PDA

View Full Version : Wilson will shut down Vortex


The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 10:49 PM
Wilson Goes For More Spin With Steam Rackets

Written by: Staff on 21st September 2012

Wilson has announced what it calls the newest in tennis racket technology for 2013 with the launch of Spin Effect Technology, its patent-pending racket technology that its said to dramatically increase spin. It is said to be the first racket system enabling players to add over 200 RPMs on their shots without needing to change their swing. Two rackets, the Steam 99S and Steam 105S, feature Spin Effect Technology and will debut in January 2013.

 

“This racket design is a significant breakthrough,” said Jon Muir, general manager for Wilson . “Our R&D and Product teams spent significant time testing, analyzing technologies and developing different racket designs that enhance spin and playability. We have something really special in the Steam 99S and Steam 105S. In the end, players will see their degree of spin increase. It is essentially the same as lowering the net by two inches and extending the court by a foot. The bottom line is that more shots make it over the net and stay in play.”

 

Wilson investigated the correlation between string pattern, racket design and spin and discovered that fewer cross strings were a key driver of maximizing string movement along with faster snapback speed to generate more spin.

 

John Lyons, Global Products Director for Wilson noticed that players don’t want to shorten their swing, but still want increased spin, so Wilson went for a complete racket redesign.  The Steam is said to be the first racket that provides up to 3.3 times more string movement and 69 percent faster snap back.

 

Lyons added they will recommend that players using the Spin Effect Technology also use the Luxilon 4g string to get the most out of the technology. This is the string that Serena Williams switched to, at least on half her strings, earlier in 2012.

LanEvo
10-07-2012, 11:01 PM
So then... I wonder how big those headsizes will be...

zapvor
10-07-2012, 11:03 PM
this was posted like a week ago........

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 11:14 PM
this was posted like a week ago........

Really....where?

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 11:19 PM
I counted the pattern an it's 16x15

The vortex es 100 i14 x 16

BreakPoint
10-08-2012, 12:00 AM
I say - BAN IT NOW!!!

Are there no limits? What's next? A racquet that plays for you while you sit in the shade sipping an iced tea?

It's out of control. We need to go back to wood racquets and gut strings so that it's only the player himself that generates all the power and spin without all of this "technology" doing it for you. Or else how do we know who the better player REALLY is instead of just who's using the better technology/equipment? It should be YOU that's generating the spin, NOT your strings nor your racquet.

Pete.Sampras.
10-08-2012, 03:26 AM
I say - BAN IT NOW!!!

Are there no limits? What's next? A racquet that plays for you while you sit in the shade sipping an iced tea?

It's out of control. We need to go back to wood racquets and gut strings so that it's only the player himself that generates all the power and spin without all of this "technology" doing it for you. Or else how do we know who the better player REALLY is instead of just who's using the better technology/equipment? It should be YOU that's generating the spin, NOT your strings nor your racquet.
I totally agree with that. It should be all about the player. Besides, the game does not need more spin that it already has...

Justin-JP
10-08-2012, 03:54 AM
I say - BAN IT NOW!!!

Are there no limits? What's next? A racquet that plays for you while you sit in the shade sipping an iced tea?

It's out of control. We need to go back to wood racquets and gut strings so that it's only the player himself that generates all the power and spin without all of this "technology" doing it for you. Or else how do we know who the better player REALLY is instead of just who's using the better technology/equipment? It should be YOU that's generating the spin, NOT your strings nor your racquet.

I would hope that is tongue-in-cheek. There is nothing new about fewer crosses allowing the mains to move more freely (at the expense of some control, typically). I can imagine the only R&D Wilson spent on this was down the coffee shop thinking up the next gimmick.

uk_skippy
10-08-2012, 04:06 AM
It's not like Prince already had this type of system in production about 6 months ago, and had a junior using it since before Wimbledon.

Also, can't see how less (cross) strings can be patented by Wilson unless the frame contains other technology; but then why call it part of an existing line and not a separate new line.

Regards

Paul

themitchmann
10-08-2012, 04:26 AM
It's not like Prince already had this type of system in production about 6 months ago, and had a junior using it since before Wimbledon.

Good point. Also, if Wilson really believes in this "tech," why are they only releasing 2 frames with these patterns?

uk_skippy
10-08-2012, 05:15 AM
Good point. Also, if Wilson really believes in this "tech," why are they only releasing 2 frames with these patterns?

Not convinced of it yet?

I know Prince have at least 3 frames ready, plus a 'special' string for these racquets. If Wilson recommend using 4G, then players are going to rip through it quickly and then moan at the extra expense of stringing more often.

Still, shouldn't complain if I get more business from it ;-)

Regards

Paul

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 05:32 AM
I would hope that is tongue-in-cheek. There is nothing new about fewer crosses allowing the mains to move more freely (at the expense of some control, typically). I can imagine the only R&D Wilson spent on this was down the coffee shop thinking up the next gimmick.

Your right ....the racquet is actually modeled after the woodforde racquet .

He used a snauwert hi ten and then Wilson took it over as well way back then.

Nothing revolutionary here.

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 06:04 AM
Not convinced of it yet?

I know Prince have at least 3 frames ready, plus a 'special' string for these racquets. If Wilson recommend using 4G, then players are going to rip through it quickly and then moan at the extra expense of stringing more often.

Still, shouldn't complain if I get more business from it ;-)

Regards

Paul

Omg prince as well????

I'm going to have to change my quote. The vortex secret is out now. My secret is over and my friends will now beat me. :-(

I wonder what will happen to vortex ? I don't see how they will compete with Wilson and prince ?

The only thing Vortex has going for them is that they have an even more open string pattern at 14x16. Also the string pattern is in the shape of a "V".

It truly does make quite a difference .

Maybe now that Wilson and Prince have copied the Vortex technology maybe more people will be accepting of Vortex? But I doubt anyone is going to choose Vortex over Wilson or prince.

Vortex does have a jump start because it has more models......but if you want a sneak peak at the Wilson or prince try a vortex.......I absolutely love this technology .

I have tried almost all of them. My favorite is the tour 100.....

But here's a quick rundown of the different models inhabe tried:


Es 100....thick beamed all around racquet . Its a babolat APD plus on steroids

Es 105- same as the 100 but with more spin

Es 116- doubles stick. Chip am charge baby

Es 133- a far better big bubba. Fun to hit with . Could not stop laughing .

Tour 95- the same as a Kblade or donnay pro on just better in every way.'

Tour 100- my racquet of choice. Just a bit more power than the tour 95.

Rock Strongo
10-08-2012, 06:13 AM
I say - BAN IT NOW!!!

Are there no limits? What's next? A racquet that plays for you while you sit in the shade sipping an iced tea?

It's out of control. We need to go back to wood racquets and gut strings so that it's only the player himself that generates all the power and spin without all of this "technology" doing it for you. Or else how do we know who the better player REALLY is instead of just who's using the better technology/equipment? It should be YOU that's generating the spin, NOT your strings nor your racquet.

I should remind you of the Snauwaert Hi-Ten of the 80's.

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 06:28 AM
It's not like Prince already had this type of system in production about 6 months ago, and had a junior using it since before Wimbledon.

Also, can't see how less (cross) strings can be patented by Wilson unless the frame contains other technology; but then why call it part of an existing line and not a separate new line.

Regards

Paul

I agree and I don't know how Vortex patented its pattern either . They claim the pattern is "V" shaped??? But I don't see how you can patent that either ?

I think the reality is you can patent anything . The patent office is more than happy to take your money and patent anything .

However if the patent is challenged then you have a problem. Wilson basically has copied Vortex and I don't think Vortex can do anything about it . If vortex sues Wilson then wilson will defend itself by saying that Vortex created nothing unique and the racquet should never have been patented in the first place.

R.I.P. Vortex. :-(

SFrazeur
10-08-2012, 07:19 AM
I agree! Let's retroactively BAN all late '70s and '80s Prince racquets with 14x18 string patterns! YEAH!

Oh wait. . . that would be stupid.

-SF

Chotobaka
10-08-2012, 08:05 AM
I should remind you of the Snauwaert Hi-Ten of the 80's.

Thank you. Ninja'd me, but thanks nonetheless. Knowledge of racquet history and perspective is sadly lacking in these parts.

Power Player
10-08-2012, 08:52 AM
I say - BAN IT NOW!!!

Are there no limits? What's next? A racquet that plays for you while you sit in the shade sipping an iced tea?

It's out of control. We need to go back to wood racquets and gut strings so that it's only the player himself that generates all the power and spin without all of this "technology" doing it for you. Or else how do we know who the better player REALLY is instead of just who's using the better technology/equipment? It should be YOU that's generating the spin, NOT your strings nor your racquet.

This is a joke right?

As stated, Prince sticks were like this back in the 80s and 90s. Honestly, I dont see a major advantage to patterns that open anyway. If you like blazing through strings every 2 days then enjoy. Personally I dont see the need for that much spin since I am happy with what I get now.

Larrysümmers
10-08-2012, 09:06 AM
this is exactly what Fed needs to get back to his supreme championship form.

Ronaldo
10-08-2012, 09:13 AM
So then... I wonder how big those headsizes will be...

99 and 105 inches?

zapvor
10-08-2012, 09:14 AM
Really....where?

eh if you search you will find it.

esgee48
10-08-2012, 09:16 AM
I'm sure Vortex will dispute the patents. There's too much prior evidence of racquets with 'similar' patterns. If a patent is disputed before it's granted, then it is cheaper to just point to the older frames. What Wilson could do is have new frame technology that 'could be' patented, but I think it will be difficult with doing it only for a string pattern.

cmb
10-08-2012, 09:58 AM
and the tour players will need 12 rackets strung before each match, rackets will last about 4 games before breaking strings hahahaha

BalboaNoah
10-08-2012, 10:06 AM
i doubt the big guys are that worried about a regional niche market racquet provider. what about Angell/Vantage, or even the blatant knock off guys like Pro Supex, etc? they seem to still be able to sell racquets.

OnyxZ28
10-08-2012, 10:28 AM
I'm sure Vortex will dispute the patents. There's too much prior evidence of racquets with 'similar' patterns. If a patent is disputed before it's granted, then it is cheaper to just point to the older frames. What Wilson could do is have new frame technology that 'could be' patented, but I think it will be difficult with doing it only for a string pattern.

Unfortunately searching the PTO database for pending applications assigned to "Wilson Sporting Goods" didn't turn up anything; it could be because the application is less than 18 months old, or because no assignment of the app have been recorded. Until then it's impossible to guess at what the patent app claims. Although I will say that the racket/bottle opener app is awesome!

Once the app and file wrapper are published it will be interesting. If Wilson has filed a "petition to make special" due to ongoing infringement then we'll know that they're eying targets for potential litigation.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=wilson+sporting&FIELD1=AS&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PG01

PBODY99
10-08-2012, 10:29 AM
A more open pattern, when strung with a nice co-poly yeilds a string bed stiffness that is able to match what Mark Woodforde used years ago, 21st century HI_TEN.
I find the lawsuit threat based on patten infringement as an example of what is wrong with technology today.

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 10:45 AM
and the tour players will need 12 rackets strung before each match, rackets will last about 4 games before breaking strings hahahaha

No .....my vortex sticks last as long as any conventional string pattern.

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 10:47 AM
I'm sure Vortex will dispute the patents. There's too much prior evidence of racquets with 'similar' patterns. If a patent is disputed before it's granted, then it is cheaper to just point to the older frames. What Wilson could do is have new frame technology that 'could be' patented, but I think it will be difficult with doing it only for a string pattern.

I don't think they can because Wilson actually came first.

There was the snauwert hi ten but after that Wilson started to make the racquets for woodforde I believe.

Power Player
10-08-2012, 11:01 AM
No .....my vortex sticks last as long as any conventional string pattern.

I cant see how this is possible. Even wilson admitted that these setups were mainly geared towards people using full poly.

So if you hurt your arm or need a soft string, these patterns are so open that if you have good racquet head speed, the durability simply will not be there.

Sander001
10-08-2012, 11:05 AM
Copy Vortex? The idea of these Wilson frames is that they have fewer cross strings than mains. Vortex doesn't have that.

Ronaldo
10-08-2012, 11:24 AM
Copy Vortex? The idea of these Wilson frames is that they have fewer cross strings than mains. Vortex doesn't have that.

Why fewer Xs with an oval racquethead? Ever try these patterns? http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/stringpattern.php

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 11:28 AM
I cant see how this is possible. Even wilson admitted that these setups were mainly geared towards people using full poly.

So if you hurt your arm or need a soft string, these patterns are so open that if you have good racquet head speed, the durability simply will not be there.

I started out with full set of poly with no problems.

Switched over to multi ....prince synthetic gut and vortex reccomends a really low tension.....I string at 45.

I have no issues with control .

Interestingly enough Wilson came out with a Wilson os 7.5 for woodforde with a 12x16.


The vortex are I believe 14x15 or 16.


The new Wilson steam will have less crosses and more mains.....I think 16x15....which is a new twist in the open string pattern market.

I'm very excited to try it. I have loved Vortex since it first came out. Its a huge advantage and up to now it was my secret weapon. I know this idea works.....it works really well......but what Wilson has done is even newer. I cannot wait!!

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 11:30 AM
Why fewer Xs with an oval racquethead? Ever try these patterns? http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/stringpattern.php

Interestingly enough the original vortex models .....the es versions are not oval. They are square like yonex.

The oval pattern tightens things up a bit.

I personally like the new vortexes better . I play with the tour 100 and it is oval shaped.

Gasolina
10-08-2012, 11:39 AM
I checked the Vortex website and TBH the specs sorta looked like someone playing the OG Diablo in the PC. Everything was geared towards spin and power. Obscenely open patterns, very stiff, very light. Like the racquet was made to do one thing and do it well.

Anybody have experience hitting with these? Will the open string pattern cut some discomfort away from the over-70 stiffness ratings and thick poly strings?

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 12:10 PM
I checked the Vortex website and TBH the specs sorta looked like someone playing the OG Diablo in the PC. Everything was geared towards spin and power. Obscenely open patterns, very stiff, very light. Like the racquet was made to do one thing and do it well.

Anybody have experience hitting with these? Will the open string pattern cut some discomfort away from the over-70 stiffness ratings and thick poly strings?

Well I do but I think you want to hear from someone else besides me.

There are a few threads with people who tried them out.

The es versions were a bit to powerful for me but the tour versions are just right .

Sort of like a kbalde on steroids :-)

tailofdog
10-08-2012, 12:13 PM
I checked the Vortex website and TBH the specs sorta looked like someone playing the OG Diablo in the PC. Everything was geared towards spin and power. Obscenely open patterns, very stiff, very light. Like the racquet was made to do one thing and do it well.

Anybody have experience hitting with these? Will the open string pattern cut some discomfort away from the over-70 stiffness ratings and thick poly strings?

I had 3 The ES 100, ES 108, and the ES 116.
Nice racquets. Some benifit in spin and, stop volleys but, just so stiff.
I tried a few different things to get a softer string bed to no avail!

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 12:19 PM
I had 3 The ES 100, ES 108, and the ES 116.
Nice racquets. Some benifit in spin and, stop volleys but, just so stiff.
I tried a few different things to get a softer string bed to no avail!

You should try the new tour versions....big improvement .

Real players stick way more solid......

But I have a feeling that these Wilson's are going to be amazing so I wouldn't buy any vortex's till those pups come out.

I wish I could preorder !

BreakPoint
10-08-2012, 01:10 PM
I would hope that is tongue-in-cheek. There is nothing new about fewer crosses allowing the mains to move more freely (at the expense of some control, typically). I can imagine the only R&D Wilson spent on this was down the coffee shop thinking up the next gimmick.
You're right. Fewer crosses is nothing new. They had them back in the 1970's and it was called "spaghetti strings". They were quickly and promptly banned by the ITF for producing too much spin. So I don't see why they shouldn't ban this new racquet from Wilson. Oh, and they should ban ALL poly strings while they're at it for producing too much spin, which is the same reason they banned spaghetti strings 35 years ago.

And, no, my post was not tongue-in-cheek but quite serious.

royfrombigd
10-08-2012, 01:47 PM
Just marketing...won't have any effect on the game.

Justin-JP
10-08-2012, 04:15 PM
You're right. Fewer crosses is nothing new. They had them back in the 1970's and it was called "spaghetti strings". They were quickly and promptly banned by the ITF for producing too much spin. So I don't see why they shouldn't ban this new racquet from Wilson. Oh, and they should ban ALL poly strings while they're at it for producing too much spin, which is the same reason they banned spaghetti strings 35 years ago.

And, no, my post was not tongue-in-cheek but quite serious.

A 16 x 15 pattern is nothing like a spaghetti string setup; I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

The less crosses the less friction, allowing the mains to move more freely. That's it, nothing too exciting or radical about that. If you've ever used a Wilson 95 16 x 18, you will know how lively and unpredictable that string bed can be; now take away three more crosses and you get a little more potential spin and even less consistent response from the string bed. Not something I'd be jumping to try and it's not like these patterns don't already exist, more or less.

Wilson are in the business of selling rackets, this is what they do and this how they hype the market. Obviously you fell for it and almost see this gimmick as an evolutionary jump similar to graphite or poly.

SFrazeur
10-08-2012, 04:54 PM
You're right. Fewer crosses is nothing new. They had them back in the 1970's and it was called "spaghetti strings". They were quickly and promptly banned by the ITF for producing too much spin. So I don't see why they shouldn't ban this new racquet from Wilson. Oh, and they should ban ALL poly strings while they're at it for producing too much spin, which is the same reason they banned spaghetti strings 35 years ago.

And, no, my post was not tongue-in-cheek but quite serious.


Your post has more agenda than truth. I expect you know better about said stringing.



Spaghetti stringing
Stringing systems

http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/image/staticarticle/IO_2784_staticarticle.JPG

According to the Rules of Tennis, "the hitting surface of the racket shall be flat and consist of a pattern of crossed strings connected to a frame and alternately interlaced or bonded where they cross" (rule 4a). This tends to limit the movement between strings and, thus, the spin imparted to the ball. This rule was introduced in 1978 in response to a stringing system patented the previous year (US Patent 4273331, 8 December 1977) which could generate almost twice as much spin as a conventionally-strung racket, dubbed 'spaghetti' stringing.

Spaghetti stringing is illegal because the main and cross strings are not interlaced (or bonded). Instead, the strings lie on parallel planes and are able to move with the aid of tubular sleeves, which act as bearings, see below.

The freedom of movement allows the strings to deflect within the plane of the hitting surface and so rotate the ball as they recoil. The result is that players can produce extreme spin with minimal effort.

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 05:07 PM
A 16 x 15 pattern is nothing like a spaghetti string setup; I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

The less crosses the less friction, allowing the mains to move more freely. That's it, nothing too exciting or radical about that. If you've ever used a Wilson 95 16 x 18, you will know how lively and unpredictable that string bed can be; now take away three more crosses and you get a little more potential spin and even less consistent response from the string bed. Not something I'd be jumping to try and it's not like these patterns don't already exist, more or less.

Wilson are in the business of selling rackets, this is what they do and this how they hype the market. Obviously you fell for it and almost see this gimmick as an evolutionary jump similar to graphite or poly.

I'm jumping to try.

My vortex has 14x15 and I love it. But what's intriguing about the Wilson is its 16x15 .....less cross strings ......this allows the mains to move more freely and "snap" back at the ball.....sounds really cool.

Bartelby
10-08-2012, 05:37 PM
I can't wait for linguine stringed racquets.

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 05:53 PM
The 99s.....the s by the way stands for sweeeeeeeet!


http://m.aufaitmaroc.com/pictures/0125/6955/mm73334_b.45157162149.original_medium_medium.jpg?1 347969950

sureshs
10-08-2012, 06:43 PM
I say - BAN IT NOW!!!

Are there no limits? What's next? A racquet that plays for you while you sit in the shade sipping an iced tea?

It's out of control. We need to go back to wood racquets and gut strings so that it's only the player himself that generates all the power and spin without all of this "technology" doing it for you. Or else how do we know who the better player REALLY is instead of just who's using the better technology/equipment? It should be YOU that's generating the spin, NOT your strings nor your racquet.

Relax. It is just a more open string pattern.

Ronaldo
10-08-2012, 07:41 PM
Is it illegal to just skip a few crosses and create your own 14X8 racquet?

ChicagoJack
10-08-2012, 08:06 PM
My vortex has 14x15 and I love it. But what's intriguing about the Wilson is its 16x15 ..... less cross strings ......this allows the mains to move more freely and "snap" back at the ball.....sounds really cool.

Yes, that's exactly it. I was thinking out loud about a similar idea for more mains and fewer crosses back in January. Low inter string friction, increased spin etc...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=409992

Jack

dmcb101
10-08-2012, 08:57 PM
I am fairly curious about these new frames as you may have guessed if you have seen some of my previous posts. I read about how they tested these frames and to me it seems hard to dispute the results that they found. I would be interested to see the results of all of their performance frames and see the difference in spin potential with all the same variables. It seems to me that these new Steam frames do actually produce more spin but a lot of people here believe it is a marketing scheme.

I am not easily swayed into believing marketing schemes but after reading the article that was posted on this forum it seems hard to deny that these racquets do actually produce more RPM's on the ball.

What are the Prince frames that supposedly have this type of technology? Anyone else have an opinion on whether it is actual technology or just a marketing scheme? Provide examples why you think so!

sureshs
10-08-2012, 09:13 PM
Is it illegal to just skip a few crosses and create your own 14X8 racquet?

It seems it does not work and that was part of the Wilson research, I was told by a guy who knows. You need to redesign the whole racket.

PBODY99
10-08-2012, 09:20 PM
To keep it legal you want the pattern to be fairly regular. By spacing out the drilling to evenly divided the cross string coverage, you should get the same type of response with whatever increased spin benefit. You don't get that by dropping a couple of the outside crosses.

sureshs
10-08-2012, 09:24 PM
With lesser number of strings taking the load, will they break easier?

dmcb101
10-08-2012, 09:54 PM
With lesser number of strings taking the load, will they break easier?

I think the idea is that the mains will move more because of less friction due to the decrease in cross strings. The increased movement will make the main strings rub more on the crosses and eventually they will break.

Chotobaka
10-08-2012, 10:00 PM
The 99s.....the s by the way stands for sweeeeeeeet!


http://m.aufaitmaroc.com/pictures/0125/6955/mm73334_b.45157162149.original_medium_medium.jpg?1 347969950

In your case, it might just stand for "stupid". Ya dig?

Ronaldo
10-08-2012, 10:06 PM
To keep it legal you want the pattern to be fairly regular. By spacing out the drilling to evenly divided the cross string coverage, you should get the same type of response with whatever increased spin benefit. You don't get that by dropping a couple of the outside crosses.

Suggest skipping every other main and cross in the sweetspot where most balls are struck. The trampoline effect and uneven response has to be incredible. Maybe poly alleviates the problems. Anyone with a stringer should try it.

ChicagoJack
10-08-2012, 10:11 PM
In your case, it might just stand for "stupid". Ya dig?

Uugh. Dude, what is your deal? Not the first time Ive seen you post stuff like this. It would be super awesome if you could back waaay offa the name calling.

-Jack

Ronaldo
10-08-2012, 10:22 PM
I think the idea is that the mains will move more because of less friction due to the decrease in cross strings. The increased movement will make the main strings rub more on the crosses and eventually they will break.

Can you tube the 1st four mains?

BreakPoint
10-08-2012, 11:19 PM
Your post has more agenda than truth. I expect you know better about said stringing.
Anything that increases spin should be banned - doesn't matter what it is or what the technology is. Spin should come from your technique and hard practice and not from your racquet or your strings.

BreakPoint
10-08-2012, 11:22 PM
I can't wait for linguine stringed racquets.
Actually, next will be the lasagna stringed racquets. :shock:

themitchmann
10-09-2012, 04:03 AM
Suggest skipping every other main and cross in the sweetspot where most balls are struck. The trampoline effect and uneven response has to be incredible. Maybe poly alleviates the problems. Anyone with a stringer should try it.

That wouldn't be legal. The stringbed cannot be less dense in the center than the rest of the pattern. Therefore, you need to completely redesign the racquet/string pattern.

Also, the only pics I've seen online of one of the new Prince racquets has a 16x16 pattern. Being used by Antonia Lottner.

The Dark Knight
10-09-2012, 05:05 AM
Suggest skipping every other main and cross in the sweetspot where most balls are struck. The trampoline effect and uneven response has to be incredible. Maybe poly alleviates the problems. Anyone with a stringer should try it.

Actually you want to reduce the trampoline effect.

The trampoline effect is what causes a loss of control but gives power.

By reducing the number of cross strings you have less trampoline effect and more spin and control.


Think of it this way.....if you had only mains and no crosses you would have great spin but little trampoline effect.

The spaghetti racquets had enormous spin but no power. By reducing the crosses Wilson has created less power /trampoline and more spin through the mains moving. Power comes from the crosses and spin comes from the mains.

Less power with more spin will allow you to swing harder and still control the ball. Without the trampoline effect you can swing hard....racket head spead is another factor in spin.

Sander001
10-09-2012, 05:09 AM
Anything that increases spin should be banned - doesn't matter what it is or what the technology is. Spin should come from your technique and hard practice and not from your racquet or your strings.So since your 16x19 racquet produces more spin than an18x20, it should be banned; it's an unfair advantage.
Must be quite the ethical struggle each time you step on the tennis court.

The Dark Knight
10-09-2012, 05:20 AM
Ya know I was thinking ....

They should make one in a 90 inch frame .

I bet it would help Fed?

Rock Strongo
10-09-2012, 08:05 AM
So since your 16x19 racquet produces more spin than an18x20, it should be banned; it's an unfair advantage.
Must be quite the ethical struggle each time you step on the tennis court.

We should all be playing the old 22x30 Pro Kennex Micro racquets strung at a very high tension, all to completely eliminate ANY spin.

SoBad
10-09-2012, 08:08 AM
We should all be playing the old 22x30 Pro Kennex Micro racquets strung at a very high tension, all to completely eliminate ANY spin.

I am switching to a 18#20 Tfight320.

The Dark Knight
10-09-2012, 10:16 AM
I am switching to a 18#20 Tfight320.

Too much steam for ya? ....bit too wild ? i understand you need somethimg a bit more tame like an 18x20......its always about control for women. :-).

Ronaldo
10-09-2012, 10:18 AM
Can't handle the steam....too wild for ya ? ;-)

The Steam may just be full of hot air.

The Dark Knight
10-09-2012, 10:21 AM
The Steam may just be full of hot air.

Lol ....good one !

You have to take it for a ride and find out !

SFrazeur
10-09-2012, 10:24 AM
Anything that increases spin should be banned - doesn't matter what it is or what the technology is. Spin should come from your technique and hard practice and not from your racquet or your strings.

Increases spin over what standard?

-SF

BreakPoint
10-09-2012, 11:24 AM
So since your 16x19 racquet produces more spin than an18x20, it should be banned; it's an unfair advantage.
Must be quite the ethical struggle each time you step on the tennis court.
If that's true, then yes, it should be banned. But the thing is, I get just as much spin, sometimes even more spin, with 18x20 racquets as I do with 16x19 racquets. Why? Because I generate spin with my technique and not with my racquet or strings. I generate just as much spin with multis as I do with poly strings, which is why I don't use poly. I don't choose racquets because of string pattern because I can hit with as much spin with any pattern.

BreakPoint
10-09-2012, 11:27 AM
Increases spin over what standard?

-SF
The standard 65 sq. in. wood racquet with the standard 18x20 pattern strung with the standard natural gut strings. :)

The reason why 85 sq. in. racquet are called MIDsize and 107 sq. in. racquets are called OVERsize is because 65 sq. in. racquets are the STANDARD size.

dmcb101
10-09-2012, 12:46 PM
I think the game has evolved and it is silly to try and "standardize" equipment so that people can hit with better technique. Regardless of who is playing, the ones with the best technique will be the best over those who have the same equipment with poor technique. The only thing that can come from using a wood racquet and 18X20 string pattern is the same old game. When everyone uses new technology the game evolves (whether you think that is good or bad) at an equal level from the club player up to the pro's; the best technique will always prevail regardless of the technology!

sureshs
10-09-2012, 12:59 PM
Anything that increases spin should be banned - doesn't matter what it is or what the technology is. Spin should come from your technique and hard practice and not from your racquet or your strings.

Then you better file a case against Federer, because he has been using a special open pattern in the sweetzone.

Justin-JP
10-09-2012, 01:08 PM
The standard 65 sq. in. wood racquet with the standard 18x20 pattern strung with the standard natural gut strings. :)

The reason why 85 sq. in. racquet are called MIDsize and 107 sq. in. racquets are called OVERsize is because 65 sq. in. racquets are the STANDARD size.

Sounds to me like you want the 'standard' from your generation to last forever. This is 2012, not 1980. You're also using a graphite racket with an open pattern in contradiction with your argument.

If that's true, then yes, it should be banned. But the thing is, I get just as much spin, sometimes even more spin, with 18x20 racquets as I do with 16x19 racquets. Why? Because I generate spin with my technique and not with my racquet or strings. I generate just as much spin with multis as I do with poly strings, which is why I don't use poly. I don't choose racquets because of string pattern because I can hit with as much spin with any pattern.

Everyone generates spin with technique, regardless of how slow or poor that form maybe. If you cannot produce more spin with poly, then well, it says something for your technique to develop racket head speed. I now understand why you feel bitter about tech enhancements; you'd love to make use of them (see the racket you have) but do not have the form to do so, and thus, poly et al should be banned.

BreakPoint
10-09-2012, 01:08 PM
Then you better file a case against Federer, because he has been using a special open pattern in the sweetzone.
What's so special about it? :confused:

His racquet has equal string spacing in the sweetzone. It was the retail version of the nCode90 that had denser string spacing in the sweetzone than the rest of the stringbed. So there was never anything "special" about his stringbed. It was the retail nCode90 that had a "special" stringbed.

BreakPoint
10-09-2012, 01:19 PM
Sounds to me like you want the 'standard' from your generation to last forever. This is 2012, not 1980. You're also using a graphite racket with an open pattern in contradiction with your argument.



Everyone generates spin with technique, regardless of how slow or poor that form maybe. If you cannot produce more spin with poly, then well, it says something for your technique to develop racket head speed. I now understand why you feel bitter about tech enhancements; you'd love to make use of them (see the racket you have) but do not have the form to do so, and thus, poly et al should be banned.
And why should standards change? Aren't the standards for equipment in baseball the same in 2012 as they were in 1980? Isn't the size of the standard tennis court the same in 2012 as it was in 1980?

I don't produce spin with poly because I hit flat and I swing pretty fast. And I don't use poly because I don't want my arm to fall off and I want to be able to play tennis for the rest of my life.

SoBad
10-09-2012, 03:23 PM
Too much steam for ya? ....bit too wild ? i understand you need somethimg a bit more tame like an 18x20......its always about control for women. :-).

As an insecure fragile babushka I look for the ultimate control in a frame because I can generate all the power using my technique.:cry:

Sander001
10-09-2012, 04:16 PM
If that's true, then yes, it should be banned. But the thing is, I get just as much spin, sometimes even more spin, with 18x20 racquets as I do with 16x19 racquets. Why? Because I generate spin with my technique and not with my racquet or strings. I generate just as much spin with multis as I do with poly strings, which is why I don't use poly. I don't choose racquets because of string pattern because I can hit with as much spin with any pattern.So if that's your belief, then why are you getting defensive about a technology you know does not work?

The Dark Knight
10-09-2012, 04:57 PM
As an insecure fragile babushka I look for the ultimate control in a frame because I can generate all the power using my technique.:cry:

Insecure babuska? I think not. I'm definitely a fan.....I'd like to see your technique some time. :-)

Justin-JP
10-09-2012, 05:18 PM
And why should standards change? Aren't the standards for equipment in baseball the same in 2012 as they were in 1980? Isn't the size of the standard tennis court the same in 2012 as it was in 1980?

I don't produce spin with poly because I hit flat and I swing pretty fast. And I don't use poly because I don't want my arm to fall off and I want to be able to play tennis for the rest of my life.

Why should standards not change? We're not talking dimensions of the court but advancements in equipment technology used to play said sports. Every sport has seen some technological advancement, no matter how small, and will continue to do so as companies push out their latest and greatest 'new' tech. Some are gimmicky and some work (poly), and some push it too far (spaghetti strings).

Anyways, you've killed your own argument by using modern tech and with a spin friendly open pattern to boot. Not only that, the only reason you're not using a poly is that is does not suit your style of play and is hard on your arm. You then begrudge anyone else's game where poly works for them. These are hardly valid reasons.

The Dark Knight
10-09-2012, 06:13 PM
Why should standards not change? We're not talking dimensions of the court but advancements in equipment technology used to play said sports. Every sport has seen some technological advancement, no matter how small, and will continue to do so as companies push out their latest and greatest 'new' tech. Some are gimmicky and some work (poly), and some push it too far (spaghetti strings).

Anyways, you've killed your own argument by using modern tech and with a spin friendly open pattern to boot. Not only that, the only reason you're not using a poly is that is does not suit your style of play and is hard on your arm. You then begrudge anyone else's game where poly works for them. These are hardly valid reasons.

Dude you don't get it......breakpoint is a classic type of player.

Seriously if it were up to him we would all go back to wood and gut strings.

That's what he believes in and there's nothing wrong with that.

To him babolat is a dirty word. He wants the game to go back to when it was pure......he doesn't believe in technology.

Just to be clear , I don't agree with him . I LOVE technology and all te new ideas more than anyone. I play with a vortex!!! But I respect his point of view......no reason to argue.

SoBad
10-09-2012, 06:32 PM
Insecure babuska? I think not. I'm definitely a fan.....I'd like to see your technique some time. :-)

I hit with a lot of topspin and moonball ALOT, beware...

SFrazeur
10-09-2012, 07:37 PM
The standard 65 sq. in. wood racquet with the standard 18x20 pattern strung with the standard natural gut strings. :)

The reason why 85 sq. in. racquet are called MIDsize and 107 sq. in. racquets are called OVERsize is because 65 sq. in. racquets are the STANDARD size.

And why should standards change? Aren't the standards for equipment in baseball the same in 2012 as they were in 1980? Isn't the size of the standard tennis court the same in 2012 as it was in 1980?

I don't produce spin with poly because I hit flat and I swing pretty fast. And I don't use poly because I don't want my arm to fall off and I want to be able to play tennis for the rest of my life.

And this is why you personally use a wood racquet strung with natural gut. . .ooh right, you don't. If you believe so strongly then why are you not? Fight the good fight then.

-SF

The Dark Knight
10-09-2012, 07:51 PM
I hit with a lot of topspin and moonball ALOT, beware...

So what's with the four horses in your avatar? Amd are you seriously from Jamiaca NY?

I used to be around 179th and hillside a while back....long story.

BreakPoint
10-09-2012, 08:15 PM
So if that's your belief, then why are you getting defensive about a technology you know does not work?
It obviously does work or else Wilson wouldn't be coming out with these racquets. But it shouldn't be allowed to work because players shouldn't be allowed to use it. If players want to generate more spin, they should go work on their technique, not just buy a new racquet.

BreakPoint
10-09-2012, 08:23 PM
Why should standards not change? We're not talking dimensions of the court but advancements in equipment technology used to play said sports. Every sport has seen some technological advancement, no matter how small, and will continue to do so as companies push out their latest and greatest 'new' tech. Some are gimmicky and some work (poly), and some push it too far (spaghetti strings).

Anyways, you've killed your own argument by using modern tech and with a spin friendly open pattern to boot. Not only that, the only reason you're not using a poly is that is does not suit your style of play and is hard on your arm. You then begrudge anyone else's game where poly works for them. These are hardly valid reasons.
Was there something wrong with tennis back in 1980? Absolutely not! In fact, tennis was more popular in the U.S. in 1980 and more people played tennis in 1980 during the wood ear than they do now. So obviously people back then had no problem with wood racquets and gut strings and probably liked them more than they like the modern graphite racquets and poly strings of today, which is why more people played tennis back then than they do now.

I did use a wood racquet a few years ago and still was able to beat players who used modern graphite racquets. I stopped because they crack easily and I didn't want to break mine. I would be more than happy to go back to using wood racquets if everyone else would as well to even out the competition. In fact, I'm a huge advocate (along with McEnroe and Navratilova) of going back to wood racquets. Tennis was so much more pure back then. I use the racquet I use now because it's the closest thing to a wood racquet still on the market.

BreakPoint
10-09-2012, 08:28 PM
And this is why you personally use a wood racquet strung with natural gut. . .ooh right, you don't. If you believe so strongly then why are you not? Fight the good fight then.

-SF
I do use a wood racquet and I still would if everyone else also used wood racquets. It has to be fair. It wouldn't be fair to be the only batter in baseball to use a wooden bat if all the other batters get to use powerful aluminum bats, would it?

As it is, I use the closest thing to a wood racquet still available (PS 6.0 85).

tailofdog
10-09-2012, 08:34 PM
[QUOTE=The Dark Knight;6942593]You should try the new tour versions....big improvement .

Real players stick way more solid......

But I have a feeling that these Wilson's are going to be amazing so I wouldn't buy any vortex's till those pups come out.

I wish I could preorder ![/QUOTE
T

The Vortex are old Wonderwand frames with different string patterns.
If Wilson has seen a market then, the R&D should come up with something serious.
Even Weed tennis is putting out a 16x19 on a 135 sq in frame. Put Prince in the mix and, we see the new direction.

The Dark Knight
10-09-2012, 09:23 PM
I do use a wood racquet and I still would if everyone else also used wood racquets. It has to be fair. It wouldn't be fair to be the only batter in baseball to use a wooden bat if all the other batters get to use powerful aluminum bats, would it?

As it is, I use the closest thing to a wood racquet still available (PS 6.0 85).

I understand you Break.....I don't agree with you but I get it.

Your view point is a beautiful thing actually .

Maybe all this new technology is wrong .....

Personally I like it because it makes tennis easier and more fun . I also find today's tennis way more exciting than the old days

But I do get you and I'm not saying your wrong.....how can you be? It's your opinion and it's a beautiful one . So I say bravo to you.

And now I also see why you are such a fan of Sampras and Federer. It all makes sense.....they are both oldschool......but Nadal with his high tech Babolat and Luxilon strings is an affront to everything that you believe in. I get it breakpoint ......I really do. And I respect it.

I on the other hand have different reasons for rooting for Nadal......nothing to so with tech........

It's actually that I hate the establishment. I'm a rebel......

My idols are Mcenroe, Nastase, Connors, Agassi ( early days with punk hair), Safin, Nadal, Seles , Serena......all have that bit of wildness ...... They all sort of rock the establishment .....and thats why I'm a fan.

SoBad
10-09-2012, 09:40 PM
So what's with the four horses in your avatar? Amd are you seriously from Jamiaca NY?

I used to be around 179th and hillside a while back....long story.

i knew it - you are one of those black-pakistani dudes that walk around 179pl with pipes and pitbulls and make strange comments toward wht ppl...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0g1gM2P6o

The Dark Knight
10-09-2012, 10:24 PM
i knew it - you are one of those black-pakistani dudes that walk around 179pl with pipes and pitbulls and make strange comments toward wht ppl...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0g1gM2P6o

Charashow.....did I say that right?

Did you see....and I'm gonna say this wrong ...

Nochne dozor? night watch .....great Russian vampire movie.

SoBad
10-09-2012, 10:31 PM
Charashow.....did I say that right?

Did you see....and I'm gonna say this wrong ...

Nochne dozor? night watch .....great Russian vampire movie.

I don't know - I am going to watch Baron now until I fall asleep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWjQ9kUNe_8

P.S. Or maybe they will break down the door and use fire extinguishers to put out the fire burning inside my heart and soul.

The Dark Knight
10-09-2012, 10:43 PM
I don't know - I am going to watch Baron now until I fall asleep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWjQ9kUNe_8

P.S. Or maybe they will break down the door and use fire extinguishers to put out the fire burning inside my heart and soul.

LOL.....I was supposed to go to Europe today .....eastern Europe actually .....but lost my freaking passport . So I'm a bit bummed out.

So just took an ambien....should be asleep in an hour.

Ambien works pretty well for fires in the heart and soul as well....lol.

SoBad
10-09-2012, 10:50 PM
The TTW community is falling asleep. They just sit around, taking pharma pills and drinking drinks, smoking various smokes, until they fall asleep. The lost and stolen passports are deep in the past.

The Dark Knight
10-09-2012, 11:00 PM
Comparison of the steam 99s and Vortex tour 100. I'm not exactly certain of the specs for either racquet....these are rumored specs .


Steam 99S -

10.7 unstrung ,
99 sq. inch.,
16x15,
22-24-22mm ,

Vortex tour 100

100 square inches
Length: 27 in.
Weight: 11 ounces unstrung
Balance: 12 pts HL unstrung
Pattern: 14m x 17c
Flex: 70#RA
Beam: 21.5mm straight beam

Bartelby
10-09-2012, 11:08 PM
Tennis is a sport that changes over time so the idea that it should remain fixed in the wood era is absurd, but I'm sure there's wooden framed grass court tournaments that one can enjoy.

BreakPoint
10-10-2012, 12:10 AM
Tennis is a sport that changes over time so the idea that it should remain fixed in the wood era is absurd, but I'm sure there's wooden framed grass court tournaments that one can enjoy.
Why? Is it written in stone somewhere?

Aren't the dimensions of the court and the height of the net the same as it's been for the past couple of hundred years? If they could standardize on those things, why couldn't they also standardize on the racquets and strings?

People drive themselves crazy trying the hundreds of different strings and different racquets out there and not knowing if they're using the best combination and always wondering if there's something even better out there. Imagine if there was only one racquet and one string. You can stop obsessing over your choice of racquet and string and just focus on improving your game knowing that neither you nor your opponent has an advantage in equipment. Spending your time practicing your strokes will improve your game much more than spending all your time researching and trying the hundreds of strings and racquets and combinations of them until you tear your hair out.

Bartelby
10-10-2012, 12:28 AM
There's always a mix of continuity and change with the court obviously a point of continuity, but racquets are not.

The shift to the larger framed, topspin oriented game is a positive development but I'd watch old-style tennis if it were available.

The essential problem is that the game is dominated by horizontal movement from the back of the court and vertical movement forward and back from the net has disappeared.

This is indeed something that might be engineered back into the game, and it partly is with the increased use of the drop shot but the approach and volley is too high risk a shot these days.

And thats a pity.

themitchmann
10-10-2012, 05:18 AM
If everything is standardized regarding racquets, then we would loss a number if racquet companies (and therefore jobs) in the process.

Offering variety adds to the marketplace.

themitchmann
10-10-2012, 05:19 AM
But, I do agree with BP that it would be a great thing for people to focus on improving technique over switching to a new stick.

Shaolin
10-10-2012, 10:55 AM
Hey Breakpoint, in your avatar you have a picture of a guy who is using a more powerful/tech assisted frame from what he used for 20+ years. Just thought you should know.

Ps, he's using a Luxilon hybrid now.

Ronaldo
10-10-2012, 10:57 AM
Hey Breakpoint, in your avatar you have a picture of a guy who is using a more powerful/tech assisted frame from what he used for 20+ years. Just thought you should know.

Ps, he's using a Luxilon hybrid now.

The Darkside is seductive and lucrative.

sureshs
10-10-2012, 11:01 AM
If everything is standardized regarding racquets, then we would loss a number if racquet companies (and therefore jobs) in the process.

Offering variety adds to the marketplace.

Is there any need for so many racket companies? A pro shop owner told me recently that he would be happy if Prince did not succeed after its bankruptcy filing, as its models were just more burden on him and there was nothing too special about them.

The Dark Knight
10-10-2012, 11:31 AM
Guys,

What is the big deal....there's no big technological breakthrough .....they are simply changing the damn string pattern from 16x19 to 16x15......

This is not revolutionary.

Pitmiksovic
10-10-2012, 11:39 AM
I don't see how this is any different than just stringing your crosses a few lbs lower than the mains.

SFrazeur
10-10-2012, 11:40 AM
Guys,

What is the big deal....there's no big technological breakthrough .....they are simply changing the damn string pattern from 16x19 to 16x15......

This is not revolutionary.

While it is nothing new, it symbolizes what some people think is wrong with Tennis.

The Dark Knight
10-10-2012, 11:40 AM
Video for the new Wilson looks pretty cool :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO_-CanuoQ8

themitchmann
10-10-2012, 11:50 AM
Is there any need for so many racket companies? A pro shop owner told me recently that he would be happy if Prince did not succeed after its bankruptcy filing, as its models were just more burden on him and there was nothing too special about them.

Well, it's good for the economy...more companies mean more jobs. And Prince is an American company.

I'm surprised that that pro shop owner felt that way. Prince is one of the few companies that has tech that is actually visible. I've been using Prince my entire tennis career, and I have really enjoyed playing with a number of Prince frames (Rebels, SP Tour, O3 Tour Mid).

BreakPoint
10-10-2012, 12:07 PM
If everything is standardized regarding racquets, then we would loss a number if racquet companies (and therefore jobs) in the process.

Offering variety adds to the marketplace.
Not true. There were more racquet companies back during the days of wood racquets than there are today even though most wood racquets were essentially the same, i.e., much less differences between them than there are today with racquets. They pretty much were all the same size, weight, string pattern, etc. In fact, most of the companies that made wood racquets are no longer around today or are no longer making tennis racquets, e.g., Snauwaert, Davis, Spalding, Bancroft, Rossignol, Garcia, Slazenger, Le Coq Sportif, Fila, Donnay (the original company), etc. And making wood racquets was more labor intensive so they provided even more jobs than making graphite racquets today.

BreakPoint
10-10-2012, 12:09 PM
The shift to the larger framed, topspin oriented game is a positive development but I'd watch old-style tennis if it were available.

If it's a positive development, why are fewer Americans playing tennis today than in the 1970's when everyone played old style tennis?

BreakPoint
10-10-2012, 12:13 PM
Hey Breakpoint, in your avatar you have a picture of a guy who is using a more powerful/tech assisted frame from what he used for 20+ years. Just thought you should know.

Ps, he's using a Luxilon hybrid now.
So? What is his opponent using? If his opponent was using a wood racquet, I'm sure Sampras would have no problem using one also. In fact, Sampras did use an old Donnay wood racquet to play an exhibition match against Lendl (who was using graphite) like a year ago. Sampras still won.

And did you see that Champions Tour match in which Todd Martin took out an old wood racquet and proceeded to spank his opponent with it? He was hitting winners all over the place with that wood racquet as if he never switched. He might have played even better. :)

themitchmann
10-10-2012, 12:20 PM
Not true. There were more racquet companies back during the days of wood racquets than there are today even though most wood racquets were essentially the same, i.e., much less differences between them than there are today with racquets. They pretty much were all the same size, weight, string pattern, etc. In fact, most of the companies that made wood racquets are no longer around today or are no longer making tennis racquets, e.g., Snauwaert, Davis, Spalding, Bancroft, Rossignol, Garcia, Slazenger, Le Coq Sportif, Fila, Donnay (the original company), etc. And making wood racquets was more labor intensive so they provided even more jobs than making graphite racquets today.

However, distribution is completely different these days. If we were to switch at this point, I'm certain we would lose some companies.

Manufacturing jobs would probably stay oversees.

themitchmann
10-10-2012, 12:22 PM
If it's a positive development, why are fewer Americans playing tennis today than in the 1970's when everyone played old style tennis?

Tennis is less popular then during the big boom...there are many more options to play other sports these days.

The Dark Knight
10-10-2012, 12:35 PM
Tennis is less popular then during the big boom...there are many more options to play other sports these days.

The big boom happened not because of technology bit because of the personalities ....Mcenroe , Connors , Borg.

Next to the big boom , Tennis today is more popular than its ever been.

themitchmann
10-10-2012, 12:37 PM
The big boom happened not because of technology bit because of the personalities ....Mcenroe , Connors , Borg.

Agreed.

Tennis has been gaining in popularity again in recent years. In fact, there was a Wall Street Journal article that stated this fact...it was written this summer (sorry, I don't know the specific date).

sureshs
10-10-2012, 01:06 PM
Well, it's good for the economy...more companies mean more jobs. And Prince is an American company.

I'm surprised that that pro shop owner felt that way. Prince is one of the few companies that has tech that is actually visible. I've been using Prince my entire tennis career, and I have really enjoyed playing with a number of Prince frames (Rebels, SP Tour, O3 Tour Mid).

More companies does not always mean more jobs in the long term. For example, Wilson could sell more rackets to replace Prince rackets. And a company which is employing people but losing money is simply making owners and shareholders poorer and taking out loans it may not pay back. Prince filed for bankruptcy. In such cases, entities like creditors and vendors typically get a fraction of what they are owed, which is not good for the workers in those companies.

The pro shop owner speaks from experience because in his shop, Prince does not sell much. He also used to stock Volkl, but got away from it. Wilson, Bab, Dunlop and Head are what he focuses on.

themitchmann
10-10-2012, 01:49 PM
Selling more racquets doesn't provide more jobs in the US...it just means an increase in production (so, possible more work in China).

The management, sales force, customer service, etc are all jobs here in the states (for American companies at least). Prince is in NJ.

The Dark Knight
10-10-2012, 01:52 PM
Selling more racquets doesn't provide more jobs in the US...it just means an increase in production (so, possible more work in China).

The management, sales force, customer service, etc are all jobs here in the states (for American companies at least). Prince is in NJ.

We need obamatennis care . :-). He needs to jump In like he did for GM. :-).....

Print more money ! Problem solved. :-)

BreakPoint
10-10-2012, 01:59 PM
We need obamatennis care . :-). He needs to jump In like he did for GM. :-).....

Print more money ! Problem solved. :-)
Printing more money doesn't solve any problems. It just kicks the can down the road and eventually leads to even greater problems.

The Dark Knight
10-10-2012, 02:28 PM
Printing more money doesn't solve any problems. It just kicks the can down the road and eventually leads to even greater problems.

I know break....I was joking .

Ronaldo
10-10-2012, 03:40 PM
We need obamatennis care . :-). He needs to jump In like he did for GM. :-).....

Print more money ! Problem solved. :-)

We don't need the Gov't. Just buy more racquets. And balls. Buy till it hurts.

Sander001
10-10-2012, 07:19 PM
It obviously does work or else Wilson wouldn't be coming out with these racquets. But it shouldn't be allowed to work because players shouldn't be allowed to use it. If players want to generate more spin, they should go work on their technique, not just buy a new racquet.Aha so some players can get more spin with these new racquets and some like yourself, can get more spin with more closed pattern strings like the 18x20 you mentioned.
Am I missing something or are you just blatantly self serving and self interested?

The Dark Knight
10-10-2012, 08:26 PM
Aha so some players can get more spin with these new racquets and some like yourself, can get more spin with more closed pattern strings like the 18x20 you mentioned.
Am I missing something or are you just blatantly self serving and self interested?

I don't know if it's more spin or what but I really love an open string pattern.

I guess my racquet progression went from the Kblade 18x20 and just going more and more open and loving it more and more.

I switched over to the Donnay pro one 16x19 and LOVED it. It was basically the same racquet as the Kblade just a more open string pattern.

Then the Vortex Tour 100 came out with a 14x15 pattern and I went nuts. It's basically the same stick as the Kblade and the Pro one but an even more open string pattern .

Now Wilson has really come out with something so intriguing.....less crosses than Mains ? WOW!!!!

Luckily I know the weight balance and size stick I love the most....but the more open a string pattern the better I seem to play.

I'm wondering if anyone knows the specs of the Wilson 99s? I saw the rumored specs and it seemed a bit on the light side . Will it be the same specs as the regular 99 steam just with a more open string pattern? Is there anyway to get the stick before January?

Also I've seen people talk about prince having a stick with a really open pattern....which stick is it?

I have never been so anxious to buy a stick.....this is more exciting than the IPhone 5 ...lol.

SFrazeur
10-10-2012, 08:40 PM
Also I've seen people talk about prince having a stick with a really open pattern....which stick is it?


The current prince racquet with the most open pattern is the Warrior DB Team at 14x18: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Prince_EXO3_Warrior_DB_Team_100/descpageRCPRINCE-XOWDB.html

-SF

The Dark Knight
10-10-2012, 09:11 PM
The current prince racquet with the most open pattern is the Warrior DB Team at 14x18: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Prince_EXO3_Warrior_DB_Team_100/descpageRCPRINCE-XOWDB.html

-SF

Thanks for that ! Very intriguing.....but I'm not even going to try it as after years of fiddling I have my specs pretty much down. These racquet specs are all wrong.

I am looking for a head light stick at about 11.0-11.6 strung with an open string pattern, and qite stiff.....67 at the least.....I don't want to deal with customization.

I will go off my range a little but not this much. At 10.4 ounces and 4 Pts head head heavyand 62 stiffness the prince is just all wrong for me.

But again thanks ! I'm sure there have been discussions on the stick so I am not going to ask anyone's thoughts on it.....unless you want to give it? :-)

BreakPoint
10-10-2012, 09:51 PM
Aha so some players can get more spin with these new racquets and some like yourself, can get more spin with more closed pattern strings like the 18x20 you mentioned.
Am I missing something or are you just blatantly self serving and self interested?
All players should have to generate their own spin using a 65 sq. in. racquet with an 18x20 pattern because that was the standard for over 100 years. Bjorn Borg could do it. If you can't do it then your technique is the problem.

The Dark Knight
10-10-2012, 09:57 PM
All players should have to generate their own spin using a 65 sq. in. racquet with an 18x20 pattern because that was the standard for over 100 years. Bjorn Borg could do it. If you can't do it then your technique is the problem.

True......


So I need to cheat...lol....

The open string pattern really helps me.

The Dark Knight
10-10-2012, 10:09 PM
Apparently Mark Woodforde possibly the greatest doubles player of all time played with a really open string pattern.....maybe the most open in history....I think 12x13?

The Vortex is more closed at a mere 14x15 so it's actually more old school than the old school. :-)

Here's a pic of the high ten and the more modern Vortex es 100

http://www.woodtennis.com/extreme_spin/snauwaert_hiten_es100a.jpg

The Dark Knight
10-10-2012, 10:21 PM
On another note even the string is old school.....

Woodforde used a 15 gauge polyester....the Vortex which is modeled after the woodforde racquet recommends a similar 15 gauge polyester or a multifilament 15 gauge which is more old school than woodfordes poly .

http://woodtennis.com/strings/hiten_string_8g_1000ft_reel.jpg


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a287/K_K_Bucket/P1010057.jpg

Bartelby
10-10-2012, 10:21 PM
In an article entitled the 'inch that changed tennis' it was shown rather satisfactorily that the modern topspin game requires a racquet far wider than the traditional wood one.

Beyond that it is a question of technique, although string pattern will change launch angle and strings will change slipperiness.



All players should have to generate their own spin using a 65 sq. in. racquet with an 18x20 pattern because that was the standard for over 100 years. Bjorn Borg could do it. If you can't do it then your technique is the problem.

The Dark Knight
10-11-2012, 12:19 AM
In an article entitled the 'inch that changed tennis' it was shown rather satisfactorily that the modern topspin game requires a racquet far wider than the traditional wood one.

Beyond that it is a question of technique, although string pattern will change launch angle and strings will change slipperiness.

Great article if its the one in thinking of . Polyester strings by the way have been around since at least the 70's . I think Polystar was the first and before that they simply refered to it as Nylon....pretty much the same thing.

But the inch that changed tennis happened in the 70's .....it was inch added to the tennis racquet and it states that its not the equipment that has changed but the players. Their techniqie amd physique. Here ya go:

Tennis: String Theory

Professional tennis players call it "the Luxilon shot," and, apparently, you can hear it coming. The ball crosses the net hissing and spitting like some enraged tropical insect. Its most lethal element is its topspin, which can dip the ball crosscourt in short angles so extreme that "the game has gone from linear to parabolic," as ex-pro turned coach Scott McCain recently put it. "It's like ping-pong out there."

The Luxilon shot can be traced back to 1997, when Gustavo Kuerten, a gangly, low-ranked Brazilian player, decided to string his racket with a co-polymer monofilament designed by Luxilon Industries, a small Belgian company specializing in medical sutures and bra straps (it still makes both). Kuerten confounded opponents with his aggressive, dipping shots, winning three French Open Championships and reaching number one. He credited Luxilon for a crucial role in his unlikely ascent. (See pictures of Wimbledon.)

Today, natural gut strings — the strands of sterilized cow entrails once used by most professionals — have all but disappeared from pro tennis. At this year's French Open beginning May 24, 65% of men and 45% of women will use a Luxilon string, and almost all those who don't will use an imitation. This despite the fact that the family-owned company based in Antwerp refuses to pay top players to use its products and requires most to buy the string — almost unheard of in the freebie-filled world of professional tennis.

But is the "Luxilon shot" all down to Luxilon string? In a 2006 article titled "The Inch that Changed Tennis Forever," Rod Cross, a physics professor at the University of Sydney, argued that the innovation in equipment that transformed topspin from a looping, defensive shot into a dive-bombing, offensive play actually happened in the late 1970s, when equipment makers widened the heads of professional rackets from nine inches to 10 (they also dropped wood for metal and eventually graphite). The extra inch allowed players to tilt the racket forward and swing from low to high without worrying about clipping the edge of the frame when brushing up on the ball.

According to Cross, nothing much has changed since that innovation; it's only in the last 10 years that players have developed the physique and technique to take advantage of the extra width by whipping the racket up in a motion that generates about five times more spin than the ground strokes players were hitting in the 1970s. "Players were given an inch in the 1970s and they took a mile," he says.

Pinpointing the role equipment has played in tennis's evolution can be tricky, however. Conventional wisdom once held that more powerful racket frames led to the hard-serving power game of the late '90s. But a 1997 test by Tennis Magazine found that 6 ft. 5 in. (1.96 m) Australian Mark Philippoussis served at an average speed of 124 m.p.h. (200 km/h) with his own graphite racket, and an only slightly slower 122 m.p.h. (196 km/h) with a classic wooden racket.

Polyester monofilament strings do generate "slightly more" spin than older generation strings, according to the International Tennis Federation (ITF), which started testing the playing characteristics of strings three years ago, but ITF head of science Stuart Miller says he's not sure why. One theory is that far from "biting" the ball, as many players describe it, the strings are "slippery" — when the ball pulls the strings out of their gridded alignment, they snap back quickly, propelling the ball's rotation. (See pictures of Pete Sampras.)

Yet even as strings offer greater potential for spin, players need technique to fulfill that potential. As Miller says, "the most important factor in the generation of spin is racket speed." Research by Cross at the University of Sydney has shown that pro tennis players have much less feel for strings than they think, and tend to overestimate their importance. A study published last year found that 90% of professionals could not feel a 6 lb. (2.7 kg) difference in the tension of strings in two different frames — even though most professionals insist on exacting string specifications for their matches.

Players who use Luxilon string say it feels "stiff" and "dead" on impact. But Luxilon general manager Nico van Malderen says that internal testing has shown the string is actually more powerful than the average. So it's possible that players developed aggressive topspin strokes with Luxilon because they felt they needed to swing harder to generate the same pace. As former world No. 1 Jim Courier says, "Technology has been the catalyst, but my guess is that if you forced all players to go back to technology from 1950 they would play much more aggressively than previous generations. The new style is working for them." Whatever the exact interplay of man and equipment may be, it has allowed fans to witness a thrilling revolution.

Readers
10-11-2012, 12:37 AM
You're right. Fewer crosses is nothing new. They had them back in the 1970's and it was called "spaghetti strings". They were quickly and promptly banned by the ITF for producing too much spin. So I don't see why they shouldn't ban this new racquet from Wilson. Oh, and they should ban ALL poly strings while they're at it for producing too much spin, which is the same reason they banned spaghetti strings 35 years ago.

And, no, my post was not tongue-in-cheek but quite serious.

Are you really that stupid? "spaghetti strings" are completely different from just fewer crosses.

Readers
10-11-2012, 12:38 AM
If that's true, then yes, it should be banned. But the thing is, I get just as much spin, sometimes even more spin, with 18x20 racquets as I do with 16x19 racquets. Why? Because I generate spin with my technique and not with my racquet or strings. I generate just as much spin with multis as I do with poly strings, which is why I don't use poly. I don't choose racquets because of string pattern because I can hit with as much spin with any pattern.

Doesn't matter, with your stupid logic, it still have to be banned.

Readers
10-11-2012, 12:39 AM
All players should have to generate their own spin using a 65 sq. in. racquet with an 18x20 pattern because that was the standard for over 100 years. Bjorn Borg could do it. If you can't do it then your technique is the problem.

Why don't you just permanently blind fold yourself so you don't have to see the world progresses?

Sander001
10-11-2012, 05:36 AM
All players should have to generate their own spin using a 65 sq. in. racquet with an 18x20 pattern because that was the standard for over 100 years. Bjorn Borg could do it. If you can't do it then your technique is the problem.Completely avoids the question and tries to question my form instead. Wow.
You never directly answered so I'll take that as a "yes, the main reason I want to ban any tech is so I would have the advantage over everybody else. I'm most important."

DevilDog
10-11-2012, 05:49 AM
If that's true, then yes, it should be banned. But the thing is, I get just as much spin, sometimes even more spin, with 18x20 racquets as I do with 16x19 racquets. Why? Because I generate spin with my technique and not with my racquet or strings. I generate just as much spin with multis as I do with poly strings, which is why I don't use poly. I don't choose racquets because of string pattern because I can hit with as much spin with any pattern.


And why should standards change? Aren't the standards for equipment in baseball the same in 2012 as they were in 1980? Isn't the size of the standard tennis court the same in 2012 as it was in 1980?

I don't produce spin with poly because I hit flat and I swing pretty fast. And I don't use poly because I don't want my arm to fall off and I want to be able to play tennis for the rest of my life.

You generate as much spin with poly as with multis, but you dont use spin.
I see now how you have 35k post. I think this is called a "circular argument".

themitchmann
10-11-2012, 05:50 AM
Completely avoids the question and tries to question my form instead. Wow.
You never directly answered so I'll take that as a "yes, the main reason I want to ban any tech is so I would have the advantage over everybody else. I'm most important."

I don't think he's saying that, exactly. I think it has more to do with the idea of using a racquet as a shortcut to improvement. As a coach, I understand and agree with that. Technique is vital to becoming better.

However, I think the game is a lot more fun with current technologies.

Mig1NC
10-11-2012, 10:07 AM
I wonder if the triangle pattern of the Vortex mains causes less friction as the mains would slide down the crosses at an angle instead of straight on.

If so, then Wilson's fewer crosses may not yield much more spin improvement if any over Vortex's greater number of crosses, while the Vortex may have more control due to the greater number of crosses.

Somebody will need to buy both and experiment!

sureshs
10-11-2012, 10:47 AM
It is probably just a gimmick. Somebody is not telling us the full story about the disadvantages of fewer strings.

The Dark Knight
10-11-2012, 10:57 AM
It is probably just a gimmick. Somebody is not telling us the full story about the disadvantages of fewer strings.

Control .....less control with open pattern.....

But really not a big deal in my opinion

Cavaleer
10-11-2012, 11:10 AM
I would hope that is tongue-in-cheek. There is nothing new about fewer crosses allowing the mains to move more freely (at the expense of some control, typically). I can imagine the only R&D Wilson spent on this was down the coffee shop thinking up the next gimmick.

Haha, so true. Of course they recommend using their string to maximize the benefits. lol

This should be their most interesting gimmick in some time though.

dmcb101
10-11-2012, 11:23 AM
Haha, so true. This should be their most interesting gimmick in some time though.

I dont get why people are saying this. Unless the article that was written on Tennis.com does not have actual science behind it I dont understand why people keep calling it a marketing scheme. Have you read the article?

sureshs
10-11-2012, 12:46 PM
I dont get why people are saying this. Unless the article that was written on Tennis.com does not have actual science behind it I dont understand why people keep calling it a marketing scheme. Have you read the article?

Do you have a link? I could not find it under Gear

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 12:48 PM
Are you really that stupid? "spaghetti strings" are completely different from just fewer crosses.
Um....no. It's the same idea. Fewer or no crosses to allow the mains to move around much more to create the spin. Whether it's spaghetti strings or fewer crosses, the concept is the SAME!

Oh, and here's a tip - calling others "stupid" is a great way to get yourself banned. :???:

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 12:53 PM
Why don't you just permanently blind fold yourself so you don't have to see the world progresses?
How is today's modern baseline bashing game "progress"? :confused:

If that's "progress", we should all go back to living in caves.

All the creativity, variety, touch, strategy, intelligence, etc. have been eliminated from the sport. That is NOT 'progress". That is regression. The game is worse now than it was before. Watching baseline bashing is mind numbing. People should get paid for sitting through an entire WTA match.

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 12:56 PM
Completely avoids the question and tries to question my form instead. Wow.
You never directly answered so I'll take that as a "yes, the main reason I want to ban any tech is so I would have the advantage over everybody else. I'm most important."
Um....how do I gain any "advantage"? :confused: I'll be using the same exact non-spin enhancing equipment as my opponent. If I can generate more spin, then I have the better technique because there was no help at all from the equipment. If my opponent can generate more spin, then he has the better technique. It's crystal clear who the better player is since it's not muddled by differences in equipment.

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 01:00 PM
You generate as much spin with poly as with multis, but you dont use spin.
I see now how you have 35k post. I think this is called a "circular argument".
I prefer to hit flatter, so of course I generate the same amount of spin with multis as I do with polys. Why is that hard to understand? :confused:

If I generate 1 RPM of spin with a multi and 1 RPM of spin with a poly, then I generate "as much spin with a multi as with a poly", don't I?

The Dark Knight
10-11-2012, 01:10 PM
I prefer to hit flatter, so of course I generate the same amount of spin with multis as I do with polys. Why is that hard to understand? :confused:

If I generate 1 RPM of spin with a multi and 1 RPM of spin with a poly, then I generate "as much spin with a multi as with a poly", don't I?

I'm not taking sides here....and I understand your desire for the purity of the sport over technology.

However the answer to your question is : no.

All shots even flat shots have some spin on it.

I grant you that a ball coming in waist high you will hit flat with the same RPM regardless of the type of string.

However not all bounces are created equal....for example if someone hits a low skidding slice at you then you must lift that ball to get it over the net. It cannot be hit flat.

Readers
10-11-2012, 01:45 PM
How is today's modern baseline bashing game "progress"? :confused:

If that's "progress", we should all go back to living in caves.

All the creativity, variety, touch, strategy, intelligence, etc. have been eliminated from the sport. That is NOT 'progress". That is regression. The game is worse now than it was before. Watching baseline bashing is mind numbing. People should get paid for sitting through an entire WTA match.

No, they are BETTER, because they can WIN. Your argument is all TALK, ATP tour is about who can WIN.

themitchmann
10-11-2012, 02:23 PM
Points last pretty long these days. That takes a certain level of fitness, and leads to some pretty incredible shot making when the right players are competing.

Sampras on grass was not always great to watch because points were so quick...that doesn't necessarily make the game more interesting.

Just my 2 cents.

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 02:27 PM
No, they are BETTER, because they can WIN. Your argument is all TALK, ATP tour is about who can WIN.
And players 40 years ago never "won"? :confused:

So how is a win today "better" than a win 40 years ago? And if it's not, how does that make today's players "better"?

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 02:30 PM
I'm not taking sides here....and I understand your desire for the purity of the sport over technology.

However the answer to your question is : no.

All shots even flat shots have some spin on it.

I grant you that a ball coming in waist high you will hit flat with the same RPM regardless of the type of string.

However not all bounces are created equal....for example if someone hits a low skidding slice at you then you must lift that ball to get it over the net. It cannot be hit flat.
I hit those balls with either slice back or relatively flat and hard which goes over the net by an inch. In either case, poly is not going to help me with spin.

Gasolina
10-11-2012, 02:56 PM
Why all the hate for these new racquets? If a person wants or doesn't want to use the racquet then let them be. Let them make the decision.

I use 17 guage co-poly strings at low tensions on 1 16x19 HL flexy racquet. My game revolves around spin. I don't think its cheating if you're just using available gear that works well for your game.

Sander001
10-11-2012, 03:15 PM
Um....how do I gain any "advantage"? :confused:I get just as much spin, sometimes even more spin, with 18x20 racquets.http://netrightdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Baghdad-Bob.jpg

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 03:22 PM
http://netrightdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Baghdad-Bob.jpg

So are you saying that I'm just a better player than you since I can get just as much spin out of an 18x20 racquet and you can't? OK, I guess the truth comes out. :)

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 03:24 PM
Why all the hate for these new racquets? If a person wants or doesn't want to use the racquet then let them be. Let them make the decision.

I use 17 guage co-poly strings at low tensions on 1 16x19 HL flexy racquet. My game revolves around spin. I don't think its cheating if you're just using available gear that works well for your game.
But that's the point. Maybe this gear shouldn't be made available. Maybe it should be the player that generates the spin and not his gear.

I mean if Borg could generate lots of spin using a 65 sq. in. wood racquet with an 18x20 pattern strung with natural gut, every player should be able too if they worked hard enough on their strokes.

DoctorBackhand
10-11-2012, 04:02 PM
But that's the point. Maybe this gear shouldn't be made available. Maybe it should be the player that generates the spin and not his gear.

I mean if Borg could generate lots of spin using a 65 sq. in. wood racquet with an 18x20 pattern strung with natural gut, every player should be able too if they worked hard enough on their strokes.

Borg was also a tennis pro whose profession it was to play tennis.
For those of us who play for fun, I don't see why having a modern racket is a big deal.

In fact, I don't really get what your fascination is here that causes you to obsess over what racket other people use. If you are winning, you shouldn't really care what racket your opponent uses if your better than them.

Isn't that why Federer still uses a 90?:wink:

Sander001
10-11-2012, 05:15 PM
So are you saying that I'm just a better player than you since I can get just as much spin out of an 18x20 racquet and you can't? OK, I guess the truth comes out. :)No mods for obvious troll bait? Well then.
Since you like truth coming out, then you'll be glad that we've all discovered that you're an elitist snob with a superiority complex. :)

The Dark Knight
10-11-2012, 05:47 PM
I hit those balls with either slice back or relatively flat and hard which goes over the net by an inch. In either case, poly is not going to help me with spin.

On the forehand side ?

What do you do in doubles?

If a ball is sliced low at you then you must lift it to get by the net man.

What about on the run to the the forehand? You slice that as well?

I'm not questioning you I'm just curious ?

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 06:40 PM
Borg was also a tennis pro whose profession it was to play tennis.
For those of us who play for fun, I don't see why having a modern racket is a big deal.

In fact, I don't really get what your fascination is here that causes you to obsess over what racket other people use. If you are winning, you shouldn't really care what racket your opponent uses if your better than them.

Isn't that why Federer still uses a 90?:wink:
Yes, I know but my point is that it CAN be done because we saw Borg do it. Even today, if you use an APD you're not going to hit the ball just like Nadal. But we know it CAN be done because we see Nadal do it all day long.

I just think we need to stop this nuclear arms race now and stop all of these ever increasingly more powerful and more spinny racquets and strings. It should be the player producing the power and spin, not the racquet and strings.

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 06:45 PM
On the forehand side ?

What do you do in doubles?

If a ball is sliced low at you then you must lift it to get by the net man.

What about on the run to the the forehand? You slice that as well?

I'm not questioning you I'm just curious ?
Yes, I often slice my forehand to lift low balls over the net, especially on the run. It works great. :) But if I get to the ball a bit earlier, I'll drive it flat with very little net clearance, especially in doubles in which I try to hit all shots very low over the net to make it more difficult for my opponents to hit aggressive volleys.

Chotobaka
10-11-2012, 06:52 PM
Yes, I often slice my forehand to lift low balls over the net, especially on the run. It works great. :) But if I get to the ball a bit earlier, I'll drive it flat with very little net clearance, especially in doubles in which I try to hit all shots very low over the net to make it more difficult for my opponents to hit aggressive volleys.

Excellent way to end the point quickly in doubles. Unfortunately, not in your favor.

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 08:38 PM
Excellent way to end the point quickly in doubles. Unfortunately, not in your favor.
I do it more often in singles than in doubles unless both opponents are in the back court. In doubles, if both opponents are at the net and I get to the low ball late, I'll either flick the ball down the middle or down the sideline or at an sharp angle or lob over their heads. :)

The Dark Knight
10-11-2012, 09:58 PM
I do it more often in singles than in doubles unless both opponents are in the back court. In doubles, if both opponents are at the net and I get to the low ball late, I'll either flick the ball down the middle or down the sideline or at an sharp angle or lob over their heads. :)

But why not use topspin sometimes? I mean I'm not prejudiced against any stroke . I use them all.....so does Federer and actually all the pros.

And they alway have ......Borg used topspin , Laver had some top as well believe it or not.

dmcb101
10-11-2012, 10:00 PM
Do you have a link? I could not find it under Gear

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-wilsons-john-lyons-part-1/39374/#.UHejkcXR5qU

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-wilsons-john-lyons-part-2/39407/#.UHejtcXR5qU

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-wilsons-john-lyons-part-3/39411/#.UHejysXR5qU

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-wilsons-john-lyons-part-4/39435/#.UHej2MXR5qU

Readers
10-11-2012, 10:41 PM
And players 40 years ago never "won"? :confused:

So how is a win today "better" than a win 40 years ago? And if it's not, how does that make today's players "better"?

You are stupid, if you play with 65 woody now, you LOSE.

Readers
10-11-2012, 10:42 PM
I hit those balls with either slice back or relatively flat and hard which goes over the net by an inch. In either case, poly is not going to help me with spin.

So you have 1 RPM slice as well? LOL.

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 10:56 PM
You are stupid, if you play with 65 woody now, you LOSE.
Um....and you think that was my point?

If EVERYONE used a 65 sq. in. wood racquet, who would win? I'd bet you that the better player would win and not the one with the better racquet or strings. THAT'S my point!

So who did you say was "stupid"?

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 10:57 PM
So you have 1 RPM slice as well? LOL.
How many people switch to poly strings because they slice every single ball? You don't need poly strings to help you slice better.

Readers
10-11-2012, 11:15 PM
How many people switch to poly strings because they slice every single ball? You don't need poly strings to help you slice better.

Doesn't matter, by your logic, it has to be banned.

Readers
10-11-2012, 11:17 PM
Um....and you think that was my point?

If EVERYONE used a 65 sq. in. wood racquet, who would win? I'd bet you that the better player would win and not the one with the better racquet or strings. THAT'S my point!

So who did you say was "stupid"?

You are, why would everyone use 65 sq woody when 90-110 sq graphite let them play better and WIN? That's called progress you idiot. 90-110 sq graphite = play better tennis= beat people with 65 woody.

Readers
10-11-2012, 11:18 PM
BTW when everyone use 90-110 sq graphite frame, better player still wins, you indeed do not have a point and is hopelessly ********.

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 11:32 PM
You are, why would everyone use 65 sq woody when 90-110 sq graphite let them play better and WIN? That's called progress you idiot. 90-110 sq graphite = play better tennis= beat people with 65 woody.
Why would all fencers use swords when an AK-47 would do the job so much better and make it easier for them to win? Isn't that progress? Why do baseball players use wooden bats when aluminum bats would make it easier for them to hit home runs? Isn't that progress? Why do cyclists ride bicycles when motorcycles would make it so much easier for them to win races? Isn't that progress?

Oh, and how is today's tennis "better" than before? Because it isn't! It's worse! That's regression, not progress.

BreakPoint
10-11-2012, 11:40 PM
BTW when everyone use 90-110 sq graphite frame, better player still wins, you indeed do not have a point and is hopelessly ********.
If that's the case, why are there so many threads saying that Federer needs to switch to a bigger racquet if he wants to keep winning? Obviously, a lot of people think a bigger racquet makes it easier for you to win than a smaller one, right? So why do people think Federer would play better if he switched to Murray's or Djokovic's or Nadal's racquet?

During the wood era, I NEVER heard anyone say that McEnroe would win more if he switched from his wood racquet to Borg's wood racquet or Gerulaitis' wood racquet. Why? Because everyone knew that they were all pretty much the same and didn't give any player an advantage over another. That's obviously no longer true today. Or else why do so many people here keep buying or trying new racquets and new strings all the time? Obviously, they feel they gain an advantage with them.

Readers
10-12-2012, 12:13 AM
Why would all fencers use swords when an AK-47 would do the job so much better and make it easier for them to win? Isn't that progress? Why do baseball players use wooden bats when aluminum bats would make it easier for them to hit home runs? Isn't that progress? Why do cyclists ride bicycles when motorcycles would make it so much easier for them to win races? Isn't that progress?

Oh, and how is today's tennis "better" than before? Because it isn't! It's worse! That's regression, not progress.

Dude you are totally ********, first, no one in sports of fencing is trying to kill, so AK-47 or 74 won't work... also there rules about racquet, no one is going to bring a wall or a ball shooting machine-gun on court.

You are just so stupid.

Readers
10-12-2012, 12:15 AM
If that's the case, why are there so many threads saying that Federer needs to switch to a bigger racquet if he wants to keep winning? Obviously, a lot of people think a bigger racquet makes it easier for you to win than a smaller one, right? So why do people think Federer would play better if he switched to Murray's or Djokovic's or Nadal's racquet?

During the wood era, I NEVER heard anyone say that McEnroe would win more if he switched from his wood racquet to Borg's wood racquet or Gerulaitis' wood racquet. Why? Because everyone knew that they were all pretty much the same and didn't give any player an advantage over another. That's obviously no longer true today. Or else why do so many people here keep buying or trying new racquets and new strings all the time? Obviously, they feel they gain an advantage with them.


Because he plays BETTER with a bigger racquet.

Because the world is progressing, that's why things never happened before happens now.

BreakPoint
10-12-2012, 12:23 AM
Dude you are totally ********, there rules about racquet, no one is going to bring a wall or a ball shooting machine-gun on court.

Your example holds no water, what so ever.
The rule should be no racquet bigger than 65 sq. in. and no poly strings. Just like the rule in fencing is no rifles allowed and the rule at the Tour de France is no motorcycles allowed. Just because something exists or can be made doesn't mean it should be allowed in the sport because it changes the sport. Everyone agrees that tennis does not resemble the sport it was 40 years ago and that it's completely different today. And no one is going to argue that allowing motorcycles would completely change the sport of cycling. That's why they don't allow them.

Readers
10-12-2012, 12:28 AM
The rule should be no racquet bigger than 65 sq. in. and no poly strings. Just like the rule in fencing is no rifles allowed and the rule at the Tour de France is no motorcycles allowed. Just because something exists or can be made doesn't mean it should be allowed in the sport because it changes the sport. Everyone agrees that tennis does not resemble the sport it was 40 years ago and that it's completely different today. And no one is going to argue that allowing motorcycles would completely change the sport of cycling. That's why they don't allow them.

Sorry, but it's a good thing we don't have ******s making rules for tennis.

Also, stop comparing powered illegal **** to legit tennis gear without power source.

BreakPoint
10-12-2012, 12:30 AM
Because he plays BETTER with a bigger racquet.

Because the world is progressing, that's why things never happened before happens now.
So then you admit that the racquet today makes a difference and that it's not just who the better player is that will win. No one discussed the differences in wood racquets when one player beat another during the wood era. No one ever said that this pro should switch to a different wood racquet if he wants to play better. Everyone knew that it was the player himself who won or lost and that the racquet he used made no difference whatsoever. Not so today, is it?

Readers
10-12-2012, 12:32 AM
So then you admit that the racquet today makes a difference and that it's not just who the better player is that will win. No one discussed the differences in wood racquets when one player beat another during the wood era. No one ever said that this pro should switch to a different wood racquet if he wants to play better. Everyone knew that it was the player himself who won or lost and that the racquet he used made no difference whatsoever. Not so today, is it?


No, you are stupid, everyone is using the racquet that let them play the best, so the better player still wins.

If some pro is just stupid as you are and refuse to use the racquet that let them play the best tennis, they are just bad players, as intelligence is part of tennis skill set

BreakPoint
10-12-2012, 12:35 AM
Sorry, but it's a good thing we don't have ******s making rules for tennis.

Also, stop comparing powered illegal **** to legit tennis gear without power source.
How many time does the word "power" appear in advertising for today's modern racquets?

And there are restrictions to the weight and size of bicycles and the type of tires that can be used in competition. Why are there essentially no restrictions to tennis racquets and strings? If there were, there wouldn't be so many different racquets of all shapes, sizes, and weights on the market and hundreds of different strings on the market, all of which can be legally used in tennis.

Readers
10-12-2012, 12:36 AM
Why are there essentially no restrictions to tennis racquets and strings?

There are, STFU.

Also, by your dumbass logic, they need to ban carbon fiber, aluminum, and titanium bicycles frame too.

Maybe steel is unfair too? So why is no one riding a wood one now? LOL

Readers
10-12-2012, 12:39 AM
You are really so stupid, why don't you learn the difference between power of a tennis frame and externally powered gear before wasting more of other people's time?

BreakPoint
10-12-2012, 12:41 AM
No, you are stupid, everyone is using the racquet that let them play the best, so the better player still wins.

If some pro is just stupid as you are and refuse to use the racquet that let them play the best tennis, they are just bad players, as intelligence is part of tennis skill set
You just said that Federer would play "better" with a bigger racquet so that he's not using the racquet that lets him play his best. Are you saying Federer is a "bad player" and is not "intelligent"?

Would Nadal play as well with Federer's racquet as with his APD? No? Then Nadal is not the better player himself, is he? It's his racquet that makes him the better player, not himself.

Readers
10-12-2012, 12:44 AM
You just said that Federer would play "better" with a bigger racquet so that he's not using the racquet that lets him play his best. Are you saying Federer is a "bad player" and is not "intelligent"?

Would Nadal play as well with Federer's racquet as with his APD? No? Then Nadal is not the better player himself, is he? It's his racquet that makes him the better player, not himself.

You are not just stupid, but also a deceptive *** trying to put word in other people's mouth.

Federer plays better with a 90 than 85, that's why he switched to a bigger frame to go on and win 17 slams, that's why he is smart, not ******** like you.

Federer plays better with a 90 and Nadal with a 100, got a probelm you brainless ape?

Hi I'm Ray
10-12-2012, 12:45 AM
Lol. Gotta love BP for the hilarious stuff. What if BP doesn't even use woodies or a PS 85 and he just trolls ppl here for kicks because its so easy to :)

BreakPoint
10-12-2012, 12:46 AM
You are really so stupid, why don't you learn the difference between power of a tennis frame and externally powered gear before wasting more of other people's time?
Today's Pure Drive is a bazooka compared to a Maxply Fort wood racquet. It is essentially the difference between a revolver and an AK-47 automatic machine gun. Would they allow an AK-47 in a duel?

Readers
10-12-2012, 12:48 AM
Lol. Gotta love BP for the hilarious stuff. What if BP doesn't even use woodies or a PS 85 and he just trolls ppl here for kicks because its so easy to :)

Given this guy's behavior and time on forum, he probably doesn't have anyone want to hang out with him IRL, so this is all he left to do, kind of pathetic.

The key is not to take him serious, toy with him when you got the time, and ignore him when you get bored or have better things to do.

BreakPoint
10-12-2012, 12:49 AM
Lol. Gotta love BP for the hilarious stuff. What if BP doesn't even use woodies or a PS 85 and he just trolls ppl here for kicks because its so easy to :)
Readers just keeps digging a bigger hole for himself. All the name calling in every post will just get him banned quicker, yet he keeps doing it. And he's the one calling others "stupid". :lol: LOL

Chotobaka
10-12-2012, 01:38 AM
Given this guy's behavior and time on forum, he probably doesn't have anyone want to hang out with him IRL, so this is all he left to do, kind of pathetic.

The key is not to take him serious, toy with him when you got the time, and ignore him when you get bored or have better things to do.

Insightful.

The Dark Knight
10-12-2012, 05:11 AM
http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-wilsons-john-lyons-part-1/39374/#.UHejkcXR5qU

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-wilsons-john-lyons-part-2/39407/#.UHejtcXR5qU

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-wilsons-john-lyons-part-3/39411/#.UHejysXR5qU

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-wilsons-john-lyons-part-4/39435/#.UHej2MXR5qU

Thanks for that!

I took out the most interesting parts.....this racquet sounds revolutionary for recreational players:

And what happens with the 16x15 pattern is that, compared to a 16x18, not only do the strings move a lot further, but they also snap back really violently. It makes sense. With less friction, the strings deflect further, and because they move further out of place, they snap back past their original position. Which increases the amount of rotation that the strings are able to impart on the ball.

Putting fewer and fewer cross strings does increase the amount that the mains are moving. But the big jump is between a regular pattern and just one less cross string, the 16/15. And as you go more and more open on the pattern, according to playtesters, it gets harder and harder to control the ball. So we think 16 by 15 is the right combination, even if you do get a little more string movement with even fewer crosses. With the 16/15, we think you benefit with the increase in spin without the negative of decreased control.

 We’ve found that a 16x15 string pattern has a more dramatic effect on players of average ability, actually. There’s still an effect for better players, but our research shows that it’s not quite as pronounced for them, as they’re already swinging so fast and causing the strings to snap back.

The snap-back effect, yes, it’s definitely maximized by a monofilament, a Luxilon-type string. You don’t see the effect with nylon or gut strings. They just move…but don’t snap back. That’s why players who play nylon or gut, they’re always straightening their strings between points. Which is why we’re hypothesizing that it’s the snap-back—the recoil of the string at a faster speed—that has more to do with the additional spin than how far the string moves out of place. At this point, however, we can’t say for sure.

Further to the point, people typically use examples of airplanes or cars when thinking about aerodynamics. But the problem is, airplanes and cars move in one direction; on the other hand, tennis racquets are moving in all different directions during the swing. Sometimes a racquet is moving vertically, sometimes horizontally. It’s just not moving in one direction. From our perspective, we haven’t found much evidence suggesting that a racquet’s aerodynamics can significantly influence players’ swing and spin production.

themitchmann
10-12-2012, 05:15 AM
Today's Pure Drive is a bazooka compared to a Maxply Fort wood racquet. It is essentially the difference between a revolver and an AK-47 automatic machine gun. Would they allow an AK-47 in a duel?

Not a god comparison. Duels are won with 1 quick shot. The AK would be too slow, and automatic fire wouldn't make a difference.

themitchmann
10-12-2012, 05:19 AM
How many time does the word "power" appear in advertising for today's modern racquets?

And there are restrictions to the weight and size of bicycles and the type of tires that can be used in competition. Why are there essentially no restrictions to tennis racquets and strings? If there were, there wouldn't be so many different racquets of all shapes, sizes, and weights on the market and hundreds of different strings on the market, all of which can be legally used in tennis.

There regulations on the dimensions of a legal racquet and string patterns. Almost everything on the market abides by these rules.

sureshs
10-12-2012, 07:46 AM
You are not just stupid, but also a deceptive *** trying to put word in other people's mouth.


You will get banned if you continue to post such insults

The Dark Knight
10-12-2012, 09:45 AM
You just said that Federer would play "better" with a bigger racquet so that he's not using the racquet that lets him play his best. Are you saying Federer is a "bad player" and is not "intelligent"?

Would Nadal play as well with Federer's racquet as with his APD? No? Then Nadal is not the better player himself, is he? It's his racquet that makes him the better player, not himself.

I think Nadal would be able to play with Feds racquet.

It's the strings that really make the difference.

Everyone pays so much attention to the racquets but strings are so much more important .

The strings are the soul of a racquet.

As with the new steam .....it's not the racquet but the strings that make all the difference .

sureshs
10-12-2012, 09:50 AM
I think Nadal would be able to play with Feds racquet.

It's the strings that really make the difference.

Everyone pays so much attention to the racquets but strings are so much more important .

The strings are the soul of a racquet.

As with the new steam .....it's not the racquet but the strings that make all the difference .

It is not the same issue. Here the role of strings is different from comparing different strings on the same racket. Here the role is tied to the drilling pattern and the benefits (if true) should accrue to all strings.

The Dark Knight
10-12-2012, 10:09 AM
It is not the same issue. Here the role of strings is different from comparing different strings on the same racket. Here the role is tied to the drilling pattern and the benefits (if true) should accrue to all strings.

I'm not sure I understand what your saying? I think I understand though?

when I say " strings" im also referring to the pattern of the strings.

Racquet to me means weight , balance , size, materials.....the actual racquet itself.

For example spaghetti strings was a pattern as well.

There's soooooo much more to strings than the graphite.

You can make Feds racquet play similar to a babolat of you wanted to.

It's all depends on the strings.....tension , pattern , thickness, materials , hybrid etc etc etc.

There's only so much you can do with a piece of graphite.

Take a look at Borg and Mcenroe. They played with the same racquet virtually.....both wood , both the same size and pattern......

Except that Mcenroe played with extremely loose strings while Borg played with extremely tight strings. Their styles am the way they hot the ball were completely different . The racquets were almost identical but the sticks played completely differently becaise of the strings.

The same principles apply today.

sureshs
10-12-2012, 10:11 AM
OK you are including string pattern also.

The Dark Knight
10-12-2012, 10:47 AM
OK you are including string pattern also.

Yes .

.

The Dark Knight
10-12-2012, 06:12 PM
I think the steam is going to make tennis easier to play for the average player but it won't make it on the pro tour.

This "sling shot" effect I think will work on topspin very well.

As you slice the ball it will sort of "shoot" the ball out.

Basically you won't have to swing all that hard for any stroke and just let the strings do the work for you.

It's not a serious players stick. In the right hands however like a santoro it could be deadly.

The Dark Knight
10-28-2012, 02:30 AM
I just saw some new specs on the Wilson.....it's going to be 11.3 ounces strung which is just what I like.

I had written the stick off because it was weighted at 10.2.....I've never been so excited about the release of any stick.

I really think this is going to be revolutionary and all sticks will carry similar patterns in the future.

I've know this for a while playing with the Vortex.....the open string pattern is really just a better set up.

RobFL
12-06-2012, 10:33 PM
At national age group tournaments lately I've seen 4 guys playing Vortex. These are basically 5.0 and 5.5 players who know racket technology. Would really like to hit the tour 95 but not sure it is easy to get a vortex demo.

The Dark Knight
04-05-2013, 06:59 PM
At national age group tournaments lately I've seen 4 guys playing Vortex. These are basically 5.0 and 5.5 players who know racket technology. Would really like to hit the tour 95 but not sure it is easy to get a vortex demo.

Actually I think I got over excited about the Wilson.

Although I have not played with it I have lifted both and checked out the specs . The tour 95 just feels so much more like a players stick.

I have fallen in love with it and I doubt Wilson will win me
Over ....jury is still out.

As for putting vortex out of business.....man was I wrong . In fact I think Wilson has legitimized Vortex.

Once Wilson copied Vortex it's obvious that sparse string patterns are legit and people are now looking at the vortex seriously.

It's a racquet way ahead of it's time .

Wilson may end up just buying out vortex. As it stands now you can't even get your hands on a tour 95 because they are sold out . They may get a shipment on June but from the looks of it they can't produce them fast enough.

High street sw19
04-07-2013, 03:39 AM
Or more likely, like all small brands to have the cash to pay for production ;-|

SFrazeur
04-07-2013, 09:31 AM
Or more likely, like all small brands to have the cash to pay for production ;-|

Sounds more likely. As well, companies need to fill as much of one of those shipping cargo containers as possible before shipping. It is not like they can run a few off and ship them off.

-SF

v-verb
04-07-2013, 09:58 AM
Actually I think I got over excited about the Wilson.

Although I have not played with it I have lifted both and checked out the specs . The tour 95 just feels so much more like a players stick.

I have fallen in love with it and I doubt Wilson will win me
Over ....jury is still out.

As for putting vortex out of business.....man was I wrong . In fact I think Wilson has legitimized Vortex.

Once Wilson copied Vortex it's obvious that sparse string patterns are legit and people are now looking at the vortex seriously.

It's a racquet way ahead of it's time .

Wilson may end up just buying out vortex. As it stands now you can't even get your hands on a tour 95 because they are sold out . They may get a shipment on June but from the looks of it they can't produce them fast enough.


Not sure if this was brought out before but wouldn't Vortex have reason to serve a cease and desist on Wilson?

Vortex uses 14 mains vs the Steam's 15 mains - maybe that lets Wilson off the hook

The Dark Knight
04-07-2013, 02:03 PM
Not sure if this was brought out before but wouldn't Vortex have reason to serve a cease and desist on Wilson?

Vortex uses 14 mains vs the Steam's 15 mains - maybe that lets Wilson off the hook

you can't patent how many strings are used in a racquet. That's not an invention.

What vortex did patent is the "V" shape of it's stringing pattern .

tlm
04-07-2013, 02:24 PM
I say - BAN IT NOW!!!

Are there no limits? What's next? A racquet that plays for you while you sit in the shade sipping an iced tea?

It's out of control. We need to go back to wood racquets and gut strings so that it's only the player himself that generates all the power and spin without all of this "technology" doing it for you. Or else how do we know who the better player REALLY is instead of just who's using the better technology/equipment? It should be YOU that's generating the spin, NOT your strings nor your racquet.

Believe me these rackets are not that easy to play with, they are rocket launcher granny sticks. The vortex is actually a better racket than the 99BS.

Sander001
04-07-2013, 05:13 PM
you can't patent how many strings are used in a racquet. That's not an invention.Apple has patented some absurd things (http://www.businessinsider.com/9-of-apples-strangest-patents-2012-10?op=1) in recent years so I can easily imagine how number of strings could be patented too.

The head of the US Patent Office resigned as it now comes to light that they had lowered their acceptance standards to clear a rapidly growing backlog. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/study-suggests-patent-office-lowered-standards-to-cope-with-backlog/

I wondered why Wilson went to 16x15 and not offered a 16x16. Perhaps people would see that 16x16 gives as much spin[negligible difference] but decided to go with something instead that they could patent.

The Dark Knight
04-07-2013, 06:41 PM
The number of strings cannot be patented because its simply not an invention .

You can use any number of strings that you want ......

Its the same as if I tried to patent a 3 string guitar .....It just cannot be done.

Ronaldo
04-07-2013, 06:52 PM
How can you patent this baloney when there was a 12X16 pattern 24 yrs ago?

The Dark Knight
04-07-2013, 07:06 PM
How can you patent this baloney when there was a 12X16 pattern 24 yrs ago?

The woodforde stick right ? I've been dying to try that!

Sander001
04-07-2013, 09:19 PM
The number of strings cannot be patented because its simply not an invention.You're many years out of date if you think that only "inventions" can be patents.