Venus', Serena's, and Roddick's racquets.

[D. Nelson]

.....right --- I'd already read/considered that 'concept' too....I'm sure I'll give it a try !! What about using these 2 ideas on a Babolat Pure Power Zylon 360 racquet...and a Yonex RDX 300 ??

[MackSamuelHustovisics]

Originally Posted by PurePrestige

MackSamuelHustovisics or JohnCauthen, if either of you could drop me an email at pillowrat2002@yahoo.com I have a few additional questions. It would be much appreciated.

Depending on the type of question, I would gladly answer it.

First, let me ask you a question.

Why can't you just ask your question on this public board?

[MackSamuelHustovisics]

Originally Posted by D. Nelson

.....right --- I'd already read/considered that 'concept' too....I'm sure I'll give it a try !! What about using these 2 ideas on a Babolat Pure Power Zylon 360 racquet...and a Yonex RDX 300 ??

Those 2 are better choices than for a lot of other frames currently on the market, since those frames you mentioned are very light.

[D. Nelson]

....you're right....I guess my main objective is to STILL be able to get away with using a 'lighter' frame...ugh !!! I'd like to have the 'before' racquet be in the 10.5-11.0 range.....

[MackSamuelHustovisics]

Originally Posted by D. Nelson

.....right --- I'd already read/considered that 'concept' too....I'm sure I'll give it a try !! What about using these 2 ideas on a Babolat Pure Power Zylon 360 racquet...and a Yonex RDX 300 ??

And as John pointed out, with the Babolots, the tip of the head wouldn't look too pointy as a result from the method. This is because Babolats (ProKennex and Yonex as well) hoop tips are rounder than other racquets. This is all just a cosmetic thing though. It's not a big deal if you don't care about having a somewhat awkward looking frame (I doubt people looking from a distance could notice any diffrence anyhow).

[MackSamuelHustovisics]

Originally Posted by D. Nelson

....you're right....I guess my main objective is to STILL be able to get away with using a 'lighter' frame...ugh !!! I'd like to have the 'before' racquet be in the 10.5-11.0 range.....

This is why John explains how the frames on the market are not the most ideal. Those 2 frames that you mentioned, however, can be made to be very playable.

Don't get me wrong but you can customize stock frames to make them perform better, but custom designed frames are the way to go if you want full customizations.

[johncauthen]

Mr. Nelson, what you experienced is exactly what happens. That is what they are keeping from us. Sampras used a big chunk of weight above his handle and won 14 Grand Slam titles, but we can't buy a racquet with a big chunk of weight above the handle.

I wrote a letter to Head about this weighting in November 1993. They answered me, and we exchanged 6 more letters from November until January 1994, signed by Robert Marte. Agassi got this weighting in August 1994 after Head had time to experiment with it for eight months. Agassi won the US Open. It increases performance, noticeably, dramatically.

Even better... using this weighting, Agassi said, "I love playing tennis again." It makes tennis more fun.

I works so well there are a lot of insiders who think it will destroy the game, but 99.9999995% of tennis players don't know it exists.

Available frames start out too heavy, so the extra weight makes you tired after awhile. It has to be engineered into the racquet from the racquet's conception. No tennis company is engineering a racquet like that.

I found a 250 gram Babolat Pure Drive (called VS Drive) and added 50 grams, almost two ounces above the handle. It weighed only 300 grams ready to play, and had two ounces above the handle. No one who tried it didn't love it. Babolat could make and sell that racquet. So either, they don't know about it or someone is keeping them from selling it.

I'm not a conspiracy nut. Those are the facts that I have personally experienced. When I have a racquet in my closet this good, and I have communicated with the president of Head about it in detail (and it seemed like Agassi got it, as well as Muster, Ivanicevic, and eventually, the entire pro tour) and yet, no average player can buy it, that seems like a conspiracy.

[Zverev]

I guess everyone who read the above stuff had become a bit dumber....
It took me almost half an hour of my precious time to get where he wants to add that weight (it's just above the handle, I see!), though he said the Prince Triple weighting system was good, and Hammer was right idea, or ..what the hell he was saying???

it's mental, folks, keep away.

[Zverev]

this page was intentionally left blank

[TakeAHikeCharlie]

Originally Posted by Zverev

I guess everyone who read the above stuff had become a bit dumber....
It took me almost half an hour of my precious time to get where he wants to add that weight (it's just above the handle, I see!), though he said the Prince Triple weighting system was good, and Hammer was right idea, or ..what the hell he was saying???

it's mental, folks, keep away.

Prescious time....what you think you're special?.....I think you're not! Why don't you just hit the road jack quietly jack if you find nothing insightful here! Dumbass!

[TakeAHikeCharlie]

Originally Posted by Zverev

this page was intentionally left blank

WTF is this? Trying to add to your post count? Whether or not that's the case, it is YOU who is "nuts"!

[Bottle Rocket]

Originally Posted by MackSamuelHustovisics

I don't think you'll get anything else out of John or me. The other customiztions have a more pronouced effect and is more secretive. Can't share those things. Sorry.

So... All you both want to do is tell us how good a racket can be and how there are industry secrets only a special few can know?

I think Serene lost because she can't move and I think Venus lost because she is simply not as serious as before. I believe Roddick lost because he didn't play aggresively. He wasn't hitting bad shots, but he wasn't even close to the winners Baghdatis was hitting towards him. Roddick has obviusly played better and I SERIOUSLY doubt his racket is holding him back. I believe the above players are well aware that there are other racket options. I do not believe you're special racket innovations make or break a #1 player.

You say Aggasi won a tournament because of his new racket. How come he doesn't win anything now? I do not fully believe all the evidence you guys use to support your innovations. It's all coincidental when a certain player wins and all of the quotes you use are totally taken out of context. You are using them to make the point you want and people are actually buying it.

What do you want from us? Recognition that you're a superior human?

I really don't get it.

I will admit though, this is slightly entertaining.

[TakeAHikeCharlie]

Originally Posted by johncauthen

Mr. Nelson, what you experienced is exactly what happens. That is what they are keeping from us. Sampras used a big chunk of weight above his handle and won 14 Grand Slam titles, but we can't buy a racquet with a big chunk of weight above the handle.

I wrote a letter to Head about this weighting in November 1993. They answered me, and we exchanged 6 more letters from November until January 1994, signed by Robert Marte. Agassi got this weighting in August 1994 after Head had time to experiment with it for eight months. Agassi won the US Open. It increases performance, noticeably, dramatically.

Even better... using this weighting, Agassi said, "I love playing tennis again." It makes tennis more fun.

I works so well there are a lot of insiders who think it will destroy the game, but 99.9999995% of tennis players don't know it exists.

Available frames start out too heavy, so the extra weight makes you tired after awhile. It has to be engineered into the racquet from the racquet's conception. No tennis company is engineering a racquet like that.

I found a 250 gram Babolat Pure Drive (called VS Drive) and added 50 grams, almost two ounces above the handle. It weighed only 300 grams ready to play, and had two ounces above the handle. No one who tried it didn't love it. Babolat could make and sell that racquet. So either, they don't know about it or someone is keeping them from selling it.

I'm not a conspiracy nut. Those are the facts that I have personally experienced. When I have a racquet in my closet this good, and I have communicated with the president of Head about it in detail (and it seemed like Agassi got it, as well as Muster, Ivanicevic, and eventually, the entire pro tour) and yet, no average player can buy it, that seems like a conspiracy.

I don't know if you're nuts or not but I have no clue what you're talking about Mr.

[TakeAHikeCharlie]

this page was intentionally left blank

[TakeAHikeCharlie]

Originally Posted by Bottle Rocket

So... All you both want to do is tell us how good a racket can be, how there are industry secrets only a special few know, and how you can go on and on about how good a racket can be just to tell us you can't share the secrets?

What do you want from us? Recognition that you're a superior human?

I really don't get it.

I think he gave out some "secret" [LMAO] but is saying that's all he can or will give out. Something like that. I really don't know what any of them are saying either. Maybe it's because all of this is "insider" jargon LMAO

[TakeAHikeCharlie]

So people, what about Roddick's racquet? Exactly how did he have it customized? I thought he was part of the subject of this thread?
All we (the normal people) know is that his frame is not a paint job, it weighs close to 12 oz., is evenly balanced (slightlu HH actually), has lead at 3 & 9, and that he uses a rubberband dampener. Well that doesn't mean much. So can we focus on the details of his frame?

[PM_]

What load of bullcrap!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, John, or Bond should I call you. If this is all top secret why are you sharing it with us? And if you've become privy to this info then others must know as well.

What's your message? Baseliners: stock up on your favorite racquets while you can b/c a change is in order? And what do you expect pros with baseline games are going to do-they'll just use their current model to infinity and if THOSE should run out have you ever heard of a custom mold??????????

Oh, and do you predict on running Babolat into bankruptcy??? B/c they only cater to baseline games. Do you think they'll just stick around and let this dumb conspiracy theory follow through.

Nice try, John, Mack, Jeykl and Hyde whatever we should call you. You're not fooling anyone here.

[MackSamuelHustovisics]

Originally Posted by Bottle Rocket

So... All you both want to do is tell us how good a racket can be, how there are industry secrets only a special few know, and how you can go on and on about how good a racket can be just to tell us you can't share the secrets?

I think Serene lost because she can't move and I think Venus lost because she is simply not as serious as before. I believe Roddick lost because he didn't play aggresively at all. He wasn't hitting bad shots, but he wasn't even close to the winners Baghdatis was hitting towards him. Roddick has obviusly played better and I SERIOUSLY doubt his racket is holding him back. I believe the above players are well aware that there are other racket options. I do not believe you're special racket innovations make or break a #1 player.

You say Aggasi won a tournament because of his new racket. How come he doesn't win anything now? All the evidence of the technology you guys claim exists is BS. It's all coincidental when a certain player wins and all of the quotes you use are TOTALLY taken out of context. You are using them to make the point you want and people are actually buying it.

What do you want from us? Recognition that you're a superior human?

I really don't get it.

I will admit though, this is slightly entertaining at this point.

I SERIOUSLY doubt his racket is holding him back

Did I ever say that was the factor for "his" loss? Did I ever once mention about him to begin with? Get your facts straight before you try to look like a hero speaking up for others.

You say Aggasi won a tournament because of his new racket.

I never said that! Get your facts straight!

What do you want from us? Recognition that you're a superior human?

My reason of being here is not to tell you all how good a racquet can be and then not tell the secrets. I just said that I simply would not give out any further things that I felt were secretive. People in the business come on to this site too you know. I did not start this thread. I jumped in. I have actually shared a lot of tips and tricks in my other posts.

Let me ask you this, if you had something others didn't have, are you obligated to share it with others? And if you did not share it, would that be unrighteous?

I didn't start this thread to begin with so why are you questioning why I am here? So everyone posting in here would fall under your To-Be-Criticized-Agenda as well? I cannot simply converse with John and make comments here and there? I am posting just like you are posting. What have you contibuted? Nothing. Is it required that each and every one of a person's post be a contributive post?........NO.

[MackSamuelHustovisics]

Originally Posted by PM_

What load of bullcrap!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, John, or Bond should I call you. If this is all top secret why are you sharing it with us? And if you've become privy to this info then others must know as well.

What's your message? Baseliners: stock up on your favorite racquets while you can b/c a change is in order? And what do you expect pros with baseline games are going to do-they'll just use their current model to infinity and if THOSE should run out have you ever heard of a custom mold??????????

Oh, and do you predict on running Babolat into bankruptcy??? B/c they only cater to baseline games. Do you think they'll just stick around and let this dumb conspiracy theory follow through.

Nice try, John, Mack, Jeykl and Hyde whatever we should call you. You're not fooling anyone here.

"John Cauthen" never said that he wasn't willing to share his ideas and knowledge.

Also, I am the one who said that there are secrets. John himself thinks that what I think are secrets are just the industry manipulations. So please don't jump to conclusions before you make false accusations. If you even knew either one of us by reading our past posts you would see his and my conversations. Also, I think it is absurd that you would just insult either one of us like this, just because some of the material in this thread is something that you personally do not believe.

On my part, all I said was that the most ideal raquet customizations were secret? Now how is that BS???? Did I ever once say the word "conspiracy"? (I think not) So you are telling me that every pro player has their personal technician openly announce to the world their exact specs and how they do things? (Specs alone do not mean much anyways. There are more important things. Specs are just the end results. It's what is done that matters) No, they don't just tell everyone about their frames and exactly what they do to it . So I am wrong by stating that there are secrets? That would be like criticizng me if I said, "Football coaches have their own secrets." Also, a better example that I am sure other techs on this board can reference to, "So JCS doesn't have their own secrets?" (although some other outside techs do know about some of their methods)

I can't believe this is the way some people can act, jumping to conclusions, misunderstanding and then falsely accusing. Now with all that said, am I saying I don't believe a word that John Cauthen had to say? I never said whether or not I did. I do think he deserves better treatment around here. I never bashed him. He has helped people with customizations and some have noticed improvements in their games, equipment performance and or what not.

Just because things are not beneficial to you personally, it doesn't mean that you should go around insulting people. Things aren't always meant for "everyone" you know!

[BDAZ]

maybe i just didn't read carefully enough or understand it, but where is the best place to add weight to your racket? just above handle?