Discussion in 'Racquets' started by NumberOne, Feb 6, 2013.
And why please.
Common theory says that 16x18 provides more spin but less directional control, while 18x20 provides more directional control with the sacrifice of spin. So there really isn't an entirely clear answer, although in my experience 18x20 has been more precise. However, this probably depends on your play style.
I hope I can be of help.
If I am Liftador, wats give me moré control?
Liftador? Could you elaborate?
I am a player that I dont Have difficult to do "spin" and "top", my player is based in spin and top spin, but I want The most control.
Well, if you depend on spin for control, a more open (16x18 ) pattern would probably fit you more, as the 18x20 sacrifices some spin, in my experience.
What kind of control are you looking for? Are you hitting the ball too long? What do you use now?
Are we after depth control or directional here?
Hi Number One -
No mystery at all here. It is widely accepted, and is a matter of little dispute, that denser patterns/more strings, offer more control than fewer strings/open patterns.
1. If two string beds have the same reference tension, say for example 55lbs, the bed with fewer strings will have a softer string bed, and offer more power.
2. The racquet with increased string density at the same 55lbs reference tension, will create a stiffer string bed, which will offer slightly less power and more control.
3. A stiffer string bed deflects less. This creates a narrower range of possible rebound angles for impacts struck off center. This translates into better directional control and a more consistent string bed response.
4. Then there issue of dwell time. Despite widespread disagreement among players, the dudes in the white lab coats will tell you pretty consistently that longer dwell times/softer beds/open patterns are associated with increased spin, (loads the string snap back mechanism a bit better) shorter dwell times, increased control (because of the elevation change in the technique from lo to high in a top spin groundie).
Basic Facts about Frames & Strings:
Exactly, my shots are not never flat. They are with spin. So I do not know what kind of pattern would give me more control, 16x18 or 18x20.
Until now playing with a Dunlop Biomimetic 200 Tour, a Wilson BLX Six.One 95, and some more.
Thank you very much
In fact, the racket that I have seen, is that you have in your signature, the Prince Exo 3 Tour and I have doubts about the pattern. How about having control and direction with the 18x20 pattern you are using?
Thank you very much
So, for you, is not important the pattern? Do you think it depends more on the strings tension that the pattern?
Thank you very much
I hit with a lot of topspin and prefer closed patterns. I just get more control and since the topspin is already there, I don't really need more.
Exactly, that's what I mean. What notes pattern control with closed?
I think you are asking my favorite patterns? I love 18x20 and 16x20. 16x20 may be my favorite. It offers everything. I will probably end up with a 16x20 stick at some point, but I currently use 18x20 and love it too.
Close, but not quite what I'm saying. Pattern is important with regards to control, and especially spin production, but overall string bed stiffness is a factor that is inherent with the choice btwn open and closed. If the reference tension is the same, an open pattern will create a softer string bed.
We know that fewer strings, and especially fewer crosses, promotes the slide and snap back of the mains, which will create additional spin (RPMs) given the same stroke. We can, and have measured RPMs to quantify this observational fact.
Control means dif things to dif players out on the court. So unlike spin, which can be measured in RPMs, or Power which can be measured in MPH, how do we measure, or even talk about control in the abstract? At the end of the day it mostly boils down to a consistent string bed response. Does the ball go where we want it to, or where we expect it to? What I've mentioned in reply #8 are three factors contributing to that question, in terms of predictable rebound angles, rebound power, and dwell time.
I've noticed from your other threads, that english is not your first language. I'm not sure how "dwell time" or "narrower range of rebound angles" is translating for you. I'm only going there because you've asked for an explanation as to why denser patterns are almost universally associated with control. That's a topic that has gone 30 pages deep around here on occasion. I'm pretty good at explaining things, if there is some particular thing you are not understanding I'm happy to break it down a bit more.
Hope this helps.
Achh, Your signature is giving me a headache! (giggle). First you were "Blading" now you are Squaring?, Boxing? Perhaps you are Rectangling? Will e-mail you 50 inter-webs points to reveal the mystery.
Put Emoji on your device and all is answered.
Many thanks to all for the answers, I'm getting this right, and I thank you for your effort.
In short, I'm a player with a good spin and topspin and my game is based on it, but the racket is not good at this, I dont have any problem.
So What pattern is best for me to have more control, 16x18 or 18x20 string pattern in a Prince EXO3 Tour 100?
18x20 would be better
- assuming both heads are the same size then 18x20 will generally provide more control
- a smaller head with 16x20 or even 16x19 might provide more control than a larger head 18x20. for example, the 90" AG 4D 100 has 16 mains but provides more control than the 100" 18x20 EXO Tour with its O-ports (imo having used both).
- head dimension/shape also matters (not just area). My nominally 98" PSGT is the same height and width as my 95" 200 Tour and both provide similar levels of control. Meanwhile rounder heads can provide less control all else being equal.
- string drill hole pattern matters too. You can have two 18x20s with different string spacing and therefore different performance characteristics. this is more of an issue with 16 mains as they seem to show greater variety in string spacing.
- twistweight, plow, and static weight also matter. heavier frames with more plow and higher TW (and SW) are generally more accurate as they bounce around less.
The ultimate rec-player control frame imo: 95-98", 18x20, high 11 to low 12 ounce range, SW 330+, perhaps with extra lead at 3/9...just heavy and stable enough to survive hard impacts but light enough for the average male rec player to wield while generating good RHS for spin. Good examples include the AG 4D 200 and the Pure Storm Ltd GT (PSLGT will need some lead at 12 for extra plow).
Aha, funny stuff. I had to actually dig out my iphone to install that, because my "device" is a 333 Ghz MacPro Hex Core.
A strong hitter would benefit from 18x20 without drawbacks of less power.
A weak hitter would benefit from less strings, as it allows a stronger shot with more spin, so he would not need to swing beyond his control or ability.
Thank you very much to all for your help me and for being so patient with me.
My pattern is 18x20.
Thank you very much
This is true. No comparison in control from 16 X 18 or 19 to 18 X 20.
Separate names with a comma.