Had to delete link

where it says below We offer the following prices for equipment packages for non-varsity members these are my choices(i get a cheaper price + services) .of all the gold and silver packages which racket is the best? and why?

somebeast

http://freeteams.net/techracquetballclub/

where it says below We offer the following prices for equipment packages for non-varsity members these are my choices(i get a cheaper price + services) .of all the gold and silver packages which racket is the best? and why?

Not sure there is a such thing as "best" racquet.

Everyone has a really nice racquet.

What I may think is the best you may think is the worse.

Of all the packages...yes...they are ALL great sticks.

Manny

Which one is more soft on the arms? and has more power? (contradiction perhaps)

somebeast

Which one is more soft on the arms? and has more power? (contradiction perhaps)

Softest on your arm? That is an interesting question. That can differ in opinions as well. When I used heavier frames I was hitting harder less control but lots of pain. Once I dropped to 175grams or lower I never had that type of pain again. Some get pain because they are use to a heavier and try a lighter racquet.

Not sure I can any are softer on the arms. Use a multifilament string as that will help softness on arm.

More power? Really comes down to your mechanics. More mass means more power less control. All of the racquets provide all the power you need it is up to you to bring it out. These racquets are all amazing. My top three are Head, Gearbox and E-Force from a personal standpoint.

sounds like you are looking for a magic racquet:-)

Let me know if you have questions.

Break it down to the racquets you decide on and I can help you with some of the differences between them.

If you are really brand new to the game then you are not going to really know a lot of difference. You would most likely get use to any of the one you choose.

somebeast

Which one is more soft on the arms? and has more power? (contradiction perhaps)

Swing mechanics will dominate for power and comfort.

A light, head-heavy racquet is worse for shock to your elbow. But a tense grip, forced swing and hitting away from the sweet spot will do more damage than any racquet choice.

I didn't check all of the racquet choices. On the light side, the Head LM170 is a pretty nice racquet -- a couple of our club players used this. I used to use the Ektelon More Dominant--comfortable and good power, but not much stability for off-center shots.

If you're getting a sore arm, work on stroke mechanics. You should be able to get pretty good power without feeling like you're having to force a shot. Also, it can help to have a variety of serves in your quiver, especially playing collegiates. Most of your opponents will be young and quick and love to chase down drive serves, meaning that you're not gaining much for the extra effort of the serve. A variety of lobs and z serves are helpful to see if an opponent has holes in their game, and will not put as much wear on your arm. (Obviously, if your opponent doesn't cover drive serves well, then use them to full effect)

Matt

I am not getting a sore arm... I have tennis shoulder .thank you all for responses.

Looking deeper into this...a heavier racquet for club players are not good as it has a tendency to mess up form and cause pain. Kind of what happened to me.

Coach Manny

Looking deeper into this...a heavier racquet for club players are not good as it has a tendency to mess up form and cause pain. Kind of what happened to me.

Seems like just yesteryear when all racquets were specced at 240+g.

Which weights do you consider "heavy" and how do they disrupt form?

I think the heavy gearbox is a good example. It's weight makes it a poor choice for snap swings (think humid court or playing front court in doubles), but with a full swing the racquet runs on rails, improving stability during the swing and resisting any torque from off-center hits.

Changing your racquet weight/weighting is pretty disruptive to your stroke, but not sure that is fundamental to the weight as much as to the change from what you're accustomed to.

Manny, I'm not sure I'm really following your logic that heavy racquets can make poor form worse any more than a light racquet can. If anything, you have more shock to deal with on your arm with a light racquet versus a heavier one. So all those miss hits which inevitably come with the territory of new players are amplified with a light frame.

In my reading and thoughts here is what I'm thinking:

Game is very fast...as you are learning the game and continually getting better you continue to work on mechanics.

If you are using a heavy frame and learning your racquetball preparation and learning to be parallel to the side walls....lugging a heavier frame around only messes up your timing. It is slowing your hands up at center court when ball is coming at you basically at its fastest.

A lighter frame is much easier to move around getting into the early racquet preparation. AS a coach this is something I try to teach early..."pick up the phone", "comb your hair", "spray your hair". This is my reminder to get their racquet up early.

A heavier just slows everything down and throws off timing and that can't be too good on the arm.

Manny
.

Without factoring in mechanics, a heavier frame is going to increase power, stability, and control versus a lighter frame. That's simple physics talking- more momentum, greater resistance to torque, and a larger sweetspot. Early racquet preparation has nothing to do with the characteristics of the racquet. I think that anticipation has a much greater effect on ERP than racquet weight. A well-conditioned RB player would have no problem getting a racquet that is 10g heavier back and through the ball, especially if it's balanced more head-light. But it's seeing the ball early that helps timing the most.

But none of this explains the current trend toward lighter and more head-heavy racquets by the majority of players.

Hilario

A well-conditioned RB player would have no problem getting a racquet that is 10g heavier back and through the ball, especially if it's balanced more head-light. But it's seeing the ball early that helps timing the most.

Thinking this is a club player just learning the game and getting the fundamentals down. Not a well conditioned racquetball player.

Hilario

But none of this explains the current trend toward lighter and more head-heavy racquets by the majority of players.

Call me crazy but if you are a person to get into the ERP (elbow even to shoulder) it is easier to time and be ready. A heavier frame slows this process down on such a fast moving ball inside a box going at all different types of angles. And it tires your arm out faster than a lighter frame. ERP is key in our game for building momentum and timing of the ball as we are moving to meet it before second bounce.

People sometimes think if you are older you should get a heavier frame. I don't think it has much to do with that.

My thought is...where is your ERP at? Is your elbow high up with shoulder and racquet facing ceiling? Where you can build a lot of momentum and swing through the ball? Having a lighter frame (which these frames are hitting the ball hard anyway with technology) which is so much easier to maneuver and get that racquet preparation going.

Or is your elbow closer to your side. Like closer to your waist (for exaggeration purposes). In this position you cannot build much momentum and you are missing some power. Easier for your opponents to catch up to your pass if you can't build momentum. With a heavier frame you get more mass...more power to help drive it by your opponent.

Your argument follows the racquet recommendations for tennis players which is that young players and older adults who are deconditioned need a lighter racquet with a head heavy balance to help with manueverability issues but still maintain some power in their swing. Whereas, experienced players with proper mechanics can benefit from a weight increase. That's why so many pros swing extremely heavy frames, because they want as much mass behind their already long and fast swing. They anticipate the ball better and see it earlier. This would make more sense but we don't see it in RB which is largely driven by marketing that argues lighter is better.

More mass means more inertia as well. That in turns translates to more energy required to accelerate and decelerate the frame in a swing. It stands to reason that this might lead to mechanics issues and added strain at the start and stop of the swing.

While more mass at the same speed makes more power, in reality people don't swing a heavy stick at the same speed as a lighter version, so the power issue isn't just about mass, but also acceleration.

Personally, heavier frames have caused pain in my elbow every time I've used them for a couple weeks so I try to keep it around 170-175 now.


Like everyone says try them out if you can before you decide.

jonwoods1111

More mass means more inertia as well. That in turns translates to more energy required to accelerate and decelerate the frame in a swing. It stands to reason that this might lead to mechanics issues and added strain at the start and stop of the swing.

While more mass at the same speed makes more power, in reality people don't swing a heavy stick at the same speed as a lighter version, so the power issue isn't just about mass, but also acceleration.

Personally, heavier frames have caused pain in my elbow every time I've used them for a couple weeks so I try to keep it around 170-175 now.

Inertia is a very useful metric for evaluating racquets. It is a function of the distribution of mass in the racquet -- so a head-light, heavy racquet can have less (rotational) inertia than a lighter but more head-heavy racquet. Racquetball Warehouse's "swingweight" spec is a useful way to compare these. This measurement is covered in one of their videos:
http://www.racquetballwarehouse.com/videos.html?ccode=HOWTOSPEC


Some of these tradeoffs for tennis are discussed at:
http://www.racquetresearch.com/

I was curious which weights Manny advises against. The gearbox 185 was my example of a viable heavy racquet, but with some tradeoffs. If anything, this racquet encouraged early racquet prep, and really punished me if I didn't. I did also feel it was hard to make reaction shots -- up front in doubles or a ball skidding on a humid wall, etc.

I normally play with a 175g racquet, which is a decent compromise. The 185g gearbox felt more stable and was a bit more comfortable to swing.

Matt

Since unstrung weight doesn't mean a whole lot, you should really look at the stung weight. I have seen several "170g" racquets weigh in anywhere from 190-210g ready to go. The grip type can also make a difference. Rubber grips weigh more, and some frames come with them from the factory.

Newton's Second Law of Motion is Force = Mass X Acceleration

What that means is that the mass (grams) of a racquet is a coequal factor along with acceleration (racquet head speed) in determining how much force is delivered on that itty bitty ball you're clobbering.

The issues are, What combination of racquet mass and racquet head speed produce . . .
. . . the most force
. . . the best shots
. . . the least injury

So the optimum racquet "weight" depends on the particular player's skill set, the player's style of play, and the player's physiology.

While there are parameters and boundaries that apply to everyone, within these the trade-offs between "racquet weight," "head speed," and physical wear and tear vary from player to player.

Hilario

. . . none of [my racquet weight-power theories] explains the current trend toward lighter and more head-heavy racquets by the majority of players.

That probably means that your theories need some revision.

Control Freak

Hilario

. . . none of [my racquet weight-power theories] explains the current trend toward lighter and more head-heavy racquets by the majority of players.

That probably means that your theories need some revision.

The Control Freak, I agree with you that the optimal racquet for a player has a lot to do with their physical characteristics and mechanics. But do you consider momentum as a factor in the transfer of force into the ball? Because F=ma doesn't take into account that what we're dealing with is actually a collision. It becomes very difficult to overcome any disadvantages in mass by swinging harder. And most likely, the harder you swing, the less control you will have over where the ball actually goes.