Some years ago (8 or so) I remember a new tennis racket causing a lot of controversy. It had the maximum surface area permitted under regulations or somesuch… either way, it was HUGE, and there were some arguments it shouldn’t be legal for court use and that regulations hadn’t anticipated that technology would make it possible for such a big racket to be created that didn’t weigh a ton. I also remember it carried a hefty price tag, $200-300 range. Assuming my memories aren’t playing tricks on me, what model was this racket?
Well now, that ‘large as legally allowable’ mumbo was mostly marketing hype. The practical limit for hitting surface, as defined by the ITF in 1981, is 178.25 sq. inches. Problem is, only a perfect rectangle can take full advantage. Everything else is an oval with a head no more than 15.5” long by 11.5” wide. Prior to 1981, no really groundbreaking technology was anticipated, and you could effectively play with a garbage can lid on the end of a broomstick if you wanted.
So… any shape that maximizes the 15.5” by 11.5” box, nearing 178 sq. inches, is the ‘large as legally allowable’ champ. However, you need to worry about strength, weight, and stability.
In 1976, Prince got a patent on the design for “The Prince” which clocked in at 130 sq. inches. Years later, it became known as the Prince Classic, at a more modest 120 sq. inches. This is might be the racket you remember. It was more than 8 years ago… maybe you are older than you think!
Nowadays rackets can top 135 sq. inches… but not many who are truly skilled use them much. Mid size rackets provide a better balance of power and control.
Waverly, thanks for the information! I know that bigger isn’t necessarily better; I’m having one of those annoying “I can’t remember this, and I can’t rest till I remember” moments.
My tennis team friends and I were all very curious about this racket. Our team manager managed to borrow one at a tennis club and he said it was unbelievably huge. It & the controversy was hyped in Tennis magazine which we all read, if I remember correctly.
Considering I wasn’t born in 1976, that’d be quite a feat. 
The time frame would definitely be late 90’s. I -think- the name had a Hammer in it (and I thought it was a Hammerhead initially) but nowadays there are so many Wilson Hammer variants.
Some Wilson Hammer models (still available) push the only other dimensional rule, length. While most rackets adhere to the 27” convention, the Hammer and Hammer Stretch range up to the current maximum, 29”. I don’t believe the head size is unusual though.
The added reach and mechanical advantage come at a cost: greater force is required to get the racket moving; and equal, opposite, and necessarily greater force is placed on the joints. In addition, the Hammer is (no surprise) a head heavy racket. This improves the transfer of kinetic energy at the cost of yet more effort and joint strain. Be careful… I can’t think of a single name brand racket as likely to cause an avid player problems later in life.
Sorry if these aren’t the rackets you had in mind. As you can see, it isn’t likely that it really maxed out the ITF’s hitting surface limit. It’s probably just a more squared off version of the ubiquitous oversize that squeezed out a few more square inches. If you wanted to use such an implement in a match against me, I’d say “be my guest!”
Waverly , good advice. I wasn’t planning on buying a racket, just trying to remember this apparently super-powered racket that I coveted so much in my youth. I figure, if the pros aren’t using these oversized rackets, then there’s a good reason they aren’t. I’m perfectly happy with my racket now, and I’m not willing to trade control (or joint pain) for power.
Was there ever a model that went up to the maximum of 135 square inches?
Hmm. Last try from me:
The only two rackets I know of that the ITF specifically banned are the
Head Ti S7 (string length over 15.5” )
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=25081
and
Gamma Big Bubba (overall length of 32 inches!)
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1996-9/1996-09-04-ABC-18.html
The former stretched the rules a bit and the ITF took a hard line. The latter is a monstrosity that Gamma could never have thought would be acceptable. In addition to the absurd length, it had a 137 sq. inches of hitting surface.
GAMMA BIG BUBBA! That is it! Thank you!
Thank you Waverly!!! This has been bothering me for a few days. Gamma Big Bubba. Wow. And it’s been banned? No wonder nothing was turning up on Google searches. LOL… too bad I never got to see or play with one in person, if only for the novelty value… thank you.