Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Pros' Racquets and Gear (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Venus', Serena's, and Roddick's racquets. (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=63240)

johncauthen 01-22-2006 01:40 PM

Venus, Serena, and Roddick's losses.
 
There is a new type of racquet being used by Venus, Serena, and Andy Roddick.

In 1989 with the Constant Taper System, and with Triple Threat weighting Prince has marketed racquets with extra weight at the top of the head, which is countered against weight in the handle.

And in 1989 Wilson marketed an idea where they took weight out of the handle but added a lot of weight above the handle.

Here is a 1987 racquet that has weight added to the shaft above the handle.



I showed that racquet to Wilson, and the idea became part of the Hammer System. They added weight above the handle and took weight out of the handle itself.

The news was a more head heavy racquet, but that idea has the high polar moment of inertia that Prince was marketing. There is weight at the top of the handle, and weight in the head.

Now at Wilson, the Hammer has been discontinued in favor of a new weighting that is different. It has a low moment of inertia. In Venus and Serena’s new racquets, most of the weight is concentrated at the string bridge. They are light at the top of the head and light in the handle, but heavy at the string bridge for a low polar moment of inertia.

I developed my idea since 1980, and got a lot of control with it. Here is one of the racquets I used regularly back then.



But with weight concentrated at the string bridge, there is a low moment of inertia. Serena’s complaint when she lost was that she had no feel for the ball. She said she was timing it well; but she couldn't control where it was going. She couldn't manipulate two weights with a high polar moment of inertia to direct the ball while she was hitting it, which is a skill most avid tennis players possess. They know how to feel the different weights in different parts of the racquet and manipulate those weights to direct the ball.

But the new Roddick racquets also have weight moved from where it was to its new location near the string bridge. There is only one main weight, and no feel. In every rally where Baghdatis returned Roddick’s serve, Baghdatis had the advantage of better, more effective groundstrokes than Roddick! It was due to racquet balance.

Venus, Serena, and Roddick are all using a new philosophy in racquet balance. It feels solid and seems okay, but when you are pressured, when Serena was under the pressure of losing, she said, “I had no feel for the ball.” That's the problem with this new type of weighting, it takes away your feel and control.

Venus and Serena lost while using it and Roddick lost to Baghdatis. The verdict on this new weighting is amazingly definitive.

Alexandros 01-22-2006 01:56 PM

Of course! They lost because of the racquet, not because they were outplayed on the day. Serena is NOT fat, Venus is NOT in decline and Roddick's game is NOT flawed, it's just the freaking racquet!

Onion 01-22-2006 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexandros
Of course! They lost because of the racquet, not because they were outplayed on the day. Serena is NOT fat, Venus is NOT in decline and Roddick's game is NOT flawed, it's just the freaking racquet!

That's why it's all a game of who comes with the better racquet. Why do you think they all use paintjobs? If the competition knew what everyone else really played with, it'd be all too easy to bring a superior racquet that countered the oppositions precisely.

Silly Andy, Pure Drives are for kids!

johncauthen 01-22-2006 04:39 PM

In 1990 the performance of Hammer weighting became apparent. It was used by the unknown second tier junior, Pete Sampras, who was never as good as Courier or Agassi or Chang. As soon as he got Hammer weighting, he won the 1990 US Open, using a 16 ounce racquet that had 3 1/2 ounces of lead added to the top of the grip of a 12.5 ounce 1970's Pro Staff.

I was modifying 1970s aluminum racquets with it, and getting spectacular results. In 1990 that type of weighting was given to the two little girls, Venus and Serena. They were kept out of junior tournaments. The reason was so as not to call attention to themselves, or to the amazing performance of these racquets.

They had been given an advantage. Pete Sampras had it, but the racquets were kept off the market. And you can't buy or obtain the same racquets pros use today. That policy was started in 1990. Before that, you could buy the same racquets pros used.

This year, someone who is probably supposed to be smart and important believed like you that it wasn't the racquet and changed the weighting in Venus and Serena's racquets. Venus loses in the first round and Serena loses early. Embarassing.

The reason they both lost was because their shots didn't go in the court. Venus made 65 errors. Serena said she didn't have any feel for the ball. Roddick didn't have a clue why he lost. He looked like he felt good.

The reason was low polar moment of inertia, as opposed to high polar moment of inertia. In other words, the weight was in the center of all their racquets near the string bridge, which is a different weighting theory from the last 15 years.

Jack Kramer used a 16 ounce racquet that had a very heavy handle, but the real secret was high polar moment of inertia. He had a lot of weight in the handle and weight in the head. Today, by optimizing the polar moment of inertia, which was Prince's theory, we can make 345 gram racquets that have the same dominating performance as Sampras' or Kramer's racquets, but you can't buy them; they are supposedly bad for the game, and yet, Kramer used that type of racquet.

jaskey 01-22-2006 05:09 PM

okay you're saying that all of the main weight at the center is bad... so how do we make it better? And all people has trouble when they first change their racquets, so i wouldn't say changing the formula was bad just because the pro's messed up the first time they used it.

johncauthen 01-22-2006 05:42 PM

In the 1920's, all racquets had the exact same weighting that we have redeveloped over the last 15 years, and the tennis was baseline tennis.

In the 1930's racquets changed to having more weight in the middle like this Wilson Jack Kramer, notice the added overlays in the shoulders. Tennis changed to serve and volley.



This old racquet didn't have those overlays, and the tennis was baseline.



It has weight at the top of the handle and weight at the top of the head.

Experts think if we had racquets with more weight in the middle, that would bring back serve and volley, because those racquets have less control no matter how much you practice with them. Players can't hit passing shots, which theoretically brings back serve and volley. And so, the experts are imposing racquets with less control on tennis to bring back serve and volley.

The irony is that Jack Kramer used a racquet with a form of 1920's weighting. Well, that's like Federer using a racquet with ideal 1920's style weighting and beating everybody.

You might notice, with everyone else the tennis is less entertaining. That will be true for the rest of the Australian Open, and in the next year, because for all pros (except Federer) they are going back to the weight in the middle theory, but that's all the tennis will be: less entertaining. Players won't go back to serve and volley. The idyllic idea of touch and feel won't come into the game. It will just be less entertaining than it has been.

PurePrestige 01-22-2006 06:24 PM

What would you propose people do to their racquets to make them weighted in this way though?
Let's take racquets from each genre. Player's racquets such as the Prestige Mid and nCode 90. Midplus and 95 version of those. and the racquets that are at the tweener/player line, such as the Pure Drive, Instinct, and probably the upcoming nBlade.

What form of weighting would you recommend for these various types of racquets? Addition of weight at the top of the head similar to the Prince style at 10 and 2 o'clock, as well as weight added at the top of the handle?

johncauthen 01-22-2006 07:40 PM

I'm hoping the tennis industry will start making racquets just right in stock form.

Pro racquets today weigh 345 grams with the balance point at 30.5mm. They are not heavy, children can use racquets with those specs. The problem is, the tennis industry and insiders who run the game think those pro racquets that children can use will destroy the game. And they think racquets that are less accurate and less effective will take tennis back to the graceful days of old. So, the industry refuses to offer truly good racquets.

They give us "granny racquets" which make it easy to block the ball back but can't generate power. We can get "player's racquets" that feel heavy and are a little hard to use. But I have a 345 gram Pure Drive balanced at 30.5mm that old ladies and children love. The exact racquet can be used by pros.

The tennis industry won't make and sell that racquet because they think it will destroy the game. But I still work as a stringer at a very good tennis shop and we just got some of the newest Head Team racquets in.

The Head Team racquets are a light version of the Flexpoint Radicals and Instincts. Adding a tapered weight to the top of the handle like this (notice what I mean by high polar moment if inertia) makes the new Team Instincts and Radicals that we just got nearly perfect.



But adding the same weight to the older Flexpoints or to the nCode 90 just makes them feel heavy.

The new nBlade racquets might be racquets that are totally devoted to 1950's balance, while the new Instincts and Radicals that we just got are close to my ideal. So maybe the industry is going it two directions. Free market forces are still in operation, and Head is not cooperating with the establishment; that is, if the establishment wants to go back to 1950's balance because they think it will bring back serve and volley.

The newest Head racquets can be easily modified into good pro style racquets that can be weighted correctly. Maybe Head just wants to sell racquets!

johncauthen 01-22-2006 07:42 PM

I'm hoping the tennis industry will start making racquets just right in stock form.

MackSamuelHustovisics 01-22-2006 08:37 PM

John, what may cause some confusion to people is the comment that you made about the industries' 1950's weighting concept.

Now I do understand what you mean by implying that that 1950's concept is terrible -- I agree with you on that. The thing is, you mentioned how it was designed in order to influence more serve & volley style of play -- which is true -- and that it didn't give players much control. That's the part that can cause confusion to others. When people think of S&V racquets they think of touch, control, and little power. You stated that those frames offer less control. I agree that those frames are terrible but not that it offers no control. I think it just happens to be a bad weighting concept because it doesn't offer "everything" a player could ask for.

My ideal design and customizations are frames that enable "controlled-power".

Basically I work on frames that are: highly maneuverable (in terms of moment force and moment of inertia/SW); powerful allowing the baseline game to be effective; control-oriented to allow the touch, finesse, precision shooting, technical, and S&V game. So the frames are baseline & S&V all in one but they are not like the typical "tweeners" though. Tweeners offer everything in one, but not all of the "everything". Stock tweeners only gives you a little bit of everything, but not all of each of the individual things.

johncauthen 01-23-2006 06:13 AM

17 years ago, we found the ideal racquet for everything, and it has been kept off the market for 15 years, so far.

Right now, just about all the pros have it, but average players can't get it. There are two directions it can go. We can start to get the good racquets; or, the industry might try to take the good racquets away from pros. They want to go to the racquet design they had planned to go to when the Hammer was born. They want to go to the Profile idea, a racquet that flopped, which had a light handle, it was light at the top of the head, and it was heavy in the middle of the frame, just like its shape suggests.

The ideal serve and volley racquet for tennis is a racquet that doesn't allow anyone to return the ball accurately. That's what we saw in Venus, Serena, and Roddick's losses: inaccurate shots.

Volleyers block the ball into the open court and hit big serves. It was when racquets improved and allowed accurate returns that serve and volley disappeared. Someone who is powerful wants to bring back inaccurate racquets. They are actually doing it, and Roddick, Serena, and Venus do not understand why they could not hit accurately. This is not about how to make better racquets, but it is a spirtual struggle for tennis. The other guys don't want better racquets, and they say it over and over; but tennis boomed as we got metal racquets and the Prince Pro. It boomed as we got better racquets.

The answer, to bring back volleying and make the game less stressful, with fewer injuries is to make the court narrower. The doubles court is narrower for each player, and doubles is a game that works better than it ever has worked, today, with the better racquets.

Jonnyf 01-23-2006 07:56 AM

im so sorry for distrupting the flow of the thread but please please johncauthen can you please e-mail me on forrest.jonny@gmail.com or through TT if you have the time. Thank You so much

PurePrestige 01-23-2006 08:53 AM

So wait. If i'm understanding this correctly...racquets today have a lack of feel and associated accuracy due to the weight being primarily at the top and middle of the racquet...

So wouldn't the addition of weight at the top of the handle contribute to this effect?

Otherwise how do you counter the effect? Most racquets would probably end up rather heavy I assume, but, where would you add the weight? At the top and in the handle?

Also there are some Wilson frames that might be great for customizing in the same fashion as the new Head Team racquets.
The Wilson nPS 95 is basically a lighter version of the N6.1 95 which when weighted up properly would be a much better performing version of the N6.1 95????? Also the Wilson H Blaze was a good hammer style racquet that was basically a lighter version of the H Tour, this would probably easy to weight.


Also I am wondering if this may tie into what was posted on...darn...the name of the sight escapes me at the moment but...racketdesign or something. They advocate weighting the handle of racquets, in this case they found a Hammer 6.2? maybe? to perform best when they added considerable weight to the handle.

Making that racquet an average weight rather than a light weight hammer type, would that be the same type of weight allocation??? Concentration in the head of the racquet and handle?

MackSamuelHustovisics 01-23-2006 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PurePrestige
So wait. If i'm understanding this correctly...racquets today have a lack of feel and associated accuracy due to the weight being primarily at the top and middle of the racquet...

So wouldn't the addition of weight at the top of the handle contribute to this effect?

Otherwise how do you counter the effect? Most racquets would probably end up rather heavy I assume, but, where would you add the weight? At the top and in the handle?

Also there are some Wilson frames that might be great for customizing in the same fashion as the new Head Team racquets.
The Wilson nPS 95 is basically a lighter version of the N6.1 95 which when weighted up properly would be a much better performing version of the N6.1 95????? Also the Wilson H Blaze was a good hammer style racquet that was basically a lighter version of the H Tour, this would probably easy to weight.


Also I am wondering if this may tie into what was posted on...darn...the name of the sight escapes me at the moment but...racketdesign or something. They advocate weighting the handle of racquets, in this case they found a Hammer 6.2? maybe? to perform best when they added considerable weight to the handle.

Making that racquet an average weight rather than a light weight hammer type, would that be the same type of weight allocation??? Concentration in the head of the racquet and handle?

Quote:

So wouldn't the addition of weight at the top of the handle contribute to this effect?
Not necessarily. It depends on how the mass is distributed on certains points.

Quote:

Otherwise how do you counter the effect?
There are different ways. Also, for some frames it is not worth countering the effects simply because the total end resulting mass would be too high, that is why I am designing custom frames in order to be able to control exactly where I want the mass placements to be.

Quote:

Most racquets would probably end up rather heavy I assume, but, where would you add the weight? At the top and in the handle?
Not necessarily "most racquets" (Unless you know what I know and you have evaluated all models then you can say "most"), but yes, "some"/"a lot" would end up too heavy compared to the ideal static and dynamic mass.

Quote:

Also I am wondering if this may tie into what was posted on...darn...the name of the sight escapes me at the moment but...racketdesign or something. Making that racquet an average weight rather than a light weight hammer type, would that be the same type of weight allocation??? Concentration in the head of the racquet and handle? They advocate weighting the handle of racquets, in this case they found a Hammer 6.2? maybe? to perform best when they added considerable weight to the handle.
I believe you are referring to "Racquet Research", and if so, then no. Making that hammer racquet an average weight rather than a light weight hammer type would not be the same type of "ideal" weight concept.

Racquet research in my opinion does not know much about the ideal dynamics. As far as sweet points (Notice there are no such things as sweet spots but only sweet points and sweet areas exist.), they know what they are talking about. They also cover and understand injury prevention, moment force adjustments, polar torsional stability, stiffness, string resiliency,"sweet point" customization, and all the "basic things that you can find info about just about anywhere" but they do not provide info on racquet dynamics. No one provides info on racquet dynamics. It's a big trade secret. John Cauthen knows about it. I do as well, much more than what John has provided to this board. John has blown the whistle, but not entirely (And I hope you don't John. It would be good to protect some of your ideas. You do have good ones.). I share lots of info as well, but certain things need to be kept unrevealed for certain reasons.

A huge part of the competition among pro tennis is technology warefare. It's not the type of tech that you see manufacturers use for promoting their new designs, such as "Flexpoint", "Nano", "Intelligence Chip" etc. It's a technology that has to do with manipulating power points, control, flex, maneuverablity, and most importantly....swing dynamics.

This trade secret of having the ideal racquet is very much like secrets that different militaries of different countries have. It is kept away from the public. Part of the race in pro tennis is not just being a better conditioned and skilled player, having world-class coaches, having more money, etc. It also has to do with either being smart enough to discover the best techology or being lucky enough to have someone(s) offer the player the tech. So John is not out of his mind for stating certain pro players being disadvantaged due to their equipment. He's also not saying that equipement alone carries a player either. When he mentions these things, being a great player is already a given. He's saying it in a way that the players are already highly talented and highly skilled. That's why it comes down to, "the use of inferior equipment causes losses" -- in the way that John implies it (Of course having a bad day is part of it and just not being the better player that day as well, but the right tech might have enabled a losing player to win more key points in a match that could have been a turning point in momentum, enabling the said player to make come-backs.).

I am the same way. When I refer to players needing a better frame to improve their play, I am not talking about Joe down the street the amature. A lot of people, especially other teaching pros will say that players need to improve techniques and strategy in order to win more. Well of course that is true, but when I speak, all of that is already a given. The player is as elite as he/she can possibly be at the moment and so that's why having the ideal racquet design is the winning-factor advantage, the same way as how John sees it.

If you spend enough time experimenting with different customizations then perhaps you will learn a thing or two.

ty slothrop 01-23-2006 10:57 AM

a few slight problems - roddick pays roman in NY a *****load of money to make sure that his rackets are all weighted and balanced precisely the same. roman uses his own proprietary software to basically scan every inch of the rackets. you're telling me he would let this slide?

also, why would allowing these "perfectly" balanced rackets "destroy the game" as you claim in the post with your pure drive pics? again, are you saying that the racket manufacturers - publicly traded companies each and all - are conspiring to make an inferior product in a case of wink-wink collusion? what do they have to gain from this?

we're talking about tennis rackets here, not enron conspiring to cause blackouts in california

PurePrestige 01-23-2006 11:14 AM

MackSamuelHustovisics or JohnCauthen, if either of you could drop me an email at pillowrat2002@yahoo.com I have a few additional questions. It would be much appreciated.

MackSamuelHustovisics 01-23-2006 11:29 AM

John, how is the Prince O3 tinkering going? I personally have decided to abandon experiments on them. Didn't seem important anymore. Also, if I were to perfect their performance for players then it still wouldn't be usable because not even the best paint job can disguise those O-ports!

I am still curious about your findings though. Did you find the humerus weighting concept along with hoop manipulation to be effective on the O3s?

MackSamuelHustovisics 01-23-2006 11:44 AM

.............................

legolas 01-23-2006 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johncauthen
In the 1920's, all racquets had the exact same weighting that we have redeveloped over the last 15 years, and the tennis was baseline tennis.

In the 1930's racquets changed to having more weight in the middle like this Wilson Jack Kramer, notice the added overlays in the shoulders. Tennis changed to serve and volley.



This old racquet didn't have those overlays, and the tennis was baseline.



It has weight at the top of the handle and weight at the top of the head.

Experts think if we had racquets with more weight in the middle, that would bring back serve and volley, because those racquets have less control no matter how much you practice with them. Players can't hit passing shots, which theoretically brings back serve and volley. And so, the experts are imposing racquets with less control on tennis to bring back serve and volley.

The irony is that Jack Kramer used a racquet with a form of 1920's weighting. Well, that's like Federer using a racquet with ideal 1920's style weighting and beating everybody.

You might notice, with everyone else the tennis is less entertaining. That will be true for the rest of the Australian Open, and in the next year, because for all pros (except Federer) they are going back to the weight in the middle theory, but that's all the tennis will be: less entertaining. Players won't go back to serve and volley. The idyllic idea of touch and feel won't come into the game. It will just be less entertaining than it has been.

nice racket

vantagepoˇnt 01-23-2006 03:13 PM

You people are nuts!


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse