View Single Post
Old 07-09-2006, 08:09 AM   #19
J D
Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven
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.
Greg, not to try and bust your chops, but I don't see any difference between, "player differences" and "your mileage may vary."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven
I don't know of any field of endeavor where the first try was the best and ultimate expression of that field's potential.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven
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'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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven
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.
I also applaud his efforts. Where I condemn him is in presenting his results to the public as being accurate when he knows they are, to varying degrees, incomplete and flawed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven
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.
Like I said, all you have to do is read the boards to see the patterns. I use a Pure Drive Plus, but I couldn't use it if I played every day. It is tough on the elbow and really tough on the wrist. If you read the boards, I think you'll find about twice as many complaints about elbow and wrist problems with the Pure Drive as with all other frames COMBINED.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven
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.
Look at the RR rankings for weak players. Racquet Research has the PD listed at 51st out of 167 frames. Is that not in the top third? The Dunlop is listed at 113. Is that not the bottom third of 167? (Actually, I am a math and physics teacher so I'm being a little sarcastic here)

BTW, I've also used the Dunlop and know it is a very arm friendly frame. Yet, he has it ranked over 20 places lower than the Wilson Hammer HH 5.2, which was another notorious arm eater, perhaps the worst of the popular frames of the time. And, yes, I have hit with the 5.2 several times and it was horrible for the elbow. If you read the boards from 2002, you would know that my experiences are not in any way unique.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Raven
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.
Since you have inside knowledge of his situation, I will take your word for it. Still, his circumstances do not excuse him leaving his results posted in their current form, as an accurate source of arm safety information when, in fact, even he knows they are not.
J D is offline   Reply With Quote