Is racquet technology really responsible for the increased power of today's game?

[monologuist]

I was watching some of the Madrid Masterstoday : Mathieu vs. Verdasco, and the commentators mentioned how guys are hitting clean winners from the baseline these days, and how it is b/c of racquet technology. Of course, this is the kind of comment that I've grown accustomed to hearing from the likes of P.Mac and Drysdale, and granted, there is some truth to it, when it comes to pros who are wielding racquets like Babolats, but in this particular match, it appeared that both players were using realtively low-powered "traditional player's frames" : Mathieu with either an LM Prestige MP or similar Head paintjob, and Verdasco with either a Tecnifibre 315 or 325 or similar paintjob. Verdasco, especially, has amazing power on his forehand, and I can imagine him hitting clean winners from the backcourt using just about anything. I think the tenedency is for ex-players from the pre-Babolat era to attribute the increased power and speed of today's game to equipment technology rather than acknowledge that today's athletes are actually physically stronger, more explosive, or have adopted techniques that allow them to hit with greater pace and accuracy than previous eras...question is, are they just ill-informed or ignorant about the kind of racquets guys are using on tour these days or is about their egos attempting to preserve the legacy of previous eras?

Looking at some of the top "power" players of today's game, I can think of several who seem to be using racquet that are just as heavy and low-powered and demanding as players of 20 years ago were using. Federer, Safin, Blake, J.J., Berdych, Verdasco, are all guys who can hit clean winners from the backcourt with ease, and all of them use relatively traditional, heavy, low-powered racquets. There are others, like Nadal, Roddick, Ljubicic, and several claycourters who use "modern" racquets, and you could argue that they have the technology edge helping their game, but this is by no means the dominating trend.

If guys like Safin and Federer are seemingly able to hit winners from anywhere on the court using racquets that are no different than what champions of 20 years ago were using (Safin is bascically using a Prestige mid and Fed is using something along the lines of a Pro Staff 6.0), and racquet technology is not credited for their ability to do so, what should be credited?

 

[@wright]

I do not think it is solely attributed to the changes in racquets, but I'd say it has helped the power and speed of the game gradually over time. Safin and Federer are not using racquets that are too much like the ones from 20 years ago. They are using larger headsizes that give the player a larger margin for error, allowing them to go for bigger serves and groundstrokes. I think that today's superior athletes also contribute to the changes in the game.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Graphite only became the norm on the ATP tour in '83. The commentators are right, you couldn't hit those shots today with wood racquets.
Even though graphite was used throughout the 80s, the majority of players from that era grew up using wood, so they weren't taught to be as consistently aggressive as many of today's players.
Equipment changed the way the game was taught. Virtually all of todays players have never even hit with a wood racquet, & the technique that they were taught is drastically different.

I never buy the "today's players are stronger, etc" as an explanation for power. The majority of tennis pros look like tennis pros. Tennis players have always been scrawny & will always look like scrawny guys. Very little muscle on them, this isn't the NBA, NFL, or MLB. Roddick was serving 140 the day he came on tour & had no muscle whatsover. Korda's one of the most explosive players I've ever seen & looks like a stick figure. Federer? What muscle?

BTW, the game received a ton of criticism for the powergame of the 80s as well. Becker vs Lendl on any surface didn't have many rallies & had a ton of service winners/unreturned serves.

It's a shame we can't have one tournament a year with players just using wood racquets. many fans today really have no idea how different all these "strong athletes" would look with that equipment.

 

[monologuist]

ok...don't wanna get too caught up with the figure of "20 years ago"...Sampras won his first GS with a racquet very simialr to what Fed uses today (Wilson PS 6.0 85), and that was 15 years ago. Point is, there was a time when people were using racquets no less powerful than what some of today's top pros use,whether that was 20, 15 or 10 years ago, and they were not hitting clean winners from behind the baseline with regularity. So how do you explain it when guys today do it with similar racquets?

 

[@wright]

Kevin, just to play Devil's advocate...Do you think it's a coincidence that Lendl was one of the first to have an extremely punishing baseline game, and he was also a fitness pioneer on tour? I'm not meaning this as a flame, just respectfully raising this question.

 

[timmyboy]

wait.... maybe the racquet technologies actually work!!!!

jk

i dunno. i guess it's the way it's taught as stated before. or the courts have changed to become slower. i don't know.

 

[arosen]

Its most likely a combination of increased fitness that Lendl and others pioneered and trainers like Pat Etcheberry took to the extreme, and technological inventions such as high modulus graphite, twin tube etc. Roddick may look scrawny, but his right arm and his legs are unbelievably strong. The top guys nowadays are insanely fit, and coupled with topspin that the equipment lets them generate, it results in winners from behind the baseline being hit in every game. I am not that good of a player, but when I hit the sweetspot on my Prestige LM mid that is 93 sq. inches big, the ball just explodes off the frame. I dont even have to swing all that hard, and its a winner more often than not. I can only imagine what a giant like Safin can do with the same stick.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

mono, as I said before technology changed the way the game was taught.
Most players on tour today were born in the 80s. Even Sampras grew up playing with a wood racquet. The textbook has changed quite a bit over the years.

awright,
I think it was a coincidence. I'm not sure what Lendl's training regimen was before he became #1 in '85, but he always had plenty of power pre '85. In fact I think he was more aggressive before '85. He became more of a percentage player when he became dominant, less aggressive. He took some pace off his shots & became a human backboard(which is how the fitness became part of his game) only going for it when necessary.

I think the fitness/strength training aspect of tennis is more important to prevent injuries not increase power.
Agassi was the hardest hitter of all time (off the ground) in the late 80s/early 90s. He was pretty scrawny, the power was from technique/timing. I think his weight-training/improved fitness helps him stay healthy, not give him any more power.

 

[monologuist]

mono, as I said before technology changed the way the game was taught.
Most players on tour today were born in the 80s. Even Sampras grew up playing with a wood racquet. The textbook has changed quite a bit over the years.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you now saying that changes in technique is the reason guys today have upped the power/precision ante? If so, in your opinion, what specifically has changed technique-wise to allow guys to hit with greater pace? My impression had been that the change in technique for groundstrokes in recent times has been to take bigger cuts at the ball, with a more open-stance, and with a western grip/closed racquet face to force enough topspin to keep the ball from going long, resulting in spinnier groundstrokes. In combination with a high powered racquet, I can see how this would allow guys to hit more winners from the backcourt, but sticking with the main thrust of my post, what about the guys who still used relatively low-powered racquets? These new techniques seem like they would take away pace (in favor of spin), not add. Or are you referring to other aspects of technique?

 

[Cavaleer]

As I see it, two events happened in the 80s that fundamentally changed the game: 1)Racquet materials and 2) Borg's exclusive and devastating use of topspin and western grip.

The racquets became stiffer and more powerful than wood, and Borg's introduction of topsin allowed an entirely new series of strokes and footwork (think open-stance) to develop. To see the difference you only need to watch a pre-Borg player, say Ashe or Connors, to see my point. Their footwork, stance, hips and shoulders are very different from today's players, all because of their grip. The S&V game, however, has not benefitted from these changes because control and precision are more valuable than power.

These two developments combined to gradually give us the game we have today. Even wood-racquet players like Sampras and Lendl adapted their games to take advantage of these changes. Sampras, Graf, along with Agassi and Courier to a lesser degree, maximized all of the above by being stronger and better conditioned. I'm sure others did as well but these come to mind immediately.

The racquet materials combined with topspin and open-stance actually allow smaller players to generate amounts of pace they would never be able to generate with wood or even early graphite racquets.

Furthermore, there's no one on tour today who's as muscular as Rod Laver, or faster or better conditioned than Borg. Tennis is not like the NBA or the NFL where size and speed are priceless. In tennis, almost anyone can generate pace with today's racquets and footwork.

I would also argue that the women's game has benefitted more than the men's from the newer racquets and the open stance, even though many of them use semi-western/eastern grips, like Davenport, Pierce and many Russians.

Please correct my errors or oversights, especially if someone else was using a western-grip, exclusive topspin game before Borg.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

I was going to post exactly what Cavaleer said, haha.
mono, you answered he question well. Did tennis camps of the 80s universally teach that style you described? I would think not, but it was the norm in the 90s.

Also do you have any info on when Fed & Safin's racquets came into existence? I don't think they are similar to racquets from 15-20 years ago, certainly not compared to Lendl, Becker, etc.

 

[Cavaleer]

I was going to post exactly what Cavaleer said, haha.
mono, you answered he question well. Did tennis camps of the 80s universally teach that style you described? I would think not, but it was the norm in the 90s.

Also do you have any info on when Fed & Safin's racquets came into existence? I don't think they are similar to racquets from 15-20 years ago, certainly not compared to Lendl, Becker, etc.

Kevin, you know what they say about great minds.

I, for one, don't think Federer is using an 88'' version of the PS 6.0 85. I've used the 85, the discontinued Tour 90 and the nCode 90, and they are all very distinct frames. I think Federer is using the nCode, perhaps tailored to his preferences, but I think the material is the same as what they sell on the shelf. I think this material is one of the reasons he's able to do the things he does with the ball, and with opponents serves, a la Roddick. Obviously, his skill plays the largest role but I think this stick makes him even more formidable than he would be with an 85.
The nCode 90 is a very heavy, very solid, almost tank-like stick. You can plow through the ball in a way you simply couldn't with the 85 or the Tour 90. You do lose tons of feel, however, which I think is why his net-game suffers more than it did when he used the 85.

I don't know anything about Safin's stick or Head's in general, although the few times I've hit with one I enjoyed it.

 

[prostaff1]

Clearly the racquets make all of the difference. Just look to the women's game if you are in doubt. Presently, a racquet can legally be some insane 33mm wide--that is crazy! Venus Williams would not be hitting 127mph serves with Martina Navratilova's old Yonex or Chris Evert's Pro Staff Original. Andy Roddick would be Michael Stich w/o the Babolat.

That said, better technology does not equal better players. They guys who are in the top ten currently are certainly weaker players than the guys in the top ten 15 years ago.

 

[monologuist]

Kevin, you know what they say about great minds.

I, for one, don't think Federer is using an 88'' version of the PS 6.0 85. I've used the 85, the discontinued Tour 90 and the nCode 90, and they are all very distinct frames. I think Federer is using the nCode, perhaps tailored to his preferences, but I think the material is the same as what they sell on the shelf. I think this material is one of the reasons he's able to do the things he does with the ball, and with opponents serves, a la Roddick. Obviously, his skill plays the largest role but I think this stick makes him even more formidable than he would be with an 85.
The nCode 90 is a very heavy, very solid, almost tank-like stick. You can plow through the ball in a way you simply couldn't with the 85 or the Tour 90. You do lose tons of feel, however, which I think is why his net-game suffers more than it did when he used the 85.

I don't know anything about Safin's stick or Head's in general, although the few times I've hit with one I enjoyed it.

hmm...I'm skeptical that "ncode technology" would allow Fed to hit with more pace than a PS 6.0 85, certainly not enough so that it would be the difference maker in whether he could hit winners like he does from anywhere on the court. He could hit shots like he does today four or five years ago when there was no ncodes anyway. I'm even more skeptical that the lack of feel from the ncode technology is responsible for a decline in his net game.

 

[monologuist]

Clearly the racquets make all of the difference. Just look to the women's game if you are in doubt. Presently, a racquet can legally be some insane 33mm wide--that is crazy! Venus Williams would not be hitting 127mph serves with Martina Navratilova's old Yonex or Chris Evert's Pro Staff Original. Andy Roddick would be Michael Stich w/o the Babolat.

That said, better technology does not equal better players. They guys who are in the top ten currently are certainly weaker players than the guys in the top ten 15 years ago.

well first of all, I think that the difference in power between the women's game now versus 10-20 years ago highlights a difference in physical size, strength, and conditioning in an even less debatable way....

the statement that Roddick would be Stich w/o a Babolat is absurd.

and when you say that today's top 10 are weaker players than 15 years ago, do you mean strength and conditioning wise?

 

[monologuist]

by the way, regarding western grip/open stance vs. eastern grip/closed stance, I have to say that personally, I can hit with a lot more pace with eastern/clsoed stance, since I'm getting my body turn behind the shot more and the shot is flatter and less topspin. In fact, I use semi-western for my forehand most of the time, but switch to eastern when I go for winners from the backcourt.

 

[monologuist]

I was going to post exactly what Cavaleer said, haha.
mono, you answered he question well. Did tennis camps of the 80s universally teach that style you described? I would think not, but it was the norm in the 90s.

Also do you have any info on when Fed & Safin's racquets came into existence? I don't think they are similar to racquets from 15-20 years ago, certainly not compared to Lendl, Becker, etc.

I posted in the racquets section to find out when the Prestige Classic and PS 6.0 first came out. However, I do know that Sampras won USO in 1990, which is 15 years ago, and he used the PS 6.0 85.

another thing to consider is that Fed and Safin not only are using racquets that are 15 year old technology, but they are hitting as hard or harder and going toe to toe with guys who are using Babolats currently.

 

[Hartzy]

I think a major thing with the change of play is where the players come from. Spaniards have always been known for their baseline play and they are coming in droves as well as Argentinians.

 

[Cavaleer]

hmm...I'm skeptical that "ncode technology" would allow Fed to hit with more pace than a PS 6.0 85, certainly not enough so that it would be the difference maker in whether he could hit winners like he does from anywhere on the court. He could hit shots like he does today four or five years ago when there was no ncodes anyway. I'm even more skeptical that the lack of feel from the ncode technology is responsible for a decline in his net game.

Those two points are very speculative, especially about his net game. I personally love volleying with the nCode. It's so solid, it's beautiful. Nothing else I've hit with volleys like it.

As far as his shot-making, I haven't seen his play with the 85 but I have seen his play with the Tour 90 and he was hitting more or less the same shots he hits now, specifically in the finals of Wimbledon and Oz. Again, it's speculation based on my first-hand knowledge of the differences between the two racquets. You can hit shots with the nCode that are much more difficult to hit with the Tour 90. The Tour doesn't hit as thick and powerful as the nCode.

 

[prostaff1]

Mono-

What I meant by the Roddick/Stich reference is that Roddick would still be atop the big servers list- but not able to break the high 130's- a la Stich.

And to clarify, I think that players today such as Davydenko and Gaudio, who are in the top ten are not as accomplished as players in the top ten from 15 years ago.

In terms of the women, I don't see how you can argue that women are more fit. Go to a pro tournament- most of them are pigs. The racquets make such a difference for them as opposed to conditioning.

 

[Cavaleer]

I posted in the racquets section to find out when the Prestige Classic and PS 6.0 first came out. However, I do know that Sampras won USO in 1990, which is 15 years ago, and he used the PS 6.0 85.

another thing to consider is that Fed and Safin not only are using racquets that are 15 year old technology, but they are hitting as hard or harder and going toe to toe with guys who are using Babolats currently.

True but their strokes and footwork are definitely post-Borg, so to speak. And graphite is stronger/stiffer than wood, perhaps not more powerful per se, but you can hit a different type of ball with graphite than with wood.

 

[monologuist]

Mono-

What I meant by the Roddick/Stich reference is that Roddick would still be atop the big servers list- but not able to break the high 130's- a la Stich.

And to clarify, I think that players today such as Davydenko and Gaudio, who are in the top ten are not as accomplished as players in the top ten from 15 years ago.

In terms of the women, I don't see how you can argue that women are more fit. Go to a pro tournament- most of them are pigs. The racquets make such a difference for them as opposed to conditioning.

I don't mean that they are more fit...but that they are bigger and stronger.

 

[Superior_Forehand]

Furthermore, there's no one on tour today who's as muscular as Rod Laver, or faster or better conditioned than Borg.

Im not saying he is a better player than those two, but I would say that Nadal is more muscular than laver and better conditioned/faster than borg.

 

[35ft6]

Personal opinions aside, I'm sure if you look at the average height of the tennis pro, the guys have gotten progressively bigger over the past 25 years.

So along with technology, I think size has much to do with it, but also...

I just think the perception of what's acceptable in terms of reasonable power has changed. Just like the way it did with the 4 minute mile, once one guy did it, all of the sudden lots of other people were suddenly able to do what was once thought humanly impossible. People like Lendl, Becker, and Agassi came along, and proved that hitting very hard consistently was a viable way to play to the youngsters that looked up to them. The old guys probably thought these guys hit too hard, and should rush the net more, and hit through the ball more and hit with less topspin, but the younger people without these cemented notions of how the game should be played emulated these guys, and are taking it even further.

What was considered "trying to hit too hard" 25 years ago, is the norm now. And I think this is were technology has helped greatly. There was a study that showed that Sampras and Mark P could hit huge bombs with wooden rackets, but what about over the course of a match? Modern technology allows players, I think, to generate the power they could probably generate with a wooden rackets, but easier, over a longer span of time, throughout the course of a match. Which allows them to take huge cuts at the ball using topspin even deep into the 5th set.

And I think there's a limit to what racket technology can do. At some point, too much power is limiting. And there's a limit to how hard you can realistically hit and still keep the ball in play, and we may be very close to that right now (somebody first make this point on a different thread).

 

[35ft6]

Im not saying he is a better player than those two, but I would say that Nadal is more muscular than laver and better conditioned/faster than borg.

And wasn't Laver like 5'8" or something? And Borg was a freakishly gifted physical specimen, but he wasn't IMO super impressive in some technical aspects. For instance, I don't know if his backhand would be sound enough to withstand the power of today's game. I know -- I'm a heretic.

 

[monologuist]

Personal opinions aside, I'm sure if you look at the average height of the tennis pro, the guys have gotten progressively bigger over the past 25 years.

So along with technology, I think size has much to do with it, but also...

I just think the perception of what's acceptable in terms of reasonable power has changed. Just like the way it did with the 4 minute mile, once one guy did it, all of the sudden lots of other people were suddenly able to do what was once thought humanly impossible. People like Lendl, Becker, and Agassi came along, and proved that hitting very hard consistently was a viable way to play to the youngsters that looked up to them. The old guys probably thought these guys hit too hard, and should rush the net more, and hit through the ball more and hit with less topspin, but the younger people without these cemented notions of how the game should be played emulated these guys, and are taking it even further.

What was considered "trying to hit too hard" 25 years ago, is the norm now. And I think this is were technology has helped greatly. There was a study that showed that Sampras and Mark P could hit huge bombs with wooden rackets, but what about over the course of a match? Modern technology allows players, I think, to generate the power they could probably generate with a wooden rackets, but easier, over a longer span of time, throughout the course of a match. Which allows them to take huge cuts at the ball using topspin even deep into the 5th set.

And I think there's a limit to what racket technology can do. At some point, too much power is limiting. And there's a limit to how hard you can realistically hit and still keep the ball in play, and we may be very close to that right now (somebody first make this point on a different thread).

OK...now we're talking....this is much closer to what I personally suspect to be the case, rather than the "racquet technology" argument.

 

[urban]

The racket technology relates also to the size of the frame. The old wooden racket had a very little sweet spot, and you had to hit the ball inside this spot, to generate any power. So you had to lead the ball with your racket, otherwise you shanked the balls into the ground or into the stands. Modern rackets are much more forgiving. When i see Federer's backhand, he has relatively many mishits, which go over the net nevertheless, so that he can stay in the point. Besides: Borg's Donnay was not intirely out of wood, but had some fibre glas ingredients in it, to make it stiffer. With the old rackets you had to have extremely strong wrists to generate power from the ground.

 

[BreakPoint]

ok...don't wanna get too caught up with the figure of "20 years ago"...Sampras won his first GS with a racquet very simialr to what Fed uses today (Wilson PS 6.0 85), and that was 15 years ago. Point is, there was a time when people were using racquets no less powerful than what some of today's top pros use,whether that was 20, 15 or 10 years ago, and they were not hitting clean winners from behind the baseline with regularity. So how do you explain it when guys today do it with similar racquets?

How many times have I seen Sampras hit running forehand winners from behind the baseline? Let's see, 1,2,3, oh yeah, about a thousand times.

 

[BreakPoint]

I am not that good of a player, but when I hit the sweetspot on my Prestige LM mid that is 93 sq. inches big, the ball just explodes off the frame. I dont even have to swing all that hard, and its a winner more often than not. I can only imagine what a giant like Safin can do with the same stick.

Unfortunately, we'll never know since Safin has never used the LM Prestige. So I guess imagine what he could do with it is all we can do.

 

[BreakPoint]

Besides: Borg's Donnay was not intirely out of wood, but had some fibre glas ingredients in it, to make it stiffer.

Actually, I think the Donnay Borg Pro had some graphite overlay in it to make it stiffer and also stronger so that it could withstand Borg's preferred 80 lbs string tensions. Fiberglass would be too flexible.

 

[BreakPoint]

I think one thing you guys are all forgetting is strings. Strings and tension make a big difference. The advent of Luxilon strings allows pros to hit the ball harder while still keeping the ball in the court. Roman Prokes of ****, as well as many TV commentators talk about this all the time. Federer may use a similar racquet to what Sampras used, but he uses a Luxilon hybrid which allows him to string at much lower tensions (52 lbs) and hit the ball harder while still keeping the ball in the court. Sampras had to string in the 70's lbs with his full gut job to control the ball and keep it in the court. If he tried to hit even harder or lowered his tension to gain more power, the ball would sail long. Thus, I think today's poly strings and lower tensions have a lot to do with why many pros seem to be able to hit the ball harder than before. Pros in the past can hit the ball just as hard, too, but the ball wouldn't stay in the court with their full gut stringjobs. Today's pros can hit hard while keeping the ball in at the same time, thanks to poly and lower tensions.

 

[laurie]

Breakpoint, where do you get the information that Federer plays with 52lbs tension?

That is very, very low. The sort of tension a much older person would use because they cannot generate much power and need all the aid they can get.

Maybe one of the guys from Tennis Warehouse can come on and give us a definitive answer.

In my mind there is no doubt that most of the very best players in the world still use racket technology that is 10-15 years old. And besides Roddick a lot of players still use smaller racket heads including Mauresmo and Schiavone in the women's game and a hell of a lot of the men including Federer (of course), Safin, Kuerten, Rusedski, Dent, Phillipousis and many others. 93sq inches and under is what I consider an old school racket and all these players plus others use rackets of this size and under.

 

[monologuist]

How many times have I seen Sampras hit running forehand winners from behind the baseline? Let's see, 1,2,3, oh yeah, about a thousand times.

true true...but this is not really what I'm talking about....I'm talking about the evolution of the game to high pace baseline exchanges, where guys hit winners standing well behind the baseline against another guy standing well behind the baseline...I"m not talking about running passing shot winners.

 

[monologuist]

I was going to post exactly what Cavaleer said, haha.
mono, you answered he question well. Did tennis camps of the 80s universally teach that style you described? I would think not, but it was the norm in the 90s.

Also do you have any info on when Fed & Safin's racquets came into existence? I don't think they are similar to racquets from 15-20 years ago, certainly not compared to Lendl, Becker, etc.

According to some posts in the racquets forum, the PS 6.0 which is what Fed's racquet is modeled after came out around 1982, 23 years ago. The Head Prestige Classic came out around 1985, 20 years ago, and quickly became the most popular racquet on tour. It is believed to be the precise racquet that Marat Safin and many others still play beneath their "Liquidmetal" paintjobs.

 

[monologuist]

I think one thing you guys are all forgetting is strings. Strings and tension make a big difference. The advent of Luxilon strings allows pros to hit the ball harder while still keeping the ball in the court. Roman Prokes of ****, as well as many TV commentators talk about this all the time. Federer may use a similar racquet to what Sampras used, but he uses a Luxilon hybrid which allows him to string at much lower tensions (52 lbs) and hit the ball harder while still keeping the ball in the court. Sampras had to string in the 70's lbs with his full gut job to control the ball and keep it in the court. If he tried to hit even harder or lowered his tension to gain more power, the ball would sail long. Thus, I think today's poly strings and lower tensions have a lot to do with why many pros seem to be able to hit the ball harder than before. Pros in the past can hit the ball just as hard, too, but the ball wouldn't stay in the court with their full gut stringjobs. Today's pros can hit hard while keeping the ball in at the same time, thanks to poly and lower tensions.

I don't think I understand why Fed could hit the ball harder and not worry about the ball sailing long if he strings with gut mains/ALU crosses as low as 52 lbs., and Sampras would be hitting long if he didn't string his all-gut job lower than 70 lbs? They are using relatively similar frames in terms of power but Sampras's all-gut job @ 70 lbs. is surely less powerful than Fed's gut hybrid job @ 52 lbs. If that is the case, you'd think Fed would be the one who would have a relatively harder time taking vicious cuts at the ball and keeping the ball in since his stringbed is gonna be more trampolin-y.

 

[FiveO]

Excerpts from High Tech Tennis by Jack L. Groppel, PhD, 1992, Leisure Press


In 1987 Dr. Jack Groppel and other researchers studied the effect of string tension, string type, and racket type on ball impacts, and published the results in 2 papers in the International Journal of Sports Biomechanics. Balls were fired at the same velocity at rackets clamped in place, and the pre-impact and post-impact ball speeds were compared. In the first study, only one racket was used, strung at 4 different tensions with nylon string. The results are summarized in this table:

string
tension
40 lbs
50 lbs
60 lbs
70 lbs
post-impact (bounce) speed
as % of pre-impact (incoming) speed
50.3%
48.2%
46.7%
46.3%
duration of ball contacting strings
in thousandths of a second
4.08
4.07
4.05
3.82


Until the early 1980s, tennis players were erroneously told that tighter strings produced more power and looser strings more control (you will see this stated in older books, such as the 1982 1st edition of The Handbook of Tennis). Then it was found that the opposite was true. What is surprising about the data above is that racket strung at 40 pounds tension produced only 4 percent more ball speed than the same racket strung at 70 pounds. That is to say, if you hit the ball at 70 mph with your racket strung at 70 pounds, then reduce the tension in order to gain more "power," an identical stroke with the racket strung at 40 pounds will travel at 72.8 mph, less than 3 mph faster.
The other issue is control. One factor in ball control is that the longer the ball is on the strings, the greater the likelihood of control errors caused by the racket twisting due to off-center hits. Thus the shorter contact duration that results from higher string tensions is thought to reduce the amount of error. At 40 pounds tension, the ball was in contact with the strings of the test racket 0.26 microseconds longer than at 70 pounds tension, which is about 6.8 percent longer. This could be enough time for a significant increase in errors due to the racket twisting from off-center hits. (It is also thought by some that additional control at higher string tensions results from the strings biting more deeply into the ball cover during impact, allowing more spin to be imparted to the ball by an experienced player.)

Even more surprising results were obtained when Groppel and his coresearchers decided to run impact tests comparing nylon and gut strings, on both oversize and midsize rackets.

oversize racket
string
tension
40 lbs
50 lbs
60 lbs
70 lbs
80 lbs
nylon string
post-impact (bounce) speed
as % of pre-impact (incoming) speed
51.8%
49.8%
48.1%
47.8%
50.0%
gut string
post-impact (bounce) speed
as % of pre-impact (incoming) speed
50.5%
48.8%
48.8%
45.9%
46.5%

midsize racket
string
tension
40 lbs
50 lbs
60 lbs
70 lbs
80 lbs
nylon string
post-impact (bounce) speed
as % of pre-impact (incoming) speed
38.7%
40.4%
37.5%
35.9%
36.2%
gut string
post-impact (bounce) speed
as % of pre-impact (incoming) speed
40.7%
37.9%
43.1%
35.9%
33.4%


The numbers in the last 2 tables were obtained by reading graphs that were printed in a very small size in High Tech Tennis, so they are approximate (within about 0.2%).

Notice that:
1. The oversize racket produced around 13% more "power" (ball speed) than the midsize racket.
2. Although gut strings were once claimed to be more "lively" than nylon, the nylon strings produced higher ball velocities at most string tensions on the more "powerful" oversize racket, and tied with gut on the midsize racket.
3. The results are non-linear. Unlike the first study, lower tension did not always result in higher post-impact ball speed. Apparently the racket used in the first study was not used in the second (although Groppel does not say, and he does not say what models of rackets were used).
The reason or reasons for the non-linear results are obscure. Groppel says: "It basically seems that each racket has vibration (or harmonic action) that is specific to its design." The non-linear results may be related to a mismatch between the time of ball contact with the time of string deflection and repositioning. If the ball is not in contact with the strings throughout the period of string deflection and repositioning, it cannot obtain all of the available force from the strings.

John McEnroe was one of the first world-class players I heard of who had his racquets strung at very low tension compared to the majority of the tour. He used 4 5/8, weighed 13½ ounces strung and at a relatively low 50-52 pounds of tension.

Sampras and Borg before him, were legendary for how tight they strung their frames.

 

[FiveO]

I don't think I understand why Fed could hit the ball harder and not worry about the ball sailing long if he strings with gut mains/ALU crosses as low as 52 lbs., and Sampras would be hitting long if he didn't string his all-gut job lower than 70 lbs? They are using relatively similar frames in terms of power but Sampras's all-gut job @ 70 lbs. is surely less powerful than Fed's gut hybrid job @ 52 lbs. If that is the case, you'd think Fed would be the one who would have a relatively harder time taking vicious cuts at the ball and keeping the ball in since his stringbed is gonna be more trampolin-y.

Ball striking style. Sampras confessed that Gullickson drummed into his head hitting his groundies with greater topspin. Pete's hitting style was relatively very flat.

Federer on the other hand uses his tremendous racquet speed to generate much more spin. His natural hitting style produces much more spin than Sampras did but is also much flatter than the other heavy top-spinners on tour (Nadal, Hewitt even Roddick). His safety comes from spin. What makes Fed's fh the best is much like what made Sampras' serve the best, a combination of spin AND pace which makes his fh one of the "heaviest" on tour.

It's why equipment choice is unique to every individual. Sampras would "back fence" the ball with Fed's set-up and Fed would probably give up too many short balls with less pace using Sampras' string choice and tension.

 

[jhhachamp]

I play with an Estusa power beam pro and I have also hit with many newer players racquets such as the pure control and the iprestige. I did not notice any difference in power between these racquets and the estusa is a really old racquet.

 

[35ft6]

Excerpts from High Tech Tennis by Jack L. Groppel, PhD, 1992, Leisure Press

Balls were fired at the same velocity at rackets clamped in place, and the pre-impact and post-impact ball speeds were compared.

To me, this seems like a very flawed way of testing the power potential of a string tension. Imagine throwing a tennis ball at a brick wall, and then throwing the same ball at the same speed at a trampoline standing on its side. The ball would bounce way farther off a brick wall, but would that mean it's "resilient" than a trampoline. I don't know if I'm making myself clear.

Likewise, if a metal baseball bat and a wooden bat were strapped in place and underwent the same testing, I wouldn't expect much difference from them either. Same thing for a tennis racket and a frying pan with a long handle. I think they would get a truer reading if the rackets were strapped onto a machine designed to swing the racket uniformly over and over again. Under these conditions, I would bet that the racket strung at 40 lbs would send the ball much further than the one strung at 70.

 

[araghava]

According to some posts in the racquets forum, the PS 6.0 which is what Fed's racquet is modeled after came out around 1982, 23 years ago. The Head Prestige Classic came out around 1985, 20 years ago, and quickly became the most popular racquet on tour. It is believed to be the precise racquet that Marat Safin and many others still play beneath their "Liquidmetal" paintjobs.

It's entirely normal to expect pros to play with 10 ~ 15 year old technology. This was new technology when they learnt the game. This is the technology they will be comfortable with. If new technology comes out now you can expect to see it in the hands of a top pro only 10 year from now.

There will always be mid-level pros who will adopt new technlogy to try and push them into the top bracket. However a top pro is unlikely to let go of some thing he/she trusts when it has bought him/her so far.

 

[35ft6]

There will always be mid-level pros who will adopt new technlogy to try and push them into the top bracket. However a top pro is unlikely to let go of some thing he/she trusts when it has bought him/her so far.

What you're saying is true but Coria and Ferrero have recently changed. Albert Costa, Corretja, and Mantilla all changed, too (not sure if Costa and Corretja are still playing). And anybody playing with a Babolat has changed relatively recently, except for Moya, who I think was the first person I saw playing with that frame.

 

[BreakPoint]

I don't think I understand why Fed could hit the ball harder and not worry about the ball sailing long if he strings with gut mains/ALU crosses as low as 52 lbs., and Sampras would be hitting long if he didn't string his all-gut job lower than 70 lbs? They are using relatively similar frames in terms of power but Sampras's all-gut job @ 70 lbs. is surely less powerful than Fed's gut hybrid job @ 52 lbs. If that is the case, you'd think Fed would be the one who would have a relatively harder time taking vicious cuts at the ball and keeping the ball in since his stringbed is gonna be more trampolin-y.

As has been said by many commentators and stringers, pros love to use Luxilon because it allows them to hit the ball harder while still keeping the ball in the court. In fact, some have claimed that it makes it nearly impossible to hit the ball long or that it takes hitting long out of the equation. I don't know how much truth there is to that since I don't use Luxilon strings. However, I suspect what they are really saying is that Luxilon allows them to put so much bite or spin on the ball that they can swing harder but the extra spin will make the ball land inside the court.

Since Sampras strung his racquets so tight, he couldn't get as much power off the ground as Federer can with his much lower tensions. Sampras had to string so tight since he didn't put as much spin on his shots as Federer does, and he also didn't have the benefit of using Luxilon to allow him to produce the extra spin required to hit the ball harder and keep it in the court. Thus, when he tried to hit even harder with his relatively flat strokes and full gut job (which is pretty powerful as its very resilient), he would tend to hit long.

Here's an excerpt from that **** article:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Babolat got incredibly lucky because it coincided with Luxilon strings," Prokes says. "You probably wouldn’t see Babolat racquets anywhere (on the pro tour) if it weren’t for Luxilon. The Babolat racquet is a wide-body racquet with a lot of power, which most people on the professional tour can’t handle because the ball will sail without the Luxilon string. Luxilon string enables you to have control with the racquet. You have to have a long swing and you have to be able to come over the ball. It’s not for people who come to the net, it’s not for serve-and-volleyers, it’s not for people with short swings because if you miss with Luxilon — let’s say you hit too deep — your natural reaction is ‘Oops, I over-hit it I’m gonna hit less.’ With Luxilon, it’s the opposite because you’re going to hit more because once you start holding back or hitting flat it flies. It grips the ball and gives you incredibly bite on the ball.

So what Roman is saying is that, with Luxilon, you actually have to hit the ball harder to keep it in the court. Yes, it's counter-intuitive but that's what the pros are doing today. They're hitting the ball harder in order to keep the ball in. I guess it's kind of like driving a Porsche 911 fast into a hairpin turn. The natural inclination is to let off the gas and hit the brakes when you start to lose control of the car, but that's the worst thing you can do as that'll cause the tail end to spin around. It's much better to do the opposite which is to apply more gas and accelerate through the turn.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[MagicMT]

the same is true for serving. if you miss your first serve, the tendency is to take a lot off your second serve instead of hitting it with a similar force but with more spin...

 

[BreakPoint]

Breakpoint, where do you get the information that Federer plays with 52lbs tension?

That is very, very low. The sort of tension a much older person would use because they cannot generate much power and need all the aid they can get.

See these threads:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=56521

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=28661

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=72386

I also personally heard Cliff Drysdale and Patrick McEnroe mention it on the air.

 

[laurie]

Thanks Breakpoint. I read the log too. I play with 90sq inch rackets with Technifibre strings at 62lb tension. My rackets recommend between 55 and 65lb tension. I noticed Davenport plays with 67 lb tension and Mauresmo at 57 lb.

Still amazed Federer plays with such a low tension.

 

[BreakPoint]

Remember that Federer uses a poly hybrid so it allows him to string lower while still maintaining some control. The lower tension is one reason he's able to generate so much power.

 

[laurie]

Breakpoint, I must admit this does fascinate me. That he uses tension that low to generate the power he's looking for. Maybe he cannot generate the sort of power he needs with a more tightly strung racket?

Would you know if played with tighter rackets in the earlier phases of his career?

 

[BreakPoint]

laurie, sorry, but I don't know if Fed used low tensions earlier in his career but I suspect that he did, so that he has become comfortable with it over the years and has learned how to control all that power. Perhaps someone else that knows for sure can chime in here?