Softest and stiffest strings: Tennis Warehouse testing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Centered

Centered

Hall of Fame
softest at low tension, fast swing, no pre-stretch

(aside from natural gut strings)

1. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18
2. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 17
3. Ashaway Dynamite WB 16
4. Dunlop Silk 17
5. Ashaway Dynamite 17
6. Polyfibre Poly Hightec 18
7. Poly Star Turbo 16L
8. Dunlop DNA 17
9. Gosen Nanoblend 17
10. Pacific PMX 17
11. Wilson Hollow Core 16
12. IsoSpeed Axon Multi 16L
13. Volkl Gripper 17
14. Prince Premiere with Softflex 16
15. SuperString Pure Control V8 17

1z17j3m.jpg

n3ov2x.jpg


stiffest at low tension, fast swing, no pre-stretch (note, Ashaway Crossfire is the stiffest, but doesn't appear in the results)

1. Ashaway Crossfire II
2. Babolat Revenge 16
3. Babolat Hurricane Feel 16
4. Wilson Enduro Tour 16
5. Klip K-Boom 16
6. Gamma Zo Magic 16
7. Gamma Zo Power 16L
8. Technifibre Polyspin 16L
9. Technifibre Black Code 16
10. Babolat Hurricane Feel 17
11. Signum Pro Poly Megaforce 16
12. Technifibre Pro Red Code 16
13. Kirschbaum P2 17
14. Wilson Enduro Pro 17
15. Pacific Poly Force 17

1zvvhix.jpg
 
Last edited:
Centered

Centered

Hall of Fame
softest at medium tension, fast swing, no pre-stretch. (notice how the polys have disappeared from the list)

1. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18
2. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 17
3. Ashaway Dynamite WB 16
4. IsoSpeed Axon Multi 16L
5. Ashaway Dynamite 17
6. Dunlop Silk 17
7. Gosen Nanoblend 17
8. IsoSpeed Professional Classic 17
9. IsoSpeed Control Classic 16
10. Volkl Gripper 17
11. Pacific PMX 17
12. Dunlop Hexy Fiber 16
13. Prince Premiere with Softflex 16
14. Technifibre E-Matrix 17
15. Technifibre E-Matrix 16

vmqfyh.jpg

mv4wic.jpg


stiffest at medium tension, fast swing, no pre-stretch (note, Ashaway Crossfire is the stiffest, but doesn't appear in the results)

1. Ashaway Crossfire II
2. Babolat Revenge 16
3. Wilson Enduro Tour 16
4. Technifibre Black Code 16
5. Babolat Hurricane Feel 16
6. Gamma Zo Magic 16
7. Signum Pro Poly Speed Spin 1.28
8. Babolat Hurricane Feel 17
9. Klip K-Boom 16
10. Dunlop Comfort Poly 17
11. Luxilon Big Banger XP 15L
12. Technifibre Black Code 17
13. Kirschbaum P2 17
14. Signum Pro Poly Megaforce 16
15. Luxilon Savage 16

24kw7cz.jpg
 
Last edited:
Centered

Centered

Hall of Fame
softest at high tension, fast swing, no pre-stretch (notice how polyolefin strings by Isospeed have jumped up the list)

1. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18
2. IsoSpeed Professional Classic 17
3. IsoSpeed Control Classic 16
4. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 17
5. IsoSpeed Axon Multi 16L
6. Ashaway Dynamite WB 16
7. Ashaway Dynamite 17
8. Gosen Nanoblend 17
9. Dunlop Silk 17
10. IsoSpeed Control 16
11. Volkl Gripper 17
12. Technifibre E-Matrix 17
13. Babolat Xcel Premium 17
14. Technifibre E-Matrix 16
15. Head ETS 16

25sx5di.jpg

2hz1u7d.jpg


stiffest at high tension, fast swing, no pre-stretch

1. Ashaway Crossfire II
2. Babolat Revenge 16
3. Wilson Enduro Tour 16
4. Technifibre Black Code 16
5. Signum Pro Poly Speed Spin 1.28
6. Babolat RPM Blast 16
7. Volkl V-Pro 16
8. Babolat Hurricane Feel 16
9. Babolat Pro Hurricane Tour 16
10. Luxilon Savage 16
11. Technifibre Black Code 17
12. Luxilon Big Banger XP 15L
13. Dunlop Comfort Poly 17
14. Luxilon Monotec Super Poly 16L
15. Kirschbaum Long Life 15

zy63vo.jpg
 
Last edited:
Centered

Centered

Hall of Fame
softest at medium tension, medium swing speed (good to know for older players or kids who don't swing as fast)

1. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18
2. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 17
3. Gosen Nanoblend 17
4. IsoSpeed Axon Multi 16L
5. Ashaway Dynamite 17
6. Dunlop Silk 17
7. Ashaway Dynamite WB 16
8. IsoSpeed Control Classic 16
9. IsoSpeed Professional Classic 17
10. Pacific PMX 17
11. Dunlop Hexy Fiber 16
12. Volkl Gripper 17
13. Dunlop DNA 17
14. Mantis Comfort Synthetic 16
15. Wilson Reaction 16

29lbnuq.jpg


stiffest at medium tension, medium swing speed, no pre-stretch

1. Ashaway Crossfire II
2. Babolat Revenge 16
3. Signum Pro Poly Speed Spin 1.28
4. Gamma Zo Magic 16
5. Wilson Enduro Tour 16
6. Babolat Hurricane Feel 16
7. Babolat RPM Blast 16
8. Luxilon Big Banger XP 15L
9. Wilson Enduro Mono 16L
10. Technifibre Black Code 16
11. Dunlop Comfort Poly 17
12. Pacific Poly Force 17
13. Technifibre Pro Red Code 16
14. Kirschbaum Touch Turbo 1.30
15. Signum Poly Megaforce 16
 
Last edited:
Centered

Centered

Hall of Fame
results with pre-stretching. TW may not have tested all the strings with pre-stretching and only chose to test strings with pre-stretching at high tension for some reason.

softest at high tension, fast swing, pre-stretched

1. IsoSpeed Professional Classic 17
2. IsoSpeed Control Classic 16
3. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18
4. IsoSpeed Axon Multi 16L
5. Ashaway Dynamite 17
6. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 17
7. Ashaway Dynamite WB 16
8. Gosen Nanoblend 17
9. IsoSpeed Control 16
10. Dunlop Silk 17
11. Volkl Gripper 17
12. Pacific PMX 17
13. Head ETS 16
14. IsoSpeed Energetic Plus 16
15. Head ETS 17

1znvrx2.jpg

14yb8o.jpg


stiffest at high tension, fast swing, pre-stretched

1. Ashaway Crossfire II
2. Babolat Revenge 16
3. Kirschbaum Long Life 15
4. Luxilon Savage 16 Gamma Zo Magic 16
5. Kirschbaum Super Spiky Smash 16
6. Kirschbaum Pro Line I 1.30
7. Signum Pro Poly Speed Spin 1.28
8. Kirschbaum Super Smash 16
9. Technifibre Black Code 16
10. Babolat Pro Hurricane Tour 16
11. Babolat Ballistic Polymono 16
12. Babolat Revenge 17
13. Prince Tournament Poly 16
14. Babolat RPM Blast 16
15. Wilson Enduro Tour 16

r2ndcw.jpg
 
Last edited:
Centered

Centered

Hall of Fame
softest at low tension, slow swing speed, no pre-stretch (Perhaps multis at low tension are useful for very old/weak players, young children, and players who are coming back from tennis elbow or another ball impact shock related injury. Note, however that natural gut strings, that don't have a thick synthetic coating, remain softer even at high tension with a slow swing.)

1. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18
2. Weiss Cannon Explosiv 1.30
3. Gosen Nanoblend 17
4. Ashaway Dynamite Soft 17
5. Dunlop Silk 17
6. Mantis Comfort Synthetic 16
7. Dunlop Hexy Fiber 16
8. Volkl Gripper 17
9. Prince Premiere with Softflex 17
10. Dunlop DNA 17
11. Gosen Compositemaster II 16
12. Wilson Hollow Core 17
13. Dunlop DNA 16
14. Pacific PMX 17
15. Prince Premiere with Softflex 16

1znbblc.jpg

10hvml5.jpg


The strings below are the strings people with serious elbow problems should be using. They are softer than multis even at high tension:

1. Wilson Natural Gut 16
2. Pacific Prime Natural Gut 16
3. Pacific Prime Natural Gut 16L (pre-stretched)
4. Pacific Prime Natural Gut 16L
5. Pacific Classic Natural Gut 16
6. Wilson Natural Gut 17
7. Wilson Natural Gut 16
8. Klip Armour Pro 16
9. Babolat VS Touch 16
10. Wilson Natural Gut 17
11. Klip Legend 16 Uncoated
12. Pacific Tough Gut 16L
13. Babolat Tonic + 16
14. Babolat VS Natural Team Gut 17
15. Klip Legend 16 Uncoated

n3w5j8.jpg


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

Keep in mind that stiffness needs tension to give it necessary context. How strings feel can be strongly correlated to how the material they're made from (as well as their construction to a lesser degree) reacts to tension.

String materials change with tension. Some polys that feel soft at low tension are very stiff at high tension. Notice how the strings (especially in the softest category) change place as tensions change. A few polys appear in the top softest synthetics list, at 40 lbs, after losing considerable tension. They do not appear in the list at mid or high tension, because polyester gets stiffer more quickly as tension increases. Gut remains soft, even at high tension, while its synthetic competition gets stiffer. Kevlar remains stiff, even at low tension (unfortunately, there isn't much data for kevlar from TW).

A great deal of the complaint about user experience differing from the testing results is because of tension's effect on materials. Tension affects the stiffness. Different string materials react differently to tension changes. Player technique, racquet differences, ball condition/type, weather, and other factors can affect string life and perceived feel, too.

But, this data — particularly since it provides results at different tensions, is very helpful to provide a quick overview of string feel. A TW article said the most important factor in string feel is stiffness.
 
Last edited:
mikeler

mikeler

Moderator
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I thought you were long gone? Once again, you only look at data and not real life experience. Please, oh please buy some Mantis Comfort Synthetic. The 14th softest string on that one list makes a complete mockery of the data.
 
fgs

fgs

Hall of Fame
what is your point in publishing this freely available data? you want to increase your post count?
 
fortun8son

fortun8son

Hall of Fame
What was the point of this post?
Raw data is only useful if you know how to read/interpret it.
 
Last edited:
S

scotus

G.O.A.T.
Conspicuously absent from the softest list are some Head Intelli/Rip strings.
 
Last edited:
Centered

Centered

Hall of Fame
scotus said:
Conspicuously absent from the softest list are some Head Intelli/Rip strings.
Click to expand...
Here are RSI's high tension (62 lbs) results:

brand, name, gauge, stiffness, tension loss

Ashaway UltraKill 18, 1.14, 135, 14.71
Ashaway UltraNick 18, 1.14, 135, 14.71
Ashaway UltraKill 17, 1.24, 140, 14.26
Ashaway UltraNick 17, 1.24, 140, 14.26
Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18, 1.16, 141, 13.36
Head Perfect Power 17, 1.22, 144, 14.80
Gamma Professional 18, 1.22, 144, 15.15
Ashaway Dynamite Soft 17, 1.22, 145, 13.17
Alpha Gut 2000 18, 1.21, 146, 14.67
Ashaway PowerKill 17, 1.24, 147, 13.72
Gamma Asterisk 17, 1.26, 150, 13.98
Isospeed Professional 17, 1.25, 151, 15.35
Isospeed Professional Classic, 1.27, 152, 15.06
Pro Supex Maxim Touch, 1.25, 153, 12.13
Ashaway PowerNick 18, 1.16, 154, 12.88
Isospeed Control Classic 16, 1.29, 154, 15.43
Dunlop Dura Ace 17, 1.22, 156, 12.86
Technifibre X One Biphase 18, 1.20, 157, 11.47
Isospeed Control 16, 1.27, 158, 15.61
Dunlop X Life 1.22, 1.21, 160, 17.73
Dunlop Precision 1.18, 1.17, 161, 15.17
Ashaway SuperNick XL Pro 17, 1.26, 162, 14.06
Babolat Xcel Power 17, 1.27, 164, 10.76
Ashaway SuperNick XL Micro 18, 1.16, 164, 12.73
Dunlop Explosive 1.18, 1.19, 164, 15.02
Ashaway SuperKill XL 17, 1.29, 165, 12.86
Ashaway PowerKill Pro 16, 1.36, 165, 13.21
Toalson Bio Logic Soft 130, 1.31, 165, 20.88
Ashaway SuperNick XL 17, 1.26, 166, 12.08
Head Evolution Pro 16, 1.31, 168, 12.10
Gamma Professional 17, 1.29, 168, 12.37
Dunlop Silk 17, 1.22, 168, 15.11
Babolat Xcel 17, 1.26, 169, 10.72
Technifibre TGV 17, 1.27, 169, 14.69
Head ETS 17, 1.25, 170, 16.12

hybrid:

Head Intellistring 17/17 (Cross), 1.28, 136, 15.14
Head Intellistring 16/17 (Main), 1.32, 178, 10.91

Head Intellitour 17 (Cross), 1.28, 136, 15.14
Head Intellitour 17 (Main), 1.30, 177, 10.87

Isospeed Platinum 16 (Cross), 1.28, 138, 16.62
Isospeed Platinum 16 (Main), 1.32, 165, 12.46

Head Intellitour 16 (Cross), 1.33, 143, 14.77
Head Intellitour 16 (Main), 1.37, 181, 11.51
 
Last edited:
Centered

Centered

Hall of Fame
Not sure why RSI continues to only test at high tension. Zyex strings show their highest level of resilience at low-medium tensions. Higher tensions tend to favor polyolefin, at least in terms of softness. I'm not sure how durable polyolefin strings are at high tension.

Also, some thin polyester strings, like Poly Star Turbo 16L, actually show low stiffness at low tensions (due to the percentage of tension lost, perhaps), but even at medium tension are much stiffer. So, RSI really should provide results at low and high tensions, at least.
 
Last edited:
Centered

Centered

Hall of Fame
I wonder if the Ashaway squash strings have more Zyex in them (less nylon), because the RSI numbers suggest that (considering the gauge):

Ashaway UltraKill 17, 1.24, 140, 14.26
Ashaway UltraNick 17, 1.24, 140, 14.26
Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18, 1.16, 141, 13.36
Ashaway Dynamite Soft 17, 1.22, 145, 13.17
 
Agent Orynge

Agent Orynge

Professional
Well well, look who's back. I wonder who his target audience is, since he clearly doesn't care to respond to any of you guys (or likely me, for that matter).

I hear that if you could produce 1.21 gigawatts and get to 88 MPH at the same time, you could go back in time 13 months and see the exact same posts.
 
Last edited:
mikeler

mikeler

Moderator
Centered said:
I wonder if the Ashaway squash strings have more Zyex in them (less nylon), because the RSI numbers suggest that (considering the gauge):

Ashaway UltraKill 17, 1.24, 140, 14.26
Ashaway UltraNick 17, 1.24, 140, 14.26
Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18, 1.16, 141, 13.36
Ashaway Dynamite Soft 17, 1.22, 145, 13.17
Click to expand...


Let us know how each of these strings play. Thanks.
 
Centered

Centered

Hall of Fame
fortun8son said:
The opposite of stiff is flexible, not soft.
Click to expand...
A flexible string feels softer for the arm because there is less shock. It's like the difference between grass and concrete. Concrete is stiffer, harder, and less flexible. Grass is softer, more flexible, and less stiff.
 
sansaephanh

sansaephanh

Professional
I vote for ruining this thread. Who wants to talk about their favorite peanut butter brand? I like Jiffy. Sometimes I'll live on the wild side and try generic brands.
 
P

pvaudio

Legend
Actually and honestly on a serious note, I would like to thank the OP for presenting the data. He doesn't seem to be arguing about and has just posted the findings. A good reference for players looking for soft, non-gut strings. However, it's only a reference and playing on-court often and usually does contradict laboratory data.
 
fgs

fgs

Hall of Fame
my point about all this is not at all about ruining this thread - as you can see in my thread regarding shaped/structured polys, i also "consult" the tw-university database. taken with the necessary grain of salt, these lab-results do have a certain informative value - THIS BEING SOMETHING I NEVER DEBATED!!!

my point about all this, and it has been an "older" argument with the op, is that you can NOT conclude 100% that a "stiff" string will play stiff and a "soft" string will play soft, or is more armfriendly, simply because the material is tested as a single strand and not a stringbed, thus stringbedbehaviour is usually different.

what these figures don't tell either and can only be evaluated by on-court testing is the effective playing time of a string. i think we all agree that a soft but dead poly (after say three hitting hours) is more stressing on the joints than a stiffer but "alive" poly. therefore some of the "soft" ones according to the measured data are percieved as stiff and vice versa, since the soft one loses all it's playability - something no measurement accounts for!

the numbers ARE valuable in my opinion and i also regularly consult them, but i don't go out recommending any strings simply based on these data.
 
JT_2eighty

JT_2eighty

Hall of Fame
Another missing factor from all these stiff vs soft threads is the utilization of TWU's measurement of dwell time, energy return, and other also useful figures that may help shed light on the stiffness values. I also agree with fgs' points above about effective play time, and if it were ever possible for twu to test *resilience* of a string (ie the loss of elasticity) then we'd really have a solid foundation of info.

But, even then, a stringbed and frame changes will always be variables these charts cannot completely simplify down.
 
fgs

fgs

Hall of Fame
i might be wrong, but neither dwell time nor energy return are measured on a full stringbed either, as i assume that deflection is not measured in a stringbed as well.

the behaviour of a stringbed is/can be very different from the behaviour of a single string strand. take cables for instance - you have a single strand of wire with some characteristics. those are absolute values, no arguing about that. depending on how you put for instance 10 such strands together, you will obtain quite different characteristics for the cable/rope, with different resistances to stress, fracture values etc.

the figures are of course the best we have and they can give a clue about stringbed performance, but i doubt that there is a 100% correlation.

one of the good things tw-university adresses, and 'centered' has correctly mentioned this, is that they do measure at different tensions AND for different swingspeeds. that is already a huge step forward, but i still dare say that those figures are not going to reflect with 100% consistency the oncourt experience.

i know i repeat myself, but maybe in the end some of my fellow-boarders will "wake up" and understand the issue:
the on court perception will vary depending on the swingpath each particular player has. assuming that we have same stick, same string, same tension, same balls, same court, same everything!!!, the angle at which the stringbed hits the ball will produce a different perception. even at same swingspeed, a flat hitter will have a much "harsher" experience than a "windshieldwiper-hitter". as funny as it seems, both are right! and they both start out from the same premises.

therefore it is very important to know the skill level and the playing style of the person describing the oncourt experience of a string, in order to be able to "read between the lines". a string that somebody regards as the worst string ever to have played with could be just the ultimate set-up for me!:)
 
JT_2eighty

JT_2eighty

Hall of Fame
fgs said:
i know i repeat myself, but maybe in the end some of my fellow-boarders will "wake up" and understand the issue:
the on court perception will vary depending on the swingpath each particular player has. assuming that we have same stick, same string, same tension, same balls, same court, same everything!!!, the angle at which the stringbed hits the ball will produce a different perception. even at same swingspeed, a flat hitter will have a much "harsher" experience than a "windshieldwiper-hitter". as funny as it seems, both are right! and they both start out from the same premises.

therefore it is very important to know the skill level and the playing style of the person describing the oncourt experience of a string, in order to be able to "read between the lines". a string that somebody regards as the worst string ever to have played with could be just the ultimate set-up for me!:)
Click to expand...

Exactly, and I know that many of the fellow-boarders here are already "awake" to your points, as I know I am on your side in agreement.

Unfortunately in the past, there have been some that argue that all the other variables you cite are merely 'subjective' and that the objective data list for single strands of string is the only measure for the comfort of a string.

This data list had been argued about intensely around this time last year, so it is sort of old news for a lot of the veterans around here. The majority of people here making sarcastic remarks were part of this debate last year, a debate that even got others banned at some points. Most of us are just scratching our heads, hoping the issue will die without blowing up again...
 
mikeler

mikeler

Moderator
pvaudio said:
Actually and honestly on a serious note, I would like to thank the OP for presenting the data. He doesn't seem to be arguing about and has just posted the findings. A good reference for players looking for soft, non-gut strings. However, it's only a reference and playing on-court often and usually does contradict laboratory data.
Click to expand...


You must not have been involved in the original arguments a few years back. The OP was recommending soft strings based ONLY on RSI data back then.
 
Agent Orynge

Agent Orynge

Professional
JT_2eighty said:
Exactly, and I know that many of the fellow-boarders here are already "awake" to your points, as I know I am on your side in agreement.

Unfortunately in the past, there have been some that argue that all the other variables you cite are merely 'subjective' and that the objective data list for single strands of string is the only measure for the comfort of a string.

This data list had been argued about intensely around this time last year, so it is sort of old news for a lot of the veterans around here. The majority of people here making sarcastic remarks were part of this debate last year, a debate that even got others banned at some points. Most of us are just scratching our heads, hoping the issue will die without blowing up again...
Click to expand...

We only got banned for a day or two, but it was more than a certain kitty could handle.
 
R

Ramon

Legend
Topspin Cyber Flash 17L, stiffness = 158.3

Dunlop Comfort Synthetic 17, stiffness = 188.6

I suppose if you are having arm problems with Comfort Synthetic you should switch to Cyber Flash. :confused:
 
mikeler

mikeler

Moderator
Ramon said:
Topspin Cyber Flash 17L, stiffness = 158.3

Dunlop Comfort Synthetic 17, stiffness = 188.6

I suppose if you are having arm problems with Comfort Synthetic you should switch to Cyber Flash. :confused:
Click to expand...


Exactly, there are polys stiffer than multis on these lists.
 
R

Ramon

Legend
These aren't the only tests that seem to be flawed. Look at this:

http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/poweruniverse.cgi

Right away you can see that the Wilson BLX 6.1 Tour has more power and a bigger sweet spot than the Babolat AeroPro Drive GT. Another racquet that has even more power and a bigger sweet spot than both of those racquets is the Babolat Aero Storm GT, which is the thinner cross-section cousin of the APDGT.

I have a science background and I'm normally a big fan of objective testing as a guideline, but with results like these, even I question their usefulness as a guideline.
 
R

Ramon

Legend
JT_2eighty said:
Another missing factor from all these stiff vs soft threads is the utilization of TWU's measurement of dwell time, energy return, and other also useful figures that may help shed light on the stiffness values. I also agree with fgs' points above about effective play time, and if it were ever possible for twu to test *resilience* of a string (ie the loss of elasticity) then we'd really have a solid foundation of info.

But, even then, a stringbed and frame changes will always be variables these charts cannot completely simplify down.
Click to expand...

One point I want to make is that we are looking at just a set of numbers with little knowledge of the methodology and no knowledge of the repeatability & reproducibility of those numbers. Not only does the methodology have to be scientifically sound, but also, the test methods have to be able to reproduce the same numbers over and over again. In an industry setting, for example, some companies require you to go through the rigorous exercises of Six Sigma to prove that your tests results are useful and that your results could be reproduced. Since TW isn't governed by these standards, we know nothing about the usefulness of these numbers other than what they disclose to us, which is understandably very sparse for a variety of reasons (ex. competitors, limited time, general audience, etc.).

That leaves a lot of room for judgement on our part. We are left with our personal experiences to judge whether these numbers make sense or not. General patterns seem to make sense, but there are many outliers. It makes a lot of us question the validity of these numbers.
 
JT_2eighty

JT_2eighty

Hall of Fame
Ramon said:
One point I want to make is that we are looking at just a set of numbers with little knowledge of the methodology and no knowledge of the repeatability & reproducibility of those numbers. Not only does the methodology have to be scientifically sound, but also, the test methods have to be able to reproduce the same numbers over and over again. In an industry setting, for example, some companies require you to go through the rigorous exercises of Six Sigma to prove that your tests results are useful and that your results could be reproduced. Since TW isn't governed by these standards, we know nothing about the usefulness of these numbers other than what they disclose to us, which is understandably very sparse for a variety of reasons (ex. competitors, limited time, general audience, etc.).

That leaves a lot of room for judgement on our part. We are left with our personal experiences to judge whether these numbers make sense or not. General patterns seem to make sense, but there are many outliers. It makes a lot of us question the validity of these numbers.
Click to expand...

I am in agreement with you. The charts are only 'roughly useful' to see general trends among strings, but I firmly believe (having playtested a TON of various strings), that the data can only tell us so much. There are supposedly 'soft' strings that have aggravated my arm, and supposedly 'stiff' strings that have not caused me issues.

My point that was quoted was more of a call to the OP and people who find the cited tables to be 'absolute truth' to open their minds to try to understand the whole picture (as fgs hinted to), that there are too many other variables involved to simply say a > b.

When these same debates were had over a year ago, there were some who argued that personal experiences were false if they were not in line with lab data. I, like you, do not subscribe to that assertion.

Anyhow, sorry I keep bumping this thread, this is my last post in here... unless you want my opinion on peanut butter...
 
Last edited:
fortun8son

fortun8son

Hall of Fame
I just went back and read those threads from Sept 2010.
Now I understand! Some of those posters seemed to get permanent bans. For other stuff, I assume, because their posts didn't appear that bad.
edit: Did more research. Now I know why ClubHoUno and Buckethead got banned. :)
 
Last edited:
Fedace

Fedace

Banned
Weird, i always thought proline 2 was soft string. and Hurricane Feel, is very stiff string ?? did not know that
 
P

pattenww

Rookie
mikeler said:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I thought you were long gone? Once again, you only look at data and not real life experience. Please, oh please buy some Mantis Comfort Synthetic. The 14th softest string on that one list makes a complete mockery of the data.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. Been playing MCS (have been battleing TE, for almost a year) experimented with Silk..tore my elbow/forearm up and it was a rocket launcher compared to MCS..

Mikeler - is mantis the most controlled/low powered multi..if not is the alternative (arm friendly..)

Youtek & Micro Rad..MCS at 54!!
 
Up&comer

Up&comer

Hall of Fame
fortun8son said:
I just went back and read those threads from Sept 2010.
Now I understand! Some of those posters seemed to get permanent bans. For other stuff, I assume, because their posts didn't appear that bad.
edit: Did more research. Now I know why ClubHoUno and Buckethead got banned. :)
Click to expand...


I thought bucket got banned for libel against some company and saying they stole his personal information because he gave a bad review. Go figure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Centered
TW string comfort ranking, from softest to stiffest
2
Replies
89
Views
16K
origmarm
origmarm
Centered
The numbers: softest and hardest strings by material
Replies
31
Views
6K
Centered
Centered
aggietex08
Ashaway Dynamite Soft, IsoSpeed Axon Multi, and Gosen Nanoblend
Replies
5
Views
2K
mikeler
mikeler
Centered
The softest & stiffest synthetic strings — TW test results
Replies
11
Views
5K
origmarm
origmarm
TW Staff
Hybrid Stringing now available at Tennis Warehouse
Replies
0
Views
1K
TW Staff
TW Staff
Top