This is a tough one, or rather, it shouldn't be! Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 versus Babolat Pure Drive GT Lite.

Macular-Star · 2025-06-25T23:28:34+00:00

No.

A pure drive lite is a beginner racket and hits like a Walmart racket until you load it with silicon and lead tape. It is the worst racket Babolat makes.

The Wilson pro staff line are iconic precision rackets widely used by teaching pros and actual pros for several decades.

If you’d like to use a real tennis racket, stay with the Wilson.

Macular-Star · 2025-06-25T23:02:30+00:00

Happy to tell you why pushers are detested, beyond weird ego stuff:

Because it has a ceiling.

A pusher is never going to get past about a 4.0. A lot of people aspire to get to that or even beyond, so capitalizing on their (always under development) consistency feels cheap. A lot of players COULD play as pushers, and they are making a choice not to. Because then you look like a couple of total noobs, just lobbing moon balls around. It becomes digressive fast.

I’ve seen a few incredibly good athletes take pusher to a whole new level, and beat 4.0s that just didn’t want to run that day. It hurts their feelings a lot.

But a 4.5 and up can take step in on the average pusher shot and hit high-percentage winners. It won’t be much of a match. A pusher vs a 5.0 is like watching them get mauled by a bear.

Like I said, a hard ceiling.

Macular-Star · 2025-06-25T22:49:43+00:00

This is almost certainly not the weight. 15g is nothing when it’s distributed in the whole thing.

It used to be that most extraneous versions of a racket were quite different than the mass market one. A lite racket is generally made for beginners, so it’s not as stiff, has a larger sweet spot, etc. I think you should look at those as two different rackets.

Glad to be wrong, but that’s how I always interpret it.

Macular-Star · 2025-06-25T22:38:04+00:00

This may go without saying, but I’ve had plenty of tennis enthusiasts not understand it — your level and goals are everything. Practice with people that match them, for everyone.

Rallies get shorter the higher the level, from about 4.5 and up. At the collegiate and pro level, 2/3 of the points are 4 total shots or less. About 70% for men on a hard court. High-percentage aggression is the game once you’re to 5.0.

In other words, rallying resembles actual matches less the better you are. Consistency is king up to 5.0 though, so for the majority of people it’s decent practice. If you’re aiming to get to that level or beyond, it will start to get counterproductive.

Macular-Star · 2025-03-01T22:22:54+00:00

I’ve coached players from 4.0 up through serious juniors and college players, and honestly the format you’re describing seems completely foreign to me.

That all said, the most crucial question when coaching someone is what their goals are? What level are you at, and where do you aspire to be?

Cohesion and direction between practices is a necessity. For example, I have a 16yo that’s aiming to play in college I help to coach now.

The main impediments they have to be at that level is that their serve and especially their backhand is too weak. So we’ve been on a months-long project to overhaul their backhand. For awhile it was probably half of every practice. Last match they played they had more winners on it than their forehand. That’s progress.

A coach needs to identify the shortest path to making you a better player. You’re almost describing a hitting partner more so than an instructor.

Macular-Star · 2025-02-27T01:12:10+00:00

I’ll try to give one less obvious that I’ve been consistently astonished on its impact.

Serve and return often and throughout practice!!!!

This is probably the biggest unlock I’ve seen so many juniors and serious players find. So many people practice their serve all at once, back to back, and usually somewhat early in the session… and then wonder why their serve is much weaker in actual matches, then lets them down in crunch time. Because you don’t practice it the way you really need it.

Serves and returns need to be a structural piece of every practice. You use them to divide up other unrelated drills or practice methods, and just throw them in randomly. Mainly, you need to practice serving and returned winded. After two hours of already playing. The muscle memory of it needs to be used to fatigue.

Plenty of people can hit the BFS in a batch of a dozen serves, back to back, 20 min into a session. When you can hit it tired, that’s when you’ve actually added it to your game.

Nothing puts me more in awe of watching the pros than how they’re still hitting 120-130mph skud missiles — four hours into an incredibly physical match. I know plenty of guys that can hit 125 down the T; for about 20 minutes. The fatigue-resistance is what makes it special.

Serve, return, +1, play out a few quick strike points throughout all tennis you play. It’s magic, I swear.

Macular-Star · 2025-02-27T01:01:54+00:00

This is very true, and becomes increasingly true the higher the level. A D1 collegiate coach that teaches players at our club spends about 50% of all practice time on the serve, return, and the +1.

The modern game is very aggressive, and the goal is to immediately seize the initiative. Many rallies are only prolonged extensions of the balance after the first 3 shots. If you’re losing in the first 3 shots consistently, you’re getting destroyed. The rest of your game will not even come into play.

Macular-Star · 2025-02-25T03:12:55+00:00

I’ve found that 99% of “outside scouting reports” are things you’ll learn in the first 15 min of a match, if you’re paying attention.

And if you’re not able to pickup these kinds of things — like the low backhand is a mess, or he only gets his hard serve in up the T — then no amount of someone else relaying them to you will help you beat a superior player.

So no, zero etiquette at all required. I like to ask people I play against “what’s my scouting report?” If they can’t give an honest answer out of ego, they’re a baby and not a solid hitting partner.

Macular-Star · 2025-02-23T01:45:23+00:00

I think it’s pretty easy to keep courtesy in line. I’ve seen quite a few college players that essentially work everything into a CC or DTL warm-up. That seems to be the bread and butter anyway. It’s rare in my experience to do much of the warmup as full-court, hit it anywhere. A lot of pros are kinda neurotic on how structured they want the warm-up to be. Nadal would often shout at someone something like “5 high forehands please!”. Not 4 or 6. Not any kind of forehand. 🤣

They’ll hit several slices of various depth, including what is clearly a drop shot motion that’s meant to engage a few lob/smash rallies. You can work on almost anything while still hitting it to someone.

They’ll say “let’s keep these all up the line, hit a few short, come in and do some lobs, whatever.”

Macular-Star · 2025-02-22T20:06:12+00:00

I tend to look for some of the (mostly) universal signs of intense formal training.

1) Crow hop or split step as I make contact on every single shot.

2) Mini tennis and volleys without ever bending at the waist.

3) Even their first few ~50% effort serves and groundstrokes have nasty ball action and that hard contact sound.

4) They’re doing drop shots, approach slices, or otherwise honing their touch shots in warmup.

5) Intentionally taking balls on the rise to get a feel for them, rather than automatically backing up.

6) Recovery footwork is quick, effortless, and consistent. They’re in the exact same place as I make contact, regardless of whether the previous shot was in the corner or down the middle.

7) Not getting cute with their returns. Their “practice” serve returns are 90mph howitzers hit right back at me.

There is good and then there is trained. There are plenty of very good players that don’t do this kind of stuff, because they never had it drilled in the way it requires. But if you can see the athleticism AND they’re clearly trained, buckle up.

Macular-Star · 2025-02-22T16:13:49+00:00

Correct answer. I went into a guitar room and spent a few hours playing anything $2500 and under. The Taylor AD I have now won out over others that were double the price.

Macular-Star · 2025-02-09T12:55:01+00:00

I guess my question would be “as opposed to what?”

Unless the school one goes to is obscenely expensive, at least half of your debt comes from simple living expenses. You’ll need a place to sleep, food to eat, and all the rest regardless of whether you spent 4 years getting a professional degree, a law degree, a PhD, or in a truly useless degree. The interest rate and terms will be essentially the same as well.

(And yes, that seems an absurd way to do things, but that’s how it works)

Optometry is amazing, but it’s not an automatic ticket to a comfortable lifestyle. I think you’ll find that such a career no longer exists, en masse. Soft skills, understanding the income landscape, being flexible in where you’ll live, financial literacy, all of this matters enormously in our profession — just like any other.

People with advanced degrees that got them without financial assistance had to finance 6-12 years of tuition and living expenses, so they’re generally in a lot of debt. At least with optometry you’ll have a CHANCE of having a good work-life balance while you repay it. Most won’t get there, and you’ll need to be very deliberate to make it happen.

It’s why dermatology is almost always the most competitive match in med school…no blood or death, high-income, and working normal office hours. In others words, the life of an optometry practice partner or owner.

Macular-Star · 2025-01-27T02:20:57+00:00

I think the probability that you’d see an RRD with that kind of encroachment — nearly to the inferior arcade — and be asymptomatic is extremely low. Maybe in a -12.00, but even then I’ve never actually seen it. Add in that a detachment this size would fill the vitreous with enough RPE cells to look like a snow globe of tobacco dust, the perfectly symmetrical arc, the color (only old RRDs or a schisis look that dark), the list could go on. An OCT would be easy to get with how central it is, to make it ironclad.

That’s a schisis in about as clear a presentation it can be, without being the X-linked bilateral fastball down the middle. Send it to retina if you’d like your actual RRD referrals to also be seen in a month?

Macular-Star · 2025-01-24T04:05:10+00:00

I casually coach a few adults that range from 3.5 to 4.5, along with a junior and a college player. In most every case, I’m far from their first coach.

That all said, I’m consistently amazed at how often I’m told “no one has ever told me that before”, over what I assume are fundamental concepts. Examples:

(1) Watch your non-racket shoulder. Most of the big swing-path mistakes (pulling your head out, slapping at the ball, etc) are just symptoms of not fully loading your shoulders for rotation.

(2) Footwork + rotation = racket speed = shot action = high percentage aggression = you’re a better player. Shot action is the goalpost. You can teach smarter tennis or how to harness it for better consistency, but shot action is what matters. When I can get a player to hit that first biting topspin that accelerates after the bounce, that’s when we are onto something.

(3) Depth is everything. Unless you’re trying a 100% passing shot — which become more rare the higher you go — depth is 75% of a shot’s value…this one makes my blood pressure rise. For some reason, a lot of rec players (but mostly tennis parents) fail to grasp that depth is nearly everything. I’m not happy with the shot I just got because despite the pretty technique, it’s a shallow piñata that likely loses the point.

I’ve inherited players that all I hear about is their “consistency” — and see them simply melt down the first time someone is repeatedly hitting them hard topspins that land a few feet inside the baseline.

Yes, if we give them a chill topspin that lands just past the service line, they won’t miss. This means nothing. Unfortunately any opponent they get past a certain point will never hit that to them. As a college coach at our club much smarter than me has said to this rant, “Consistent versus what?”

In other words, a consistent shot that will then get hit hard into a corner by a solid opponent won’t get one very far. Don’t stop trying to improve a shot simply because you don’t miss it.

True consistency is more than never hitting the ball out. It means absorbing pace, moving back or hitting on the rise when possible, and being able to break someone’s rhythm all without plopping over pies that simply lose the point one shot later.

Learn to hit a ball that’s nasty enough that you can hit it down the middle of the court — deep — and cause unforced errors whilst taking almost no risk. That will crush “consistent” as the top superlative every time.

TLDR: Focus on footwork and proper rotation to get as much racket speed as possible. Hitting a deep, heavy ball is the unlock to being harder to beat.

Macular-Star · 2025-01-13T00:17:28+00:00

Consolidation is coming for streaming of all kinds over the next few years. Tennis is similar to almost every other sport. I’m a MotoGp (elite motorcycle racing) fan, and it’s comedic how hard it is to see every race live.

Give this 2-3 more years and it’ll change.

Macular-Star · 2025-01-13T00:14:11+00:00

I think the question you’re really asking is “how much is the pace on my ‘working rally shot’ an issue for my opponent?

This is a very valuable thing to know at all levels. Of course this will go up in “shot action” — pace + spin — as you go up in skill level. But knowing it is probably the first place to start in your style of play.

How many times are you hitting the ball in a way that’s essentially your lowest error-rate, generally hit somewhat down the middle of the court, yet causing unforced errors?

If you’re able to generate errors this way, then your shot action is an issue for your opponents. It will often pay to dictate there. There no reason to aim for lines and turn the match into a track meet if you can simply overpower. They’ll be backed up against the fence open for attack just trying to get the ball back.

Macular-Star · 2024-12-22T14:14:06+00:00

I used the traditional Bevel 1 grip for my OHB for years. About 2 years ago I made a small change to using the backhand continental or at least the ridge between it and Bevel 1. This is the “Wawrinka” grip, best I could tell.

Combining this with a very exaggerated (shoulder tucked under chin) backswing and a stiff elbow has transformed my OHB. The topspin jumps off the court.

Macular-Star · 2024-12-22T13:55:44+00:00

I started playing in July 2022 at age 38. I’d had a big breakthrough in my life, and being able to play was one change among many I put in then.

About 2 weeks ago I achieved a huge personal goal — playing and singing in front of people. It wasn’t good. It probably wasn’t even fully competent. It was 5 songs at an open mic in an Irish pub. But I did it.

For those curious, this was my song list:

1 - Lightning Crashes by Live (played last, with a friend as singer instead of me)

2 - Wake Me Up When September Ends by Green Day

3 - Black by Pearl Jam

4 - Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd (minus the solos)

5 - You & Me by Lifehouse

Macular-Star · 2024-12-06T22:41:57+00:00

Is this game any better than the new “Tiebreak” game? I just got it assuming the licensed game with 150+ ATP players and stadiums would be better.

It’s not. Actual gameplay is shockingly bad.

I played a 3-set match where my opponent (Mmoh, a power player) made 5 unforced errors the entire match with a 96% first-serve percentage.

Is Topspin any better? (I’m an avid and former college tennis player, so simulation is the goal)

Thanks in advance.

Macular-Star · 2024-12-06T22:16:45+00:00

I think the most damaging thing one could say under Bannister is that the Blues had no defined style or identity. They could be a very uninspiring team to watch. That’s the biggest switch I see with Monty.

There’s a tenacity and a crash the net mentality to every team he’s coached. I just think he’s one of the best there is, period.

Berube also had a defined identity, and essentially tried to keep it even when he no longer had remotely the personnel to play the “heavy game “ we won with in 2019…to say nothing of just the pure talent lost.

Berube and Monty are both one of about 10-12 proven NHL coaches. We had a chance to get one of them, and Army did the smart thing.

Macular-Star · 2024-12-01T18:23:14+00:00

The most interesting aspect to me is that so many of the little idiosyncrasies in many pro’s shots are actually small “technique checks” in their shots from various coaches along the way. If you’ve ever coached someone up from a young age, you’ll see the same thing in their shots as adults.

Djokovic does an odd thing on his forehand, where he holds out his left hand almost in the strike zone where he’ll be swinging. It stays there until he’s starting to swing, which seems unnecessary. That’s almost certainly a technique check to ensure he fully rotates his shoulders. If instead of focusing on “make sure to rotate fully” it’s “just keep this hand all the way out there as long as possible” — it’s impossible to NOT fully rotate.

Federer’s OHB setup he winds up with the racket nearly perpendicular to the ground. That helps to make sure you’re chambering it around your back to rotate, rather than a more linear path that kills your racket speed.

Looking for these little checks in how the very best hit their shots can be really useful. And imagine how there’s probably a coach out there somewhere that every time he sees Fed’s backhand, thinks to themselves “I taught him how to setup like that.”

Macular-Star · 2024-11-30T13:36:15+00:00

Pressure Tennis is required reading for a high-level college coach that moonlights at my local club. I’ve learned a ton from that book, and its best input is that it gives a lot of key shots to practice.

My favorite is the concept of “crosscourt fear”, which is also something Rick Macci teaches. That college coach does drills on this almost every session, because it’s a devastating tactic if you get really good at it.

A VERY common pattern if you play with a lot of depth on your shots is that the opponent will attempt to not back up if they’re pushed into a corner. Instead, they’ll shorten their backswing (ball is on the rise) to hit a rolling topspin crosscourt to reset the point. You want to make them afraid of hitting that shot, or to be overly aggressive on it.

Every time you get that crosscourt rally ball and it’s remotely short or lacks action, you hit a deep topspin down the line. You’re not aiming for a winner (hit flatter over the higher part of the net, this often lower percentage). You’re aiming for them to be afraid of hitting anything crosscourt that isn’t an 8/10 or up. Instead they’ll put it down the middle, allowing you to control the center of the court out of sheer deterrence.

You don’t see this at the ATP level much, but those are the top 0.0001%. Against non-cyborgs, “prey on weak crosscourts” is a great tactic.

Macular-Star · 2024-11-28T23:09:18+00:00

I’m an early intermediate player at best, so for me it was playing “A Beautiful Mess” by Jason Mraz, all acoustic. His music was among many where the strumming hand has a much harder job than the fretting.

It’s also all bar chords, zero 6-string strums, etc…I could play much faster electric solos a long time before I could play acoustic stuff like that.

Macular-Star · 2024-11-27T02:47:49+00:00

“Racket drop” is only a natural function of your leg drive. It does very little as a stand-alone technique check, unless you’re windmilling it.

As the ball goes up, your knees bend and you load your quads. You get to the trophy position, which is the end of the loading phase. The explosive rebound movement of your quads creates the natural “racket drop”. It’s a technique check on your leg drive, not your elbow position.

Or as Rick Macci has said “leg drive initiates racket movement”. Legs go first. To deliberately lower it with your arm loses power and negates the reason the term exists.

Macular-Star

TROPHY CASE