too far in one direction where consistent baseline rallying is what wins more often then not. Shotmakers, offensive players, and all around court players are punished severely by the newer strings and racquets. It still takes an extreme amount of skill to succeed today, but just a different set of skills.
 

TennisMD

Professional
The point is, they shouldn't be allowed to. Just like aluminum bats are not allowed in MLB.

BTW, how many 100mph forehands did you see during the wood era?

Well we are going round and round the mulberry bush here. Actually very few 100 mph forehand are hit with babs even at the 4.0 4.5 level. If you think the sport would be more enjoyable with wood then this is your opinion. I believe people in general and especially the American public, me included would get frustrated more quickly and possibly leave the sport if only wood were available, but this is just perception so one can argue for or against when perception is the only barometer. Where is bounce hit bounce aka craig clark our resident psychiatrist , I am sure he has done some work in the sports psych field and the ability to get frustrated and what this does to sticking with a sport.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Well we are going round and round the mulberry bush here. Actually very few 100 mph forehand are hit with babs even at the 4.0 4.5 level. If you think the sport would be more enjoyable with wood then this is your opinion. I believe people in general and especially the American public, me included would get frustrated more quickly and possibly leave the sport if only wood were available, but this is just perception so one can argue for or against when perception is the only barometer. Where is bounce hit bounce aka craig clark our resident psychiatrist , I am sure he has done some work in the sports psych field and the ability to get frustrated and what this does to sticking with a sport.



BP takes the point a little too far, but I think maybe regulating strings a little bit at least would help reduce the game becoming into a grinding defensive fest that it has become. Even Federer with all of his arsenal has to play a much more defensive baseline game than he used to due to the way the game is played now.
 

TennisMD

Professional
It is well known that tennis popularity in the U.S. was at it's peak in the 70's. It's been downhill ever since bottoming out in the 90's. It's come back a bit but is still well below its popularity in the 70's.

Tennis is still considered a "sissy" sport today. The real "jocks" in high school play football or basketball.

This could still be true, was in my time and why I never considered the sport, love it now. Also Lacrosse vry big in the M, DE, PA area, no real pads and was a form of war with the native Indians, those boys at Hopkins can whip that hard hard ball at 110 mph and there is no bounce, also they do alot of other things with those Lax sticks like rearrange your ribs, but I digress. Happy hitting, tennis great sport physically and mentally
 

TennisMD

Professional
BP takes the point a little too far, but I think maybe regulating strings a little bit at least would help reduce the game becoming into a grinding defensive fest that it has become. Even Federer with all of his arsenal has to play a much more defensive baseline game than he used to due to the way the game is played now.

Again ones taste but seeing Djokovic and Federer slug out 32 to 35 ball rallies at their pace and the angles and the thought process needed to get a winner it is like power geometry and I find this fascinating rather than the slow ball stuff of years ago just personal taste and with that I see what time it is and I am off to watch Rafa with his 100 sq inch head and Nole with his 100sq inch head rkt pulverize the ball
 

pmerk34

Legend
Why is Stosure singled out in this thread?

Because on the women's side she is the player who most plays like she was invented by Babalot. Her grip and the frame/string combo she uses are perfectly matched. The spin she gets is outrageous even compared to other top women players.
 
Serena couldn't play the way she does with a wood racquet, either.

Also, Serena uses old-school full natural gut strings, not the Babolat RPM Blast poly strings that Stosur uses to give her massive spin on her forehand and huge kick on her serves. There's no way Stosur could get that much kick on her serves with a 14 oz., 65 sq. in. wood racquet with gut strings.

Well never say never. Have you seen that woman's muscles? She looks like she could generate that racquet head speed with her pinkie.

If I may theorize on that subject a bit (don't hate if I get it wrong), but it's not a matter of what racquet you use, it's rather the technique. When you were growing up tennis was focused mainly on finesse, so naturally you along with many other players adopted that style of play, that's why there weren't many outright power players in the wood era. Not that you COULD get power from a gutted woodie, there was plenty, it just wasn't a winning tactic back then.

When Sam grew up, power players and graphite sticks were emerging. Techniques changed once again, players wanted more racquet head speed to get extra pop and on clay you'd have players with racquets strung with synthetic gut or early poly at ridiculous tensions (they didn't want power, only control), so naturally she adopted that technique as it's currently a winning concept.

With the emergence of better polyester strings, you're able to string it looser yet have the same control. Couple that with the technique, her muscles and her racquet head speed she's been taught and you have a gal who's able to hit the ball with lots and lots of spin and has a great kicker. Also, I highly doubt that her racquet is THAT light. Just look at her!

Does my theory make any sense or is it just a load of BLX?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Well never say never. Have you seen that woman's muscles? She looks like she could generate that racquet head speed with her pinkie.
Brushing up on the ball at an angle with that high of a racquet head speed with a tiny wood racquet will cause mishits more often than not. There's also just not enough string surface area for the ball to roll across the stringbed to generate massive spin. This was proven in the paper - "The Inch That Changed Tennis".
 
Brushing up on the ball at an angle with that high of a racquet head speed with a tiny wood racquet will cause mishits more often than not.

Well, though I may generalize a slight bit here as I have no one from the wooden era to compare with (I'm too young for that) but didn't Edberg create a boatload of racquet head speed coupled with great technique to make an awesome kicker with his PS85?
 
I would say that stosur is one of the few women who really play a modern WW forehand. Most women play more of a kinda flat "slap forehand". she is playing a really aggressive WW forehand that gets real spin and power. certainly the best FH on tour. She has got that federer or nadal like forearm/wrist action to accelerate the tip of the racket. most women just whack through the whole arm (accelerate arm and racket at the same rate and not the tip of the racket faster than the hand) thus being only able to slap the ball hard with little variation.

too bad her BH is not good or she would have won more slams.
 
Last edited:

max

Legend
BreakPoint: I feel a bit sorry for you, guy. You're up against all these kids who never swung wood. . . and are a bit frightened at how their game might suffer were they to do so! :)
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Well, though I may generalize a slight bit here as I have no one from the wooden era to compare with (I'm too young for that) but didn't Edberg create a boatload of racquet head speed coupled with great technique to make an awesome kicker with his PS85?
The PS 85 has 31% more stringbed surface area than a standard wood racquet (65 sq. in.). That's a HUGE difference. That's like the difference between a 90 sq. in. Mid and a 118 sq. in. Super Oversize.

Besides, you can hit much bigger kickers today with 100 sq. in. racquets strung with poly than with an 85 strung with gut.
 
The PS 85 has 31% more stringbed surface area than a standard wood racquet (65 sq. in.). That's a HUGE difference. That's like the difference between a 90 sq. in. Mid and a 118 sq. in. Super Oversize.

Besides, you can hit much bigger kickers today with 100 sq. in. racquets strung with poly than with an 85 strung with gut.

(Kind of reply to both max and BP)

Well, I might only be 17 years old, but I have several wooden racquets in posession at home, including an old Maxply Fort which what they say is medium weight and has a 4 6/8 grip and it's gutted. I've never hit it, but that's because I haven't had time. I have however hit kick serves with a Tretorn woodie strung with ancient synthetic gut (I know, not natural, but still) I have lying around at my house and honestly I found a slight to no difference in the bigness of my kickers.

Flat serves are great as they come down at the same fast velocity and they're completely silent. The biggest issue would probably boil down to consistency. Though the woodie and my normal stick weigh the same (about 11,9 ounces) I do shank a lot more hitting kickers with the woodie than with my 98 square inch polymonster. But then again, I shank every odd kicker with that one too:p

Also max, I regularly swing an ancient 14 ounce Yonex with a 70 square inch head just for the sake of trying to hit the ball cleanly (and due to its awesome crushability)
 

PrinceMoron

Legend
Sad but there is almost no difference in the way I play and my results with a wooden racket and the modern rackets I have tried (which is lots). I actually think I prefer using a wooden racket.
 
I know I shouldn't bump this thread but I feel like I have to end this argument once and for all.

THERE IS STILL PLENTY OF VARIETY IN RECREATIONAL TENNIS, WHICH IS THE TENNIS MOST OF US PLAY!
3.5 is the majority of the tennis playing population in the US and it has often been stated that there is more variety in the 3.5 game than any other level. Professional tennis players represent maybe 10-15% of the tennis population? Maybe more, but there are still way more rec players than pros. Since the majority of rec players aren't pros, and since the majority of rec players 3.5, then that concludes that there is just as much variety in tennis as always.

Also, I don't know about anyone else, but this whole argument about "people will play with wood if pros do" is just unrealistic. People will only go so far to impersonate there idols. My favorite player is Gael Monfils. I love the guy, but I would never use his Rebel 95. My Redondo works better for me. I will not get a racket that is detrimental to my game because my favorite player uses it , just like no one I know uses a pure drive because Roddick does. They love Roddick, but they hate his racket.

If the OP wants to play with wood himself, then he can go ahead. The Brian Brothers with wood beat the the Jensen brothers with graphite so it is possible to beat a player using a modern racket with wood. However, I must disagree with the insane notion that everyone should be forced to use wood just because you think they get an unfair advantage. The players you and me hit with don't have the RHS to get anywhere near the benefit of polys that Stosur gets from them.
Besides, kevlar is a more dangerous form of poly and even has a warning on the label:shock:. Maybe we should get around to banning that first then worry about polys.:)
 
N

nikdom

Guest
When I saw the title of this thread, I immediate thought was 'Did Stosur get an operation to become fitted with robotic arms or something? What am I missing here, what technology is BP talking about?'


hehehe :)
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
Federer uses natural gut in the mains, which provides more than 80% of the playability of the stringbed. The mains are what gives you all the spin. Poly mains will give you a ton more spin than gut mains, regardless of what you put in the crosses. Federer only puts poly in the crosses to reduce the trampoline effect of the gut mains since he strings at very low tensions. It probably also helps his mains not move around so much.

ROFL! at some of BP's ridiculous posts in this thread I dug up from the past. Sorry to not let sleeping dogs lie :shock:

However, it's now been determined scientifically (see TWU frame and string results) that:

A. This is the 'spiniest' string combo you can use (NG mains with poly crosses). Federer uses this combo.

B. The K90 has more inherent power versus the Babolat Pure Storm or the Babolat APD. Go check out the racquet power maps on the racquet pages.

C. Federer creates the second highest topspin on tour right behind Nadal.

So, spare us about how Stosur obtains some huge advantage with poly strings and a Babolat frame. Federer is gaining a huge advantage with his setup versus other frames and strings.
 
Last edited:

Andres

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, I'm sure somebody else could pull up the link showing Federer right behind Nadal for average topspin.
Because Andreev's forehand wasn't measured. It could be argued that it is just as spinny as Nadal's.
 

zerojoshua

Rookie
I am suprised at all the bias

Let's face it. Racquet technology has changed the game. That doesn't necessarily mean that a player with a ProStaff racquet would be at a disadvantage vs a player with a modern low swing-weight poly spin machine; although, I personally love the greater amount of angles available.

If Stosur started playing with an 85" ProStaff her shots would probably look a little more flat, but the amount of control provided would probably produce more accurate winners and would open up other areas of her game.

1. Amount of hours spent playing
2. The fortune of people you play with/advice
3. Being in the right place at the right time.............................


50. Tennis racquet technology
 

li0scc0

Hall of Fame
Again...as I stated earlier in this thread...Stosur uses one of the least 'modern' racquets on tour. The Pure Storm line is very basic, very classic. She doesn't use a >100 square inch racquet...like Serena and Venus. She doesn't use one with ports, like Zvonareva. Nor a wider beamed dual taper racquet, like Azarenka. She uses a thinner beamed straight racquet. Pretty simple.
Sure she uses poly. So do most of the women on tour.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
This thread is hilarious since it presumes Stosur is that good. Her achievements at this point are on par or slightly below Na and Schiavone. All 3 have 1 slam, 1 slam final (in the same abysmal era which with all due respect makes all 3 ladies possible) and both have more titles than her. So how good is Stosur really in singles. Not that good, just good enough to be one of the outside factors at a wretched time for the womens game.
 

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
The Pure Storm is not a classical frame.

I doubt she uses the tour version, which is heavier, the pure storm GT that she uses is like 10.2 oz, with a pretty wide body beam, which is extremely light, with an even/head heavy balance....all are very modern characteristics.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
The Pure Storm is not a classical frame.

I doubt she uses the tour version, which is heavier, the pure storm GT that she uses is like 10.2 oz, with a pretty wide body beam, which is extremely light, with an even/head heavy balance....all are very modern characteristics.

The Pure Storm is very close to a classic graphite frame with it fairly narrow box beam and no extra 'technology'. The beam is a mere 3mm larger than the current Pro Staff. The classic feel is most likely the reason Sampras is using it.

If you've never tried one, give it a hit.
 
Last edited:

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
The Pure Storm is very close to a classic graphite frame with it fairly narrow box beam and no extra 'technology'. The beam is a mere 3mm larger than the current Pro Staff. The classic feel is most likely the reason Sampras is using it.

If you've never tried one, give it a hit.

I actually have and use it, and love it. But to me its not nearly as much as a classic frame as say the Wilson KPro Tour/BLX Pro Tour/I think the current incarnation is called a Juice or something.
My brother use this stick and it has a way more 'classic' feeling than the Pure Storm, which is actually a very powerful racquet, compared to the frames I mention above.


Perhaps I'm thinking of classic 'player's sticks' which typically feature a heavier frame which provides a feeling that you have a lot of mass in your hand, and tend to have a headlight balance.

Anyway, I guess I will agree that the PureStorm is a more 'classic feeling racquet, than a good portion of 'modern frames', but overall I don't think it is a "classic frame" because of the specs, in my opinion.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Her serve would be exactly the same with a wooden racket from 1976. Plenty of guys with extremely slow swing speeds could hit great twist serves. She has a good swing speed, so could hit better serves.
And, in 1976, she would be serving to girls who aren't used to seeing twist and kick serves.
 

DunlopDood

Semi-Pro
She's actually one of the few players who can play an all court game and can play at the net. If the woman's tour had wooden racquets she would be number one in the world in my opinion. Without the new tech and large racquets, the williams sisters, Wozniacki, Azarenka, Sharapova...the list goes on, would be utter garbage because they don't move well and couldn't hit a decent volley to save their life. As far as I'm concerned not that hennin is gone she's the only player worth watching, then again the WTA has been just awful since Graf retiered so I don't even bother with it anymore.

out!
 

Apun94

Hall of Fame
Watching Stosur play, it became painfully obvious to me that her entire game is based upon taking full advantage of all the modern racquet and string technology available to her. The amount of kick and spin she gets on her serves and forehands is ridiculous. It's like watching a Babolat racquet and poly strings play tennis and not a human being play. She couldn't come anywhere close to playing like that with a wood racquet and gut strings.

If they could ban spaghetti strings back in the 70's, why can't they ban these modern racquets and strings that are distorting the sport of tennis and making natural tennis talent less important than the ability to maximize the use of all this modern equipment? So instead of determining who the best marksman is, it's like seeing who's better at using the biggest and most powerful laser-guided rifle.

As far as I'm concerned, Federer is the only top player that uses a "legitimate" racquet. His racquet is based on 30 year-old technology and is the closest in weight and size to a wood racquet. Everyone else is using modern technology to substitute or enhance their lack of natural tennis talent, and to me, that's just not fair and is like cheating. I mean, they don't let boxers use brass knuckles, do they?

You are truly PATHETIC
 

li0scc0

Hall of Fame
I actually have and use it, and love it. But to me its not nearly as much as a classic frame as say the Wilson KPro Tour/BLX Pro Tour/I think the current incarnation is called a Juice or something.
My brother use this stick and it has a way more 'classic' feeling than the Pure Storm, which is actually a very powerful racquet, compared to the frames I mention above.


Perhaps I'm thinking of classic 'player's sticks' which typically feature a heavier frame which provides a feeling that you have a lot of mass in your hand, and tend to have a headlight balance.

Anyway, I guess I will agree that the PureStorm is a more 'classic feeling racquet, than a good portion of 'modern frames', but overall I don't think it is a "classic frame" because of the specs, in my opinion.

The Juice Pro is an 11.8 ounce frame with a 16x20 pattern and a 22/23mm beam and is 7 points headlight with a flex around 64. Head size is listed at 96 and seems to be about 96-97. SW is about 332. (the old KPRO only had a SW of about 300! The BLX Pro Tour had a 24mm beam, almost tweener-esque with respect to the beam).
The Babolat Pure Storm GT Tour is an 11.9 ounce frame with a 16x20 pattern and a 21mm beam and is about 6-7 pts headlight with a flex around 63-64. Head size is listed at 98 and seems to be about 96-97. SW is about 333.

My point is that these are two VERY similar frames, with the Pure Storm Tour having the edge (in my mind) due to the thinner beam.

If you mean that Stosur is using the Pure Storm GT in its actual STOCK form, mine was 11.0 before modification (silicone in handle, overgrip, dampener). It is now 11.9, 327 SW, 9 pts headlight. Sounds pretty nice to me :)
 

gregor.b

Professional
The Pure Storm is very close to a classic graphite frame with it fairly narrow box beam and no extra 'technology'. The beam is a mere 3mm larger than the current Pro Staff. The classic feel is most likely the reason Sampras is using it.

If you've never tried one, give it a hit.

I would echo this sentiment, but only if you can play a bit.
 
Top