View Single Post
Old 01-23-2006, 11:50 AM   #14
MackSamuelHustovisics
Rookie
 
MackSamuelHustovisics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 254
Default

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.
MackSamuelHustovisics is offline   Reply With Quote