Help me find my elusive platform racquet

travlerajm said:

I actually own a Steam 96. It deserves special mention as a platform frame. The Steam 96 is perfect in every way except for one - it's pattern is very open.

Of all my frames, my customized steam has got to be the sweetest feeling frame at impact. It has an exceptionally torsion-stable design (no twisting on off center hits), and is very lightweight at all parts of the frame, giving ample room for customizations to suit all tastes (in my case I concentrate mass in upper half of hoop and top of handle). Also, before I cut it down to its current sweet-hitting 26.75" length, it was a remarkably explosive serving tool at its stock length of 27.25". A couple of months ago, I dialed back the clock and was serving huge enough to show off at the park courts on a warm evening, drawing an impressed crowd of spectators. Using my stock length steam set up with SW in low 370s, on that amazing serving day I was able to hit the back fence after the bounce above the 6-ft crossbar consistently (something I used to be able to do routinely in my youth, but almost never these days).

I probably need to mess around with my steam a little more - I really played well from the baseline with it after I cut it down, but the open pattern was giving too much of a high launch angle for trajectory control on net approaches for my tastes. I initially strung it with kevlar/ZX prestretched at 90/40, which was too loose except for cold days outside. Then restrung the same crosses at 90/50, which was pretty good for groundies and serve, but still a little soft for volleys. I might need to try a different type of string setup to reduce the launch angle sensitivity with this extremely open-patterned frame.

Click to expand...

Yeah its not as dense as some for sure. Have you thought about 15g kevlar? Softer than ashaway, but AG makes a set. Worked well for my full kevlar experiment.

Fwiw the gamma rzr 100t is a dense pattern for a 100" frame. And is stiff but maybe too stiff at 75 RA

Ok. Another Friday night impulse purchase has been made. This thread is driving my addiction.

I'm taking a dive into the world of "Team / Lite" series frames. Pulled the trigger on a brand new Yonex VCORE Si 100 Lite, $55 with free shipping.

The pattern is not as dense as I'm looking for, but my reminiscing about sweet hitting with the Steam, combined with suggestions for other "Lite" frames, got me off searching recklessly on the auction site, and the temptation to start with a frame with sub-300 SW is too great for me to resist.

travlerajm said:

Hmm. Looking at images of the s3.0 lite, it does look dense in the middle. This one is now on my radar.

Click to expand...

Yeah looks like a couple sites have it in 4 1/2 for 75-80 too. I extended mine half an inch with a balsa and epoxy laminate and brought it up to a 370 sw using a lot of lead at 12 and 6 grams on the sides. Static weight of 353 grams. Forget what the balance point is. A few grams in the butt cap and a ton at the top of the handle.

travlerajm said:

I actually own a Steam 96. It deserves special mention as a platform frame. The Steam 96 is perfect in every way except for one - it's pattern is very open.

Of all my frames, my customized steam has got to be the sweetest feeling frame at impact. It has an exceptionally torsion-stable design (no twisting on off center hits), and is very lightweight at all parts of the frame, giving ample room for customizations to suit all tastes (in my case I concentrate mass in upper half of hoop and top of handle). Also, before I cut it down to its current sweet-hitting 26.75" length, it was a remarkably explosive serving tool at its stock length of 27.25". A couple of months ago, I dialed back the clock and was serving huge enough to show off at the park courts on a warm evening, drawing an impressed crowd of spectators. Using my stock length steam set up with SW in low 370s, on that amazing serving day I was able to hit the back fence after the bounce above the 6-ft crossbar consistently (something I used to be able to do routinely in my youth, but almost never these days).

I probably need to mess around with my steam a little more - I really played well from the baseline with it after I cut it down, but the open pattern was giving too much of a high launch angle for trajectory control on net approaches for my tastes. I initially strung it with kevlar/ZX prestretched at 90/40, which was too loose except for cold days outside. Then restrung the same crosses at 90/50, which was pretty good for groundies and serve, but still a little soft for volleys. I might need to try a different type of string setup to reduce the launch angle sensitivity with this extremely open-patterned frame.

Click to expand...

Take look at PK Destiny FCS 265 pics if you find them.
As well very torsionally stable, nowhere too much mass as well. As for pattern, centre mains are not far apart, the 'trouble' is open crosses in the upper hoop.
Yet for some reason, its string distribution in combination with hoop geometry still makes it so predictable.
I've made some calculations back then as you gave me a formula to calculate centre string bed plus upper hoop density; factors for Destiny FCS were 1.29 and 1.70.
If it's ok with you somehow I can only warmly recommend it as a platform. PK specifies 98.6'' head size.

I dug through my racquet bin this morning, and what did I find? A youtek prestige mp.

This frame didn't crack my top 5 in my platform runoff earlier this year. Due to the mass of the cap grommet, the weight distribution wasn't ideal - too soft and flimsy when dealing with heavy balls, and too soft for volleys. Still good for consistent baseline grinding, but lacking enough crispness and solidness for offense.

However, today I gave my prestige a turbo boost. With pliers I ripped off the bottom 6" of the cap grommets (removing about 6.5g from the bottom third of the hoop, while leaving the 2-year-old old stringjob in place). I then replaced the removed mass by adding 3g at 10 & 2, plus a few grams at the top of the handle. In all (including my previous customization work plus the new boost), I now had 4 layers of lead tape stretching across the bumper region from 10 to 2. Then 3 layers at 10 & 2, and one layer at 3 and 9. About 28g of lead tape added to the upper half of hoop in all. Rest of the lead tape is either just above the handle or at the butt.

It's chopped 1/4", and strung with prestretched 16g kevlar / 17g ZX at 90/35 lbs (strung length about 26.6") - a great ESP-style high-performance stringbed at the perfect tension for this racquet. 367 SW, 13.6 oz., 12.55" bal.

In short, my "turbo-boosting" mass redistribution completely enhanced the character of the racquet and moved it up my list. It felt much crisper, and seemed to hammer the ball with a satisfying concentration of momentum behind the ball at impact. And the heavy spin potential with the 90/35 stringbed was terrific too. Had one of the most pleasing wall hitting sessions in a long time - just crushing explosive groundies, and even hitting practice serves with the type of explosiveness and spin that makes serving fun even when hitting against the wall.

This turbo-boosted prestige now leapfrogs up my list, and is in the running to become my regular frame. The frame itself is a little inherently softer than my i.radical (which shares the same dense string pattern), but it starts out with less weight in the head, so the final mass distribution of the prestige has a much sweeter, more momentum-efficient feel. Feels like a sledge hammer, in a good way. It checks a lot of my boxes, in a player's racquet package.

Video of grooving with my prestige turbo against the wall:

Weird - the prestige has "beam 21mm" printed in the throat. But it measures 19.8mm.

Have you played with the yonex yet? Was thinking of getting one.

ToastyTilapia said:

Have you played with the yonex yet? Was thinking of getting one.

Click to expand...

Still waiting on the Yonny lite.

Update on my i.radical:

This frame is growing on me, due to it's dense pattern and crisp accuracy, despite not having top-notch feel.
I played a singles match Monday night with it, and played fairly well overall on a cool 60-deg evening, maybe with exception of the serve.
However, one annoying thing is that the buttcap has a glued-in cap piece, and this piece kept popping out (I had tacked on 20g of lead tape to this cap), and the glue was not designed to be able to hold all of that extra mass. I suppose I may need to fill up the depression where the cap goes with the lead tape add-on, and omit the cap. Either that or go find some polypropylene glue? (Not sure what glue would work best)

travlerajm said:

Update on my i.radical:

This frame is growing on me, due to it's dense pattern and crisp accuracy, despite not having top-notch feel.
I played a singles match Monday night with it, and played fairly well overall on a cool 60-deg evening, maybe with exception of the serve.
However, one annoying thing is that the buttcap has a glued-in cap piece, and this piece kept popping out (I had tacked on 20g of lead tape to this cap), and the glue was not designed to be able to hold all of that extra mass. I suppose I may need to fill up the depression where the cap goes with the lead tape add-on, and omit the cap. Either that or go find some polypropylene glue? (Not sure what glue would work best)

Click to expand...

What surprised me with that one, I really added lot of lead on mine yet it retained that crispness and accuracy. Though I feel a shock impact on that one and was holding off from playing more with it.
I got even more accuracy and directness than with i.Prestige. When I lead up i.Prestige to get a similar SW power is still lower but the launch angle is higher and there is no similar directness.

Because of good experience with that one I bought two Ti.Radicals, but I never gelled with them. Their hoop is softer. Those are comfortable but when it comes to playing, i.Radical is simply much better, crisper and generates more topspin. Easier to do what you want with it.

Anyway, for sure i.Radical has some quality for playing tennis so I'm not least surprised with your good experience.

travlerajm said:

I dug through my racquet bin this morning, and what did I find? A youtek prestige mp.

This frame didn't crack my top 5 in my platform runoff earlier this year. Due to the mass of the cap grommet, the weight distribution wasn't ideal - too soft and flimsy when dealing with heavy balls, and too soft for volleys. Still good for consistent baseline grinding, but lacking enough crispness and solidness for offense.

However, today I gave my prestige a turbo boost. With pliers I ripped off the bottom 6" of the cap grommets (removing about 6.5g from the bottom third of the hoop, while leaving the 2-year-old old stringjob in place). I then replaced the removed mass by adding 3g at 10 & 2, plus a few grams at the top of the handle. In all (including my previous customization work plus the new boost), I now had 4 layers of lead tape stretching across the bumper region from 10 to 2. Then 3 layers at 10 & 2, and one layer at 3 and 9. About 28g of lead tape added to the upper half of hoop in all. Rest of the lead tape is either just above the handle or at the butt.

It's chopped 1/4", and strung with prestretched 16g kevlar / 17g ZX at 90/35 lbs (strung length about 26.6") - a great ESP-style high-performance stringbed at the perfect tension for this racquet. 367 SW, 13.6 oz., 12.55" bal.

In short, my "turbo-boosting" mass redistribution completely enhanced the character of the racquet and moved it up my list. It felt much crisper, and seemed to hammer the ball with a satisfying concentration of momentum behind the ball at impact. And the heavy spin potential with the 90/35 stringbed was terrific too. Had one of the most pleasing wall hitting sessions in a long time - just crushing explosive groundies, and even hitting practice serves with the type of explosiveness and spin that makes serving fun even when hitting against the wall.

This turbo-boosted prestige now leapfrogs up my list, and is in the running to become my regular frame. The frame itself is a little inherently softer than my i.radical (which shares the same dense string pattern), but it starts out with less weight in the head, so the final mass distribution of the prestige has a much sweeter, more momentum-efficient feel. Feels like a sledge hammer, in a good way. It checks a lot of my boxes, in a player's racquet package.

Video of grooving with my prestige turbo against the wall:

Click to expand...

Daang, that is a ridiculously abrupt forehand, no follow through at all.

I'd change that form before trying to match a racket to it.

Anton said:

Daang, that is a ridiculously abrupt forehand, no follow through at all.

I'd change that form before trying to match a racket to it.

Click to expand...

Don't worry - I watched the video and made the correction. I'll post my new and improved forehand soon.

"Help me find my elusive platform racquet"

ok... where did you see it last?

I got a microgel Instinct MP from ye olde auction site for a measly $20. Looks like it hadn't really been played with at all. 18x19 string pattern which was interesting. Put it up to my spec (385 sw, with 15g of lead on the sides and 8 pts HL) Strung it with some Prince Tour XP (I got 30 sets for $2 a piece, good for experimenting with frames, which I do quite often). Haven't hit with it yet but it seems like a great platform frame (aside from the wide beam)

Update:
Still waiting for my next contender platform frame to show up in the mail.
In the meantime, I've recently discovered the underutilized approach of video'ing my strokes to help smooth out the flaws in my technique.
I've found that an efficient way to improve is hit a dozen or so strokes against the wall, with video. Then I immediately sit down and watch the video to self-evaluate my strokes. Then repeat immediately, targeting specific deficiencies in my form each time.

Here is a clip where I am focusing on maintaining a rhythm with consistent depth, with special attention on spacing my forehand contact point further away from my body and lengthening the hitting zone. Still a work in progress, but I can already see gains from a week ago. Of course it might take a lot of reps before I can fully incorporate improvements in form into my competitive matches.

In the video, I am using the frame in my signature (Super G9).

My Yonex VCORE Si 100 Lite showed up in the mail today.

At first inspection, this looks like a very solid piece of Japanese engineering. Nice stiffness and torsional stablity. 22m beam at throat. 23.5mm in hoop.
Surprised that I could get a brand new quality frame this cheap.

Glossy paint job. A little busy on the design, but nice shade of neon orange paired with black grommeting is fitting for this month.

About 9.9 oz unstrung. Stock length is slightly extended, about 27-1/16" length unstrung. 12.75" balance unstrung is good neutral starting point with lots of customization room.

I think I will lead it up to my signature specs in stock length and test it out first before chopping it to my usual shortened length. I think it will be a serving beast in stock length after getting my turbo-boosting lead tape treatment.

Ok. My VCORE Lite is now strung up with my favorite string setup: Ashaway Kevlar 16 / ZX Pro Black. Prestretched at 90/50. Feels like I got the tension just right, judging by ball response in living room.
I can tell that the stringbed is going to have a really nice ESP effect with holy **** level spin.

The hoop squashed 3/16", so strung length before hitting first ball is 26-7/8".

Final strung pre-lead-tape ("stock") weighting measurements: 10.425 oz, 13.18", 296 SW. The platform is ready for loading.

I've now added 16 x 7.5" strips to the 10 and 2 region (4 x 4 layers). This added an entire ounce in the efficient sweet-spot enlarging 10 & 2 zone of the upper hoop. I secured the top end of the strips with electrical tape, since 4 layers is too much for the adhesive layer on the lead tape to hold without reinforcement:

This frame felt nice and stable to begin with. And I have to say that just from bouncing the ball on the stringbed, I can tell that this frame has more pop in the upper hoop than any of my existing customized frames due to the extra mass concentrated in the upper hoop. I think this one should be exceptional for serving. Will continue the lead job tomorrow.

travlerajm said:

I can tell that this frame has more pop in the upper hoop than any of my existing customized frames due to the extra mass concentrated in the upper hoop.

Click to expand...

Not only because of mass in the upper hoop, isometric head shape with longer cross strings in the upper hoop which allow more power at groundstrokes.

travlerajm said:

Update:
Still waiting for my next contender platform frame to show up in the mail.
In the meantime, I've recently discovered the underutilized approach of video'ing my strokes to help smooth out the flaws in my technique.
I've found that an efficient way to improve is hit a dozen or so strokes against the wall, with video. Then I immediately sit down and watch the video to self-evaluate my strokes. Then repeat immediately, targeting specific deficiencies in my form each time.

Here is a clip where I am focusing on maintaining a rhythm with consistent depth, with special attention on spacing my forehand contact point further away from my body and lengthening the hitting zone. Still a work in progress, but I can already see gains from a week ago. Of course it might take a lot of reps before I can fully incorporate improvements in form into my competitive matches.

In the video, I am using the frame in my signature (Super G9).

Click to expand...

Still seems like your thought pattern on striking the ball is more of:

"How do I swing the racket with my arm to hit the ball"

While it should be:

"How do I get set and rotate my body so the racket lags and then launches into impact"



Your super closed stance is hurting your rotation and follow through on the stroke.

Anton said:

Your super closed stance is hurting your rotation and follow through on the stroke.

Click to expand...

Travelerjam's stance on contact is completely open, meaning it didn't hurt the rotation

Was great to see that clip because now I get why you insist on mgr/i 21 and how your setup suits your strokes. Your FH looks almost continental (I assume it isn't), old school. Although with the Jack Sock/Kyrgios thing becoming popular with the local juniors I see probably the semi western style prevalent in ~2000-nowish will be old school soon enough...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

zalive said:

Travelerjam's stance on contact is completely open, meaning it didn't hurt the rotation

Click to expand...

Then why is there no follow through?

Didn't have time to finish my VCORE tonight, but played some good high level doubs with my Super G9 tonight.

This is not a tennis tips and instructions thread / sub. Please stay on topic, great work travlerajm, love your chops, mods and styling!

1990's Graphite said:

This is not a tennis tips and instructions thread / sub. Please stay on topic, great work travlerajm, love your chops, mods and styling!

Click to expand...

Modifying rackets without the context of technique is pointless.

lol why are people recommending recreational players to follow goat's form?
rec club players should hit the ball like it is hit mostly on WTA, not ATP. much more consistency that way

I agree with 1990's graphite 100%. Let's be civil and respectful please.

No worries. It is important to keep in mind a very important and inarguable law of tennis physics:

The part of your stroke that happens before impact with the ball matters more than the part of your stroke that happens after that.

Anton said:

Modifying rackets without the context of technique is pointless.

Click to expand...

Out of respect this is not the place for that, this does not give you the automatic right just because someone uploads a video. about a racquet. You are not a coach a pro, or even a 5.0, and even if you were it would be more appropriate in the tips section. No one critiqued your bouncing top spin ball feed for hitting practice, or helicopter swings with the ball far away from the body, or footwork, and if they did, it should go in the other sections
Trav makes good posts and customs like many do here and people try to shoot it down. Just like relevant mgr/i threads and posts by other knowledgeable

1990's Graphite said:

Out of respect this is not the place for that, this does not give you the automatic right just because someone uploads a video. about a racquet. You are not a coach a pro, or even a 5.0, and even if you were it would be more appropriate in the tips section. No one critiqued your bouncing top spin ball feed for hitting practice, or helicopter swings with the ball far away from the body, or footwork, and if they did, it should go in the other sections
Trav makes good posts and customs like many do here and people try to shoot it down. Just like relevant mgr/i threads and posts by other knowledgeable

Click to expand...

I wonder how many players participating in this board are aware of potential of using light platforms and creating custom setups based on them. This is exciting territory. Light platforms are usually free of potentially harmful load of heavy lower hoop, throat or top of the handle. With them one really has customizer's full freedom to create a really great setup of a kind which is impossible to buy in retail.

zalive said:

I wonder how many players participating in this board are aware of potential of using light platforms and creating custom setups based on them. This is exciting territory. Light platforms are usually free of potentially harmful load of heavy lower hoop, throat or top of the handle. With them one really has customizer's full freedom to create a really great setup of a kind which is impossible to buy in retail.

Click to expand...

% 110 percent agree. Just like your angell you ordered under your specs because you KNOW the potential!

1990's Graphite said:

Out of respect this is not the place for that, this does not give you the automatic right just because someone uploads a video. about a racquet. You are not a coach a pro, or even a 5.0, and even if you were it would be more appropriate in the tips section. No one critiqued your bouncing top spin ball feed for hitting practice, or helicopter swings with the ball far away from the body, or footwork, and if they did, it should go in the other sections
Trav makes good posts and customs like many do here and people try to shoot it down. Just like relevant mgr/i threads and posts by other knowledgeable

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to "shoot anything down", I'm posting my opinion re him looking for a "perfect racket" for strokes that clearly need some changes.

Don't like my opinion? Tough crap.

I get on the court everyday I can and work on my strokes with at least as much dedication as I do on my gear. I also have no problem considering any critique or tips - my ego is not as fragile as you seem to think.

I appreciate folks defending me. But in general, I do not fault anyone for opining on my technique - posting a video is an open invitation.

And I don't mind suggestions coming from someone with a lower competitive skill level than me.
Anton's own groundstroke skills and technique are well-chronicled on youtube, and I cannot deny that his forward extension on the forehand is better than mine. And his calling attention to my earlier video (with noticeably more abrupt forehand technique, with poor extension and poor spacing) was part of the impetus for me to work on improving it, using video as a tool. So thanks!

Hopefully I will have a chance to finish the lead job and test out iteration v1 of my new Yonex tonight against the wall. I may even post more vids. Hopefully my forehand technique will continue to make gains and not regress.

I got some wall hitting in with my new customized VCORE. It was hard to get it tuned, because the frame lengthened by 1/16" over the course of the session as the kevlar broke in on the first hit, giving me a moving target. I kept adding more lead to top of handle. The final swingweight, after finally getting MgR/I tuned for my forehand, was 370+, and about 13.9 oz.

The feel was very crisp, solid, and powerful, with decent spin and control. Definitely more in the tweener category in terms of feel. It will be hard to resist the temptation to trim at least 1/8" off the length, since I'm so much more comfortable playing with shortened sticks. I did get into a groove by the end of the session though.

Here is a short clip of me hitting forehands with my new VCORE. Sorry about the poor camera placement - the racquet was more powerful than I expected, so I ended up hitting from the very back of the racquetball court. But at least my follow-through can be seen. My form here is basically the same as in the frontview vid of alternating forehands and backhands above, but with the side view it's easier to see my stroke path and type of grip (halfway between semiwestern and eastern), and easier to get an idea of the pace and spin.

travlerajm said:

I got some wall hitting in with my new customized VCORE. It was hard to get it tuned, because the frame lengthened by 1/16" over the course of the session as the kevlar broke in on the first hit, giving me a moving target. I kept adding more lead to top of handle. The final swingweight, after finally getting MgR/I tuned for my forehand, was 370+, and about 13.9 oz.

The feel was very crisp, solid, and powerful, with decent spin and control. Definitely more in the tweener category in terms of feel. It will be hard to resist the temptation to trim at least 1/8" off the length, since I'm so much more comfortable playing with shortened sticks. I did get into a groove by the end of the session though.

Here is a short clip of me hitting forehands with my new VCORE. Sorry about the poor camera placement - the racquet was more powerful than I expected, so I ended up hitting from the very back of the racquetball court. But at least my follow-through can be seen. My form here is basically the same as in the frontview vid of alternating forehands and backhands above, but with the side view it's easier to see my stroke path and type of grip (halfway between semiwestern and eastern), and easier to get an idea of the pace and spin.

Click to expand...

There is no follow through. You muscle the racket with your arm and shoulder instead of being able to relax and let the racket fly out from body's rotation.

I never had a totally locked up arm like you but I had the same "hit with my arm" mentality for a very long time.
here is a video of me hitting in 2011:


But then I progressed to thinking about hitting the ball from rotational throw of the hips and shoulders, where the hand stays relaxed with the unit turn and does not impede loading up and releasing of the the wrist hinge.

This is from 2014:

Anton said:

There is no follow through

Click to expand...

I'm not saying I'm right (let others judge and say, for the sake of discussion), but I'm seeing it differently. Both travelerjam's FH and BH are incredibly compact (funny but I'm subjectively more bothered with his BH which makes me think 'there's no takeback here, what is this? ). He keeps his arm bent before contact, through the contact and through the follow through. Very bent. This side video reveals this completely. But taking into account this is 370+ SW 13.9 oz racquet, well no wonder!? Such a racquet doesn't require much takeback, straight or slightly bent arm or anything to work. And if you tried this you'll probably find it tougher since it's a high SW setup.

When you think of it, it's kind of natural you don't need as much RHS when you swing something this powerful. It's just a different approach to tennis. Now, tennis pros would want to tame big SW and use that potential to get yet more pace and spin, but we're not them. We can just use hefty specs to generate power an topspin good enough for rec level with ease, with nice and easy swing. And of course what will be the consequence? Follow through will have less power and spin as well. Racquet's head won't get over and behind the shoulder at the end of follow through (I think this is what you see that is missing).

What's wrong with that? Which core element of the stroke you see missing here on those vids?

zalive said:

I'm not saying I'm right (let others judge and say, for the sake of discussion), but I'm seeing it differently. Both travelerjam's FH and BH are incredibly compact (funny but I'm subjectively more bothered with his BH which makes me think 'there's no takeback here, what is this? ). He keeps his arm bent before contact, through the contact and through the follow through. Very bent. This side video reveals this completely. But taking into account this is 370+ SW 13.9 oz racquet, well no wonder!? Such a racquet doesn't require much takeback, straight or slightly bent arm or anything to work. And if you tried this you'll probably find it tougher since it's a high SW setup.

When you think of it, it's kind of natural you don't need as much RHS when you swing something this powerful. It's just a different approach to tennis. Now, tennis pros would want to tame big SW and use that potential to get yet more pace and spin, but we're not them. We can just use hefty specs to generate power an topspin good enough for rec level with ease, with nice and easy swing. And of course what will be the consequence? Follow through will have less power and spin as well. Racquet's head won't get over and behind the shoulder at the end of follow through (I think this is what you see that is missing).

What's wrong with that? Which core element of the stroke you see missing here on those vids?

Click to expand...

Short take back is fine, but if you are using arm muscles instead of core's rotational forces and wrist hinge your stroke is simply inefficient, lack of the follow through is a strong indication of this muscling.

You are spending more to get less.

Anton said:

Short take back is fine, but if you are using arm muscles instead of core's rotational forces and wrist hinge your stroke is simply inefficient.

You are spending more to get less.

Click to expand...

But travelerjam efficiently uses core rotation through weight transfer on both FH and BH. Why do you think he arms the ball, or applies any force through the contact?
His setup easily wins collision with the ball with less RHS. Besides, he is a customization master, be assured his custom setups swing really easy for their specs. It's kind of required with a huge SW, otherwise it's unplayable.

zalive said:

But travelerjam efficiently uses core rotation through weight transfer on both FH and BH. Why do you think he arms the ball, or applies any force through the contact?
His setup easily wins collision with the ball with less RHS. Besides, he is a customization master, be assured his custom setups swing really easy for their specs. It's kind of required with a huge SW, otherwise it's unplayable.

Click to expand...

He uses weight transfer, but is also arming the racket - you know that is the case from the missing follow through - the racket does not exceed the velocity of the arm and when the arm stops so does the racket instead of launching ahead and carrying the stroke.

Anton said:

He uses weight transfer, but is also arming the ball you know that is the case from the missing follow through - the racket does not exceed the velocity of the arm and when the arm stops so does the racket instead of launching ahead and carrying the stroke

Click to expand...

If he was using usual typical average retail SW setup, I'd agree with you.

He certainly looked like he was arming the ball to me, but if it works for him ...

Anton said:

He uses weight transfer, but is also arming the racket - you know that is the case from the missing follow through - the racket does not exceed the velocity of the arm and when the arm stops so does the racket instead of launching ahead and carrying the stroke.

Click to expand...

zalive said:

If he was using usual typical average retail SW setup, I'd agree with you.

Click to expand...

Muscling the stroke is a bad idea at ANY swing-weight. With heavy swing weights it is also a recipe for injuries.

There are different ways to hit the ball, but there are also fundamentals.

Anton said:

Muscling the stroke is a bad idea at ANY swing-weight. With heavy swing weights it is also a recipe for injuries.

There are different ways to hit the ball, but there are also fundamentals.

Click to expand...

But it's your thesis he is muscling the ball. I don't see he does, so I can't agree.
It's also your thesis there is no follow through, yet I see there is a follow through. Only not as big. But his elbow is much more bent on contact and after the contact. It cannot have the same arc.
Try bending your elbow more than usual through the swing and you'll see racquet's head ending elsewhere in the follow through.
Only it won't work with your usual setup, you won't get enough RHS, right? Well, he's not using your usual setup.
I barely tried 370+ SW but I played with 360+ SW, still have one of such setups and I can tell, this is huge power. However to access it tuning the setup for effortless swing is not important, it's crucial, it's everything.

Now I tell you what I see and what I think it is. Travelerjam consciously or subcounsciously bends his elbow more and compacts his swing more to control it, otherwise he'd have too much power which is more demanding to control. I don't think there is any muscling going on, and if it is...I'd guess on BH rather than on FH (but even on BH he rotates his core a lot so I'm not sure).

I don't think anyone can see if there is muscling simply because judging the swing and hit by normal usual specs standards for a racquet doesn't work here. Something like 370+ SW (on a stiffer platform frame!) easily wins the colision with the ball with loose hand even with less RHS. It's not just the SW % increase, it's a different relation relative to the ball weight as well, which is also decisive for the kinetic energy distribution after the collision: the more inert one object is, the more energy gets transfered to the other one as a result of a collision. Because of this when car hits a bus, passenger in the buss barely feel it while car gets it big - not only he will feel it more by being less inert, he will also get the majority of it.

zalive said:

But it's your thesis he is muscling the ball. I don't see he does

Click to expand...

I think it's pretty self evident that his arm muscles are guiding the racket and not the racket pulling a relaxed arm.

The arm bend comes from active contraction of the biceps and forearm muscles contracting the wrist.

But why don't we just ask traveljam himself - is your arm relaxed or working/stiff during hitting? Do your inner shoulder, bicep and forearm muscles feel worked/tired after some forehands?

The whole point of tuning my MgR/I value is so I can hit with a completely relaxed arm, without needing to use my arm or wrist muscles to control the shot. My forehand only works if my takeback is high with head of frame above my head to take advantage of gravity and potential energy of the heavy frame. I am not good enough to use my wrist muscles to control the racquetface on the forehand - that is a skill I never learned - but i can make up for that and outplay more skilled players as long as I show up to the the court with a tuned frame.

travlerajm said:

The whole point of tuning my MgR/I value is so I can hit with a completely relaxed arm, without needing to use my arm or wrist muscles to control the shot. My forehand only works if my takeback is high with head of frame above my head to take advantage of gravity and potential energy of the heavy frame. I am not good enough to use my wrist muscles to control the racquetface on the forehand - that is a skill I never learned - but i can make up for that and outplay more skilled players as long as I show up to the the court with a tuned frame.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong. but it looks like you are saying that you think your wrist/arm is relaxed through the stroke?

I am realizing now that both of the videos I have posted above give illusions, albeit different illusions. The front view of my alternating fh & bh drives with my Volkl Super G9 looks relaxed (in part because the Volkl is my regular racquet and I am in my comfort zone), but it also makes it look like I am hitting flatter shots than I actually am, as evidenced by the comment suggesting that maybe I was using almost a continental grip. The side view vid of my forehands, shows the spin and pace better, but it also gives the illusion that I am exerting more effort than I am because you mostly see my arm wiping up and across after contact (when actually this is just the momentum of the heavy racquet pulling upward and across at my arm, and me allowing my arm to bend after contact at the elbow to naturally decelerate the racquet). Before I self-analyze any further and explain which parts of my stroke are relaxed or otherwise, I think some background on the different types of forehands (from my perspective) would help clarify the type of stroke I am using.

To hit a forehand with control, one must be able to have a good way to control the racquetface angle at the moment of ball contact. Furthermore, to be able to hit a forehand with highly reliable directional accuracy, one must be able to maintain the same racquetface angle over a "long" hitting zone. In other words, for most of the players with the best forehands in the world, the racquetface angle is ideally the same whether the player impacts the ball 0.1s late, or 0.1s early. There are several methods to accomplish the goal of a constant-racquetface-angle swingpath.

Method 1. Majority of club players. Use the forearm muscles to try to apply exactly the right amount of torque (not too much, not too little) to accelerate the lower pendulum (i.e., the racquet) enough prior to impact that the racquetface stays aligned toward the target through the hitting zone. The problem is that mastering this technique is extremely hard to do. In most cases, you need to compromise by using slightly excess of wrist torque (beyond the amount needed to achieve the constant-racquetface-angle ideal). Providing a wrist torque excess has the advantage of generating more racquethead speed at contact, for more power or spin potential. But it also has the inherent compromise of making the shot more sensitive to timing errors. The biggest problem with this approach is that a double pendulum is inherently unstable and chaotic. No wonder tennis is hard.

Method 2. Lleyton Hewitt method. Tense the forearm muscles just enough to lock the wrist angle constant (at the most natural wrist angle) through the pre-impact part of the stroke. This effectively links the two pendulums and turns the swing from a complicated double pendulum into a simplified unified simple pendulum. This is probably the easiest method to learn. This approach is typically done with a double-bend, and is well-suited for high swingweights, especially since the downside is that racquethead speed is limited. Can be hit equally well with semi-western (Hewitt) or eastern (Lendl). Well-suited to eastern forehands, since racquethead speed is less important for flat drives.

Method 3. Federer method. Allow the wrist to lay back to its natural limit for the part of swing just prior to impact, which effectively locks the wrist at a constant angle without needing to exert much torque. This method can be achieved reliably with either a straight arm (Federer), or a bent arm (Roddick). Topspin can be added without compromising control of the face angle by twisting the forearm.

Method 4. Combo of method 3 and 1. Majority of modern top level players. Take advantage of stored energy in the laid-back wrist, but allow the wrist angle to start changing prior to contact. This provides excellent racquethead speed, but compromises reduced accuracy compared to Methods 2 and 3.

Method 5. Combo of method 2 and 1. Take advantage of angle control of locked wrist, but but allow the wrist angle to start changing prior to contact. This provides more racquethead speed, but also compromises reduced accuracy compared to Methods 2 and 3.

Method 6. Travlerajm method. Start with the most natural wrist angle at the top of the backswing. Maintain constant wrist angle through the pre-impact part of the stroke - but instead of tensing the wrist muscles to do this, the racquet MgR/I value is tuned so that the lower pendulum (i.e., the racquet) is naturally linked to the upper pendulum (i.e., the arm and torso "unit"). The wrist stays completely relaxed all of the way through the stroke. Instead of worrying about controlling the racquetface angle, the player must simply accelerate the hand outward toward the ball, starting the acceleration after initiating the swing by starting the unit turn and allowing gravity to swing the pendulum forward toward the lowpoint of the swing. This method shares the advantage of Method 3 that no wrist torque needs to be applied. Advantages of the method are that it's immune to high swingweights and even a beginner can hit accurately if the racquet is tuned properly. It's inherent disadvantage is that it extremely sensitive to racquet specs, so proper tuning must be verified (and adjusted if necessary) before the match starts, since specs can drift with string tension relaxation.

I know it's early, but my VCORE Lite is ready for brit milah tonight.

Ok. Now that my VCORE is cut down 1/4" to my usual specs, with a few additional grams at 12 to get back to mid 360s SW (13.67 oz), fitted with a wider-flare Prince buttcap, this racquet is really starting to pop. It's definitely a bit more power potential than my Volkl, despite not being quite as stiff and having a slightly stiffer (fresher) stringbed. Must be the combo of more efficient mass distribution and wider Yonex upper hoop.

Here is a 90-second clip of nonstop continuous wall rallying (60 shots) with my new Yonex Orange Beast. Humblebrag of the day - it starts out slow with me drilling my aforementioned ugly weaker wing, but if you can make it to the end, I finally got bored (since my opponent was so steady) and revealed my secret "you've-just-been-hustled-sucker" pro-caliber laser for the last 30 seconds: