Nothing new under the sun : Wooden racquet question?

[Tenny]

Hi!~

I realized many of 'new' technologies were already tested in the past. The unique head shape of Estusa PBP? Square head shape of Yonex? Estusa and Yonex were not the first.

There weren't things like liquid metal or tungsten but it seems quite often the racquet designers learned from the past. So, I am wondering,

1. Were there Y-shape open throat wooden racquets as most of modern graphite racquets?

2. Was there a concept of flexible/stiff racquet? For example, different wood materials being used to achieve a desired stiffness?

3. Was there any 'oversized' wood racquet?

4. Nowaday, we often see pros breaking the string on their playing racquet. What about old days? Did they break strings often while playing?

5. When I was watching a video of old great players (Tilden, Budge, Perry...), I noticed most hit their backhands with underspin. Did it have something to do with the fact they were using wooden racquets?

6. Not a wood racquet but how did the famous T-2000 play? Flexible? Stiff? Powerful or low powered? I had a chance to hit with a maxply fort but never had a chance to try T-2000. Thanks~.

T.

 

[cadfael_tex]

Can't answer all but some:
1. Yes, I know at least in the thirties there were some open throat woodies. Of course there were several in the early eighties as the graphite era began.
2. Yes, I know that I once had a Donnay Flex Pro that had a chart of it's flex rating (not like modern) on the side. Also, there was quite a bit of difference in wood racquets in striffness - though none as stiff as most of today's.
3. Yes, two that I know of, The Prince Woodie and the Head Wood Director - both coming after Prince brought out the original aluminum models.

You are on your own from there I'm afraid. Though on 4 I think I remember Borg breaking strings quite a bit.

 

[AndrewD]

Tenny,
If you want to see some racquet history you should visit Wood Tennis.com run by Joe who frequently posts on this board.

Otherwise
1. Open throat racquets go way back, as cadfael_tex says, so do larger headed frames.
2. Yep, different types of wood flex differently so that's been going on since the year dot. Things became a bit more sophisticated over time but it isn't a new concept.
3. I don't know how 'oversized' it was but there were wooden racquets made with larger than standard headsizes back in the 30's (I think it was the 30's)
4. I dont believe gut was as resiliant in the early days but the smaller head sizes didn't put as much stress on the strings. Regardless, strings broke often enough, even without the extreme topspin modern players use. Borg used to pop them on a regular basis, not surprising given the tensions he used.
5. Grab a wooden racquet and try overspin and underspin. You'll soon see which is easier to hit with a headsize that big. Regardless, a lot of players did use heavier topspin that we think, same as they used western and semi-western grips. Remember though, most tennis was played on grass.
6. I always enjoyed the T-2000 and never thought it was stiff. Of course, someone using it back in the early 70's might have thought differently. They also considered it powerful.

 

[Steve Huff]

1. Yes, open throat wood rackets existed. I have a Spalding Intimidator. Even early 1900 rackets had them--you can see some on woodtennis.com
2. Yes, flexible shafts and firmer shafts did exist and were planned that way by their makers. Example: TAD Davis rackets had very thin shafts that made them very flexible. Slazenger Challenge #1 was pretty firm. Even within a brand like Wilson, their Kramers were more firm than their Richey autographs. Stan Smiths and Everts were somewhere in between.
3. There were Evert and Kramer oversized rackets (really midsize). I don't remember any ALL wood truly oversized rackets. The Prince Woodie had graphite overlays. I think that it took being able to bond wood with stiffer materials that allowed true oversized wood rackets to be feasible.
4. Strings definitely lasted longer back then. Of course, when you have an 18 x20 pattern in a 72 sq in frame, you have a pretty dense pattern. Plus the fact that wood was flexible, so it absorbed a lot of the impact.
5. Hitting underspin as opposed to topspin really had nothing to do with the racket itself. Back then, tennis was played mostly on grass or very fast cement. Ball bounces were not true. The slice allowed a player not only to be a little later on his swing, but also allowed him to keep the ball low when it bounced on the other side. Keeping it low allowed him to get to the net so he didn't have to worry about how the ball would bounce. Even on the few clay courts, slice was a pretty effective type of shot.
6. The t2000's were flexible and powerful for their day. Most of the power was derived from the trampoline effect they designed into the rackets wrap around wire system for stringing. It wasn't as stiff as the aluminum rackets of the day, and most pro's didn't like the control it didn't offer. Somehow, Jimmy Connors managed to find a way to control it and was very successful with it. Several other pro's tried it, but returned to wood or aluminum.

Hope this helps

 

[LoveThisGame]

The T2000, although trampoline in design, was a small head with a very small sweetspot.

I thought that Conners showed excellent eyesight and originally wondered if he had an injury layoff that it might take time to regain his stroke.

I remember playing doubles against someone with obvious eye-hand coordination deficiency and playing with this racquet. If you hit to him when he was at net, the point was over because he would return it with an off-center hit that simply died immediately!

 

[Rabbit]

1. Yes, open throat wood rackets existed. I have a Spalding Intimidator. Even early 1900 rackets had them--you can see some on woodtennis.com
2. Yes, flexible shafts and firmer shafts did exist and were planned that way by their makers. Example: TAD Davis rackets had very thin shafts that made them very flexible. Slazenger Challenge #1 was pretty firm. Even within a brand like Wilson, their Kramers were more firm than their Richey autographs. Stan Smiths and Everts were somewhere in between.
3. There were Evert and Kramer oversized rackets (really midsize). I don't remember any ALL wood truly oversized rackets. The Prince Woodie had graphite overlays. I think that it took being able to bond wood with stiffer materials that allowed true oversized wood rackets to be feasible.
4. Strings definitely lasted longer back then. Of course, when you have an 18 x20 pattern in a 72 sq in frame, you have a pretty dense pattern. Plus the fact that wood was flexible, so it absorbed a lot of the impact.
5. Hitting underspin as opposed to topspin really had nothing to do with the racket itself. Back then, tennis was played mostly on grass or very fast cement. Ball bounces were not true. The slice allowed a player not only to be a little later on his swing, but also allowed him to keep the ball low when it bounced on the other side. Keeping it low allowed him to get to the net so he didn't have to worry about how the ball would bounce. Even on the few clay courts, slice was a pretty effective type of shot.
6. The t2000's were flexible and powerful for their day. Most of the power was derived from the trampoline effect they designed into the rackets wrap around wire system for stringing. It wasn't as stiff as the aluminum rackets of the day, and most pro's didn't like the control it didn't offer. Somehow, Jimmy Connors managed to find a way to control it and was very successful with it. Several other pro's tried it, but returned to wood or aluminum.

Hope this helps

Steve speak truth

 

[backcourt]

The T2000, although trampoline in design, was a small head with a very small sweetspot.

I thought that Conners showed excellent eyesight and originally wondered if he had an injury layoff that it might take time to regain his stroke.

I remember playing doubles against someone with obvious eye-hand coordination deficiency and playing with this racquet. If you hit to him when he was at net, the point was over because he would return it with an off-center hit that simply died immediately!

I wonder if Connor's flat hitting style and basic lack of a spin game was somehow related to his using the T 2000. I recall getting alot more spin with my old woodies than with the T2 or 3000 when I hit with my one.

 

[joe sch]

Steve Huff and AndrewD both posted excellent responses to your questions. As Steve noted, tennis of yesteryear involved lots more play on fast grass courts with low bounces so a good slice and flatter strokes were required skills. Also, the sweetspot on a 70si racket head is much smaller so using a western grip with todays topspinning stokes was not an effective style. Another difference was string tension. With smaller head rackets and 18x20 patterns, thus very dense stringing, the strings lasted much longer and could be strung much looser, which generated alot of power and control. If todays players used tension in the 40..50lb range with the ultra light large head rackets with western grips and topspinning strokes, then the balls would be launched into orbit

 

[Tenny]

Whoa, lots of information. Excellente!
Thanks a lot!!!

 

[PBODY99]

On the topic of topspin backhands.....Rod Laver & Rosie Casal both hit the shot, but as stated earlier you needed toi be able to really whip the frame to generate the shot.
I agree that the T-2000 used with flat strokes generated good sling shot power. More player I knew would use a Red Head Pro or a Spalding smasher strung with gut to generate big power 1970 style.

 

[Steve Huff]

You are right. Laver had a beautiful topspin backhand (but, he also used a slice quite often). Laver could roll over the top to hit that sharp angled cross court that everyone oohs and ahs about whenever Federer hits it. More often though, he hit it down the line. Borg was the one that made the topspin backhand famous, although I'm sure other 2-handed players used it. Television coverage was becoming so much more widespread, plus tennis was peaking in popularity when Borg came along. Borg hit topspin on just about every backhand, which shows that a player with a wood racket could consistently hit topspin.