If Pistol Pete likes new tech, then...

D

daved

Rookie
Are all the TT posters dorked out on traditional, so-called players' frames really just deluding ourselves?

I'm assuming many of us/you saw this interview with Pete in the The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...nd-hitting-hard/story-fnbe6xeb-1226810038170#

In which he notes of new racquet and string tech's effect on the viability of serve and volley that, "People say it's harder to do with the technology, but I think the technology would have helped me out. If I used these racquets that Rafa is using, it's easier to serve, easier to volley. I could have served harder, longer. It would have been easier for me."

Born out by his switch to a Babolat Pure Storm Tour a few years ago and to full or hybrid poly stringing.

I've also noticed that lots of older, touch-centric players (does anyone play with more touch than Mansour Bahrami?) favor very modern, tweener-type racquets.

Are newer racquets strung with poly just BETTER (meaning more effective at controlling the ball), regardless of grip, swing and play style?
 
daved said:
Are all the TT posters dorked out on traditional, so-called players' frames really just deluding ourselves?

I'm assuming many of us/you saw this interview with Pete in the The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...nd-hitting-hard/story-fnbe6xeb-1226810038170#

In which he notes of new racquet and string tech's effect on the viability of serve and volley that, "People say it's harder to do with the technology, but I think the technology would have helped me out. If I used these racquets that Rafa is using, it's easier to serve, easier to volley. I could have served harder, longer. It would have been easier for me."

Born out by his switch to a Babolat Pure Storm Tour a few years ago and to full or hybrid poly stringing.

I've also noticed that lots of older, touch-centric players (does anyone play with more touch than Mansour Bahrami?) favor very modern, tweener-type racquets.

Are newer racquets strung with poly just BETTER (meaning more effective at controlling the ball), regardless of grip, swing and play style?
Click to expand...


Good question.

Is speed a good thing or a bad thing in a serve & volley game? As I recall, Edberg favored a slower kick serve to come into net. The slower ball gave him more time to come-in behind his serve.

Just wondering and adding to your OP.
 
Pete went for aces, Stefan went to get close to the net. Different serving philosophies.
Yes, Pete would have easier power, but NOT more power. Old rackets serve about the same as new rackets due to higher sweetspot of old rackets.
Pete's volleys would improve, for sure.
However, the game has changed, and it would be much harder to go thru the early rounds, since every new player can hit with hard and heavy topspin.
 
My guess is that new technology would improve his game but it would improve in a large scale his opponents game, thus making Sampras' job harder.
 
^Yes. Pete was an all court player and Edberg was a more pure serve & volley player. IIRC, Stefan had his share of aces too (although about 1/2 or 2/3s the number of Pete's in any given match).
 
If it was an issue, there was other "tech" that he could have chosen. Heck, the POG was a more powerful spin friendly racket not unlike the ones today. He could have played with a Profile if he needed easy power, etc.

Thats scary: Sampras with a Profile!

Strings are perhaps the area that he could have benefited but not really rackets IMHO.
 
Shroud said:
If it was an issue, there was other "tech" that he could have chosen. Heck, the POG was a more powerful spin friendly racket not unlike the ones today. He could have played with a Profile if he needed easy power, etc.

Thats scary: Sampras with a Profile!

Strings are perhaps the area that he could have benefited but not really rackets IMHO.
Click to expand...

Sampras himself has said he could benefit from modern racquets and you are disagreeing with that?
 
Power Player said:
Sampras himself has said he could benefit from modern racquets and you are disagreeing with that?
Click to expand...

Nope I believe him, especially nowadays. All I am saying is that if he really felt the need he had more powerful and spin friendly options. Surely you know that the POG OS that his main rival used is an easier frame to play with compared to his Prostaff 85, and IME the POG is on par with any Pure Storm, if not better. Yet somehow he never made the switch.

Also I could be off here as this is a bit of speculation, but IIRC he couldnt play with the KPS88 which AFAIK is a more powerful version of his Prostaff. I have a KPS88 but havent strung it up to see for myself. Last thing I need is a more powerful racket.
 
OP here.

It happens that the POG OS has been my main racquet for five years.

I also have been using the Head Extreme Pro (most recent version) lately about 25% of the time and have played at times with various versions of "Rafa's racquet," as Sampras put it.

As awesome as the POG OS is, the Extreme Pro and APD are very different from the POG OS…like a pumped-up, modern version of it.

Obviously I suck -- solid winning 3.5 singles record in USTA, competitive loser at 4.0 singles -- and am nowhere near Sampo's level, but the racquets are really different.

The Extreme Pro and APD may not have as much "feel" at the net as a POG OS or PS 85 but they put way more stick on a volley in my experience. Rafa's a pretty damn good volleyer, with plenty of both punch and touch.
 
Last edited:
floydcouncil said:
Please don't attempt to argue with a man swinging a Prostaff 6.0 85 weighing 437grams!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

You are right, I REALLY want to play with that racket!!!

Though Floyd I think I was off a bit on the weight. Maybe the new OG I put on was off a bit?

Anyhow here it is:

2ikf5zq.jpg
 
daved said:
OP here.

It happens that the POG OS has been my main racquet for five years.

I also have been using the Head Extreme Pro (most recent version) lately about 25% of the time and have played at times with various versions of "Rafa's racquet," as Sampras put it.

As awesome as the POG OS is, the Extreme Pro and APD are very different from the POG OS…like a pumped-up, modern version of it.

Obviously I suck -- solid winning 3.5 singles record in USTA, competitive loser at 4.0 singles -- and am nowhere near Sampo's level, but the racquets are really different.

The Extreme Pro and APD may not have as much "feel" at the net as a POG OS or PS 85 but they put way more stick on a volley in my experience. Rafa's a pretty damn good volleyer, with plenty of both punch and touch.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it, and you have more experience than I do with those rackets. But I can tell you that the difference you describe to the POG vs. the APD is probably the same as the POG vs. the Prostaff. The feel is similar but the power level is bigger for the POG. Did pete really need more power??

Its possible that my specific examples might be off but there has to be a racket in his era that would match the current ones. Maybe some old timers will chime in on how something like a Profile would compare to the modern rackets.

And why didnt Lendl jump up to an 85"?? Certainly he would have benefited right? Yet he didnt. WHY??
 
Shroud said:
I don't doubt it, and you have more experience than I do with those rackets. But I can tell you that the difference you describe to the POG vs. the APD is probably the same as the POG vs. the Prostaff. The feel is similar but the power level is bigger for the POG. Did pete really need more power??

Its possible that my specific examples might be off but there has to be a racket in his era that would match the current ones. Maybe some old timers will chime in on how something like a Profile would compare to the modern rackets.

And why didnt Lendl jump up to an 85"?? Certainly he would have benefited right? Yet he didnt. WHY??
Click to expand...

In general, pro players do not like to change. Look how long it took RF to change to a larger frame. How long did RAFA play with 15L "crappy" Duralast? a very long time. Pros depend on their equipment for their living.... less change the better for their psychological minds.

The last thing these players want to worry about is their equipment on the court. They want to focus on the opponent across the net, blocking out the crowd and the pressure of the match.

Haven't we all said during a match "would I have made that shot with my other racquet with tighter tension" or similar? Well, these pros want to take equipment worries out of the equation.
 
floydcouncil said:
In general, pro players do not like to change. Look how long it took RF to change to a larger frame. How long did RAFA play with 15L "crappy" Duralast? a very long time. Pros depend on their equipment for their living.... less change the better for their psychological minds.

The last thing these players want to worry about is their equipment on the court. They want to focus on the opponent across the net, blocking out the crowd and the pressure of the match.

Haven't we all said during a match "would I have made that shot with my other racquet with tighter tension" or similar? Well, these pros want to take equipment worries out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Bet you are right. Though I heard Lendl couldnt adjust to the larger frame that they were making in his honor.

Though they seem to say how much better they could have been with new tech when they are retired and their insurmountable GS count is suddenly passed and exceeded and on the verge of being toppled again...
 
Shroud said:
Bet you are right. Though I heard Lendl couldnt adjust to the larger frame that they were making in his honor.

Though they seem to say how much better they could have been with new tech when they are retired and their insurmountable GS count is suddenly passed and exceeded and on the verge of being toppled again...
Click to expand...

I think this is what makes Sampras's comments here and the statement he's made many times about it being a mistake not to switch to a bigger racquet head size during his career even more credible: now that the anxiety of performance and psychological reliance on "old faithful" equipment has passed, his expert opinion is that the newer racquets and strings are flat-out better.

This guy is possibly the greatest player ever. Certainly no one else has ever been a more effective competitor or more relentlessly damaging to an opponent with a racquet in his hand. If he's not qualified to say that a particular change in racquet or string technology is better, who is?
 
Federer is trying but his game doesn't appear to be any better. There's give and take. Perhaps Pete's game would have suffered the same after playing such a long time with one racquet.
 
I think as far as TT'ers are concerned, they should play with what they want to play with. They are not pro's and therefore results dont matter but the fun you have does. If someone enjoys the challenge of swinging a sledgehammer (Shroud, you know who I'm talking about lol ) then why not. If others want to try new rackets every game, why not...it doesnt really matter, as long as you enjoy it.
 
If Pistol Pete likes new tech, then... Pistol Pete likes new tech!

That's all, nothing more, nothing less. To read and somehow imply that what Pete likes somehow should make anyone else like it for the same reason too is absurd.

The more sensible would just nod and say ok, the old dog is learning new tricks.

The rabid will go berzerk, proclaiming the "new tech" to be a magic pill to cure all woes...
 
daved said:
Are all the TT posters dorked out on traditional, so-called players' frames really just deluding ourselves?
Click to expand...
Its just a hobby thing. Its not like any of us are competing for GS's - that would be deluded ;)

My rackets are 98" (prestige) with poly but I would like a PS85 or a prestige classic with gut just to mess about with. I kind of wish there was a baseball style rule on equipment, I prefer playing with the classics.
 
Last edited:
stingstang said:
Its just a hobby thing. Its not like any of us are competing for GS's - that would be deluded ;)

My rackets are 98" (prestige) with poly but I would like a PS85 or a prestige classic with gut just to mess about with. I kind of wish there was a baseball style rule on equipment, I prefer playing with the classics.
Click to expand...

A baseball style rule? I'm not sure if you want to play with wood. I did the other day and man was it horrible!
 
more power does not necessarily better.. Yes, Pete would have bigger sever, harder volleys but his serve percentage will go down and the volleys will be less precise.. Most of the pros need control and precision.. Otherwise, Pete would play with a 135square inch Weed then..
 
I'm tired of Sampras' lament about how he would have improved with equipment changes. I see it as sour grapes for someone who invented this idea that total majors won was the single barometer for greatness (because he never dominated for a significant stretch of time within a season and never contended on the predominant surface of the game - clay). Now his own invented yardstick is eclipsed by Federer and soon to be eclipsed by Nadal so he rattles off excuse after excuse. Poor form Pete. We all remember your greatness at Wimbledon - don't tarnish that.
 
courtking said:
more power does not necessarily better.. Yes, Pete would have bigger sever, harder volleys but his serve percentage will go down and the volleys will be less precise.. Most of the pros need control and precision.. Otherwise, Pete would play with a 135square inch Weed then..
Click to expand...

Failed logic, my man....

By your logic, every player on Earth should be playing with the maximum sized racquet allowed.
 
The notion that having spent your life becoming the best on the planet at hitting tennis balls somehow bestows an understanding of racket and string physics is questionable. These guys (the ones willing to make any change at all) don't demand from their sponsors a particular set of specs; they are handed a pile of rackets and spend some time saying, "I like this better than that," just like going to an optometrist.

But even if that weren't true, even if tennis skill magically granted Bosworth-like wizardry to high school dropouts... Sampras was an even better player in the mid-90s than he is today, and he had absolutely zero doubt then about his racket. And it isn't like the question never came up: Wilson begged him for years to use something they could sell, and he passed up tens of millions to stay with the thin-beam 85. The question of a larger head size was a very common interview question for him at his height – as Shroud mentioned, bigger heads, thicker beams, and variable-flex layups were not invented by Babolat in the 2000s – and he didn't vacillate on it at all. Late in his career the answers tended to be along the lines of, "Yeah, I could get more power with a different frame, but I'd have to give up too much to get it."

We all look back on our past decisions through the lens of the present, and we sometimes downplay how compelling our reasons were at the time.

Of course, none of this means that you and I can't benefit from a larger head size, particularly since it takes far less adjustment for a rec player to change equipment. It just means that it isn't a slam dunk that, just because one GOAT-level player now thinks he could have switched, everyone should.
 
pennc94 said:
I'm tired of Sampras' lament about how he would have improved with equipment changes. I see it as sour grapes for someone who invented this idea that total majors won was the single barometer for greatness (because he never dominated for a significant stretch of time within a season and never contended on the predominant surface of the game - clay). Now his own invented yardstick is eclipsed by Federer and soon to be eclipsed by Nadal so he rattles off excuse after excuse. Poor form Pete. We all remember your greatness at Wimbledon - don't tarnish that.
Click to expand...

Very well said. Ditto.

Wilson had the Profile 2.7si and 3.6si 95 before he had won any majors. My Wilson Juice looks very similar to my Profile 3.6. Wilson had the racquets yet he chose the precision of his St Vincent PS85s.

It's sour grapes that Nadal is on the verge of passing his 14 majors record. No class.
 
Don't Let It Bounce said:
The notion that having spent your life becoming the best on the planet at hitting tennis balls somehow bestows an understanding of racket and string physics is questionable. These guys (the ones willing to make any change at all) don't demand from their sponsors a particular set of specs; they are handed a pile of rackets and spend some time saying, "I like this better than that," just like going to an optometrist.

But even if that weren't true, even if tennis skill magically granted Bosworth-like wizardry to high school dropouts... Sampras was an even better player in the mid-90s than he is today, and he had absolutely zero doubt then about his racket. And it isn't like the question never came up: Wilson begged him for years to use something they could sell, and he passed up tens of millions to stay with the thin-beam 85. The question of a larger head size was a very common interview question for him at his height – as Shroud mentioned, bigger heads, thicker beams, and variable-flex layups were not invented by Babolat in the 2000s – and he didn't vacillate on it at all. Late in his career the answers tended to be along the lines of, "Yeah, I could get more power with a different frame, but I'd have to give up too much to get it."

We all look back on our past decisions through the lens of the present, and we sometimes downplay how compelling our reasons were at the time.

Of course, none of this means that you and I can't benefit from a larger head size, particularly since it takes far less adjustment for a rec player to change equipment. It just means that it isn't a slam dunk that, just because one GOAT-level player now thinks he could have switched, everyone should.
Click to expand...

Very good points. Sour grapes IMHO.

Though I am sure I will look back in a few years and kick myself for playing with the PS85...:)
 
I think it's an important distinction that he's isn't saying that he would be serving 15mph harder or something. He is saying he could serve harder longer. To me, this is hugely important. If you are expending less energy to hit the same level of ball, that is a monster improvement to all aspects of your game. Same with federer. He wasn't hitting way harder, but personally I thought he was moving better than in recent past. Maybe having a little more in the tank helped with this?
 
I just don't think Pete would serve with any more spped and spin with a Nadal type 12 ounce racquet than with his old 14 ounce(or so) racquet. In fact, I think the quality of his serve would decrease.
 
Stroke said:
I just don't think Pete would serve with any more spped and spin with a Nadal type 12 ounce racquet than with his old 14 ounce(or so) racquet. In fact, I think the quality of his serve would decrease.
Click to expand...

I don't either, but I bet he could serve nearly the same, with less effort expended.
 
Bdarb said:
I don't either, but I bet he could serve nearly the same, with less effort expended.
Click to expand...

I am not looking to argue, we are never really going to know, but I feel a server of Pete,s level pretty much swings the racquet with his body and he really uses very little energy to do it. I feel his 14 ounce racquet is more efficient, with this racquet able to do more of the work.
 
I do believe it is a little bit of sour grapes, but not as much as people think. I look at it this way, at his peak, the 85 was a scalpel in his hands, and from a skill and physical standpoint, there's probably not much a "modern" racket would have given him, that would have overcome taken away. For instance, if with the 85 his power was 7/10, and control was 9/10, a modern racket "may or may not" have give him a power of 8/10, yet control goes to 7/10. Again, at his skill level at his peak, the trade-off may not have been worth it.OR, it could give him a power of 10/10, and control, touch, fell, etc. 10/10. Either is equally, and very plausible.

Now fast forward a couple years. Your skills have clearly diminished. Physically you're not up to snuff. A little slower, reaction time takes a little longer. People you used to spank is hitting the ball harder at you than you remembered. You pick up your racket and hit the ball, and now you're thinking, "Hey, I used to hit the ball harder than this, or I used to have more spin, etc." Your mind is telling you what is supposed to happen, but your body won't allow it, so you have two options: 1) admit to yourself that you're not the same as you used to be, or 2) Say, "I can still do this, something is wrong with the racket." Or maybe a little bit of both. So you try a bigger more powerful racket, and some of the magic that you remember is now happening - so obviously the conclusion is "The newer, more "modern" rackets, could improve my game this much, imagine what it would have done, back in the day"

However, the undeniable truth is, Pete doesn't know what would have turned out back then if he did change. The only way to know for sure is a side by side comparison in which all factors are equal. The only way he would have truly known is to travel back in time, and actually change rackets, then compare the results. There are too many things that changed in the game of tennis, and in Pete's age, to say as gospel, "If I changed my racket back then....". Now let's assume for giggles, that he did try a racket in his prime, that took his game to unprecedented god like level, and that he would have won back to back year end Grand Slam sweeps of all 4 slams; why didn't he switch? Because is liked the color of the 85? If that's the case, then he chose not to win, and that's his problems, and then the whole Sour Grapes thing is all it is to it... LOL
 
Praetorian said:
I do believe it is a little bit of sour grapes, but not as much as people think. I look at it this way, at his peak, the 85 was a scalpel in his hands, and from a skill and physical standpoint, there's probably not much a "modern" racket would have given him, that would have overcome taken away. For instance, if with the 85 his power was 7/10, and control was 9/10, a modern racket "may or may not" have give him a power of 8/10, yet control goes to 7/10. Again, at his skill level at his peak, the trade-off may not have been worth it.OR, it could give him a power of 10/10, and control, touch, fell, etc. 10/10. Either is equally, and very plausible.

Now fast forward a couple years. Your skills have clearly diminished. Physically you're not up to snuff. A little slower, reaction time takes a little longer. People you used to spank is hitting the ball harder at you than you remembered. You pick up your racket and hit the ball, and now you're thinking, "Hey, I used to hit the ball harder than this, or I used to have more spin, etc." Your mind is telling you what is supposed to happen, but your body won't allow it, so you have two options: 1) admit to yourself that you're not the same as you used to be, or 2) Say, "I can still do this, something is wrong with the racket." Or maybe a little bit of both. So you try a bigger more powerful racket, and some of the magic that you remember is now happening - so obviously the conclusion is "The newer, more "modern" rackets, could improve my game this much, imagine what it would have done, back in the day"

However, the undeniable truth is, Pete doesn't know what would have turned out back then if he did change. The only way to know for sure is a side by side comparison in which all factors are equal. The only way he would have truly known is to travel back in time, and actually change rackets, then compare the results. There are too many things that changed in the game of tennis, and in Pete's age, to say as gospel, "If I changed my racket back then....". Now let's assume for giggles, that he did try a racket in his prime, that took his game to unprecedented god like level, and that he would have won back to back year end Grand Slam sweeps of all 4 slams; why didn't he switch? Because is liked the color of the 85? If that's the case, then he chose not to win, and that's his problems, and then the whole Sour Grapes thing is all it is to it... LOL
Click to expand...

Nice post^^

Bold part: At least that's what RF is doing so there's no hindsight when he's done.
 
Funny people.

I saw young Sampras and i saw now old Sampras.

Young had full gut and 85 sq.in. and old has 98 sq. in. and full poly.

It is as he says: He has more "zip" in his BH and his serve is even more effortless.

To say his opinion is "sour grapes" says more about the writer than about Sampras.

KR
 
daved said:
Are all the TT posters dorked out on traditional, so-called players' frames really just deluding ourselves?

I'm assuming many of us/you saw this interview with Pete in the The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...nd-hitting-hard/story-fnbe6xeb-1226810038170#

In which he notes of new racquet and string tech's effect on the viability of serve and volley that, "People say it's harder to do with the technology, but I think the technology would have helped me out. If I used these racquets that Rafa is using, it's easier to serve, easier to volley. I could have served harder, longer. It would have been easier for me."
Click to expand...

Pete has it in his mind that he would have served "harder", and would have benefited from the xtra pop, into the later stages of his career. Clearly there are benefits to be gained from switching to larger head sizes, but when we look at what I think is a reasonable model for comparison, the benefits might not be as great as we might (or Pete might) imagine.

Federer switched from 90 to a 98 and I see no evidence that his average serve speed has increased, nor do I see any evidence that his top speed has increased either. I'm not a pro player stats guru, but I've spent a few idle airport hours researching this and thought I'd pass along what I've found so far. I'd like to have more data points (not done yet, and feel free to assist here) but If anything, his serve speed seems to be dropping. Any reasonable person would have to factor in advancing age as a big part of the overall picture for the overall drop, but the fact that serve speed is dropping does make it hard to support the idea that a larger head has made a significant difference. Does a larger head mean the drop off in serve speed will happen less quickly? Personally, I think not, but perhaps that's a more appropriate question for both Pete and Roger.

Interestingly, the most obvious factor regarding serve speed is indoors vs outdoors. During Wimby 2012, Fed averaged 120 with the roof open, and 125 as soon as the roof closed.

[..]

Roger Federer : Service speed stats for the first three matches of the 2014 Australian Open

129.25 mph ... 1st Serve, Fastest
113.09 mph ... 1st Serve, Average

093.82 mph ... 2nd Serve, Average

Service winners, 13
First Serve Percentage, 65.20%

http://www.sportskeeda.com/2014/01/19/statistical-preview-of-roger-federer-vs-jo-wilfried-tsonga/

[..] .........................

Roger Federer, Wimbledon 2012

Quote: Federer’s average serve speed without the roof was 120 mph, but with the roof closed Federer’s average climbed up to 125 mph. The stability that the roof provides by taking away the obstacles of the sun and wind allowed Federer to control the toss on his serve and therefore control his serve more --a major difference in the match.

120.00 mph ... 1st Serve, Average (with roof open)
125.00 mph ... 1st Serve, Average (with roof closed)

[..] .........................

Roger Federer : US Open 2011, average from all matches played

132.00 mph ... 1st Serve, Fastest
115.09 mph ... 1st Serve, Average

http://www.nadalvsfederer.com/archives/6701

[..]

I'm not a big believer in theoretical physics when it comes to tennis. The more I learn on the topic, the more evidence I find that intuition fails more often than not. I like to see evidence, hard data. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong information, or not enough of the right information, but I'm not seeing anything in the lab, or on the court that would support Pete's intuition about serve speed and head size. Again, there's a dozen very good reasons why 99.99% of the entire tennis playing community has moved on from 85 heads, but serve speed doesn't appear to be one of them.

-Jack
 
Last edited:
tennisgotomarket said:
is that dampener legal??
Click to expand...

Don't see why not. Its a gamma shockbuster II. AFAIK as long as its below the 1st main string it should be legal.

I only wrap it around the middle 2 mains because the racket head is so small, you can't stretch it tight enough to decrease the vibes if you use it normally.

If anyone knows a shorter vibe that works, that would be great. I tried others like the babolat metal one and some pacific ones and some head ones, but none work as well as the shockbuster wrapped around the mains twice.
 
Shroud said:
Don't see why not. Its a gamma shockbuster II. AFAIK as long as its below the 1st main string it should be legal.

I only wrap it around the middle 2 mains because the racket head is so small, you can't stretch it tight enough to decrease the vibes if you use it normally.

If anyone knows a shorter vibe that works, that would be great. I tried others like the babolat metal one and some pacific ones and some head ones, but none work as well as the shockbuster wrapped around the mains twice.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, the 'worm' dampeners are not legal in match play, though I doubt if any one would call you out on it.
 
Bdarb said:
If I'm not mistaken, the 'worm' dampeners are not legal in match play, though I doubt if any one would call you out on it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, not so sure of that, at least as far as the USTA is concerned:
USTA said:
Subject: Vibration Dampeners
How many vibration devices can be used on the racket and where should they be placed. I played a match where my opponent played with two vibrators on his racket. This gave a unique spin on the ball. Is this legal?
Thanks. Jonathan Wiggins

KAUFMAN:
Dampening devices may be located on the outside of the last cross string on the sides, top and/or bottom of the racket face. Multiple devices are permitted. The device may not be placed inside the outside cross strings but the device may touch the outside cross strings.
Click to expand...
http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Game/Rules/Feature/0507_Vibration_Dampeners/

I couldn't find anything relating to worm dampeners being illegal.
 
Fed switched from 90 to 98 and still uses gut/poly.

Sampras made a bigger change with 85 to 98 and from full gut to full poly!

In his active years you could see often how he had to hold his power back - even with his super high tensioned strings.

With full poly he no need to hold back.

KR
 
Bdarb said:
If I'm not mistaken, the 'worm' dampeners are not legal in match play, though I doubt if any one would call you out on it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Donald Young use them. Now, now, before anyone starts spewing their opinion of him - he is a professional playing on the atp tour, and i believe he uses the worm, so it must be legal.
 
Praetorian said:
Doesn't Donald Young use them. Now, now, before anyone starts spewing their opinion of him - he is a professional playing on the atp tour, and i believe he uses the worm, so it must be legal.
Click to expand...

Very well could be. I don't have a source I just could have sworn I read it on here somewhere.



And it makes perfect sense that dy plays with that :twisted: lol jk
 
Bdarb said:
If I'm not mistaken, the 'worm' dampeners are not legal in match play, though I doubt if any one would call you out on it.
Click to expand...

Most worm dampeners, including the Shockbuster, are completely legal.

The only one that I know to be illegal is Prince Silencer.
 
Don't Let It Bounce said:
The notion that having spent your life becoming the best on the planet at hitting tennis balls somehow bestows an understanding of racket and string physics is questionable. These guys (the ones willing to make any change at all) don't demand from their sponsors a particular set of specs; they are handed a pile of rackets and spend some time saying, "I like this better than that," just like going to an optometrist.

But even if that weren't true, even if tennis skill magically granted Bosworth-like wizardry to high school dropouts... Sampras was an even better player in the mid-90s than he is today, and he had absolutely zero doubt then about his racket. And it isn't like the question never came up: Wilson begged him for years to use something they could sell, and he passed up tens of millions to stay with the thin-beam 85. The question of a larger head size was a very common interview question for him at his height – as Shroud mentioned, bigger heads, thicker beams, and variable-flex layups were not invented by Babolat in the 2000s – and he didn't vacillate on it at all. Late in his career the answers tended to be along the lines of, "Yeah, I could get more power with a different frame, but I'd have to give up too much to get it."

We all look back on our past decisions through the lens of the present, and we sometimes downplay how compelling our reasons were at the time.

Of course, none of this means that you and I can't benefit from a larger head size, particularly since it takes far less adjustment for a rec player to change equipment. It just means that it isn't a slam dunk that, just because one GOAT-level player now thinks he could have switched, everyone should.
Click to expand...

well said. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Easiest 98 to use
Replies
36
Views
4K
ichaseballs
ichaseballs
D
  • Poll Poll
Do you think Federer would volley more if he had a serve like Pistol Pete?
Replies
35
Views
3K
Eviscerator
Eviscerator
socallefty
PSA - cut out your poly before it goes dead, then you don’t have to blame your racquet or string for injuries!
2
Replies
86
Views
7K
Cowboy
Cowboy
T
Ezone 98 2025 review
Replies
17
Views
8K
mogo
M
J
Light racquets for seniors…
Replies
15
Views
856
socallefty
socallefty
Back
Top