luxilon is killing tennis

coloskier

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
You don't have near the touch with poly strings as you do with gut. It's not even close. I've played with both and have gone back to gut, even if it is more expensive. I just can't mentally play with a string that is totally dead right out of the package. That is why you can put so much spin on the ball, because it is so dead that you can hit the ball as hard as you want and it won't go anywhere with lots of spin.

But I will agree that serve and volley technique is extremely poor in almost every player on tour.
1. You NEVER approach crosscourt. Especially with the new strings it leaves too many angles for the returner to shoot at.
2. You NEVER approach with topspin, unless you plan to win the point outright on the approach. It is always a bad idea to hit a shot that bounces the ball right into a baseliner's wheehouse. Make him hit it at his shoe tops with an underspin approach and then it won't be so easy for him to pass, especially if he is trying to dig out a ball with a western grip (almost impossible).

Last comment about this is that the courts also have a lot to do with it. They have slowed down every court, even at the US Open and Wimbledon. I remember when they used to play tournaments on wood basketball courts indoors. The ball skipped so much you couldn't hit anything but a slice shot. There were no topspin passing shots, so the poly string would do you no good anyway. That is why players like Ken Rosewall never hit a topspin backhand, and hit flat on the forehand side. No one seemed to complain that those games were boring back at that time. It was only boring to people from continental Europe who's claycourters would be lucky to make it past the 1st round. I wouldn't consider Agassi boring and he hit everything almost flat. Both sides. The strings have made it easier to become a baseliner, so all that matters is that you can get to the ball, instead of having to have to hit an amazing shot to pass someone, which is the way it should be. You should be rewarded for your skill with the same string as everyone else, and not have equipment change the game. The skill should come from the player, not the equipment. And the only ones to say differently are the guys who would be nothing if it wasn't for the string. Could you imagine Nadal trying to play with gut? Not only would his shots hit the fence, it would probably clear it. :D
 

coloskier

Legend
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
If they played on the old court surface with the old rackets (comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges), McEnroe would win in a cakewalk. The only advantage Nadal would have is his speed. But with the old equipment, Nadal's forehand would hit the fence. Plus he could try hitting his big forehand, but when you are hitting it below your knees on every shot, which means hitting up, McEnroe would have destroyed him at the net.
 

coloskier

Legend
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.
I think the players can choose their rackets, but the string should be standardized. As every pro has quoted, the strings have changed the game. No hybrids, only gut or nylon.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
If they played on the old court surface with the old rackets (comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges), McEnroe would win in a cakewalk. The only advantage Nadal would have is his speed. But with the old equipment, Nadal's forehand would hit the fence. Plus he could try hitting his big forehand, but when you are hitting it below your knees on every shot, which means hitting up, McEnroe would have destroyed him at the net.
but!?
[quote='superman]cEnroe wouldn't make the cut today? Ridiculous.[/quote]


looks like you just got f'd in the a!
(to use the vernacular)

;)
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
cheatalon. LOL

sampras, the hypocrite at it again.

the modern technology of racquet design didn't help your serve, did it?

why stop there? Lets go to wooden racquets.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Yeah maybe Luxilon have changed the style of play a little bit but I really think it's more a personal preference and determines very little about match outcomes. I'm pretty sure that if Fed played with all gut and strung it tighter, he'd still be dominating.
 

MasturB

Legend
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
Not every passing shot lands at the shoelaces.

If you're thinking about trajectory, then normal strokes that land at just before your opponent's baseline will have the balls be waist height near the net in the frontcourt.
 

superman1

Legend
looks like you just got f'd in the a!
(to use the vernacular)

;)
McEnroe just beat Philippoussis in a senior's match, which are serious matches played for money. He also won an ATP doubles tournament a couple years ago with that crappy "100 mph serve" of his (actually, he hits it in the 120's and it is tough to return).

Santoro just beat Roddick. Santoro doesn't hit the crap out of the ball.

Save the *** f'ing for Barney Rubble.
 
L

laurie

Guest
McEnroe just beat Philippoussis in a senior's match, which are serious matches played for money. He also won an ATP doubles tournament a couple years ago with that crappy "100 mph serve" of his (actually, he hits it in the 120's and it is tough to return).

Santoro just beat Roddick. Santoro doesn't hit the crap out of the ball.

Save the *** f'ing for Barney Rubble.
That's not fair to Barney, he didn't get inolved in all this.
 
Not every passing shot lands at the shoelaces.

If you're thinking about trajectory, then normal strokes that land at just before your opponent's baseline will have the balls be waist height near the net in the frontcourt.

I do not mean this in an argumentative way, but at the higher levels of the game players can change the trajectory and spin of the ball at will. When I am hitting a normal 'rally' ball I aim at a 'primary target' higher over the net with moderate topspin to bring it down to 'secondary targets' 1-3 feet inside the basline. However when I see someone approaching, it is not a problem to come more 'over' the ball, aiming at a lower primary target, and making it dip more quickly. Luxilon DOES make that a bit easier, but you most certainly DO also give up some 'feel' at net and on touch shots like lob-volleys or drop shots. ;) CC
 

jhhachamp

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.
Why did you choose your forum name as "Be Happy" when all you seem to do is whine about how everything can't be ideal and be exactly the way you want it?
 

MasturB

Legend
luxilon is killing tennis
How exactly?

It's altering the way the game is played, but it's not killing it by any means.

I will take ONE 30 stroke rally to win one point over 4 straight serve and volley points to win a game anyday, in person or on television.

Tennis has kept it's popularity worldwide except in the states. That's because Andy Roddick is our best player, but he can't beat Federer when it counts.

It's not exactly like these guys are taking girly swings that wouldn't make them tired to create such pace and spin. These guys are creating ridiculous racket head speed which causes alot of fatigue to the normal human being. Guys like Federer and Nadal give 110% every match.

Personally, I wouldn't be that much into tennis if it wasn't for the baseline game. I found serve and volley-a-thons to be sometimes a bit boring.

The evolution of the volley has occurred as well. Swinging volleys are used, though not as often.

I personally think that players today just haven't learned the touch at the net. I was watching Sampras against Roddick in their WTT exhibition, and Sampras was using luxilon strings and still had awesome touch at the net.
 

MasturB

Legend
.. to take full advantage of luxilon (or other polys)
Game speed has changed. Running faster to chase after "luxilon" shots isn't taking advantage of it. Better footwork and positioning has nothing to do with taking full advantage of luxilon.

Why do people hate the modern baseline game so much?

You can whine about courts being slowed down, thus taking away the need to serve and volley at wimbledon, but what does that have to do with luxilon?
 
Last edited:

TENNIS_99

Semi-Pro
Game speed has changed. Running faster to chase after "luxilon" shots isn't taking advantage of it. Better footwork and positioning has nothing to do with taking full advantage of luxilon.

Why do people hate the modern baseline game so much?

You can whine about courts being slowed down, thus taking away the need to serve and volley at wimbledon, but what does that have to do with luxilon?
Better training and better physical conditions allow the players to use and experience the latest technology even in theory it might be harder on their body than the old tech. As a result, most pros have poly in their sticks these days. A common reason amateurs keep away from poly is because it hurts, elbow,arms. It is not just the technique(even most of case yes), you still need to be stronger and know how to take care your body to be able to use harsh gears. Then you have a chance to take advantage of what it can give back to you, lik a lot of pros do, And that's all I meant to say...
 
Last edited:

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Better training??????


Players aren't:

1)training harder-muster, lendl, brugera,agassi...

2)running faster:Chang, Edberg, hewitt...

3)Hitting the ball harder:Agassi, Sampras, kafelnikov...

What they are doing is hitting the ball with a hell of a lot more topspin, and this is down to luxilon and other polys.

In the early 2000's everything changed.

Massive topspin makes it impossible to volley aggressively, every single ball is below the height of the net, every single ball must be hit up, slow enough that gravity will pull it down.
 

Nellie

Hall of Fame
I think you have a chicken or egg situation here. What changed the game - the equipement or the technique?

The baseline guys like Lendl have been dominating the rankings for years before the introduction of ployester strings, and guys like Muster and even Borg were taking big cuts with extreme grips. The pros's just adopted the equipment that best fit their games. It is the same reason so many pros are go to lighter, stiffer, larger Babolot racquets.

If you implemented rule changes to standardize equipement, the pros would play the same way with the same technique , because it works better now given the condition of the tour (no grass season, slow courts, etc.)

I understand the OP point that the polyester string allow for bigger top spin, and therefore bigger

As other poster have said, you also have to look at the way players are developed. Juniors are followed and rated starting at young ages, leading to a need for immeadiate success. Serve and volley, and touch in general, takes time to develop, and most juniors are not allowed that luxery. It is well known that Sampras adapted his one handed background because of his coach and hated it because he got smoked by inferior players for several years. I bet he would have been booted out for poor performance if he was a junior at the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
yeah, but serve and volley still worked against those extremely fit and fast extreme grip guys because even they, using the same technique as nadal does today, couldn't hit with such extreme topspin that it was impossible to play the net.

What luxilon does is allow a certain style of play to be played at a higher level than it is possible to play any other.
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
Mahut can hit 140mph on his 1st, and can actually hit up to 120mph on his second so that isn't very clearcut at all
Why don't we have a look at this year's stats from atptennis.com...

Roddick has 708 aces in 59 matches, an average of 12 aces a match. Mahut has 295 aces in 39 matches, an average of 7.6 aces a match. Advantage Roddick.

Roddick wins 57% of his 2nd serve points, Mahut wins 53. Advantage Roddick.

Roddick has 65% first serve percentage, Mahut has 57%. Advantage Roddick.

Roddick wins 92% of his service games, Mahut wins 84%. Advantage Roddick.

Roddick wins 81% of points on his first serve, Mahut wins 75%. Advantage Roddick.

Roddick wins 66% of break points faced, Mahut wins 64%. Advantage Roddick.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Roddick is considerably ahead of Mahut in all the ways ATP tennis uses to compare the effectiveness of people's serve.

Oh yeah, and I'll use the comparison you brought up as well. Roddick can serve 155, Mahut can serve 140. Advantage Roddick.

Roddick is better than Mahut at serving in every possible way that I (and you, thus far) can think of.

No evidence of this.
How about this for evidence, Mahut was playing possibly the best tennis of his career at that tournament in Queens this year. He took out Nadal, who has proven to be tough on grass. He also outplayed Roddick for most of that match IMO and yet Roddick still pulled out the win.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Just out of interest, what percentage of their respective serves are service winners?

second serve
advantage mahut


Thing is he didn't out play roddick for most of that match, roddicks 7/10 standard is enough to pass any volleyer in history the majority of the time, because of the 15% bigger tennis ball.Mahut's, and no one elses for that matter, 10/10 net play won't win matches any more.

That's the point of this thread, conditions today allow for too much topspin for net play to be feasible.
 

MasturB

Legend
Better training??????


Players aren't:

1)training harder-muster, lendl, brugera,agassi...
Nadal, Blake, Roddick are all ripped. Sampras bulked up at the end of his career as well.

2)running faster:Chang, Edberg, hewitt...
Nadal, Federer,

3)Hitting the ball harder:Agassi, Sampras, kafelnikov...


What they are doing is hitting the ball with a hell of a lot more topspin, and this is down to luxilon and other polys.


Monfils can hit a 110 MPH forehand that includes spin and speed.


Massive topspin makes it impossible to volley aggressively, every single ball is below the height of the net, every single ball must be hit up, slow enough that gravity will pull it down.
This is simply not true on every occasion, not even the majority of the time.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
what isn't true?

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that players of the past were faster, stronger or whatever, what I am saying is fitness hasn't suddenly increased in the last 5 years.
 

MasturB

Legend
what isn't true?

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that players of the past were faster, stronger or whatever, what I am saying is fitness hasn't suddenly increased in the last 5 years.
No, but it has been gradually increasing since the baseline game took over.
 

TENNIS_99

Semi-Pro
Better training??????


Players aren't:

1)training harder-muster, lendl, brugera,agassi...

2)running faster:Chang, Edberg, hewitt...

3)Hitting the ball harder:Agassi, Sampras, kafelnikov...

What they are doing is hitting the ball with a hell of a lot more topspin, and this is down to luxilon and other polys.

In the early 2000's everything changed.

Massive topspin makes it impossible to volley aggressively, every single ball is below the height of the net, every single ball must be hit up, slow enough that gravity will pull it down.
You might have a point about the massive top spin, but regarding the playerss aren't ...... sorry it's one of the few things don't need to refer to stats to prove that it's wrong.
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
Just out of interest, what percentage of their respective serves are service winners?
How am I supposed to know?

second serve
advantage mahut
Based on what????

Thing is he didn't out play roddick for most of that match, roddicks 7/10 standard is enough to pass any volleyer in history the majority of the time, because of the 15% bigger tennis ball.
When did the ball size increase 15%? I never heard of this. I happen to think he did outplay Roddick for the majority of that match. I also think that your statement about Roddick being able to pass anyone in history with his 7/10 standard is moronic.

That's the point of this thread, conditions today allow for too much topspin for net play to be feasible.
You really can't come up with any sort of consistent argument here, you are all over the place. First you say luxilon strings are ruining the game based on a video of Roddick beating Mahut. After many posters mentioned Roddick doesn't use luxilon, you try and change your argument completely, going in all sorts of directions. I don't have a clue what you are trying to argue anymore.
 

coloskier

Legend
I think you have a chicken or egg situation here. What changed the game - the equipement or the technique?

The baseline guys like Lendl have been dominating the rankings for years before the introduction of ployester strings, and guys like Muster and even Borg were taking big cuts with extreme grips. The pros's just adopted the equipment that best fit their games. It is the same reason so many pros are go to lighter, stiffer, larger Babolot racquets.

If you implemented rule changes to standardize equipement, the pros would play the same way with the same technique , because it works better now given the condition of the tour (no grass season, slow courts, etc.)

I understand the OP point that the polyester string allow for bigger top spin, and therefore bigger

As other poster have said, you also have to look at the way players are developed. Juniors are followed and rated starting at young ages, leading to a need for immeadiate success. Serve and volley, and touch in general, takes time to develop, and most juniors are not allowed that luxery. It is well known that Sampras adapted his one handed background because of his coach and hated it because he got smoked by inferior players for several years. I bet he would have been booted out for poor performance if he was a junior at the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy.
Two things changed the game. The new string and slowing down the courts.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
How am I supposed to know?
You had all the other stats didn't you?

Based on what????
Mph, placement...

When did the ball size increase 15%? I never heard of this. I happen to think he did outplay Roddick for the majority of that match. I also think that your statement about Roddick being able to pass anyone in history with his 7/10 standard is moronic.
well Borg passed McEnroe hitting the ball at the same kind of angle and with the same amount of dip as roddick and other modern players, but about 25mph slower.I find it hard to believe McEnroe would have a chance of reaching the ball.


You really can't come up with any sort of consistent argument here, you are all over the place. First you say luxilon strings are ruining the game based on a video of Roddick beating Mahut. After many posters mentioned Roddick doesn't use luxilon, you try and change your argument completely, going in all sorts of directions. I don't have a clue what you are trying to argue anymore.
pro hurricane tour isn't a poly?

as far as ball size goes:

http://tennis.about.com/od/racquetsballsstringing/a/newballstandard.htm


they have been made mandatory for grass court events, along with opening the pack two days in advance.

More air pressure means topspin is more effective because more air will push it down, the magnus effect is magnified.
 

jmverdugo

Hall of Fame
"Luxilon is killing tennis" sounds like a bad 007 movie.
Yeah, i really bad one ;)

Two things changed the game. The new string and slowing down the courts.
As somebody else said, is an egg chicken issue, IMO the game changed way before the new equipment arrived. However IMO, this changes are not bad. Obviusly not everybody is going to like them but a lot of people will. As i said before, like in the page two, IMO the modern game of tennis is not boring in fact it has more variety than the old style, a lot of people said that is an all baseline game but yet you see players like Nadal and Ferrer doing S&V, not only that but doing it very good and with poly, not often - graned that - but that is the point, you must have a complete game to be competitive this days. Just my opinion
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Yeah, i really bad one ;)



As somebody else said, is an egg chicken issue, IMO the game changed way before the new equipment arrived. However IMO, this changes are not bad. Obviusly not everybody is going to like them but a lot of people will. As i said before, like in the page two, IMO the modern game of tennis is not boring in fact it has more variety than the old style, a lot of people said that is an all baseline game but yet you see players like Nadal and Ferrer doing S&V, not only that but doing it very good and with poly, not often - graned that - but that is the point, you must have a complete game to be competitive this days. Just my opinion
I don't agree with you, the new equipment came in the early 2000's, this is when henman and bjorkman et al started complaining about how it was so much harder to serve and volley.
Serve and volleyers weren't what was boring, Servers were, Ivo Karlovic style players.
 

jmverdugo

Hall of Fame
I don't agree with you, the new equipment came in the early 2000's, this is when henman and bjorkman et al started complaining about how it was so much harder to serve and volley.
Serve and volleyers weren't what was boring, Servers were, Ivo Karlovic style players.
I wouldnt know about the new equipment arrive because i think the first polys came in the middle 90´s, but i really dont know. However by the 2000 the game was already changed, in fact by the 80´s there were less and less S&Vs so i still think that the game changed and the new equipments were design to satisfy this new styles. Again just my opinion.
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
You had all the other stats didn't you?
I just took all the serving stats the ATP kept track of on their site. They don't keep track of the one you are looking for, so I don't know how you would find it.

Mph, placement...
Can you back this up? Or did you just pull it from your butt? Even if he had more mph and better placement on his 2nd, Roddick still has the clear edge in every statistical category used by the ATP to measure serve proficiency, so it isn't much of a contest as to who has the better overall serve (unless you insist on being delusional).

well Borg passed McEnroe hitting the ball at the same kind of angle and with the same amount of dip as roddick and other modern players, but about 25mph slower.I find it hard to believe McEnroe would have a chance of reaching the ball.
So, in other words, your argument before that new strings allow a player to force a volleyer to volley everything at his feet today is thrown out, and you are completely changing your argument again. Make up your mind what you want to argue and stick to it. And where did that 25mph slower come from? Stop pulling "facts" out of your butt, it hurts your credability.

pro hurricane tour isn't a poly?
I have no idea. I thought you were arguing that Luxilon was ruining the game. As in, that specific brand. When many users told you Roddick didn't use Luxilon, you just ignored them. Now you want to change your argument (nothing new for you) to the more general statement that poly strings are ruining the game. It is obvious you thought that Roddick used Luxilon when you made this thread. Once you realized he does not, you tried to change it around. You keep changing your arguments!

as far as ball size goes:

http://tennis.about.com/od/racquetsballsstringing/a/newballstandard.htm


they have been made mandatory for grass court events, along with opening the pack two days in advance.
Where does the article state this?

More air pressure means topspin is more effective because more air will push it down, the magnus effect is magnified.
The what effect? Since you have now lost all credability, you will need to back up any sort of fact you try to use by showing a link to someone else stating it.
 

vandre

Hall of Fame
it seems to me that ppl have had this conversation before...

i believe i remember ppl saying that graphite racquets were killing tennis, then oversize racquets were killing tennis (some even demanded that os racquets be banned from the tour, does this sound familiar), then widebody racquets were killing tennis and now all everyone is talking about is how poly string is killing tennis.

my $.02 is this: you cannot put the genie of technology (poly strings) back in the lamp once its been let out. not now that players have been able to know what they're like. think about this- if poly strings were banned, how would the ban be enforced and who would you spank? the players? they'd just say that they didn't tell the stringer to use it and since i'm pretty sure no pros string their own racquets, how can you be sure they aren't lying? would you spank the stringers? these ppl are highly skilled professionals just trying to make a living so is it fair to punish them if they were just doing what the customer ordered? would it be like nascar where the winner has their equipment (in this case their racquets) impounded and inspected and if anything illegal (poly string) is found, they are stripped of the title, fined and further penalized. do you really want to take titles, $$$ and ranking points away from players? doesn't that end up changing the game more than poly string ever did?

the agassi quote keeps popping up. he made an "if"/"then" about poly string: (to summerize) "if everyone doesn't use poly string, then it should be outlawed". my question is this: who isn't using poly string? there's numerous posts on this already, so we know poly string use is widespread on the pro tour. so if the playing field is level, what's the problem?

if you don't like today's version of tennis, i feel your pain; i've seen alot of tennis that i thought was boring too. but the answer isn't going backward. the answer for you is for the game to evolve past poly string. pros will stop using poly string when it stops being an advantage. i believe that someone somewhere will find a way to beat all those "evil" poly using baseliners and then everyone else will pick up on that and that'll be the end of it.
 

jump4wd

New User
there is an old saying floating around all the time on tw. It's not the equipment that make you play better. It is your technique. :)
 

DashaandSafin

Hall of Fame
Steve...don't even bother. Its seriously not worth your time. If he does respond, its going to be some inane comment that doesn't reply to your post at all. Hmmm kind of reminds me of barry....
 

eman70

New User
it seems to me that ppl have had this conversation before...

i believe i remember ppl saying that graphite racquets were killing tennis, then oversize racquets were killing tennis (some even demanded that os racquets be banned from the tour, does this sound familiar), then widebody racquets were killing tennis and now all everyone is talking about is how poly string is killing tennis.

my $.02 is this: you cannot put the genie of technology (poly strings) back in the lamp once its been let out. not now that players have been able to know what they're like. think about this- if poly strings were banned, how would the ban be enforced and who would you spank? the players? they'd just say that they didn't tell the stringer to use it and since i'm pretty sure no pros string their own racquets, how can you be sure they aren't lying? would you spank the stringers? these ppl are highly skilled professionals just trying to make a living so is it fair to punish them if they were just doing what the customer ordered? would it be like nascar where the winner has their equipment (in this case their racquets) impounded and inspected and if anything illegal (poly string) is found, they are stripped of the title, fined and further penalized. do you really want to take titles, $$$ and ranking points away from players? doesn't that end up changing the game more than poly string ever did?

the agassi quote keeps popping up. he made an "if"/"then" about poly string: (to summerize) "if everyone doesn't use poly string, then it should be outlawed". my question is this: who isn't using poly string? there's numerous posts on this already, so we know poly string use is widespread on the pro tour. so if the playing field is level, what's the problem?

if you don't like today's version of tennis, i feel your pain; i've seen alot of tennis that i thought was boring too. but the answer isn't going backward. the answer for you is for the game to evolve past poly string. pros will stop using poly string when it stops being an advantage. i believe that someone somewhere will find a way to beat all those "evil" poly using baseliners and then everyone else will pick up on that and that'll be the end of it.
didn't Borg and Lendl win a lot of tournaments using loads of topspin withOUT poly.........didn't Connors win a bunch of tournaments from the baseline withOUT poly........Vilas had some pretty big topspin withOUT poly....who else....there are tons of players who hit and had great success from the baseline with TONS of topspin withOUT poly.......or am I missing something......
 

johnkidd

Semi-Pro
Speed the courts back up. You'll see less guys hanging 10 feet behind the baeline. If they choose to do so your better players that adapt will sneek in and knock off a volley. Then guys will start coming in behind the serve and voila, serve and volley will be back. Then people will complain about all tennis is is serve and volley and they'll slow the courts down again.
 

fastdunn

Legend
polyester is superb for baseline strokes but horrible for volleys.

polyester snaps back (because of stifness) at high impact for baseline groundies which genertes enormous spin.
that doesn't apply for volleys (except swing volleys)

somewhat similar to why spagetti stringing was banned and inter-weaving of string was required by ITF.

polyester is somewhat of cheating on ground strokes...
 

jmverdugo

Hall of Fame
polyester is superb for baseline strokes but horrible for volleys...
The same way polys generate topspin they generate backspin and sidespin, which are wonderfull for volleys, at least in my case. I dont agree polys are horrible for volleys.
 
Top