Physics 101. Rough strings can't give you more spin.

[Hmgraphite1]

If the racquet grips ball quicker with rough strings then the dwell time felt will be increased and may result in a technique change which adds more control to your powerful shots they may not have more spin, rpms, but may put you in the zone.

 

[sredna42]

"I agree that for most rec players it won't make much difference."

I think you missed my "not" in my sentence. My belief is most rec players will never hit a very heavy ball, and for those players strings like rpm would definitely add spin to any low to high swing.

I only played fb origin @55, so perhaps @65 I would have seen good spin. I doubt it though, based on Chris's comments in the TW review. He took it up to high 60s without spin. I get good spin with the origin/velocity 55/52 ( in my signature) ... so there is more than string stiffness involved (at least with my swing).

On strength vs technique with the heavy ball, I see strength (a lot of arm stregth). I haven't played 12 year old girls, but many ex-D1 guys. I have seen plenty of big pace, and big topspin ... but rarely see them together. Obviously I have never played WTA players, but from watching matches on TV, I don't see a lot of Nadal "heavy" in their strokes. Madison can knock the cover off (mph), but flattish. Technique and timing and rotational speed and legs can take you a long way, but it doesn't take you to Nadal. Nadal, Wawrinka, Thiem ... the strength component seems pretty obvious to me. Rotational forces can't account for the visous upper cut Nadal adds to his swing.

I guess someone will point out some skinny dude or junior girl hitting "Nadal heavy" and blow my theory up. I used to use Henin as an example of evidence it must all be technique. But going back and looking at video, that young lady looked very strong.

LOL I have never thought I was all that good at tennis, in fact I suck at it, but I thought I was able to hit a decent shot.
You watch the pros on TV, or even when you see them live you are removed from the action kinda

It was when I went to watch that ITF futures tournament, players ranked from 500 to 170ish IIRC.
But seeing them play right up close, nose pressed to the wire fence kinda thing, I realized just how much pace and topspin these young pros hit with.
It was humbling, I was cackling at how insane it was. The racquet head speed was ferocious. The ball would explode off the court. I learned alot just watching those guys play. I watched one player pick up a ball well inside the service line around his ankles, and rip it with that much topspin that he got up it up and over the net from close range, and with pace, and got it away for a clean winner. It's hard to explain, I couldn't believe my eyes.

 

[am1899]

Placebo effect.
I will post more from the professor tomorrow

Get a bigger shovel while you’re at it.

 

[Kevo]

"I agree that for most rec players it won't make much difference."

I think you missed my "not" in my sentence. My belief is most rec players will never hit a very heavy ball, and for those players strings like rpm would definitely add spin to any low to high swing.

I agree up to a point. I think there is additional spin, and then there is a higher level of spin. I don't think poly will take most people to a different level, just a bit more than they have now.

I only played fb origin @55, so perhaps @65 I would have seen good spin. I doubt it though, based on Chris's comments in the TW review. He took it up to high 60s without spin. I get good spin with the origin/velocity 55/52 ( in my signature) ... so there is more than string stiffness involved (at least with my swing).

I need to get a set of origin and try it out. It sort of sounds like a smooth bagged out multi. Some of those I've hit and no matter how hard you hit the ball you top out on pace because it just gives so much. Spin gets wild at that point though. Unfortunately it's really hard to keep up that level of pace and then you're left with not enough spin and a trampoline.

On strength vs technique with the heavy ball, I see strength (a lot of arm stregth). I haven't played 12 year old girls, but many ex-D1 guys. I have seen plenty of big pace, and big topspin ... but rarely see them together. Obviously I have never played WTA players, but from watching matches on TV, I don't see a lot of Nadal "heavy" in their strokes. Madison can knock the cover off (mph), but flattish. Technique and timing and rotational speed and legs can take you a long way, but it doesn't take you to Nadal. Nadal, Wawrinka, Thiem ... the strength component seems pretty obvious to me. Rotational forces can't account for the visous upper cut Nadal adds to his swing.

There's levels to everything. You picked like three of the hardest hitting players ever. Although if you compare Nadal and Thiem you'll see that Nadal uses more muscle to pound the ball and Thiem really rotates and uses his body weight more. Both are obviously strong guys, and without that strength to go with the technique you won't get the same result, but without the technique it won't matter how strong you are. No way you could play like those guys relying on muscling the ball only. So I agree strength is important when you get to world class, but for a rec player you could be a string bean and still hit good spin at that level. To be world class you obviously need both.

 

[Kevo]

If you go to a play sight court with ALU power in one racket and ALU power rough in the other racket. If you then play for an hour save your results then another hour with the other racket, ALU Power Rough will give me more RPM. I know this because I have done it....

It's been so long since I tried ALU rough. Is it still just like regular ALU with little diamond shaped notches out of it? I really didn't find it to be much different than regular ALU. Only strung up one set and kind of decided it was a bit gimmicky. Of course I've not found shaped or rough strings to hold their shape for long either. The extra spin effect seems to wear off in two or three hitting sessions, so when I'm done with my current reel of spiky shark I'll probably go back to regular competition since it's cheaper and I think it's more spinny after 6-8 hours of play on the strings. It's probably different for different players though, so I understand why some people would go for the "rough" strings. They do really grab especially at lower swing speeds.

 

[ByeByePoly]

I agree up to a point. I think there is additional spin, and then there is a higher level of spin. I don't think poly will take most people to a different level, just a bit more than they have now.



I need to get a set of origin and try it out. It sort of sounds like a smooth bagged out multi. Some of those I've hit and no matter how hard you hit the ball you top out on pace because it just gives so much. Spin gets wild at that point though. Unfortunately it's really hard to keep up that level of pace and then you're left with not enough spin and a trampoline.



There's levels to everything. You picked like three of the hardest hitting players ever. Although if you compare Nadal and Thiem you'll see that Nadal uses more muscle to pound the ball and Thiem really rotates and uses his body weight more. Both are obviously strong guys, and without that strength to go with the technique you won't get the same result, but without the technique it won't matter how strong you are. No way you could play like those guys relying on muscling the ball only. So I agree strength is important when you get to world class, but for a rec player you could be a string bean and still hit good spin at that level. To be world class you obviously need both.

I think we are agreeing on most of this, just not the significant rpm spin bump for many rec players. I went from Sensation to RPM with the same racquet and same friends (opponents). The comments were "that's different ... and that ball looked like it was sailing and dipped in at the last". Several started playing with rpm also, and they would not have if my change was minor. I already could hit topspin, but that last second dip at the baseline, and the significant increase in topspin on sharp cc fh was new. I'm not sure how to quantify that as a percentage.

There is a reason that those of us that had to give up poly spend so much time seeking a non-poly that plays like poly.

 

[Kevo]

I think you might find that when you put the poly in you changed your technique to compensate for the loss of power. If you put a little oil on the sensation so it slips more and then string it up tighter so you can swing a bit harder without the ball sailing, you'll probably get a similar level of spin.

If you need something softer with a good spin, a good relatively stiff syn gut strung at a good tension can work well. Try Babolat synthetic gut. You might have to play with the tension a bit to find the sweet spot for you. It needs to be loose enough to slide against itself, but you don't want it too loose or you'll have some issues with the launch angle. I'd probably use the 16g and start at the same tension you used with the rpm and work from there. You probably need to hit with it 2-3 outings to see how it settles in.

I like sensation a lot btw. It's soft and I get good spin with it, it just breaks too quick. The 17g is almost magic at the right tension, but it won't last an hour in a match.

 

[BlueB]

None od tge syn guts or multis slide for very long time... maybe an hour or 2 max. After that they'll either lock, or just move out of position and not snap back...

With Sensation, I had good results when I strung it tight and crossed with much looser, but prestretched slippery poly.
But I wouldn't waste the time with multi/poly, you might just as well go gut/poly.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[ByeByePoly]

I think you might find that when you put the poly in you changed your technique to compensate for the loss of power. If you put a little oil on the sensation so it slips more and then string it up tighter so you can swing a bit harder without the ball sailing, you'll probably get a similar level of spin.

If you need something softer with a good spin, a good relatively stiff syn gut strung at a good tension can work well. Try Babolat synthetic gut. You might have to play with the tension a bit to find the sweet spot for you. It needs to be loose enough to slide against itself, but you don't want it too loose or you'll have some issues with the launch angle. I'd probably use the 16g and start at the same tension you used with the rpm and work from there. You probably need to hit with it 2-3 outings to see how it settles in.

I like sensation a lot btw. It's soft and I get good spin with it, it just breaks too quick. The 17g is almost magic at the right tension, but it won't last an hour in a match.

I'm good to go with fb velocity 16, it gives me 2/3 poly spin and I get to keep my elbow. Same with origin/velocity.

 

[TennisManiac]

I've been playing competitively for 16 years and take all of my equipment very seriously. I bet I've play tested well over 25 different poly's over the past 7 or 8 years searching for the "holy grail" for my style and frame of choice. And I can say for an unarguable fact that "rough or textured" strings DO NOT produce more spin. It's physically impossible. Period. However.... shaped strings DO produce more spin because they grab the ball much more than a smooth round string. End of discussion.

 

[ByeByePoly]

I've been playing competitively for 16 years and take all of my equipment very seriously. I bet I've play tested well over 25 different poly's over the past 7 or 8 years searching for the "holy grail" for my style and frame of choice. And I can say for an unarguable fact that "rough or textured" strings DO NOT produce more spin. It's physically impossible. Period. However.... shaped strings DO produce more spin because they grab the ball much more than a smooth round string. End of discussion.

ttw discussions never end ... sometimes a pause ... sometimes migrate to other threads or a different spot in ttw member's brains.

fyi ... based on spikey shark and rpm ... what you said is correct

 

[Shaolin]

Shaped strings make a difference.

I played exclusively with Topspin Cyberflash for about 7 years...strung up Cyclone in the same racquets and tension and there was a huge difference noticeable immediately.

 

[Morch Us]

Well do you think the ball would spin the same speed if his hands were full of oil and does not create any friction with the ball?

Do you think the ball would spin faster if he wore a gardening glove?

 

[Morch Us]

The idea of "string deflection" has nothing to do with string to ball friction (maybe except that it may help deflection even at a bad angle of contact). The actual theory is that if you allow the impact of the ball/racket to be in a certain angle, it will cause the string to deflect and create an extra force in the "brushing" direction, because of the straightening up (snapback) of the deflected string while the ball is still in the strings. Essentially increasing the brushing effect via kind of a elastic effect in the direction parallel to the racket-face, creating extra spin. There are some gotchas though, 1) the string has to have the property to straighten back (stiff strings/poly) 2) your strokes should be able to deflect the string enough on ball impact 3) the timing/angle of the stroke should be in a way to help the delection and snapback at right time (there is no point if the snapback is happening after the ball leave the string bed).

I do feel it and so I do believe it. You can believe what you feel.

String-to-string friction being less theoretically supports faster snapback. Even if the string to ball friction is minimal, it still should allow string to deflect at the proper angles of contact (kind of like the ball HAS to push the string if it impacts it at any direction other than totally parallel, and that is the only case string-to-ball friction being zero wont deflect the strings)

String-to-ball friction does help spin in purely another way (nothing to do with snapback directly), because now the strings can grip it / hold it better in the direction of the swing and spin better. And snapback increases this effect (kind of like you have extra swing speed).

The greater the string deflection the greater the string to ball friction

 

[Irvin]

The idea of "string deflection" has nothing to do with string to ball friction

If there is no string to ball friction the string will not deflect it will only indent.

 

[Morch Us]

If there is no string to ball friction the string will not deflect it will only indent.

You are still assuming ball contact and movement parallel with string bed and string movement. If not, I am OK with the term indent.

 

[Kevo]

There are some gotchas though, 1) the string has to have the property to straighten back (stiff strings/poly)

Doesn't need to be stiff or a poly really. Any string will deflect back to some extent. I'd have to google for it, but there was some person or group that went to the trouble of taking high speed video with different strings and they all snapped back to some extent. Greater snap back was better for spin, but it's not only polys that have that effect.

 

[sredna42]

I've been playing competitively for 16 years and take all of my equipment very seriously. I bet I've play tested well over 25 different poly's over the past 7 or 8 years searching for the "holy grail" for my style and frame of choice. And I can say for an unarguable fact that "rough or textured" strings DO NOT produce more spin. It's physically impossible. Period. However.... shaped strings DO produce more spin because they grab the ball much more than a smooth round string. End of discussion.

This. I've read the TW University data, I understand the principle of snapback etc, but from my own experience there is simply no doubt whatsoever that shaped polys increase spin, it is night and day for me.

I tried Tecnifibre Red Code Wax in a full bed, thinking it would give me great spin as the wax would facilitate optimal snapback, but it felt awful to me.
Tried Hyper-G the last week or so, and it has been immediate and undeniable how much extra easy spin I have been getting. But it is agony on my arm.

I don't think I have the RHS to get the ball to bite into slicker string, as it feels like the ball is just smearing or slipping across the face.

Same thing happened when I tried using silicon spray on my gut/poly hybrid that I usually use. The genius idea was to get extra free spin from the easy snapback, but it was awful, worse than normal. Took awhile before it twigged what must be happening. Instead of assisting snapback, all I'd done was lubricate the strings in a way that the strings could not grab the ball and it would slip across the face. That's what it felt like.

Ruined an expensive stringjob by vaccinating it against spin.

 

[danbrenner]

If you go to a play sight court with ALU power in one racket and ALU power rough in the other racket. If you then play for an hour save your results then another hour with the other racket, ALU Power Rough will give me more RPM. I know this because I have done it....

I am not denying that you get moreSpin from the rough. But when I think about it logically the rough is really just dimples and technically wouldn’t a flat surface have more hold hold on the ballThen something with dimples in it?

 

[TforTommy]

Rough textures and shaped polyesters help grip the ball which thus can help in the production of creating spin no?

It doesn't all of a sudden make a flat player have 3000 rpms but for those who hit with spin the rough texture will grip the ball...

Not a placebo effect. Texture does effect grip. Not sure how you can argue that it doesn't

 

[TforTommy]

Also worth adding that textured, ie rough with dimples and bits removed from the string do effect playability which thus would effect how strings play.
Polys are great because they snap back, with a shaped poly when snapback occurs it allows the strings to have a more exaggerated grip and are less likely to slip. Think about it as a shaped string carving up a balls surface.

"I am not denying that you get moreSpin from the rough. But when I think about it logically the rough is really just dimples and technically wouldn’t a flat surface have more hold hold on the ballThen something with dimples in it?" No because when material is taken out it typically feels softer, somewhat comparable to playing with a thinner string.

Not sure how you can make such a silly post saying physics 101 and not explain or prove anything.

 

[FiReFTW]

I dont get how you can argue that something that grips the fuzzy ball more will create more revolutions on that fuzzy ball all else being equal.

You guys sure are quite interesting.

Its the same as if you brush up the ball with a rough glove or with a hand full of oil, which will grab the ball more and make it rotate more?

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

Hand full of oil is a bad example.
Because the regular string is not slipping like that.
The fact that you get any spin means the ball has stopped and reversed direction and is now matched with the racket speed.

Spin a ball with your dry hand or with a glove. Same spin.
Spin 100% based on speed of your hand.

 

[dsb]

1st off, there are 2 types of friction, static and kinetic. Static friction force is usually greater than kinetic. This is the whole reason for ABS brakes, the frictional force between the tire and the road is greater if they're not sliding. Second, there is the consideration of asymmetrical ball deformation. If the ball is deformed asymmetrically, it's elastic nature will impart spin as it regains it's original shape. For any ball/string collision the stiffer the strings the more the ball will deform. If we can make this deformation asymmetrical we can impart additional spin.

 

[Muppet]

work = force x distance

The shaped string bites the ball over a longer distance, as it catches the ball earlier. Putting more work on the ball gives you more opportunity to put more spin on the ball. Spin is not necessarily a function of time. There are too many variables for that simplification.

 

[TforTommy]

I dont get how you can argue that something that grips the fuzzy ball more will create more revolutions on that fuzzy ball all else being equal.

You guys sure are quite interesting.

Its the same as if you brush up the ball with a rough glove or with a hand full of oil, which will grab the ball more and make it rotate more?

Not sure if trick question but it’s the rough surface as it grips and helps grip and thus helps move

Do you think it does or doesn’t? Am genuinely curious, you’ve been awesome with helping with some questions when I first came on the forums

 

[Irvin]

The ball simply can never spin FASTER than the object imparting the spin in the first place.

Therefore no matter which way the ball is spinning the spin will never change when it hits a stationary court. A ball with backspin will never reverse direction to spinning forward when it hits the court unless the court moves.

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

It's called relative motion.

 

[mad dog1]

Therefore no matter which way the ball is spinning the spin will never change when it hits a stationary court. A ball with backspin will never reverse direction to spinning forward when it hits the court unless the court moves.

 

[Muppet]

It's called relative motion.

You've got to consider the masses of the two bodies being described, racquet (including player) and ball. The two masses carry a constant momentum (momentum = mass x velocity), assuming momentum and energy are conserved. When a more massive racquet hits a lighter tennis ball, mass is traded for speed. It's akin to when a massive cannon shoots a lighter cannon ball. Mass is traded for speed. The two bodies don't travel at the same speed.

 

[GregN]

This is a very flawed argument, you are assuming that every string has the same ability to' contact the ball', 'grab the ball' and impart spin and this is not the case. There is going to be a degree of slip as the string tries to grab the ball to impart spin. For the argument to be correct every string would have to have 100% grip on the ball as it makes contact. I come from a competitive Table Tennis background and I can assure you that the surface of the rubber in contact with the ball is all important when trying to impart spin . If you think the number of tennis strings on the market is staggering, look into the number of different types of Table Tennis rubbers available and you'll be surprised. By the way if you tried this argument on any seasoned competitive Table Tennis player they would simply laugh at you.

 

[AMGF]

There are so many variables when hitting a tennis ball, I can't believe someone actually think the only metric affecting the spin production is racquet head speed. I would agree it is probably the biggest factor, but for a given RHS different racquet and different strings will produce different results.

The thread is really old and most of the links don't work plus I didn't read the book. Maybe there was more to it than just rough strings don't work. But based on my real life experience and Playsight data, I'd say these guys are very wrong.

An Ultra Cable or Rock n Power string bed probably is all you need to be convinced. When new, they spin like mad. After a couple hours, the edges wear off and spin becomes average. I'm not sure how they tested their theory but it is not in line with real life results.

 

[NastyWinners]

I mean -- just look at TWU for 4G Rough and regular 4G, or Max Power vs Max Power Rough. The rough produces more friction onto the ball which increases the spin potential.

 

[ron schaap]

I m waiting for someone to state that the wooden racquets of 50 years ago are just as good as our modern sticks.

 

[GregN]

Apparently the earth is flat as well

 

[mad dog1]

Apparently the earth is flat as well

According to a research paper that was written 2000 years ago on papyrus, the earth was indeed flat.

Therefore the earth must still be flat now.

 

[TennisManiac]

You just shut down the entire strings industry.

Lol! Yep

 

[Sean Sullivan]

This is so easy to visually confirm or disprove: string up a decent edged poly and bargain nylon in 2 of your frames at the same tension and go hit serves or rally. One of the frames will hit noticeably more spin given the same effort.

If the velocity of the stringbed is all that mattered, then there would be no difference. The physics is likely far more complicated than just the speed of contact and coefficient of friction, there’s string deformation & rebound, and racquet acceleration to consider too.

Bottom line though is that poly strings provide more racquet kinetic energy being translated into ball rotation than do nylon ones. If I had to take a stab at why, I would guess it has something to do with friction, which texture/shape could also effect, but probably with less impact than changing the base material.

In the garden glove/bare hand basketball spinning example, maybe the skin/rubber friction has negligible differences in sustaining the spin when the ball is already spinning at max rotational velocity. But, spinning a basketball is also a bit different than hitting topspin bc in tennis we’re completely changing the direction of the rotation with our hit.

Since you are usually changing the direction of ball rotation from 1-2k rpm towards you to 1-2k rpm away every time you strike a groundstroke, maybe a more “tennis applicable” question here is “would this guy be better able to completely reverse the direction of the ball spinning on his finger (with just 1 swipe) using his bare hands or a rubber glove?”

(Would textured rubber gloves vs slick rubber gloves make as big a difference as changing from bare skin to rubber though? Probably not.)

 

[Readers]

OP is completely and utterly wrong.

1. It can also go slower than RHS, so there would be a difference.

2. String snap-back would allow spin to be faster than RHS.

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

Read the book.
Science doesn't lie.

 

[PistolPete23]

Physics 101, coefficients of friction matter in energy transfer. I haven't read Dr. Brody's book, but I know from experience that even the smartest minds can be prone to logical errors. You are correct in the sense that the object (in this case the racquet head) transferring energy sets the UPPER LIMIT of spin magnitude; the tangential velocity of the spinning ball can never exceed the speed of the racquet head at the moment it leaves the string bed. BUT the dynamic coefficient of friction has to be enough that the ball can reach this upper limit. As an example, consider using an electric screw driver to screw down a stripped screw. The screw driver is spinning at a fixed rate but as long as the head of the screw cannot stick to the spinning tip, the screw will not spin at the same rpm as the screw driver; I'm sure many of us have experienced this. What poly strings provide is not only the ability to reverse the spin direction of the ball sooner; the higher dynamic coefficient of friction also grips the ball better so it can spin with a tangential velocity that gets it closer to the upper limit set by the racquet head.

edit: I'm posting this in both threads to stop the spread of false scientific arguments

 

[ByeByePoly]

Physics 101, coefficients of friction matter in energy transfer. I haven't read Dr. Brody's book, but I know from experience that even the smartest minds can be prone to logical errors. You are correct in the sense that the object (in this case the racquet head) transferring energy sets the UPPER LIMIT of spin magnitude; the tangential velocity of the spinning ball can never exceed the speed of the racquet head at the moment it leaves the string bed. BUT the dynamic coefficient of friction has to be enough that the ball can reach this upper limit. As an example, consider using an electric screw driver to screw down a stripped screw. The screw driver is spinning at a fixed rate but as long as the head of the screw cannot stick to the spinning tip, the screw will not spin at the same rpm as the screw driver; I'm sure many of us have experienced this. What poly strings provide is not only the ability to reverse the spin direction of the ball sooner; the higher dynamic coefficient of friction also grips the ball better so it can spin with a tangential velocity that gets it closer to the upper limit set by the racquet head.

edit: I'm posting this in both threads to stop the spread of false scientific arguments

"You are correct in the sense that the object (in this case the racquet head) transferring energy sets the UPPER LIMIT of spin magnitude; the tangential velocity of the spinning ball can never exceed the speed of the racquet head at the moment it leaves the string bed. "

Wouldn't that mean one of the following is true?

1) string snapback does not add to topspin

-- OR --

2) it does add to topspin but with the addition still does exceed the speed of the racquet head.

 

[PistolPete23]

"You are correct in the sense that the object (in this case the racquet head) transferring energy sets the UPPER LIMIT of spin magnitude; the tangential velocity of the spinning ball can never exceed the speed of the racquet head at the moment it leaves the string bed. "

Wouldn't that mean one of the following is true?

1) string snapback does not add to topspin

-- OR --

2) it does add to topspin but with the addition still does exceed the speed of the racquet head.

Very good insight. Yes, I concede that if snapback is involved, it would actually be possible for the ball to spin with a tangential velocity that exceeds the speed of the racquet head.

 

[ByeByePoly]

Very good insight. Yes, I concede that if snapback is involved, it would actually be possible for the ball to spin with a tangential velocity that exceeds the speed of the racquet head.

No to concede anything ... I have no idea if any player topspin or backspin exceeds the rhs. Nadal's fh would certainly be the place to start on ts.

Interestingly ... Mr Yandell has measured more spin on slices ... and a slice rhs is way less than a Nadal fh rhs. I can see that logically I guess. If you hit slice off of opponent ts ... in theory you add ball spin in the same direction. TS against TS is reversing the spin. Which begs the question ... shouldn't you be able to hit your max topspin against an opponent slice.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/bruguera-nadal-3-300-rpm-average-topspin.491921/

 

[PistolPete23]

No to concede anything ... I have no idea if any player topspin or backspin exceeds the rhs. Nadal's fh would certainly be the place to start on ts.

Interestingly ... Mr Yandell has measured more spin on slices ... and a slice rhs is way less than a Nadal fh rhs. I can see that logically I guess. If you hit slice off of opponent ts ... in theory you add ball spin in the same direction. TS against TS is reversing the spin. Which begs the question ... shouldn't you be able to hit your max topspin against an opponent slice.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/bruguera-nadal-3-300-rpm-average-topspin.491921/

The spin changes from backspin to topspin after the ball bounces . Friction from the ground reverses the spin direction for slices. I know, it’s mind blowing lol.

 

[ByeByePoly]

The spin changes from backspin to topspin after the ball bounces . Friction from the ground reverses the spin direction for slices but could increase the spin even more on topspin shots. I know, it’s mind blowing lol.

lol ... I literally was just about to type "the ground is brake on the backspin". That said ... whether the sliced ball arrives as a knuckleball or with slight topspin ... not much spin reversing required before topspin added.

The best ball to hit max topspin has to be max slice hit poorly with too much height on a crap public concrete court where the surface is slick as glass, but ball bounces high enough to be in the fh strike zone. I think I have that shot.

 

[PistolPete23]

lol ... I literally was just about to type "the ground is brake on the backspin". That said ... whether the sliced ball arrives as a knuckleball or with slight topspin ... not much spin reversing required before topspin added.

The best ball to hit max topspin has to be max slice hit poorly with too much height on a crap public concrete court where the surface is slick as glass, but ball bounces high enough to be in the fh strike zone. I think I have that shot.

I don’t believe all slices will experience spin reversal though. I've hit "bad" slices that just floated through the air at low horizontal speeds, and the ball bounced backwards (relative to me). You can't have that unless the backspin is retained after the bounce. There's an easy way to understand spin reversal or spin enhancement. Motion is relative, meaning you can envision the ball being static and the ground brushing against it at the horizontal speed that the ball is traveling. If it's a hard hit slice, the ground will brush hard against the spin direction of the ball, causing reversal of spin direction. For TS shots, the spin gets enhanced because the ground brushes the ball in the same direction as the spin.

 

[ron schaap]

Its so simple. Your stringbed needs sufficient grip on the ball and individuel strings need low friction coeficient against each other for snap back for extra spin.

 

[dnguyen]

RF will disagree with this.

 

[PistolPete23]

RF will disagree with this.

?