Sergetti Stringing - WOW!

gazz1

Semi-Pro
I got as far as going to the website and inputting my Racquet (yes the Prince ported ones are there) and strings, nat gut / poly hybrid.
Then I got to the tension, interesting - there's only one tension.
I typically like 4-5lbs more tension on the gut mains than the poly crosses.
I've even experimented with as big a difference as 10lbs and in low winter temps liked the feel of this.

Question will I lose the feel I get from a mains / gut differential?
I note that the claims do not include extra spin.
I'll swear that a gut/poly tension differential gives me more spin and better life span of the gut mains (fray less quickly, retain snapback longer), and longer before the poly goes dead..

What should I make of the one tension for mains and crosses in his method?
I think that they discuss how to specify a tension when you have strung different mains & crosses tensions somewhere on the Sergetti site, although that doesn't address your specific question...perhaps email them. A guy called Serge is very helpful. I have asked several detailed questions and always received an equally detailed response.

I did want to mention that FYI, in my experience, the tension feels a bit higher than normal using Sergetti i.e. 45lb Sergetti is feeling about as stiff as 47/48lb traditional.
That could be my limited stringing experience, but I do recall someone else making a similar comment or seeing something on the Sergetti website in FAQ
 

Imago

Hall of Fame
I can confirm that the specified tensions will be vastly different from what you would expect. I have 3 sheets of different tensions for the same racket & string combination and the specs make no sense to me at all.
He may throw dices for each string...
 
Last edited:

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
There seems to be a lot of talk here about how the method increases the size of the sweet spot.

At risk of sounding cynical, there are two much easier ways to get much the same benefits ...

1/ Work on your game so that you hit more cleanly more consistently.
2/ Move to a racquet that has a much bigger hoop size.
 

esprits4s

New User
I don't know why, but I am so disappointed to find this thread. I'm somewhat into high end audio equipment, and this thread feels like I'm back in the discussion of cables, or stands, or "tweaks". Seriously, take a step back and ask how anyone could have come up with the magic equation of racquet + tension + mains string + cross string=optimal tension for each pull. Does that pass the sniff test? Then, how many strokes until the tensions across the string bed has equalized? Anyone who has actually strung a racquet should know how ridiculous that is. I guess there are suckers for every hobby with any element of subjectiveness. To make matters worse, the Sergetti website is the prototypical "prey on the consumer subjectiveness" scam: lots of promises with nothing to back it up. Sorry, but the "third party" sweet spot measurements don't cut it, especially when they are so dramatic.

Don't give me the "don't knock it until you try it" argument either. That's been the pitch line from snake oil sales men since time immemorial.

Sigh.....really people, are you going to spend $23.88 every time you decide to change racquets or experiment with tension? For the tweakers around here (which are the target audience) that expense could become significant. Talk about a high margin business! Unbelievable.

Maybe if the Sergetti folk provided more of a scientific explanation.... but there is nothing that I can find on their website. Can anyone point me to an explanation of this that holds up to at least casual common sense?
 
Last edited:

gazz1

Semi-Pro
I don't know why, but I am so disappointed to find this thread. I'm somewhat into high end audio equipment, and this thread feels like I'm back in the discussion of cables, or stands, or "tweaks". Seriously, take a step back and ask how anyone could have come up with the magic equation of racquet + tension + mains string + cross string=optimal tension for each pull. Does that pass the sniff test? Then, how many strokes until the tensions across the string bed has equalized? Anyone who has actually strung a racquet should know how ridiculous that is. I guess there are suckers for every hobby with any element of subjectiveness. To make matters worse, the Sergetti website is the prototypical "prey on the consumer subjectiveness" scam: lots of promises with nothing to back it up. Sorry, but the "third party" sweet spot measurements don't cut it, especially when they are so dramatic.

Don't give me the "don't knock it until you try it" argument either. That's been the pitch line from snake oil sales men since time immemorial.

Sigh.....really people, are you going to spend $23.88 every time you decide to change racquets or experiment with tension? For the tweakers around here (which are the target audience) that expense could become significant. Talk about a high margin business! Unbelievable.

Maybe if the Sergetti folk provided more of a scientific explanation.... but there is nothing that I can find on their website. Can anyone point me to an explanation of this that holds up to at least casual common sense?
With all due respect, I don't think that's a fair analogy. The performance of the string bed is one of the most important components.
Using your analogy, I'd be comparing it to the speaker itself rather than stands and cables which would be better compared to what over grip you use.

The stringed doesn't equalise while I'm stringing. I recently watched a youtube video where the differential between the pull tension and the tension of the same cross string on the opposite side was something like 7lbs. In other words, the string same string isn't even equalised from one side of the racket to the other, let alone with the string above or below it (at least that's the way I interpreted it).

$23.88 is cheap in my view compared to the cost of changing racquets, and probably orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to squeeze small improvements out of high-end audio (I've been there before) :) I have bought several sheets and have what I need for years to come for under half the price of a racquet.

For me personally, I'm happy with my investment and feel that I can finally stop switching racquets for the immediate future, and I've sold several since I've settled on the DR98 since using Sergetti so I'm better off.

That said, I appreciate where you are coming from. It's not for everyone, there are a lot of claims (like anything you purchase), but it's made a bigger difference to my game than anything else so far, so I'll stick with it.
 

esprits4s

New User
With all due respect, I don't think that's a fair analogy. The performance of the string bed is one of the most important components.
Using your analogy, I'd be comparing it to the speaker itself rather than stands and cables which would be better compared to what over grip you use.

The stringed doesn't equalise while I'm stringing. I recently watched a youtube video where the differential between the pull tension and the tension of the same cross string on the opposite side was something like 7lbs. In other words, the string same string isn't even equalised from one side of the racket to the other, let alone with the string above or below it (at least that's the way I interpreted it).

$23.88 is cheap in my view compared to the cost of changing racquets, and probably orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to squeeze small improvements out of high-end audio (I've been there before) :) I have bought several sheets and have what I need for years to come for under half the price of a racquet.

For me personally, I'm happy with my investment and feel that I can finally stop switching racquets for the immediate future, and I've sold several since I've settled on the DR98 since using Sergetti so I'm better off.

That said, I appreciate where you are coming from. It's not for everyone, there are a lot of claims (like anything you purchase), but it's made a bigger difference to my game than anything else so far, so I'll stick with it.

Gazz, I'm sorry, but you sound like a schill. I hesitate to attack you directly, and wouldn't do so if you had a higher post count that wasn't related to this thread. Also, nothing you wrote dissuades my concerns at all. You reference a measurement differential between different portions of a racquet. However, the decay of that differential is pretty important if there is a chance that it largely disappears after a few hits. You need to do better if you want to be viewed as anything more than anecdotal.
 

gazz1

Semi-Pro
Gazz, I'm sorry, but you sound like a schill. I hesitate to attack you directly, and wouldn't do so if you had a higher post count that wasn't related to this thread. Also, nothing you wrote dissuades my concerns at all. You reference a measurement differential between different portions of a racquet. However, the decay of that differential is pretty important if there is a chance that it largely disappears after a few hits. You need to do better if you want to be viewed as anything more than anecdotal.
Well I'm not. I have offered a testimonial on the Sergetti site though https://sergetti.com/en/testimonials/garth-hunt-ger/ I reached out to thank the company, passed on my positive experience and they asked if I would be happy for them to use it as a testimonial.

I simply had a great experience with it and wanted to spread the word. No other reason.
I sincerely hope that some will approach it with an open mind and respect that others will not be comfortable doing so for valid reasons.

To be fair I would probably think the same if I were you...this was my first post ever so I get it.
No hard feelings.

Taking your comments on board and those from Irvin (above) I've probably said more than enough on this post and much has already been said in another post so I'll move on.

I actually need some expert advice on swing weight so I'll search around and if I can't find an answer, and if not, then there's my next post.
 

AndI

Rookie
@Andl :
What measurement is used to measure the size of the sweetspot, and what are the criteria?
It is a 6 grade middle school science project. It uses whatever is available at home. We have ERT-300 tennis computer. This is the tool. All strings are labelled with numbers and letters, he moves the tool and takes readings in every spot on the string bed.

The criteria changed in the process. Initially, it was thought to be an area of DT similar to DT in the center, plus minus 5%. The logic behind was that area with constant DT provides reproducible and predictable response when ball hits in that area, whereas parts of the string bed with higher (or lower) DT would reflect the ball differently. So we were after the area of the circle with nearly constant DT.

In the process, it was found that proportionally strung racquets show a large area where ERT-300 gives no readings at all (error message). This area is in the bottom of the string bed, close to throat, and may extend all the way to the center. Lack of readings could mean either low DT, i.e., resonance frequency below the range of frequency sweep of ERT-300, or low amplitude of vibrations which ERT-300 cannot pick up. The latter would be consistent with the definition of the sweet spot from the literature, i.e., area of low vibrations on impact. On normally strung racquet we see it as a arc in ERT-300 map, in agreement with the literature. On proportionally strung racquets, it is a big white spot.

Results published on Sergetti web site used a different method, static deflection of the string bed under load as opposed to resonance frequency. Those were measurements done in a professional lab. They also show a sweet spot in the area closer to the throat, expanding towards the center and beyond the center with proportional stringing.

This project is not meant to be a scientific study at the lab level, but it is a good opportunity for the kid to learn methods of data collection used in science and learn to analyze and process data and think what they mean. He is not done yet, the project is due in February, he strings and measures one racquet each weekend. Some of the findings were unexpected and quite interesting. I may be able to share the maps on the forum once his project is completed.

I had a chance to play with Sergetti, DireDesire, and "proportional to string length" racquets - same frames (Wilson RF 97), same strings. We used Babolat Addiction, good mid-range string, but it is different from what we usually use (natural gut or gut based hybrids). Using natural gut for science project was too expensive. At my level, I felt some differences but struggled with deciding what I like better and even struggled with describing or quantifying the differences. It truly requires test with a ball machine, when you hit repeated strokes, hit 20-30 times, then swap the racquet and repeat. Then you can define and feel the differences. With random balls it is more difficult. There are differences, but they are rather small. I think some felt softer than the others, but again, I did not succeed with quantifying it.

For those who are lazy to read technical descriptions of proportional stringing, their goal is to optimize stiffness of the string bed, i.e., make it more homogeneous through the largest possible area. I strongly recommend those who argue that it is nonsense and worth nothing to try themselves in the field of computer modeling and optimization of problems with multiple variables. They might appreciate the complexity of the problem after spending a few months on it and would perhaps re-evaluate what this effort is worth.

The biggest difference of Sergetti, compared to other proportional stringing methods, that I see, is that it takes into account many more variables (parameters of racquets and strings) and leads to much more reproducible (predictable) results across racquets and strings. Other methods may potentially work better with some strings and frames than with the others.

Whether or not one likes it or prefers it - is purely subjective. The same applies to rating of strings and racquets.
 
Last edited:

AndI

Rookie
But the most important question is yet to be answered ...
"Are you all WINNING more tennis matches and can that be attributed primarily to the new stringing process?"
Many of us love to experiment with equipment. But at the end of the day, it is all about improving your results on the court. Isn't it?

Better equipment can make us feel more comfortable and can help with compensating some of our weaknesses. But you cannot buy a tennis stroke. And you cannot become a better player because of a different stringing. About $25 spend on a stringing pattern, or money spent on different strings or different racquet, will not make you a much better player. The same applies to running shoes, skis, you name it.

This does not imply that one should not optimize his equipment, if it comes at a low or reasonable cost. It does not imply that a difference in comfort or help with minimizing some mistakes has no value.

Arguments from the opposite direction are also applicable. Why not never restring the racquets and never replace balls? If strings have no impact, why restring? Why not use the cheapest strings, always? Why pros do not use $4 synthetic gut?If string tension or string type or stringing pattern is not important, why every one of them has their own tension, and why some of them reportedly adjust tension depending on temperature, humidity, and type of court? If Federer gets wrong strings and wrong tension, will it make him a level 1.5 player? Or will it be a tiny difference which we will never notice but he might?

If proportional stringing pattern would immediately lead players to winning more matches, it would cost way more than $25. It could cost tens of thousands per sheet, if not more.

Lets be realistic. Switching to proportional stringing from constant tension stringing has the same order of impact as switching from synthetic gut to natural gut (or poly, if you like it more), maybe even less. Who in this forum would say that this difference is totally unimportant? And who would say that one would win many more matches just because of that?
 
Last edited:

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
@AndI just FYI the method I used now hosted by is not completely proportional like the normal diredesire and USRSA versions. There’s start y dropping the tension proportionally on all strings dependant on length. Mine uses a proportional drop on the mains and a separate proportional drop on crosses dependant solely on cross string length. The center mains and crosses are strung at the normal reference tension, but you can choose any tension you want, then the spreadsheet will apply an outer drop on all subsequent mains and crosses.
 

AndI

Rookie
@AndI just FYI the method I used now hosted by is not completely proportional like the normal diredesire and USRSA versions.
Irvin, thanks for the comment! Exactly, this is what I meant by "proportional". Separate proportionality for mains and crosses. Longest main and longest cross(es) at reference tension, all other strings are lower proportionally to their length. It is the most logical method which justifies its belonging to the "proportional stringing" group of methods, unlike all others which have more complex or (in some cases) less self-evident algorithm behind. The name of "proportional stringing" is a misnormer in some way.

Remarkably, when I learned about Sergetti and bought my first tension sheet, the first thing I did was to see how it compares with proportional scaling of the tension, so I measured lengths of strings and calculated tensions, exactly as you did, before I even knew that you already created a spreadsheet with equations for that. In a way, it was a duplicate effort but still fun. Of course, I found that Sergetti and Dire Desire look different from proportional, do not quite follow proportionality to string lengths, and so are USRSA and Jet.

I still do get it why USRSA and Jet methods are even called "proportional". They may have been the first to appear, but there is nothing "proportional" in them. Just a drop or an oscillation near the frame.
 

esprits4s

New User
So, any repeat measurements over time? Snapshot measurements aren't very useful as they capture a single moment of time. I don't doubt that there are benefits to this stringing approach initially, but I question how long the tensions differentials last. It seems common sense that this would be an important measurement. The lack of this data on the Sergetti website is a huge red flag in my opinion.
 

Imago

Hall of Fame
So, any repeat measurements over time? Snapshot measurements aren't very useful as they capture a single moment of time. I don't doubt that there are benefits to this stringing approach initially, but I question how long the tensions differentials last.
If everything is calculated (factored in) right there should be no tension differentials in the end (between individual mains or individual crosses) because the final goal is to produce an equalized isotropic field. No subsequent hitting should equalize it more than it has already been equalized. There should be some fluctuations only if you experiment with different deflection rates.
 

MathieuR

Professional
@Andl , an ERT300 can not be used to measure DT distribution on a stringbed.

The only realistic option is measurement of the deflection when using a force on every spot.
 

MathieuR

Professional
@Andl , an ERT300 can not be used to measure DT distribution on a stringbed.

The only realistic option is measurement of the deflection when using a force on every spot.
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
Of course, I found that Sergetti and Dire Desire look different from proportional, do not quite follow proportionality to string lengths, and so are USRSA and Jet.
The @diredesire method is not diredesire’s he just hosted it the founder of TW (Dan Hightower?) is actually the one that developed it. That method bases the tension used on an SDST factor. That stands for string deflection string tension. Rod Cross and Crawford Lindsey did some studies about 20 years ago on SDST and Dan used that data and the string length to determine tension for each string. Again I wish you son good luck on his project.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Who in this forum would say that this difference is totally unimportant? And who would say that one would win many more matches just because of that?
I enjoyed reading your post but you have completely side-stepped my main point. The difference is very important if the player clearly believes the difference is directly responsible for winning more tennis matches.

And it is very easy for any player to say they are winning more tennis matches for any reason they like. That doesn't change my point at all. My point is that winning matches is the most important thing. It should be quite easy for any player with a reasonable level of intelligence to understand their results and why they are getting them.
 

tennisbike

Semi-Pro
Then I got to the tension, interesting - there's only one tension. I typically like 4-5lbs more tension on the gut mains than the poly crosses.
What should I make of the one tension for mains and crosses in his method?
Not an expert but here is my 2 cents: A way to think about this is that The Method is attempting to relate the general way of stringing which only has one input value, the single reference tension. The single reference tension does not take into the account of main/cross string difference nor tension difference. But it is an representation of string bed characteristic, i.e. playability, harsh/soft... Of course single reference tension is over simplified.

To expect the single sheet solution from the method to your ideal or holy grail setup is not realistic. It will hopefully bring you closer to it. And you will have to make an adjustment, either yourself or buy another sheet and walk toward that "holy grail".

Remember there is no why but consequence. Try the method and see if it works for you. Or use another method. You can experiment with different tension differential yourself. You are ultimately the person who will determine how the racket will be strung and how it will play.

If I were you I would use try Irvin's spreadsheet first, with the tension differential. If you are too lazy to change tensions across the mains or cross strings then try the JET or JayCee method. There seems to be less numbers of tensions change involved. My experience with JET/JayCee has been positive, and perhaps good enough for me.
 

esprits4s

New User
If everything is calculated (factored in) right there should be no tension differentials in the end (between individual mains or individual crosses) because the final goal is to produce an equalized isotropic field. No subsequent hitting should equalize it more than it has already been equalized. There should be some fluctuations only if you experiment with different deflection rates.
So, I apologize for posting after a few drinks, I may have been a little over aggressive and recognize that I should read more about progressive stringing before posting as my questions/objections have probably been addressed. I'm still very skeptical, and the Sergetti website leaves a lot to be desired, but I should research more before criticizing.

That being said, I got a laugh reading the "equalized isotropic field" comment. First of all, equalized isotropic sounds a bit redundant. Secondarily, it sounds like an expression from someone who really likes to hear themselves talk. FWIW, I have an advanced degree from one of the world's best engineering schools. I shouldn't mention, but after reading the poster's other threads, he definitely presents as a retired academic who likes to use big words for no real purpose.
 

speedysteve

Legend
Not an expert but here is my 2 cents: A way to think about this is that The Method is attempting to relate the general way of stringing which only has one input value, the single reference tension. The single reference tension does not take into the account of main/cross string difference nor tension difference. But it is an representation of string bed characteristic, i.e. playability, harsh/soft... Of course single reference tension is over simplified.

To expect the single sheet solution from the method to your ideal or holy grail setup is not realistic. It will hopefully bring you closer to it. And you will have to make an adjustment, either yourself or buy another sheet and walk toward that "holy grail".

Remember there is no why but consequence. Try the method and see if it works for you. Or use another method. You can experiment with different tension differential yourself. You are ultimately the person who will determine how the racket will be strung and how it will play.

If I were you I would use try Irvin's spreadsheet first, with the tension differential. If you are too lazy to change tensions across the mains or cross strings then try the JET or JayCee method. There seems to be less numbers of tensions change involved. My experience with JET/JayCee has been positive, and perhaps good enough for me.
Don't think I can be bothered or will risk the distraction of it at this point in time.
I'm in a good place racquet / string mix / tension mix right now.
 

The Big Kahuna

Hall of Fame
Don't think I can be bothered or will risk the distraction of it at this point in time.
I'm in a good place racquet / string mix / tension mix right now.
That’s what I thought too. Then I tried it - mostly out of curiosity - and I was impressed. Everyone at my club noticed a difference in consistency, pace, spin, and quality of my shots. The sweet spot did feel much larger to me.

It is certainly worth a try IMO. I am sticking with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Imago

Hall of Fame
I'll pray you never suffer from TE and understand the joy of just being able to play tennis.

As for the "equalized isotropic field", in the context of our discussion, it means only isotropic string bed with equalized tension strings. Of course this is kind of flat isotropy as the properties of the field are not equal in all directions - we have to choose between equal deflection as measured by ERT or equal string tension for each node of the SB as measured by SM.
 

RyanRF

Professional
So, I apologize for posting after a few drinks, I may have been a little over aggressive and recognize that I should read more about progressive stringing before posting as my questions/objections have probably been addressed. I'm still very skeptical, and the Sergetti website leaves a lot to be desired, but I should research more before criticizing.

That being said, I got a laugh reading the "equalized isotropic field" comment. First of all, equalized isotropic sounds a bit redundant. Secondarily, it sounds like an expression from someone who really likes to hear themselves talk. FWIW, I have an advanced degree from one of the world's best engineering schools. I shouldn't mention, but after reading the poster's other threads, he definitely presents as a retired academic who likes to use big words for no real purpose.
I also have an engineering background and work in the medical device industry where claims of benefit and performance are taken very seriously. I agree that this doesn't pass the smell test. The more you look for real science and data, the less you find.

Sometimes there's just no reasoning with people drinking the Kool-Aid. In order for them to hear and process your arguments, they'd first have to accept the possibility that they had been taken advantage of.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
I'll pray you never suffer from TE and understand the joy of just being able to play tennis.

@Imago, Thank You for praying for me. I, myself have never suffered from a tennis related arm injury. But I know plenty of others who have and can see that it isn't very pleasant even at the best of times. Hard enough to deal with pain let alone be deprived of doing something one really enjoys.

I can certainly understand that for many the goal is "comfortable play". Anything that supports that activity whether scientifically proven or otherwise should be a boon to those who believe they are benefiting from it.

I'm simply trying to point out that for many players, Winning is a lot more fun than Losing. If a player is healthy in every regard then it doesn't hurt to try new ways of doing things. But trying them just for the sake of doing it seems a little pointless to me if the change does facilitate an improvement in competitive results.

If the ultimate aim of playing tennis is to run down and hit tennis balls with no concern for the outcome then all is good. Personally, I think the ultimate aim is to play competitively and try to win against others who are at a similar or more advanced level that you are.

For those who point to the "I play tennis to keep fit" argument. My comeback is that there are probably a lot of alternative activities that offer all the benefits of playing tennis but are nowhere nears as competitive or expensive. Might as well pursue those instead.
 

MathieuR

Professional
@Karma Tennis , I sympathise with your stand. For me also the competitive element in tennis is part of the fun.
But wouldn't you agree that a more uniform stringbed will contribute to better control, and therefore better results in bal-placement, ergo, more effective play (and therefore automatically more "wins").
 

The Big Kahuna

Hall of Fame
I'll pray you never suffer from TE and understand the joy of just being able to play tennis.

As for the "equalized isotropic field", in the context of our discussion, it means only isotropic string bed with equalized tension strings. Of course this is kind of flat isotropy as the properties of the field are not equal in all directions - we have to choose between equal deflection as measured by ERT or equal string tension for each node of the SB as measured by SM.
All I know is that the sweet spot feels twice as big and I’m hitting more balls into the court with more power and spin.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Imago

Hall of Fame
For those who point to the "I play tennis to keep fit" argument. My comeback is that there are probably a lot of alternative activities that offer all the benefits of playing tennis but are nowhere nears as competitive or expensive. Might as well pursue those instead.
Well, I am certainly delighted to play a better player but if I beat him there is this sneaking suspicion that either he has purposely surrendered, or he is not better. ;)

Anyway, not liking the unexpected role of So-Stab defender...
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
@Karma Tennis
But wouldn't you agree that a more uniform stringbed will contribute to better control, and therefore better results in bal-placement, ergo, more effective play (and therefore automatically more "wins").
@MathieuR, I am a fan of the sport of Cricket. There is nothing more uniform than a cricket bat. So on that basis, the most uniform string bed available for tennis is the stiffest string one can find strung at the highest string bed stiffness possible.

Yes. Definitely.
Fantastic. That's all I wanted to hear. :)

Well, I am certainly delighted to play a better player but if I beat him there is this sneaking suspicion that either he has purposely surrendered, or he is not better. ;)
No doubt Roger Federer feels the same way when he plays Rafa at Roland Garros. :)
 

MathieuR

Professional
So on that basis, the most uniform string bed available for tennis is the stiffest string one can find strung at the highest string bed stiffness possible.
Agree :).
But you know this is an "informal fallacy, a straw man"
As such that stringbed may be extreme uniform, it is unplayable. So, back to real life: better uniformity in your ballplacement using proportional stringing at your favorite DT (which most likely will differ from my favorite DT)
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Agree :).
But you know this is an "informal fallacy, a straw man"
As such that stringbed may be extreme uniform, it is unplayable. So, back to real life: better uniformity in your ballplacement using proportional stringing at your favorite DT (which most likely will differ from my favorite DT)
I'm sorry.

Borg's racquets were strung in the high 70s / low 80s.
Sampras's in the high 60s / low 70s
Agassi's in the mid to high 60s.

And don't forget our great friend @Shroud who strings his racquets in the low 200s.

What I wrote is hypothetical but it applies in theory. I'm not proposing it could be used in practice.

Actually, it's reductio ad absurdum.
Sheesh @Imago, you might not agree but you don't have to swear (cuss!) ;)
 

jwocky

Rookie
There is nothing more uniform than a cricket bat.
In what way is a cricket bat uniform? Even if it were to be made from uniformly dense wood, it would still not be uniform because its mass distribution is non-uniform to create the bat's equivalent of a "sweet spot" and the sweet spot's location varies based upon the location of the "swell" on the back (non hitting part) of the bat (http://waibee115.com/Content/Images/uploaded/Image-Sweet-Spot.PNG). Even the hitting surface is not flat - see https://www.google.com/search?q=kookaburra+bats.

A better comparison may be a table tennis bat blade with maximum surface stiffness and response characteristic before applying a sponge and rubber. In tennis, this could be approximated by stringing at a theoretically high (extreme) tension.

The surface stiffness and response characteristic of a table tennis bat is customized "uniformly" by applying various combinations of sponge and rubber. This is then similar but not equivalent to proportional stringing at "normal" tensions. All this is still not uniform as there will always be manufacturing and material tolerances to consider in both types of sports equipment.
 
Last edited:

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
I recently came across the Sergetti stringing method and thought I'll give it a go. I am amazed at what a difference it has made to my game and I'm curious if others here have had a similar experience?

Up until a month ago, I had never even heard of it so I am hoping that it may be able to help others here.

It's a scientifically developed proportional stringing method that claims to greatly increase the sweet spot, increase the life of the string bed among other things. I'm a sceptic by nature, but I can certainly testify for the increased sweet spot and here's why:

I play in a doubles social comp and I recently played the best match of my life using this stringing method.
I was able to beat players that consistently beat me. I served 3 aces in one game (2 against our best player) and my groundstrokes were better than ever.

Between games, I noticed red marks all over my new white poly strings.
My coach uses new tennis balls and marks them with a Red X (he reuses these later for coaching).

I had red dots spread out all over the place- I had not been hitting the ball that well after all - but the shots felt great and came off the racket nicely. It had to be the larger sweet spot from the Sergetti stringing.

I also get tennis elbow. Next day - no tennis elbow for the 1st time in months...same strings!
Played my second game this week - played well again and no tennis elbow.

I can't comment on the enhanced string life because I haven't played long enough but I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the sweet spot is much bigger, it's improved my game out of sight and I don't feel anywhere near the shock from off-centre hits.

I hope that this helps others and I am interested in any feedback from people who are using this or other similar techniques.
what kind of spin does it provide ?
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
@AndI just FYI the method I used now hosted by is not completely proportional like the normal diredesire and USRSA versions. There’s start y dropping the tension proportionally on all strings dependant on length. Mine uses a proportional drop on the mains and a separate proportional drop on crosses dependant solely on cross string length. The center mains and crosses are strung at the normal reference tension, but you can choose any tension you want, then the spreadsheet will apply an outer drop on all subsequent mains and crosses.
So, are you no longer using the Sergetti method? If not, are you going to have them remove your "endorsement" from their website?
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
In what way is a cricket bat uniform?
Every time you hit a ball with a cricket bat with the same part of the bat you will get the same result. That is what I mean by "uniform". That's not the case with a tennis racquet, regardless of how it is strung, because the strings move on contact with the ball. Obviously, the tighter the string bed, the more uniform it is because you are more likely to get the same result each time the string bed contacts the ball at the same place on the string bed.

When you say "Uniform" I take that to mean you will get the same result regardless of where the ball makes contact on the string bed.

No doubt you will now argue that a cricket bat is made of wood which is soft and will flex or deform, yada, yada, yada. By all means do so but I can't see how that changes anything that I said.
 

The Big Kahuna

Hall of Fame
I'm sorry.

Borg's racquets were strung in the high 70s / low 80s.
Sampras's in the high 60s / low 70s
Agassi's in the mid to high 60s.

And don't forget our great friend @Shroud who strings his racquets in the low 200s.

What I wrote is hypothetical but it applies in theory. I'm not proposing it could be used in practice.



Sheesh @Imago, you might not agree but you don't have to swear (cuss!) ;)
All the players you cite above did not play with POLYESTER string. If they had - and strung at the tensions noted - they would have had major arm issues.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
All the players you cite above did not play with POLYESTER string. If they had - and strung at the tensions noted - they would have had major arm issues.
Afaik, Borg played with Natural Gut.

Sampras played with early incarnations of monofilament Polyester string which are a lot stiffer than modern poly and copoly strings.

Agassi played with Kevlar strings which I understand are also a lot stiffer than modern copoly strings.

They did not have major arm issues because the frames they were using were much softer than the majority of modern frames available today. (Borg used wooden frames. Sampras and Agassi used frames that had RDC ratings in the high 40s to low 50s IIRC.)
 

mxvb

Rookie
Afaik, Borg played with Natural Gut.

Sampras played with early incarnations of monofilament Polyester string which are a lot stiffer than modern poly and copoly strings.

Agassi played with Kevlar strings which I understand are also a lot stiffer than modern copoly strings.

They did not have major arm issues because the frames they were using were much softer than the majority of modern frames available today. (Borg used wooden frames. Sampras and Agassi used frames that had RDC ratings in the high 40s to low 50s IIRC.)
Sampras might have tested some early poly's, but played with full gut during his whole carreer..
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Sampras might have tested some early poly's, but played with full gut during his whole carreer..
I stand corrected. Sampras played with thinner gauge Natural Gut full bed strung at around 75lbs of tension.

He was quoted as calling early versions of Luxilon Poly strings "Cheatalon".
 

The Big Kahuna

Hall of Fame
Afaik, Borg played with Natural Gut.

Sampras played with early incarnations of monofilament Polyester string which are a lot stiffer than modern poly and copoly strings.

Agassi played with Kevlar strings which I understand are also a lot stiffer than modern copoly strings.

They did not have major arm issues because the frames they were using were much softer than the majority of modern frames available today. (Borg used wooden frames. Sampras and Agassi used frames that had RDC ratings in the high 40s to low 50s IIRC.)
The frames all these players used were 30% heavier than those used currently - which makes a huge difference in terms of mass and vibration.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Top