Yeah, bad example. I actually do recall a Hurricane/Conquest job I had a couple years ago that got pretty notched and locked. I remember hitting a couple of practice serves and noticing a nice 'spin sound' from the strings. I can't recall though if I got good kick on those serves.
ITF says slippery strings give more spin
- Thread starter corners
- Start date
Yeah, bad example. I actually do recall a Hurricane/Conquest job I had a couple years ago that got pretty notched and locked. I remember hitting a couple of practice serves and noticing a nice 'spin sound' from the strings. I can't recall though if I got good kick on those serves.
Oh really? First you said you didn't need to watch them because you already knew it all. Now you watch and say the videos didn't show you anything that you didn't know before.
So what exactly did you know before? I'd like to know. Because I've read your posts, both in this thread and in prior threads in similar subjects and I happen to think that those videos directly contradict a number of your opinions.
So far, you've contributed nothing to either this thread or those previous threads - certainly not an analysis. Instead you repeat the same anecdote-based opinions over and over, completely ignoring any evidence presented by your fellow posters. You don't even bother to read other poster's posts, which I think is quite disrespectful.
So please, tell us exactly what the video showed you that you 'already know'.
You've been around these boards a long time; you should know what it looks like when a poster hasn't a leg to stand on in an argument. You're that guy now.
Not exactly...more like "Mind closed". Why is it so hard for you to consider alternatives? Have you gone through life continually ignoring opportunities to learn something new? Seriously BP, please explain to us how it is you understand this better than everyone else here. I'm all ears....
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I already knew that the "snapping back" of strings are not the reason that poly gives a bit more spin than other softer strings and nothing in those videos have convinced me otherwise. It's the stiffness of the strings and their resistance to be stretched large distances due to their low resiliency that give poly more spin.
I did read other people's posts. And other than Kevo, no one has bothered to actually pull aside the main strings with their fingers to see how quickly they "snap back". Tell me, what is the difference between the ball pushing aside the strings and your fingers pushing aside the strings? The "force" that exists to return the strings back to where they started is the same. In fact, if anything, the strings should "snap back" even faster when you let go of your fingers than if the strings were actually snapping back while the ball is still on the strings and still applying downward force on the strings. It's common sense folks.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Have you read "Technical Tennis"? No? Why are you ignoring opportunities to learn something new?
Maybe I understand it better because I have more common sense? I don't know.
Tell me, why are LESS slippery strings (rough, textured, hex or other shapes, etc.) marketed as producing more spin while MORE slippery strings are not?
Richie Rich
Legend
you just wait until the shift is over at McD's and the fry grease gets cleaned off. someone is going to google up some mean engineering calculations to put you in your place. :shock:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I'm not going to bother because vibrating strings have nothing to do with what we're talking about here so I'm not going to waste my time.
elee3
Rookie
Breakpoint, just isolating down to the factor if the snap back does anything to the spin. I think you might have missed an observation in the video where the strings were lubricated. In that video, after hitting the ball the player would have most likely said "no noticeable string movement at all" cause the snap back looks like it occurred within the 5 ms dwell time frame. Visually I can see how the snap back can possibly enchance spin versus no snap back or late snap back after the ball as already left.
The example you give would be the late snap back. From what I've played with fresh strings and "no noticeable string movment" (string probably snaps back within the ball dwell time) does give more spin versus dead or strings with lost tension where the string ends up all over the place and does not snap back. There's a ton of factors that go into spin production, but I think the snap back can possibly help. Maybe the ultimate spin string setup would be high friction strings with Teflon string savers for lower string to string friction to get the snap back and the high friction contact with the ball.
Last edited:
Richie Rich
Legend
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
BTW, poly does indeed "bite" the ball more. This is because poly is so stiff, it makes for a stiffer, less resilient stringbed which gives less on ball impact. When the ball collides with the stringbed, something has to give, and since the stringbed is so unyielding, the ball has to compress or "flatten" more on the stringbed because that energy has to go somewhere. When this happens, a greater percentage of the fuzzy outer surface area of the ball makes contact with more of the strings on the stringbed. This allows more strings to grab or "bite" the ball as you brush up on the back of the ball. More strings to add rotational force to a greater surface area of the ball. This is one reason why poly gives more spin. This is also why when you hit the ball hard with poly, the "pop" sound is louder than with other softer strings. That's the sound of the ball compressing (flattening) more against the stringbed.
The other reason for poly giving more spin is again its low resiliency and stiffness but in the lateral direction. It resists moving aside large distances better than more resilient strings do. Polys may be slippery when new, but since they don't stretch as much, the ball cannot push it aside as much during impact before it stops stretching/moving and "catches" or stops the ball so it can start imparting spin on it with your upward swing.
Polys may be less comfortable when old and less slippery because they don't slide or "give" as easily both in the normal direction and laterally. And since the strings don't "give" as much when you brush up on it, you'll likely feel the stiffness and low resiliency of the strings more, thereby, making it feel "harsher" or "dead".
The other reason for poly giving more spin is again its low resiliency and stiffness but in the lateral direction. It resists moving aside large distances better than more resilient strings do. Polys may be slippery when new, but since they don't stretch as much, the ball cannot push it aside as much during impact before it stops stretching/moving and "catches" or stops the ball so it can start imparting spin on it with your upward swing.
Polys may be less comfortable when old and less slippery because they don't slide or "give" as easily both in the normal direction and laterally. And since the strings don't "give" as much when you brush up on it, you'll likely feel the stiffness and low resiliency of the strings more, thereby, making it feel "harsher" or "dead".
S H O W S T O P P E R !
Hall of Fame
Cool, so I guess it's time to lube up my string.
Richie Rich
Legend
and people wonder why they have chronic elbow pain after they leave poly in their racquet for 6 months. but hey, it still looks new, right? :mrgreen:
Lsmkenpo
Hall of Fame
No, like I said before if the stiffness of the string were the only reason for the increase in spin, everyone on the tour would be using kevlar which is twice as stiff as any poly in production. Kevlar does not give as much spin as ALU. It is not just because it is stiff, it it were that simple, string manufacturers would just make a string as stiff as possible and market it as
a spin string.
v205
Semi-Pro
I think they are just different ways of producing more spin.
A rough / textured string is the old traditional way that works via extra friction.
The newer way is the ability for the string to glide more smoothly to absorb the ball which results in providing higher initial grip with less technique involved compared to the traditional way.
It is interesting that prince recoil trys to mimic the behaviour of strings moving back into position. The other string is is the Yonex 850 Pro.
I have a freshly strung X1 / 850 Pro that I'm still waiting to get a chance to hit. The X1 being the friction string and the 850 Pro being the smooth string to allow the the strings to move back into position.
I'm hoping to capitalise both benefits with this set up.
A rough / textured string is the old traditional way that works via extra friction.
The newer way is the ability for the string to glide more smoothly to absorb the ball which results in providing higher initial grip with less technique involved compared to the traditional way.
It is interesting that prince recoil trys to mimic the behaviour of strings moving back into position. The other string is is the Yonex 850 Pro.
I have a freshly strung X1 / 850 Pro that I'm still waiting to get a chance to hit. The X1 being the friction string and the 850 Pro being the smooth string to allow the the strings to move back into position.
I'm hoping to capitalise both benefits with this set up.
There is only one way to generate spin... which is racquet head speed. What you want are strings that translate racquet head speed into spin without translating into something else, like forward velocity ('power'), and without absorbing the kinetic energy, which is what string movement does. If you think string movement increases spin, you're way off... string movement 'absorbs' racquet head speed. When a string moves, the energy that WOULD have been turned into spin had the string not moved is absorbed, and is either released after the ball leaves the racquet (the ball doesn't stay on the strings long enough for string movement to impart spin) in the case of a poly of a slick string, or it gets turned into sound (vibrations) in the case of creaky synthetic guts that move every time you hit the ball.
This is part of the reason why a freshy-strung racquet will have better spin...because the higher tension means there's less string movement. It's also why you get better spin from the middle of the racquet than the sides; less string movement.
Now, if you're lubricating the strings or using 'spaghetti stringing,' you've just ventured into the realm of that which is not tennis equipment (because it's banned by the ITF), so the "slingshot" effect of string movement doesn't apply, because you're not allowed to use equipment like that. But a standard, non-lubricated racquet/string will generate the most spin if you use a stiffer, thinner, harder string that doesn't move. OTOH, textured strings are worthless.
This is part of the reason why a freshy-strung racquet will have better spin...because the higher tension means there's less string movement. It's also why you get better spin from the middle of the racquet than the sides; less string movement.
Now, if you're lubricating the strings or using 'spaghetti stringing,' you've just ventured into the realm of that which is not tennis equipment (because it's banned by the ITF), so the "slingshot" effect of string movement doesn't apply, because you're not allowed to use equipment like that. But a standard, non-lubricated racquet/string will generate the most spin if you use a stiffer, thinner, harder string that doesn't move. OTOH, textured strings are worthless.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
That equation has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here. But if you must know, it appears to be a step function using a Fourier transform. Now, why don't you tell us more about vibrating strings because it's so fascinating and applicable to this discussion. :roll:Just as I thought. You can't even attempt to identify yourself or show any sort of intellect.
As someone with a real engineering degree, I find your lying pathetic and offensive. People like you pollute great forums like this.
One last chance.
What kind of equation is this? If you took any Mechanical Engineering you should know this. I will take even just description of what type of equation this is as an answer.
I doubt that you even have good enough Google skills to look this up...
Lying poser!
Oh, BTW, why would someone who never studied mechanical engineering still have these books on their bookshelf?
You can apologize anytime now.
Rod Cross, ITF: Nobody REALLY Knows
At the bottom of this post are a couple of snippets from an article in Times magazine back in June 09. I share them here to make a couple of quick points:
Rod Cross (author of Technical Tennis) believes that the type of string doesn't make a difference when it comes to spin generation.
Even the head scientist at the ITF is NOT SURE why poly generates more spin.
If these people don't know exactly what is going on, then none of us do either. There have been a bunch of posts here where information is thrown around as if it is 100% fact. We are all just speculating.
There are those who claim to know that less string movement causes more spin. It seems to make sense, but it's only one possibility. For sure, a stiffer stringbed allows for a more aggressive swing with less worry about hitting the ball too deep, which may translate into more spin...but nobody has proven that there is a difference between two stringbeds with identical stiffness but different string types.
There are others who claim that string movement and snap-back are responsible for enhanced spin...but again, it has not been proven. The videos are from a study that was done to promote a product, so until somebody replicates the experiment, we don't really know what's going on.
We need somebody to conduct a solid scientific study. If I could get you all to agree to contribute to a study grant, I would conduct the study myself.
Just kidding.
Seriously, though. Everybody who has two identical frames go out and create your own experiments. Lube up. Tighten up. Loosen up. Keep all variables constant except for one and design your own mini-study that helps answer this question. We don't have to have high speed cameras or hard data...let's just do what we can.
I just broke a string today, so I will restring tomorrow and string two frames exactly the same job. Then I'll go out and hit and just lube the snot out of one of my stringbeds and see what happens. I don't have the miracle Japanese string lube...so any suggestions? WD-40? Butter? Chap Stick? Petroleum Jelly? KY?
From the Times Article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyester monofilament strings do generate "slightly more" spin than older generation strings, according to the International Tennis Federation (ITF), which started testing the playing characteristics of strings three years ago, but ITF head of science Stuart Miller says he's not sure why. One theory is that far from "biting" the ball, as many players describe it, the strings are "slippery" — when the ball pulls the strings out of their gridded alignment, they snap back quickly, propelling the ball's rotation.
But is the "Luxilon shot" all down to Luxilon string? In a 2006 article titled "The Inch that Changed Tennis Forever," Rod Cross, a physics professor at the University of Sydney, argued that the innovation in equipment that transformed topspin from a looping, defensive shot into a dive-bombing, offensive play actually happened in the late 1970s, when equipment makers widened the heads of professional rackets from nine inches to 10 (they also dropped wood for metal and eventually graphite). The extra inch allowed players to tilt the racket forward and swing from low to high without worrying about clipping the edge of the frame when brushing up on the ball.
At the bottom of this post are a couple of snippets from an article in Times magazine back in June 09. I share them here to make a couple of quick points:
Rod Cross (author of Technical Tennis) believes that the type of string doesn't make a difference when it comes to spin generation.
Even the head scientist at the ITF is NOT SURE why poly generates more spin.
If these people don't know exactly what is going on, then none of us do either. There have been a bunch of posts here where information is thrown around as if it is 100% fact. We are all just speculating.
There are those who claim to know that less string movement causes more spin. It seems to make sense, but it's only one possibility. For sure, a stiffer stringbed allows for a more aggressive swing with less worry about hitting the ball too deep, which may translate into more spin...but nobody has proven that there is a difference between two stringbeds with identical stiffness but different string types.
There are others who claim that string movement and snap-back are responsible for enhanced spin...but again, it has not been proven. The videos are from a study that was done to promote a product, so until somebody replicates the experiment, we don't really know what's going on.
We need somebody to conduct a solid scientific study. If I could get you all to agree to contribute to a study grant, I would conduct the study myself.
Just kidding.
Seriously, though. Everybody who has two identical frames go out and create your own experiments. Lube up. Tighten up. Loosen up. Keep all variables constant except for one and design your own mini-study that helps answer this question. We don't have to have high speed cameras or hard data...let's just do what we can.
I just broke a string today, so I will restring tomorrow and string two frames exactly the same job. Then I'll go out and hit and just lube the snot out of one of my stringbeds and see what happens. I don't have the miracle Japanese string lube...so any suggestions? WD-40? Butter? Chap Stick? Petroleum Jelly? KY?
From the Times Article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyester monofilament strings do generate "slightly more" spin than older generation strings, according to the International Tennis Federation (ITF), which started testing the playing characteristics of strings three years ago, but ITF head of science Stuart Miller says he's not sure why. One theory is that far from "biting" the ball, as many players describe it, the strings are "slippery" — when the ball pulls the strings out of their gridded alignment, they snap back quickly, propelling the ball's rotation.
But is the "Luxilon shot" all down to Luxilon string? In a 2006 article titled "The Inch that Changed Tennis Forever," Rod Cross, a physics professor at the University of Sydney, argued that the innovation in equipment that transformed topspin from a looping, defensive shot into a dive-bombing, offensive play actually happened in the late 1970s, when equipment makers widened the heads of professional rackets from nine inches to 10 (they also dropped wood for metal and eventually graphite). The extra inch allowed players to tilt the racket forward and swing from low to high without worrying about clipping the edge of the frame when brushing up on the ball.
After enough time on my poly strings, they will quit snapping back. Due to the tight pattern on my frames, the strings don't move out of place very far, but they don't stay in those nice neat rows. They kind of curve to one side. I don't really notice any reduction of spin during this time, and I generally continue to play them until they break.
I can't say for sure what this means, but I do wonder how much force a string can really exert in such a short distance compared to the swing of the frame. I wonder if the snap back effect is more pronounced on open patterns, and if there might be a range or threshold of swing speed or path where the effect is insignificant, or significant.
TenniseaWilliams
Professional
I wanted to compare the two film clips demonstrating the lube, so I took 4 frames out of each. The series on the left is without the lube, the series on the right with. My apologies for the shareware watermark right in the middle.
The frames are:
The strings do move a lot more in the second series, but the swing path also appears more vertical.
The frames are:
- The last frame before impact
- The frame with the most visible stringbed deformation (impact middle)
- The first frame after contact
- Last frame the ball is completely obscured by the racquet
The strings do move a lot more in the second series, but the swing path also appears more vertical.
tennisputz
New User
This topic would be a good thesis for a grad student. An interesting observation about a past string job. I strung a racket with synthetic gut mains at 45 lbs and Luxilon poly crosses at 60 lbs. The crosses were strung every other hole, so about 10 crosses in all. Needless to say the mains slipped like a son of a gun. What I found was that the racket was very difficult to control, however when I hit the ball with alot of topspin(and managed to get it into the court), the flight path of the ball and the bounce was extreme. It almost appeared that the ball wobbled and just dived into the court and then it would take a wicked topspin bounce. Unfortunately the strings broke after about 25 hits.
My thoughts on the video...
For one, the text says the strings have been used for a week, so they're not fresh... not the best thing to do for a 'scientific' experiment.
Second, the ball seems to be off the strings before they snap back in both cases.
Third, the video is cut short on the non-lubricated video, and I think the part they cut out would have been detrimental to their cause... I don't think the lubricated strings had significantly better spin, although the ball started spinning a fraction of a second (literally) faster.
But you can't really tell very well since the video is cut.
For one, the text says the strings have been used for a week, so they're not fresh... not the best thing to do for a 'scientific' experiment.
Second, the ball seems to be off the strings before they snap back in both cases.
Third, the video is cut short on the non-lubricated video, and I think the part they cut out would have been detrimental to their cause... I don't think the lubricated strings had significantly better spin, although the ball started spinning a fraction of a second (literally) faster.
But you can't really tell very well since the video is cut.
CrackerJack
New User
Agreed. My head hurts after watching those videos.
I know one thing for certain and that is that I will never fully understand everything going on there. All I know is the factors that influence spin production the most (ignoring the players stroke mechanics and ability to impart spin) are:
1) racquet head size (specifically width across the hoop) and
2) string pattern (specifically distance between mains).
String type has very little influence on spin production I'd say less than one percent. Tension I would say has a little bit more influence, maybe 2 percent.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
This may be of interest to some of you:
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/PUBLICATIONS/10. StringFriction.PDF
Looks like the conclusion is that the LESS slippery the strings and the higher its coefficient of friction, the more spin you can impart to the ball.
Actually, yes. What specifically in this book proves your point or disproves the OP's point?
How so?
Highly unlikely based on what I've seen. You are leading in the most presumptuous and arrogant categories however.
Precisely.
some6uy008
Semi-Pro
I clicked on this thread to read more about strings and spin, but ended up staying for the drama.
Popcorn anyone?
Popcorn anyone?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I think you mean gameboy ruined this thread with posts like this:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3703758&postcount=44
And then going on about string vibrations and equations that have absolutely nothing at all to do with this topic. Sad.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
That the ball only stays on the string for a mere 0.005 seconds. Strings cannot slide back that quickly due to the cross weaving of the mains through 18-20 crosses and the tensile force on the crosses which serve to lock in and put pressure on the mains. Then add in the frictional force from 18-20 cross strings rubbing on each center main string and it's nearly impossible for it to snap back in under 0.005 seconds. Has anyone seen their mains snap back that quickly? What were the results of everyone's tests using their fingers? This is not a free standing string like a guitar string.
How do we know if in those videos the strings weren't immersed in so much lubricant and strung at such a low tension (<10 lbs.) that it makes the stringbed pretty much unplayable? The OP mentions that "the Japanese study has been largely ignored by other 'string scientists'". Perhaps that was for good reason?
By ignoring my concrete and common sense analysis and those of other string scientists that disagree with the Japanese study.
So, tell me, why do most people hear a louder "pop" when they hit the ball hard with poly than with softer strings? I hope you agree that it's the sound of the ball flattening more against the stringbed, right? And if more strings on your stringbed are in contact with a greater surface area of the ball while you're brushing up on the back of the ball, don't you think it would help to add more spin to the ball?
Here we go again with the presumptuous posturing again. In regards to the cited work(s), they all appear to be from the same author. I've read Cross's work and much of it is highly respectable, however the string analysis is limited and based on a simplified model which may not accurately capture some of the elements involved at ball contact. In fact, Cross even makes this same points in his research.
I've worked as scientist and engineer long enough to recognize when one can reasonably come to a given conclusion and in this case I don't believe enough evidence has been presented by either side to come to any definitive conclusion.
I think you can use physics and mathematics to show what happens when you apply lateral force to a ball using two kinds of strings... although there is a certain 'fudge factor' for unknown or poorly-understood variables.
That said, it's physically impossible for a tennis string to generate any more lateral force on a ball from strings that slip and recoil because everything that comes out of the string has to have gone into the string from the ball in the first place (keep in mind that it's not how fast you swing, it's the relative speeds between the ball and the racquet).
(unless you have a racquet with strings that have been spring-loaded to move upon contact with the ball, but that's not exactly regulation equipment... you might as well play tennis with a belt sander).
But the slippery strings = more spin theory runs into a problem when if you assume that a string that doesn't move at all will transfer the most lateral movement into the ball, because when the strings slip and recoil they will lose *some* energy due to friction, which turns into heat... and notched strings.
Now, if a string with no movement at all did actually transfer all of it's lateral momentum into spin, but strings that slip and recoil DID have more spin, you would be able to tell that (based on physics), there MUST be a separate factor causing this because it can't be the slipping and recoil itself (because of friction and the laws of conservation of energy)... this is the fudge factor. Perhaps the slipping strings cause something else to happen... perhaps they increase dwell time. Perhaps slippery strings cause more ball pocketing. Perhaps slippery strings cause more racquet deflection that causes the string face to travel over the ball more than it would otherwise.
But as I've said, if you were to stipulate that an immovable string transfers all it's energy, then it couldn't possibly be the string recoil itself that causes the spin... and it's not very likely even without that stipulation.
That said, it's physically impossible for a tennis string to generate any more lateral force on a ball from strings that slip and recoil because everything that comes out of the string has to have gone into the string from the ball in the first place (keep in mind that it's not how fast you swing, it's the relative speeds between the ball and the racquet).
(unless you have a racquet with strings that have been spring-loaded to move upon contact with the ball, but that's not exactly regulation equipment... you might as well play tennis with a belt sander).
But the slippery strings = more spin theory runs into a problem when if you assume that a string that doesn't move at all will transfer the most lateral movement into the ball, because when the strings slip and recoil they will lose *some* energy due to friction, which turns into heat... and notched strings.
Now, if a string with no movement at all did actually transfer all of it's lateral momentum into spin, but strings that slip and recoil DID have more spin, you would be able to tell that (based on physics), there MUST be a separate factor causing this because it can't be the slipping and recoil itself (because of friction and the laws of conservation of energy)... this is the fudge factor. Perhaps the slipping strings cause something else to happen... perhaps they increase dwell time. Perhaps slippery strings cause more ball pocketing. Perhaps slippery strings cause more racquet deflection that causes the string face to travel over the ball more than it would otherwise.
But as I've said, if you were to stipulate that an immovable string transfers all it's energy, then it couldn't possibly be the string recoil itself that causes the spin... and it's not very likely even without that stipulation.
I am really do think it's the pocketing / leverage on the ball that allows slippery strings to give you increased spin.
Imagine there was a ball suspended in the air (levitating) and you had a bow (from a bow and arrow) to try to spin the ball.
Given a set swing speed, where would you make contact on the ball to give it a maximum spin? It wouldn't be the very back, just skimming the surface. You'd want to hit it like you were trying to carve a quarter or a third of the ball off.
Imagine there was a ball suspended in the air (levitating) and you had a bow (from a bow and arrow) to try to spin the ball.
Given a set swing speed, where would you make contact on the ball to give it a maximum spin? It wouldn't be the very back, just skimming the surface. You'd want to hit it like you were trying to carve a quarter or a third of the ball off.
....Well, seeing as how hitting the back of the ball is the only way to do it with a tennis racquet, that example becomes somewhat irrelevant.
A better comparison would be; what would you rather use, metal wire of surgical tubing? One would dig into the ball and transfer more energy, whereas the other one would tend to dig less and would absorb some of the energy, and then release part of it... but that energy would only be useful if the ball hasn't already left the 'string.'
A better comparison would be; what would you rather use, metal wire of surgical tubing? One would dig into the ball and transfer more energy, whereas the other one would tend to dig less and would absorb some of the energy, and then release part of it... but that energy would only be useful if the ball hasn't already left the 'string.'
TW Professor
Administrator
The new String Comparison Tool measures string performance at combinations of high, medium and low tension and fast, medium, and slow impacts. Strings behave differently relative to each other based on these things. Here is the link for the new tool:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/stringselector/stringselector.php
Not if the main strings slide to pocket the ball.
Another very cool tool. Is this something that's going to continue to expand as you test more strings?
TW Professor
Administrator
Yes it will expand. Ultimately, it will have all the strings.
Minus Pro Supex of course
I would be curious to see how maxim touch, big ace, and BG measured. Hey maybe this will give a quantitative reason to carry or not carry the line.
gastro54
Rookie
If they don't explain the methodology behind their measurements, their numbers are meaningless.
drgreenthumb
Rookie
time to put my strings with the fries on the deep fryer!
That's not how it works. The strings never touch anything but the 'back' of the ball because they're functionally a flat plane.
JediMindTrick
Hall of Fame
I don't know why you guys argue about it, the pros use luxilon because it gives more spin and luxilon have teflon in them. Clearly the slippery strings are better for spin, ITF is right.
Or maybe luxilon uses "grippy" teflon?
Or maybe luxilon uses "grippy" teflon?
I thought a major advantage of slippery strings was that nonslippery strings are totally out of place after the first heavy topspin ball you hit... so who the heck knows what will happen on the second shot...
This would suggest that nonslippery strings don't tend to "snap back" at all.
This would suggest that nonslippery strings don't tend to "snap back" at all.
I changed my mind...sliding strings are better.
But not because they add spin so much as allow you to maximize the transfer of racquet head speed into spin... strings that don't move won't transfer as much spin slinging.
This is stringing crosses lower allows you to have more spin... since it allows the mains to move freely and slide back into position.
But not because they add spin so much as allow you to maximize the transfer of racquet head speed into spin... strings that don't move won't transfer as much spin slinging.
This is stringing crosses lower allows you to have more spin... since it allows the mains to move freely and slide back into position.
This was my initial thinking. The counter argument (or counter balance) is that higher tension in the crosses (making them stiffer) will divert more of the impact energy into moving the mains.
Perhaps stiffer, thinner gauge crosses, at a lower tension than the mains is the way to maximize this.
Also, do you see what I was talking about with leverage now?
This is the most ridiculous post I have seen on this subject.
If the string has enough time to form a "pocket" around the ball and spring back, it has enough time to slide and slide back.
And his evidence is that you can't see it? LOL! So, he can see ball pocketing happens, even though 0.005 seconds would be too short for human eyes to recognize it?
And you wonder what is wrong with the science education today.... Common Sense does not equal Science.
BP has a strong bias here. For whatever reason, he's convinced his view is correct and those that don't agree with him are just plain wrong. The real trouble comes when he attempts to introduce physics, engineering and mathematics to support his views. This is where he can look foolish.
Note that I'm not saying his perspective is incorrect regarding spin and strings. I believe that there are enough variables involved here such that it is entirely possible he could be correct and those supporting the slippery string theory are also correct (I am one who does support this).
