PDA

View Full Version : Federer Racket discussed by Chris Fowler and Darren Cahill?? Makes NO sense


Fedace
07-04-2008, 06:50 AM
Ok, all you pro racket people. I am listening to Chris Fowler and Darren Cahill in Rafa vs Schuttler match. Chris mentioned that Roger uses the same racket by Wilson from 25 years ago and it is extremely head light. and Darren Cahill Agrees. So what the heck is idiot Chris talking about here.?? The racket from 25 years ago,,,Wilson Prostaff 90 that Roger grew up with ?? If so how would Chris know this ?? another idiot statement by Chris,,,"Rafa uses a extremely light racket and he can muscle it around, but amateur recreational players would not be able to use such a racket cause it is so LIGHT". Are these guys this ignorant ?? :shock::confused:

etienne47
07-04-2008, 06:57 AM
Yes, indeed, they are that ignorant, especially Fowler. Talk about banal/inaccurate commentary!!!

fortunecookiesjc
07-04-2008, 06:59 AM
hahahah those two are so ********.

Fedace
07-04-2008, 07:03 AM
So i guess this mean Roger is NOT using the K-factor afterall .........Thank you Chris Fowler for your confirmation.

dirtballer
07-04-2008, 07:04 AM
I think they may have meant head light balance as opposed to overall weight. The average recreational player uses a lighter racket than Federer or Nadal but with a more head heavy balance.

Fedace
07-04-2008, 07:12 AM
I think they may have meant head light balance as opposed to overall weight. The average recreational player uses a lighter racket than Federer or Nadal but with a more head heavy balance.

actually rafa uses far more head heavy aeropro than stock frame. and racket being head light has no bearing on wether a rec player can use it or not.

drakulie
07-04-2008, 08:56 AM
There you go>>> It's confirmed!

both the K90 and babolats are too demanding for recreational players.

LafayetteHitter
07-04-2008, 09:31 AM
They are both apparently morons based on this conversation. I could not believe that they said that the racquets are VERY similar. Complete idiots.

drakulie
07-04-2008, 09:37 AM
They have both been owned!

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk232/RynnKuragari937/owned.gif

BreakPoint
07-04-2008, 10:24 AM
What Chris Fowler meant (and Roddick said the same thing in an interview a while back that's been posted here many times and Tony Roche also said the same thing) is that the K90 is essentially the same racquet and uses the same 25 year old technology as the PS 6.0 85 but with a slightly bigger head.

I play with the K90 and it does feel like a 25 year old racquet to me. In fact, too me, it has a solid "wood-like" feel to it. I don't notice any "technology" in the K90 that's not in the PS 6.0. In fact, my PS 6.0 95 has more power than my K90. IMO, the K90 could have easily come out 25 years ago and it wouldn't have been anything special even 25 years ago. I think this is why so many people like it. I think when it comes to tennis racquets, the more "technology" they try to cram into a racquet, the worse it gets. I guess Federer agrees. :eek:

paulorenzo
07-04-2008, 11:06 AM
the commentators stated that recreational players wouldnt be able to weild Fed or Rafa's racquet successfully.

this my friend is true.

rec players would be unsuccessful with such headlight racquets because they wouldn't be able to muster any power with them.

Both Roger and Rafa's swing speed are pretty fast, to say the least, making headlight racquets ideal.

LafayetteHitter
07-04-2008, 11:08 AM
the commentators stated that recreational players wouldnt be able to weild Fed or Rafa's racquet successfully.

this my friend is true.

rec players would be unsuccessful with such headlight racquets because they wouldn't be able to muster any power with them.

Both Roger and Rafa's swing speed are pretty fast, to say the least, making headlight racquets ideal.

Absolutely incorrect. How can someone make this about recreational players they have never seen play. Some people consider 4.5 recreational.

vsbabolat
07-04-2008, 11:26 AM
the commentators stated that recreational players wouldnt be able to weild Fed or Rafa's racquet successfully.

this my friend is true.

rec players would be unsuccessful with such headlight racquets because they wouldn't be able to muster any power with them.

Both Roger and Rafa's swing speed are pretty fast, to say the least, making headlight racquets ideal.

Nadal's racquet specs are not that far off from what many "recreational players" use. Babolat did indeed sell the racquet Nadal uses the AeroPro Drive with out the Cortex.
Strung Weight: 332 grams
Balance: 33.5 cm
Swing weight: 355
http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html

I have absolutely no respect for anything Chris Fowler has to say about tennis. He is so ignorant about tennis and the equipment.

jmsx521
07-04-2008, 11:34 AM
I thought someone had mentioned that Nadal has about 50-60 one inch lead tape strips positioned at 12 o'clock, under the bumper guard on his racket: Doesn't that make it very head-heavy... no?

vsbabolat
07-04-2008, 11:40 AM
They have both been owned!

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk232/RynnKuragari937/owned.gif

Awesome Video Drakulie!:lol:

sureshs
07-04-2008, 11:50 AM
Commentators, even former players and coaches, don't know much about racquets. We do, right here on this board. And I am not being sarcastic.

emerckx53
07-04-2008, 12:06 PM
Ok, all you pro racket people. I am listening to Chris Fowler and Darren Cahill in Rafa vs Schuttler match. Chris mentioned that Roger uses the same racket by Wilson from 25 years ago and it is extremely head light. and Darren Cahill Agrees. So what the heck is idiot Chris talking about here.?? The racket from 25 years ago,,,Wilson Prostaff 90 that Roger grew up with ?? If so how would Chris know this ?? another idiot statement by Chris,,,"Rafa uses a extremely light racket and he can muscle it around, but amateur recreational players would not be able to use such a racket cause it is so LIGHT". Are these guys this ignorant ?? :shock::confused:

Lighten up fella's.....Do you really expect these two guys to know the inside story on pro players racquets? They are there to call the match....besides they are speaking in generalizations....Rafa does use a lighter racquet than most pros and regardless of what Fed is using it is still an ancestor of the old 90....go hit some balls and quit worrying about it...

fps
07-04-2008, 12:48 PM
on the bbc they said that federer strings at 48/49 tension, very loose. any truth in that?

BreakPoint
07-04-2008, 01:11 PM
on the bbc they said that federer strings at 48/49 tension, very loose. any truth in that?
Many different people have been saying the same thing for years so I assume it's true.

!Tym
07-04-2008, 01:20 PM
What Chris Fowler meant (and Roddick said the same thing in an interview a while back that's been posted here many times and Tony Roche also said the same thing) is that the K90 is essentially the same racquet and uses the same 25 year old technology as the PS 6.0 85 but with a slightly bigger head.

I play with the K90 and it does feel like a 25 year old racquet to me. In fact, too me, it has a solid "wood-like" feel to it. I don't notice any "technology" in the K90 that's not in the PS 6.0. In fact, my PS 6.0 95 has more power than my K90. IMO, the K90 could have easily come out 25 years ago and it wouldn't have been anything special even 25 years ago. I think this is why so many people like it. I think when it comes to tennis racquets, the more "technology" they try to cram into a racquet, the worse it gets. I guess Federer agrees. :eek:

Well, I wouldn't necessary say that, but one thing the general public doesn't realize is that there are a lot of different ways to accomplish the same thing. Ever notice through the years, that all the new technologies are supposed to improve either A) comfort, B) power, C) control, D) spin, E) stability, F) feel, or G) maneuverability. That's it. There are new revolutions in racket technology, just different ways to accomplish the same thing. Each year, the manufacturer's find new ways to accomplish the same intended benefit/result, give it a fancy name, and wala market it to the masses. It's not a new racket you're getting in terms of actual PERFORMANCE so much as you're just getting a new racket with different decals on it designed in the end to accomplish ultimately pretty much the same thing.

The biggest difference in "technology" by far has been producing strings with nearly the same control and spin as kevlar but with significantly more power and a more manageable jar to the ol' elbow.

One thing the general public doesn't realize, however, is that while kevlar pretty much always plays the same until it breaks, a.k.a. dead as a door nail; the new-age polys I've found only really deliver on their promise of utopian power, control, and spin all at the same time WHEN they're fresh. Seriously, even after just a few hits, they tend to go dead and lose their resilency/spring. They just feel like they stop responding so damn dynamically to the ball, and when that happens they become a "neither here, nor there" type string.

The pros avoid this, because they restring so frequently, whether the string is broken or not, or even actually got played or not.

Mike Danger
07-04-2008, 01:20 PM
I cant believe that Mcenroe just said that nadals racket is "30-40 grams lighter" and "alot of players are experimenting with lighter frames.... Roddicks frame is lighter"

other stupid quotes "they are also going to smaller heads... Fed DROPPED DOWN to a 90 sq in"

and right after that "Rafa is has always used a synthetic gut, never really tried the luxilons" Like luxilon is a TYPE of string!!

Fedace
07-04-2008, 02:02 PM
^^^LOL, Rafa hasn't used a synthetic Gut since he was a little child. Rafa has always used polys by Babolat.

grizzly4life
07-04-2008, 02:32 PM
I thought someone had mentioned that Nadal has about 50-60 one inch lead tape strips positioned at 12 o'clock, under the bumper guard on his racket: Doesn't that make it very head-heavy... no?

isn't that an absolutely massive amount of lead tape? and i'd think it would have problems staying on the racquet.

Klatu Verata Necktie
07-04-2008, 02:32 PM
I've heard McEnroe say things like these before and the explanation I got was that he considers everything outside of natural gut (including polyester) to be synthetic gut. In his own twisted way, I suspect he was saying he doesn't use the Luxilon brand like so many of other ATP players.

Fedace
07-04-2008, 02:37 PM
isn't that an absolutely massive amount of lead tape? and i'd think it would have problems staying on the racquet.

there is no way, it is that many. more like 5-6 lead tapes NOT 50-60.

RyanC
07-04-2008, 02:44 PM
I cant believe that Mcenroe just said that nadals racket is "30-40 grams lighter" and "alot of players are experimenting with lighter frames.... Roddicks frame is lighter"

other stupid quotes "they are also going to smaller heads... Fed DROPPED DOWN to a 90 sq in"

and right after that "Rafa is has always used a synthetic gut, never really tried the luxilons" Like luxilon is a TYPE of string!!


They aren't stupid statements, they're just poorly worded - which is why very few former pros should be allowed near a commentary booth.

McEnroe means that Fed is bucking the trend for larger (to McEnroe) 95sq+ racquets so he's 'dropped down' to a 90sq. Yes, he and a lot of other people, especially former players, treat Luxilon as a separate type of string. Roddick's racquet is lighter, when compared to the weights players used when McEnroe was on tour.

I think the problem is that the game has passed McEnroe by. That's not such a problem if you're a commentator who doesn't make grand statements about the game (John Barret) but for someone like McEnroe who has an opinion on everything it is crucial.

CAM178
07-04-2008, 03:39 PM
I cant believe that Mcenroe just said that . . .and right after that "Rafa is has always used a synthetic gut, never really tried the luxilons" Like luxilon is a TYPE of string!!
Cut Mac some slack, man. He knows more about tennis, and has seen more in tennis, than all of us on this board (I would imagine) put together. What Mac was saying was that Rafa has always used syn gut, and that he never tried Lux. What's wrong with that? That's exactly what I'd say. Lux is a brand, and it is a completely different type of string. Mac grew up with natural gut, as that's all they had back then. If you put it into proper perspective: syn gut was a revelation during Mac's time. But again, Mac said nothing wrong.

As to what Cahill/Fowler said, yeah, afterward I was scratching my head and thinking 'WTF?' Those two need to take a trip or two down to the locker room and practice courts before they start spouting off info like that. Fed has not used a PS in what. . .5 years? And he's always played with a 90. And Cahill saying that Rafa plays with a 90? Ummm. . .WTF? Rafa has always played with a 100, as far as I know. And as to Fowler talking about racquet weight, I kind of understand what he was saying. I think he was saying that for most guys, Rafa's racquet would be too light, as for all intents and purposes it is a junior or women's racquet as to its low weight. I tried playing with Rafa's racquet, but it was just too light for me. Compared to most other tour racquets, Rafa's racquet is really light.

LPShanet
07-04-2008, 03:45 PM
I cant believe that Mcenroe just said that nadals racket is "30-40 grams lighter" and "alot of players are experimenting with lighter frames.... Roddicks frame is lighter"

other stupid quotes "they are also going to smaller heads... Fed DROPPED DOWN to a 90 sq in"

and right after that "Rafa is has always used a synthetic gut, never really tried the luxilons" Like luxilon is a TYPE of string!!

Yeah, I noticed that one, too. It's especially funny since the string Rafa uses (and has used for ages) is a poly, much more closely related to "the Luxilons" (sic) than it is to any synthetic gut.

Overall, the takeaway is that either willfully or due to ignorance, pretty much all the racquet commentary during pro matches is either useless or riddled with inaccuracies. In some cases, they avoid "outing" any of the racquet companies, since they are major sponsors and advertisers...in other cases, they simply don't have good info.

LPShanet
07-04-2008, 03:46 PM
I've heard McEnroe say things like these before and the explanation I got was that he considers everything outside of natural gut (including polyester) to be synthetic gut. In his own twisted way, I suspect he was saying he doesn't use the Luxilon brand like so many of other ATP players.

That could be true. I've definitely heard him refer to synthetic gut before when he really just means any synthetic (meaning non-natural, i.e. non-gut) string. We use a pretty narrow definition of synthetic gut here on the boards, but technically all non-gut strings are "synthetics".

CAM178
07-04-2008, 03:56 PM
They aren't stupid statements, they're just poorly worded - which is why very few former pros should be allowed near a commentary booth.
McEnroe means that Fed is bucking the trend for larger (to McEnroe) 95sq+ racquets so he's 'dropped down' to a 90sq. Yes, he and a lot of other people, especially former players, treat Luxilon as a separate type of string. Roddick's racquet is lighter, when compared to the weights players used when McEnroe was on tour.
I think the problem is that the game has passed McEnroe by. That's not such a problem if you're a commentator who doesn't make grand statements about the game (John Barret) but for someone like McEnroe who has an opinion on everything it is crucial.
Y'all are way too critical of Mac. He isn't stupid or 'not in the know'. Rather, he and the other pros talk in their own lingo, guys. If you were to sit around with several of these guys, I bet they would say a lot of things that you wouldn't understand. Do you think they would be critical of you for not knowing? No. They would explain what they're saying.

The game hasn't passed Mac by. Far from it. At almost 50 years of age, he is who Rafa chose to hit with before his semis at Wimby this year. That says enough about not only his credentials, but what the top guys think of him.

I'm a bit older player, too, and I think of Lux as a different type of string, too. Mostly because it is. It revolutionized strings, IMO. The first time I hit with it, I knew that I had just found the missing piece of the puzzle.

Y'all need to realize that anybody who has won a Grand Slam, or anybody who has played at that level, absolutely has a right to be in the commentary booth. There is a reason that Mac has been commentating for as long as he has. Do I think Mac is the best? Pfffft. Pretty freaking far from it. But he has been there. He has the miles and the insight, so he automatically gets my respect. Plus, I was around to watch him in '84, and that alone should get anybody's respect.

I'm not poo-pooing anybody for their opinion. Rather, I just want you guys to think about what you're saying sometimes. Just show these players the respect they deserve, when they deserve it.

LPShanet
07-04-2008, 03:56 PM
Cut Mac some slack, man. He knows more about tennis, and has seen more in tennis, than all of us on this board (I would imagine) put together. What Mac was saying was that Rafa has always used syn gut, and that he never tried Lux. What's wrong with that? That's exactly what I'd say. Lux is a brand, and it is a completely different type of string. But again, Mac said nothing wrong.

I agree that Mac does have incredible insight into tennis in general, as well as strategy, psychology and many other specific aspects of the game. However, the defense of his statements about Rafa's string simply isn't correct. Rafa's string is a type of poly monofilament, and in every sense of the word (playing performance, chemical structure, lab testing, etc.) is MUCH MUCH closer to Luxilon than it is to anything that would be called synthetic gut, since the term synthetic gut specifies a structure (multifilament wraps around a center core) and material (nylon) that Rafa's string simply doesn't have. That's what's wrong with what he said. It's factually dead wrong as well as misleading and inaccurate.

He didn't do it on purpose, but he made a complete error. Rafa's string would be much better described as "a string quite similar to (or having many of the properties of) Luxilon, but made by another brand" than it would by differentiating it from the thing it's most similar to. He was trying erroneously to make it seem more like a string that it's unrelated to.

jmsx521
07-04-2008, 03:56 PM
isn't that an absolutely massive amount of lead tape? and i'd think it would have problems staying on the racquet.

there is no way, it is that many. more like 5-6 lead tapes NOT 50-60.It sounds a lot, but it's not that bad really considering his size and strength, and the style he uses to swing at the ball -- which is to whip the ball, rather than hitting straight forward (the classic way). My racket is an ounce heavier than his, plus 16 of the 1" lead-tape strips at 12 o'clock and I am only half the size of Nadal... and it's not that tiring as long as you try to use the technique he uses.

I've watched Nadal practicing live on the side of the court... and I thought, there's no way he could do what he was doing with anything near a stock AeroPro Drive. So, it's quite possible it's really that heavy at the 12 o'clock. It was discussed in the Nadal's racket thread a while ago.... Unless I misunderstood the comments that were made.

LPShanet
07-04-2008, 03:57 PM
Y'all are way too critical of Mac. He isn't stupid or 'not in the know'. Rather, he and the other pros talk in their own lingo, guys. If you were to sit around with several of these guys, I bet they would say a lot of things that you wouldn't understand. Do you think they would be critical of you for not knowing? No. They would explain what they're saying.

The game hasn't passed Mac by. Far from it. At almost 50 years of age, he is who Rafa chose to hit with before his semis at Wimby this year. That says enough about not only his credentials, but what the top guys think of him.

I'm a bit older player, too, and I think of Lux as a different type of string, too. Mostly because it is. It revolutionized strings, IMO. The first time I hit with it, I knew that I had just found the missing piece of the puzzle.

Y'all need to realize that anybody who has won a Grand Slam, or anybody who has played at that level, absolutely has a right to be in the commentary booth. There is a reason that Mac has been commentating for as long as he has. Do I think Mac is the best? Pfffft. Pretty freaking far from it. But he has been there. He has the miles and the insight, so he automatically gets my respect. Plus, I was around to watch him in '84, and that alone should get anybody's respect.

I'm not poo-pooing anybody for their opinion. Rather, I just want you guys to think about what you're saying sometimes. Just show these players the respect they deserve, when they deserve it.

To be fair, I totally agree with you on ALL of the above accounts. He's a pretty darn good commentator, very entertaining at times, and still plays VERY well. He just made an error about the string.

CAM178
07-04-2008, 04:01 PM
I agree that Mac does have incredible insight into tennis in general, as well as strategy, psychology and many other specific aspects of the game. However, the defense of his statements about Rafa's string simply isn't correct. Rafa's string is a type of poly monofilament, and in every sense of the word (playing performance, chemical structure, lab testing, etc.) is MUCH MUCH closer to Luxilon than it is to anything that would be called synthetic gut, since the term synthetic gut specifies a structure (multifilament wraps around a center core) and material (nylon) that Rafa's string simply doesn't have. That's what's wrong with what he said. It's factually dead wrong as well as misleading and inaccurate.
He didn't do it on purpose, but he made a complete error. Rafa's string would be much better described as "a string quite similar to (or having many of the properties of) Luxilon, but made by another brand" than it would by differentiating it from the thing it's most similar to. He was trying erroneously to make it seem more like a string that it's unrelated to.
Okay. But first off, take it easy. The all caps, and the rest of your explanation are exactly why Mac said what he said: you get way too technical for the average tennis viewer, or the average club player. If you said what you said to a club hacker, you would immediately get the deer-in-headlights look.

Also, I didn't think that Rafa's string was like Lux at all. I thought it was more like a syn gut, so if what you say is true, then excuse both Mac and me. I've played with Rafa's string, and to me it didn't play like Lux. At least not like any of the Lux I've played with.

Just remember that Mac is trying to speak to an uninformed (the majority) audience. I know what you mean, but try explaining that to someone who doesn't know tennis. A lot of people tune in to watch Fed and Rafa because they are such major sports stars, but they just don't understand the intricacies of the game.

That's all I'm trying to convey.

BreakPoint
07-04-2008, 05:32 PM
and right after that "Rafa is has always used a synthetic gut, never really tried the luxilons" Like luxilon is a TYPE of string!!

^^^LOL, Rafa hasn't used a synthetic Gut since he was a little child. Rafa has always used polys by Babolat.
McEnroe labels and calls ALL strings that are NOT natural gut as "synthetic gut". It doesn't matter if it's a poly, co-poly, nylon, kevlar, aramid, etc. If it's not natural gut, then to him it's "synthetic gut". He's been using that term on TV for many years in reference to Luxilon. This is probably because when he was playing, almost all the pros used natural gut. So if you're not using natural gut then the only other option is "synthetic gut".

In fact, he's said many times on TV sentences like - "He uses this Luxilon string, which is a synthetic gut......"

nalk7
07-04-2008, 05:42 PM
there is no way, it is that many. more like 5-6 lead tapes NOT 50-60.

According yo Greg this is the truth concerning Rafa's lead tape: There is no way to take a racquet with the specs given by USRSA and make it into a "Nadal" racquet. However, if one had a racquet with Tennis Warehouse's measurements, one could add roughly 9.5 grams under the bumperguard near the tip, and about 2.5 grams one inch up from the end of the butt cap to get a racquet with measurements very similar to those of Nadal's racquet.

heres the link: http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html

counter_puncher
07-04-2008, 07:17 PM
Any American commentator = guy trying too hard to make himself look smart when he knows he isnt.

paulorenzo
07-04-2008, 07:37 PM
hey man, Chris fowler may not know a single thing about racquets, but Cahill and Mcenroe have substance to what they say. Cahill coached Andre and LLeyton, and played in the tour for a bit right? Mcenroe, eh, well. nevermind about Mcenroe. :)

Josherer
07-04-2008, 09:18 PM
Moral of the story. some commentators (such as John Necombe the one us Australians have to listen to) are absolutley rubbish!

drake
07-04-2008, 09:23 PM
hmmm. Lets see do I believe Cahill and McEnroe or some 14 year olds on a Racquet Forum? I think I'll lean toward the Slam champion and Cahill!

LPShanet
07-04-2008, 10:25 PM
Okay. But first off, take it easy. The all caps, and the rest of your explanation are exactly why Mac said what he said: you get way too technical for the average tennis viewer, or the average club player. If you said what you said to a club hacker, you would immediately get the deer-in-headlights look.

Also, I didn't think that Rafa's string was like Lux at all. I thought it was more like a syn gut, so if what you say is true, then excuse both Mac and me. I've played with Rafa's string, and to me it didn't play like Lux. At least not like any of the Lux I've played with.

Just remember that Mac is trying to speak to an uninformed (the majority) audience. I know what you mean, but try explaining that to someone who doesn't know tennis. A lot of people tune in to watch Fed and Rafa because they are such major sports stars, but they just don't understand the intricacies of the game.

That's all I'm trying to convey.

Didn't mean to come on so strong (that's a limitation of communicating via keyboard instead of voice), however the point is that McEnroe was trying to differentiate Rafa's strings from the "Luxilons" that everyone else uses. And by any objective measure, Rafa's string is one of the "Luxilon types". It's a monofilament poly-based string, which is exactly what Luxilon is in general type. (Luxilon is a co-poly technically, but this is basically what Duralast is, and isn't what synthetic gut is.)

Breakpoint is totally right that Mac often uses the term "synthetic gut" to refer to any synthetic (read: non-gut) string, but in this case he was actively differentiating between Luxilon-types (i.e. poly) and synthetic guts, and made an (unforced) error no matter how it's sliced. So even for the uninformed, he was trying to make a point about a difference that didn't exist. In fact, the opposite is true...Rafa essentially uses a Luxilon-like string.

You're definitely right that Duralast plays differently than Lux, just as various brands of multi play differently from each other, but it's still in the same family, and much closer than anything called synthetic gut would be.

All that said, I'd much rather have Mac commentating on a match than almost any of the other available options, since he is more fun and insightful than any of the other commentators, none of whom are particularly well informed on the details of pro gear.

Vermillion
07-04-2008, 10:29 PM
when did ps85 come out?

Fedace
07-04-2008, 10:34 PM
when did ps85 come out?

1985 i think

CAM178
07-04-2008, 10:44 PM
Didn't mean to come on so strong (that's a limitation of communicating via keyboard instead of voice), however the point is that McEnroe was trying to differentiate Rafa's strings from the "Luxilons" that everyone else uses. And by any objective measure, Rafa's string is one of the "Luxilon types". It's a monofilament poly-based string, which is exactly what Luxilon is in general type. (Luxilon is a co-poly technically, but this is basically what Duralast is, and isn't what synthetic gut is.)
Breakpoint is totally right that Mac often uses the term "synthetic gut" to refer to any synthetic (read: non-gut) string, but in this case he was actively differentiating between Luxilon-types (i.e. poly) and synthetic guts, and made an (unforced) error no matter how it's sliced. So even for the uninformed, he was trying to make a point about a difference that didn't exist. In fact, the opposite is true...Rafa essentially uses a Luxilon-like string.
You're definitely right that Duralast plays differently than Lux, just as various brands of multi play differently from each other, but it's still in the same family, and much closer than anything called synthetic gut would be.
All that said, I'd much rather have Mac commentating on a match than almost any of the other available options, since he is more fun and insightful than any of the other commentators, none of whom are particularly well informed on the details of pro gear.
No worries, man. I'm pretty easygoing, and I wasn't upset. Of note, though: Rafa uses Duralast? I thought he used Pro Hurricane? I hit with Pro Hurricane, and didn't like it. Didn't play at all like Lux.

The tough thing about former tour players is that they talk in a different language than do we. They have a different language on tour. But mainly, he is from a different generation. I mean, look no further than that archaic racquet he wields. Crazy that he still plays with that dinosaur. But hey, if he can play like he does with that, and based on his results, he's the man in my book. It's like the old saying: 'Until you've walked a mile in someone else's shoes. . .'

To be honest, the whole string thing confuses the hell out of me. There are just too many choices. Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing. But when you're making a string change and don't have access to someone in the know (pro stringers, pro players, etc.), it is just too much to research. Like Mac, I remember the days in the juniors when it was pretty much PSG, just tell the stringer what tension you want. Sadly, PSG Original still makes up half of my current hybrid. Wish I knew of something else to go to. . .

But I'm getting off topic. Guys, enjoying the discussion. To right this train, I agree with the OP that I had no idea where Cahill & Fowler got their info. It shocked me, as Cahill is one of the guys I look to as really being up on things. I'm thinking that he meant that unlike some of the other tour guys, Rog is sticking with what is essentially (and Cahill is right on this) a 25 year old racquet line, which the PS line is. It's old as dirt, and Rog hasn't strayed away from the racquet line during his pro career, unlike many pros who change a lot. Safin is another old school guy. To be honest, it still amazes me how a guy who is 6'5" & 200 and so lanky can wield such a tiny frame.

BreakPoint
07-04-2008, 11:39 PM
when did ps85 come out?

1985 i think
Actually, it came out in 1983.

Ultra2HolyGrail
07-05-2008, 05:08 AM
So i guess this mean Roger is NOT using the K-factor afterall .........Thank you Chris Fowler for your confirmation.


Well it's true, he does not use a K90. Karophite is new technology, i don't believe he has been using karophite all these years.

Josherer
07-05-2008, 06:13 AM
hmmm. Lets see do I believe Cahill and McEnroe or some 14 year olds on a Racquet Forum? I think I'll lean toward the Slam champion and Cahill!

hmmm... Lets see....... Do you believe that Nadal uses a racquet far to light for a recreational player... hmmmm... lets think about that.

albino smurf
07-05-2008, 06:16 AM
When they were talking about head sizes I think they mis-spoke and said Rafa instead of Roger.

mdjenders
07-05-2008, 08:48 AM
I also like how mcenroe always says that everything that is not "Luxilon" is synthetic gut, as in "rafa uses all synthetic gut. he has not tried the luxilon."

BreakPoint
07-05-2008, 09:36 AM
Well it's true, he does not use a K90. Karophite is new technology, i don't believe he has been using karophite all these years.
Even Darren Cahill, who used to use the PS 6.0 85, knows that Karophite is just graphite.

The only "new technology" that's in the K90 is the lack of it. :shock:

Fedace
07-05-2008, 09:38 AM
Even Darren Cahill, who used to use the PS 6.0 85, knows that Karophite is just graphite.

The only "new technology" that's in the K90 is the lack of it. :shock:

Then why does it feel different than N-codes ??

BreakPoint
07-05-2008, 09:43 AM
I also like how mcenroe always says that everything that is not "Luxilon" is synthetic gut, as in "rafa uses all synthetic gut. he has not tried the luxilon."
The funny thing is even Darren Cahill said that "Rafa uses all synthetic gut, while Roger uses gut in the mains and Luxilon in the crosses." I think maybe to the pros or the talk in the locker room is that if it's not Luxilon or natural gut, then it's "synthetic" gut. They are clearly differentiating Luxilon from all other polys. I think in their minds, Luxilon is a very special string and not just a poly, whereas, all other polys are just synthetic guts made from a different material.

BreakPoint
07-05-2008, 09:46 AM
Then why does it feel different than N-codes ??
The nCodes contained HyperCarbon and Double Braiding technology. The K90 contains neither. Thus, the K90 feels different because they took all the technology out of it. That's why the K90 feels so much closer to the PS 6.0 85 - because they both use the same 25 year old "technology".

sureshs
07-05-2008, 10:10 AM
Even Darren Cahill, who used to use the PS 6.0 85, knows that Karophite is just graphite.


I don't think he has ever thought about Karophite, or if he has, ever compared it with graphite.

Too much extrapolation about his knowledge and thinking, I feel.

Plus, it presumes that Karophite is just graphite, when Wilson says it is graphite fused with sand, with some cross structural formations.

LPShanet
07-05-2008, 10:32 AM
No worries, man. I'm pretty easygoing, and I wasn't upset. Of note, though: Rafa uses Duralast? I thought he used Pro Hurricane? I hit with Pro Hurricane, and didn't like it. Didn't play at all like Lux.

Sadly, PSG Original still makes up half of my current hybrid. Wish I knew of something else to go to. . .

I'm thinking that he meant that unlike some of the other tour guys, Rog is sticking with what is essentially (and Cahill is right on this) a 25 year old racquet line, which the PS line is. It's old as dirt, and Rog hasn't strayed away from the racquet line during his pro career, unlike many pros who change a lot. Safin is another old school guy. To be honest, it still amazes me how a guy who is 6'5" & 200 and so lanky can wield such a tiny frame.

Yes, although Rafa "endorses" Pro Hurricane, he actually uses Duralast (and has for many years). There are quite a few threads in this forum that touch on that, but it's been confirmed by a number of people in person, including myself. He even gets his Duralast marked with Pro Hurricane labels at times...sort of the string equivalent of a "paintjob". This is mostly because the market for Duralast is limited, and it's not even sold in the U.S., among other places.

As for finding something other than PSG to go to in your hybrid, you might try posting on these boards in the Strings and Stringing section, with some info on what qualities you're looking for. There will be many informed opinions on the hundreds of options, most of which play better than PSG original. Also, feel free to email me directly (off-thread) and I'll help you find some good replacement options.

And with respect to Roger's (and Marat's) racquets, as Breakpoint already alluded to upthread, you're almost certainly correct that Killer's comments were a reference to the fact that regardless of which particular interation of the frame is under the paint of Fed's and Marat's frames, the technology in the lines they use essentially hasn't changed in the last 25 years. There may be minor tweaks to layup and finish (and headsize), but both Safin and Federer are playing with the same technology and basic frames they've used for many years. By contrast, Rafa uses a frame that incorporates some newer technologies, and a lighter than traditional (for a pro) weight. (As has been noted on these boards, Rafa hasn't picked up all the technologies, though, as the "Cortex" on his frames is a paintjob. Still, there's no arguing that it's got the aeromodular technology and that it's got a much wider beam in the head than a traditional frame.)

LPShanet
07-05-2008, 10:39 AM
The nCodes contained HyperCarbon and Double Braiding technology. The K90 contains neither. Thus, the K90 feels different because they took all the technology out of it. That's why the K90 feels so much closer to the PS 6.0 85 - because they both use the same 25 year old "technology".

Absolutely.

To be fair, though, even HyperCarbon and Double Braiding aren't really NEW technology. Braiding is about 30 years old, and HyperCarbon (in its various names) has been around more than 10. They do account for the differences in the layup that make the frames play/feel different, exactly as you point out, but none of it is very new...they're just different.

Evan1225
07-05-2008, 10:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iDQ5s_V2E0&feature=related

Federer doesn't respect racquets.

MTXR
07-05-2008, 11:25 AM
a racquet needs respect?

LafayetteHitter
07-05-2008, 11:28 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iDQ5s_V2E0&feature=related

Federer doesn't respect racquets.

Which of us is perfect? That is some pretty old footage. The shot he missed had little to do with the racquet though.

Evan1225
07-05-2008, 11:36 AM
Which of us is perfect? That is some pretty old footage. The shot he missed had little to do with the racquet though.
Who cares, it's funny.

Fedace
07-05-2008, 11:38 AM
The nCodes contained HyperCarbon and Double Braiding technology. The K90 contains neither. Thus, the K90 feels different because they took all the technology out of it. That's why the K90 feels so much closer to the PS 6.0 85 - because they both use the same 25 year old "technology".

If they took all the tech out of the k-factor then what good is the k-factor ?? It should suck then right ???

BreakPoint
07-05-2008, 11:48 AM
If they took all the tech out of the k-factor then what good is the k-factor ?? It should suck then right ???
Are you kidding me???? The less "technology" a racquet has, the better it feels and plays. :)

Fedace
07-05-2008, 12:01 PM
Are you kidding me???? The less "technology" a racquet has, the better it feels and plays. :)

Then why not just play with Old Wilson Jack Kramer wood signature ??:confused:

LPShanet
07-05-2008, 12:08 PM
If they took all the tech out of the k-factor then what good is the k-factor ?? It should suck then right ???

On the contrary, the racquet Breakpoint refers to (the k90...and by extension it's cousin the k six-one to some extent) is a solidly made racquet without gimmicks. There's very little useful new tech on the market for player's frames, and most of the k factor features aren't even used in the k90 or ksix one. Breakpoint is right that the tech has been removed (although there wasn't all that much tech to start with in the n series either). And no, that doesn't mean it sucks. None of the recent so-called tech is that relevant to player's frames.

There is no such thing as "k factor", nor is there really any tech involved. It's a marketing gimmick where they decided to assign "k names" to various parity or existing features of the racquet and its materials to make it sound like an integrated system. In fact, most of the so-called k features are only included in the game improvement frames in the line, and not in the k90/ksix-one.

Here's a somewhat specific breakdown of the k elements:

karophite black: Just a form of graphite/carbon employing nano technology in its structure. There is no difference in definition from nano carbon (or from any other brand's graphite/carbon), although they may lay it up slightly differently.

kontour yoke: Refers to the shape of the cross section in the throat area. There is no "technology" to speak of. Companies have experimented with the properties of various cross-sections for decades. It's employed to add stiffness to some of the lightweight game improvement racquets in the line. It's also scientifically the equivalent of the cross section tech used by Head in its Titanium frames when they came out over ten years ago. Those Head frames played the way they did because of this cross-section, not because of any titanium (which was entirely cosmetic, and added as a marketing ploy.) Also, this particular shape is not used in the k90 or ksix one.

konnector: This refers to the two external wings that flex at impact. While it's a real structural item, it's essentially the same concept as Catapult and half a dozen other "spring" technologies that other companies have employed for quite a few years. Not new. And once again it's only incoporated into the game improvement line. No sign of it on any of the player's frames.

kompact center: This just refers to the tight geometry of the throat portion of the racquet, and is no different from dozens of other frames on the market. The geometry used was present as far back as the aluminum racquets of the 70's!!!! This geometry, by the way, is listed as a feature on the k90, but is apparently not used on the k six-one.

So in the end, here's the summary. k factor refers to a material that everyone in the business is already using (and has for quite a few years), an old cross section shape that's only present in a few racquets, an old spring technology that's only present in a few racquets, and a frame geometry that's been around for over 30 years. Ergo, there's no new tech in the k90...it's just a solidly made, fine quality player's frame. It differs from the n90 mainly in its layup, which makes it feel less "hollow" and more solid.

mdjenders
07-05-2008, 03:26 PM
that is a fine post, LPShanet! dead on.

Vermillion
07-05-2008, 04:26 PM
Well, Federer did used the ps85 earlier in his career. What's all the fuss about?

BreakPoint
07-05-2008, 04:49 PM
Then why not just play with Old Wilson Jack Kramer wood signature ??:confused:
Obviously, it's because they don't make them any more and they break way too easily. :)

tenis
07-05-2008, 05:56 PM
Any American commentator = guy trying too hard to make himself look smart when he knows he isnt.

I agree 110%.

Enlightened Coelacanth
07-05-2008, 06:07 PM
I'm amazed at the amount of hate and vitriol heaped on Fowler and Cahill merely because they aren't caught up and obsessed by the geekier aspects of tennis racquet technology.

Most people aren't, you know.

jackcrawford
07-05-2008, 08:49 PM
I'm amazed at the amount of hate and vitriol heaped on Fowler and Cahill merely because they aren't caught up and obsessed by the geekier aspects of tennis racquet technology.

Most people aren't, you know.The halfwits on this board who live with mom, play at the "open" level (like "scratch" golfers who shoot 114 at a US Open course), and think anyone who doesn't sleep with a St. Vincent Pro Staff is a dork aren't going to be impressed by minor details like Cahill and Fowler's 7 figure salaries, being respected coaches/announcers, driving Mercedes instead of unicycles, and having access to live, attractive females instead of inflatable "girl" dummies.

Ultra2HolyGrail
07-06-2008, 12:29 AM
Even Darren Cahill, who used to use the PS 6.0 85, knows that Karophite is just graphite.

The only "new technology" that's in the K90 is the lack of it. :shock:


Stunning, but not suprising. So wilson is LYING about the "karophite" structure of the graphite? It's just plain ole graphite? Sure buddy.

BreakPoint
07-06-2008, 05:24 AM
Stunning, but not suprising. So wilson is LYING about the "karophite" structure of the graphite? It's just plain ole graphite? Sure buddy.
No, it's graphite with some SiO2 molecules in it, but it's still graphite (carbon). That doesn't mean the carbon turns into gold, it's still carbon - the same material. And it certainly doesn't make the racquet play any better. It only changes the feel just very slightly, barely noticeable.

LPShanet
07-06-2008, 02:16 PM
No, it's graphite with some SiO2 molecules in it, but it's still graphite (carbon). That doesn't mean the carbon turns into gold, it's still carbon - the same material. And it certainly doesn't make the racquet play any better. It only changes the feel just very slightly, barely noticeable.

And using silicon dioxide (SiO2) in the layup is neither brand new nor proprietary to Wilson.

LPShanet
07-06-2008, 02:22 PM
I'm amazed at the amount of hate and vitriol heaped on Fowler and Cahill merely because they aren't caught up and obsessed by the geekier aspects of tennis racquet technology.

Most people aren't, you know.

I'm not sure their lack of esoteric knowledge is the issue. There are two other valid ones:

1. They chose to talk about a subject that they don't have current information on. They could just as easily have talked about tactical information, training or any other aspect of the game in which they're well-versed, but instead they chose to make specific (incorrect) points without having thorough research. That's bad form in any journalism discipline.

2. They talk about tennis for a living. The least they could do is get current and complete info, since they might need it at some point. It's even worse that many in the viewing audience actually know more about this area than they do, rather than just thinking they do.

After all, when a journalist makes any other type of error, it usually prompts a rash of letters, and results in a correction issued later, right?

(Imagine a serious news host covering the middle east, and telling us that the weapons being used were actually filled with bacon instead of explosives...they wouldn't be excused for that because of "not being obsessed with the geekier aspects" of that subject.)

Bottom line: If they don't have current or accurate info, they shouldn't talk about it as if they do.

LPShanet
07-06-2008, 02:29 PM
that is a fine post, LPShanet! dead on.

Thank you...thank you very much.
(- Elvis Aaron Presley)

VAmazona
07-06-2008, 02:59 PM
Fowler is put on there as a commentator that asks the questions from an outsider's perspective. He's the fish outta water color commentator guy. He doesn't provide technical insight outside of telling people what the basic differences are on a player's racquet vs the ones you buy at the store (something Wilson tries to vehemently deny). Figure this: he makes the majority of his paycheck commentating college football (and damn good at that). The rest of the time, he flies around the globe to the majors.

Enlightened Coelacanth
07-06-2008, 03:03 PM
I'm not sure their lack of esoteric knowledge is the issue. There are two other valid ones:

1. They chose to talk about a subject that they don't have current information on. They could just as easily have talked about tactical information, training or any other aspect of the game in which they're well-versed, but instead they chose to make specific (incorrect) points without having thorough research. That's bad form in any journalism discipline.I'm not sure that what they said was incorrect. The part about Federer's racquet anyway. It is basically a twenty five year old frame with just enough added material (that has debatable value) in order
to legally get away with marketing hyperbole

2. They talk about tennis for a living. The least they could do is get current and complete info, since they might need it at some point. It's even worse that many in the viewing audience actually know more about this area than they do, rather than just thinking they do.

After all, when a journalist makes any other type of error, it usually prompts a rash of letters, and results in a correction issued later, right?

(Imagine a serious news host covering the middle east, and telling us that the weapons being used were actually filled with bacon instead of explosives...they wouldn't be excused for that because of "not being obsessed with the geekier aspects" of that subject.)

Bottom line: If they don't have current or accurate info, they shouldn't talk about it as if they do.Well the good thing about tennis is that no one gets killed over it. So if someone is misinformed about weapons that kill then that could be dangerous and bad. If someone misstates something about the racquet of Raphael Nadal, then so what?
Most casual fans will never catch the error or care about it.

LPShanet
07-06-2008, 04:47 PM
I'm not sure that what they said was incorrect. The part about Federer's racquet anyway. It is basically a twenty five year old frame with just enough added material (that has debatable value) in order
to legally get away with marketing hyperbole

Well the good thing about tennis is that no one gets killed over it. So if someone is misinformed about weapons that kill then that could be dangerous and bad. If someone misstates something about the racquet of Raphael Nadal, then so what?
Most casual fans will never catch the error or care about it.

Yes, I think the consensus on these boards is that the bit about Fed's racquet IS correct in many practical senses (other than the slipup about head sizes). It was the other statements that were off the mark factually, especially with respect to strings.

The example of weapons was reductio ad absurdum to make a point. I figured that would be obvious. But the same applies to what brand some starlet wears on the red carpet, and to who is dating whom. And those items, trivial as they may be, are typically corrected, as are errors in wedding announcements and other such non-life threatening things.

Fedace
07-06-2008, 04:49 PM
OK Brad Gilbert made another boo boo....he said that unbelievable tiebreaker Borg lost in the 1981 match,,,and he could not believe Borg still came back and won the match....Sorry BRAD,,,,it was 1980 final...

hoodjem
07-06-2008, 05:30 PM
Gilbert was rather full of himself, and pretty much spewing hot air.

I liked what Becker had to say: usually from a player on the court's point of view.

tennis_hand
07-06-2008, 10:26 PM
Ok, all you pro racket people. I am listening to Chris Fowler and Darren Cahill in Rafa vs Schuttler match. Chris mentioned that Roger uses the same racket by Wilson from 25 years ago and it is extremely head light. and Darren Cahill Agrees. So what the heck is idiot Chris talking about here.?? The racket from 25 years ago,,,Wilson Prostaff 90 that Roger grew up with ?? If so how would Chris know this ?? another idiot statement by Chris,,,"Rafa uses a extremely light racket and he can muscle it around, but amateur recreational players would not be able to use such a racket cause it is so LIGHT". Are these guys this ignorant ?? :shock::confused:

when you are on tv, u can talk whatever you want. the crazier the better. it gets you noticed.

but nobody remembers what they said the next day.

NikeWilson
07-06-2008, 10:47 PM
Chris Fowler is a d-bag. i've never understood why this man gets to voice his extremely novice opinion on the sport of tennis. i'm like "please, Fowler, shut up! you're nothing but a tele-prompter reader, so just read the damn tele-prompter". furthermore, i get ****ed when i see Pat McEnroe actually encourage Fowler for his opinion. wtf?? Pat Mac, you know better than to do that!
Chris Fowler YOU are a recreational player.
and recreational players suck not because of the racquet, but because they're recreational players.

jorel
07-07-2008, 08:41 AM
on the bbc they said that federer strings at 48/49 tension, very loose. any truth in that?

yes,,, confirmed by Nate himself

bbzz24
07-09-2008, 08:16 AM
I cant believe that Mcenroe just said that nadals racket is "30-40 grams lighter" and "alot of players are experimenting with lighter frames.... Roddicks frame is lighter"

other stupid quotes "they are also going to smaller heads... Fed DROPPED DOWN to a 90 sq in"

and right after that "Rafa is has always used a synthetic gut, never really tried the luxilons" Like luxilon is a TYPE of string!!

probably they would reason the movement in atp ranks by those 'experiments' as well.

can possibly nadal play one game with synthetic gut without breaking it? i hit with much less spin and the movement of syn gut is plain awful.

bbzz24
07-09-2008, 08:49 AM
hmmm. Lets see do I believe Cahill and McEnroe or some 14 year olds on a Racquet Forum? I think I'll lean toward the Slam champion and Cahill!

So you'd believe someone who talks about "this other stuff" that he has not seen or inquired about its name just because he's played tennis with completely different "stuff"? I bet you voted Bush both times.

dman72
07-09-2008, 11:07 AM
So the commentators don't know as much about tennis strings as most people on this board. It doesn't mean that they don't know more about the game.

Azzurri
07-11-2008, 05:09 PM
I cant believe that Mcenroe just said that nadals racket is "30-40 grams lighter" and "alot of players are experimenting with lighter frames.... Roddicks frame is lighter"

other stupid quotes "they are also going to smaller heads... Fed DROPPED DOWN to a 90 sq in"

and right after that "Rafa is has always used a synthetic gut, never really tried the luxilons" Like luxilon is a TYPE of string!!

what I can't believe is you took someone's money..what's up?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=187910

JW10S
07-11-2008, 06:54 PM
What Chris Fowler meant (and Roddick said the same thing in an interview a while back that's been posted here many times and Tony Roche also said the same thing) is that the K90 is essentially the same racquet and uses the same 25 year old technology as the PS 6.0 85 but with a slightly bigger head.

I play with the K90 and it does feel like a 25 year old racquet to me. In fact, too me, it has a solid "wood-like" feel to it. I don't notice any "technology" in the K90 that's not in the PS 6.0. In fact, my PS 6.0 95 has more power than my K90. IMO, the K90 could have easily come out 25 years ago and it wouldn't have been anything special even 25 years ago.A VP for Wilson told me off the record that the so-called K-Factor racquets are nothing more than braided graphite--the same thing they've been doing 20+ years. Nothing new...

Fedace
07-11-2008, 07:02 PM
A VP for Wilson told me off the record that the so-called K-Factor racquets are nothing more than braided graphite--the same thing they've been doing 20+ years. Nothing new...

REally,?? would you mind giving me his name and email adress ?? they specifically drew the pic of Karophite, more dense material than regular graphite.

BreakPoint
07-11-2008, 07:20 PM
A VP for Wilson told me off the record that the so-called K-Factor racquets are nothing more than braided graphite--the same thing they've been doing 20+ years. Nothing new...
Yes, I knew that. Wilson also directly told me the same thing. They specifically told me that the K90 does not use Double Braiding technology like in the nCode 90 and PS Tour 90 but uses single braiding just like in the PS 6.0 85. They use Double Braiding to incorporate the HyperCarbon, and neither the K90 nor the PS 6.0 contain HyperCarbon.

BreakPoint
07-11-2008, 07:23 PM
REally,?? would you mind giving me his name and email adress ?? they specifically drew the pic of Karophite, more dense material than regular graphite.
But that has nothing to do with braiding. Braiding is how they align and weave the graphite sheets in the layup.

JW10S
07-11-2008, 07:40 PM
REally,?? would you mind giving me his name and email adress ?? they specifically drew the pic of Karophite, more dense material than regular graphite.I could give you the name and email--but I won't. What part of 'off the record' do you not understand? 'They drew a pic'--you're kidding, right?

Fedace
07-11-2008, 07:43 PM
I could give you the name and email--but I won't. What part of 'off the record' do you not understand? 'They drew a pic'--you're kidding, right?

so basically he is saying, the Karophite isn't much of a tech improvement over OLD graphite frames. they claim that Karophite makes the graphine denser and stronger so it is actually stronger than any N-code or double braid tech.:confused:

pfchang
07-12-2008, 03:35 PM
so basically he is saying, the Karophite isn't much of a tech improvement over OLD graphite frames. they claim that Karophite makes the graphine denser and stronger so it is actually stronger than any N-code or double braid tech.:confused:

what exactly is Karophite Black anyways?
i heard it was essentially Ncode but with SiO2 or something?

Josherer
07-12-2008, 04:34 PM
WELL PEOPLE THAT'S WHY THE K90 FEELS SO GOOD!

LPShanet
07-12-2008, 09:49 PM
what exactly is Karophite Black anyways?
i heard it was essentially Ncode but with SiO2 or something?

Scroll up the thread. It's just graphite. The details of how they laid up the particular mix don't really matter as much as you'd think. Ncode is just graphite, too...just a different shape in the layup.

Eph
07-14-2008, 06:57 AM
Fed uses the K61 90 but it is a tad softer than the retail version.

LPShanet
07-14-2008, 08:15 AM
Fed uses the K61 90 but it is a tad softer than the retail version.

Good info to know, but what is your source?

Eph
07-14-2008, 08:17 AM
Good info to know, but what is your source?

Roman at RPNY - I asked him if he was really using Sampras' racquet when I was having some customizations done.

He said his customizations were in the graphite construction and he had no idea why they made the retail version harder than his racquet.

BreakPoint
07-14-2008, 12:06 PM
Roman at RPNY - I asked him if he was really using Sampras' racquet when I was having some customizations done.

He said his customizations were in the graphite construction and he had no idea why they made the retail version harder than his racquet.
But Roman at RPNY does not work on Federer's racquets. Nate Ferguson at Priority One does.

Eph
07-14-2008, 12:14 PM
But Roman at RPNY does not work on Federer's racquets. Nate Ferguson at Priority One does.

This I know but I am sure they talk. And it's not an outrageous claim; he's making a comment about the inside of his racquet vis-a-vis graphite building to make it softer for him. And he did work with Sampras save my question "Is Fed's racquet really what Sampras was using?"

BreakPoint
07-14-2008, 12:21 PM
This I know but I am sure they talk. And it's not an outrageous claim; he's making a comment about the inside of his racquet vis-a-vis graphite building to make it softer for him. And he did work with Sampras save my question "Is Fed's racquet really what Sampras was using?"
Are you sure Roman worked on Sampras' racquets? Because Nate Ferguson became famous because he's the one that used to customize and string Sampras's racquets.

Did Roman say that he had an actual Federer K90 and had actually played with it and compared it to a retail K90? That's really the only way to tell if it plays softer.

Eph
07-14-2008, 12:24 PM
Are you sure Roman worked on Sampras' racquets? Because Nate Ferguson became famous because he's the one that used to customize and string Sampras's racquets.

Did Roman say that he had an actual Federer K90 and had actually played with it and compared it to a retail K90? That's really the only way to tell if it plays softer.

I think he did, but not exclusively. I know there are other people out there, but Roman did spend some time working with Sampras.

No, he doesn't have an actual K90 that I know of; he simply said that the graphite was constructed differently so it would be softer. That's *it*.

match
07-14-2008, 04:12 PM
Well, I wouldn't necessary say that, but one thing the general public doesn't realize is that there are a lot of different ways to accomplish the same thing. Ever notice through the years, that all the new technologies are supposed to improve either A) comfort, B) power, C) control, D) spin, E) stability, F) feel, or G) maneuverability. That's it. There are new revolutions in racket technology, just different ways to accomplish the same thing. Each year, the manufacturer's find new ways to accomplish the same intended benefit/result, give it a fancy name, and wala market it to the masses. It's not a new racket you're getting in terms of actual PERFORMANCE so much as you're just getting a new racket with different decals on it designed in the end to accomplish ultimately pretty much the same thing.

The biggest difference in "technology" by far has been producing strings with nearly the same control and spin as kevlar but with significantly more power and a more manageable jar to the ol' elbow.

One thing the general public doesn't realize, however, is that while kevlar pretty much always plays the same until it breaks, a.k.a. dead as a door nail; the new-age polys I've found only really deliver on their promise of utopian power, control, and spin all at the same time WHEN they're fresh. Seriously, even after just a few hits, they tend to go dead and lose their resilency/spring. They just feel like they stop responding so damn dynamically to the ball, and when that happens they become a "neither here, nor there" type string.

The pros avoid this, because they restring so frequently, whether the string is broken or not, or even actually got played or not.



Yep what he said.....

tennisinoc
09-26-2008, 10:37 PM
Sorry to bring up an old post, but I stumbled across this while searching for some info on Nadal and had to respond to this post.

The confusion with what commentators say "accidentally" on the air is the actually the TRUTH !! They are not ignorant. Unfortunately, the public are the ignorant ones. That's what the Sports companies want us to be so we keep on buying.

The most commentators are not under any tennis company contract to promote their newest products. So, because of that, they just say what they know. I have heard several times listening to matches, that Pros don't use the same equipment that they promote.
They are paintjobs over their older rackets that they have been using that made them Pros!
Plus, most pros have customized rackets that are not sold to the public.

Sports marketing sure has a hold on its consumers, and that is just not in the Tennis industry. It's all Sports industries!!! (I know a few Sports Pros.)
They just have to say that "So and So" is using this racket or string and everyone eats it up and goes out and buys hundreds of dollars of new equipment every year. "Suckas!"
They do this because they know, if you don't buy any more rackets in a year or so, they can't make any more money.
Because truthfully, your equipment can last for many years (if not abused)

The smartest thing to do as a consumer is to forget what they say the pros are using. Demo different brands of rackets that match your specifications.
And last but not least, save your money and spend it on lessons instead of the newest $200+ dollar racket gimmicks.
That will guarantee more points/wins that any racket will :)

Happy Hitting!

mraznman
09-27-2008, 01:45 PM
Ok, all you pro racket people. I am listening to Chris Fowler and Darren Cahill in Rafa vs Schuttler match. Chris mentioned that Roger uses the same racket by Wilson from 25 years ago and it is extremely head light. and Darren Cahill Agrees. So what the heck is idiot Chris talking about here.?? The racket from 25 years ago,,,Wilson Prostaff 90 that Roger grew up with ?? If so how would Chris know this ?? another idiot statement by Chris,,,"Rafa uses a extremely light racket and he can muscle it around, but amateur recreational players would not be able to use such a racket cause it is so LIGHT". Are these guys this ignorant ?? :shock::confused:

Well... their partially right because if I'm right, Federer's been using his old Pro Staff 6.1 Tour's or something like that so yea.

LPShanet
09-27-2008, 04:21 PM
Sorry to bring up an old post, but I stumbled across this while searching for some info on Nadal and had to respond to this post.

The confusion with what commentators say "accidentally" on the air is the actually the TRUTH !! They are not ignorant. Unfortunately, the public are the ignorant ones. That's what the Sports companies want us to be so we keep on buying.

The most commentators are not under any tennis company contract to promote their newest products. So, because of that, they just say what they know. I have heard several times listening to matches, that Pros don't use the same equipment that they promote.
They are paintjobs over their older rackets that they have been using that made them Pros!
Plus, most pros have customized rackets that are not sold to the public.

Sports marketing sure has a hold on its consumers, and that is just not in the Tennis industry. It's all Sports industries!!! (I know a few Sports Pros.)
They just have to say that "So and So" is using this racket or string and everyone eats it up and goes out and buys hundreds of dollars of new equipment every year. "Suckas!"
They do this because they know, if you don't buy any more rackets in a year or so, they can't make any more money.
Because truthfully, your equipment can last for many years (if not abused)

The smartest thing to do as a consumer is to forget what they say the pros are using. Demo different brands of rackets that match your specifications.
And last but not least, save your money and spend it on lessons instead of the newest $200+ dollar racket gimmicks.
That will guarantee more points/wins that any racket will :)

Happy Hitting!

I think you might want to read the whole thread.

LPShanet
09-27-2008, 04:21 PM
Well... their partially right because if I'm right, Federer's been using his old Pro Staff 6.1 Tour's or something like that so yea.

Nope...custom frame that's not entirely different from that. But even if that were the case, it's not 25 years old.

RFRF
09-27-2008, 08:02 PM
What Chris Fowler meant (and Roddick said the same thing in an interview a while back that's been posted here many times and Tony Roche also said the same thing) is that the K90 is essentially the same racquet and uses the same 25 year old technology as the PS 6.0 85 but with a slightly bigger head.

I play with the K90 and it does feel like a 25 year old racquet to me. In fact, too me, it has a solid "wood-like" feel to it. I don't notice any "technology" in the K90 that's not in the PS 6.0. In fact, my PS 6.0 95 has more power than my K90. IMO, the K90 could have easily come out 25 years ago and it wouldn't have been anything special even 25 years ago. I think this is why so many people like it. I think when it comes to tennis racquets, the more "technology" they try to cram into a racquet, the worse it gets. I guess Federer agrees. :eek:
you hit the nail on the head!