Discussion in 'Strings' started by diredesire, Aug 22, 2008.
Newest, as of 2014:
As of 2015 Isospeed Touch Poly V18 1.12 is the softest poly yet tested, rated at 156.
Newest, as of 2015:
No surprise that the long time champion is Babolat Tonic + Longevity (BT7)
Here is the TW Tennis University version:
Newest as of 2016:
The new polys are coming down dramatically in terms of measured stiffness.
Lots of choices measuring in the 160s, 170s, and 180s.
Basically the same stiffness and syn gut, now the question is does the same stiffness transfer into the same arm friendliness?
Yes, it should.
(In my experience, low stiffness polys do feel rather soft. Although I will admit that multis tend to be more arm friendly.)
Ok, this has been on my mind for a while now. We are all here to learn and help, I hope.
The keys topics are: Subjectiveness and Vagueness ( where we are a lot here)
Now Objectiveness and Specificness ( where we should be going)
This should be a goal for all of us.
Our threads will be much more helpful, efficient and collaborative....
OK. This desire for objectivity and specificity is why I believe that these measured test-numbers are important.
These numerical results here are not vague or subjective.
True they are usrsa test results.
This is a copy of their test procedure.
Test Procedure. All strings were tensioned to 62 pounds and allowed to sit for 200 seconds. Then the string was hit five times with a force equivalent to hitting a 120 mph serve. The tension loss represents the total amount of the relaxation over both time and impact. The stiffness value is a calculation derived from the amount of force created at impact to stretch the string. Lower values represent softer strings and lower impact forces. Higher values represent stiffer strings and higher impact forces.
But this is only one piece of the puzzle. Sure I am not arguing the softness. First it is an 18-gauge string. Thinner strings will be softer. It this test number import, sure.
depends on what is important to you. Softness, like you stated above both TW's string database and usrsa (tennis mag) document their dynamic stiffness. Now if you do a comparison, you will find TW dynamic stiffness is higher. Both still in the range of 156 for usrsa and about 180 for TW. They both have different test process. So in order to be objective it is important to compile and analyze all the data.
So going back too important. Why is this “important”, you really did not state clearly why?
So let me do so more mind reading again.
If the importance is solo stiffness. Sure it is important if you are seeking an arm friendly solution for a client. But is that it, no. It should not be.
It is a start. It is a good start thou to narrow down some options for someone.
It is the first place to start (stiffness value /dynamic) for someone. Especially if you need to find them a comparable string.
But before I write a book. All I driving at there are much more factors to equate in.
The Frame, The String Pattern, Tension loss, Targeted String Tension, Player's Swing (fast, med, slow). these are a few key elements that should be factored in.
String Breaker / Durability
String Life (goes dead ~)
So to end to the importance factor, it not the stiffness value ...the importance goes to the player.
Getting them the very best string solution that complements their frame, physical capabilities, game, level, mechanics and more (the more you know helps) ...
Example: ok this a soft string. Important yes..ok let’s string it up on my 14 year old sons frame. Hmm nope...
All of these characteristics are outside the category of strings. (BTW, the word you want is "complements.")
I'd love to see the database that measures and objectively correlates the player, frame, physical capabilities, game, level, mechanics.
Thanks for the typo catch! That is from USRSA, give them a call... .... And me too on that......maybe in 2099...
Separate names with a comma.