View Single Post
Old 07-07-2006, 06:16 PM   #18
Greg Raven
Greg Raven's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Apple Valley, CA
Posts: 618
Send a message via AIM to Greg Raven

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.

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.

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.

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.

As for the relative ratings of the Babolat Pure Drive and Dunlop 200G 95 (Muscle Weave?), I note you produce no support for your all-but-unspoken implication that the PD is an "uncomfortable" racquet while the 200G is a "comfortable" racquet. I've never used a PD -- I'm not a PD kind of guy. However, I played with the 200G for a year or so, and found it pretty comfortable, very much along the lines of the Wilson Hyper Pro Staff ROK that I subsequently used for years (which ranks as being less "comfortable" than the Dunlop). I'm currently using a racquet that calculates out to 4837 (Yonex RDX 500 HD) with no problems, but I also spent last week playing with a racquet rated 5458, and it DID give me problems, even though I played great when using it.

Your comments about a racquet's position in a certain "third" of the ratings therefore doesn't make much sense to me, especially considering that the Pure Drive calculates out to 4654, and the 200G to 4705, putting each of them solidly in the center "third" of the ratings, which range from 2537 to 7323.

Finally, however, I stand on my point that Wilmot did not stop updating the Racquet Research site because of incomplete and/or inaccurate formulations, for the reason already mentioned in a previous post.
Greg Raven is offline   Reply With Quote