if a 60 yrs old flat hitter who changes his strings once a year cannot feel any difference and still control and bagel me forever, while i feel my strings already dead after 8 hrs and "my control has changed", something must be really exaggerated here imo.
discuss!
if a 60 yrs old flat hitter who changes his strings once a year cannot feel any difference and still control and bagel me forever, while i feel my strings already dead after 8 hrs and "my control has changed", something must be really exaggerated here imo.
discuss!
It has nothing to do with strings. He's just a better player than you. Roddick can defeat any of us in a match with a frying pan, because he's better.
Strings aren't a measure of someone's skills on the court. They're just a tool.
IMO, a "flatter" hitter would be more affected by tension and playability loss from old, dead strings bcoz he would have less margin of error on his shots. It sounds like your crafty opponent has uncanny ability to adjust to the playing characteristics of his string set-up and his success vs you is undermining your confidence in what you rely on. If you're doing well vs other opponents it's not the equipment issues that need to be addressed. I'd work on searching for the little "chinks in his armor"...what shots he handles less easily (I hit fairly flat and don't like stuff high to my 2hbh and changing depths of shots; would that frustrate him?).
But how are you a 4.5 getting double bagled over and over by a guy who doesn't ever break strings?
Let me give you a perfect example. Strings are only important enough to keep the space in the hoop from being open, BUT, the can make or break your experience. As I mentioned elsewhere, I tried Yonex PTP and it felt like rubbish. I could still hit all the shots I know how to hit, but it just did not feel nice. It felt like hitting with plastic. I then restrung to my favorite Scorpion, and I'm not kidding, the level of fun shot up. I get the feedback I'm looking for and the feel I'm looking for, and that's worth everything to me. Could I win a match with the Yonex that I could with the Scorpion? Yes. Would I be enjoying it as much? Nope.
But how are you a 4.5 getting double bagled over and over by a guy who doesn't ever break strings?
if a 60 yrs old flat hitter who changes his strings once a year cannot feel any difference and still control and bagel me forever, while i feel my strings already dead after 8 hrs and "my control has changed", something must be really exaggerated here imo.
discuss!
I love this.
Breaking strings has zero to do with results on court.
In summary, yeah, strings and tension are as important IMO as the frame. For some people, like the guys I mentioned above, they're good enough that they can do it with anything. The rest of us do probably spend too much time trying to find nirvana.
I love this.
Breaking strings has zero to do with results on court. Guga Kuerten used to have 3 racquets in his bag, all strung the same with ALU. 3, that's it. I don't ever remember seeing him break strings. I dare say he was a slightly better than a 4.5.
In the 'old days' with wooden frames, you had one frame. Strings were densely patterned and you would rarely break gut. If you did, you either borrowed a frame or quit playing. This, of course, was before league play.
Breaking or not breaking strings has zero to do with winning or losing. If a guy hits through the ball fairly level, he will not move the mains enough to cause excessive sawing by the crosses. My old doubles partner was like this. He could play with 17 gauge syn gut and never broke a string. He and I played 5.0 together. I strung his racquets once a year just because he did my taxes.
I used to play a 5.0 once a week who used a full job of PSGD 16. He would even double pull the strings when he strung it up.
Roz, I guess you'd have to describe this guys game better. The best old guy I play is a master of placement and slice and he breaks his strings at a decent rate.
I dont think breaking strings means someone is good or bad. But I do think a higher level player will break string more than once a year due to the above that I described.
I am sorry but it is ONE YEAR of a guy not breaking strings in 2012 facing modern styles of play. I have never seen that before personally.
What you aren't considering is it doesn't matter how you hit the ball, it matters how he hits the ball. If he comes through the ball in a fairly level stroke, all the work in the world isn't going to hurt his strings unless you hit hard enough to hit through them. Play long enough and with enough people and you'll see it.
I break my strings faster playing guys who serve hard and hit hard too. Which is why I am curious who this guy is playing to never mishit a heavy serve or groundie.
I think we all have it wrong...Rozroz, is your nemesis named "Roy" and does he have his stick emblazoned "Wonderboy"? It sounds like this may be the case bcoz he is "puring" everything if he's not taking out a stringjob more than once per annum!
There are two things I put attention on a string, playability window and comfort....anything else (spin potential, power, control etc) is irrelevant to me since I can adjust my footwork & technique to generate the shot I want it to... when I can't, it is my mistake (not the strings) or my opponent is better than me. period.
I am going to throw that exact setup into one of my blades just because I still believe it at worst to be a great "bailout" setup if your 2 main sticks break strings, and at best, your daily go to.
but this is the whole reason for the thread, no?
if this guy playing way way over his string playability window and doesn't give a crap about it, how can he still play very stable?
Maybe his yearly re-string came just before you played him. Check back with him in 10 months.
Aside from dead poly, yeah, pretty much. The main differences I see between strings are the amount of control, amount of power and amount of feel. All of those, however, are relative. If the feedback I'm getting is not what I like, then I rate the string lower in certain areas. Two good examples for you: NRG2 vs. X-1 and Genesis Black Magic vs. WC Scorpion. In the first instance, I played with NRG2 for years and even into college a bit. Heck, when I signed up here, I was still playing full multi for the most part. I'd discovered NRG2 some time in high school and was told that X-1 was the same but with better longevity. Since I absolutely shred NRG2, that sounded like a dream come true. Err...not so much. It does not have the same crisp and responsive feel that I like. I just had more confidence with NRG2 because I knew what to expect when I hit the ball. NRG2 was all over the place, but if I had to play a match with it, I would not be able to blame the strings for losing. Similar story with Genesis Black Magic. This is a great poly, and if memory serves me right, one of drakulie's favorites. However, it is not for me. It is far too soft feeling. I don't like the plush feeling on impact, I like a crisp "bite" feeling. Only a certain few strings can give me that response, Scorpion being the best of the lot for me. Others are Pro Supex BAM, WC B5E, Tourna BHB7 and Signum Pro Tornado.if we are talking about the FUN factor i totally agree.
so you're saying you could take you dead strings racquet and play the same?
well maybe that's indeed a factor of enough experience and game level.
True, but one year is a long time. I know of college players playing synthetics who don't break them for many many weeks, and I also know of club level players who break poly once a week. Hitting against heavy hitters at the 5.0 level for a year should at least notch a synthetic string to the point of breaking. I do, however, know personal exceptions to that rule.What you aren't considering is it doesn't matter how you hit the ball, it matters how he hits the ball. If he comes through the ball in a fairly level stroke, all the work in the world isn't going to hurt his strings unless you hit hard enough to hit through them. Play long enough and with enough people and you'll see it.
No I did not say that. What I said is that I'm ignoring poly because it's a very unique string material. I know of players using year old poly strings simply because they haven't broken. Year old ALU even, and they can still rally just fine. They just don't realize what they're missing.so let's say this guy plays some cheap syn gut or nylon or whatever and manages to pull through with it for a crazy amount of time thanks to his particular abilities, which ever they are.
what you're saying is that if had used a poly string, after it would go dead things will HAVE to get ugly for him.. right?
Roz - how many hours on the strings in a year? or how often does he play and for how long?
No I did not say that. What I said is that I'm ignoring poly because it's a very unique string material. I know of players using year old poly strings simply because they haven't broken. Year old ALU even, and they can still rally just fine. They just don't realize what they're missing.
most of the time, strings importance is WAYYYYY overrated?
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.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?
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.:-?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.:-?
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.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.
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).
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.
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.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.