most of the time, strings importance is WAYYYYY overrated?

[Power Player]

Originally Posted by Rozroz

if that's true then it pretty much closes the case, doesn't it?

Not at all. People dont just use strings just because they feel good. They are looking for a predictable response that enhances their game. What if you prefer to play at a tension in the lower 50s since the trajectory is better for your strokes? Well in this case it will be a lot tougher to control a multi or syn gut in that situation.

Also, the spin and control from polyester is substantially better and this translates to more confident hitting on court. As we know, tennis is all about mental focus and executing under pressure.

So while you can definitely play with cheap syn gut, you will notice a rather big difference at the 4.5 level with poly even just in the mains. That difference will result in an improved on court performance for many players.

[pvaudio]

Originally Posted by Rozroz

ok, i get that.
so if you put feel and pleasure aside, there are NO RULES to a player's level (well up to 5.5 i would guess) VS strings, right ?
if that's true then it pretty much closes the case, doesn't it?

Correlation? Absolutely. You hit harder, you stress the strings more, they fail aka break sooner. Higher level players hit harder than beginners and do so more consistently. Now, there are many an exception to this rule including my coach when I was living in MA this summer. He is a 4.5-5.0 and used to coach D2 tennis, and would simply rely on anticipation and redirection to beat kids the age of his own kids. Played with a big stiff Wilson Surge 100 with 16g syn gut and didn't shred strings because he didn't need to. Hit flat forehands and only slice BHs. So yes, if you're looking for a correlation, then yes, a higher level player will pop strings quickly compared to a lower level one (shanking and poly aside). As an absolute rule, there is none.

[SVP]

Originally Posted by Rozroz

i don't think that at a 4.5 level you have to return a serve with too much string grinding. he just put his racquet and return a deep enough high ball for the opponent to have to shoot a good stroke from the baseline and then he's already ready to spot my shot. maybe you and many other hit a return with a lot of spin? i dunno.

RR, I think I agree with some of your points in this thread but the atrocious grammar is making it difficult for me to follow you.

[Rozroz]

Originally Posted by SVP

RR, I think I agree with some of your points in this thread but the atrocious grammar is making it difficult for me to follow you.

ooops, sorry for those. not my native language and some written via the phone.. have patience please
besides, it's not that atrocious! come one, there are far worse.

[sunof tennis]

Look. It may be superstition, but it seems that strings are important to the pros who are trying to make a living playing tennis. At the top level, most pros find a string combination that works for them and often stay with that combination for years. Then they switch racquets during a match at specific times to make sure they have the right tension.
Yes, a good player can play with just about any set of strings, just as a good player can play well with just about any racquet. They will generally play their best tennis with one racquet and one type of string(s).

[SVP]

Originally Posted by Rozroz

ooops, sorry for those. not my native language and some written via the phone.. have patience please
besides, it's not that atrocious! come [b][u]one[b], there are far worse.

Come "one?" C'mon, man! I'm agreeing with some of your points but I'm telling you, you weaken your position with the grammar.

[Rozroz]

Originally Posted by sunof tennis

Look. It may be superstition, but it seems that strings are important to the pros who are trying to make a living playing tennis. At the top level, most pros find a string combination that works for them and often stay with that combination for years. Then they switch racquets during a match at specific times to make sure they have the right tension.
Yes, a good player can play with just about any set of strings, just as a good player can play well with just about any racquet. They will generally play their best tennis with one racquet and one type of string(s).

obviously at a pro level every inch counts and so any subtle change in strings is noticeable.

but for the sake of the argument:
if i went and switched racquets with this partner of mine-
by the differences between us he'll STILL play around the same level and easily beat me-
because he has his stable game with or without fresh or quality strings and a decent stick, while i'll have more trouble adjusting and struggling.. no?

[Rozroz]

Originally Posted by SVP

Come "one?" C'mon, man! I'm agreeing with some of your points but I'm telling you, you weaken your position with the grammar.

hey, THIS ONE was a typo! don't be so harsh! don't mix up fast typing mistakes with grammar! i usually pay lots of attention to grammar with the limit of my English knowledge.. and what does this has to do with weakening my position?
you are way to strict. i read posts here written far worse than mine and never see you discipline them

[SVP]

Originally Posted by Rozroz

you are way to strict. i read posts here written far worse than mine and never see you discipline them

I don't remark about those other posts because those posts don't interest me, brother. You, on the other hand, have touched on an interesting topic to me (importance of strings) and so that's why I'm calling you on the grammar.

[Rozroz]

Originally Posted by SVP

I don't remark about those other posts because those posts don't interest me, brother. You, on the other hand, have touched on an interesting topic to me (importance of strings) and so that's why I'm calling you on the grammar.

oh, ok. in that case, i give you full authority
so can you please tell me the points that you do not agree with me regarding the strings topic?

[D-money]

I'm sure it's not important at all. I think I heard somewhere that the pros leave strings on for years at a time too.

[pvaudio]

Originally Posted by SVP

I don't remark about those other posts because those posts don't interest me, brother. You, on the other hand, have touched on an interesting topic to me (importance of strings) and so that's why I'm calling you on the grammar.

With all due respect, what the hell is your problem? His points are perfectly readable and make for good discussion. Native English-speaker grammar is not required.

[pvaudio]

Originally Posted by D-money

I'm sure it's not important at all. I think I heard somewhere that the pros leave strings on for years at a time too.

The only important part of this. Pros will have 6 sticks strung, hit with two, and have them all redone just the same so that they're all fresh for their match.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by pvaudio

The only important part of this. Pros will have 6 sticks strung, hit with two, and have them all redone just the same so that they're all fresh for their match.

Yeah not to be confrontational, but Robbie Konig the other day on the Masters coverage commented that the top doubles guys may bring 2 - 3 racquets to the court. I've also read that the "Lendl-method" (swapping frames every X number of games and restringing obsessively)is not employed by the majority of pros as they just plain don't want to spend the money on strings.

I've also talked to some professional stringers and all have indicated that restringing natural gut that hasn't been hit with is a waste. The reason the pros do it is because they a) either make too much money and don't care or b) get it free and don't care.

I do appreciate your point though.

At this point, I wish Drakulie would chime in.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Power Player

I actually did consider that and you didnt read what I wrote. I have been playing a long time, but thanks.

I read it. Still, if you thing the frequency of breaking strings equates to winning percentage, you have either played to narrow a circle or not long enough.

[SVP]

Originally Posted by pvaudio

With all due respect, what the hell is your problem? His points are perfectly readable and make for good discussion. Native English-speaker grammar is not required.

With all due respect, son, I never said native English speaking grammar was required; your native tongue can be from the Planet of Lost Airmen as far as I'm concerned, as long as you can communicate coherently now.

[Logic Dude]

Originally Posted by SVP

With all due respect, son, I never said native English speaking grammar was required; your native tongue can be from the Planet of Lost Airmen as far as I'm concerned, as long as you can communicate coherently now.

I am going to back Mr. PVaudio on this one. His posts were perfectly coherent. He was making for discussion, yet you are calling him out for arbitrary mistakes that have no influence on whether you can read the post or not. As a non-native speaker, I can personally attest to the difficulty in learning English. There is no reason to digress from the point just so you can act condescending towards someone.

[ChicagoJack]

Hi Rozroz,

Sorry for the long read, but jeezy creezy, you've opened a pretty big can of worms here! String matters a whole bunch. I have absolutely no doubt about that. It is the heart and soul of the racquet. But I think there's a bunch of overlapping and tangled up issues here. Let's unravel, then observe from there.

Argument/Position 1 : Strings don't matter much because : Really good players can beat you with anything.

- True, but that says more about ability level than it does equipment choice. This is, essentially, one version of the eternal Swordsman vs The Sword debate. I'd guesstimate there's somewhere between 1.67 and 2.22 Gazillion Jillion TW threads discussing some variant of this debate in some form or another. There is a YouTube video somewhere that shows Andy Roddick playing with a frying pan and beating (in a tie break) what looks to be a 3.0 tennis player. That video is often posted as the jewel in the crown of the pro-swordsman / anti racquet geek debaters. When I saw that video however, I didn't come to the conclusion that racquets don't matter. I did come to several other conclusions though. A - Andy Roddick is really good. B - That guy was really bad. C - I could probably beat Andy Roddick if he was using a frying pan.

- So.. there's a guy that consistently, and maddeningly beats you using Xyz string, or only strings once per year, or worse yet, seems not to care about equipment at all. Me thinks this has more to do with an obvious talent level gap than it does string choice, or re-string frequency.

Argument/Position 2 : Strings don't matter very much because : String material makes little difference.

- I don't know if that's part of this specific conversation here, but I think that anybody who insists there's no dif in playing characteristics btwn Gut, Zyex, Nylon, Poly, or Kevlar, is just plain wrong. The only way you'd say that is from lack of honest inquiry.

- The magic fairy dust to sprinkle on your racquet in order to beat your nemesis is matching the string characteristics to your game, your stroke, your tactics. I suspect most of us already understand this at some level, and if you don't already suspect this, then I've got to ask the question, what the heck are you doing hanging out in a string forum? Go outside, play. Have fun, enjoy your game.

- You can even see the Pros doing some magic fairy dust sprinkling of their own, there are clear trends. It's no accident that the current ATP doubles points leaders, ranked 1-7 all use Gut mains poly crosses. It's no accident that as the game has evolved from 65 sq in woodies to 100 sq in Babolat PD's, full beds of Poly have reigned supreme on the singles pro tour with something like 70 out of every 100 choosing that flavor of string bed. For those of us who understand string basics, these observable trends make perfect sense, and there is quite a bit of matching strokes to racquets to string characteristics going on out there.

- So the art is matching string material characteristics to the player, the racquet, the game, the stroke. It is hard work, and requires quite a bit of time, effort and money to figure out. Nothing good comes easy. The folks that claim there is no difference are most likely the folks who are poo poo - ing an arduous process, and have not done the work.

3. Argument/Position 3 : Strings make very little difference because: Frequency of re-stringing makes very little difference. That's actually a very interesting topic, which involves a pretty nuanced answer. I'll save that for another day. This post is already so long that nobody will read it LOL.

- Hope this helps, Jack

[pvaudio]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

Yeah not to be confrontational, but Robbie Konig the other day on the Masters coverage commented that the top doubles guys may bring 2 - 3 racquets to the court. I've also read that the "Lendl-method" (swapping frames every X number of games and restringing obsessively)is not employed by the majority of pros as they just plain don't want to spend the money on strings.

I've also talked to some professional stringers and all have indicated that restringing natural gut that hasn't been hit with is a waste. The reason the pros do it is because they a) either make too much money and don't care or b) get it free and don't care.

I do appreciate your point though.

At this point, I wish Drakulie would chime in.

Oh no, I did not say that this is a rule of thumb or that most do this. I'm just saying that the comment about pros using strings for a year likely is not true when many restring the same day having not even used the racquet.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by SVP

With all due respect, son, I never said native English speaking grammar was required; your native tongue can be from the Planet of Lost Airmen as far as I'm concerned, as long as you can communicate coherently now.

Not cool....