PDA

View Full Version : What's with the wierd string pattern on the Radical OS?


Ripper
04-04-2006, 09:10 AM
I know it's supposed to be designed by Agassi. It's like he wanted to take away from it's spinning potential (since OS raquets are supposed to be good spinners). I mean, because, if he just wanted a denser string pattern, for more control, in general, instead of the 18 x 19 pattern he used, I think we would have gone for an 18 x 20 pattern, which is more standard and better looking, I think. When you look at this raquet's string bed, because of the wierd (to me, at least) pattern, the spaces formed by the strings are very rectangular, instead of squarish, as in most raquets. Imo, Agassi's idea behind the 18 x 19 pattern is that of keeping spin as low as a 18 x 20, but still maintaing a bit more power. I haven't tested this raquet, yet, but I'm looking forward to comparing it with the POG OS. I'm kind of anticipating much less spin with the Rad OS than with the POG OS. However, I'm curious to see which of the two has better directional accuracy. Comments?

Ripper
04-05-2006, 07:23 AM
Agassi? Anyone?

vinky
04-05-2006, 10:37 AM
The radical OS line always had a 18x19 string pattern. I think OS racquets in general look sort of wierd.

vinky
04-05-2006, 10:39 AM
btw, just b/c a racquet looks weird doesn't mean that they're worthless by any means. I used to own and really like the LM Rad OS, but it cracked at the throat on a serve. I was very sad :(

diredesire
04-05-2006, 12:28 PM
The radical OS line always had a 18x19 string pattern. I think OS racquets in general look sort of wierd.

Yeah, i think the radical has it's tradition set with the "dense"r string patterns. It's hard to have a string pattern look un-"rectangular" with 18 mains on a headshape like that. I personally think the radical OS line is a great line of frame, it's got a good base for customizing, and it's surpringly stable and most of all maneuverable for an OS frame.

I don't think the extra cross makes too much of a difference. A string pattern's "usefulness" or "weirdness" isn't dictated by just having the "standard" 16x18, 16x19, 16x20, 18x20 string patterns you commonly see. Besides, it's a "radical," why would it want to be... "normal"/standard?

;)

As far as agassi designing the radical, i'm pretty sure he had very little if anything to do with it. He's used various string patterns anyways, he's been seen playing with a 20x21 pattern IIRC.


As far as the POG/Ti.Rad comparison, they have their own respectful places in the game. The POG is a weightier, flexier player's stick. I think the Rad OS is very similar in play, but it's lighter, which lends itself to customization, it's a little stiffer, but still forgiving, and it has a great bite if strung correctly. I think the POG is a better all-around racquet, while the rad OS has it's merits spin-serving and baselining.

As far as spin, the Rad OS doesn't have less due to it's maneuverability/swing speed capabilities, if you're strong enough to swing both the same speed i suppose the POG OS would generate more spin, but i think for an average player you won't notice much of a difference.

As far as directional control, i think (which may be surprising) the POG OS has better directional control. I think this is mostly due to how heavy, and stable the POG OS is. It just PLOWS through the ball, sending it on it's merry way. I remember hitting with my POG OS one day and feeling i could hit anywhere on the court. My friend, who is fairly quick and has good hands approached the net, and i picked a spot on the court and absolutely NAILED it. The funny thing was, it was a short hard angled shot, and i absolutely ripped the ball and managed to hit it. I still, to this day have no clue how i did it, but that was one of my most memorable feeling shots.

I retired my POG OS (and gave it to my little brother) in favor of more net friendly racquets, although by OS standards, the POG OS is NO slouch.

Ripper
04-05-2006, 12:37 PM
The radical OS line always had a 18x19 string pattern. I think OS racquets in general look sort of wierd.

btw, just b/c a racquet looks weird doesn't mean that they're worthless by any means. I used to own and really like the LM Rad OS, but it cracked at the throat on a serve. I was very sad :(

I couldn't care less about how wierd a raquet looks. If it makes me play better, I'll use it! What I wanted to know is what was Agassi's and/or Head's thinking behind that unconventional string pattern. Just curious.

Ripper
04-05-2006, 12:39 PM
I don't think the extra cross makes too much of a difference. A string pattern's "usefulness" or "weirdness" isn't dictated by just having the "standard" 16x18, 16x19, 16x20, 18x20 string patterns you commonly see. Besides, it's a "radical," why would it want to be... "normal"/standard?

Good one. Hey and thanks for the excellent reply.

DXS
04-05-2006, 01:56 PM
I couldn't care less about how wierd a raquet looks. If it makes me play better, I'll use it! What I wanted to know is what was Agassi's and/or Head's thinking behind that unconventional string pattern. Just curious.

Ditto. I tried everything, but finally ended up with these. They let me play my best. At first I had trouble serving with them, but now I think they serve great. It just took a little adjustment time.

jackcrawford
04-05-2006, 08:27 PM
I couldn't care less about how wierd a raquet looks. If it makes me play better, I'll use it! What I wanted to know is what was Agassi's and/or Head's thinking behind that unconventional string pattern. Just curious.
Sharapova has this pattern custom-drilled on her 03 White - if you want to cut back on string movement a little, it's one way to do it.

Ripper
04-06-2006, 09:33 AM
Sharapova has this pattern custom-drilled on her 03 White - if you want to cut back on string movement a little, it's one way to do it.

You know, I got this Rad OS FP demo from my local Head distributor. Haven't played with it yet. However, last night, I was checking it out. Taking a close look at the string pattern. The mains are much, much, close to each other at the center strings than to the sides. The crosses are spaced in a more constant and open way. That's why the spaces are rectangular in the middle. Anyway, I know I said in my OP that the purpose of this could be that of reducing spin potential. Hummm, but what if it's, totally, the contrary?! As in putting more mains in that area to rise the friction; by keeping the crosses down, you let the ball bite into the larger surface offered by the extra mains. Hey, there's always opposing theories. I know, I know. Some of you will say that I think too much, but I'm telling you; there's something about the 18 x 19 pattern. I just need to figure it out :D