PDA

View Full Version : Give up on PD ?


bluegrasser
04-30-2007, 07:18 AM
I've tried every string combo and i still hit the ball out, I find I get more pop(serve) on a stick like a N/or K 6.1, but it's heavier and that's supposed to be for the young pups. I thought the PD would help me in the power dept, more winners etc., but with an eastern grip and only moderate topspin, I can't seem to make the adjustment. any suggestions on new sticks to try ?
Do you think 12.3 oz,sw 340 is too heavy for this middle ager, I do have a long swing on the forehand side..

kingdaddy41788
04-30-2007, 07:26 AM
The PD sounds like it just isn't for you. If you're still hitting it out, I'd move on to another stick.

megaforcetkd
04-30-2007, 07:29 AM
but with an eastern grip and only moderate topspin, I can't seem to make the adjustment.

That might be your problem. I've read that these Babolats really need the topspin to keep the ball in - don't take my my word as gold though, because I've never used one :).

z-money
04-30-2007, 08:00 AM
I've tried every string combo and i still hit the ball out, I find I get more pop(serve) on a stick like a N/or K 6.1, but it's heavier and that's supposed to be for the young pups. I thought the PD would help me in the power dept, more winners etc., but with an eastern grip and only moderate topspin, I can't seem to make the adjustment. any suggestions on new sticks to try ?
Do you think 12.3 oz,sw 340 is too heavy for this middle ager, I do have a long swing on the forehand side..

with that swing weight and weight of racket. i think u mean LM Prestige? It has ok power for a player frame. but it wont give you any more juice on the serve than your pd. if you need to you can add some lead to thd pd that may solve your problem. but the LM is much more flexible dont know if you want to go from stiff to flexi like that.

z-money
04-30-2007, 08:01 AM
That might be your problem. I've read that these Babolats really need the topspin to keep the ball in - don't take my my word as gold though, because I've never used one :).

i agree to weild those rackets at their best you need a semi western at least. so that you can make topspin.

AndrewD
04-30-2007, 08:20 AM
bluegrasser,

I'm already there. After 3 months I'm putting the PD aside and going to something with more flex. While it did give me excellent results on serve, volleys and slice approach it took away from what I do well with my groundstrokes - spin, placement, angles and touch. I did try to tell myself that the groundstrokes would eventually fall in to place, but they never did. My grips are similar to yours and I struggled to generate enough top while using the PD. However, when I picked up my TT Warrior, an nBlade, t10mp VE or 03 Tour MP I was able to spin the ball with no difficulty whatsoever. The big difference, I believe, is that the PD just doesn't have good enough dwell time for my style of game. Perhaps it's something similar with you.

If you'd like to continue with something close to the PD, I would recommend the APD. It has a lot of power, although not as much as the PD, and is a far more spin friendly racquet than the PD.

Another one to try would be the Volkl V1 Classic MP. Stiffer but comfortable and it does have an excellent reputation.

One other suggestion. I'm thinking now that, when I was looking for a bit more power, I should have considered an oversize with flex. That way I would have increased power levels but still retained the feel I need for my game style. That could be a worthwhile option for you as well.

PED
04-30-2007, 09:49 AM
I think a semi western is a must for the PD. I'm in the process of adapting from eastern to semi and it makes all the difference on the PD. When you get it right however, you can rain in the winners and the pd feels great. I would advise you to give the SW grip a try at least. The PD seems to respond well to hybrid strings as well which softens up the stiffness a bit. I like hurricane tour and sensation in mine. I think Andrew D is right about the Aero. That is a sweet racquet and I have a much easier time spinning it than the pd. I think you are ok on the 12.3 oz stick. My o3 tour weighs in at 12.3 and it was just a matter of adapting to it. (I'm 42)

bluegrasser
04-30-2007, 03:30 PM
bluegrasser,

I'm already there. After 3 months I'm putting the PD aside and going to something with more flex. While it did give me excellent results on serve, volleys and slice approach it took away from what I do well with my groundstrokes - spin, placement, angles and touch. I did try to tell myself that the groundstrokes would eventually fall in to place, but they never did. My grips are similar to yours and I struggled to generate enough top while using the PD. However, when I picked up my TT Warrior, an nBlade, t10mp VE or 03 Tour MP I was able to spin the ball with no difficulty whatsoever. The big difference, I believe, is that the PD just doesn't have good enough dwell time for my style of game. Perhaps it's something similar with you.

If you'd like to continue with something close to the PD, I would recommend the APD. It has a lot of power, although not as much as the PD, and is a far more spin friendly racquet than the PD.

Another one to try would be the Volkl V1 Classic MP. Stiffer but comfortable and it does have an excellent reputation.

One other suggestion. I'm thinking now that, when I was looking for a bit more power, I should have considered an oversize with flex. That way I would have increased power levels but still retained the feel I need for my game style. That could be a worthwhile option for you as well.

I'm done with SS racquets - I picked up a new team 6.1 to try, and i'll try the new 03 tour when it comes out next month, it's supposed to have a little more weigh and pop than the original. Thanks for the suggestions - everyone

Attila the tennis Bum
04-30-2007, 06:47 PM
I've tried every string combo and i still hit the ball out, I find I get more pop(serve) on a stick like a N/or K 6.1, but it's heavier and that's supposed to be for the young pups. I thought the PD would help me in the power dept, more winners etc., but with an eastern grip and only moderate topspin, I can't seem to make the adjustment. any suggestions on new sticks to try ?
Do you think 12.3 oz,sw 340 is too heavy for this middle ager, I do have a long swing on the forehand side..


why not just string it tighter?

movdqa
04-30-2007, 07:02 PM
why not just string it tighter?

Popular route to arm problems.

Micky
04-30-2007, 09:50 PM
I think a semi western is a must for the PD. I'm in the process of adapting from eastern to semi and it makes all the difference on the PD. When you get it right however, you can rain in the winners and the pd feels great. I would advise you to give the SW grip a try at least. The PD seems to respond well to hybrid strings as well which softens up the stiffness a bit. I like hurricane tour and sensation in mine. I think Andrew D is right about the Aero. That is a sweet racquet and I have a much easier time spinning it than the pd. I think you are ok on the 12.3 oz stick. My o3 tour weighs in at 12.3 and it was just a matter of adapting to it. (I'm 42)

Hola PED,

I have four friends in their 40's that have gone to the PD and have adjusted their Eastern grip to SW. The guys were talented enough to make the switch in less than 10 minutes. I am sure bluegrasser can go from his neutral stance to open stance and get his new SW grip to spin those balls in orgasmic levels. ;)

KingOfTennis
04-30-2007, 09:57 PM
why not get the K90 X or Lite

AndrewD
05-01-2007, 12:54 AM
I'm done with SS racquets - I picked up a new team 6.1 to try, and i'll try the new 03 tour when it comes out next month, it's supposed to have a little more weigh and pop than the original. Thanks for the suggestions - everyone

bluegrasser,

Don't forget to give the nBlade a try. It's very different to their usual fare - more flex, no pws and much better feel (closer to a Prestige than any Wilson I've hit with). Comfort is excellent, felt like it had a large sweetspot, good flex but a solid feel that belies the flex rating (similar to a Prestige or the old Max200G), not as flexy in the upper hoop like a t10mpGen2 or PS95 which gives you a bit more power, not overly head light but the lower static weight makes that managable, excellent feel/touch and the overall performance is excellent. Probably a low tension racquet and it would really shine with natural gut.

I loved what I could do with the 03 Tour MP and Prince is always my first preference (Im most comfortable with their grip shape and head shape) but the nBlade has given me another option. Im not sure about the power levels as the nBlade was strung at a lower tension but I think it has more pop than the 03 Tour MP, although not as much spin (even though the spin levels were very good). For an old-school Eastern player, I think it might be a better option than the Prince. I'll be leaning to the 03 but mainly because I loved the response on groundstrokes (could rally all day with that one), even if my slice has been better with other frames. Nat. gut or a nat.gut hybrid would be a good choice. You'd lose a bit of control but I think the power boost would be worth it (and it would feel like managable power).

Perhaps the Fischer Magnetic Pro would be worth trying as well. At least, it couldn't hurt.

?? I didn't know there was a new 03 Tour coming out. Is that merely another 03 racquet or is it actually an 03 Tour update?

a guy
05-01-2007, 03:01 AM
Stick with the RDS 003 and add some lead to the head.

kreative
05-01-2007, 03:51 AM
try the pure storm or o3 white.

bluegrasser
05-01-2007, 04:01 AM
try the pure storm or o3 white.

Hit with both - liked the 'Storm' better, but not enough for a change. Have a match today ( if weather holds out) and will give the 6.1 team a shot.

bluegrasser
05-01-2007, 04:05 AM
Andrew:
The new 03 Tour ( gold in color ) is supposed to come out by the time the FOpen starts, the beam is a little thicker i'm told + it's heavier. This info was given to me by a Pro sponsored by ' Prince.

nickb
05-01-2007, 04:13 AM
Have you tried out the pure storm and pure control...they are both better for players with less extreme grips imo..one of the flattest players I have ever seen uses the pure control to great affect.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-01-2007, 04:20 AM
Popular route to arm problems.

Then why do you string at 62?

movdqa
05-01-2007, 01:28 PM
Then why do you string at 62?

The Redondo has a flex rating of 56 and I'm using a very resiliant string so it has that buttery soft feeling, even at 62 pounds. Besides that was the midrange of the recommended stringing range.

The Dunlop weighs 16.4 ounces and, as you might imagine, doesn't have a lot of shock and vibration issues.

drakulie
05-01-2007, 03:35 PM
If you could get your hands on one>> I would recommend the Dunlop 300g.

AndrewD
05-01-2007, 05:01 PM
Andrew:
The new 03 Tour ( gold in color ) is supposed to come out by the time the FOpen starts, the beam is a little thicker i'm told + it's heavier. This info was given to me by a Pro sponsored by ' Prince.

Will that be completely replacing the original 03 Tour and is it in the Midplus size?

I've always enjoyed the 03 Tour MP but it is a bit pricey right now (over $300Aus). If a new version is coming out that might mean the old one goes on discount and I can seriously consider it.

Oh, and bluegrasser, I was wondering what your racquet history is. Given that we have similarities in playing style it might be helpful to know what you have used and rejected.

bluegrasser
05-02-2007, 05:45 AM
Will that be completely replacing the original 03 Tour and is it in the Midplus size?

I've always enjoyed the 03 Tour MP but it is a bit pricey right now (over $300Aus). If a new version is coming out that might mean the old one goes on discount and I can seriously consider it.

Oh, and bluegrasser, I was wondering what your racquet history is. Given that we have similarities in playing style it might be helpful to know what you have used and rejected.

I think the original will stay - racquet history ! geesh ! there's not enough ink in this computer:) My friend owns a tennis shop, so I'm always tring new sticks. I do love feel control racquets the best, some of my fav's have been 300g, fxp Prestige, Prince diablo ( old version ) mp, surprisingly the original 03 red, in my younger yrs ( 20's to early thirties ) my favorite stick was the ps 85, which I played with for quite some time.

Team 6.1 review _ Very soft control frame, Prestige like, stable due to even balance, good pop and control, great on the volley/groundies, the only area lacking was the serve, had to swing real hard to get good pop. This is a players stick for long fast strokes & I really liked this frame.

Thomas Bird-Itch
05-02-2007, 06:41 AM
I wouldn't try changing your technique just to suit one racquet. There are so many that you're sure to find something that works. The AD is also very stiff (69 according to Tennis.com), so that may not help you keep balls in the court. Good luck!

travlerajm
05-02-2007, 09:08 AM
I've tried every string combo and i still hit the ball out, I find I get more pop(serve) on a stick like a N/or K 6.1, but it's heavier and that's supposed to be for the young pups. I thought the PD would help me in the power dept, more winners etc., but with an eastern grip and only moderate topspin, I can't seem to make the adjustment. any suggestions on new sticks to try ?
Do you think 12.3 oz,sw 340 is too heavy for this middle ager, I do have a long swing on the forehand side..

Tape a quarter to the bottom of the buttcap (or add some lead tape there). It will take away power and add spin, and it will make the impact feel softer. The more mass you add to the butt, the greater the effect. Weight distribution matters more than string type.

AndrewD
05-02-2007, 09:11 AM
Prince diablo ( old version ) mp

I didn't know there was an old version of the Prince Diablo. What has changed between it and the currently available one ?

goosala
05-02-2007, 10:07 AM
I understand you. I can not hit inside the lines with that frame.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-02-2007, 10:18 AM
I've tried every string combo and i still hit the ball out, I find I get more pop(serve) on a stick like a N/or K 6.1, but it's heavier and that's supposed to be for the young pups. I thought the PD would help me in the power dept, more winners etc., but with an eastern grip and only moderate topspin, I can't seem to make the adjustment. any suggestions on new sticks to try ?
Do you think 12.3 oz,sw 340 is too heavy for this middle ager, I do have a long swing on the forehand side..

Did you try using all polyester rather than a combo?

calvinchang
05-02-2007, 10:25 AM
I think a semi western is a must for the PD. I'm in the process of adapting from eastern to semi and it makes all the difference on the PD. When you get it right however, you can rain in the winners and the pd feels great. I would advise you to give the SW grip a try at least. The PD seems to respond well to hybrid strings as well which softens up the stiffness a bit. I like hurricane tour and sensation in mine. I think Andrew D is right about the Aero. That is a sweet racquet and I have a much easier time spinning it than the pd. I think you are ok on the 12.3 oz stick. My o3 tour weighs in at 12.3 and it was just a matter of adapting to it. (I'm 42)

I believe as long as you can keep enough topspin to bring the ball down it doesn't matter what grip you use. For a while I was struggling with getting high balls because I just couldn't get enough topspin on them but now I can. But damn, this racquet kills my arm.

AndrewD
05-02-2007, 01:35 PM
I believe as long as you can keep enough topspin to bring the ball down it doesn't matter what grip you use. For a while I was struggling with getting high balls because I just couldn't get enough topspin on them but now I can. But damn, this racquet kills my arm.

That is correct. I (and many other people) can use a Continental or Eastern grip and get more than enough topspin. My problem was that I couldn't feel the ball when trying to spin it. That doesn't matter to a lot of people (probably most people) but, as a touch player, I don't rely on just a massive swipe at the ball to generate spin. The ball just didn't stay on the strings long enough (although I will say it was considerably better than most other racquets of equal stiffness).

Nastase
05-02-2007, 02:10 PM
i forget...what did you not like about the FXP Prestige MP...why not go back to that. Comfy, decent power...

Attila the tennis Bum
05-02-2007, 02:33 PM
That is correct. I (and many other people) can use a Continental or Eastern grip and get more than enough topspin.


How the hell do you get topspin with a continental grip??? I don't even think John Mcenroe was able to do that.

movdqa
05-02-2007, 02:36 PM
How the hell do you get topspin with a continental grip??? I don't even think John Mcenroe was able to do that.

Ever hear of a guy named Rod Laver?

AndrewD
05-02-2007, 05:06 PM
Ever hear of a guy named Rod Laver?

Yep, Rod Laver and Ilie Nastase were able to generate heavy topspin using a Continental grip. In recent years I've seen Roy Emerson, Mal Anderson (old time Aussie - won the US Open) and Ashley Cooper (another old Aussie - won 3 of 4 majors) generate huge topspin using grips that were somewhere between Continental and Eastern. In essence, it's not the grip you use, it's the rip you give the ball. Sure, the semi-western and western make it easier to generate heavy top but they aren't the only ways and both have very severe limitations - moreso as you get older.

NoBadMojo
05-02-2007, 05:16 PM
lots of the old guys like me and and andrew ;) <andrew isnt old...just old school i think> can gets loads of top using a continental, but i think that style is more subject to UE's....my grips are usually stronger now when i want top, but we learned to hit everything with wood and the continental including topspin lobs. the technique isnt modern though and i think the continental coupled with the small headed frames was the big reason why the UE's were MUCH greater back in the old days..even the great Rocket could have a boatload of UE's in a match (and still win)

movdqa
05-02-2007, 05:27 PM
I started out with a continental and did hit whippy topspin forehands but I think what was a lot of topspin isn't much compared to what's routinely hit today.

I made the switch to an eastern forehand late teens and am starting to edge over to the next bevel from time to time.

ndtennis
05-02-2007, 06:09 PM
Hey if ur trying to get more pop to your serve i would 2nd that recomendation of the Fischer M Pro #1. I felt a differnece serving it. It really helps my serve. I read that it improved Baghdatis' serve 10 mph!

Attila the tennis Bum
05-02-2007, 09:47 PM
Laver and Nastase did not use a continental grip to hit topspin. Sorry guys!

Its virtually impossible. With a continental grip the racquet face is slanted upwards towards the sky. The exact opposite of what you need for topspin.

AndrewD
05-02-2007, 10:45 PM
i think the continental coupled with the small headed frames was the big reason why the UE's were MUCH greater back in the old days..even the great Rocket could have a boatload of UE's in a match (and still win)

Yes, and the unforced errors can also be high today if you have a fast swing, a grip close to Eastern, are going for heavy spin and use a 90sq head size. I know people just flat out refuse to accept that Federer frames a lot of shots due to the size of his racquet but it is simply the law of averages coming in to play. If you swing as quickly as he does, the way he does (having to force the racquet face to close) and don't have more extreme semi-western or western grips then you are going to frame more shots than the average player. That is the reason why Guillermo Vilas, Harold Solomon, Bjorn Borg and, way back in the 20's, Little Bill Johnston were able to hit such extreme topspin with a wooden racquet but not have as many mishits/frame shots as Laver - they all used semi-western or Western grips (Borg was the only one who would be called 'wristy'). Other players in the wood era didn't have as many mis-hits because they either didn't swing as fast as Laver and/or they had a more managable swing path. Tom Okker was one exception and might well have had a faster swing than Laver (his basic stroke wasn't as sound or damaging), although the most notable was Lew Hoad (continental on everything, heavy top but driven, not loopy) and it accounts for his, occasionally, patchy form.

Actually, that gives you an idea of how much talent Laver, Hoad, Federer Okker and Nastase had/have (Nastase's swing was quick but nowhere near as fast as the others). To be able to hit the ball the way they do/did (heavy spin, not merely 'whippy') when you're using a less efficient method (grip) is testament to their skill. I recall someone saying that players at their club had the talent to switch, in ten minutes (?), to a semi-western grip. That isn't real talent. A sign of genuine skill and ball striking ability is to switch over to a Continental grip and start hitting heavy topspin.


Laver and Nastase did not use a continental grip to hit topspin. Sorry guys!
Its virtually impossible. With a continental grip the racquet face is slanted upwards towards the sky. The exact opposite of what you need for topspin.

I think you owe us all an apology, although, instead of apologising I'd be happier if you learned 1) what a Continental grip really is and 2) a bit about Laver and Nastase

http://www.steveflink.com/great.html
About half way down the page, Laver mentions his grip - the Continental (not that it isn't widely reported in numerous books and articles - checking before you tell people they're wrong is the intelligent thing to do).

movdqa
05-03-2007, 06:42 AM
Laver and Nastase did not use a continental grip to hit topspin. Sorry guys!

Its virtually impossible. With a continental grip the racquet face is slanted upwards towards the sky. The exact opposite of what you need for topspin.

You just rotate your wrist so that the racquet face doesn't open upwards. Your wrist can rotate about 180 degrees. Your wrist and arm together can rotate about 270 degrees. If you're using a semiwestern or a western, try rotating your wrist to get the racquet face to open towards the sky. People with semiwestern grips can hit slice forehands.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-03-2007, 01:03 PM
I think you owe us all an apology, although, instead of apologising I'd be happier if you learned 1) what a Continental grip really is and 2) a bit about Laver and Nastase


Actually I think it is you who owes me an apology for not only being wrong and having poor reading comprehension but most importantly for simply being rude for no apparent reason.

Secondly I know that Nastase and Laver used a continental. When did I say anything different????

What I said was that I do not think they hit topspin with a continental grip!! Yes they used a continental grip but they did not hit topspin with that grip...they hit slices, serves, volleys, and even flat balls with a continental...but not topspin!!

movdqa
05-03-2007, 02:08 PM
Here's the only picture that I could find of him hitting a forehand. I need a racquet in my hand to guess at a grip. But I'd like to reiterate that I did use a continental grip for many years and was able to hit heavy topspin shots and topspin lobs. I have a bunch of very old tennis books but they're probably in
boxes but they may have more pictures of players back in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

http://www.sapere.it/mm/sport/objects/082.jpg

stormholloway
05-03-2007, 02:26 PM
I'm pretty sure Laver was eastern.

BruceG
05-03-2007, 02:28 PM
Actually I think it is you who owes me an apology for not only being wrong and having poor reading comprehension but most importantly for simply being rude for no apparent reason.

Secondly I know that Nastase and Laver used a continental. When did I say anything different????

What I said was that I do not think they hit topspin with a continental grip!! Yes they used a continental grip but they did not hit topspin with that grip...they hit slices, serves, volleys, and even flat balls with a continental...but not topspin!!

I don't think he was rude at all and I do think you're lucky more people didn't take offense to your post. You just butted in after people said they hit topspin with a continental grip, and told them it isn't possible. Might as well have just called them liars because thats all youre doing.
Also, he never said that you were saying Laver and Nastase didnt use continental grips and if thats what you got out of "I think you owe us all an apology, although, instead of apologising I'd be happier if you learned 1) what a Continental grip really is and 2) a bit about Laver and Nastase" then I wouldnt be criticising someone else's reading skills. Perhaps if you learned a bit more about Nastase and Laver and what a continental grip was, you wouldn't have made such a bad statement.
Dude, just admit you're wrong and let it lie. These guys have been around a long time and they know their stuff but Im sure they'll be cool if you just admit you're wrong instead of acting like its someone else at fault.

NoBadMojo
05-03-2007, 04:07 PM
Yes, and the unforced errors can also be high today if you have a fast swing, a grip close to Eastern, are going for heavy spin and use a 90sq head size. I know people just flat out refuse to accept that Federer frames a lot of shots due to the size of his racquet but it is simply the law of averages coming in to play. If you swing as quickly as he does, the way he does (having to force the racquet face to close) and don't have more extreme semi-western or western grips then you are going to frame more shots than the average player. That is the reason why Guillermo Vilas, Harold Solomon, Bjorn Borg and, way back in the 20's, Little Bill Johnston were able to hit such extreme topspin with a wooden racquet but not have as many mishits/frame shots as Laver - they all used semi-western or Western grips (Borg was the only one who would be called 'wristy'). Other players in the wood era didn't have as many mis-hits because they either didn't swing as fast as Laver and/or they had a more managable swing path. Tom Okker was one exception and might well have had a faster swing than Laver (his basic stroke wasn't as sound or damaging), although the most notable was Lew Hoad (continental on everything, heavy top but driven, not loopy) and it accounts for his, occasionally, patchy form.
Actually, that gives you an idea of how much talent Laver, Hoad, Federer Okker and Nastase had/have (Nastase's swing was quick but nowhere near as fast as the others). To be able to hit the ball the way they do/did (heavy spin, not merely 'whippy') when you're using a less efficient method (grip) is testament to their skill. I recall someone saying that players at their club had the talent to switch, in ten minutes (?), to a semi-western grip. That isn't real talent. A sign of genuine skill and ball striking ability is to switch over to a Continental grip and start hitting heavy topspin.
I think you owe us all an apology, although, instead of apologising I'd be happier if you learned 1) what a Continental grip really is and 2) a bit about Laver and Nastase
http://www.steveflink.com/great.html (http://www.steveflink.com/great.html)
About half way down the page, Laver mentions his grip - the Continental (not that it isn't widely reported in numerous books and articles - checking before you tell people they're wrong is the intelligent thing to do).

aye. in addition to the frame balls, he also coughs up some short balls from misshits he wouldnt otherwise do, and last match I saw, Nadal ate those up really well. That explains why his level of play often erodes in the wind and on the dirt. It's amazing Fed is so good that he can give up points like that from frame balls and misshits, and still manage to dominate most everyone...except for Nadal and Canas at the moment. every other player giving away points, pays the price.
i think a big factor is using more small muscles vs larger muscles. to get top with a continental, the wrist comes more into play...wrist muscles are smaller muscles which are more twitchly and less controllable muscles and harder to precisely repeat than those you use with a stronger grip. i think that is one of the reasons why the UE count was higher back then. to me, Nastase was the classic with hitting all kinds of spins (including wild topspin) with mild grips..he may have had the best hands of all time...unfortunately he never really put volleys away like he should have/could have. i think much of it was his nature of trying to prolong the point..i think there were many times where he could have put the ball away, but elected to play some cat and mouse

Yes they used a continental grip but they did not hit topspin with that grip...they hit slices, serves, volleys, and even flat balls with a continental...but not topspin!!

It was patiently explained to you that many players back then hit top with a continental. i can hit tons of top with a continental altho my grips are more varied these days. many of the good players back then hit top with a continental. you've no clue what you;re talking about and your behaviour is really quite rude.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-04-2007, 05:30 AM
I don't think he was rude at all and I do think you're lucky more people didn't take offense to your post. You just butted in after people said they hit topspin with a continental grip, and told them it isn't possible. Might as well have just called them liars because thats all youre doing.
Also, he never said that you were saying Laver and Nastase didnt use continental grips and if thats what you got out of "I think you owe us all an apology, although, instead of apologising I'd be happier if you learned 1) what a Continental grip really is and 2) a bit about Laver and Nastase" then I wouldnt be criticising someone else's reading skills. Perhaps if you learned a bit more about Nastase and Laver and what a continental grip was, you wouldn't have made such a bad statement.
Dude, just admit you're wrong and let it lie. These guys have been around a long time and they know their stuff but Im sure they'll be cool if you just admit you're wrong instead of acting like its someone else at fault.

1. I didnt call anyone a liar. I just said it isnt possible to really hit topspin with a continental grip. Some people may "Think" they are hitting topspin because with a continental grip the ball will can easily be hit very high. The open racquet face of a contental will shoot the ball to the roof. But thats not topspin even though it may feel like it.

I have never seen any pro hit a topspin shot with a continental. The picture of laver above is NOT a topspin stroke by any stretch of the imagination.

2. I was accused of simply saying that Laver and Nastase never used a continental grip. For the record I never said such a thing and therefore I am owed an apology.

I did not interpret the accusation wrong. I was pointed to a website that merely said Laver and Nastase used a continental grip. it said nothing about these players hitting topspin with a continental grip. If there is any doubt i once again cut and paste the accusation for your consideration:

http://www.steveflink.com/great.html
About half way down the page, Laver mentions his grip - the Continental (not that it isn't widely reported in numerous books and articles - checking before you tell people they're wrong is the intelligent thing to do).

3. I know what a ontinental grip is very well because I play woth an extreme continetal grip on my service games. It is the ultimate volley grip. The reason is because the grip naturally points upwards so that you can volley balls that are hit at your feet. The open racquet face will "pop" ball up over the net when they are hit at your feet.

It is also naturally angeled perfectly so you can hit slice and slice volleys and serves.

Both of these natural angles are the exact opposite of what is neeed to hit topspin. That being said the open racquet face of the continental will allow one to hit very high moon balls which "feel" like topspin....but they are not topspin.

4. I know my "stuff" too. I love the continental grip. But its just not meant for topspin. Serves, volley,slice, drop,lobs,flat...all great for continental. But not topspin!! Just read any handbook or ask most pros. No one will tell you to try and hit a topspin shot using a contental grip. Anyone who says anything different is just giving you the worng advice.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-04-2007, 05:34 AM
It was patiently explained to you that many players back then hit top with a continental. i can hit tons of top with a continental altho my grips are more varied these days. many of the good players back then hit top with a continental. you've no clue what you;re talking about and your behaviour is really quite rude.


I have yet to see any pro hit topspin using a continental grip. Please patiently show me some sort of proof. Anything at all? I will gladly admit I am wrong. I would not be embarrased about being wrong. It happens to everyone everyday.


I believe that you believe that you can hit tons of topspin with a continental grip. I am sure you would swear by it! But what you are really hitting is simply high moon balls due to the open racquet face of the continental. It really feels like topspin to you. But its not....at least not compared with the severe topspin of todays game.

movdqa
05-04-2007, 05:47 AM
i think a big factor is using more small muscles vs larger muscles. to get top with a continental, the wrist comes more into play...wrist muscles are smaller muscles which are more twitchly and less controllable muscles and harder to precisely repeat than those you use with a stronger grip. i think that is one of the reasons why the UE count was higher back then. to me, Nastase was the classic with hitting all kinds of spins (including wild topspin) with mild grips..he may have had the best hands of all time...unfortunately he never really put volleys away like he should have/could have. i think much of it was his nature of trying to prolong the point..i think there were many times where he could have put the ball away, but elected to play some cat and mouse


I agree on you comments about small muscles vs larger muscles which is why I think that players back then tended to use headlight racquets for generating topspin off a contiental. I think that they Maxply certainly fell into this category as did the Adidas racquets that Nastase used.

I think that Nastase either realized that he was out there to put on a show for the audience or that he was just such a bleeping personality that he liked to string other players along by showing them how good he really was.

There have been showmen in tennis through the years that I think have helped greatly in expanding the sport. Connors, Agassi (when he was younger), and McEnroe fall into this category.

movdqa
05-04-2007, 05:51 AM
I have yet to see any pro hit topspin using a continental grip. Please patiently show me some sort of proof. Anything at all? I will gladly admit I am wrong. I would not be embarrased about being wrong. It happens to everyone everyday.


I believe that you believe that you can hit tons of topspin with a continental grip. I am sure you would swear by it! But what you are really hitting is simply high moon balls due to the open racquet face of the continental. It really feels like topspin to you. But its not....at least not compared with the sever topspin of todays game.

Take a racquet, apply a continental grip, and then swing the racquet such that the racquet face is closed. I can swing a racquet with a continental grip with the racquet facing completely down.

That you have veterans that have seen it done and that have done it themselves should be enough evidence.

When kids learn vector calculus, I think that they can be stunned to learn that it was discovered before the age of computers, calculators and even decent communication.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-04-2007, 06:26 AM
Take a racquet, apply a continental grip, and then swing the racquet such that the racquet face is closed. I can swing a racquet with a continental grip with the racquet facing completely down.

That you have veterans that have seen it done and that have done it themselves should be enough evidence.

When kids learn vector calculus, I think that they can be stunned to learn that it was discovered before the age of computers, calculators and even decent communication.

Is it possible to make a basket shooting backwards? Yes of course it is! But is it probable or even something that I would want to do on a regular basis ....no way in hell!!

To close the racquet face with a continental grip is like shooting hoops backwards. Why on earth would you even want to do that?? Why not just switch grips slightly to an eastern?

By the way Pete Sampras modeled himself after Laver. Pete used an Eastern grip for his groundstroke topspin shots but I believe he used a continental for serves and volleys. Therefore it may very well be that Laver switched to an eastern for his topspin just like his "student" Pete did. Almost all pros use different grips to do different things. Why should Laver be an exception?


***footnote: its not so easy to close the racquet face with a continental. Try it...I dare you! You need to be extraordinarily strong to do so. and on a high ball its virtually impossible. I play with a continental on my service games. If i am caught at the baseline I know I have to quickly switch grips to an eastern.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-04-2007, 06:55 AM
I am wrong. I stand corrected. I was forced to do my own research and I found the answer.


"Although these grips are associated with certain styles of play (Eastern and Continental for flat forehands. Western for topspin forehands), there are players who use these grips for other styles (Lendl and Sampras hit Eastern forehands but with topspin. Connors hits flat Western forehands. Martina and Rod Laver hit topspin forehands with Continental grips). "
http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/zola/206/faqp4.htm

However, it is an extremely rare thing to do. Its more like a trick shot. Like shooting hoops backwards. Its very very rare. In any event thanks for the debate...I learned something new today.

movdqa
05-04-2007, 07:05 AM
Is it possible to make a basket shooting backwards? Yes of course it is! But is it probable or even something that I would want to do on a regular basis ....no way in hell!!

To close the racquet face with a continental grip is like shooting hoops backwards. Why on earth would you even want to do that?? Why not just switch grips slightly to an eastern?

By the way Pete Sampras modeled himself after Laver. Pete used an Eastern grip for his groundstroke topspin shots but I believe he used a continental for serves and volleys. Therefore it may very well be that Laver switched to an eastern for his topspin just like his "student" Pete did. Almost all pros use different grips to do different things. Why should Laver be an exception?


***footnote: its not so easy to close the racquet face with a continental. Try it...I dare you! You need to be extraordinarily strong to do so. and on a high ball its virtually impossible. I play with a continental on my service games. If i am caught at the baseline I know I have to quickly switch grips to an eastern.

I watched a clip of Laver last night but it was too grainy for me to see the grip. But there was a sequence where he hit a topspin forehand and then came into the net and hit a forehand volley.

As far as being probable: yes it is probable. I've done it myself and I'm sure that you could find pros that hit topspin with a continental grip if you look through a few tennis books from the 1970s. The motivation for using a continental grip back then were the lower bounces on certain surfaces and not having to change grips. The motivations for today's game are quite a bit different. So it's not something that would be optimal today though one of the guys I hit with does use a continental grip and he does hit topspin forehands but I can hit much more topspin with an eastern or semiwestern grip. His advantage is that he never has to worry about a grip change.

As far as your second paragraph goes, please learn the context and lessons of history.

It is a lot harder to teach history to kids today because of the context in which they live. They have access to water, food, transportation and communications in a near instant way. Explaining the limitations that men faced back in history is quite difficult. Please try to put yourself into the context of a different era to see why one would use a continental grip.

You never know what technological changes lie ahead that can render current wisdom obsolete.

I hit heavy topspin for many years using a continental. Mojo indicated the same thing. Yes, many people told me that I have a strong wrist in the past. Maybe Mojo has a really strong wrist too. And I used to do some weight training exercises for the wrist on a universal machine. I don't consider it difficult to hit topspin with a continental or easter grip.

Rod Laver's forearm is considerably larger than mine is so perhaps he would have a considerably easier time of it. The stroke for a topspin continental forehand is different from the western grip.

One last bit: when you hold a ping pong paddle with a shakehands grip, you're essentially using a continental grip. In table tennis, the ball comes back to you so quickly that you really can't have two grips at competitive levels (the other grip is the penholder). Take a look at some YouTube clips of top table tennis players using shakehand grips and tell me that you can't come over the ball with a continental grip.

rocket
05-04-2007, 07:53 AM
I hit heavy topspin for many years using a continental. Mojo indicated the same thing. Yes, many people told me that I have a strong wrist in the past. Maybe Mojo has a really strong wrist too. And I used to do some weight training exercises for the wrist on a universal machine. I don't consider it difficult to hit topspin with a continental or easter grip.

Do you hit considerably late to get topspin with a continental grip? And is it a windscreen-wiper motion? It just seems unnatural to me. I've played pingpong in the past with a continental grip, but I guess the light weight of the ball & the paddle allowed me to hit late (closer to the body), yet with tons of topspin.

rocket
05-04-2007, 08:02 AM
You just rotate your wrist so that the racquet face doesn't open upwards. Your wrist can rotate about 180 degrees. Your wrist and arm together can rotate about 270 degrees. If you're using a semiwestern or a western, try rotating your wrist to get the racquet face to open towards the sky. People with semiwestern grips can hit slice forehands.

Sorry, just read this... So, do you "flick" or "roll' your wrist & arm?

NoBadMojo
05-04-2007, 08:43 AM
I agree on you comments about small muscles vs larger muscles which is why I think that players back then tended to use headlight racquets for generating topspin off a contiental. I think that they Maxply certainly fell into this category as did the Adidas racquets that Nastase used.

I think that Nastase either realized that he was out there to put on a show for the audience or that he was just such a bleeping personality that he liked to string other players along by showing them how good he really was.

There have been showmen in tennis through the years that I think have helped greatly in expanding the sport. Connors, Agassi (when he was younger), and McEnroe fall into this category.

Think the difference between the 'entertainment value' of a Nastase vs a Mcnroe, was that while Nasty could be very cruel and nasty, he also had a truly funny lighthearted side...cant say that about Mac whose entertainment was pretty strictly cruel and nasty, with his attempts at humour being pretty pathetic
I played the Adidas Hallet frame for quite some while and agree..it was one of the lighter frames out there and also pretty darn headlight. a beautiful looking frame, and quite possibly a frame made by Dunlop to Adidas/Nastase specifications

Yes, most sports work that way..best to use larger muscles vs small in the proper sequence given any specific move if possible, and more efficient if the small twitchy muscles be more eliminated than less...but i'm glad i learned when and how i did..if i had to just hang at the baseline and hit the same shot over and over, i think i would have moved on to another game by now

Attila the tennis Bum
05-04-2007, 12:09 PM
I hit heavy topspin for many years using a continental. Mojo indicated the same thing. Yes, many people told me that I have a strong wrist in the past. Maybe Mojo has a really strong wrist too. And I used to do some weight training exercises for the wrist on a universal machine. I don't consider it difficult to hit topspin with a continental or easter grip.


One last bit: when you hold a ping pong paddle with a shakehands grip, you're essentially using a continental grip. In table tennis, the ball comes back to you so quickly that you really can't have two grips at competitive levels (the other grip is the penholder). Take a look at some YouTube clips of top table tennis players using shakehand grips and tell me that you can't come over the ball with a continental grip.

I beg to differ. Although Laver is a freak of nature it is very difficult to hit topspin with a continental grip. Thats what made Laver so amazing. he was virtually the only one that could do it. In fact Laver says that today he would switch to eastern:

"today the ball bounces so much higher that I would have to use an exaggerated eastern grip. ”...Rod Laver

Now as far as ping pong goes...I am an expert. My dad was a champion in Europe. His grandfather was also a champion and his father was also a champion and played with such greats as the legendary barna.

I learned to play ping pong at the age of five and beat most of my Asian opponents. I had aspirations of going pro but my dad said to forget it because there was no money in it. So at the age of 13 I tried to simply use my talents in ping pong on the tennis court and it simply did not work.

The reason I believe is that pinpong is a game where you use the wrist far more than in tennis. The continental is a very wristy shot and does not generate as mcuh power as using the full arm. You cannot compare a ping pong grip to tennis. The pwer needed on a tennis court is far greater than what is needed on a ping pong table.

In any event, I used an eastern grip in ping pong. Interestingly enough Borg and his dad played a ton of ping pong and that is where he invented the openstance from (also the hockey slapshot). But Borg had one of the greatest topspins of all times..even with a wood racquet. But Borg used a western grip.

Anton
05-04-2007, 12:15 PM
I've tried every string combo and i still hit the ball out, I find I get more pop(serve) on a stick like a N/or K 6.1, but it's heavier and that's supposed to be for the young pups. I thought the PD would help me in the power dept, more winners etc., but with an eastern grip and only moderate topspin, I can't seem to make the adjustment. any suggestions on new sticks to try ?
Do you think 12.3 oz,sw 340 is too heavy for this middle ager, I do have a long swing on the forehand side..

Sounds like you are just ripe to give RDS001MP a go.

The people that where fairly happy with PD, all used a western grip - which to me feels really weird and unnatural.

movdqa
05-04-2007, 12:15 PM
I played the Adidas Hallet frame for quite some while and agree..it was one of the lighter frames out there and also pretty darn headlight. a beautiful looking frame, and quite possibly a frame made by Dunlop to Adidas/Nastase specifications

Yes, most sports work that way..best to use larger muscles vs small in the proper sequence given any specific move if possible, and more efficient if the small twitchy muscles be more eliminated than less...but i'm glad i learned when and how i did..if i had to just hang at the baseline and hit the same shot over and over, i think i would have moved on to another game by now

I loved the look of Adidas racquets but don't recall the names of them. I had one a long time ago and I think that it didn't take me very long to break it. They were pretty hard to come buy where I lived. I do have a friend with an unused Adidas wood racquet - it either has purple or brown stripes.

It's funny to consider being an old-timer and basically not being believed by the younger set. I have old tennis books
with pictures, scores of matches and really old pictures and
some that were instructional by some guys that I didn't know
even back then. It would probably be interesting to pick out some quotes on contemporary tennis instruction back then. Most people here would probably laugh.

I suspect that I'm going to be moving counter-clockwise from my eastern grip in the near future. At least on high balls. Eastern has a lot of flexibility as does the continental.

One other motivation for the continental/eastern many years ago is the minimal change. If you hit a forehand approach shot with a continental, either chip or drive, you could come right in behind it without having to bring the racquet to the other hand to change to a volleying grip.

I'll need to watch a little close to see what the folks with western grips do when they come to the net.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-04-2007, 12:27 PM
MOVDQA

Why do you refer to it as continental/eastern? They are two distinctly different grips. I am not trying to bust your balls...i am being serious here.

I think that you may be refering to a grip that is something in between continental and Eastern. many people refer to this grip as the "Australian" grip and it is what i suspect what Laver actually used!

The Australian grip is a very rare grip and few people even talk about it. However its an awesome grip! people tend to lump it into the continental category....but its really different. I believe that actually Laver , Sampras and at times even Federer actually used the "Austarlian" grip which very few people are even aware of.

movdqa
05-04-2007, 12:44 PM
I beg to differ. Although Laver is a freak of nature it is very difficult to hit topspin with a continental grip. Thats what made Laver so amazing. he was virtually the only one that could do it. In fact Laver says that today he would switch to eastern:

"today the ball bounces so much higher that I would have to use an exaggerated eastern grip. ...Rod Laver

Now as far as ping pong goes...I am an expert. My dad was a champion in Europe. His grandfather was also a champion and his father was also a champion and played with such greats as the legendary barna.

I learned to play ping pong at the age of five and beat most of my Asian opponents. I had aspirations of going pro but my dad said to forget it because there was no money in it. So at the age of 13 I tried to simply use my talents in ping pong on the tennis court and it simply did not work.

The reason I believe is that pinpong is a game where you use the wrist far more than in tennis. The continental is a very wristy shot and does not generate as mcuh power as using the full arm. You cannot compare a ping pong grip to tennis. The pwer needed on a tennis court is far greater than what is needed on a ping pong table.

In any event, I used an eastern grip in ping pong. Interestingly enough Borg and his dad played a ton of ping pong and that is where he invented the openstance from (also the hockey slapshot). But Borg had one of the greatest topspins of all times..even with a wood racquet. But Borg used a western grip.

Well, you can use an eastern in ping pong but you give up a little on the backhand unless you change grips. I like to loop and loop smash off both sides and find that the continental is better for this. My approach is to hold the handle relatively lightly with some pressure on the thumb and forefinger on the blade which gives you a little more flexibility with the wrist.

But my point on ping pong is that you can hit high balls with topspin with a continental grip. I'm about four inches taller than Laver with relatively long arms so it might have been easier for me to hit higher balls with the continental. But back then, most players didn't hit heavy topspin so there weren't a lot of high and fast balls to hit.

My approach when playing young players that were fairly short was just to hit a short slice drop shot away from the side that they left open to protect against a weakness. Sometimes using a little top as well. They would have to run around the corner of the table to reach the ball and would typically be off balance when getting to the ball if they got to it.

movdqa
05-04-2007, 12:49 PM
MOVDQA

Why do you refer to it as continental/eastern? They are two distinctly different grips. I am not trying to bust your balls...i am being serious here.

I think that you may be refering to a grip that is something in between continental and Eastern. many people refer to this grip as the "Australian" grip and it is what i suspect what Laver actually used!

The Australian grip is a very rare grip and few people even talk about it. However its an awesome grip! people tend to lump it into the continental category....but its really different. I believe that actually Laver , Sampras and at times even Federer actually used the "Austarlian" grip which very few people are even aware of.

My continental is about 45 degrees from an eastern and I don't think that it's a huge deal in rotating the wrist 45 degrees. In looking at one website with a picture of grips, a proper continental may be more like a 60 degree difference. At any rate, I used it for all shots.

Forehand Forever
05-04-2007, 01:48 PM
I have an Eastern grip and use a PD. I guess I hit with a lot of topspin even with my eastern grip

drakulie
05-04-2007, 01:56 PM
Yes, and the unforced errors can also be high today if you have a fast swing, a grip close to Eastern, are going for heavy spin and use a 90sq head size. I know people just flat out refuse to accept that Federer frames a lot of shots due to the size of his racquet but it is simply the law of averages coming in to play.

He may frame "a lot" of shots with his 90 square inch racquet, but not more than other players who are using larger frames.

If you have proof to your claim, please post it.

I watched the Fed/Nadal Monte Carlo Final for a second time specifically to quiet people on this forum who are making absolute false claims. I counted the number of framed shots they each hit. Fact is, they both framed about the same number of shots. In fact, they each framed exactly 3 backhands, which many people on these boards stated >>> Fed needed to switch to a larger racquet because he shanked too many backhands.

movdqa
05-04-2007, 01:57 PM
I have an Eastern grip and use a PD. I guess I hit with a lot of topspin even with my eastern grip

I hit with a PD yesterday when my partner wanted to hit with the K-Factor. BTW he has a continental grip and hit rather well with it though he complained about the weight. He uses a Redondo which is not a particularly light racquet when he plays indoors. I'm waiting to see if his TE comes back with the PD.

As odd as it may seem, I had trouble generating a lot of power with the PD. I guess I'm so used to plowthrough from heavier racquets that it takes some adjustment to boost racquet-head speed.

Pete Sampras and Steffi Graf hit topspin with an Eastern Forehand and that's what I use now though I am leaning towards move over 1/16th of a circle clockwise on high balls.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-04-2007, 04:57 PM
My continental is about 45 degrees from an eastern and I don't think that it's a huge deal in rotating the wrist 45 degrees. In looking at one website with a picture of grips, a proper continental may be more like a 60 degree difference. At any rate, I used it for all shots.

Then i think what you are playing with is actually an Australian grip. Here is the definition:

"Australian grip - A grip midway between the Eastern and continental, so named because it was developed in Australia to facilitate serve-and-volley play on grass." http://www.sportsline.com/tennis/story/6145343

People tend to lump this grip into the "continental" category but its quite a bit different. I bet you that this is the real grip laver used and its probably the real grip Sampras used as well. I guess you could call it either Eastern or Continental but the correct term is Australian .

This is an incredible grip and you can do just about anything with it. From topspin to slice to serves and volleys. Its my favorite grip in the world!! I believe that even Federer uses this grip on his serves and volleys and even on his backhand slice rather than a "true" continental.

The australian is the most ignored grip in tennis. You almost never hear about it and most tennis books have illustrations of only continetal, eastern, semi-western, or western. Its truly strange how what I feel is the most effective grip in the world is almost completely ignored.

It makes sense that this is the grip that Laver & Sampras actually used. heres my evidence:

1. Laver is Australian and the grip was invented right around his day.

2. Laver was one of the only players to hit with topspin while most others could not hit this shot with a continental. I believe it was because Laver was actually playing with the "Australian " grip while the rest of the world played with continental.

3. Sampras modeled his game after Laver. It logically follows that he therefore used the same grip as Laver. An Australian grip is just in between continental and eastern. Most people tend to lump these grips into one. In fact you did the exact same thing by calling your grip continental/eastern.

4. The angels and volleys that Pete hit are very difficult to do with a pure "frying pan" eastern grip. I am truly convinced that he must have been playing with the "Australian" grip.

**** I guess we both learned something new today. This was a great discussion! I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks...lol

AndrewD
05-04-2007, 10:08 PM
It makes sense that this is the grip that Laver & Sampras actually used. heres my evidence:

1. Laver is Australian and the grip was invented right around his day.

2. Laver was one of the only players to hit with topspin while most others could not hit this shot with a continental. I believe it was because Laver was actually playing with the "Australian " grip while the rest of the world played with continental.

3. Sampras modeled his game after Laver. It logically follows that he therefore used the same grip as Laver. An Australian grip is just in between continental and eastern. Most people tend to lump these grips into one. In fact you did the exact same thing by calling your grip continental/eastern.

4. The angels and volleys that Pete hit are very difficult to do with a pure "frying pan" eastern grip. I am truly convinced that he must have been playing with the "Australian" grip.


1) When it comes to grips used in tennis and by whom (up to 1970), the bible is 'Tennis Styles and Stylists' by Paul Metzler. If you have any doubts about that, post a question for Urban, our resident tennis historian, and I'm sure he'll verify that.

2) In his book, Metzler writes that "Laver is, surprisingly, a Continetal stylist", "That Laver indeed uses a Continental grip is confirmed by the number of times he has been acknowledged as a left-handed version of another acknowledged Continental player, Hoad". (Metzler 1969, p.167)

3) Sampras did not use a Continental grip and I don't believe there has been any suggestion he tried to model his strokes or grips on Laver's. Yes, Sampras (as we all know) used Laver as the playing style he most wanted to emulate BUT not to the extent of copying his grips.

4) Personally, I would not believe that Robert Lansdorp - Sampras's groundstrokes coach- would have allowed him to use anything more or less than the Eastern. Remember, the Eastern is a 'driving' grip and driving the ball is the hallmark of Lansdorp's style. Also, the limitations of the Continental and Australian would have been very quickly exposed on the hard courts of California.

5) The 'Australian Style' originated in Jack Crawford's day, not Rod Laver's. However, the Australian was not Crawford's style - he was a Continental (also called English) player, just as Hoad and Laver were.

6) If you read Laver's 'The Education of a Tennis Player' he specifically mentions his choice of grip is the Continental and that he chose those grips based on his desire to emulate Lew Hoad.

7) Laver's word must trump everything else. If he says he used the Continental then why would any of us disagree with the man himself?

Attila the tennis Bum
05-05-2007, 06:44 AM
Andrew,

This is an incredible debate we are all learning something new. You have forced me to do more research and it turns out that I once again learned something new.:

ROD LAVER AND JOHN MCENROE AND ARTHUR ASHE ALL USED THE AUSTRALIAN GRIP.:

Here is an excerpt from Dr Forde Greenes book :

" Tennis players who do NOT want to change grips, and find the all purpose continental grip unsatisfactory for hitting forehand drives will , instead choose the Australian grip, which is between Eastern and Continental forehand. Rod Laver, the only double Grand slam winner in history, used this grip for all shots, and John Mcenroe also used a variey of this no-change grip........ Although this grip does not promote topspin, Arthur Ashe could still belt his groundstrokes with fury.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
footnotes:

1.**** just in case you question this aithors credentials...he has almost everyones endorsement. His book is sold at the Tennis hall of fame and he is endorsed by Borg , Connors , Mcenroe 9all on the cover) , as well as Roy Emerson,Cliff Drysdale, The New York Times...shall I go on?

2. *****It is my theory that Sampras use some sort of hybrid of the eastern. I just do not believe it is possible to volley the way he did with a "frying pan" full eastern grip. I bet you it was more towards an Australian but there simply is no name for it. Just like Mcenroe who actually used a "Variety" of the Eastern.

3.**** Today people simply lump the Australian into an eastern grip. In Lavers day however the trend was to simply Lump the Australian into the category of Eastern. The truth is that the Australian is neither grip and that is why most people say Sampras used an eastern grip. But I will try and find more research on this obscure grip.

NoBadMojo
05-05-2007, 06:53 AM
Andrew,

This is an incredible debate we are all learning something new. You have forced me to do more research and it turns out that I once again learned something new.:

ROD LAVER AND JOHN MCENROE AND ARTHUR ASHE ALL USED THE AUSTRALIAN GRIP.:

Here is an excerpt from Dr Forde Greenes book :

" Tennis players who do NOT want to change grips, and find the all purpose continental grip unsatisfactory for hitting forehand drives will , instead choose the Australian grip, which is between Eastern and Continental forehand. Rod Laver, the only double Grand slam winner in history, used this grip for all shots, and John Mcenroe also used a variey of this no-change grip........ Although this grip does not promote topspin, Arthur Ashe could still belt his groundstrokes with fury.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
footnotes:

1.**** just in case you question this aithors credentials...he has almost everyones endorsement. His book is sold at the Tennis hall of fame and he is endorsed by Borg , Connors , Mcenroe 9all on the cover) , as well as Roy Emerson,Cliff Drysdale, The New York Times...shall I go on?

2. *****It is my theory that Sampras use some sort of hybrid of the eastern. I just do not believe it is possible to volley the way he did with a "frying pan" full eastern grip. I bet you it was more towards an Australian but there simply is no name for it. Just like Mcenroe who actually used a "Variety" of the Eastern.

3.**** Today people simply lump the Australian into an eastern grip. In Lavers day however the trend was to simply Lump the Australian into the category of Eastern. The truth is that the Australian is neither grip and that is why most people say Sampras used an eastern grip. But I will try and find more research on this obscure grip.

the deadgiveaway is him saying 'grip for all shots'. that clearly wouldnt be the so called australian grip, as you sure wouldnt want to hit a topspin backhand with a grip to the eastern forehand side of continental. ouch!

it would be some sort of continental. it's interesting to note that some pros dot even know what the grips they use are even called, and some TW posters spend a lot of energy and get into fights over what grip a certain pro uses.

Duzza
05-05-2007, 06:58 AM
it would be some sort of continental. it's interesting to note that some pros dot even know what the grips they use are even called, and some TW posters spend a lot of energy and get into fights over what grip a certain pro uses.

It is. I still don't know if I use a SW, but it just feels right and keeps the ball in play...

movdqa
05-05-2007, 07:04 AM
1) When it comes to grips used in tennis and by whom (up to 1970), the bible is 'Tennis Styles and Stylists' by Paul Metzler. If you have any doubts about that, post a question for Urban, our resident tennis historian, and I'm sure he'll verify that.

2) In his book, Metzler writes that "Laver is, surprisingly, a Continetal stylist", "That Laver indeed uses a Continental grip is confirmed by the number of times he has been acknowledged as a left-handed version of another acknowledged Continental player, Hoad". (Metzler 1969, p.167)

3) Sampras did not use a Continental grip and I don't believe there has been any suggestion he tried to model his strokes or grips on Laver's. Yes, Sampras (as we all know) used Laver as the playing style he most wanted to emulate BUT not to the extent of copying his grips.

4) Personally, I would not believe that Robert Lansdorp - Sampras's groundstrokes coach- would have allowed him to use anything more or less than the Eastern. Remember, the Eastern is a 'driving' grip and driving the ball is the hallmark of Lansdorp's style. Also, the limitations of the Continental and Australian would have been very quickly exposed on the hard courts of California.

5) The 'Australian Style' originated in Jack Crawford's day, not Rod Laver's. However, the Australian was not Crawford's style - he was a Continental (also called English) player, just as Hoad and Laver were.

6) If you read Laver's 'The Education of a Tennis Player' he specifically mentions his choice of grip is the Continental and that he chose those grips based on his desire to emulate Lew Hoad.

7) Laver's word must trump everything else. If he says he used the Continental then why would any of us disagree with the man himself?

I had a book by Metzler that I read over and over again but lost it many years ago. It was a paperback and basically it was a lot of advice and wisdom on playing tennis. It assumed that you already knew more or less how to play but it gave tips and advice and it was about the mental game as much as the physical game.

Lew Hoad was the other person that I wanted to mention along with Laver. I have a book with pictures of Hoad where he has a section on forehand volleys.

I had a look at the textbook definition of a continental and it indicated that it was at the lower part of the bevel at 10 and 11 O'Clock. My continental grip is about 1/3 the way up that bevel; not at the bevel. Don't know if that's an australian or a continental but if it isn't a continental, it's not very far away. Maybe 15 degrees.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-05-2007, 07:37 AM
I had a look at the textbook definition of a continental and it indicated that it was at the lower part of the bevel at 10 and 11 O'Clock. My continental grip is about 1/3 the way up that bevel; not at the bevel. Don't know if that's an australian or a continental but if it isn't a continental, it's not very far away. Maybe 15 degrees.

I'd say its an Australian. Anything somewhere in between Continental and Eastern is an Australian. Its a slight difference on the grip but it actually makes a world of difference in your stroke.

I believe that sampras was the opposite of you. He was probably ever so slightly off an eastern while you are ever so slightly off a continental. In any event they are both Australians .

The difference is that you call it a continental because its closer to a continental while people call Sampras' an eastern because its closer to an Eastern. The truth is that you both have a variey of the Australian.

Thats why Dr. green said that Mcenroe used a "variety" of the Australian.

We are now dealing with very technical terms. Most people even experts would not make this differentiation because it is so slight. But the difference it actually makes in your stroke is huge.

In the meantime I have looked in a variet of books and websites and the Australian grip is virtually ignored fin every book. Almost every book and website only talks about the four major grips.

The Australian is an amazing grip. it can be played just slightly off an eastern or just slightly off a continental.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-05-2007, 07:42 AM
the deadgiveaway is him saying 'grip for all shots'. that clearly wouldnt be the so called australian grip, as you sure wouldnt want to hit a topspin backhand with a grip to the eastern forehand side of continental. ouch!

it would be some sort of continental. it's interesting to note that some pros dot even know what the grips they use are even called, and some TW posters spend a lot of energy and get into fights over what grip a certain pro uses.


Actually the Australian is the TRUE grip for all shots. In fact Dr Greene goes on to say that it is even better for a backhand slice and topspin than the continental is. thats why Laver used it! (note he also referes to the Australian as a "no change grip" which would mean "all purpose").

I am telling you this is the most ignored grip in tennis and its probably the most effective. I bet you that almost every pro that they say uses an eastern actually uses a variey of the Australian. A grip ever so slightly off of the eastern.

To the layperson they would simply call it an eastern. Again the difference is slight but it makes a world of difference in you stroke.

Its amazing how little is written about this grip or how few people know anything about it.

Anton
05-05-2007, 09:29 AM
Actually the Australian is the TRUE grip for all shots. In fact Dr Greene goes on to say that it is even better for a backhand slice and topspin than the continental is. thats why Laver used it! (note he also referes to the Australian as a "no change grip" which would mean "all purpose").

I am telling you this is the most ignored grip in tennis and its probably the most effective. I bet you that almost every pro that they say uses an eastern actually uses a variey of the Australian. A grip ever so slightly off of the eastern.

To the layperson they would simply call it an eastern. Again the difference is slight but it makes a world of difference in you stroke.

Its amazing how little is written about this grip or how few people know anything about it.

Have you ever heard of a Russian grip? It is between the Australian and Eastern Grip. Most of players actually use that grip.

Its amazing how little is written about this grip or how few people know anything about it...well at least it is more famous then the completely ignored Hawaiian grip which is between the Russian and the Australian!

AndrewD
05-05-2007, 12:49 PM
Attila the tennis Bum,

1) The Australian grip is between the Eastern and the Continental.

2) Laver made no change from his forehand to his backhand grip

3) If he made no change then he couldn't be using the Australian as it does require a change from forehand to backhand.

4) If he made no change in his grips the only one that is feasible to use is the Continental. (NoBadMojo is spot on - with the Australian you MUST change grips).

5) I can attest to that as I still use an Australian grip for my forehand (taught Eastern but drifted to the Australian a modified Continental). If I don't change my grip, the Australian is not sufficient to hit a backhand as it is too far around to the Eastern.

6) Go out and give both grips a try. Don't change between backhand and forehand and see which one you would sensibly choose. Remember, a lot of good players will choose their grips based on feel and effectiveness - not just lessons (probably not so true these days).

7) If you're talking about Greene's '$20,000 in Tennis Lessons', I would rate that above Metzler for instruction but considerably below him when it comes to the grips. Regardless, you can't place all your faith or base your entire argument around one book. Do some more reading and see how many others agree or disagree with Greene.

8 ) No-one out here lumps the Australian in with the Eastern. Old-timers might call it a modified Continental (they call the Continental, the 'English' grip) but you would never confuse it with an Eastern.

9 ) Where in the world did you get the idea that Sampras hit his volleys with anything resembling an Eastern grip?

All of that is purely academic because;

10 ) Rod Laver is no idiot. Laver knows what an Australian, a Continental and an Eastern grip are (if he didn't, there's enough coaches in his family who'd be happy to tell him). If he says he used the Continental grip (as he does) then we have absolutely no need to argue about it - he used the Continental grip.

11 ) If all else fails, I can ask his cousin Brian, he lives just around the corner from me and coaches at our local courts. If not, when Mal Anderson and Ashley Cooper come down to our tennis club I can ask them as well. Kind of know the answers they'll give because I've heard them say it enough times.

phucng_10
05-05-2007, 01:00 PM
I gave up on my PD and went to a Volkl Tour 10. I love the racquet's feel!

Attila the tennis Bum
05-05-2007, 07:02 PM
Attila the tennis Bum,

1) The Australian grip is between the Eastern and the Continental.

2) Laver made no change from his forehand to his backhand grip

3) If he made no change then he couldn't be using the Australian as it does require a change from forehand to backhand.

4) If he made no change in his grips the only one that is feasible to use is the Continental. (NoBadMojo is spot on - with the Australian you MUST change grips).

5) I can attest to that as I still use an Australian grip for my forehand (taught Eastern but drifted to the Australian a modified Continental). If I don't change my grip, the Australian is not sufficient to hit a backhand as it is too far around to the Eastern.

6) Go out and give both grips a try. Don't change between backhand and forehand and see which one you would sensibly choose. Remember, a lot of good players will choose their grips based on feel and effectiveness - not just lessons (probably not so true these days).

7) If you're talking about Greene's '$20,000 in Tennis Lessons', I would rate that above Metzler for instruction but considerably below him when it comes to the grips. Regardless, you can't place all your faith or base your entire argument around one book. Do some more reading and see how many others agree or disagree with Greene.

8 ) No-one out here lumps the Australian in with the Eastern. Old-timers might call it a modified Continental (they call the Continental, the 'English' grip) but you would never confuse it with an Eastern.

9 ) Where in the world did you get the idea that Sampras hit his volleys with anything resembling an Eastern grip?

All of that is purely academic because;

10 ) Rod Laver is no idiot. Laver knows what an Australian, a Continental and an Eastern grip are (if he didn't, there's enough coaches in his family who'd be happy to tell him). If he says he used the Continental grip (as he does) then we have absolutely no need to argue about it - he used the Continental grip.

11 ) If all else fails, I can ask his cousin Brian, he lives just around the corner from me and coaches at our local courts. If not, when Mal Anderson and Ashley Cooper come down to our tennis club I can ask them as well. Kind of know the answers they'll give because I've heard them say it enough times.

why do you have such an angry tone? In any event you have a habit of not reading what I say. I will again attempt to clarify by simply and politely answering your points.

1. yes I know the Australian is between eastern and continental. Thats what I have been saying all along.

2. Correct laver made no change from his forehand or backhand grip.

3. You are wrong! The Australlian requires no change in grip. :

again:

" Tennis players who do NOT want to change grips, and find the all purpose continental grip unsatisfactory for hitting forehand drives will , instead choose the Australian grip, which is between Eastern and Continental forehand. Rod Laver, the only double Grand slam winner in history, used this grip for all shots, and John Mcenroe also used a variey of this [b]no-change grip[/b.[i] Dr. Robert Fode green.

Please read more carefully!!!

4. again the Australian requires no grip change. Secondly Greene says again:

[i]"Rod Laver, the only double Grand slam winner in history, used this grip for all shots."

5. I am glad that you can "attest" that the australian needs a grip change; however I am going to take Dr. Greenes opinion over yours. no offense.

6. Again you do not read. I already said that I actually play with the Australian and I do not require any grip change.

7. Once again you do not read what i have written. No one disagrees with Greene. Just because meltzer says that Laver used a continental does not mean that he necessarily disagrees with Greene. The Australian is a very slight grip change from the Continental. In general most books do not even talk about this grip. The trend is that if one uses an Australian that is closer to continental then it is lumped in as a continental; however if one uses an Australian that is closer to the eastern side then people tend to lump it into the category of Eastern. Since lavers Australian was closer to a continetal , Meltzer lumped it into the category of "continental". But the more precise terminology is "Australian".

8. Yes the Australian is lumped in with continetal or Eastern. For example if you read Bolleteris handbook he does not even metion the Australian as a grip. In fact I am not sure that I remember Meltzer even talking about the Australian. So the question is where did it go? The answer is its lumped in as Continental or Eastern.

9. Jon Yandell in Visual tennis for example says that Sampras played with an Eastern. Bolleteri says the same thing. However when you read their books they do not even discuss the existence of the Australian. therefore it must have been lumped into the category of Eastern.

10. people tend to use the term continental grip loosely. Most people have not even heard of an Australian grip. Remember the difference between an Australian and a continental are very slim. We are talking about the tiny space between the two bevels.

11. be my guest ask his cousin. But the real question is will you tell the truth. Your responses are quite nasty and it just seems that you are more interested in being "right" rather than actually learning something. This discusion is great and has really enlightened me. I do not understand why you have such a nasty tone. you must be very young?

paulfreda
05-05-2007, 10:48 PM
...well at least it is more famous then the completely ignored Hawaiian grip which is between the Russian and the Australian!

Hey I take offense at that.
I play the Hawaiian from time to time to improve my Western.
It is between the Greco-Roman and Latvian grip.
And I feel it is the most overlooked grip today.

AndrewD
05-06-2007, 04:53 AM
Attila the tennis Bum,

Almost 4,000 posts (nearly all in this forum or the past players section) and you're the only person to complain about my 'tone', questioned my honesty or queried my age. You've managed to do all three in the one post and all for the simple reason that I've had the audacity to contradict you (I had no alternative as you've been incorrect in your assertions). Read back and you'll see I'm not the only one who disagreed and, as NoBadMojo is an experienced teaching pro I think he should know what he's talking about.

I'll end this (and I don't see any point in continuing as you aren't interested in a discussion or learning anything about the game) with a quote from Metzler's book, "Australian Style: The intention being to have a specialist forehand grip and to CHANGE grip for the backhand, this style has Eastern associations; since it is used by many Australians it could perhaps be regarded as the Australian adaptation of the Eastern American style".

Please note my emphasis on the word 'change'. As I said to you, a change is made from forehand to backhand. The change is only slight but it is made.

No offense, but I'm taking Metzler's opinion (and valuing his knowledge) over Greene's and yours.

jackcrawford
05-06-2007, 05:08 AM
No offense, but I'm taking Metzler's opinion (and valuing his knowledge) over Greene's and yours.
Agreed. Metzler INVENTED the term Australian grip in his 1970 book - he was intimately familiar with all the effects small changes of grip had on tennis stroke style. Comparing Greene to Metzler is like comparing a community college physics professor to Einstein.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-06-2007, 07:03 AM
Agreed. Metzler INVENTED the term Australian grip in his 1970 book - he was intimately familiar with all the effects small changes of grip had on tennis stroke style. Comparing Greene to Metzler is like comparing a community college physics professor to Einstein.

Lets take our very own Movdaq here as an exapmle. He says his grip is just slightly off the continental grip which I believe makes it an Australian grip.

Mpvdaq himslef did not even realize the slight difference and he had no change of grip.

Thats my point. The Australian is an extremely slight difference from the Continental. Why would you you therefore need to make a grip change?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attila the tennis Bum
05-06-2007, 07:05 AM
Andrew,

You have been extremely rude. I have no complaints about anyone else here who has disagreed with me except you. Furthermore the reason no one else has complained about your behavior is because I am the only person here who has dared to have a different opinion than yours.

Secondly I must admit that maybe I should know who Meltzer is but I do not. As far as the TW user here by the name of "URBAN" as verifying Meltzers credentials well....what does that mean? I am sure "URBAN" is a smart guy but I dont know who he is.

Now as far as Dr. Forde Greene, well he is endorsed by Borg, Mcenore, Connors, Cliff Drysdale,, Roy Emerson, the New York Times..etc etc. No offense I am going to take Greenes word over "Urbans" and yours.

Finally can you please give us a quote from Meltzer? I understand that you are charcterizing what you think he has said but your reading comprehension has something left to be desired. I would prefer an exact quote as I have given you from Greens book.

CollegeBound
05-06-2007, 03:08 PM
Attila the tennis bum, I have a real problem with your behaviour in this thread and am contemplating reporting you. AndrewD is a long-time poster who has proven his knowledge of the sport time and time again, without ever having to resort to the troll like behaviour youre exhibiting. He is one of the few who is habitually courteous, no-matter how infuriating or stupid other posters - ones just like you- are. You continually harass him and question his reading ability but it is so obvious to everyone else that it is YOU who are incapable of reading and understanding a very simple sentence. You ask him for quotes from Metzler but can't you see those little things he's using - " " - they're called talking marks/quotation marks and you use them because you are quoting directly from a source. I've got Metzlers book right in front of me and he's been quoting it verbatim, not paraphrasing it.

If you dont know who Paul Metzler is then why did you say that Since lavers Australian was closer to a continetal , Meltzer lumped it into the category of "continental". But the more precise terminology is "Australian".
In fact I am not sure that I remember Meltzer even talking about the Australian.

You didnt say you didn't know who Metzler was, you said you didn't remember him talking about the grip. In other words YOU LIED. If you're going to lie about that then you're obviously going to lie about other stuff as well so your credbility is absolutely zero.

It makes me sick when creeps like you come onto this message board and harass the guys who've made it such an enjoyable place to come. They end up getting so p'd off with all the rubbish you clowns spout that they leave and we're left with nothing but the empty vessels like yoursef.

In case other posters are wondering why I'm so fed up and lashing out like this. Attila the tennis bum is the the author of such classic threads as 'Federer is a metrosexual who loves himself' , 'Is Federer's Relationship Phony' http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=115025
and other classics from the world of trolling. He has also been accused of being the alter-ego of The Pusher Terminator, another nutjob who was, thankfully, terminated a while back.

AndrewD, please DO NOT add anything more to this thread. You're dealing with a troll and we all know how pointless that is. Moderators (Kaptain Karl, DireDesire), if you read this thread could you please lock or delete it.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-06-2007, 04:37 PM
Dude,

You need to chill. Your bold type and caps make you seem like you are frothing at the mouth.

I have said absolutely nothing wrong and have simply stood my ground. Even more important is that I am right.

Now can you please show me the quotations from Meltzer because I honestly missed them. The only quote I see is this:

"Australian Style: The intention being to have a specialist forehand grip and to CHANGE grip for the backhand, this style has Eastern associations; since it is used by many Australians it could perhaps be regarded as the Australian adaptation of the Eastern American style".

But I am not sure what that even says. Is he actually refering to the australian grip or the Australian style of play? And just because one changes grip does not mean that one HAS to change grip.It not quite that Clear; However , on the other hand, Dr. Greene says point blank that Laver used an Australian grip and that no grip change is required. I think this is the true reason why Andrew is upset.

fuzz nation
05-06-2007, 05:05 PM
...and this has what to do with the original thread...

Really now, if you cats want to go on a rant like this, start your own mosh pit instead of wrecking this one for B-G'er.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-06-2007, 05:22 PM
7) If you're talking about Greene's '$20,000 in Tennis Lessons', I would rate that above Metzler for instruction but considerably below him when it comes to the grips.


Well lets follow that line of logic.

You believe that Greene is superior to Meltzer for instruction.

Then following that line of reasoning wouldn't Greene be the best qualified to state an opinion as to whether one needs to change grips when playing with the Australian? Isn't that instruction?

Therefore greenes statement that the Australian requires no grip change and that Laver used the Australian really does seem to carry some weight.

[K]aotic
05-06-2007, 10:28 PM
bluegrasser,

I'm already there. After 3 months I'm putting the PD aside and going to something with more flex. While it did give me excellent results on serve, volleys and slice approach it took away from what I do well with my groundstrokes - spin, placement, angles and touch. I did try to tell myself that the groundstrokes would eventually fall in to place, but they never did. My grips are similar to yours and I struggled to generate enough top while using the PD. However, when I picked up my TT Warrior, an nBlade, t10mp VE or 03 Tour MP I was able to spin the ball with no difficulty whatsoever. The big difference, I believe, is that the PD just doesn't have good enough dwell time for my style of game. Perhaps it's something similar with you.

If you'd like to continue with something close to the PD, I would recommend the APD. It has a lot of power, although not as much as the PD, and is a far more spin friendly racquet than the PD.

Another one to try would be the Volkl V1 Classic MP. Stiffer but comfortable and it does have an excellent reputation.

One other suggestion. I'm thinking now that, when I was looking for a bit more power, I should have considered an oversize with flex. That way I would have increased power levels but still retained the feel I need for my game style. That could be a worthwhile option for you as well.

not to say ur wrong or anything but i always thought the woofer system was designed to increase dwell time?:confused: :confused: :confused:

AndrewD
05-07-2007, 04:09 AM
aotic;1427010'] i always thought the woofer system was designed to increase dwell time?:confused: :confused: :confused:

I believe it is supposed to and it does seem better than most other very stiff racquets I've hit but, as I said, "it just doesn't have good enough dwell time for MY style of game".

grass_hopper
05-07-2007, 05:04 AM
Let's all blame bluegrasser for giving up on PD, his dwell time on trying out new racquets is NOT working!!!

bluegrasser
05-07-2007, 06:18 AM
Let's all blame bluegrasser for giving up on PD, his dwell time on trying out new racquets is NOT working!!!

Hey now:confused: The woofer system works like a slingshot, the problem is the racquet is stiff and it just launches the ball *unless* you use mucho spin. I have no problem if the racquet flexes a little, but with the PD it's homerun city. I know...why did i try it in the first place, well, it comes down to the * Creed* - " My name is Bluegrasser and i'm a racquet wh$re.":D

Attila the tennis Bum
05-08-2007, 05:11 AM
Hey now:confused: The woofer system works like a slingshot, the problem is the racquet is stiff and it just launches the ball *unless* you use mucho spin. I have no problem if the racquet flexes a little, but with the PD it's homerun city. I know...why did i try it in the first place, well, it comes down to the * Creed* - " My name is Bluegrasser and i'm a racquet wh$re.":D


Roman prokes is the stringer to the much of the tour, from Agassi to Sharapova to Mcenroe...but most importantly for this post to ANDY RODDICK AND HIS PD. I figure that pretty much makes him an authority on the PD.

Anyway, Roman feels that the Babolats should only be used with a polyester string. The reason is that polyester is a low powered string and it counteracts the high power of the PD.

He says that the babolat success is due to a bit of luck. Originally the babolat was made for women because of its high power. But babolat got very lucky because Luxilon came out just about at the same time as babolat. This low powered string allowed pros to hit the ball as hard as they want and still keep the ball in.

Following that line of logic, if I were you I would really try an all polyester string. My choice would be Luxilon Ace as this is the softest poly on the market in my opinion. Try it then come back and tell us what you think of the PD.

bluegrasser
05-08-2007, 05:34 AM
Roman prokes is the stringer to the much of the tour, from Agassi to Sharapova to Mcenroe...but most importantly for this post to ANDY RODDICK AND HIS PD. I figure that pretty much makes him an authority on the PD.

Anyway, Roman feels that the Babolats should only be used with a polyester string. The reason is that polyester is a low powered string and it counteracts the high power of the PD.

He says that the babolat success is due to a bit of luck. Originally the babolat was made for women because of its high power. But babolat got very lucky because Luxilon came out just about at the same time as babolat. This low powered string allowed pros to hit the ball as hard as they want and still keep the ball in.

Following that line of logic, if I were you I would really try an all polyester string. My choice would be Luxilon Ace as this is the softest poly on the market in my opinion. Try it then come back and tell us what you think of the PD.

The PD's are long gone now + I did try a hybrid at a high tension and still no luck, the PD just wasn't for me..

Anton
05-08-2007, 05:48 AM
Roman prokes is the stringer to the much of the tour, from Agassi to Sharapova to Mcenroe...but most importantly for this post to ANDY RODDICK AND HIS PD. I figure that pretty much makes him an authority on the PD.

Anyway, Roman feels that the Babolats should only be used with a polyester string. The reason is that polyester is a low powered string and it counteracts the high power of the PD.

He says that the babolat success is due to a bit of luck. Originally the babolat was made for women because of its high power. But babolat got very lucky because Luxilon came out just about at the same time as babolat. This low powered string allowed pros to hit the ball as hard as they want and still keep the ball in.

Following that line of logic, if I were you I would really try an all polyester string. My choice would be Luxilon Ace as this is the softest poly on the market in my opinion. Try it then come back and tell us what you think of the PD.

edit: nvmnd i'm not going to get into this right now :)

Attila the tennis Bum
05-08-2007, 06:54 AM
The PD's are long gone now + I did try a hybrid at a high tension and still no luck, the PD just wasn't for me..

I meant full poly. If you try the Luxilon ace 18 full poly...it will be real easy on your arm. Give it a try ...what have you got to lose? Worst comes to worst you are in the same position you are now. But since you say the PD's are gone now I guess its a forgone conclusion.

By the way here is the quote from Roman Prokes in tennis week:

"Babolat got incredibly lucky because it coincided with Luxilon strings," Prokes says. "You probably wouldn’t see Babolat racquets anywhere (on the pro tour) if it weren’t for Luxilon. The Babolat racquet is a wide-body racquet with a lot of power, which most people on the professional tour can’t handle because the ball will sail without the Luxilon string. Luxilon string enables you to have control with the racquet. You have to have a long swing and you have to be able to come over the ball. It’s not for people who come to the net, it’s not for serve-and-volleyers, it’s not for people with short swings because if you miss with Luxilon — let’s say you hit too deep — your natural reaction is ‘Oops, I over-hit it I’m gonna hit less.’ With Luxilon, it’s the opposite because you’re going to hit more because once you start holding back or hitting flat it flies. It grips the ball and gives you incredibly bite on the ball." Roman Prokes ( for the full article: http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=13786&bannerregion= )

Anton
05-08-2007, 07:58 AM
I meant full poly. If you try the Luxilon ace 18 full poly...it will be real easy on your arm. Give it a try ...what have you got to lose? Worst comes to worst you are in the same position you are now. But since you say the PD's are gone now I guess its a forgone conclusion.

By the way here is the quote from Roman Prokes in tennis week:

"Babolat got incredibly lucky because it coincided with Luxilon strings," Prokes says. "You probably wouldn’t see Babolat racquets anywhere (on the pro tour) if it weren’t for Luxilon. The Babolat racquet is a wide-body racquet with a lot of power, which most people on the professional tour can’t handle because the ball will sail without the Luxilon string. Luxilon string enables you to have control with the racquet. You have to have a long swing and you have to be able to come over the ball. It’s not for people who come to the net, it’s not for serve-and-volleyers, it’s not for people with short swings because if you miss with Luxilon — let’s say you hit too deep — your natural reaction is ‘Oops, I over-hit it I’m gonna hit less.’ With Luxilon, it’s the opposite because you’re going to hit more because once you start holding back or hitting flat it flies. It grips the ball and gives you incredibly bite on the ball." Roman Prokes ( for the full article: http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=13786&bannerregion= )

Roman Prokes needs to read up on http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpage-TECHTENNIS.html

Grips and Bites are all bs. Not all he says is wrong, but alot is misleading

Attila the tennis Bum
05-08-2007, 08:02 AM
Roman Prokes needs to read up on http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpage-TECHTENNIS.html

Grips and Bites are all bs. Not all he says is wrong, but alot is misleading

UMMMMMM....No offense I think its the other way around. techtennis probably needs to take a few classes from Roman. The Pros all go to Roman for advice...from Agassi, sharapova,Mcenroe, Kafelinikov, Roddick and a crapload of other players and coaches. Can tech tennis possibly have better credentials?

In any event do you think its an accident that so many pros now use poly strings? They all used to use gut...but many have switched to at least a poly hybrid. There must be some reason for that revolution.

grass_hopper
05-08-2007, 08:37 AM
racquets are more powerful. life is short, less talk more play.

Attila the tennis Bum
05-08-2007, 10:56 AM
racquets are more powerful. life is short, less talk more play.

I really do not agree with that. Strings are the "soul" of any racquet. With the right tension and the right type of strings you can make a racquet do almost anything.

Don't believe me? Well do you remember the old spaghetti strings? They created so much spin that Vilas' record was broken because of it. They created so much spin that a virtually unknown player by the name of Mike Fishbach was able to beat hall of famer stan smith.

People tend to focus so much on the racquet and ignore the strings. In truth I feel that the strings are far more important than the racquet. However, the truth is that both must work in harmony together.

Babolat seem to play better with poly but the ncode 90 I feel does better with gut.

grass_hopper
05-08-2007, 11:31 AM
let go of the past, the future is bright!
did bluegrasser say what he replaced PD with?

Attila the tennis Bum
05-08-2007, 12:11 PM
let go of the past, the future is bright!
did bluegrasser say what he replaced PD with?


ok grass hopper.

No I do not think he said what he replaced it with

Anton
05-08-2007, 12:29 PM
UMMMMMM....No offense I think its the other way around. techtennis probably needs to take a few classes from Roman. The Pros all go to Roman for advice...from Agassi, sharapova,Mcenroe, Kafelinikov, Roddick and a crapload of other players and coaches. Can tech tennis possibly have better credentials?

In any event do you think its an accident that so many pros now use poly strings? They all used to use gut...but many have switched to at least a poly hybrid. There must be some reason for that revolution.

Appeals to authority are inherently flawed.

I'm not sure what advice Roman dispenses (other then to provide a good stringing service) and some of it very well might be proper advice without proper understanding.

I don't think it is an accident, but Romans explanation of the phenomenon is not consistent with the results of objective, scientific tests - the poly strings last longer and feel a certain appealing way. There is slight (~5% compared to natural gut) difference in "power" and there is no difference in resulting spin.

The only way to generate significantly more spin is to increase racket head speed, path or tilt PERIOD. No change in the stringbed will increase resulting spin.

The biggest difference that comes from different type of string is the feel. And perhaps at pro level ball velocities poly offers a "better feel" and or feedback, with which comes the confidence to swing harder and produce more spin.

Roman's "grip" and "bite" descriptions are that of the feel of the impact not an actual description of what takes place during impact by which we can judge comparative merits of the strings.

Anton
05-08-2007, 12:38 PM
Don't believe me? Well do you remember the old spaghetti strings? They created so much spin that Vilas' record was broken because of it. They created so much spin that a virtually unknown player by the name of Mike Fishbach was able to beat hall of famer stan smith.


No they didn't create anything, I could explain in technical detail as to why...but lets just say that no one uses spaghetti stings ;)

Attila the tennis Bum
05-08-2007, 05:38 PM
The only way to generate significantly more spin is to increase racket head speed, path or tilt PERIOD. No change in the stringbed will increase resulting spin.



Personally I agree with you. But everyone has a theory of what causes more spin. The truth is no one really knows for sure.

For example the old spaghetti string racquets gave more spin than any racquet known to man. It had nothing to do with the head speed.

However, Brody in his physics of tennis says that it is head speed that creates the most amount of spin.

There is another school of thought that feel the tighter the strings are the more spin. But others argie that since the strings are so tight it allows you to create more head speed while creating more spin.

Then there is another school of thought that feels that the thinner the strings the more spin because they create more bite on the ball.

An there is yet another scholl of thought which was printed in Tennis magazine that feels thicer strings give more spin. The reasoning is that there is more material touching the ball thus creating more spin.

Again personally i agree with you and Broday that its head speed except for the fact that Spaghetti strings created the most amount of spin. I can't seem to explain that one away.....can you?

Attila the tennis Bum
05-08-2007, 05:39 PM
lets just say that no one uses spaghetti stings ;)


because they are illegal now.

jackcrawford
05-08-2007, 07:08 PM
because they are illegal now.

Page 348 and 349 of the Physics and Technology of Tennis tell why - "the strings are almost perfectly elastic in a direction parallel to the stringbed; elastic energy is stored by the strings as well as the ball. The ball was given extra spin..." it is U.S. Patent # 4,273,331. The mains and crosses are strung separately so they are not woven or interlaced. Plastic "spaghetti" tubing is used over the strings to reduce friction. To further quote the above book by Brody, Cross and Lindsey "it was quickly banned by the ITF since it allowed a player to put excessive spin on the ball."

Anton
05-08-2007, 07:29 PM
Personally I agree with you. But everyone has a theory of what causes more spin. The truth is no one really knows for sure.

For example the old spaghetti string racquets gave more spin than any racquet known to man. It had nothing to do with the head speed.

However, Brody in his physics of tennis says that it is head speed that creates the most amount of spin.

There is another school of thought that feel the tighter the strings are the more spin. But others argie that since the strings are so tight it allows you to create more head speed while creating more spin.

Then there is another school of thought that feels that the thinner the strings the more spin because they create more bite on the ball.

An there is yet another scholl of thought which was printed in Tennis magazine that feels thicer strings give more spin. The reasoning is that there is more material touching the ball thus creating more spin.

Again personally i agree with you and Broday that its head speed except for the fact that Spaghetti strings created the most amount of spin. I can't seem to explain that one away.....can you?

Well hhmm seems you are right about the spaghetti strings, but that is of course whole different animal we are dealing with here - all string beds discussed have regular interwoven design which wouldn't allow the ball to dig itself into the stringbed to a degree separated spaghetti allowed it to, even at a very light tension.

Ever shank a ball against the edge of the racket and watch it have nutty spin on it? Well I think this is the sort of effect separated mains and crosses had.

Anyone know of any spaghetti rackets still in existence?

Attila the tennis Bum
05-09-2007, 05:19 AM
Page 348 and 349 of the Physics and Technology of Tennis tell why - "the strings are almost perfectly elastic in a direction parallel to the stringbed; elastic energy is stored by the strings as well as the ball. The ball was given extra spin..." it is U.S. Patent # 4,273,331. The mains and crosses are strung separately so they are not woven or interlaced. Plastic "spaghetti" tubing is used over the strings to reduce friction. To further quote the above book by Brody, Cross and Lindsey "it was quickly banned by the ITF since it allowed a player to put excessive spin on the ball."


Awesome find Jack. It just goes to prove that where spin comes from is at this point is only in the theoretical phase.

Science in tennis is very interesting. In the 70's they thought that tighter strings actually gave you more power. But then they discovered the "trampoline" effect and they found that looser strings actually give you more power.

As far as spaghetti strings still in existence.....I actually have one! Its in the old Lendl kneissel/Adidas frame. I can hit some weird freaking shots with it. The thing is you get virtually no power.

What is really interesting to me is ping pong paddles. They have no strings but they can create incredible spin. Clearly its because of the rubber on them. In the old days they used a a thin layer of rubber with tiny "pimples" to grip the ball. Now however they use a rubber that grips better with foam underneathe it for power.

The blackburne double strung racquet uses the same principle as a ping pong paddle. Since the strings are completely flat with the frame you are hitting an almost completely flat surface thus theoretically creating more spin. Check it out:

www.blackburneds.com

Anton
05-09-2007, 05:24 AM
As far as spaghetti strings still in existence.....I actually have one! Its in the old Lendl kneissel/Adidas frame. I can hit some weird freaking shots with it. The thing is you get virtually no power.

Yep that makes sense because too much energy is absorbed as the ball digs itself in. This happens with a loose regular stringbed but in woven pattern the whole stringbed deflects as opposed to just the string that is pressed on by the ball.

Like I said technical tennis analyzes standard stringbed and effects, there is no reason to suspect any of their conclusions are false.

Anton
05-09-2007, 05:15 PM
Hey I take offense at that.
I play the Hawaiian from time to time to improve my Western.
It is between the Greco-Roman and Latvian grip.
And I feel it is the most overlooked grip today.

OMG you where only half kidding! there actually is a Hawaiian grip! :o

I think it's time for a clockwise numbering system instead of all this bs.

drakulie
05-09-2007, 05:34 PM
Science in tennis is very interesting. In the 70's they thought that tighter strings actually gave you more power. But then they discovered the "trampoline" effect and they found that looser strings actually give you more power.



I have actually read fairly recent studies that state looser string do not provide more power, or for that matter more spin. I also saw a special on TV once about this>> where they proved it.

Anyway, there has been so much back and forth on this issue>>> who really knows.

Personally, I have never felt looser strings create or provide me more pop. The only thing I have discovered in my own experience is looser strings result in loss of control.

Don't shoot the messenger. :)

Anton
05-09-2007, 07:15 PM
I have actually read fairly recent studies that state looser string do not provide more power, or for that matter more spin. I also saw a special on TV once about this>> where they proved it.

Anyway, there has been so much back and forth on this issue>>> who really knows.

Personally, I have never felt looser strings create or provide me more pop. The only thing I have discovered in my own experience is looser strings result in loss of control.

Don't shoot the messenger. :)

Well what looser sting does is change the TYPE of pop you get - the resulting distance might be the same or very close, but there is a difference in what happens - looser strings will absorb more energy from the ball as it digs into the stringbed, so the ball does not bounce back with as much force, BUT it also jumps off at a higher angle.

Both faster moving, less arched trajectory and slower moving, higher arched one may very well end up covering the same ground.

The loss of control might come in from a couple of factors:

You get used to producing certain trajectory with your swing and racket angle, which will change as strings are changed to looser/firmer setup.

More importantly, the feeling of impact changes significantly, this will effect your perception on what happens during the impact, causing your strokes to change.

Final_Match_Point
05-09-2007, 07:27 PM
Back on the original topic, If your using the PD try to change your stroke. I've had amazing success with a Strait take back. Lock your arm in the position you would normally make contact with, keep it there and dont move your arm. Rotate the trunk while keeping the arm still. It should help you control and direct the ball better

bluegrasser
05-11-2007, 05:00 AM
Back on the original topic, If your using the PD try to change your stroke. I've had amazing success with a Strait take back. Lock your arm in the position you would normally make contact with, keep it there and dont move your arm. Rotate the trunk while keeping the arm still. It should help you control and direct the ball better

The PD's are long gone, like I stated before...