View Single Post
Old 01-28-2008, 06:06 AM   #33
Greg Raven
Semi-Pro
 
Greg Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Apple Valley, CA
Posts: 617
Send a message via AIM to Greg Raven
Default

My apologies for not seeing this response sooner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J D View Post
Greg, not to try and bust your chops, but I don't see any difference between, "player differences" and "your mileage may vary."
When the EPA tells you that the Honda Civic Hybrid gets 50 mpg while the Toyota Camry gets only 30 mpg, this does not take into account the way YOU drive. Similarly, there are plenty of players who have terrible biomechanics. A "comfortable" racquet (assuming such a thing exists) may hurt such a player's arm, while a "dangerous" racquet (again assuming ...) may be fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J D View Post
But I have never seen a first attempt that not only was so flawed, but where the creator of the method knew it was flawed and simply didn't care. Wilmot has admitted that racquet technology, including materials and shock dampening systems, do affect arm safety. His response was, essentially, I don't have any way to measure those factors so I'm leaving them out.

Also, there is no established basis in biology and physiology for many of his assumptions about what factors do and don't make a frame safe for a certain joint. He's simply guessing, and sometimes incorrectly (my daughter is a biomedical engineer so I'm not just guessing as we have discussed some of Wilmot's theories at length).

In addition, his model of applicable formulas is incomplete because it fails to take into account certain physical properties of the frame/string/ball collision.
Wilmot's work is not flawed. It may not consider every factor under the sun, but it is not flawed. By your logic, there are virtually no models of natural systems that are not flawed, including weather forecasting, elementary physics, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J D View Post
So, are you saying there is no validity to scientific observations in the field? Until much more research is done, the ONLY credible evidence is going to be anecdotal.
With all due respect, this is nonsense. Anecdotal accounts are not evidence. My dictionary defines "anecdotal" as something that is not necessarily true or reliable, because it is base on personal accounts rather than facts or research. Wilmot took known facts (measurements of racquets), and interpreted them using known and accepted concepts of physics. I think the tennis community owes him a tremendous debt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J D View Post
I'm guessing you're saying this tongue in cheek because you know the research can be done but it isn't going to happen anytime soon. The only people in the industry that have that kind of money are the racquet companies, and they have a vested interest in making sure this type of knowledge never gets to the public because of product liability. Seriously, give me a half million dollars and I'll do the research and come up with the model.
I'd be interested to learn what your methodology would be, given that you seem to know how much it would cost to implement your methodology. Perhaps if you can share with everyone the approach you'd take, you might be able to raise the needed funds. It's worth noting at this point that Wilmot did his work out of pocket, and supplied the results for free to all. Once again, I think tennis players everywhere should be grateful to him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J D View Post
[snip]
Greg Raven is offline   Reply With Quote