Looks like the Head LM Instinct (orange colour) - Myskina's racket?
Weird - has only recently been playing with what looks like the new Flexpoint - why would he change to an older brand but not the model he has previously played with?
Assuming that all of these rackets are paintjobs anyway this makes even less sense.
I thought someone once said that Agassi was more dependent on his particular kind of racket than Sampras was on his...? (trying to remember when Pete played with anything other than a particular factory-made kind of pro-staff)...
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
- Thomas Jefferson
"Greg O'Rawe" <greg.orawe@openwave.com> wrote in message
news:42776491$0$291$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net...> Looks like the Head LM Instinct (orange colour) - Myskina's racket?>
Weird - has only recently been playing with what looks like the new> Flexpoint - why would he change to an older brand but not the model he> has previously played with?>
Assuming that all of these rackets are paintjobs anyway this makes even> less sense.
I thought someone once said that Agassi was more dependent on his particular> kind of racket than Sampras was on his...? (trying to remember when Pete> played with anything other than a particular factory-made kind of> pro-staff)...>
'Dependencies' on rackets/serves etc are things only discussed in rst (ie excuses) - they have no relevance to the real world.
The real world is 'This 16 yr old kid is fucking awesome & is going to dominate the slams bigtime'. Nobody at the time said 'Sure, but he really looks dependant on that racket - take that away & it's Samson without his locks.'
Looks like the Head LM Instinct (orange colour) - Myskina's racket?>>
Weird - has only recently been playing with what looks like the new>>Flexpoint - why would he change to an older brand but not the model>
has previously played with?>>
Assuming that all of these rackets are paintjobs anyway this makes>
even>
less sense.>
They are all paintjobs. Agassi has made some frame changes over the> years, but I doubt he has made any significant changes since going to> Head. I really doubt he is using one of these 'flexpoint' racquets> since that involves a true structural change. Whatever it is, I am> sure it differs quite a bit from the one you would pick up at the pro> shop. Agassi switches paint schemes every year to match the current> Head offering. Nothing to do with performance, and everything to do> with Head selling new racquets. Its a racket.>
Yes, so why would Agassi stop "appearing" to play with the latest stick (Flexpoint) & instead go back to an older LiquidMetal job, but not the one he previously "appeared" to play with? Hardly great PR for Head's latest offering ...
One thing about Agassi--I do think it would be much easier for him to> switch frames than it would be for say, Pete Sampras. Agassi plays> only off the ground and shapes the ball with enough topspin that> maintaining control would be easier than a guy who is hitting precision> volleys and or using an Eastern/Continental type grip and hitting a> flatter ball.>
I thought someone once said that Agassi was more dependent on his> particular> > kind of racket than Sampras was on his...? (trying to remember when> Pete> > played with anything other than a particular factory-made kind of> > pro-staff)...>
Agassi benefits more from larger head than Pete's style would.
Style has nothing to do with this discussion, which is about particular players.
Agassi> has switched frames numerous times, no doubt chasing the almighty> dollar. Sampras was very loyal to his custom weighted Prostaff, but> that does not mean that he benefitted more from OS than Agassi did.> Quite the opposite.
Pete refused to play with anything but a st. vincent prostaff... that's evidence of being highly-dependent on it. Agassi obviously could play with many kinds of rackets, since he has.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
'Dependencies' on rackets/serves etc are things only discussed in rst> (ie excuses) - they have no relevance to the real world.
Whoever said they did..? Still, it's astonishing how fervently samprasfanz cling to these irrelevancies...
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
Pete refused to play with anything but a st. vincent prostaff...> that's> > evidence of being highly-dependent on it. Agassi obviously could play> with> > many kinds of rackets, since he has.>
You're a freak. I guess you are trying to prove something with this> absurdity?
Did you read my original statement? That's all i was trying to "prove". LOL.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
You're a freak. I guess you are trying to prove something with this> > > absurdity?> >
Did you read my original statement? That's all i was trying to> "prove". LOL.>
Oh, I know what you were trying to *insinuate*--that if Sampras was> more attached to his specific frame than Agassi is his, then he is more> the beneficiary of modern racquets than Agassi.
Don't be stupid. I was replying to nincompoops who claim Agassi was more dependent on his type of racket than Sampras was on his.
At least you appeared to wise up and conceded otherwise, but there are still plenty of dummies around here who need additional education.
As for the general issue of who benefitted more from moder rackets - returner or server - it's already been shown that the server clearly benefitted more, and you absorbed quite a few lumps in that process. So i doubt you want to go there again (unless you're a masochist)...
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
You're a freak. I guess you are trying to prove something with this>>>>absurdity?>>>
Did you read my original statement? That's all i was trying to>>
"prove". LOL.>>
Oh, I know what you were trying to *insinuate*--that if Sampras was>>more attached to his specific frame than Agassi is his, then he is more>>the beneficiary of modern racquets than Agassi.>
Don't be stupid. I was replying to nincompoops who claim Agassi was more> dependent on his type of racket than Sampras was on his.>
At least you appeared to wise up and conceded otherwise, but there are still> plenty of dummies around here who need additional education.>
As for the general issue of who benefitted more from moder rackets -> returner or server - it's already been shown that the server clearly> benefitted more, and you absorbed quite a few lumps in that process. So i> doubt you want to go there again (unless you're a masochist)...>
The point is Sampras played the type of game that succeeded with wood or graphite. Agassi woulda flopped big time with wood....
As for the general issue of who benefitted more from moder rackets -> > returner or server - it's already been shown that the server clearly> > benefitted more, and you absorbed quite a few lumps in that process. So
doubt you want to go there again (unless you're a masochist)...
The point is Sampras played the type of game that succeeded with wood or> graphite. Agassi woulda flopped big time with wood....
He'd have been less effective than he is with his big modern racket, but probably not as badly harmed as Pete woulda been...
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
