Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by Hops » Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:47:58


http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tennis/story/0,10069,981137,00.html

"The future of the game is at stake," said the 46-year-old Navratilova.
"Interest in the game is waning. We need more surprises, more variety.
Anything which makes it a better spectator sport would be a good thing."

"What we are seeking to do - making rackets smaller again - will change all
the shots," Navratilova explained. "The rackets, the way they are today,
have helped ground strokes more than any other shot by a huge amount,
exponentially.
"With smaller-headed rackets, ground strokes are going to need to be better
because they won't create as much top-spin or pace. You won't be able to
play 15 feet behind the baseline and it will require more skill."

--
A screaming comes across the sky

 
 
 

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by Steve Jaro » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:30:25


Quote:

> http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tennis/story/0,10069,981137,00.html

> "The future of the game is at stake," said the 46-year-old Navratilova.
> "Interest in the game is waning. We need more surprises, more variety.
> Anything which makes it a better spectator sport would be a good thing."

> "What we are seeking to do - making rackets smaller again - will change
all
> the shots," Navratilova explained.

Yes - i recall that monstrous 'portable net' MN wielded the last few years
she was on the tour (full time)...

One of the problems this creates is a marketing one, i.e., amateurs like
using the over-sized, super-composite rackets because they make the game
easier to play. Companies sell these rackets in part by marketing them as
the same ones used by the pros.

The opposition of the Wilson Group is telling. Change is unlikely as long as
the racket companies object. And they object.

--
"one of the most remarkable characteristics of
human nature is ... the freedom from envy which
the present displays towards the future."

- Lotze

 
 
 

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by Kare » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:34:22

Quote:

> "What we are seeking to do - making rackets smaller again - will change all
> the shots," Navratilova explained. "The rackets, the way they are today,
> have helped ground strokes more than any other shot by a huge amount,
> exponentially.
> "With smaller-headed rackets, ground strokes are going to need to be better
> because they won't create as much top-spin or pace. You won't be able to
> play 15 feet behind the baseline and it will require more skill."

Then why is she playing with a oversize Prince?

Not I don't agree with her in some way. But I think she's too focus on
WTA where 110 is the norm. 110 to 90 would make a impact on woman
tennis. On the man side, most of the racquets are below 100 anyway.
Was she proposing to reduce it to 80. Then it would make much more gap
between pro game and amature game. Tennis is already a hard game to
learn and improve. 9 millions out of 13 millions tennis players are
under 3.5 level. You don't want them quit.

Some would suggest the rule only applied to pros. But you know in
reality the macho in you would make you switch to a tournament
standard racquet. If that's not the reason, the next time you beat a
low rank with a standard racquet, then he sneers at your racquet and
murmuring something would make you change in no time.

 
 
 

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by Michael Scarpit » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:13:00

Quote:

> http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tennis/story/0,10069,981137,00.html

> "The future of the game is at stake," said the 46-year-old Navratilova.
> "Interest in the game is waning. We need more surprises, more variety.
> Anything which makes it a better spectator sport would be a good thing."

> "What we are seeking to do - making rackets smaller again - will change all
> the shots," Navratilova explained. "The rackets, the way they are today,
> have helped ground strokes more than any other shot by a huge amount,
> exponentially.
> "With smaller-headed rackets, ground strokes are going to need to be better
> because they won't create as much top-spin or pace. You won't be able to
> play 15 feet behind the baseline and it will require more skill."

make 'em play with wood.
 
 
 

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by bob » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:40:47



Quote:
> > http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tennis/story/0,10069,981137,00.html

> > "The future of the game is at stake," said the 46-year-old Navratilova.
> > "Interest in the game is waning. We need more surprises, more variety.
> > Anything which makes it a better spectator sport would be a good thing."

> > "What we are seeking to do - making rackets smaller again - will change
all
> > the shots," Navratilova explained. "The rackets, the way they are today,
> > have helped ground strokes more than any other shot by a huge amount,
> > exponentially.
> > "With smaller-headed rackets, ground strokes are going to need to be
better
> > because they won't create as much top-spin or pace. You won't be able to
> > play 15 feet behind the baseline and it will require more skill."

> make 'em play with wood.

any size wood?

bob

 
 
 

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by Steve Jaro » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:31:52

Quote:
> any size wood?

good question. Some of these posters don't understand that size matters as
much/more than composition. When Flipper hit some 120 mph serves with a wood
racket a few years ago, he did it with a wood that was about 90 sq inches.
On the small side by the standards of today's rackets, but still much bigger
than the 65 sq inches common back in the wood era. Even Sampras's 85 sq.
incher is big by those standards.

--
"one of the most remarkable characteristics of
human nature is ... the freedom from envy which
the present displays towards the future."

- Lotze

 
 
 

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by bob » Mon, 23 Jun 2003 04:03:58


Quote:

> > any size wood?

> good question. Some of these posters don't understand that size matters as
> much/more than composition. When Flipper hit some 120 mph serves with a
wood
> racket a few years ago, he did it with a wood that was about 90 sq inches.
> On the small side by the standards of today's rackets, but still much
bigger
> than the 65 sq inches common back in the wood era. Even Sampras's 85 sq.
> incher is big by those standards.

exactly..btw, rememember the "prince woodie" of the early 80s? i still cant
think about it w/out a chuckle.

bob

 
 
 

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by Michael Scarpit » Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:09:37

Quote:

> > any size wood?

Unless graphite or boron or something similar is added to the wood, a
wood racquet's maximum size is about 75 sq inches. Any bigger and it
gets too heavy and breaks too easily.

Quote:
> good question. Some of these posters don't understand that size matters as
> much/more than composition. When Flipper hit some 120 mph serves with a wood
> racket a few years ago, he did it with a wood that was about 90 sq inches.
> On the small side by the standards of today's rackets, but still much bigger
> than the 65 sq inches common back in the wood era. Even Sampras's 85 sq.
> incher is big by those standards.

From what I recall, Flipper was given a standard sized Dunlop Maxply
with which to hit.
 
 
 

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by Steve Jaro » Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:14:40



Quote:
> > > any size wood?

> Unless graphite or boron or something similar is added to the wood, a
> wood racquet's maximum size is about 75 sq inches. Any bigger and it
> gets too heavy and breaks too easily.

> > good question. Some of these posters don't understand that size matters
as
> > much/more than composition. When Flipper hit some 120 mph serves with a
wood
> > racket a few years ago, he did it with a wood that was about 90 sq
inches.
> > On the small side by the standards of today's rackets, but still much
bigger
> > than the 65 sq inches common back in the wood era. Even Sampras's 85 sq.
> > incher is big by those standards.

> From what I recall, Flipper was given a standard sized Dunlop Maxply
> with which to hit.

 From an article describing the test:

"It wasn't easy for Philippoussis. The three racquet heads were vastly
different in shape and size, ranging from the 84-square-inch hitting area of
the wood racquet ...

So the wood was an 84-incher...

 
 
 

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by Michael Scarpit » Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:27:09

Quote:





> > > > any size wood?

> > Unless graphite or boron or something similar is added to the wood, a
> > wood racquet's maximum size is about 75 sq inches. Any bigger and it
> > gets too heavy and breaks too easily.

> > > good question. Some of these posters don't understand that size matters
>  as
> > > much/more than composition. When Flipper hit some 120 mph serves with a
>  wood
> > > racket a few years ago, he did it with a wood that was about 90 sq
>  inches.
> > > On the small side by the standards of today's rackets, but still much
>  bigger
> > > than the 65 sq inches common back in the wood era. Even Sampras's 85 sq.
> > > incher is big by those standards.

> > From what I recall, Flipper was given a standard sized Dunlop Maxply
> > with which to hit.

>  From an article describing the test:

> "It wasn't easy for Philippoussis. The three racquet heads were vastly
> different in shape and size, ranging from the 84-square-inch hitting area of
> the wood racquet ...

> So the wood was an 84-incher...

I'll check this. No 'wood' racquet was ever that big. It's a mistake.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Dome/7438/tennis.html

"A third racquet, an antique wood one, was put in the test mix mostly
for the benefit of the ITF, which had been openly pining for "The Way
We Were"---before, the ITF says, racquet technology changed the game
and put it on the dangerous cusp of a one-dimensional fast-serve
contest. Philippoussis had a determined gleam in his eye as he strode
past a group of novices toward Showcourt 3 at Melbourne's National
Tennis Centre, site of the Australian Open. "Hello, Mark," said a
nervous little boy in baggy pants. "G'day, young 'un," Philippoussis
muttered with a faint smile, his attention squarely focused on the
task at hand. It was high noon, and he seemed as confident as any
gunslinger would be who approached a shootout knowing one of his
missiles would be fired from a much-dreaded fugitive weapon."

 
 
 

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by Steve Jaro » Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:07:46



Quote:

> > > From what I recall, Flipper was given a standard sized Dunlop Maxply
> > > with which to hit.

> >  From an article describing the test:

> > "It wasn't easy for Philippoussis. The three racquet heads were vastly
> > different in shape and size, ranging from the 84-square-inch hitting
area of
> > the wood racquet ...

> > So the wood was an 84-incher...

> I'll check this. No 'wood' racquet was ever that big. It's a mistake.

> http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Dome/7438/tennis.html

> "A third racquet, an antique wood one,

... and that's the same article i pulled the quote from - 84 inches. I don't
know how you're going to prove that a 'mistake'...

Back in the old days, the standard wood was 65 inches. So an 84-incher isn't
a 'fair test' for comparing a real old-time wood vs. modern racket
technology...

--
"one of the most remarkable characteristics of
human nature is ... the freedom from envy which
the present displays towards the future."

- Lotze

 
 
 

Reduce the racquet head, says MN

Post by Michael Scarpit » Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:18:54

Quote:






> > > > From what I recall, Flipper was given a standard sized Dunlop Maxply
> > > > with which to hit.

> > >  From an article describing the test:

> > > "It wasn't easy for Philippoussis. The three racquet heads were vastly
> > > different in shape and size, ranging from the 84-square-inch hitting
>  area of
> > > the wood racquet ...

> > > So the wood was an 84-incher...

> > I'll check this. No 'wood' racquet was ever that big. It's a mistake.

> > http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Dome/7438/tennis.html

> > "A third racquet, an antique wood one,

> ... and that's the same article i pulled the quote from - 84 inches. I don't
> know how you're going to prove that a 'mistake'...

> Back in the old days, the standard wood was 65 inches. So an 84-incher isn't
> a 'fair test' for comparing a real old-time wood vs. modern racket
> technology...

Right. The article calls it an 'old racquet'. It's a mistake, or the
test would have to be considered invalid.