luxilon is killing tennis

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
This guy is like a cross between becker and edberg, but every single first volley is below the level of the net.
I think people who can volley with this level of proficiency should be rewarded.
Luxilon is killing variety, only one playing style is effective nowadays, it doesn't matter how good you are at volleying, if every volley has to be scraped off your shoelaces you don't have a chance.
Hand on my heart I don't think McEnroe could have made a D2 college tennis team with his style of play against opponents weilding luxilon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGPdxbJrsec
 

iamke55

Professional
Considering that people will say Sampras was better in his prime than today's players no matter how much the game evolves, I say remove all equipment restrictions because apparently it's not helping anyone play better than outdated players using outdated equipment a long time ago.
 
i find it hard to believe that a single product like luxilon is able to change tennis so dramatically. i think it more a result of better, longer, harder training than anything else.
 

HyperHorse

Banned
I don't think you can base the impact of a string on the modern game just because Roddick has no idea when to come to the net...
He just thinks its ok to hit an OK chip and then charge in...
He has no plan of thinking "Ok im going to hit the ball here, it will most likely come crosscourt or down the line..."
That's what i think anyway...
 

mdjenders

Professional
Who are you saying is a cross between Becker and Edberg? Roddick or Mahut? Either way, that statement is ridiculous, because Roddick has no touch at net, and Mahut is a fringe player.
 

BigboyDan

Semi-Pro
In 1990 Boris Becker said that the choice of racquet is important, but that the choice of strings is more important. 1990.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
mahut,
mahut volleys and moves like edberg, has a 130-140mph 1st serve and a 110-120mph 2nd serve, and the likes of roddick can consistently place every ball below the height of the net tape, meaning he has to volley up.

How can anyone possibly hit a wniner at the net under these conditions?

Years ago skill was needed to hit such a shot, Luxilon has allowed crap players with crap technique at all levels to hit the ball with an extraordinary spin/mph ratio.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3064206

"The rotation you get is drastically different than with gut," Goldstein said. "The ball jumps and moves unbelievably. A ball that looks like it's going way out and then drops like a stone -- that's what everyone calls 'a Luxilon shot.' "

"It's now parabolic," McCain said. He likened contemporary tennis to pingpong

''According to McCain, so staggered was Pete Sampras by the string's ability to turn defensive baseliners into forceful counter-punchers that he dubbed it "Cheatalon." ''
 

Eviscerator

Banned
i find it hard to believe that a single product like luxilon is able to change tennis so dramatically. i think it more a result of better, longer, harder training than anything else.
The training is only one aspect, and the equipment accounts for a greater degree of baseline play. The fact that they slow down the surfaces puts the final nail in the coffin of most S&V's.
 

johnkidd

Semi-Pro
I thought Agassi's comment's on Luxilon that have been posted here numerous times speaks volumes.

I still think the biggest thing is the court speed. The fact that the Courts here in Cincinnati are condidered fast on the tour shows how much they have slowed the courts down because I found them to be slow.
 

rosenstar

Professional
Considering that people will say Sampras was better in his prime than today's players no matter how much the game evolves, I say remove all equipment restrictions because apparently it's not helping anyone play better than outdated players using outdated equipment a long time ago.
I agree. I think that players with variety can always win, now they just need to pic their shots a little better.
 
L

laurie

Guest
This guy is like a cross between becker and edberg, but every single first volley is below the level of the net.
I think people who can volley with this level of proficiency should be rewarded.
Luxilon is killing variety, only one playing style is effective nowadays, it doesn't matter how good you are at volleying, if every volley has to be scraped off your shoelaces you don't have a chance.
Hand on my heart I don't think McEnroe could have made a D2 college tennis team with his style of play against opponents weilding luxilon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGPdxbJrsec
Common, let's not get carried away here. Mahut had matchpoint in the 2nd set if I recall correctly. Plus there are quite a few areas in his game that prevent him from becomming a top class player. It's not just about strings. His baseline game and movement needs a lot of work.

Even if you look at a pure serve and volleyer like Pat Rafter, he worked hard to get his baseline game up to a certain standard to allow him to compete. It doesn't matter whether its now or 10 years ago or 20 years ago, all serve and volleyers must have a decent baseline and transition game to get to the top 10. That's why players like Wayne Arthurs, Alexander Popp from the 1990s and now Myrni, Dent (injuries unfortunately) Karlovic are not top 10, never mind top 5 material.
 

eman70

New User
What I saw was mostly poor approach shots.......either coming in when starting BEHIND the baseline ......badly place approach shots that sat up high.......poor first volleys that didn't go deep enough or weren't angled enough.....

I also saw some good passing shots.....as I remember Borg hit some nice passing shots against McEnroe (with VS gut in a wood racquet)....and some good service returns.....and again as I remember Connors hit some nice returns past McEnroe at Wimbledon and I think he was using gut in a Wilson T-2000 of all things.....

In that video, I saw both players come in to the net at the right time at times behind a well placed approach shot or a well placed serve and hit winning volley's...........and win the point.

I personally play luxilon.....and I've always been a big topspin guy.....believe me, I'm still capable of hitting the ball out.....it takes an awful lot of skill to take a big cut on a ball and brush up it the right way to generate an amazing amount of topspin....no matter what string you are using.......I can hit pretty big topspin with synth gut.........its possible that I get a little more spin with the luxilon.....but all strings and racquets for that matter have their own unique playing characteristics..........they have advantages and disadvantages.......the difference between me hitting with my K factor 95 strung with luxilon is not all that much from my wilson fpk 95 strung with synth gut.........there certainly are subtle differences and I'd say I like my "new" setup better.......but I won't be going on tour any time soon as a result. I was a 5.5 - 6.0 player back in the day (20 years ago) and was away from the game for almost that long........I do find that there has been some technological improvement but NO WHERE near what has went on in golf.........and I enjoy what technology has done to golf......makes it a lot more fun for me..........
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Considering that people will say Sampras was better in his prime than today's players no matter how much the game evolves, I say remove all equipment restrictions because apparently it's not helping anyone play better than outdated players using outdated equipment a long time ago.
Ditto. I'm still waiting for someone to top a supposedly 163 mph serve hit by Tilden with a wood racquet. I'm also waiting for players nowadays to consistently hit 100+ mph forheands like Tilden, Gonzalez, Budge, etc supposedly did.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Ditto. I'm still waiting for someone to top a supposedly 163 mph serve hit by Tilden with a wood racquet. I'm also waiting for players nowadays to consistently hit 100+ mph forheands like Tilden, Gonzalez, Budge, etc supposedly did.
People haven't evolved over a ten year period, neither has the training, all players have been training to their max snce the mid 90's.And I'm not saying such and such a player was better than this group of players or anything like that.

I'm just saying that the conditions reward certain skills and it doesn't seem fair to me that amazing serve and volleyers like mahut, who is equally proficient to almost anyone I have ever seen serve and volley, including edberg, gets no reward for this skill.And that's a shame.

The odds are ridiculously stacked against him, if every single volley has to be hit up, how can he possibly put the ball away?

Luxilon makes it VERY EASY to hit perfect passing shots, it's now much easier to hit a passing shot than it is to deal with one, it's also possible to play far more efficiently from the baseline than anyone can play at the net.

The thing about playing the net is, it's supposed to put you in the ultimate offensive position, and with the advent of luxilon and other polys it has become impossible to attack, which puts you in a very bad situation defensively.
 
Last edited:

Azzurri

Legend
Ditto. I'm still waiting for someone to top a supposedly 163 mph serve hit by Tilden with a wood racquet. I'm also waiting for players nowadays to consistently hit 100+ mph forheands like Tilden, Gonzalez, Budge, etc supposedly did.
I heard this somewhere. Do you think its an urban legend? I wonder how they were able to measure the speed back then.

I could be wrong, but didn't Philapousses (spelled wrong) serve with a wood racquet and hit almost the same speed as his graphite?

by the way, I went back to the Asian KF 90 and am playing better than ever (I just got my third AK90).:)
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Common, let's not get carried away here. Mahut had matchpoint in the 2nd set if I recall correctly. Plus there are quite a few areas in his game that prevent him from becomming a top class player. It's not just about strings. His baseline game and movement needs a lot of work.

Even if you look at a pure serve and volleyer like Pat Rafter, he worked hard to get his baseline game up to a certain standard to allow him to compete. It doesn't matter whether its now or 10 years ago or 20 years ago, all serve and volleyers must have a decent baseline and transition game to get to the top 10. That's why players like Wayne Arthurs, Alexander Popp from the 1990s and now Myrni, Dent (injuries unfortunately) Karlovic are not top 10, never mind top 5 material.

but mahut plays the baseline about as well as rafter, probably even a little better, but oce he gets to the net he can't use his voleys offensively, every volley must be hit up, and has to be hit slow enough for gravity to take it down into the court, how can anyone put the ball away in that situation?
 

jasoncho92

Professional
I think youre forgetting that back when they used woodies, it was all continental grip (maybe eastern, i dont know that well). People now use western grips and such that all the ball to dip down that much
 

couch

Hall of Fame
I'm in my basement right now working on a Top Secret string for serve and volleyers that will take Luxilon down and revolutionize the tennis world.

Muahahahahaha.......Don't interrupt....Mad Scientist at work!
 

DashaandSafin

Hall of Fame
People haven't evolved over a ten year period, neither has the training, all players have been training to their max snce the mid 90's.And I'm not saying such and such a player was better than this group of players or anything like that.

I'm just saying that the conditions reward certain skills and it doesn't seem fair to me that amazing serve and volleyers like mahut, who is equally proficient to almost anyone I have ever seen serve and volley, including edberg, gets no reward for this skill.And that's a shame.

The odds are ridiculously stacked against him, if every single volley has to be hit up, how can he possibly put the ball away?

Luxilon makes it VERY EASY to hit perfect passing shots, it's now much easier to hit a passing shot than it is to deal with one, it's also possible to play far more efficiently from the baseline than anyone can play at the net.

The thing about playing the net is, it's supposed to put you in the ultimate offensive position, and with the advent of luxilon and other polys it has become impossible to attack, which puts you in a very bad situation defensively.
Tennis rewards whoever is the better player. Mahut is hardly an amazing volley-er by any standard, look at the shots he's coming in with, not exactly the best shots...

Also, Roddick isn't using Luxilon, he's using Babolot strings so think before you post more Roddick trolling garbage. If Roddick is such a garbage player, why can't you hit passing shots like him? If he's garbage, then you'r probably the crap on garbage's feet, boo hoo. Quit whining.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Tennis rewards whoever is the better player. Mahut is hardly an amazing volley-er by any standard, look at the shots he's coming in with, not exactly the best shots...

Also, Roddick isn't using Luxilon, he's using Babolot strings so think before you post more Roddick trolling garbage. If Roddick is such a garbage player, why can't you hit passing shots like him? If he's garbage, then you'r probably the crap on garbage's feet, boo hoo. Quit whining.


who said roddick was garbage?

bigger balls allow topspin to exert a far greater force too.
 

DashaandSafin

Hall of Fame
Years ago skill was needed to hit such a shot, Luxilon has allowed crap players with crap technique at all levels to hit the ball with an extraordinary spin/mph ratio.
Right there. Roddick has such "crap technique" he's in the top 5.

Where does it say that bigger balls allow for better topspin and exert more force?? Are you just making facts up now? So if i hit one of those gigantic USO balls my ball will go faster, with more topspin than if I hit with a normal tennis ball? Thought so.
 

jmverdugo

Hall of Fame
So if i start using Lux string im going to be able to hit Federer like passing shots? cool, im on my way to the shop ;)

Seriously, baseliner and SV´s have the same advantages from this kind of strings. If you can get mayor slice spin on your serve wouldnt this benefit the sv, or if you hit and approach shot with more topspin a let say more angle, wouldnt this benefit volley? Serving and volley have more to do with smart choices than the equipment itself. Look at Radek Stepanek.

Playing tennis from the baseline started with wood rackets, the new equipments have nothing to do with the decadence of s&v. As soon as Bjorg and Vilas became succesfull players playing form the baseline, the s&v style was less and less instructed. However nowdays you see people S&V one or two times per game, because you must have variety.

How is tennis being kill? this is the modern tennis people, you need to open your minds a little bit. just my opinion.
 
Last edited:

GatorTennis

Rookie
First, no one ever said Roddick was crap. Please learn to read and comprehend. He is likely one of the most comdemned top 5 players in history. The way people talk about him, and then you see he's top 5 still. Maybe the depth of the men's game isnt' what it was in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

As for luxilon, it's not killing tennis. All poly based strings are. It is irresponsible to single out one company. If strings didn't make that much of a difference, then why were spaghetti strings outlawed? What the poly strings have done is make it easier for a top 100 player to beat a top 25 player. The original poster is correct, the variety of tennis is going away. No more classic matchups of serve and volley vs. baseliner. The contrast is gone.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
First, no one ever said Roddick was crap. Please learn to read and comprehend. He is likely one of the most comdemned top 5 players in history. The way people talk about him, and then you see he's top 5 still. Maybe the depth of the men's game isnt' what it was in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

As for luxilon, it's not killing tennis. All poly based strings are. It is irresponsible to single out one company. If strings didn't make that much of a difference, then why were spaghetti strings outlawed? What the poly strings have done is make it easier for a top 100 player to beat a top 25 player. The original poster is correct, the variety of tennis is going away. No more classic matchups of serve and volley vs. baseliner. The contrast is gone.

luxilon is the poly used by almost all pros, but yeah, you're definitely right about that.
 

DashaandSafin

Hall of Fame
First, no one ever said Roddick was crap. Please learn to read and comprehend. He is likely one of the most comdemned top 5 players in history. The way people talk about him, and then you see he's top 5 still. Maybe the depth of the men's game isnt' what it was in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

As for luxilon, it's not killing tennis. All poly based strings are. It is irresponsible to single out one company. If strings didn't make that much of a difference, then why were spaghetti strings outlawed? What the poly strings have done is make it easier for a top 100 player to beat a top 25 player. The original poster is correct, the variety of tennis is going away. No more classic matchups of serve and volley vs. baseliner. The contrast is gone.
If you're going to live on this board, learn to read and don't just say whatever comes to mind. Read my quote up there, someone in this very thread said Roddick was crap. Reading comprehension?

Im sick of this whole serve and volley bull. It really wasn't that interesting to watch. You say baseline bashing is boring? Well want to know somnething? Serve and Volleying is boring as hell too. Baseline bashing is monotnous? So is serving a ball then rushing the net and dinking a volley, ending the point in 3 strokes or so. The only reason people might enjoy it now is because there is not so much of it. If the whole tour were S&V and baseline bashing was a minority, then I guarentee that we would be saying that S&V was boring.
 
This guy is like a cross between becker and edberg, but every single first volley is below the level of the net.
I think people who can volley with this level of proficiency should be rewarded.
Luxilon is killing variety, only one playing style is effective nowadays, it doesn't matter how good you are at volleying, if every volley has to be scraped off your shoelaces you don't have a chance.
Hand on my heart I don't think McEnroe could have made a D2 college tennis team with his style of play against opponents weilding luxilon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGPdxbJrsec
No offense, but Johnny Mac won a major ATP doubles event last spring w/ Bjorkman and in doing so he hit PLENTY of solid volleys coming from the racquets of Luxilon weilding current ATP giants. ;) If you have JMac's hands, reflexes and court sense, it doesn't really matter what string you (or your opponent) are using. Well, not at least MUCH. :) CC
 

krprunitennis2

Professional
This guy is like a cross between becker and edberg, but every single first volley is below the level of the net.
I think people who can volley with this level of proficiency should be rewarded.
Luxilon is killing variety, only one playing style is effective nowadays, it doesn't matter how good you are at volleying, if every volley has to be scraped off your shoelaces you don't have a chance.
Hand on my heart I don't think McEnroe could have made a D2 college tennis team with his style of play against opponents weilding luxilon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGPdxbJrsec
In my opinion, Luxilon forces players to become better at reacting and moving. I kinda agree that guys that can consistently hit first volleys and volleys well should be very much rewarded because of all the easy shots you can do from the baseline. But then I don't think that Luxilon would really KILL tennis. It seems to reward those who can play everwhere and give them more recognition. So wouldn't that encourage all-court players?

^_^ Plus, hitting hard at the baseline makes tennis look so cool since people who play basketball or another sport next to the tennis courts (probably in a park) would just be ":O"

Makes tennis look a lot cooler than just placement. Since no passerby really looks at placement much.
 
Seriously, baseliner and SV´s have the same advantages from this kind of strings. If you can get mayor slice spin on your serve wouldnt this benefit the sv, or if you hit and approach shot with more topspin a let say more angle, wouldnt this benefit volley? Serving and volley have more to do with smart choices than the equipment itself. Look at Radek Stepanek.

QUOTE]

Agreed. With full poly I get WAY more kick on my second serve and 'skid' on 1HBH slice approaches. Plus I can make the slice serve really slide away on the add court, adding variety to my body and out wide flat first deliveries. ;) CC
 

couch

Hall of Fame
If you're going to live on this board, learn to read and don't just say whatever comes to mind. Read my quote up there, someone in this very thread said Roddick was crap. Reading comprehension?

Im sick of this whole serve and volley bull. It really wasn't that interesting to watch. You say baseline bashing is boring? Well want to know somnething? Serve and Volleying is boring as hell too. Baseline bashing is monotnous? So is serving a ball then rushing the net and dinking a volley, ending the point in 3 strokes or so. The only reason people might enjoy it now is because there is not so much of it. If the whole tour were S&V and baseline bashing was a minority, then I guarentee that we would be saying that S&V was boring.
It's most exciting though to watch contrasting styles against each other. We don't have much, if any, of that anymore. :-(
 

onehandbh

Legend
Seriously, baseliner and SV´s have the same advantages from this kind of strings. If you can get mayor slice spin on your serve wouldnt this benefit the sv, or if you hit and approach shot with more topspin a let say more angle, wouldnt this benefit volley? Serving and volley have more to do with smart choices than the equipment itself. Look at Radek Stepanek.

QUOTE]

Agreed. With full poly I get WAY more kick on my second serve and 'skid' on 1HBH slice approaches. Plus I can make the slice serve really slide away on the add court, adding variety to my body and out wide flat first deliveries. ;) CC

^^^ I totally agree... but full poly makes it more difficult to hit
volleys that stick with a minimal swing. The strings just don't have
as much power.
 

TheNatural

G.O.A.T.
I think the problem is no one is learning how to volley or play an all court game. Too many academies that just teach baseline play with the same extreme western grips. So a lot of them have limited shot selection, and have troubles hitting wide shots. Also since they didnt learn to volley much in those academies, it becomes harder to learn later on. For example, see Djokovic, he started trying to learn to integrate volleying into his game with Woodforde to try to make him use volleying as another option in his game, but then sacked him out of the blue and gave up on that idea. So it looks like hes just going to volley as a last resort, not as another option in his game.

Gasquet comes to net a lot and volleys very naturally. Looks like all court play and volleying has always been a part of his game. But there arnt many others. I think he'd be even more dangerous with a less extreme forehand grip.
 

Jackie T. Stephens

Professional
I can make my volleys go that low, I trained myself to do that the volleys that go to the shoe lace... your right I can't really scoop it up from there. I use Lexilon Alu myself with Gut for the crosses and I may say that my volleys are solid!
 
L

laurie

Guest
Behappy, I watched the final of Queens in full between Mahut and Roddick. Plus I watched him beat Nadal in the same event. Rafter had an accomplished baseline game by 1999. I wouldn't say Mahut is very good from the baseline at all, I think that and not his volleying skills is preventing him from going up the rankings, in the same way it prevented Taylor Dent from going up the rankings.

The baseline rallies between Rafter and Agassi in the 2000 and 2001 Wimbledon semifinals were amazing, and Rafter won many of those points without venturing the net. Rafter employed the Sampras strategy of playing Agassi which was to hit the backhand low with slices, then come over it with topspin, keeping Agassi off balance and looking for short balls to either attack the net or get the forehand into play. Mahut has not got that level of ability as yet to do that in a match with someone of the ability of Agassi.

Mahut must work on his baseline game.
 

superman1

Legend
Every time I see that Fred Flinstone logo I know something stupid is about to be said. Mahut volleys like Edberg? McEnroe wouldn't make the cut today? Ridiculous.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Every time I see that Fred Flinstone logo I know something stupid is about to be said. Mahut volleys like Edberg? McEnroe wouldn't make the cut today? Ridiculous.
really?

So mcenroe's 100mph serves and well placed volleys would defeat nadal?

Yeah, I can just see it now, McEnroe ripping continental forehand winners past a bemused Nadal!

Or perhaps McEnroe's legendary fitness could be called upon?


idiot
 

callitout

Professional
Years ago skill was needed to hit such a shot, Luxilon has allowed crap players with crap technique at all levels to hit the ball with an extraordinary spin/mph ratio.
What's unbelievable is that you are calling Roddick a "crap player". The guy was a #1 junior and is a top 5 pro...yup he's a crap player.
Made Roger come up with insane tennis to beat him at USO, but once again a crap player. World #5 a crap athlete and crap player. He's just been lucky the past 5 years to be inside the top 100, I mean top 10 and often top 5.
Wow thank god for Roddick that great talents like Mahut, are kept in check by the Luxillon conspiracy.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
What's unbelievable is that you are calling Roddick a "crap player". The guy was a #1 junior and is a top 5 pro...yup he's a crap player.
Made Roger come up with insane tennis to beat him at USO, but once again a crap player. World #5 a crap athlete and crap player. He's just been lucky the past 5 years to be inside the top 100, I mean top 10 and often top 5.
Wow thank god for Roddick that great talents like Mahut, are kept in check by the Luxillon conspiracy.


I am not saying roddick is crap.

I do think Mahut is a better forecourt player than roddick is a baseliner though.
 

JohnP

Rookie
People haven't evolved over a ten year period, neither has the training, all players have been training to their max snce the mid 90's.And I'm not saying such and such a player was better than this group of players or anything like that.

I'm just saying that the conditions reward certain skills and it doesn't seem fair to me that amazing serve and volleyers like mahut, who is equally proficient to almost anyone I have ever seen serve and volley, including edberg, gets no reward for this skill.And that's a shame.

The odds are ridiculously stacked against him, if every single volley has to be hit up, how can he possibly put the ball away?

Luxilon makes it VERY EASY to hit perfect passing shots, it's now much easier to hit a passing shot than it is to deal with one, it's also possible to play far more efficiently from the baseline than anyone can play at the net.

The thing about playing the net is, it's supposed to put you in the ultimate offensive position, and with the advent of luxilon and other polys it has become impossible to attack, which puts you in a very bad situation defensively.
Again, you do realize that neither player in the video you posted was using Luxilon strings, don't you?

Mahut was one setup forehand passing shot away from beating a top 5 player (Roddick) and winning the Queen's Club tourney. And that was with, as others have mentioned, more than a few not-so-spectacular approaches to the net. That video should be encouraging to serve and volley players, if anything.
 

saram

Legend
I can't belive that we will fault strings for killing tennis. Ridiculous. Tennis great--relax!!!
 

rooski

Professional
Most pros these days use poly or a poly hybrid...so where's the advantage? It's not like only the back of the pack pros are using it. They all do. If poly makes you so much better, then shouldn't all players who use it be back on a level playing field? The best player should still win all things being equal.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Most pros these days use poly or a poly hybrid...so where's the advantage? It's not like only the back of the pack pros are using it. They all do. If poly makes you so much better, then shouldn't all players who use it be back on a level playing field? The best player should still win all things being equal.

the player who's best at a certain style of play:yes.

the best player:no.

-slow surfaces
-polys
-15% bigger balls

=effortless topspin=every volley must be hit up=no volley winners
 
Last edited:
Top