View Single Post
Old 01-22-2006, 08:37 PM   #10
MackSamuelHustovisics
Rookie
 
MackSamuelHustovisics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 254
Default

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.
MackSamuelHustovisics is offline   Reply With Quote