Please recommend a poly that just grabs the "bleep" out of the ball


I'm looking for a poly that just grabs the ball and allows me to maximize the spin and weight I can impart on the ball.

I've used Hyper-G 18g for the past couple of years and Cyclone 18g before that for a few years around mid to low 50s.

I remember the feel I had when I first began using polys with Wilson Enduro, but don't think many of the co-polys give me that feel. Am I nostalgic about my early poly days and just mis-remembering the feel or can anyone else corroborate and recommend something that feels like Wilson Enduro felt back in the day?

No longevity, but use full beds of any triangular shaped polys, which will be good for 1-3 sets. You only need to brush up on the ball. :p
I used to use Pro's Pro Strategem, but they replaced it in their line with Strategem 8. 8 is similar to RPM Blast. Strategem was similar to Dunlop Black Widow. It had great grab and spin, but it did lose tension after one play. Try Black Widow.
If you can still find it, Gamma Zo Verve was vicious and would rip fuzz off the ball like no other. WC Ultra Cable also has that ball grab you are looking for, IMO.
I agree. Spin is/should mainly be due to technique. Strings play a small part, but if their characteristics change over its lifetime, then they're not very good.
I heard about that. Did Toalson make Zo Verve for Gamma? I know many suppliers have same string manufacturers but wasn't sure about this particular string.
@haqq777, I'm not sure. I don't think they are identical strings in play. It is possible that Toalson did make Zo Verve but pehaps changed the formula a tad.

Certainly, Rencon DS is a very nice string when it is fresh. It certainly has excellent spin potential. And the 1.25mm gauge offers decent depth and control potential as well.
Spin is created by racket head speed, period.
Physics shows that "grabbing" a string doesn't work like you think it does.
Have you ever played tennis with a racquet strung with spaghetti strings?

The two major influences on spin potential are racquet head speed and stroke technique.

However, the actual equipment used can enhance the spin potential to a small degree.


Hall of Fame
Strings can. However, string surface can't.
"Extra bite" is a myth.
The ball is spun by racket speed, not byt grabbing the ball sooner

The shape of the string is just another variable that plays a role in resulting spin production, just like any other - gauge, COF, racquet weight, balance, SW, technique, RHS, etc. etc. Having said that, I’ll stipulate that technique and racquet head speed play more significant roles than other variables.

Don’t believe me? Go talk to an advanced player who hits the cover off the ball, and who plays with one of these strings. Ask them about their spin production when the string is fresh vs. when they round the edges off the string - after a few hours of play.


Hall of Fame
I will post the science and physics in a day or two.
I’ll save you the trouble. Pay particular attention to the passage marked ‘3.’.

Hi Hunter -

Cool. Somebody asking for real evidence around here, that's refreshing. Yes there is real evidence. But the answer is sometimes string texture matters with regards to spin production, and sometimes matters not. The answer depends on whether or not the mains are sliding and snapping back. I'll provide a quickie explanation. See links below for more detail.

1. There are two kinds of friction at play here. There is ball -> string friction ie, ball "bite", and there is string -> string friction. What you want for spin is high ball-string friction, and low inter-string friction.

2. However, if the mains are not sliding and snapping back, then ball to string friction makes no difference with regard to optimizing spin production. That's because balls decompress to about 40-60% of the original volume upon impact, and the typical impact angles in tennis strokes. What this means, is that every time you hit the ball, the ball bites the string bed by a factor of 100%. The ball comes to a complete stop upon impact, and the friction forces go to dead nuts zero every time. In the sport of Table Tennis however, where the ball does not compress, the bat does not flex appreciably, there are rules stipulating the thickness of rubbers, and the contact angles are much more extreme, ball bite is of tantamount importance, and sticky, tacky rubbers are the revolutionary game changer. In the sport of tennis, the racquet flexes, the ball compresses, the string bed deflects. Hi speed video even reveals the ball ball wrinkles and bunches up, and starts to pour through the string bed like waffle batter! Getting the ball to "bite" is not something to be obtained by careful string or racquet selection, it's going to happen no matter what.

3. Impacts occur within time frames of 3-6 milliseconds. If the mains are sliding and snapping back, then shaped or textured strings are of incremental value, in the last fractional milliseconds as the ball exits the string bed, as it must "re-bite" so to speak. See Quote 4.

Quote 1: Friction is important to spin, but not in the sense that most people think it is. In the past, two assumptions were the foundation for the conventional wisdom that (1) a rough string surface creates more spin by increasing the string's bite, grab and push on the ball, and (2) that inter-string motion would lessen that grabbing and thus should be minimized. So, to gain maximum spin, the goal was to use a string with both a high ball-string friction and a high string-string friction to create a rigid surface parallel to the stringbed. As so formulated, both of these assumptions have proven incorrect.

Quote 2 : String manufacturers have always marketed tennis strings according to their ability to grip the ball via sticky coatings, rough/grabby surfaces, or "biting" shapes. The underlying theory is that greater friction between the string and the ball will cause more spin. This was universally accepted as true until it was demonstrated that for all impacts less than 50 degrees away from perpendicular, the strings will bite the ball to the maximum extent possible, no matter the texture, shape, or material of the string. This is important because when biting occurs, friction ceases. This result assumes that the stringbed is laterally rigid — i.e., the strings do not move sideways, or, if they do, they do not snap back into position. This was the situation in the pre-polyester string days. As we will see below, polyester changed everything.

Quote 3: String-To-String Friction (Static) If the strings don't move sideways, all strings produce about the same spin. If they do move, it is the movement and stretching of the mains that determines the different spin outcomes between string types. And whether or not the strings move is in part determined by the magnitude of the friction between strings — the lower the static friction, the easier it is to initiate string movement, and the lower the sliding friction, the easier it is to maintain the string's movement. The result is greater spin (assuming the strings snap back while the ball is still on them).

Quote 4: "In summary, the ball impacts, slides, bites and friction ceases. As the ball slides, it also pushes the main string in the direction of its motion. It will push the string farther and store more energy the more friction there is between the ball and the string and the less friction there is between the strings. Upon snapback, the string begins to slide against the ball in the opposite direction, reactivating the friction force. At this point, the greater the friction between ball and string, the more the ball will be slowed parallel to the the stringbed, the spin will be increased, and the angle of rebound will be increased. That being the case, the greatest spin should be generated from strings with high string-to-ball friction and low string-to-string friction. Do such strings exist? Yes. The way to find these strings is to look up the strings in Table 2 with the String Friction Tool."



Spin and String Movement

Spin and Material

Spin and Static Friction

Spin and Sliding Friction

Spin and String Pattern

Spin and String Snap-back

Spin and String Stiffness

Spin and String Lubrication

Spin and Impact Location

String Friction Tool

Use to love the feel of my syngut strings once they had ball fibers burned into them, it seemed to grip the ball better due to the fuzz ball bonds attracting or something, unfortunately I would have to spend a lifetime straightening them out between points.
The most predictable response of any string I've tried (RS Lyon is close). Low power but you can really swing out, and when you do, the ball drops right at the end of the flight - sharply. If one has good technique, this is the string. Something about the 16 gauge works too.
Yes, it’s the tennis string GOAT. I’ve never played a better string. Wish my arm felt the same way.


Hall of Fame
I don't understand this post, can you explain in more simple terms for someone who doesn't really understand all these fancy terms?
I’ll try. I’m not a scientist or an engineer. So I suppose layman’s terms are more my speed anyway:

If the string bed is locked, then the shape or surface of the string doesn’t matter with respect to spin production.

A string bed which is not locked, and exhibits “snap back” will offer more potential for spin. If there is snap back AND rough surface or shape to the string, there is potential for the surface or shape to further influence spin production.
I’ll try. I’m not a scientist or an engineer. So I suppose layman’s terms are more my speed anyway:

If the string bed is locked, then the shape or surface of the string doesn’t matter with respect to spin production.

A string bed which is not locked, and exhibits “snap back” will offer more potential for spin. If there is snap back AND rough surface or shape to the string, there is potential for the surface or shape to further influence spin production.
So how is a atringbed locked or not?


Hall of Fame
So how is a atringbed locked or not?
A lot of it is about friction. The higher the friction inside the string bed, the more likely the string bed will lock. The less friction, more likely to achieve snap back. Inner string friction can be reduced by reducing reference tension. It can also be effected by the string material - specifically the “slickness” (or lack thereof) of the surface of the string. The slicker that surface, the more the strings will snap back, and for potentially a longer period of time.


Hall of Fame
^^ I’m not a physicist, so I’m not in a position to refute their scientific conclusions.

I will say that if natural gut, synthetic gut, and polyester all have the same spin potential (as these authors seem to conclude)...I can’t see how, for one, polyester was able to claim such market share, over the past 20 or so years. Who in their right mind would put their arm health at such risk, if everyone could spin the ball as heavily with nylon synthetic gut? We’re all suckers, having fallen for clever marketing by greedy manufacturers? I don’t think so.
The article is not refuting Poly.
It is refuting surface texture, shape, etc.
Poly is known to enhance spin due to snap back.
However, rough poly will not add more spin than smooth poly


Hall of Fame
The article is not refuting Poly.
It is refuting surface texture, shape, etc.
Direct quote:

“You don’t get more spin from the strings, only from stroke technique.”

That quote asserts that any strings (not just rough strings) have no bearing on string production - which, of course is false, even by your own admission about smooth poly snap back.

Back to the original topic, Diadem Solstice Power gets my vote.
You can literally see the SMALL AMOUNT of extra spin you get from textured strings,,, "at most levels", that use topspin/backspin,,
you can also see the extra fuzz the shape strings produce on the ball..

round vs shaped,, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, no question as to which produces more NOTISABLE spin,,
not a hughe difference, but enough to be notisable


Hall of Fame
OK, well, then it looks like Poly is a scam also.
I stand corrected.
LOL. Would you blindly believe anything published by a scientist back in 2005? Scientific studies are driven by a lot of factors, but one of the big ones is funding. What you take away from that is your business. But my take away is that finding the truth may or may not be the primary motivating factor in conducting a scientific study. Beyond that, scientific theories or conclusions, based on studies, often change as time passes - often when new evidence comes forward.