In defense of Babolat and the "Modern Game"....

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

^^ Hi ElZed,

Whew, (wasn't quite sure where this was going there for a minute) That sounds super awesome! I look forward to it. I will be back for sure within next couple of days.

-Jack

Well I hope I didn't sound THAT heavy-handed.

[pshulam]

So, in terms of the motive of my OP - made months ago - I stand by the premise in that the APDgt (and Babolats) are unnecessarily derided on this forum. There are many sticks that are much worse. I stand by the points that I made, although appreciate the importance of feel a bit more now that I did then (where performance was the end-all/be-all).

There are tons of fans for the APD in this forum. The APD definitely performs well for today's games, providing plenty of power, spin access, and sweat spot. In terms of comfort and precision, my preference is the PT280.

[rst]

i developed elbow issues way back in the early 1990s with an old prince racket...various lifting jobs complicated it.

i expectother people were having elbow problems back then too without babolat.

i think some people are just more prone to elbow issues than others.

i dont think that a modern game needs defending in any way.

i have hit witha dunlop2004dtour...heavy and powerful. my forehands were faster and i could swing form corner to corner pretty well but my backhand lagged.
with my donnay xdual silver lite at a looser at 50 lbs i hit with a slower pace but i have found better overall spot hitting and a little better defense.

if babolats work for many at whatever weight or stifnes sthey happen to be at why keep making threads for a racket you cant or dont like??

[Rock Strongo]

Originally Posted by pshulam

Just image if you play with a much stiffer racquet.

I did that too, and it didn't feel that bad.

May sound oxymoronic, but that's how it is. But then it was heavied up to the ears so the weight absorbed the shock.

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by El Zed

..So long story short - I would love to legitimately learn more. I don't, however, want to be deluged by BS perspective that is not borne out of actual scientific fact or actual, notable experience with any of the sticks discussed - not saying that you are doing this at all (on the contrary, you seem rather informed or at least make reasonable deductions). So, yes, let's learn.

Yeah cool man, awesome. Racquet power seems to be at the heart of the conversation and that's of my favorite things to ponder. I hope we might trade some ideas in a gracious way, and have a little fun, with nothing to prove or disprove. There wont be anything to defend, because I wont be attacking anything. Just two guys talking about racquets, no big whups. A few posts back you said something I very much agree with. Maybe we could start right there.

Originally Posted by El Zed

I completely appreciate that some people "gel" better with certain racquets than others - but for me, why would I not consider the APDGT superior to a PC600/PT630 if I can get similar control and +5/10 mph with the former? I guess my ultimate goal was to maximize controlled power. I presumed (apparently incorrectly) that this was the primary goal of other players. I accept the preference of some for "feel," and the subjective nature of defining feel. But that being said, I believe lost in the whole "Babolat" bashing on this board is exactly what you just brought up - the immense potential of this stick once utilized correctly. Thus, it's apparently a question of risk/reward and what racquet has the most potential upside. After all, isn't this the whole appeal of a player's stick - the inherent belief that a racquet is capable of delivering superlative performance if one's ability is to that level? At a slightly reduced weight of 11.3 oz unstrung, the APDGT is further similar to a pro stock in that it affords some room for leading-up.

The Central Issue, Risk Vs Reward : Yes, I agree 100 percent! I also see this as a risk/reward scenario. For you, however, it appears to boil down Racquet Power Vs Feel, but for many of us I think it boils down to Racquet Power Vs Arm Safety. If the reward is very large, say a 5-10 MPH bump in ball speed, and the risk is very low, then you'd be foolish to ignore the free boost in performance if it is there for the taking. However, if the rewards are simply an increase of a few MPH's at the most, fractional on average, and the risk to arm safety is very high, then that would be a whole nuther bag of chips. I think there is a similar thought process here in the following quote:

Originally Posted by El Zed

I accept the "feel" argument - frankly, that's why I've gone back to the PT280s. But I don't accept your argument of... well it's a small increase in speed/power, so it doesn't matter. If you were a professional, and you could increase velocity by 1/10th of a mph with no adverse effect, you would.

And that's just it. Most players are guessing about the additional benefit a powerful racquet will provide. Is it 10 MPH? or is it .1 MPH? If we are going to choose sides on the Power Vs Feel issue, it would be a very good idea to get a handle on that first. I'd like to put aside the subject of feel or arm safety for now, and focus on the first half of the risk/reward choice. Again, I wont be attacking anything, just laying the basics out on the table for conversation.

-Jack

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by El Zed

..So long story short - I would love to legitimately learn more. I don't, however, want to be deluged by BS perspective that is not borne out of actual scientific fact or actual, notable experience with any of the sticks discussed - not saying that you are doing this at all (on the contrary, you seem rather informed or at least make reasonable deductions). So, yes, let's learn.

Racquet Power: Anybody who has decided to dig down even a few inches into this pretty deep topic has probably come up with a shovel full of some widely accepted concepts pretty quickly. I'm not saying anything original here, not attacking, defending or presenting any unique insights. I'm just putting the basics out on the table for consideration and conversation. Feel free to point out any points of agreement or disagreement.

1. Ball velocity is the measurable indicator of racquet power. On the court, ball velocity is typically measured with a radar gun and expressed as MPH or KPH. In laboratory conditions we might also measure film frames or measure bounce heights.

2. All things being equal : A higher swingweight frame has more power. This assumes the swingspeed does not drop, which is easier said than done. [1][2][3][5][6]

3. Racquet power is almost directly related to swingweight. It is the single most predictable indicator of racquet power when attempting to distinguish inherent power levels between different types of racquets. [2][6]

4. In general : a stiffer frame is more powerful than a flexible one. However, a flexible frame is just as powerful as a stiff frame when you hit the center of the strings. Stiffer frames have slightly more power when the ball is struck hit near the tip of the racquet. [1][2][5][6]

5. All things being equal : A racquet with a bigger head has more power. If the string tension remains constant, the longer strings creates a softer string bed overall. A softer string bed creates a more powerful racquet. There are limits to this however, as you cannot play tennis with a butterfly net. [1][6]

6. All things being equal: A racquet with a wider head will have more twistweight. This creates more power on balls that miss the sweet spot near the sides of the frame.[5][6] For additional insight on wide heads and spin, see link [4]

7. If you add length to an existing frame, swingweight increases dramatically, and with it so does power. However, since added length dramatically reduces manuververability, racquet companies typically factor that into the equation by lowering the balance point, which creates fewer units of swingweight per overall weight, in mass produced extended length frames.[1][2][6]

Awesome Quote #1: " Why would anyone care how well a ball bounces off a racquet that is not being swung at the ball? The answer is that the power built into the racquet needs to be carefully distinguished from the power that a player can get out of it. When a player talks about racquet power, he usually has in mind the power that is built into the racquet by the manufacturer using whatever technical tricks it can come up with, such as an improved string suspension system or some clever way of constructing the frame. When a manufacturer designs a new racquet, it might take an existing frame, modify it in some way, and end up with a racquet that it hope will be a better, perhaps more powerful version of the original. How would one test the racquet to see if it is more powerful or not? The obvious way would be to serve a ball at a fixed racquet speed and use a radar gun to see if the ball is served any faster with the modified racquet. If it is, then the modified racquet is indeed more powerful. A simpler test is to fire a ball at a stationary, freely-suspended or hand-held racquet and see if the ball bounces off the racquet any faster. This test is simpler because it is easier to measure the speed of a ball than to measure the speed of a racquet. A problem with measuring racquet speed is that different parts of the racquet travel at different speeds. Another problem is ensuring that the racquet is swung at the same speed each time. In fact, both tests are entirely equivalent and yield the same answer. In a stationary racquet test, one measures the speed of the incoming ball and the speed of the outgoing ball. The ratio of these two speeds (speed out/speed in) is rebound power (RP). It is a number that doesn’t involve the player or his ability to swing the racquet. The RP is a measure of the power built into the racquet. In general, heavy racquets have a bigger RP than light racquets, so an increase in RP without an increase in racquet weight is an indication that the manufacturer has come up with an improved, more powerful design. -- Rod Cross, Raw Racquet Power, Link [2] Similar lab test results can also be found here at TW. See link [5]

Quote 2: " Figure 2 shows RP (Rebound Power) vs. swingweight for all racquets. The result is simply amazing. Instead of having the 268 dots scattered all over the place, the dots line up perfectly along four different curved lines. The four curves correspond to different racquet lengths. All racquets of the same length lie on the same curve, with short racquets having a bigger RP than long racquets. The result in Figure 2 shows that any two racquets of the same length and the same swingweight will have exactly the same RP, regardless of their weights and regardless of their balance points. The inbuilt power of a racquet in the middle of the strings therefore depends only on the length and swingweight of the racquet, and on nothing else."
-- Rod Cross, Raw Racquet Power, Link [2]

Quote 3: "Racquet stiffness has no effect on power when the ball is struck in the middle of the strings, but stiff racquets are more powerful when the ball is struck nearer the tip of the racquet"
-- Rod Cross, Chapter 14, Racquet Power, The Physics And Technology Of Tennis. Link [6]

References:

Link [1] Basic Facts about Frames and Strings, The United States Racquet Stringers Association
http://www.racquettech.com/top/basic_facts.html
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/lc/basicfacts.html

Link [2] Raw Racquet Power, By Rod Cross
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com...uet_power.html

Link [3] Racquet Handle Weighting And Maneuverablility, by Rod Cross
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com...ing_and_m.html

Link [4] The Inch That Changed Tennis Forever, By Rod Cross
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com..._tennis_f.html

Link [5] Racquet Power Comparison Tool
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...mparepower.cgi

Link [6] The Physics And Technology Of Tennis
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/The_...e-PHYSICS.html

- Jack

[marosmith]

First off- I have PT57a's. These are super soft "feel" oriented rackets.

They have tons of power the way I have distributed the weight, further they are extremely whippy and polarized and generate loads of spin. Much more spin than my friends who use modern rackets could generate for me (I test hit nearly every racket I get my hands on which is in the range of 30-40 I suspect).

As to power, I string a low/mid tension gut mains and poly hybrid. This not only encourages loads of spin but also a ton of power. Yes the sweet spot is still smaller than an APD but in terms of feel, response, comfort, precision it is 100% superior than any off the shelf Bab and further spin and power are very comparable.

Of course people can get a Bab to work just fine, but the number of old dudes with torn up elbows and shoulders is anecdotal proof they are over-used or used improperly and that's why they have developed a negative reputation and I believe it's well deserved.

Tennis coaches and the folks at tennis shops I believe should educate people on the negatives and positives of rackets but most don't and people end up with rackets and strings that don't fit their playing style and that do physical damage to their hitting arm / shoulder and I believe Babolat should only be recommended to many rec players with that understanding and with a surgeon general warning posted on the retail packaging.

[marosmith]

Originally Posted by RackofSlamb

The geriatrics are in full force on this thread. Its' fine. Keep using outdated technology and let everyone else evolve. People also update their golf clubs, and don't use leather football helmets and have more durable running shoes. Change your diapers and let people use what they want to use.

That's the most ignorant opinion in this thread and exhibits something beyond stupidity, fueled by anger, maybe hatred for your your parents, authority, god?

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Yeah cool man, awesome. Racquet power seems to be at the heart of the conversation and that's of my favorite things to ponder. I hope we might trade some ideas in a gracious way, and have a little fun, with nothing to prove or disprove. There wont be anything to defend, because I wont be attacking anything. Just two guys talking about racquets, no big whups. A few posts back you said something I very much agree with. Maybe we could start right there.



The Central Issue, Risk Vs Reward : Yes, I agree 100 percent! I also see this as a risk/reward scenario. For you, however, it appears to boil down Racquet Power Vs Feel, but for many of us I think it boils down to Racquet Power Vs Arm Safety. If the reward is very large, say a 5-10 MPH bump in ball speed, and the risk is very low, then you'd be foolish to ignore the free boost in performance if it is there for the taking. However, if the rewards are simply an increase of a few MPH's at the most, fractional on average, and the risk to arm safety is very high, then that would be a whole nuther bag of chips. I think there is a similar thought process here in the following quote:



And that's just it. Most players are guessing about the additional benefit a powerful racquet will provide. Is it 10 MPH? or is it .1 MPH? If we are going to choose sides on the Power Vs Feel issue, it would be a very good idea to get a handle on that first. I'd like to put aside the subject of feel or arm safety for now, and focus on the first half of the risk/reward choice. Again, I wont be attacking anything, just laying the basics out on the table for conversation.

-Jack

Hey, man, sorry for the delayed response - worked throughout the weekend prep'ing for a trial....

In regards to your first point, you are absolutely right - I don't and haven't factored in "arm safety" into my consideration. Frankly, I am under the assumption (through personal observations during play and viewing some of the youtube postings of forum members) that a fair number of people have a more traditional stroke and apply it constantly - whether using a pro staff, a pure drive or an apd gt (etc., etc.). This is fine as a general matter, but for me, the APD gt comes into it's own only when utilizing a western grip and windshield wiper stroke (while taking a full stroke). Any alteration, from my experience, has resulted in either a decrease in power, spin, accuracy or even all of the aforementioned. I may be mistaken, but I do attribute these claims of arm issues with those types of players who insist upon using a more standard grip with a more "classical" stroke. Could be mistaken on this, but I'm secure in this position to where I've largely disregarded talk of arm issues with this racquet as it hasn't manifested for me despite substantial time with it.

As to your second point, I have to again make mention that my position is based purely on observation - not hard science. For all of the positives on the size of the PT280/630s (also, to me they are the same) I still feel that the APD gt gives you added pace - noticeable pace at that. Is it closer to a .1 mph increase or 10 mph, I don't know for sure - but it is a palpable difference. To be certain, the PTs provide better sound and feel at impact - the impression that you're really thumping the ball. So, if you take the position that the aesthetic qualities of the racquet may shroud perception, then surely this would cut in favour of the PTs - but it doesn't. Love the APD gts for the pace of shots, and the PTs for EVERYTHING else.

I asked this previously in a separate thread (where LeeD offered some interesting insight) - to me, the PTs offer a much, much heavier ball with greater spin. This perspective is borne not only from observing the post-bounce angles taken, but by also simply taking shots into the air and allowing the balls to drop into the hand. Remember, I weight both my racquets to almost 13 oz. with comparable balance points. I want to say that its due to the difference in flex, but that would totally throw off the modern perspective that stiffness aids spin...

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by marosmith

First off- I have PT57a's. These are super soft "feel" oriented rackets.

They have tons of power the way I have distributed the weight, further they are extremely whippy and polarized and generate loads of spin. Much more spin than my friends who use modern rackets could generate for me (I test hit nearly every racket I get my hands on which is in the range of 30-40 I suspect).

As to power, I string a low/mid tension gut mains and poly hybrid. This not only encourages loads of spin but also a ton of power. Yes the sweet spot is still smaller than an APD but in terms of feel, response, comfort, precision it is 100% superior than any off the shelf Bab and further spin and power are very comparable.

Of course people can get a Bab to work just fine, but the number of old dudes with torn up elbows and shoulders is anecdotal proof they are over-used or used improperly and that's why they have developed a negative reputation and I believe it's well deserved.

Tennis coaches and the folks at tennis shops I believe should educate people on the negatives and positives of rackets but most don't and people end up with rackets and strings that don't fit their playing style and that do physical damage to their hitting arm / shoulder and I believe Babolat should only be recommended to many rec players with that understanding and with a surgeon general warning posted on the retail packaging.

See your observations largely mirror mine. I have played with PT57As previously, and feel that the Pro Tours are close (enough proxy) when both are similarly weighted. These racquets simply provide easy access to spin, and resulting produce a very, very heavy ball. Further, these racquets indeed have a great amount of pop with a sweet spot that is generous before application of lead and then ridiculously afterwards. But are you sincerely saying that you are getting as much pop from the PT57A (in 18x20 presumptively) as a Pure Drive or APD gt? I know you said comparable, which to me indicates that it's not quite at that level, but more than makes up for it in other ways (which I don't necessarily disagree with).

That being said, I have to disagree with a few of your points. First, while your spot on that a lot of people employ their traditional "style" to the Babs, therefore giving rise to arm issues, I don't undertand why the Bab's resulting negative reputation is well deserved. A racquet is but a tool, and it's up to the user how that tool will be used. If you hit flat, I can't think of too many racquets worse that the Bab; and if you hit with a WW stroke and western grip, I can't think of many better. Improper use of a tool is user error, as it would be to use an old wooden racquet and to expect to be effective in a "modern" topspin game (I know, Sampras used a woodie at an exhibition.... yada, yada... I'm sure he could've also used a ping pong paddle; we're not at that level so this is a non-sequitor).

[eliza]

Never understood those negative feelings towards Babolat. I just tell my friends: "try one".

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by eliza

Never understood those negative feelings towards Babolat. I just tell my friends: "try one".

Honestly, the "feel" does leave much to be desired for - unless you attempt to lead up and/or implement silicone/putty. Even then it still doesn't feel quite there relative to the classics. But, nonetheless, they do appear to have an extra-gear (the extent of which we are attempting to debate). But you're right, they should be tried.

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by OHBH

Babalots are mostly cheap and stiff, and they do not give you any more power than a lot of players sticks. Tennis warehouse has already done the homework for you. http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...ry_compare.cgi Now select a wilson prostaff 6.0 85 vs a APDGT and you will see that because of the greater mass the prostaff actually has a greater power potential than its so-called "modern" replacement. Even the pacific x feel pro 90 vacuum rates better in this regard.

Originally Posted by El Zed

If you were a professional, and you could increase velocity by 1/10th of a mph with no adverse effect, you would. Before you claim that no such difference exists, which I don't believe you will, I'll draw your attention to TW's own power level comparison utility...

Hi All,

No worries about delayed replies El Zed, I'm squeezing this bit of fun stuff into the pressures of my everyday life as well. Interesting that both camps appear to be making use of the TW racquet power comparison utility to illustrate opposing view points! Lies, damn lies, and statistics! (giggle).

Whenever the topic of racquet power comes up, inevitably somebody will mention one of the hefty old classics for comparison sake. OHBH mentioned the Wilson PS 6.0 85 a few pages back. The racquets of yesteryear make for interesting comparison. Yup, heavier rackets are more powerful. Not terribly surprising. We all know that heavy stuff packs more of a punch if you can swing it fast. We've known this intuitively for centuries. The ancient Norsemen were likely having this same debate about weight vs maneuverability, vs power over a campfire, a turkey leg, and a goblet of home brew in 800 AD. It's absolutely no accident the Vikings wielded broadswords that were 28-39 inches in length, averaged 2.5 pounds, and were heavily tail weighted.

What you will notice with the comparison show below is the power digits, collected at various points on the racquet face (using real racquets and real balls, not theoretical equations) are pretty consistent with all the points I listed on post #126.

1. The stiffness of the AeroPro gives it 1 percent more power right at the tip, compared to the PS 6.0 85 Wilson.

2. However, in every other location, the more flexible, higher SW frames have more power. If you add enough swing weight, as in the case of the 377 SW Boris Becker11 Special Edition, even a super flexy frame can have more power at the tip than a stiff frame.

3. This comparison is a great place to start, because it hints at the contribution both flex and SW to racquet power. SW makes a huge difference, and flex makes a little difference, but only right at the tip.

4. However, most of us will look at those four choices, and opt for the Aeropro. The others, while effective at proving a point on a debate podium, are not likely going to be the weapons of choice. The smaller heads of the two Wilson's are are just as intimidating as the super high SW of the Boris Becker 11 SE.



Direct Link for those of you on mobile devices or small screens:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...on:98|RCVOLKL|

- Jack

[ChicagoJack]

The good news? It is not 1987. It is the year 2013. There are quite a few racquet companies who are at least attempting to make racquets that are both powerful and comfortable. A comparison of modern frames of similar swingweights shows a whole nuther can of worms althogether. Full disclosure here. No accident I chose the Radical Pro, and Donnay Pro One to illustrate this point. This is not a random sampling. These are frames I know pretty well, and from my experience at least, are above average examples of comfort and power, while sacrificing neither.

1. The HEAD Radical Pro has 1% less power at the very tip, compared to the Aeropro, because it is more flexible. But it's basically a wash everywhere else.

2. The Donnay Pro actually has more power at the tip, pretty even if not a bit higher everywhere else, even though it is both more flexible, and lower swingweight. It has no business pulling these numbers, but it does. Perhaps it has something to do with the solid core construction.

3. And the massive 377 SW Boris Becker 11 Special Edition is listed there just in case anybody had any doubts about SW making the largest contribution to racquet power.

4. Unlike the first comparison I showed, this is actually quite surprising. Bit of history here. Before we started firing real balls at real racquets, the brightest minds in all of tennis physics came up with a formula to estimate racquet power. They assigned a value to stiffness, swing weight, flex, and length, assigned a power number, then these digits were published at the United States Racquet Stringers Association database. From looking at that list, you'd conclude that stiffness is a very big deal. For a very long time, that educated guess was the best we had. In the link below you can see how (in 2005) I answered questions about racquet power using some of those estimates.http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=79904

5. However, when we started firing real balls at real racquets and measuring rebound velocity, the results were shocking, and the old estimate formulas were thrown out the window pretty quickly. Here is a quote from Rod Cross speaking directly of that moment of astonishment I'm describing: Quote: " Figure 2 shows RP (Rebound Power) vs. swingweight for all racquets. The result is simply amazing. Instead of having the 268 dots scattered all over the place, the dots line up perfectly along four different curved lines. The four curves correspond to different racquet lengths. All racquets of the same length lie on the same curve, with short racquets having a bigger RP than long racquets. The result in Figure 2 shows that any two racquets of the same length and the same swingweight will have exactly the same RP, regardless of their weights and regardless of their balance points. The inbuilt power of a racquet in the middle of the strings therefore depends only on the length and swingweight of the racquet, and on nothing else." -- Rod Cross, Raw Racquet Power, Link [2]

Translation : What Mr. Cross is saying there, is that if stiffness played a huge factor in racquet power, what you would see is a gradual rise in power as SW increases, but that the gradual rise would look more like a stock market chart, with peaks and valleys punctuating the power levels btwn stiff frames, and flexible frames. But the results don't look anything like that. The results show a nearly perfect relationship, a perfectly smooth arc because nothing else really matters near the center of the frame.

Link [2] Raw Racquet Power, By Rod Cross
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com...uet_power.html

Nutshell: From this perspective, it's not so much a matter of making a gut wrenchingly difficult choice between Power vs Comfort, with a huge sacrifice at either end. It is more a matter of finding a racquet that feels good to hit with, within a specific swingweight/power range that suits your game.

[..]



Jack

[ChicagoJack]

Every racquet that has ever been made has a dead spot right near the tip. You don't need to believe me, or the comparison digits I posted. Try this test at home.

1. Place your racquet over the edge of a table, pressing firmly on the grip, with the remainder of the length beyond the grip floating freely. Drop a tennis ball onto various locations on the string bed and notice the bounce heights.

2. In the center of the strings, the ball bounces pretty well.

3. Just below center, the ball bounces a little bit higher.

4. There is a spot right near the tip, on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd cross strings down, where the ball just does not want to bounce at all. Complete dudsville. Stiffer frames flex less, so they offer incrementally more power at the very top of the hoop.

The dead spot is one of the key distinctions to get clear about. Without it, nothing about racquet power makes much sense.

We still have not yet looked at the question of whether this all implies a .1 MPH differences in ball velocity, or 10 MPH difs in ball velocity. But we at least have things in percentages, and have clear distinctions about swingweights and impact locations. That's enough to chew on for now.

-Jack

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Every racquet that has ever been made has a dead spot right near the tip. You don't need to believe me, or the comparison digits I posted. Try this test at home.

1. Place your racquet over the edge of a table, pressing firmly on the grip, with the remainder of the length beyond the grip floating freely. Drop a tennis ball onto various locations on the string bed and notice the bounce heights.

2. In the center of the strings, the ball bounces pretty well.

3. Just below center, the ball bounces a little bit higher.

4. There is a spot right near the tip, on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd cross strings down, where the ball just does not want to bounce at all. Complete dudsville. Stiffer frames flex less, so they offer incrementally more power at the very top of the hoop.

The dead spot is one of the key distinctions to get clear about. Without it, nothing about racquet power makes much sense.

We still have not yet looked at the question of whether this all implies a .1 MPH differences in ball velocity, or 10 MPH difs in ball velocity. But we at least have things in percentages, and have clear distinctions about swingweights and impact locations. That's enough to chew on for now.

-Jack

Jack, very interesting points indeed. Your effort deserves a more thoughtful response, so apologies if the following appears to be little more than ramble. Will review and consider your posts further.

First, it appears as though we are in agreement that there is indeed a difference in power between various frames. Apologies if mistaken, but I thought you took the contrary position that different racquets do not make much of a difference. I guess we can both agree, that (some) differences do quantitatively exist.

This leads me back to my original post in comparing Babolats to the classics, not to other modern competitors. It's interesting that the Tom's Machine (a relative proxy for the PT280) has peak number of 39.7% whereas the APD gt has a 39.3% I guess it's fairly safe to say that once the APD gt is weighted up to the Pro Tours, it should have a higher peak power number (particular given its stiffness)?


Alas, it doesn't really matter much anymore as I sold my last Babolat recently!

[RollTrackTake]

this thread is entertaining to say the least! A few questions. How much does it really matter in the xequipment=performance equation? I'm reading about powerzone maps, spin windows, nanotubes, etc... but isn't the main ingredient mostly come down to the users skill/technique? How much does one less main string or a few points of stiffness really matter? I see a ton of junior players in my area whipping APDGT's around with pinpoint accuracy. I see older 4.5/5.0 players pounding winners with Pro Staff 85's with the same results. So why is one any better than the other?

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by RollTrackTake

this thread is entertaining to say the least! A few questions. How much does it really matter in the xequipment=performance equation? I'm reading about powerzone maps, spin windows, nanotubes, etc... but isn't the main ingredient mostly come down to the users skill/technique? How much does one less main string or a few points of stiffness really matter? I see a ton of junior players in my area whipping APDGT's around with pinpoint accuracy. I see older 4.5/5.0 players pounding winners with Pro Staff 85's with the same results. So why is one any better than the other?

Hi RollTrakTake

"Entertaining", Yeah man... that's code for I'm not sure if this is a bunch or BS or not! (giggle) Your inference is a familiar one. It's the age old "It's not the sword it's the swordsman" "It's not the bow, it's the archer." Yes I get it. One of my doubles partners played #3 Singles for U of Illinois, and went on to play Futures and Challengers. We still practice together, and although I've had set points, I've never once even taken a set from him in 10 years. He beats me even after teaching for 5 hours straight no matter what racquet he plays with. He has no idea what the SW of his racquet is, and really doesn't care. While anecdotal stories like that hint at the level of the incremental advantage any racquet can provide, they have got nothing to do with the inherent racquet power that is separate and distinct from the skill level that the player brings to it. I will re-post a quote that speaks to this directly:

Awesome Quote #1: " Why would anyone care how well a ball bounces off a racquet that is not being swung at the ball? The answer is that the power built into the racquet needs to be carefully distinguished from the power that a player can get out of it. When a player talks about racquet power, he usually has in mind the power that is built into the racquet by the manufacturer using whatever technical tricks it can come up with, such as an improved string suspension system or some clever way of constructing the frame. When a manufacturer designs a new racquet, it might take an existing frame, modify it in some way, and end up with a racquet that it hope will be a better, perhaps more powerful version of the original. How would one test the racquet to see if it is more powerful or not? The obvious way would be to serve a ball at a fixed racquet speed and use a radar gun to see if the ball is served any faster with the modified racquet. If it is, then the modified racquet is indeed more powerful. A simpler test is to fire a ball at a stationary, freely-suspended or hand-held racquet and see if the ball bounces off the racquet any faster. This test is simpler because it is easier to measure the speed of a ball than to measure the speed of a racquet. A problem with measuring racquet speed is that different parts of the racquet travel at different speeds. Another problem is ensuring that the racquet is swung at the same speed each time. In fact, both tests are entirely equivalent and yield the same answer. In a stationary racquet test, one measures the speed of the incoming ball and the speed of the outgoing ball. The ratio of these two speeds (speed out/speed in) is rebound power (RP). It is a number that doesn’t involve the player or his ability to swing the racquet. The RP is a measure of the power built into the racquet. In general, heavy racquets have a bigger RP than light racquets, so an increase in RP without an increase in racquet weight is an indication that the manufacturer has come up with an improved, more powerful design. -- Rod Cross, Raw Racquet Power, Link [2] Similar lab test results can also be found here at TW. See link [5]

What Mr. Cross is talking about there is ball on racquet impacts that are separate and distinct from the player. Tennis players are a feisty lot however, and we get pretty snippy when you start talking about racquet power and toss out a bunch of digits and lab tests that have got nothing to do with them. However, If you really want to understand racquet power it requires looking only at the racquet-ball impacts first. This provides a deeper understanding of what happens when the player picks up the stick and starts swinging it.

You want to know how much it all matters. You want to know how much more powerful one frame is compared to another. Great question. The short answer is for serves, 2-3 MPH at most, with a bit more room for room for some free juice on groundies. The long answer is that depends. It depends on A. The speed of the incoming ball B. How fast the racquet is moving, and C. Where the impact takes place on the string bed. I have not yet posted the whole enchilada. I've a few more to come. But I'm squeezing this fun stuff into the pressures of work and family life and posting might be sporadic.

-Jack

[El Zed]

Originally Posted by RollTrackTake

this thread is entertaining to say the least! A few questions. How much does it really matter in the xequipment=performance equation? I'm reading about powerzone maps, spin windows, nanotubes, etc... but isn't the main ingredient mostly come down to the users skill/technique? How much does one less main string or a few points of stiffness really matter? I see a ton of junior players in my area whipping APDGT's around with pinpoint accuracy. I see older 4.5/5.0 players pounding winners with Pro Staff 85's with the same results. So why is one any better than the other?

I believe what you are hinting at is the familiarity one develops with a certain stick. Beyond that, sheer proficiency. Of course, with enough practice and dedication one can develop significant topspin with a PS85 and develop notable accuracy with the APDgt. For that matter, I'd venture to say that almost all racquets could be used effectively to some degree by a proficient player - whether it is a Pure Drive, TI.6 or an old Prestige Pro.

Thus, it bears remembering that what is being discussed is not a drastic difference in performance, but a marginal one that nonetheless may matter for those competing at a higher level. I am not speaking in equivocal terms because I'm not secure in this position, but because I realize that for some "comfort" and "safety" are paramount considerations, that may nonetheless affect their actual performance.

Finally, as a side point, I think this entire indians/arrows thing needs to be considered in two contexts. One where you are in a utopian setting playing perfect tennis with metronome-like timing, the other where you are hurried and more than occasionally a step behind. Perhaps it's not the game optimizing aspect of modern sticks but the fact that they provide a greater margin for error - therefore providing a greater average level of performance. To this end, while I'm sure maximum RPMs would be comparable on a PS85 to a APD gt, I'd venture to say the latter would provide a greater average over the course of many matches. Surely from a competitive standpoint this is a positive.

[Broly4]

The power tool is only useful, if you are comparing racquets with the same head size.