The Next Weight Customization Frontier

[travlerajm]

SW2 on a Junior frame? In theory (and backed up my experience comparing standard length frames vs extended length) there are advantages to using a shorter frame at SW2.

A shorter frame allows you to put more mass in the hoop to reach the same swingweight. More mass in the hoop = greater stability = greater control. Also, more hoop mass for a given swingweight = more powerful serve.

So if it is advantageous to play with a standard length frame, could it be even more advantageous to play with a Junior frame?

This is a new frontier in customization. I'm planning to purchase one of the high-quality 26.5" or 26" offerings from Prince or Babolat to test this out.

The 26" Princes have stock swingweights of ~250. My gut tells me that a 26" frame with ~365 SW in the 12.3-oz. range (slightly HH?) will make one hell of a high-performance frame. And with the shorter length, 100si will feel like an OS since the sweetspot will be closer to my hand. I'm drooling at the thought of how stable it will be with ~50g of lead on the hoop. I expect serves to be not only extremely powerful, but also more controllable due to the shorter length. Forehand accuracy might also benefit from the shorter length. And volleys should be much easier to control with the massive amount of lead that I plan to add to the hoop.

My schedule is crazy so it may be a while before I get around to this experiment. But I'm looking forward to the challenge. I'd love to some day walk onto the court at an open tournament and wipe someone off the court. Then afterwards I can tell him that I just beat him with a junior stick.

 

[thejerk]

SW2 on a Junior frame? In theory (and backed up my experience comparing standard length frames vs extended length) there are advantages to using a shorter frame at SW2.

A shorter frame allows you to put more mass in the hoop to reach the same swingweight. More mass in the hoop = greater stability = greater control. Also, more hoop mass for a given swingweight = more powerful serve.

So if it is advantageous to play with a standard length frame, could it be even more advantageous to play with a Junior frame?

This is a new frontier in customization. I'm planning to purchase one of the high-quality 26.5" or 26" offerings from Prince or Babolat to test this out.

The 26" Princes have stock swingweights of ~250. My gut tells me that a 26" frame with ~365 SW in the 12.3-oz. range (slightly HH?) will make one hell of a high-performance frame. And with the shorter length, 100si will feel like an OS since the sweetspot will be closer to my hand. I'm drooling at the thought of how stable it will be with ~50g of lead on the hoop. I expect serves to be not only extremely powerful, but also more controllable due to the shorter length. Forehand accuracy might also benefit from the shorter length. And volleys should be much easier to control with the massive amount of lead that I plan to add to the hoop.

My schedule is crazy so it may be a while before I get around to this experiment. But I'm looking forward to the challenge. I'd love to some day walk onto the court at an open tournament and wipe someone off the court. Then afterwards I can tell him that I just beat him with a junior stick.

That would be cool. I was looking at rackets for my daughter one day and found some nice 26 inchers. I also started wondering how cool it would be to load it up with lead. My favorite was a wilson that was painted like the PS tour90's and 95's. I couldn't find any junior rackets that were heavy enough out of the box.

 

[travlerajm]

Added a little poll to this thread just for laughs.

 

[federer_nadal]

if you are serious about it, this would be the racquet to use http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCWILSON-WNBLADE26.html

 

[travlerajm]

I'm not really sure what stiffness will be ideal.

The nBlade might be a little flimsier than the optimum. I'm leaning toward the Babolat Pure Junior, but the Prince Dogfish might be an option too.

 

[haerdalis]

Looks like a nice racquet but what is a 0 grip? Maybe you will need to many heatshrink sleaves on it.
Why not just cut of a little over an inch on a normal racquet first?

 

[vegitiger]

Sounds interesting. Can the customized 26" racket overcome the disadvantage in serve?

 

[travlerajm]

Looks like a nice racquet but what is a 0 grip? Maybe you will need to many heatshrink sleaves on it.
Why not just cut of a little over an inch on a normal racquet first?

I'll have to build the grip up a bit, but these start extremely light, so there is plenty of room to build. I'll probably add a layer of styrofoam under a heatshrink sleeve to build it up to a comfortable base before I start messing with where to put the lead counterweighting.

 

[travlerajm]

Sounds interesting. Can the customized 26" racket overcome the disadvantage in serve?

This is an interesting question. The prevailing wisdom that longer frames are more powerful for serves is somewhat of a myth. If two frames have the same swingweight, but one is longer than the other, the shorter one will be more powerful because the longer one must have a lighter hoop. This effect more that compensates for the lower stringbed velocity. One reason why the myth persists is that extended length frames generally have higher swingweights than standard length ones. It is the higher swingweight - moreso than the length - that results in the increased power on serves.

That said, you cannot keep going shorter to increase service power, because there is an optimum length somewhere. But I don't know where the optimum length for maximum power is. It may be shorter than standard, it may not be.

 

[haerdalis]

There is the PDR junior frame aswell. It is not a full inch shorter only a half but it is 4 1/8 in grip.
I wonder why the price is so much lower? Leads one to believe the quality is poor and that it might not hold up very long during heavy hitting.

 

[travlerajm]

There is the PDR junior frame aswell. It is not a full inch shorter only a half but it is 4 1/8 in grip.
I wonder why the price is so much lower? Leads one to believe the quality is poor and that it might not hold up very long during heavy hitting.

Actually, price has little to do with the cost of the racquet, and everything to do with demand. I expect that the 2 high-end Junior offerings from Prince, as well as the high-end Babolat Junior frames are every bit is good as the full size ones (but the Babs are made with slightly less stiff construction). The Princes are just as stiff as the full size versions.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

why not just cut 1/2 inch off a pro stick

I have an original Kneissl Toms machine from the late 90's that is 26.75 it is one hell of a frame when I stretch it out to 27 while stringing and customize it with weights, it has high quality graphite, you need to look at older jr. frames which have better quality graphite than todays frames.

A C10 pro junior is ideal, if you can find one

 

[jackson vile]

SW2 on a Junior frame? In theory (and backed up my experience comparing standard length frames vs extended length) there are advantages to using a shorter frame at SW2.

A shorter frame allows you to put more mass in the hoop to reach the same swingweight. More mass in the hoop = greater stability = greater control. Also, more hoop mass for a given swingweight = more powerful serve.

So if it is advantageous to play with a standard length frame, could it be even more advantageous to play with a Junior frame?

This is a new frontier in customization. I'm planning to purchase one of the high-quality 26.5" or 26" offerings from Prince or Babolat to test this out.

The 26" Princes have stock swingweights of ~250. My gut tells me that a 26" frame with ~365 SW in the 12.3-oz. range (slightly HH?) will make one hell of a high-performance frame. And with the shorter length, 100si will feel like an OS since the sweetspot will be closer to my hand. I'm drooling at the thought of how stable it will be with ~50g of lead on the hoop. I expect serves to be not only extremely powerful, but also more controllable due to the shorter length. Forehand accuracy might also benefit from the shorter length. And volleys should be much easier to control with the massive amount of lead that I plan to add to the hoop.

My schedule is crazy so it may be a while before I get around to this experiment. But I'm looking forward to the challenge. I'd love to some day walk onto the court at an open tournament and wipe someone off the court. Then afterwards I can tell him that I just beat him with a junior stick.

Travler this is really going to depend on court and playing style.

The slower the court the higher the SW you can have the faster the court the lower the SW you can have IE ground strokes.

For the slower courts you want a high SW with light static, for fast you want a high static more HL with lower SW.

For S&V it will be a bit different, they will have high SW and static.

So I shorter racket is better for S&V while a longer racket is better for a basliner.

the faster the ball comes at you the faster you need to be able to swing your racket and react, that is why lighter frames are so popular now. But those same rackets suck to volley with and simply don't compare for serves.

 

[IT WAS IN!!!]

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-BP06JUN1.html


this would be one heck of a frame to customize, nice stiffness
I would love to know how it would play

 

[tursafinov]

I believe Janko Tipsaravic uses 26''

he serves 130
~Tursa

 

[haerdalis]

Damn you travler hehe. Now I just feel the need to test one of those junior racquets to see how they play. Or saw off one my own racquets.
This place is not good for me. I just keep fiddling with my racquets even though I am very happy with them.

 

[travlerajm]

As a first experiment, I sawed off an NXG OS so that it is now 26.9". It takes about 20g of lead in the upper hoop to get the swingweight back up to where I like it. It's a stable beast now. I look forward to testing it out on court and tuning it.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

As a first experiment, I sawed off an NXG OS so that it is now 26.9".

Now that I see i gave you a heads up on cutting a normal stick, I think you owe me an answer to this question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by travlerajm View Post

Why is it such a secret that extremely HL balance makes for crappy serves?

For a given swingweight and static weight, the longer the balance, the more accurate your serve will be. It's just the way the physics works.

John Cauthen modified one of my PT630 for me, it is 404grams with 29cm balance which is very extreme HEAD LIGHT, it is also strung in a special way (shaped the head of my PT630 to look like a Prestige classic mid which is an amazing serving stick). I hit some of the best serves I have ever hit in my life. How do you explain that ? can you calculate that for me? thanks

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

why not just cut 1/2 inch off a pro stick

As a first experiment, I sawed off an NXG OS so that it is now 26.9".

Now that I see i gave you a heads up on cutting a normal stick, I think you owe me an answer to this question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by travlerajm View Post

Why is it such a secret that extremely HL balance makes for crappy serves?

For a given swingweight and static weight, the longer the balance, the more accurate your serve will be. It's just the way the physics works.

John Cauthen modified one of my PT630 for me, it is 404grams with 29cm balance which is very extreme HEAD LIGHT, it is also strung in a special way (shaped the head of my PT630 to look like a Prestige classic mid which is an amazing serving stick). I hit some of the best serves I have ever hit in my life. How do you explain that ? can you calculate that for me? thanks

 

[10sfreak]

Hmm, I've wondered aloud in another thread several months ago about the advantages I might gain from shortening a standard racquet to maybe 26.5", although I wasn't thinking in terms of SW2 for a shorter frame.
So, how would I get to SW2 if I cut off .5" from my St. Vincent PS 85? (Haha! Calm down folks! I DO NOT have a St. Vincent, and if I did, I would NEVER consider chopping off part of the handle! LOL!) Anyway, assuming a stock PS85, what would the SW be if I chopped off that .5", and how to get it up to SW2?
I guess this question could also apply to the K90, which I've recently switched to...

 

[travlerajm]

Now that I see i gave you a heads up on cutting a normal stick, I think you owe me an answer to this question.





John Cauthen modified one of my PT630 for me, it is 404grams with 29cm balance which is very extreme HEAD LIGHT, it is also strung in a special way (shaped the head of my PT630 to look like a Prestige classic mid which is an amazing serving stick). I hit some of the best serves I have ever hit in my life. How do you explain that ? can you calculate that for me? thanks

29cm is not very HL for a 404g racquet. When you start getting that heavy, the only place you can add weight is on the handle. The key is that Cauthen adds the weight at the TOP of the handle, which is far enough above the hand to substantially increase your racquet's effective mass. This is an excellent way to increase power on your serve - however, it's not the best way to maximize accuracy on your serve.

I've experimented a lot with the Cauthen approach to weighting. In the end, I found that the upper hoop is a much superior place to add weight than the top of the handle.

 

[ps60]

6 months ago, i asked the pro shop if they provide cutting service... NO, they said. i just wanna cut down my Diablo to 27" or 26.8", also for my 27.5" Prince Air xxxx, which i seem never able to handle.

Looking for a 26" was also one of my option, but they are too light and Grip size also a big problem.

At 5'7", i surely would welcome a shorter stick (on proportion to my height and arm length)
They used to provide some Lady's racket with 26.5" or 26.8" maybe. But not anymore.

I guess shorter sticks must have some adv for oriental players on G/S and volleys. But it also has a disadv when serving. Most of my LB sticks serve easily and powerfully.

 

[jackson vile]

29cm is not very HL for a 404g racquet. When you start getting that heavy, the only place you can add weight is on the handle. The key is that Cauthen adds the weight at the TOP of the handle, which is far enough above the hand to substantially increase your racquet's effective mass. This is an excellent way to increase power on your serve - however, it's not the best way to maximize accuracy on your serve.

I've experimented a lot with the Cauthen approach to weighting. In the end, I found that the upper hoop is a much superior place to add weight than the top of the handle.

John has a very interesting concept, one problem is that it end up being too heavy to be effective for the more advanced players.

However for those that are older, newer, or special requirements this may be a great advantage.

I agree with Travler, the weight is much better suited in the upper hoop especially when considering static weight can be kept to a minimum while maximizing the effect at the same time.

Honestly my wife has never played better tennis, and if fact had her greatest success with a previous HH Head ti racket.

With Travler's information we are able to see how we can maximize this concept.

For weekend warriors ect it is a very different story and perhaps this is where Johns methods really shine

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

29cm is not very HL for a 404g racquet. When you start getting that heavy, the only place you can add weight is on the handle. The key is that Cauthen adds the weight at the TOP of the handle, which is far enough above the hand to substantially increase your racquet's effective mass. This is an excellent way to increase power on your serve - however, it's not the best way to maximize accuracy on your serve.

I've experimented a lot with the Cauthen approach to weighting. In the end, I found that the upper hoop is a much superior place to add weight than the top of the handle.

Thanks to your reply. It is not only weight. It is the shape of the weight and placement ( not just anywhere on top of the handle). Believe me, you can not just tincker with this like you and I have. It took John many years to perfect the shape and location.

Now maybe his special way of stringing has a lot to do with perfect superior control of everything not just serves, I can't pin point that now. I need more time and frames to work with. I will keep you posted.


IMO his method is more maneuverable and easier to swing. IT FEELS NATURAL

I am working on having your method and his method side by side on two frames strung with identical strings and find out which is more effective.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

29cm is not very HL for a 404g racquet. When you start getting that heavy, the only place you can add weight is on the handle.

As promised I put My PT630 the one John customized on a prince tuning center like this one http://www.princetennis.com/product/product_detail.asp?CategoryID=143&Product=1397 and it came in at 335 SW which is amazingly low for that weight. When I placed even 5 grams of weight at the handle it threw the "natural" swing feel off.

Shape of lead has a lot to do with how a stick swings. You cant just add lead here and there in "gobs" or strips. It just does not work.

 

[johncauthen]

The shape of the handle weight is the most important thing about getting it to work. With the right shape, the racquet doesn't feel heavier, in feels lighter!

And the best handle weight was one that did not add any swing weight. Michael confirmed that when he put it on the testing machine. To me it just felt like it didn't add any heaviness, but it did make it a lot more solid, easier to control.

The entire weight has to be placed no higher than 8 3/8 inches from the butt in order not to add swing weight. Now, I can modify heavy racquets and they don't feel heavy, which was the breakthrough that allowed me to make Michael's racquet work.

The shorter racquet is extremely interesting. When they went from wood to aluminum back in the 70's, when tradition was being challenged in favor of just doing what felt good, the aluminum racquets were only designed to feel good. Most of them were less than 27 inches, about 26.8 or 26.9.

The original Pro Staff Classics were about 26.9. They just standardized them, making them 27 inches without regard to what felt right. They felt too long, so I cut down my Pro Staff Classic a little bit at a time, 26 15/16"; 26 29/32"; 26 7/8"; and then, all the way down to 26 11/16, which is just less than 26 3/4.

That was too short. I made it longer and ended up with an unstrung racquet that was 26 13/16. That's where I stopped experimenting because it never felt exactly right. Between 26 11/16 and 26 13/16, it either felt too short or too long. It never felt exactly right; although, it felt better than 27 inches.

Last year, I went back to that idea, digging one of those Pro Staffs out of storage. I tried the stretched head on the shorten racquet. Now it's 26 7/8" and feels just right. I had to discover the stretched head idea to make that racquet feel right.

I pulled it out again when I read this thread. It feels good. I think the ideal length is between 26.8 and 26.9 inches. You liked the Diablo cut down to 26.9. Try cutting it down a little bit more with a file. (Hacksaws are good for cutting racquets down.) As you file it, it will start to feel better, and then it will start to feel worse as it gets too short. I added thick paper spacers to make it longer after I filed it down too short: one paper spacer at a time until it felt just right. But like I said, it always felt either too long or too short. It wasn't until I adjusted the head length that the shortened Pro Staff felt right.

I went back to standard 27-inch racquets and never finished that project, although I did try cutting down a Hammer 6.3 and wasn't able to improve it. I also made the 6.3 handle longer. It's right the way it is, and the PT630, the single most popular racquet with pros, has exactly the same proportions as the Hammer 6.3.

I think racquet length is a function of racquet proprotions. Get the proprtions right and ideal length seems to be in the neighborhood of 27 1/4.

But the shortened Pro Staff Classic is easy to use, and the Diablo is probably the other racquet that works better when it's shortened to 26.85 inches. That seems to be the ideal short racquet length. Anything less than 26.75 is definitely too short.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

Thanks John for clearing this matter up. I just hate to read vile people posting that you are in it for the money, when clearly you have not made a nickel from this since 25 years ago. I have never seen a post go this low on the forum, ever. It is a shame.

Finally you don't know much about John at all and to say that the shape is special is extremely ignorant and you would see that John is out for money while Travler is not.

 

[travlerajm]

The results of my first stab at this are in.

My 26.9" NXG OS at SW2 plays stiffer and more stable than it does at full length.

Spin on groundstrokes is a little lower, but volleys are improved, and most importantly, I have better control of the racquethead on the serves.

I played a USTA 4.5 league doubles match today. During the warmup, I made the decision to use the sawed-off frame.

We played against the other team's top doubles tandem that was undefeated coming into the match, and we routed them in a 6-0, 6-2 beatdown. The best part was that I had zero double faults, and held my serve easily every time. I volleyed better than I usually do. The only downside was that I don't have as much margin for error on the return because the racquet plays stiffer, but the extra stability almost makes it a wash on returns.

Overall, the verdict is that the shortened frame is an improvement!

I would probably prefer that the NXG was about 0.5-oz. lighter in the handle, to give me more room to tune. With a lighter handle, I could use a lower tension, which would add a little spin, and make my serve even better. I'm tempted to try this with my O3 Tour OS. Hmm....

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

My 26.9" NXG OS at SW2 plays stiffer and more stable than it does at full length.

Spin on groundstrokes is a little lower, but volleys are improved, and most importantly, I have better control of the racquethead on the serves.

Overall, the verdict is that the shortened frame is an improvement!

That is similar what I experienced with my shorty, my only draw back was a little on the return of serve, How was your return of serve?

Now you only need a flexible fame to test, something with Fibreglass

 

[travlerajm]

That is similar what I experienced with my shorty, my only draw back was a little on the return of serve, How was your return of serve?

Now you only need a flexible fame to test, something with Fibreglass

Yes, a flex around 60 might work well for this. My shortened 63-flex NXG feels more like 70 with 20g of lead in the upper hoop. I returned decently, but flatter than I usually do. Stability was great though.

If I go down to 26.5", then maybe a 55 flex would do.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

I have been cutting and re-balancing for a long time, I doubt anyone here has cut more than me or even before me.

this is from a Kneissl Tomes reach where I cut almost one inch from 28 to 27.25, notice the three layers of lead sandwiched between the two layers of handle.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1195488&postcount=5

 

[haerdalis]

My shortened pro rd-70 long does not feel stiffer somehow. It feels almost flexier which is weird. I cut it down from 28 to 27 inches.

 

[travlerajm]

My shortened pro rd-70 long does not feel stiffer somehow. It feels almost flexier which is weird. I cut it down from 28 to 27 inches.

To be clear, the stiffening effect is because I needed to add lots of lead to the upper hoop to return the swingweight to what it was before. If you cut but don't add weight like I did, it will feel flexier because the effective mass will be lower.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

If you cut but don't add weight like I did, it will feel flexier because the effective mass will be lower.

I did not have this experience. Almost all the time when I cut shorter, the stick stiffens. Look at all the sticks on TW in respect to the longer counterparts, there are some 27.5 are more flexible than their 27 counterparts.


http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCDUNLOP-D200G.html

Vs

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCDUNLOP-200GXLD3.html

but then again you get this

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCDUNLOP-D200.html

Vs

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCDUNLOP-MF200P.html

which I don't really get



http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-BPCP.html

vs

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-BPC.html


Iprestige MP XL flexs more than standard Iprestige MP for sure

 

[jackson vile]

Thanks John for clearing this matter up. I just hate to read vile people posting that you are in it for the money, when clearly you have not made a nickel from this since 25 years ago. I have never seen a post go this low on the forum, ever. It is a shame.

Obviously you have not fallowed John's threads, he is a great guy but he goes way way out there.

Just further proof you have zero concept of what you are talking about

 

[travlerajm]

I did not have this experience. Almost all the time when I cut shorter, the stick stiffens. Look at all the sticks on TW in respect to the longer counterparts, there are some 27.5 are more flexible than their 27 counterparts.


http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCDUNLOP-D200G.html

Vs

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCDUNLOP-200GXLD3.html

but then again you get this

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCDUNLOP-D200.html

Vs

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCDUNLOP-MF200P.html

which I don't really get



http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-BPCP.html

vs

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-BPC.html


Iprestige MP XL flexs more than standard Iprestige MP for sure

You're right. I stand corrected. I just did the rough calcluation, and the deflection is indeed less in general for a sawed off frame.

I hadn't taken that into account before when choosing a racquet. It makes sense now that my NXG always felt comparable in flex to standard length frames like the RDX500 mp, which has a lower flex rating.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

Obviously you have not fallowed John's threads, he is a great guy but he goes way way out there.

Just further proof you have zero concept of what you are talking about

You have some nerve showing your Face after Johns post which proved you are WRONG, it is all about shape. Especially after the moderators deleted your posts, here you are saying now John is a great guy trying to save face after you said he is after money. And even if he was after money, does his concepts make it less significant or that he does not know what he is talking about? Shame on you jackson vile. I have been working with John sending sticks back and forth for three months and you claim you know what this is all about when you are clueless.

YOU ARE ONLY A 3.0 PLAYER AND HAVE NO CLUE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. You have just started playing tennis since less than two years. It will take you another 25 years to comprehend what we are talking about. Now go back to your 5.0 wife and let her open up a can of woopa$$ on you.

In the mean time read this

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=124117&page=2

 

[haerdalis]

Just out of curiosity I will saw off one of my nFurys to see how it plays at 26 inches. I am also thinking of trying a junior frame to see if it really has good quality to it. That Pure drive roddick at 26.5 inches at 62 stiffness would then be a great platform for customization.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

You're right. I stand corrected. I just did the rough calcluation, and the deflection is indeed less in general for a sawed off frame.

Thanks. I am not here to say I am right and everyone is wrong. This is a learning experience and we are all learning from each other.

This is not directed to you but I just need your take on this.

I know this is out of the ordinary and I am putting you on the spot but does a person who has been playing for 1.5 years and who is only a 3.0 should be wasting their time with 375g sticks and tinkering with all this, or they should be concentrating on their tennis rather than customizing. This is beyond weird and bizarre if you ask me.

John has been playing tennis and tinkering with his ideas since the early 70's. I have been playing tennis since the late 70's. I have been stringing and customizing sticks for more than 25 years ever since I was a kid sneaking into Bosworth's shop in town in the mid 80's to learn a thing or two. I played Div #1 college tennis for four years and am a 5.5 since the early 90's. I just can not fathom anyone who has just been introduced to the world of tennis less than 1.5 years ago to be able to grasp anything related to tennis let alone the art of stringing and tweaking. They simply do not know what "IT" is they WANT.

Thanks

 

[Roger_Federer.]

Its obvious that it will be worse, because of the smaller size. Smaller Size= less power, less options, less spin

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

Just out of curiosity I will saw off one of my nFurys to see how it plays at 26 inches. I am also thinking of trying a junior frame to see if it really has good quality to it. That Pure drive roddick at 26.5 inches at 62 stiffness would then be a great platform for customization.

I would do 26.75 first then 26.5 maybe? The Nfury is the most flexible racquet in modern time, ie NOW in current production. It is an ideal candidate to be put under the knife. One, because it is so flexible, and two it is cheap, under $100. Way to go haerdalis!!!!! Let us know how it goes. Pay attention to stiffness before and after. I know you have more than few of these so it should be easy for you to compare. Make sure they both have the same setups. (not one strung with 15gPOLY at 65lbs and the other with natural gut 18g at 50lbs ). Thanks

I would also be interesting if we had a 27.5 one of these with SW2, now that would make one heck of a serving stick

 

[haerdalis]

I have one sw2 nFury and it is a very nice racquet indeed. Even balance 320 g and ~370 sw. Problem with this frame is that it needs this sort of sw to be a good serving frame.
Ok I will try 26.5 first and then 26. You are correct I do have a few, 6 infact so if the 26.5 is nice I'll take another one to 26.

 

[travlerajm]

I have one sw2 nFury and it is a very nice racquet indeed. Even balance 320 g and ~370 sw. Problem with this frame is that it needs this sort of sw to be a good serving frame.
Ok I will try 26.5 first and then 26. You are correct I do have a few, 6 infact so if the 26.5 is nice I'll take another one to 26.

I agree with Michael. Try 26.5 first. Going from 27.5 to 26.9 really turned my NXG into a completely different racquet. With the extra lead in the hoop to get back up to SW2, it went from a flexy spin monster at 27.5 to a crisp Sampras-style serve-and-volley beast at 26.9.

 

[jackson vile]

You have some nerve showing your Face after Johns post which proved you are WRONG, it is all about shape. Especially after the moderators deleted your posts, here you are saying now John is a great guy trying to save face after you said he is after money. And even if he was after money, does his concepts make it less significant or that he does not know what he is talking about? Shame on you jackson vile. I have been working with John sending sticks back and forth for three months and you claim you know what this is all about when you are clueless.

YOU ARE ONLY A 3.0 PLAYER AND HAVE NO CLUE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. You have just started playing tennis since less than two years. It will take you another 25 years to comprehend what we are talking about. Now go back to your 5.0 wife and let her open up a can of woopa$$ on you.

In the mean time read this

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=124117&page=2

They deleted your trash thankfully.

As I said before I was one of the first people to fallow John's concepts and that was on a personal basis via the board and emails, do a search you just look foolish.

So I am a year head of you and you are speaking old news, go and read some of John's posts he goes off the far end way too much.

Now if you want to say the location of lead that is fine, but you do not need to have a certain shape, and you would know that if you had done the modifications and testing yourself on multiple frames as I did.

The point is that John is trying to say that it is a certain shape only that only he knows and can make and further more has put patent the shape so that he can market it.

You are very gullible and you don't even understand his concepts you can't even properly describe them LOL

Do you even know why he stretches the hoop or how he does it.

It is sad you spent your whole Easter trying to dig up dirt and you failed.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

You know, I just feel sorry for you. Seriously, you need medical attention.

Just read some of the threads that you started and you will see how off you sound. All within a year of your introduction to the game called TENNIS.

looking for a website to serve? I can't explain it, it was developing and now is just garbage.

any sugestions?

Well I have my serve now, just need to work on placement, I was doing this snap the wrist thing,

I see some people that say they only get 1-3 games out of string, how do you afford that when it comes to gut?

I have been trying to break my strings so that have a reason to restring it, but it just won't go.

the fact that I have been only playing for 6 months
Also I hit my first 120mph serve, it was amazing I could not believe it came off my racket.

Breaking strings is not a good thing and if you break strings often it just shows how bad you are at miss hitting.

My strings hit due to a miss hit.:neutral:

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

Gut is nothing special, I have tried this string and Bab. Tonic 16g (which suck @$$)


Nothing special, NXT max and tour are better and cheaper, sensation is better, stamina is better, ect ect

The Legend was good, but nothing special, it moved just a much, and you best hope that it is dry where you live other wise it loses tension just like any other string.

I will continue using synthetic and few multies in certain rackets, no more gut for me, however the kLIP armourpro seems very interesting and looks to be a good alternative to a poly

So don't waste your time and money on gut, the end

SW2 is bad and dangerous don't use, continue using stock rackets and ignore what successful nationally and world ranked players do and use!

My tour90 was what I was supposed to play with today but it feels like a fat girl so I will try to make it more head light.

LOL I am only consistancy of a 3.5 have only been playing 1.4 years.

Now I have SW2 and I don't have to work so hard, the racket does it for me.

..............................................................

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

around 1.4 years ago, I first started talking and working on Johns Ideas on 11/29/2005 on the nalbandian racquet thread, you Ms. vile were never in the picture.

HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO PROVE TO THE WORLD THAT YOU ASSOCIATED WITH JOHN BEFORE ME OR ARE YOU A COWARD. PROVE ME WRONG BIG GUY. I DARE YOU!!!!!


YOU JUST STARTED PLAYING TENNIS and JUST JOINED TW 1.4 YEARS AGO!!!!!! WERE YOU EVEN BORN?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=508206&postcount=81

11-29-2005, 04:16 AM

I yield to the honorable John for SHARING his secrets with us which is what these boards are all about. I tried Johns method of stringing and weight distribution on a Pure Drive. I will try it out and post my experience.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=508694&postcount=88

11-29-2005, 06:14 PM

John, can you email me at chaho@sbcglobal.net I have a question for you. I tried to elongate the head a bit but did not think it was elongated enough, you see I have a Laserfibre MS200DX constant pull where the mounting brackets support from the inside making frame elongation a challenge. But I did give it about 1/2 inch to move, the head was compressed when I did the mains, when I reached the bottom cross, the head did not elongate enough, it went back to its normal shape from being compressed, also I droped the ref weight about 5lbs due to constant pull Vs your crank, anyway....... I wil try it out tonight,

The Pure Drive is not my stick, I play with the Pro Tour 630 which is going to be even harder to elongate

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=509438&postcount=99


Old 11-30-2005, 04:11 AM

Michael, if you want to send me a racquet to string, send it to:

Don's Tennis & Accessories
826 E Morehead St
Charlotte, NC 28202-2706
attn: John

Sorry I didn't get a chance to email you. And thank you for trying the stringing. The results you got were exactly what I get, even down to not needing the vibration dampener.

11-30-2005, 02:45 AM

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=509353&postcount=91

I started with two Babolate Pure Drives 3/8 with overgrip at 325grams 32cm each. The first Pure Drive, I added 25 grams to the handle and strung it with 17g Wilson synthetic gut using John’s elongated method with the reference tension at 55lbs. It weighed in at 350grams and 30.5cm balance. The second Pure Drive was strung normal 17g Wilson synthetic gut at 55lbs with no weights. I only had ½ hour of test time and did not play a set.

The modified Pure Drive was more stable and powerful on groundies and serves. It felt like a bat with added touch/feel. It did not have torsion twist an off center shots like the unmodified pure drive. You would not feel that I added almost 1oz to the frame, yet it still felt very maneuverable. IMO the stability has more to do with the weight placement rather than method of stringing. But I am not even sure if I strung this Pure Drive correctly ala Johns method. What was interesting is that I did not even need a vibration dampener. In conclusion, I think had I strung it properly, I would have noticed an improvement but for me now, I can say that string selection i.e. gauge/construction plays a bigger factor than this method of stringing. John, I am still waiting to hear from you via emai. I would like to send you a racquet.

I was thinking, I could get a PD+ and take off 1/4 of an inch and compress the head only, where mains are strung tighter than crosses altogether

to where john answred

You must have strung it correctly because it didn't need a vibration dampener. It is very easy to string it correctly if you use those tension settings.

Not needing a vibration dampener is what struck me, too. Racquets strung this way never need vibration dampeners. I always say to customers as they are going out the door with my racquets, "Try it without a vibration dampener!" This makes my boss mad, but vibration dampeners are not needed with this stringing method. A lot of top pros, like Davenport and Federer never use them, so obviously their racquets don't need them, either.

This makes me think (I guess I am just loopy) a racquet perfectly set up doesn't need a vibration dampener, and pros have these perfect racquets but we don't.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

NEVER MIND, Here I have done the honor,

Your coming out party on 12/13/2005 Two weeks later you were still clueless,I can't believe I am wasting my time with you.!!!!!!!!!!!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=523973&postcount=21


12-13-2005, 10:24 PM

John where are you from, also what is your solution?

Next what can you do to for my LMprestige+ to make it feel better, what string and tension do you recomend, the uper hoop feels a bit dead at times.

And lastly what is the fork of the racket?

I ADVISE YOU TO STOP DIGGING YOURSELF DEEPER AND DEEPER OR YOU ARE GOING TO REALLY REACH JACKSONVILLE FROM IDAHO.

Around that time YOU had just started holding a tennis racquet, just joined TW, and you jumped right into a prestige/caymen 90 weighing them in upwards of 375g. You sure are arrogant and full of yourself.

 

[haerdalis]

Just thinking about the shortening of the racquet I checked some of my older racquets and came up with this.
My wilson T2000 is 67.4 cm or just a little more than 26.5 inches. It weighs 384 g and the balance is 33.1 cm (just under 2 points HL). I play with this now and then just for fun and it is nice and stable and the weight doesnt trouble me as much as the weight of the Pk ki5 pse I had that weighed 390 g did, and that was more HL.
So now I am really looking forward to trying this on the nFury.

 

[travlerajm]

I'm thinking my O3 Tour OS might be next to undergo the shortening treatment. I liked the result with my NXG, but because of the weight of the handle, there's no room for fine-tuning. But the O3 has a much lighter handle - better for making adjustments, and adding tailweighting for spin if necessary.