PDA

View Full Version : Listed SGPR Ratings

cys19
10-01-2006, 08:44 PM
Serve/Groundstroke Power Ratios

travlerajm's calculations:
Sampras' racquet had an SGPR rating of +4.5.
Agassi's racquet had an SGPR rating of +3.
Safin's racquet has an SGPR rating of +1.5.

A Pure Drive Roddick Plus has an SGRP of +1.

An RDS001 mid has SGPR of -4.
An RDS001 mp has SGPR of -7.

========================
cys19's calculations sorted in descending order
H6 Hammer +1.44
Agassi LE +0.85
O3 Silver +0.84
PD + Roddick +0.69 (close to travlerajm's)
Prostaff 6.0 85 -0.52
FXP Instinct MP -1.61
Pure Drive + -1.61
O3 White -2.14
Wilson n6.1 90 -2.32
POG MS -2.57
Pure Drive -2.61
O3 Hybrid Tour -3.00
M-Fil 300 -3.07
LM Instinct Tour XL -3.87 (Added 10/2)
RDS001 MS -4.15 (close to travlerajm's)

Do they look right?

cys19
10-01-2006, 09:18 PM
Question: Is the FXP Radical MP that great of a serving racquet?

10-02-2006, 01:19 AM
Serve/Groundstroke Power Ratios

travlerajm's calculations:
Sampras' racquet had an SGPR rating of +4.5.
Agassi's racquet had an SGPR rating of +3.
Safin's racquet has an SGPR rating of +1.5.

A Pure Drive Roddick Plus has an SGRP of +1.

An RDS001 mid has SGPR of -4.
An RDS001 mp has SGPR of -7.

========================
cys19's calculations sorted in descending order
H6 Hammer 1.44
Agassi LE 0.848
O3 Silver 0.84
PD + Roddick 0.69 (close to travlerajm's)
Prostaff 6.0 90 -0.52
FXP Instinct MP -1.61
Pure Drive + -1.61
O3 White -2.14
Wilson n6.1 90 -2.32
POG MS -2.57
Pure Drive -2.61
O3 Hybrid Tour -3
M-Fil 300 -3.07
RDS001 MS -4.15 (close to travlerajm's)

Do they look right?

So which ProStaff 6.0 90 are you talking about? Federer's? ;)

cys19
10-02-2006, 05:35 AM
So which ProStaff 6.0 90 are you talking about? Federer's? ;)

WHoops! 85! Same SGPR value. ;)

bertrevert
10-02-2006, 06:15 AM
So you're using this equation from travlerajm:

"To calculate the SGPR rating, I use the formula SGPR = 8*[R - 44.6/sqrt(M)], with R = balance in inches, and M = weight in ounces."

Using my actual RDS 001 MP racquet measurements I get:

8*[12.31-44.6/3.46] = -4.64

I'm still trying to get over the fact that the 001 MP is rated so poorly for serving! My figures include 20g stringbed and I added 5g lead (not as much as travlerajm recommends), to butt and hoop to polarize the racquet for more spin.

-4.64 is better than -7 for serving. To get it down further I have to increase top hoop lead to bring the balance point further away from the butt, and also increase static weight.

cys19
10-02-2006, 07:53 AM
I'm quite surprised that the FXP Radical MP is rated so high. Nobody on this forum has said anything great about its serving power, other than its spin capabilities. Albeit still a n00b, I would surmise that SGPR ratings don't pertain to the Flexpoint models because of the two holes that cause the racquet face to bend. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And look at how the LM Rad OS is on par with the PD+!

travlerajm, what are some factors that can make a perfectly fine serving racquet have low values and vice versa?

bertrevert
10-02-2006, 04:06 PM
I'd say Radicals (all of them) are good serving sticks. I think of them being that sort of serious almost-players frame that you see in abundance down the local courts on weekends, but not in the hands of pros on tour.

Ok I've spent a year or two with Rads, and I'm sure there's many here who have spent much longer than that, and they've been a great frame, a great platform to customise, and very good for serving. But yes could the FXP be THAT good for serving?

I think you are asking does this formula and these results actually correspond to the real world?

cys19
10-02-2006, 04:09 PM
I'd say Radicals (all of them) are good serving sticks. I think of them being that sort of serious almost-players frame that you see in abundance down the local courts on weekends, but not in the hands of pros on tour.

Ok I've spent a year or two with Rads, and I'm sure there's many here who have spent much longer than that, and they've been a great frame, a great platform to customise, and very good for serving. But yes could the FXP be THAT good for serving?

I think you are asking does this formula and these results actually correspond to the real world?

Yep.

jackson vile
10-04-2006, 12:37 PM
Oh man you left out all the prestiges LOL and the N61 tour 90 LOL

Great work though

jackson vile
10-04-2006, 12:44 PM
Oh I saw the formula changed LOL I think that it would be good to make a non clutered reference page.

jackson vile
10-04-2006, 12:49 PM
Here are the new numbers from cys19

n6.1 Tour 90 = 1.158
POG 93 = 1.168
ProStaff 6.0 85 = 1.233