View Single Post
Old 02-05-2008, 12:55 AM   #34
Deuce
Banned
 
Deuce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A not so parallel universe...
Posts: 5,270
Default

I know that Greg's replies were not wriiten for me, but I have never seen any practical use for Wilmot's work, and so I'm going to comment...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven View Post
Your points are well taken, but we must start somewhere. I have purchased and used several racquets based on Wilmot's calculations, and found each of them to be comfortable, so I'm more inclined to view them favorably.
And there are no doubt many people who have purchased racquets based on Wilmot's calculations and conclusions who have found that those racquets are terrible for them in terms of comfort, pain, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven View Post
Also, you have misunderstood my warning against using the results as absolutes. You wrote, "You attribute inaccurate results to player differences." This is not correct. The results are the results. If they are inaccurate, in has nothing to do with players or player differences. What I am trying to say, in essence, is that your mileage may vary, so to speak.
Well, if Wilmot's conclusions cannot be taken at absolute value, then, frankly, of what use are they, and how would a given individual possibly know which portions of his conclusions apply to him/her?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven View Post
I don't know of any field of endeavor where the first try was the best and ultimate expression of that field's potential. There may be a load of anecdotal evidence that this racquet doesn't work for that person even though it is rated highly for comfort. However, no amount of anecdotal evidence will ever get us anywhere.
And conclusions which don't apply to everyone across the board, and for which no formula for compensation is given are of little value.
How is a given individual to find out if Wilmot's calculations apply to him/her or not? The only way is to try for oneself - and one can certainly do that on one's own, without consulting Wilmot's conclusions. Ergo, of what practical use are Wilmot's conclusions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven View Post
The next step -- IMHO -- for those who feel that Wilmot's calculations are not accurate, not well thought-out, and/or don't include this factor or that, is to come up with another model that better explains the human/racquet interface. I acknowledge that the interactions are non-trivial, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to quantify them, and I applaud Wilmot for attempting such a daunting (and thankless) task with such rigor.
No - I believe the next logical step is not to reach further into irrelevant oblivion, but to readily admit that there is no formula on Earth which will provide a universal answer for all individuals - simply because there are far too many variables involved (different weights/balances, different strings/tensions, different players, playing styles, etc.).
Human beings are different. We are not machines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven View Post
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.
Yes, of course - and this is precisely why Wilmot's conclusions are essentially useless - because there is no way for one to know if his conclusions apply to him/her or not until one actually tries the racquet. Therefore, Wilmot's calculations and conclusions have served absolutely no purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven View Post
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.
If Wilmot's work does not include every factor and element and variable, then it is obviously not complete. And if it is not complete, but is presented as a conclusion, then it is flawed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven View Post
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.
I disagree.
What is the practical value of his work for the average tennis player? I don't see any. It's still a guessing game as to what racquets will cause pain in a given individual, and which ones won't.

I think Wilmot had very good intentions - but he tackled a project in which failure was imminent. Success is simply not possible - because there is no universal law about which racquets will cause pain for which individuals.
And if his work cannot be presented as an absolute, then of what value is it?
If, at the end of the day, Wilmot must warn "This may or may not apply to you", then how is that different than making a wild guess as to which racquets will cause a given individual pain and which ones won't?
Deuce is offline   Reply With Quote