Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Rafa Nadal (Read 30207 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #60 –
Quote from: LP – on
You cannot beat the math or the physics, an opinion means nothing!

If weight is basically static, then the smaller surface area results in a higher peak energy, the principal a bullet works on. If this wasn't true I could fire a Nerf ball through your head at the same speed as a bullet, but I can't as it will just splatter on your head leaving you pudding faced!

Improved control comes from a more uniform larger sweet spot, but it has a lower peak power. So you can hit further off the central zone but still get basically the same power, although it will be less peak power than the central zone of a smaller sweet-spot. The power distribution across the surface is represented by a bell curve, small surfaces have a sharp steep curve, large surfaces have a blunt wide curve.

The top spin effects of big racquets come from the ability to hit in the larger sweet spot, more margin for error under extreme angles of incidence, but it's nothing to do with peak power.

If you want to drive as far as Tiger, or hit as hard as Federer, do not use big racquets or cavity back clubs! But you then have to accept that hitting outside the sweet spot will have a more dramatic effect. Anyone who has used blade clubs knows this finger-breaking effect!

I'm not talking golf LP. Just what I know.

Clearly you don't!

Quote
Power is directly related to head size; a larger head will provide more power than a smaller head, all other things being equal. A larger head also offers a larger hitting area and sweetspot, which results in more forgiveness on off-center hits. Today’s racquets are offered in head sizes ranging from 93 to 135 square inches, with the most common being 97-100. Racquets at, or close to, 100 square inches offer a solid blend of power and control for many players. Generally speaking, a smaller racquet head appeals to more accomplished players seeking more control, while larger racquets appeal to beginning and intermediate players seeking more power and a larger sweetspot.


https://www.tennis-warehouse.com/LC/SelectingRacquet.html

Top spin? String type, string pattern and tension far more relevant than head size. Fact. Even lighter bats allow a faster, bigger swing!

And of course no Pro is going to use a 110SQI bat or bigger - the power gain is easily offset by the control loss.

Clearly, judging by what the Pros use, 100SQI is the optimum racquet size for the elite and equally clearly that's not optimum for an old bloke.

Sampras, for example, now uses a Babolat Pure Storm Tour, a 98SQI bat, because he needed/wanted more pop!
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #61 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
Rubbish. Sampras chose to play his whole career with a racquet made in 1984.

Agassi was getting a new racquet every year.

Well yes and no, it was a modified bat - custom handle and extra weight - nearly 400g in total.

And now he uses a 98SQI bat.  ;) For more pop!

And how does this fact at all change the fact that since Federer went to a 98SQI racquet in 2014, the H2H with Nadal is 8 to 1?

What's rubbish?

Enough said.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #62 –
Did you play tennis Flyboy?
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #64 –
In other news.

Rafa has won a tournament every 3.4 appearances.

Ditto Djokovic.

Federer has won a tournament every 4.3 appearances.

The lower the number the better.

When push comes to shove, now that Federer isn't as strong as he used to be (statement of fact vs the rest of the competition using the Kyrgios victory as an example) that number will start to increase given he is less likely to win in every subsequent tournament (unless he wins).

Food for thought, Nadal and Djokovic have had to win their grand slams with Federer in the mix at every single tournament except for the few he missed across the journey.  If Federer is the greatest ever, then these two are simply in that conversation because they have had to beat him every step of the way.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #65 –
In other news, the fact that Rafa plays the full, overly long, clay court season in Europe, and rarely loses, distorts that stat.

Clay court season - arguably 8 tournaments (to appease the Europeans).

Federer gets two bites on grass - Halle and Wimbledon (doesn't play Queens these days).

Next!
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #66 –
Grass is for cows.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #67 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Sampras, for example, now uses a Babolat Pure Storm Tour, a 98SQI bat, because he needed/wanted more pop!

Maybe the commission trumps the style, do you think they pay for them?

You debunked yourself, you said Sampras added weight. That quote about power versus head size possibly relates to weight and is a misnomer, it is exactly wrong! I deliberately made the explicit point earlier that weight being unchanged/static, because I know the marketing spin, and that is all it is, marketing bullcrap!

Players "feel" they have more power because they find it easier to hit the larger sweet-spot, not because the larger sweet-spot offers more power!

The physics of tennis rackets, golf clubs, cricket bats, baseballs bats or even kicking a footy remains the same, the rules do not change with the device used!

If you could change the size to increase the power without changing the mass you could take it to the extreme and make an infinite energy perpetual motion machine! You'll be a billionaire overnight! ;D
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #68 –
Quote from: LP – on
Maybe the commission trumps the style, do you think they pay for them?

You debunked yourself, you said Sampras added weight. That quote about power versus head size possibly relates to weight and is a misnomer, it is exactly wrong! I deliberately made the explicit point earlier that weight being unchanged/static, because I know the marketing spin, and that is all it is, marketing bullcrap!

Players "feel" they have more power because they find it easier to hit the larger sweet-spot, not because the larger sweet-spot offers more power!

The physics of tennis rackets, golf clubs, cricket bats, baseballs bats or even kicking a footy remains the same, the rules do not change with the device used!

If you could change the size to increase the power without changing the mass you could take it to the extreme and make an infinite energy perpetual motion machine! You'll be a billionaire overnight! ;D

You're clutching at straws LP, but keep firing t hem blanks....

So LP's Law of Physics suggests every pro tennis player is working off a placebo effect!

I'll give you one word to ponder LP (by way of analogy) - see how you go...

Trampoline!
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #69 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
............

9 meetings - 8-1 to federer, the only loss this year at RG on Rafa's beloved clay.

Since the start of the 2014 season :

Roger v Nadal - 7-2 in Roger's favour.
Novak v Federer is 12-6 in Novak's favour.
Novak-Nadal is 11-4 in Novak's favour

Sheesh - mbb has a point.

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #70 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
You're clutching at straws LP, but keep firing t hem blanks....

So LP's Law of Physics suggests every pro tennis player is working off a placebo effect!

I'll give you one word to ponder LP (by way of analogy) - see how you go...

Trampoline!

A so ends the argument at an appropriate level.

I thought the laws of physics were everybody's, I didn't realise you, Houdini and L. Ron Hubbard had something in common!

Here is a great primer for the basics if you want to really learn something instead of sprouting marketing spin and old wives tales!

https://www.comsol.com/blogs/the-physics-of-tennis-racket-sweet-spots/
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #71 –
Quote from: LP – on
A so ends the argument at an appropriate level.

I thought the laws of physics were everybody's, I didn't realise you, Houdini and L. Ron Hubbard had something in common!

Here is a great primer for the basics if you want to really learn something instead of sprouting marketing spin and old wives tales!

https://www.comsol.com/blogs/the-physics-of-tennis-racket-sweet-spots/

I'll read it later. First pass - it doesn't support anything you've said thus far.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #72 –
This is far better LP.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/why-do-larger-racquets-have-more-power.473525/

There's a good summation by a poster called ChicagoJack in the middle of the thread....

I reckon you're related to a poster called LeeD  ;)

And note the link to a test that the once, almost great, Scud did back when....
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #73 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
This is far better LP.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/why-do-larger-racquets-have-more-power.473525/

There's a good summation by a poster called ChicagoJack in the middle of the thread....

I reckon you're related to a poster called LeeD  ;)

And note the link to a test that the once, almost great, Scud did back when....

Except that many of the claims in the blog thread are completely wrong.

The proponents of bigger heads assume the coefficient of restitution is constant when you change the racquet head size to deliver a bigger amplitude bounce in the same time. But restitution is a time based dynamic effect. A bigger racquet may have more deflection/deformation, but that will happen at a cost, the restitution happens over a longer time interval meaning it's less energetic, and also there is more energy lost in harmonics due to the larger available area. The trampoline effect, the bigger the trampoline, the slower it recovers! ;)

However spin might be helped by bigger racquets, a feature unrelated to power transfer. This is because a lower COR allows the ball to remain in contact with strings longer, which is one of the critical features when trying to imparting spin. Getting the balance right between COR and string tension would be critical to maximise spin.

It's pretty basic really.

You shouldn't trust links and debates on sites connected to commercial enterprises for technical explanations, they nearly always spin he data to suit their product push.

Better to go to a more reputable source of the info; http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/tennis.html
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #74 –
There's a big difference between theory and practice!

At a practical level, even for the pros, the sweet spot on the racquet face on a bigger racquet is larger as you have agreed (I think).

Therefore, the chance of losing power (or as a % of loss of power) by hitting outside the sweet spot must be lessened - or conversely, with a smaller bat and sweet spot, the chances of a dud shot is higher i.e. the racquet is less forgiving.

And your physics discounts entirely, it would appear, the effects of leverage - the arm length, the swing arc and indeed, the length of the bat....that is why a tennis player never impacts the ball with his/her racquet at your so called 'best bounce spot'.

A racquet is not "freely suspended by a long length of string or balanced vertically on the end of its handle."

LP. you're not a climate change modeller are you?
Finals, then 4 in a row!