 |
|
(Scores are determined by averaging individual play test scores)
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Scores are determined by averaging individual play test scores)
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There once was a racquet from Head
(Actually Wilson, but nothing rhymes with Wilson),
"Which head size is best?" they said,
'Tween larger and smaller
the testers did holler,
And thus the fuss did spread!
It's not very often that our play testers agree on a racquet review. They all have their quirks and preferences that influence their opinions. That's why we have more than one player test the racquets - so we can get a fair and honest assessment. But never have our play testers been as divided in their opinions as they were with the Wilson Hammer 5.8 midsize and oversize racquets. The play testers were split right down the middle - half of them liked the 5.8 Oversize but didn't like the Midsize, and half of them liked the Midsize but didn't like the Oversize. Fifty/fifty, even steven, 6 of one, half a dozen of another, tit for tat. Not 60/40, not 75/25, but 50/50. Never in tennis history has this happened, and God willing, it never will again.
So what's so different about the Midsize and Oversize 5.8 you ask? Well... nothing. Except for the size of their heads the two racquets are virtually identical. If you look at the technical specifications at the top of this page you'll see that the two frames are identical, or almost identical, in length, width, weight, balance, frame flex, swing weight, and balance. They are also both straight beam frames (21 mm wide). This is unusual for a Hammer racquet. All the other Hammer racquets currently in production other than the Hammer 7.4 have the dual taper beam (the frame is thicker at the throat than it is at the head and shaft). All these simlarities betweem the Midsize and Oversize 5.8s might make you think the two frames should play similarly, and you might be right.
In fact, the two frames play very similarly. The Hammer 5.8 frames (mid and over) are player's racquets. They have a lot of control, but the player has to generate the power. Our play testers were in agreement when it came to power (or lack thereof). They didn't think either frame had much. They actually thought they felt more like Pro Staffs than Hammers. They enjoyed hitting out with them, but they felt a player would need a lot of strength to compensate for the low power levels.
The lack of power with the Hammer 5.8 racquets affected the play testers scores for both the serve and overhead, and the groundstrokes. Being able to serve and hit overheads with power is a big part of the game today. Any racquet that makes it harder to do this is going to suffer unless it can compensate in another area. In this case the extra control can compensate for the lack of power, but only for those players strong enough to take advantage of it. Most players are going to lose more than they gain in this exchange because they won't be able to generate enough power. The same is true with the groundstrokes. It's possible to keep the ball in the court all the live long day, but if you ever want the point to end you're going to have to hit the ball very, very hard.
By now you may be wondering how there could be any debate (let alone a Great Debate) on two frames that are so similar. The answer is quite simple. When you have two pretty good frames (neither one exceptional) the difference between liking them and not liking them is very small. It's actually more a matter of "preferring" one over the other rather than liking one and not liking the other. When a situation like this occurs a single factor can determine how the racquet is perceived by the play testers. In this case the determining factor was maneuverability. The play testers that preferred the Midsize 5.8 all felt that it was more maneuverable, and the play testers that preferred the Oversize 5.8 all felt that it was more maneuverable. That the play testers were split right down the middle on which frame was more maneuverable is probably due in large part to how similar the two frames are. That maneuverability was the determining factor only underscores the value today's players are putting on racquet maneuverability (are you listening racquet manufacturers?).
In conclusion, I'd just like to say:
If the racquet you make isn't great,
and you don't want to doom its fate.
the frame's future would greatly behoove it,
if the players can easily move it.
Play-test racquets were strung with Prince Synthetic Gut 16 gauge (white) at 55 pounds.
If you found this review interesting or have further questions or comments please contact us.
All content copyright 1997 Tennis Warehouse.
| General | Category Browser | Racquet Brands | String/Grips/Accessories |
|---|---|---|---|