Venus', Serena's, and Roddick's racquets.

Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by johncauthen, Jan 22, 2006.

  1. TakeAHikeCharlie

    TakeAHikeCharlie New User

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    WTF is this? Trying to add to your post count? Whether or not that's the case, it is YOU who is "nuts"!
     
    #51
  2. Bottle Rocket

    Bottle Rocket Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,658
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    So... All you both want to do is tell us how good a racket can be and how there are industry secrets only a special few can know?

    I think Serene lost because she can't move and I think Venus lost because she is simply not as serious as before. I believe Roddick lost because he didn't play aggresively. He wasn't hitting bad shots, but he wasn't even close to the winners Baghdatis was hitting towards him. Roddick has obviusly played better and I SERIOUSLY doubt his racket is holding him back. I believe the above players are well aware that there are other racket options. I do not believe you're special racket innovations make or break a #1 player.

    You say Aggasi won a tournament because of his new racket. How come he doesn't win anything now? I do not fully believe all the evidence you guys use to support your innovations. It's all coincidental when a certain player wins and all of the quotes you use are totally taken out of context. You are using them to make the point you want and people are actually buying it.

    What do you want from us? Recognition that you're a superior human?

    I really don't get it.

    I will admit though, this is slightly entertaining.
     
    #52
  3. TakeAHikeCharlie

    TakeAHikeCharlie New User

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    I don't know if you're nuts or not but I have no clue what you're talking about Mr.
     
    #53
  4. TakeAHikeCharlie

    TakeAHikeCharlie New User

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    this page was intentionally left blank
     
    #54
  5. TakeAHikeCharlie

    TakeAHikeCharlie New User

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    I think he gave out some "secret" [LMAO] but is saying that's all he can or will give out. Something like that. I really don't know what any of them are saying either. Maybe it's because all of this is "insider" jargon :shock: LMAO :mrgreen:
     
    #55
  6. TakeAHikeCharlie

    TakeAHikeCharlie New User

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    So people, what about Roddick's racquet? Exactly how did he have it customized? I thought he was part of the subject of this thread?
    All we (the normal people) know is that his frame is not a paint job, it weighs close to 12 oz., is evenly balanced (slightlu HH actually), has lead at 3 & 9, and that he uses a rubberband dampener. Well that doesn't mean much. So can we focus on the details of his frame?
     
    #56
  7. PM_

    PM_ Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,067
    What load of bullcrap!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    So, John, or Bond should I call you. If this is all top secret why are you sharing it with us? And if you've become privy to this info then others must know as well.

    What's your message? Baseliners: stock up on your favorite racquets while you can b/c a change is in order? And what do you expect pros with baseline games are going to do-they'll just use their current model to infinity and if THOSE should run out have you ever heard of a custom mold??????????

    Oh, and do you predict on running Babolat into bankruptcy??? B/c they only cater to baseline games. Do you think they'll just stick around and let this dumb conspiracy theory follow through.

    Nice try, John, Mack, Jeykl and Hyde whatever we should call you. You're not fooling anyone here.
     
    #57
  8. MackSamuelHustovisics

    MackSamuelHustovisics Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Messages:
    254
    Did I ever say that was the factor for "his" loss? Did I ever once mention about him to begin with? Get your facts straight before you try to look like a hero speaking up for others.

    I never said that! Get your facts straight!

    My reason of being here is not to tell you all how good a racquet can be and then not tell the secrets. I just said that I simply would not give out any further things that I felt were secretive. People in the business come on to this site too you know. I did not start this thread. I jumped in. I have actually shared a lot of tips and tricks in my other posts.

    Let me ask you this, if you had something others didn't have, are you obligated to share it with others? And if you did not share it, would that be unrighteous?

    I didn't start this thread to begin with so why are you questioning why I am here? So everyone posting in here would fall under your To-Be-Criticized-Agenda as well? I cannot simply converse with John and make comments here and there? I am posting just like you are posting. What have you contibuted? Nothing. Is it required that each and every one of a person's post be a contributive post?........NO.
     
    #58
  9. MackSamuelHustovisics

    MackSamuelHustovisics Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Messages:
    254
    "John Cauthen" never said that he wasn't willing to share his ideas and knowledge.

    Also, I am the one who said that there are secrets. John himself thinks that what I think are secrets are just the industry manipulations. So please don't jump to conclusions before you make false accusations. If you even knew either one of us by reading our past posts you would see his and my conversations. Also, I think it is absurd that you would just insult either one of us like this, just because some of the material in this thread is something that you personally do not believe.

    On my part, all I said was that the most ideal raquet customizations were secret? Now how is that BS???? Did I ever once say the word "conspiracy"? (I think not) So you are telling me that every pro player has their personal technician openly announce to the world their exact specs and how they do things? (Specs alone do not mean much anyways. There are more important things. Specs are just the end results. It's what is done that matters) No, they don't just tell everyone about their frames and exactly what they do to it . So I am wrong by stating that there are secrets? That would be like criticizng me if I said, "Football coaches have their own secrets." Also, a better example that I am sure other techs on this board can reference to, "So JCS doesn't have their own secrets?" (although some other outside techs do know about some of their methods)

    I can't believe this is the way some people can act, jumping to conclusions, misunderstanding and then falsely accusing. Now with all that said, am I saying I don't believe a word that John Cauthen had to say? I never said whether or not I did. I do think he deserves better treatment around here. I never bashed him. He has helped people with customizations and some have noticed improvements in their games, equipment performance and or what not.

    Just because things are not beneficial to you personally, it doesn't mean that you should go around insulting people. Things aren't always meant for "everyone" you know!
     
    #59
  10. BDAZ

    BDAZ Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    984
    maybe i just didn't read carefully enough or understand it, but where is the best place to add weight to your racket? just above handle?
     
    #60
  11. BDAZ

    BDAZ Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    984
    maybe i just didn't read carefully enough or understand it, but where is the best place to add weight to your racket? just above handle? or above the handle and in the head? like the prince tt, only with the handle weight at the top of the grip instead of in the butt?
     
    #61
  12. jaskey

    jaskey Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    136
    Bdaz, go to that link and Mack has a picture on exactly where and how much to add the weights.

    i do think the whole tennis company with holding better baseline racquets thing is a bit crazy. i think the companies would sell both net and baseline oriented racquets and advertise net racquets a lot more if they wanted the net play to come back.

    and all who critise John and Mack, john does sound a bit crazy (sorry john but you kind of do when it comes to the companies story) but john and mack does have a really good design on the racquet. even if you're skeptical i think everyone should take a look of the picture at the link, and maybe even try it. it did help my racquet and maybe it can help yours too, especially ppl that demos and buys new racquets every year. try this out, it's a lot cheaper than demoing a racquet and it might actually end your search for the holy grail like it did for me.
     
    #62
  13. Bottle Rocket

    Bottle Rocket Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,658
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    I used to be real heavy into Radio Control airplanes. It took up every free second of my time and even time that wasn't free. I was an instructor, builder, and good with engines. Anytime I discored a new technique or trick there was nothing more I wanted to do than share it with as many people as possible. I had instructional articles in newsletters and websites, I really enjoyed being in a position to help. If there was something I didn't want to share, I didn't bring anything up in the first place.

    I will admit though, I wasn't in that hobby to be competitive. Tennis is obviously different.

    I've gone back and read a bunch of posts from both of you guys and they were very informative and helpful. I got a lot of good information out of them and I appreciate that. I think this thread is a little different...

    Are you guys not sharing your secrets with us because you want to make money with these ideas?

    What I would really like to hear it why the manufacturers that know about these secrets do not sell a racket like this to the public. I am not understanding how certain types of games can be ruined from it.

    I would love more insight from both of you on this topic. Not the technology, but the reasons it's not free to the public. I am also interested more in the professionals and who knows these things and who doesn't and why they don't.
     
    #63
  14. PM_

    PM_ Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,067
    What are you guys saying???????

    Let me break it down for you.

    First you give yourself credit for introducing what we now came to know as the Hammer racquets from Wilson:

    Okay? Now but you disclose that Wilson gave up that concept for another, where no credit to who is given yet:

    After all that, you tell us that Serena, Venus, and Roddick all lost because of that precise change/new tech added to their racquets.
    Here, you quote:
    You discuss in length and detail how these racquets contributed to their losses.

    But here's where you make the mistake, Roddick uses a Babolat, so how exactly did Wilson and Babolat come out with the same concept and transfer this change into a pre-existing model? Doesn't that sound odd? You fail to explain this! (correct me if I'm wrong, are they under the same ownership???)

    Second, don't you think all three would be informed as to WHY changes were made to their racquets and HOW it will work. All three forementioned have predominant baseline games so the question is: Why on earth would they knowing use a racquet you later go on to say diminishes control to give the SV player more advantage?????????
    This does not make any sense.

    Your story has some obvious holes and this needs to clarified.
     
    #64
  15. johncauthen

    johncauthen Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    583
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    In 1989 Prince came out with high polar moment of inertia, putting weight at the top of the head and in the handle, two places that are separated from each other as far as possible. Their idea is high polar moment of inertia. They have followed that idea ever since 1989. The Triple Threat has weight concentrated as high in the head as you can put it. It also has weight in the butt for a high polar moment of inertia.

    But putting weight in the butt of the handle is where Prince was not exactly on the mark.

    Wilson came out with Hammer weighting, which puts weight at the top of the handle, not in the butt. The ideal weighting utilizes a high polar moment of inertia, putting weight as high as possible in the head, and another concentration of weight at the top of the handle, for two concentrations of weight.

    When you make contact with the ball, and the energy of the shot transfers from the top of head to the handle, you can feel this transfer and you feel where the ball is going. You can also muscle it a little and direct it precisely as the weight transfers. You get tremendous feel.

    Bring those two concentrations together and they meet in the string bridge. Now you have a racquet with a low polar moment of inertia. When you set the weight of the string bridge in motion to hit the ball, the impact doesn't transfer to another weight closer to your hand. What happens is you get a very comfortable hit that you barely feel, which is very powerful, and you think that racquet is better, but it doesn't allow you to muscle the ball as you hit it. The fact that you don't feel it makes you think the racquet is a good idea, but it isn't. When you get under pressure and lose a little bit of the stroke memory you have when you are calm and relaxed you miss shots and can't feel how to get them in, which is what Roddick, Venus, and Serena did.

    Teachers tell you, "Relax and hit your shots." The whole game of tennis becomes a confidence game. But what if you can feel your shots and muscle them in? Now the game becomes physical. The game became physical over the last 16 years, with this weighting that came into the game in 1989.

    A lot of purists want it to be cerebral, so they are changing the weighting of racquets and blaming the players for not being cerebral enough, if they can't win.

    Babolat gave Roddick the same weighting idea that Wilson gave Venus and Serena. The Pure Drive doesn't look like a racquet with the weight concentrated at the string bridge. The new Wilson racquets, like the N5 look like racquets with weight concentrated at the string bridge.

    But the original N5 type racquets were weighted normally. They might have moved the weighting to the string bridge area this year. So Venus and Serena didn't have much trouble last year but they are having trouble now.

    It's easy to claim they are in decline, but actually their racquet design is in decline; so is Roddick's.

    Serve and volley came into tennis when the weight of wooden racquets was moved from the top of the handle and the top of the head to the string bridge. Look at these racquets to see how the weighting has been changed from the top of head and the top of the handle, to the stringbridge.
    [​IMG]
    The newer, skinny racquet doesn't help you serve and volley better. It makes it so the opponent can't hit passing shots as well. (So the idea is not to use the serve and volley racquet yourself, but to make your opponents use it.) That racquet has more weight in the stringbridge, and less weight at the top of the handle and top of the head.

    The newer racquets were accepted over the old racquets back in the 1930's, just like Serena and Roddick accepted the new weighting because the new weighing can be more comfortable. Roddick’s serve went from the 130's into the 140's, even to 150 when he started using the new weighting a couple of years ago. The racquet seemed better because he could hit the ball harder with more comfort, but it wasn't better.

    The new racquet is in fact a slasher racquet. It brings back serve and volley because when you come to net; the opponent's shots don't go in as much.

    People, even good players are fooled into accepting the new weighting when it doesn't work as well. I learned a lot of this from my late, Great Uncle who played championship tennis in the 1920's. His racquet was the best balanced racquet I had ever held in my hand. It was not clumsy like most of the old racquets. I spent about 8 years making a modern racquet feel like his racquet; and when I had it right, I went to Wilson.

    Wilson came out with the New Pro Staff in 1990. It felt exactly like my racquets, but lighter. They had taken weight out of the butt. It only had weight at the top the handle and in the head. That racquet was taken off the market and replaced with the Classic Pro Staff, a racquet that was heavier and wasn't as good. They knew how to make a much better racquet.

    They didn't need to make a better racquet; they were #1. In the 90's, Dunlop and Head made racquets with optimum weighting like Wilson's patent. Wilson took them to court, yet Wilson refused to make a racquet with optimum weighting. No one was making it, but eventually, pros got it. Now they are trying to fool pros into accepting lesser racquets. I'm not sure if Roddick, Venus, and Serena are going to stay fooled but that's where we are at right now.
     
    #65
  16. tommyho

    tommyho New User

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    54
    this is so much B.S....I'd really like to see videos of Mr Cauthen strokes...

    every player like their set up different according to their style of play.

    period.

    Feds racquet ain't the same as Nalbandian.

    the more one is improving in his/her strokes mechanics, the more one knows what fits his/her game in terms of racquet style. not other way around.

    Give Fed a frying pan and he'll still kick your ass in tennis playing agressive chip and charge...


    many wta pros plays with head heavy racquets...not balanced in the handle...

    Maybe Hingis retired before because of some shoe conspiracy for her sore feet and so was Clijster for her default in the AO semis.... Some people are nuts...

    Just the tone of being the guy misunderstood and explaining crap endlessly, makes it not believable even if an ounce of truth were stated.
     
    #66
  17. BDAZ

    BDAZ Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    984
    so basically, wilson hammers are the "better" rackets?
     
    #67
  18. PurePrestige

    PurePrestige Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    516
    No, not particularly...Hammer racquets aren't better.....but a relative hammer sort of idea is I guess? I think i'm understanding now, I've been experimenting with my own racquets a little. It works kind of like your arm. Tip of the racquet is your hand, elbow is the location just at the top of the handle and butt cap is your shoulder.

    The only problem is like they said, with "players" racquets it would be very difficult to employ this. I added weight to my Ti. Radical MP and it feels amazing. The addition of weight at the handle really lets you feel what the racquet is doing, I have no idea in the science behind it but it is a very noticeable difference.

    I added about 2 ounces of weight just at the top of the handle. So I guess starting weight for a Ti. Radical MP is 306 grams according to TW? and 2 ounces = 50.7 grams about...so...356.7 is final weight. So it now weighs about 12.6 ounces? Doesn't feel cumbersome though, weight is noticeable but not in a bad way. It wouldn't impact your motion significantly. Whereas when you add weight to the head of the racquet you have to adjust alot more.

    For players racquets I think the addition of less weight at the tip and above the handle would have a similar effect without having to use as much weight overall.
     
    #68
  19. Bolt

    Bolt Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    386
    John, why wouldn't frames like the Wilson Blaze Hammer or Wilson Pro Staff Trance work with your weighting system like the VS Drive presumably does?
     
    #69
  20. johncauthen

    johncauthen Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    583
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    I've tried lightweight low cost racquets, and they work. In fact, they are the best available racquets to modify by adding a lot of weight to the top of the handle. Here is where I wish my boss at the tennis shop were working with me better. I can modify the $105 Wilson Blitz that we sell, and almost anyone who tries it likes it.

    But he doesn't want to sell modified racquets.

    A low cost, lightweight racquet can be modified, and people like it better than many high end racquets. In fact, you can sell a $100 racquet (the Trance is a $60 racquet) for about $150 modified, and people who try it like it better than the NTour. A low cost, lightweight K-Mart racquet is the type of racquet I showed to Wilson in 1988. It was the best racquet to modify and they were impressed by it.

    With 3 cents worth of lead sheet I can increase the value of a low cost racquet by $80. But I have only met up with skeptical people. I can go to any pro shop and say, I am able to modify your $60 Pro Staff Trance and you can sell it for $140. I make $40 and you make $70. The racquet costs $30.

    So far, for me, there are too many skeptical people who are mainly protecting their own territory, and don't want me to come in and make $40, or $30, or even $15. But I have improved my racquet weighting to the point where maybe I can't be denied and I will do this in the near future.
     
    #70
  21. D.  Nelson

    D. Nelson Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    687
    .......I have another kind of 'sideways' question....where can I get 'lead sheeting' ??
     
    #71
  22. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    Hi John Cauthen. I have a question if you could please answer. I am considering trying out the Wilson Prosotaff 6.0 85" frames.

    Have you experimented with those? What do you suggest that I do to customize them to achieve your ideal-like concept?

    Thanks.
     
    #72
  23. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    Roofing Supply stores sell them. They are primarily used for roofing. That's from what I know.
     
    #73
  24. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    If it's not convenient for you to go to a supplier, I would definitely not suggest that you order them. The cost of shipping would be more than the material itself. :D

    A good alternative......have you ever seen those fishing tackle kits?...the ones that enable you to make your own homemade sinkers? Well buy a kit like that. Make sure to work in a well ventilated area, use proper equipment, and wear proper gear when melting lead though!
     
    #74
  25. D.  Nelson

    D. Nelson Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    687
    ..........geez....I live in South Florida....I've GOT to be able to find a roofing supply source !!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
     
    #75
  26. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    Well I used to live down their and didn't realize how conveniently located they are to you.
     
    #76
  27. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    So right now you have putty on the outside of the handle? The grip must look puffy huh? lmao Have fun playing like that in front of your peers. :D Definitely go get that lead!
     
    #77
  28. D.  Nelson

    D. Nelson Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    687
    ....you're right --- on BOTH counts !! I'll find some tomorrow.... The funniest thing about that 'putty' is that with heat and hand-grip pressure, it starts to 'ooze' out from under the overgrip....THAT looks a little goofy...OUCH !!!!!!
     
    #78
  29. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    RTFLMFAO
     
    #79
  30. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    If you are practicing on the courts looking like that then do you know what to do so that you look more professional???.......

    Play in a white scientist's robe and keep a clipboard close by. Every now and again, pick up the clipboard and pretend to check off some things and scribble things. This way other people will know you are working on a prototype! :mrgreen: Oh yeah, don't forget the thick glasses and the pocket protector!
     
    #80
  31. D.  Nelson

    D. Nelson Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    687
    .....Hahahaha!!!!! THAT was funny......people at that particular court know me like that, ANYway !!! I've always got a handful of different racquets.....grips.....weights......overgrips...... Definitely looks like 'something is going on' !!!!!!!!!
     
    #81
  32. Squid

    Squid Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    238
    deleted... look down
     
    #82
  33. Squid

    Squid Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    238


    okay first of all... if serve and vollyers use "powerfull & inaccurate" rackets then how does pete sampras make all those touch volleys and drop shots w/ this soo called "powerfull & inaccurate" rackets... it just doesnt make sense
     
    #83
  34. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    Are you mocking the man or are you politely asking him to elaborate and answer a question that would clear up some of your confusion?
     
    #84
  35. Squid

    Squid Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    238
    not really mocking... but i would like an elaboration..... i still dont understand how pete would be able to do drops and such so well with a power racket.

    but.. since most of these mods seam simple... i would like to try to put some lead on my hyper prostaff 5.0 once i finda a place around here taht has lead.
     
    #85
  36. BDAZ

    BDAZ Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    984
    john, can you please tell me how much lead and where it was added on the PS Blitz that you modified? we have a demo at my club, so i thought i'd try it out and see the difference. thanks.
     
    #86
  37. Onion

    Onion New User

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    67
    Reading through this again, I see WAY too many people trying to improve their game via a mystical weighting change rather than getting the right racquet to start with and improving their game instead.

    A good game is found with many hours of practice and hard work both on and off the courts. Buying some lead tape will not instantly make you a better player.
     
    #87
  38. jaskey

    jaskey Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    136
    Onion is right. the new racquet weighing does help, but actual practice will help you thousand more times then a racquet will.
    And Squid's got a point. i remember john saying that Pete had his (john's) racquet setting and that's why he started winning. But john claims his set up is for baseliners, and Pete was a serve and volleyer. ?.? how does this work out?
     
    #88
  39. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    ...................
     
    #89
  40. BDAZ

    BDAZ Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    984
    i'm not trying to improve my game via a mystical weighting system. just simply trying to find the possible benefit of it.
     
    #90
  41. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    .............please erase Mr/Ms Mod
     
    #91
  42. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    Since you seem to "not" have anything against John, I will answer your question.

    Ok, John never said that Pete Sampras used a S&V racquet. S&V racquets are the ones to be avoided. According to John, you want your "opponents" to be using the S&V frames, that way they will play more poorly than they would if they were to be playing with an "ideal" frame or a "regular" frame. As a result, one thing that they would not be able to do is hit passing shots and so the other player -- the one with the better frame, "the non-S&V frame" -- would then be able to S&V better against the player who is using the uncontrollable S&V frame.

    He said that you want your oppenents to be using the S&V frame. Basically, in other words, S&V frames aren't good for serve and volley. If your opponent used an "industry insider-designed S&V frame" and you used an "ideal" frame than it is you with the "ideal" frame who would be able to S&V better as well as do everything else better. Of course you need to have excellent skills to be a better player, but when John is implying all of this, he is speaking about certain frames making a player better than another player with the presumption that excellent skills have already been taken into account.

    John's not saying that a magic frame is the answer to everything. In a case whereas a player has an equal skill level to another player, that's when the "ideal" frame is the holy grail if one of the two player's were to use it.

    I can see how all of this can confuse some of you. Pete is a natural S&Ver and so you assume that John implies that Pete uses a S&V frame (Even though things are completely far from being the case, sometimes people tend to subconsciously match things up trying to make it logical.) That's not the case. Pete uses the "ideal" frame, which is a good "all around" frame.
     
    #92
  43. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    Ok, John never said that Pete Sampras used a S&V racquet. S&V racquets are the ones to be avoided. According to John, you want your "opponents" to be using the S&V frames, that way they will play more poorly than they would if they were to be playing with an "ideal" frame or a "regular" frame. As a result, one thing that they would not be able to do is hit passing shots and so the other player -- the one with the better frame, "the non-S&V frame" -- would then be able to S&V better against the player who is using the uncontrollable S&V frame.

    He said that you want your oppenents to be using the S&V frame. Basically, in other words, S&V frames aren't good for serve and volley. If your opponent used an "industry insider-designed S&V frame" and you used an "ideal" frame than it is you with the "ideal" frame who would be able to S&V better as well as do everything else better. Of course you need to have excellent skills to be a better player, but when John is implying all of this, he is speaking about certain frames making a player better than another player with the presumption that excellent skills have already been taken into account.

    John's not saying that a magic frame is the answer to everything. In a case whereas a player has an equal skill level to another player, that's when the "ideal" frame is the holy grail if one of the two player's were to use it.

    I can see how all of this can confuse some of you. Pete is a natural S&Ver and so you assume that John implies that Pete uses a S&V frame (Even though things are completely far from being the case, sometimes people tend to subconsciously match things up trying to make it logical.) That's not the case. Pete uses the "ideal" frame, which is a good "all around" frame.
     
    #93
  44. johncauthen

    johncauthen Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    583
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    The weight that I use on the Blitz is this weight. It's almost 4 5/8 inches long and weighs 42 to 46 grams. The lead sheet is called 3 lb or 2.5 lb density. Use scissors and a file.

    [​IMG]

    Mount it here on the Blitz or a Pure Drive. The point of the weight is right below the place where the shaft starts to taper.

    [​IMG]

    Wrap it around the grip like this. Hold onto the racquet so your fingers don't touch any part of the weight.

    [​IMG]
     
    #94
  45. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    Mr Cauthen, Do you have any suggestions for souping up a Wilson Original PS 6.0 85in² frame? Have you ever experimented with them before?

    I know that the PS 6.0 is heavy. The thing is, I am willing to go without the grip and only use an overgrip. That should eliminate close to 1 ounce. Also, I am willing to cut some of the foam handle away, maybe 3/4-1full ounce of it. Would your concept work on the PS 6.0? Can the PS 6.0 be made to your "ideal" standards if I were to remove close to 2 oz. of mass from the handle (eliminating the use of a grip and cutting off an ounce of the foam handle)? The frame already has weight at the top of the hoop with the PWS. Any suggestions Mr. Cauthen?
    Thanks.
     
    #95
  46. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    Of course you need to have excellent skills to be a better player, but when John is implying all of this, he is speaking about certain frames making a player better than another player with the presumption that excellent skills have already been taken into account.

    John's not saying that a magic frame is the answer to everything. In a case whereas a player has an equal skill level to another player, that's when the "ideal" frame is the holy grail if one of the two player's were to use it.
     
    #96
  47. johncauthen

    johncauthen Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    583
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Get some 3 lb lead sheet. (Ask for 3 lb lead sheet at a roofing supply. They will know what you are talking about.) Cut a piece into that shape and finish it with a file. You will find when it is heavy it works but feels heavy. As you shape it to make it lighter, it stops working. The secret to making it light and work is the exact shape. The weight on that racquet weighs 44 grams.

    It's hard to improve the frame. Put it on the frame as it is. The best way, maybe the only way to improve the frame is to adjust the length of the head.

    Here is a frame with the lead. I have cut the side strings to lengthen the head.

    [​IMG]

    You can precisely adjust the length of the head by letting the side strings slip. When it hits the best, measure it and then string it to that length. You can do that by stringing it longer than the right length. You can do things after it is strung to adjust the head shorter, until it hits perfectly. If it's too short and all the knots are tied and trimmed, you have to cut the side strings to make it longer. But you can slip the knots to make it longer if they are not trimmed.
     
    #97
  48. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    Mr Cauthen, was that a reply to my question? I am the one with the Wilson PS 6.0 85"² Original. Do you think the concept will work for the frame?
     
    #98
  49. jaskey

    jaskey Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    136
    I didn't think Pete used a S&V, i thought he was using a "ideal" frame. But i thought "ideal" frame was only for baseline play, but you cleared up the confusion for me. so thank you for that ^^
     
    #99
  50. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    No problem. I'm glad you could understand my explanation, speaking for Mr Cauthen in his place. He's not around here too often plus I happen to know what he's talking about and so that's why I personally answered your questions for him.
     

Share This Page