Talk:Racket (sports equipment)

Please expand
This is a really inadequate article. I was expecting Wikipedia to have several times as much information about tennis racquets alone. Honbicot 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a lot of content to this article and some jerk came through and reverted it all! If this is going to keep happening, I'm not going to spend any more time contributing or writing articles.

I'm disappointed that an article entitled "Raquet" has barely a shred of information about types other than tennis, and such mind-numbing minutia about that. Pjbflynn 05:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Please sign your posts...)

There, I rewrote it. If someone who knows how could add a picture of a badminton racket, that would be great. Happy New Year! Pjbflynn 07:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you rewrote it and in the process deleted alot of valuable content that other individuals included such as the section on manufacturer specific technologies. Your rewrite was essentially vandalism. If you are going to delete large portions of text you should state your reasons first.


 * Editing that you don't approve of is not vandalism, and it is rude and unconstructive to throw terms like that around. If you'd like to be civil, I'd be happy to discuss the thinking behind my edits. Pjbflynn 23:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What is rude and unconstructive is deleting large portions of text which have painstakingly been inserted by other users because you deem them to be "mind-numbing minutia". Particularly so when you don't state your intentions on the talk page and this article had a heading stating that it was in need of expansion...other users were attempting to fulfill that objective.Excimer3.141597 00:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you go back in the history and look at the state of the article before the changes I made. For an article named simply Racquet, it made no mention of any type of racquet other than tennis, and was basically a rambling mess. Perhaps Tennis racquet deserves it's own separate article, and I think that the much better content in the current tennis section is just about there now. Pjbflynn 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how deleting large portions of content under the "Tennis Racquet" heading solves the problem of lack of content for the other types of racquets. Also, when confronted with passages that you deem to be "rambling" do you always just go for the delete key and axe the entire passage? I guess your time is too valuable to follow the wikipedia guidelines and fix it? Your opinion on content is just that...an opinion, which should be discussed on the talk page before you trash large portions of text. Excimer3.141597 06:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's obvious that all you want to do here is yell at me, rather than discussing content or for that matter, editing the article. Pjbflynn 15:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, no offense intended...in my opinion I dont see any reason why the deleted passages shouldn't be included. The tennis racquet section as it is now has a very comprehensive discussion (which is lacking references) on racquet design as it relates to playing characteristics, however the opening section which had the longer discussion of racquet history along with the phases of popularity as well as the discussion of manufacturer specific technologies and list of Manufacturers should be replaced. I think the discussion of tennis racquet history could be greatly expanded and agree that the tennis racquet section should be split off to a new article if necessary.Excimer3.141597 10:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone expand on the components of a tennis racquet such as the gromit. Damaged or missing gromits are often the number two reason for string failure (after failure due to excessive impacts). Some have proposed wire covers or protectors as alternatives to gromits commercially sold as replacements. Dan

Isometric?
Thanks for adding back the details! When you said badminton racquets often have "isometric" shapes, did you mean "asymmetric"? LachlanA 06:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I mostly cut and pasted info from the individual sports' pages. If you have more info, by all means Be Bold! That said, badminton racquets seem to be symmetric ovals to me... Pjbflynn 22:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Tennis Racquet section is plagiarized
The entire text describing the details of tennis racquet selection was plagiarized from http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/LC/SelectingRacquet/SelectingRacquet.html. I have deleted this portion of the article. If someone wants to re-add the information without blatantly stealing the material, then go for it. But until then, copied material has no place on Wikipedia. Regards, Rahzel 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Racket vs. Racquet
I was surprised to find that this article predominantly uses the spelling "racquet" instead of "racket." My impression is that in American English "racket" is standard usage in most contexts, with exceptions for certain sports. For instance tennis rackets are usually "rackets," while badminton racquets are usually "racquets." As an example, see the website of Wilson, popular maker of rackets: they sell "tennis rackets" and "badminton racquets." I'll have to do some more research to find out about the standard usage, but I'm guessing that something like the Chicago Manual of Style will state that "racket" is standard usage and it will advise against "racquet." But I don't know how the Wikipedia community usually deals with this kind of issue of style: do we defer to guides like Chicago when lacking compelling reasons to deviate? Another issue is that the spelling may differ in non-American English. Can anyone provide input on any of this? Jeferman (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I did some more research and I found compelling evidence that this article should be renamed (moved) to Racket (or maybe "Racket (sports)" to differentiate it from the the other meanings of racket) and that most instances of the word in the article should be changed to "racket." Here is a source that provides compelling evidence. Additionally, Merriam-Webster states that "racquet" is a variant of "racket," not the other way around. The Oxford Dictionary of [British] English says the same thing. (I don't have an online source.) Unless someone can give reason not to, I will do the following: (1) Move the article to "racket," (2) change all instances of the word in the article to "racket," except for those in reference to a sport where "racquet" is preferred, in accordance with the source, and (3) add a Spelling section, which explains some of the content from the first source. Jeferman (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The change that I made today, and which Florentyna undid, and which I am about to redo, was done in accordance with what I set out above in point #2. Notice that this edit is especially necessary because without the change the paragraph has both spellings: racket in the first sentence and racquet later on. To me it seems fine to use both spellings in the article: racket in the general case, but racquet for the sports that prefer racquet, in which case this change I am making is necessary for obeying that. Alternatively we could change all instances in the article to racket, even in the case of squash etc., racket being the primary spelling, which would require changing a bunch of instances of racquet to racket. —Jeferman (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

One should use only one form of the spelling within one and the same article. A mixture of racquet and racket is not understandable. And by the way: Google finds for squash racquets 359.000 hits, but for squash rackets 533.000 hits. --Florentyna (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't need to convince me to join the "racket" wagon (I was the one who moved the page from "racquet" to "racket" and found the Grammarist article to substantiate). But there is evidence that "racquet" is preferred in squash and badminton, so I thought it would be neat to reflect that in the article. But looking back at the article diffs I see now that someone seems to have attempted to change all the instances of "racquet" to "racket," but they missed a bunch. I'll go through a little later and change all cases of "racquet" to "racket." Or you can do it if you like. —Jeferman (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't yet looked up the data, but please beware of gross internet statistics which will be skewed towards US American usage. Especially wrt Squash, which is predominantly played in the Commonwealth. Nonetheless, I do agree that it seems the spelling is changing gradually over time, which accounts for the confusion, but the standard spelling in the UK is still racquet, with many shops, tennis clubs and publications using the spelling, with some exceptions in daily newspapers. I did remove some hyperbole and balance the section a little without grossly changing the gist of it, adding in the cross-cultural differences, which are important to note Richardhod (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at the Grammarist.com source I have listed on the article, which includes some rigorous analysis of British and other international usages of the spellings (be sure to scroll down to the comments section where the author of the article has provided some extra commentary on British English vs. American English). I am afraid that the facts are against you on this one, as far as I can tell from my research. So I reverted your edits, which were partially original research and which partially contradicted the credible sources that I have provided on the article. You will find that all of the claims in the current version of the Spelling section are substantiated by the 3 sources, including the parts that you took for hyperbole, which are more or less word-for-word paraphrases from the Grammarist article. By all means I welcome you to seek out some more sources on the issue that we can use to improve this section of the article. No doubt there are many discussions of the issue on the internet, but as you noted these are often biased. I latched onto the Grammarist article as well as the two dictionary entries (which are from two of the most prominent English-language dictionaries) because they provide unbiased accounts of the spelling and usage of the word around the world. —Jeferman (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you mistake my intent, which is incremental sophistication, not to undo your hard work! This is not an ideological thing, but about accuracy so let's not get in any way hung up on A v B, but rather look at what can be warranted. Usage is complex, and "official" and "standard" are not clear terms when it comes to lived spelling. It seems your response has been to make a stronger assertion about he whole world which is most certainly not warranted, because usage is not the same as a dictionary, and they are not the reference editions. I have reverted that, but not reinstituted my editing until better discussion and references are ready. You may have a vview that what happens in your country is the same the world over, and this is usually not the case, and this is an example. What a reference work wants is not some universal "this is always", but a nuances and accurate record, with a nod to disagreements where they occur. In other countries than the United States, in many parts and contexts the most used spelling is not racket, and the stronger assertion you have added is certainy not warranted, and that's really not a helpful editing approach to a collaborative wiki!
 * Most importantly, the dictionary sources are not high reference, but just online refs with none fo the country or context background of others, and Grammarist is but one source, and not enough fr the boldest assertions. I can't see where the references support your strong assertions well enough, not to disagree with the thrust of the article. I have (and alraedy had) read the Grammarist, and other sources. Grammarist is but one person or set of people, who don't give sources on their site, and therfore it is a very low quality source. Much wider research is required to make these claims.

One very important thing: Wikipedia entries should not be plagiarising other sources. But let' collaborate and find what really is the case. People can get very picky about spellings and I'd rather get to the bottom of the social contexts here!Richardhod (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm with you, let's get this right. I apologize if I made it too combative. I will have to sit down later when I have a little more time to really go through this. But just briefly for now, I agree with everything from your comment above except this part: "In other countries than the United States, in many parts and contexts the most used spelling is not racket." Let me emphasize that my disagreement is not because of my personal experience, but rather because of the content on the Grammarist article and in the (British) OED, both of which seem to offer compelling evidence that in the UK racket is in fact the most-used spelling. But you are right of course that we should strive to capture the nuances and not simply declare what is "correct." Maybe I didn't do the best job of this when I wrote the section, but do please notice that what I wrote only refers to "predominant" usages and not to "correct" usages. So I think the section could be re-written to better capture this spirit, but as for the facts that are stated, I think our only disagreement is about which spelling is predominant in the UK and elsewhere. I don't pretend to have any personal knowledge of this, but the Grammarist article presents fairly clear empirical evidence that the predominant British spelling is racket. You're right of course that it's only one source, so let's try to find more sources to corroborate or sources to disagree. I have some ideas about how to rewrite the section to better capture the nuances and the proper spirit. Perhaps you can let me do this, and in the mean time you can look for more sources on the matter. Thanks for joining the racket/racquet cause! —Jeferman (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. Seems we have an agreement on a modus operandi. We've gone beyond the "one frame is true" issue, which is great, so we can concentrate on evidence of use and preference. "Standard" is a loaded word: I prefer descriptors like "most common", and "official", and even then qualified within contexts (national, cultural) if relevant. I'm a somewhat seasoned epistemologist and enjoy untangling the problems of evidence, frames and debunking apparent universal truth. I'm no expert in this particular spelling, but having grown up with the British context where almost all usage was racquet (but I believe this has been changing, and also may be mediated by social class), it seemed that your honest desire to show the popularity and official status of the racket spelling ("aha: counterintuitive, let's spread this to debunk the false history) may havve just left some inportant curlicues out! I'm open to whatever outcomes we find, as long as contemporary and cultural usages are not ignored! I do like to challenge myself to change my opinions, and am relatively unusual in this respect 8) but I'll definitely argue robustly and constructively with you to a better end!
 * Can I suggest we start by talking about common usage and official terms (for bodies), and look at the sports authorities, tennis companies, and general discussions to enlighten us. I suspect we will find strong geographic differences (skewed by the web's American statistical bias), but we can use a mix of good judgement on the available data to describe the usage. I'm definitely nowadays on the "enjoy your spelling differences" side of the fence, and am keen not to tell people that there is only one correct way, just because! Richardhod (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, revisiting. On coming across the BBC and Telegraph style guides here https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130716151834065 and here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/style-book/r/, it is plain that the naive google search undertaken by Grammarist was - as commenters suggested - not a particularly strong statistical method. (note the Guardian's style is 'racket', but as it is notorious for its terrible spelling and grammar, its use as a reference is about as reliable as a certain Mr DJ Trump). Also Oxford University Tennis Club, as an example of usage in educated and well-spelled circles. https://www.oultc.org/join-us#! . Use is definitely now somewhat mixed in the UK, as people are often very creative with spelling, which is a living and dynamic process, but it is plain from anyone visiting a university there, or talking with natives, that British usage has predominantly been racquet, unless they are a 'bad speller', and here we are looking at standards, from the wording of this section, which currently strongly implies that you should use a certain spelling, which to me is somewhat too prescriptive. Indeed, I suspect the influence of Grammarist on wikipedia has changed that substantively in the past few years, which feedback loop is problematic, as people often come to Wikipedia as a first port of call. I propose to add a little clarifying language to this section in a couple of weeks, to make it clear that standard spelling in the UK is racquet, even if in American English, it is not, and even if this is because of a change from the C19th. Richardhod (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it's not. As seen in the Google n-gram here, which is exclusively for British English, "tennis racket" is almost twice as common as "tennis racquet". While it is true that the French-influenced variant spelling is more common in British English than in American English, it is still not the most common spelling there, and shouldn't be stated as such. Also, I must point out the the International Tennis Federation uses "racket" exclusively, and it is indeed the official spelling. oknazevad (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Dampeners
Can mention be made of dampeners on modern tennis rackets ? GrahamHardy (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Racket (sports equipment). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706085116/http://squash.as/grays/history.php to http://squash.as/grays/history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Black? Why?
Why does the intro say “A racket [1] is a black implement”?? Racquets have been wood-framed for most of their history - sometimmes decorated but often plain or clear varnished - and modern racquets are available in pretty much any colour you like. I think ‘black’ should be removed, here.

BBC link
The BBC link has 'raquet', not racquet with a c, so doesn't support the current claim it's being used as a citation for. It's also racket throughout Wimbledon's site (and if anyone was going to know it would be them), the OED redirects to racket, -only noting 'racquets' under the entry for the game Rackets, as an alternative spelling used in North America.Frond Dishlock (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

English
Transformation of sentences 2409:40D2:101C:F9BB:187E:FF79:9C71:815F (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)