The pace of technological change

[Crocodile]

Lately I have been thinking about this topic and how to best articulate what I’m trying to convey as best as possible but anyway I will have a go and give this a try:
If we look back to the past we have had periods where racquet technology was quite static or the evolution was gradual such as the decades of wood, then aluminium and then something new would emerge and things would explode. The switch from standard frames to midsize and mid plus graphite composites was a real game changer for tennis and then we had the wide bodies and then high modulus and multi directional graphite structures ( graphene ). This along with string technologies have allowed players to use lighter and stronger frames to attack from positions on the court previously to be thought of as end range or defensive.
You would imagine that when racquets were made in diverse countries, companies could secretly be working on something new and then surprise their competitors with something so technologically superior that they would steal some major market share. I saw this happen in the late 70’s and early 80’s where Australian made Slazenger's and Dunlops were still persisting with aluminium and then suddenly graphite racquets dropped from Taiwan in the form of Pro Kennex and Emrik and they captured the market. This ended Australian manufacturing of racquets and Dunlop fans had to wait for racquets from the UK in the form of the 200g to have access to graphite and injection moulding.
These days of course with the exception of Yonex , everything is coming out of a China so you would imagine that to some degree the technology would be somewhat similar across the board.
So looking at the situation now, are we in a period of refinement and what can we expect in the next few years. In the last 7 years we kind of reached a stage where racquets were getting quite stiff and people complained about their feel and shock so we have seen RA levels drop and dampening technologies incorporated especially to accommodate polyester strings.
Of late you have had ideas like the Wilson Clash where the RA levels went back to the 50’s but with the enhancement made to the beam shape and thickness along with altered flex characteristics, Wilson was able to still provide a powerful frame whereas other companies have tried to go stiffer but add a lot of dampening such as Volkl. We have seen ideas like the triad system still found in the Khamsin frames from Wilson, the Dunlop idapt, PK kinetic system and the Bolt zip strips, where you can alter the racquets playing characteristics by inserting different zip strips;
So what do you think, where are we in racquet tech right now ?

 

[Dartagnan64]

I think we are still in the "How do we make frames for rec players that won't kill their arms with poly strings". Sure poly has been dominant amongst pros for 30 years but it's really only th least 15 years that rec players of all levels are stringing with polyester. And at first the racket companies tried to make stiff powerful frames to compensate for the lack of string power. Then they learned after a decade they were wrecking peoples arms even with "damping technologies" so now the move is to make things less stiff but try to keep the power up. They haven't quite got it but are getting a bit better year by year.

 

[Crocodile]

Just as a supplementary observation it’s interesting how many tennis players do get hooked on sticking to the older stuff including older model Nike Vapour tennis shoes and classic racquets. As I have said before you can still buy a 25 year old C10, a remake of a Pro Tour 2.0 or you can go for something new like the Percept for instance. Surely the all new Percept must be a better frame to use than the C10 or is the Percept a new paint job on an old Tour G?

 

[Crocodile]

Back in the 1980’s there was a frame made by McGregor called the Berglin Longstring which had diagonal string pattern but also came with an Alan key where you could tighten or loosen the tension at the but cap, I wonder whether this idea could make a comeback?
The Boris Becker Puma also had the option where you could lengthen or shorten the length of the racquet. Interesting ideas,

 

[Crocodile]

Definitely from a recreational level racquets need to continue offering comfort and power so we don’t lose players to other sports due to arm injuries. I wonder whether a more comfortable ball could be developed. Slazenger a while back marketed an arm safe ball called the Absorber but it dud not remain in their inventory.

 

[Soundbyte]

Just as a supplementary observation it’s interesting how many tennis players do get hooked on sticking to the older stuff including older model Nike Vapour tennis shoes and classic racquets. As I have said before you can still buy a 25 year old C10, a remake of a Pro Tour 2.0 or you can go for something new like the Percept for instance. Surely the all new Percept must be a better frame to use than the C10 or is the Percept a new paint job on an old Tour G?

I disagree with the notion that newer = better. Much of the R&D is likely leading to manufacturing process improvements and efficiencies, less so a significant change in the end product.

What you're noticing is probably more indicative of consumer trends that necessary product improvements. Remember the "smart" rackets with tracking and informatics built in? They sold poorly and are no longer around. But technology for that is more readily accessible than ever.

In most sports in general, I think we're past the point of seeing huge sport changing technology improvements in terms of equipment. Sure, VAR for football and computer line calls are becoming more standard, but due to the rules of the games, there won't be significant equipment revolutions.

Look at football(soccer), shoe fabrics have changed and athletes are far superior now, but the game is still essentially leather boots and a ball. Do I forsee a new racket technology that will change the end product of the game of tennis?

Nope. I think the switch to metal frames and poly strings were the last major changes. Even if new strings unlock 10% more spin, it's not going to be a huge shift like it was when polys were introduced

 

[onehandbh]

Back in the 1980’s there was a frame made by McGregor called the Berglin Longstring which had diagonal string pattern but also came with an Alan key where you could tighten or loosen the tension at the but cap, I wonder whether this idea could make a comeback?
The Boris Becker Puma also had the option where you could lengthen or shorten the length of the racquet. Interesting ideas,

One day in the future, someone might use a racquet that is longer and more polarized for their service games. Perhaps there might be a button to instantly short the racquet again after hitting the serve, so allow more control for non-serve shots. Not sure if it is legal to alter your racquet in the middle of a point. The racquet would not be changing any characteristics during the hit. It would be in between the serve and the next shot.

 

[Soundbyte]

One day in the future, someone might use a racquet that is longer and more polarized for their service games. Perhaps there might be a button to instantly short the racquet again after hitting the serve, so allow more control for non-serve shots. Not sure if it is legal to alter your racquet in the middle of a point. The racquet would not be changing any characteristics during the hit. It would be in between the serve and the next shot.

ATP rules 1.3 The Racquet:
"D. The frame, including the handle, and the strings, shall be free of any device which makes it possible to change materially the shape of the racket, or to change the weight distribution in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the racket which would alter the swing moment of inertia, during the playing of a point."

Like I said, due to equipment rules nothing major is likely to develop. Someone somewhere thought of the possibility of what you said and they decide to ban it!

 

[onehandbh]

ATP rules 1.3 The Racquet:
"D. The frame, including the handle, and the strings, shall be free of any device which makes it possible to change materially the shape of the racket, or to change the weight distribution in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the racket which would alter the swing moment of inertia, during the playing of a point."

Like I said, due to equipment rules nothing major is likely to develop. Someone somewhere thought of the possibility of what you said and they decide to ban it!

It that case, then the following might be a better solution.

A "double buttcap" racquet during service games. Hold the racquet at the end for the serve. Then choke up on the handle to use like a regular length racquet after the serve.

 

[esgee48]

Appendix II in Friend of Court describes what is legal for a frame. Anything else is probably illegal. The double butt is ok but I can’t imagine you could hold the end easily to serve cuz 29” is max length.

You can’t change racquet characteristics with a mechanical device once points starts which is why Bergelin frame is banned.

 

[Soundbyte]

It that case, then the following might be a better solution.

A "double buttcap" racquet during service games. Hold the racquet at the end for the serve. Then choke up on the handle to use like a regular length racquet after the serve.

Max length is 29". So not much room to go with. And not many people go longer than 28", let alone at higher levels. Even 27.5" frames are super popular due to higher swing weights. Chang was the most popular/highest ranked player to use a 28" frame.

So goes back to my consumer trends comment. No body uses them so no body makes them anymore

 

[optic yellow]

I think we are still in the "How do we make frames for rec players that won't kill their arms with poly strings". Sure poly has been dominant amongst pros for 30 years but it's really only th least 15 years that rec players of all levels are stringing with polyester. And at first the racket companies tried to make stiff powerful frames to compensate for the lack of string power. Then they learned after a decade they were wrecking peoples arms even with "damping technologies" so now the move is to make things less stiff but try to keep the power up. They haven't quite got it but are getting a bit better year by year.

Poly is always going to be unideal for a certain segment of the recreational playerbase until the need to cut it out after ~10 hours is solved.

 

[emhtennis]

Not to de-rail the thread, but I have always wondered why tennis (ATP/WTA/ITF) chose to let technology advance within the pro game, but American baseball did not. Was there a single decision point this can be traced back to?

Pro cycling has obviously also followed tennis' path and let the sport evolve as well.

GOAT debates would certainly be more fun if wooden rackets had stayed mandatory equipment.

 

[optic yellow]

Not to de-rail the thread, but I have always wondered why tennis (ATP/WTA/ITF) chose to let technology advance within the pro game, but American baseball did not. Was there a single decision point this can be traced back to?

Pro cycling has obviously also followed tennis' path and let the sport evolve as well.

GOAT debates would certainly be more fun if wooden rackets had stayed mandatory equipment.

Do you mean with metal bats?

 

[Bambooman]

Poly is always going to be unideal for a certain segment of the recreational playerbase until the need to cut it out after ~10 hours is solved.

You can solve that by not cutting it out.

 

[SlowTiger]

Much hasn't changed in the last 20 years. I say the original pure aeros and pure drives are better then the ones today. The French must be doing something right because technibre was ahead of it's time. Their racquets were never super popular but the specs of today's modern players racquets are the same as theirs from 20 years ago.

Only thing that has really changed is shaped strings and softer strings for the average player. Most pros still use stiffer and predictable round or very moderately shaped/textured strings

 

[gino]

Interesting thread, I think my opinion is that graphite frames will be our end of the road. I think frames will stay similar for the remainder of the history of tennis. I could see another string tech revolution that allows for the strings to maintain tension longer, but other than that, I kinda think we’ve peaked. 20-25+ years without significant changes other than paint says a lot

 

[emhtennis]

Do you mean with metal bats?

Correct.

 

[socallefty]

Poly is always going to be unideal for a certain segment of the recreational playerbase until the need to cut it out after ~10 hours is solved.

Maybe the next revolution needed for rec tennis is to create poly strings that don‘t die fast so that players can play with them till they break without creating injuries. If that happens, then we might see the pendulum change back to higher power racquet designs again as manufacturers don’t have to worry as much about comfort - higher stiffness, more open patterns, thicker beams, bigger head sizes etc.

 

[dr. godmode]

Interesting thread, I think my opinion is that graphite frames will be our end of the road. I think frames will stay similar for the remainder of the history of tennis. I could see another string tech revolution that allows for the strings to maintain tension longer, but other than that, I kinda think we’ve peaked. 20-25+ years without significant changes other than paint says a lot

I also think we will be stuck with graphite for some time. Looking at other industries, aerospace and automotive, carbon fibre is still paramount to for them as well.

 

[dr. godmode]

Maybe the next revolution needed for rec tennis is to create poly strings that don‘t die fast so that players can play with them till they break without creating injuries. If that happens, then we might see the pendulum change back to higher power raceut designs again - higher stiffness, more open patterns, thicker beams, bigger head sizes etc.

If the whole lab meat thing takes off, I could totally see us using lab grown gut (I admit I heard this idea from a vegan viewer of mine), but I think that would give manufacturers the ability to blend the gut with other materials to help increase durability as well, like a poly-infusion (gut-Triax basically) or something better.

 

[socallefty]

Not to de-rail the thread, but I have always wondered why tennis (ATP/WTA/ITF) chose to let technology advance within the pro game,

Maybe because most fans are like me and we like today’s powerful, faster tennis much better than what we watched growing up in the 70s/80s. The players hit/serve harder with more speed/spin and as a result have to be more athletic and move faster to stay in rallies. The points in many cases are longer while still being fast paced although 2/3rds still end within four shots. The ATP has responded to the players becoming taller/more powerful and being able to hit harder with poly by making the courts and balls slower - they know that fans want the right balance of power tennis where servebots cannot dominate and it is not 20-shot rallies on every point.

 

[emhtennis]

Maybe because most fans are like me and we like today’s powerful, faster tennis much better than what we watched growing up in the 70s/80s. The players hit/serve harder with more speed/spin and as a result have to be more athletic and move faster to stay in rallies. The points in many cases are longer while still being fast paced although 2/3rds still end within four shots. The ATP has responded to the players becoming taller/more powerful and being able to hit harder with poly by making the courts and balls slower - they know that fans want the right balance of power tennis where servebots cannot dominate and it is not 20-shot rallies on every point.

Yep I agree. It also helps that the goal of tennis is to keep it inside the court vs hit it out like baseball. Games would be 30-40 in baseball with aluminum bats otherwise, haha.

I'm surprised more racket manufacturers don't market towards "feel". Maybe it is too subjective. My personal favorite feel is from older graphite/fiberglass frames like the PK Copper Ace. Amazing sensation of flex and feedback. Any reason why fiberglass fell off as a common frame material?

 

[optic yellow]

You can solve that by not cutting it out.

Then that damages your arm. Unless:

Maybe the next revolution needed for rec tennis is to create poly strings that don‘t die fast so that players can play with them till they break without creating injuries. If that happens, then we might see the pendulum change back to higher power racquet designs again as manufacturers don’t have to worry as much about comfort - higher stiffness, more open patterns, thicker beams, bigger head sizes etc.

^

(Except I would disagree with his implied notion that poly strings are inherently better but that is a whole discussion for not this thread.)

 

[socallefty]

Yep I agree. It also helps that the goal of tennis is to keep it inside the court vs hit it out like baseball. Games would be 30-40 in baseball with aluminum bats otherwise, haha.

I'm surprised more racket manufacturers don't market towards "feel". Maybe it is too subjective. My personal favorite feel is from older graphite/fiberglass frames like the PK Copper Ace. Amazing sensation of flex and feedback. Any reason why fiberglass fell off as a common frame material?

Unlike baseball where power is always good for hitting, tennis needs power with precision and at higher levels, precision is more of a need to control the ball and land it in small targets as everyone has the swing speed to generate high pace.

I think that what some players call ‘feel‘ is what others call comfort in terms of vibrations conveying the contact moment. One player might say a racquet has high comfort while another might say it has a plush feel and a third might say it has muted feel. If a racquet has medium comfort, a lot of players might say it has great feel because they feel the contact well without it transmitting too much vibration shock. If the racquet has low comfort, typically no one likes the comfort or feel.

So, high feel racquets typically are mid-low comfort and manufacturers might be shying away from it since most players play with stiffer poly strings now compared to the gut/syngut days. I like the Pure Strike Tour because it is high comfort compared to the Gen 1 version but I’ve heard others say the feel is too muted for them.

 

[optic yellow]

Yep I agree. It also helps that the goal of tennis is to keep it inside the court vs hit it out like baseball. Games would be 30-40 in baseball with aluminum bats otherwise, haha.

I'm surprised more racket manufacturers don't market towards "feel". Maybe it is too subjective. My personal favorite feel is from older graphite/fiberglass frames like the PK Copper Ace. Amazing sensation of flex and feedback. Any reason why fiberglass fell off as a common frame material?

On this front, any thin box beam >>>

 

[Crocodile]

The thing that I’m mindful about is how people are prepared to spend their money on racquets. You can buy a 25 year old Pro Kennex 5G for $129US or buy the new Yonex Percept for $259Us ( $400 Australian).
Are you buying the Percept because you are expecting superior performance and playability and therefore prepared to spend the money or do you want the latest fashion?
Conversely are you buying the 5G because it’s economically more affordable, or you used to play with them in the 90’s and like that feel and nostalgia or do you think that things haven’t progressed and it makes no sense to pay almost $300 for a frame ?
What do you think?

 

[Crocodile]

I think the manufacturers will have another go at making racquets in the 70 to 75 RA but develop strategic breathable flex points and more effective dampening qualities. I think power does sell and giving the recreational player the opportunity to send down 210km serves wouid be an advantage to them.

 

[Crocodile]

I would like to see research going into producing more comfortable surfaces to keep players on court longer, more comfortable tennis balls and off course make better racquets that help social players to improve quickly.
Ultimately I’m keen to promote tennis as a sport that can be learnt and enjoyed more easily. And we have come a long way all ready especially with young juniors. Back in the 70’s I can recall many 8 year olds could not see over the net or serve with a heavy wooden racquet, so their progress was hampered until they were older. You can’t play comp and join the club if you can’t get your serve in was the mantra at many places. Now we have smaller courts and nets, smaller racquets and larger and lower compression balls and 6 year olds are constructing meaningful rally’s.
So I think we need to do this type of assistance with adults and you could possibly mention pickleball or Padel in this realm of thinking.

 

[Bartelby]

I think the manufacturers will have another go at making racquets in the 70 to 75 RA but develop strategic breathable flex points and more effective dampening qualities. I think power does sell and giving the recreational player the opportunity to send down 210km serves wouid be an advantage to them.

That would have to be a mistaken direction. As soon as a racquet gets to the high 60s it's already stiff enough.

The only real direction of progress is in frame/string interaction. These would be refinements as 97-100 seems the new standard.

 

[Crocodile]

That would have to be a mistaken direction. As soon as a racquet gets to the high 60s it's already stiff enough.

The only real direction of progress is in frame/string interaction. These would be refinements as 97-100 seems the new standard.

Maybe, however the original Wilson Profile had an RA of 82. The Pk SQ was up there as well and I wouldn’t be surprised if they had another go.
The bolt racquets are experimenting with zip strips as far as frame abs string interaction, has anyone played with them ?

 

[Bartelby]

The original Aero had a stiffness of around 75 and no one bought it. They changed the beam to a Pure Drive hoop, added woofers, and lowered the stiffness. And the Aeropro Drive was born.

 

[aussie]

Appendix II in Friend of Court describes what is legal for a frame. Anything else is probably illegal. The double butt is ok but I can’t imagine you could hold the end easily to serve cuz 29” is max length.

You can’t change racquet characteristics with a mechanical device once points starts which is why Bergelin frame is banned.

Reminds me of when ProKennex first introduced the Kinetic frames. There was extensive debate about whether the moving kinetic beads inside the frame were legal because they changed the racquet characteristics when the racquet was swung. Ended up being deemed legal and within the rules and still here today.

 

[dennis]

I think the manufacturers will have another go at making racquets in the 70 to 75 RA but develop strategic breathable flex points and more effective dampening qualities. I think power does sell and giving the recreational player the opportunity to send down 210km serves wouid be an advantage to them.

How significant is RA? What percentage increase will an 80mph serve have if a player swaps from a 60 RA racket to a 75 RA? How does this compare to dropping string tension by a few lbs?

 

[tazz]

As with other technology, there is some plateau where there is only incremental change: Smartphones all look alike compared to the Samsung/Sony/Nokia mobile era. Cars gravitate to some basic design compared to well up to the 90ies I guess.

With racquets, it appears to be the same. The changes are not that obvious, but I find it fascinating how effortless a racquet with a thick beam could be moved compared to older models. There is change, but rather incrementally. The move from gut to poly. The reduction in static weight. And the changes around it: slower courts, different balls etc. I friend of mine who crossed the big 5 always complains, that he cannot find a string for modern racquets (he is only string multi). Well guess why: even on the rec level, the game became faster & spinnier not only because of poly, but also because the racquets are designed this way. You'll have to learn and adept. This is where this quote comes in, which has some truth to it, but is equally false:

Look at football(soccer), shoe fabrics have changed and athletes are far superior now, but the game is still essentially leather boots and a ball. Do I forsee a new racket technology that will change the end product of the game of tennis?

A massive game changer was the introduction of modern balls. Instead of hexagonal patterns manufacturers played with different forms and shapes to make the ball more round, allowing for more precise passing. But, as I remember discussions on TV in the 90ies, this makes it more difficult for goalkeepers, because these balls fly differently and can change direction rather late. Rembember the famous goal from Roberto Carlos against France? Would not been happening with a ball from the 80ies. Ronaldo makes use of this effect and adapted his technique: he often hits the ball frontally, but instead of moving in a straight line, the ball's flight path takes a steep dip close to the goal.

With regards to Tennis: the game changed to more spin, because spin is a good way to keep the ball in play. Technology like poly strings and spin oriented racquets helped to achieve this. Players growing up on this tech, advanced it to the modern game.

Where is it going next? I agree, that we are still optimizing string and racquet stiffness to make it less risky for rec players. With regards to technique or playing styles, I wonder if the WTA tour offers more insights for rec players than the ATP. Women offer a wider variety of height, weight, and strength than the man. After the hard hitting era Serena and Maria, players with more finesse (Barty, Muchova, Jabeur) show different ways to counter big hitters (Sabalenka, Sakkari) and compete for slams, whereas by the boys it is hitting pretty hard all the way (big exception: Djokovic but I guess know one believes Mannarino will win a slam).

 

[Crocodile]

How significant is RA? What percentage increase will an 80mph serve have if a player swaps from a 60 RA racket to a 75 RA? How does this compare to dropping string tension by a few lbs?

This is something that I’m about to research. An example wouid be comparing serving speeds between a Head Prestige and a Babolat Pure Drive?
There are other variables as well such as mass, length and string tension and string type that you mentioned: The other day for example I was working with a player and I switched from a PK Q Tour :315 from 2021 and demoed the new Percept H and my customer immediately felt the impact.
I have some continuing work to do and will report back at a later date. Should be interesting to see what will happen not just on diagnostic testing and findings but also what the player experiences who is receiving your shots and what they report.

 

[Crocodile]

As with other technology, there is some plateau where there is only incremental change: Smartphones all look alike compared to the Samsung/Sony/Nokia mobile era. Cars gravitate to some basic design compared to well up to the 90ies I guess.

With racquets, it appears to be the same. The changes are not that obvious, but I find it fascinating how effortless a racquet with a thick beam could be moved compared to older models. There is change, but rather incrementally. The move from gut to poly. The reduction in static weight. And the changes around it: slower courts, different balls etc. I friend of mine who crossed the big 5 always complains, that he cannot find a string for modern racquets (he is only string multi). Well guess why: even on the rec level, the game became faster & spinnier not only because of poly, but also because the racquets are designed this way. You'll have to learn and adept. This is where this quote comes in, which has some truth to it, but is equally false:



A massive game changer was the introduction of modern balls. Instead of hexagonal patterns manufacturers played with different forms and shapes to make the ball more round, allowing for more precise passing. But, as I remember discussions on TV in the 90ies, this makes it more difficult for goalkeepers, because these balls fly differently and can change direction rather late. Rembember the famous goal from Roberto Carlos against France? Would not been happening with a ball from the 80ies. Ronaldo makes use of this effect and adapted his technique: he often hits the ball frontally, but instead of moving in a straight line, the ball's flight path takes a steep dip close to the goal.

With regards to Tennis: the game changed to more spin, because spin is a good way to keep the ball in play. Technology like poly strings and spin oriented racquets helped to achieve this. Players growing up on this tech, advanced it to the modern game.

Where is it going next? I agree, that we are still optimizing string and racquet stiffness to make it less risky for rec players. With regards to technique or playing styles, I wonder if the WTA tour offers more insights for rec players than the ATP. Women offer a wider variety of height, weight, and strength than the man. After the hard hitting era Serena and Maria, players with more finesse (Barty, Muchova, Jabeur) show different ways to counter big hitters (Sabalenka, Sakkari) and compete for slams, whereas by the boys it is hitting pretty hard all the way (big exception: Djokovic but I guess know one believes Mannarino will win a slam).

The tennis balls are a very interesting metric. Lately I have been measuring the change in tennis ball mass between the brands when the ball is new followed by certain time periods of usage in various conditions. Will be interesting what we will find,

 

[Nostradamus]

Lately I have been thinking about this topic and how to best articulate what I’m trying to convey as best as possible but anyway I will have a go and give this a try:
If we look back to the past we have had periods where racquet technology was quite static or the evolution was gradual such as the decades of wood, then aluminium and then something new would emerge and things would explode. The switch from standard frames to midsize and mid plus graphite composites was a real game changer for tennis and then we had the wide bodies and then high modulus and multi directional graphite structures ( graphene ). This along with string technologies have allowed players to use lighter and stronger frames to attack from positions on the court previously to be thought of as end range or defensive.
You would imagine that when racquets were made in diverse countries, companies could secretly be working on something new and then surprise their competitors with something so technologically superior that they would steal some major market share. I saw this happen in the late 70’s and early 80’s where Australian made Slazenger's and Dunlops were still persisting with aluminium and then suddenly graphite racquets dropped from Taiwan in the form of Pro Kennex and Emrik and they captured the market. This ended Australian manufacturing of racquets and Dunlop fans had to wait for racquets from the UK in the form of the 200g to have access to graphite and injection moulding.
These days of course with the exception of Yonex , everything is coming out of a China so you would imagine that to some degree the technology would be somewhat similar across the board.
So looking at the situation now, are we in a period of refinement and what can we expect in the next few years. In the last 7 years we kind of reached a stage where racquets were getting quite stiff and people complained about their feel and shock so we have seen RA levels drop and dampening technologies incorporated especially to accommodate polyester strings.
Of late you have had ideas like the Wilson Clash where the RA levels went back to the 50’s but with the enhancement made to the beam shape and thickness along with altered flex characteristics, Wilson was able to still provide a powerful frame whereas other companies have tried to go stiffer but add a lot of dampening such as Volkl. We have seen ideas like the triad system still found in the Khamsin frames from Wilson, the Dunlop idapt, PK kinetic system and the Bolt zip strips, where you can alter the racquets playing characteristics by inserting different zip strips;
So what do you think, where are we in racquet tech right now ?

Real deal breaker will be when Quantum computing is reality with superconductor that works at room temp. This will enable AI to operate at super unimaginable speeds and computation and it will change human society as we know it. We will prosper . and don't believe the lies, AI won't attack the humans .

Also the cold fusion will give us unlimited energy. we will still have to control the population growth though.. only way is to limit the child to 1 child per family for a while. but it can be done

 

[Boubi]

Not to de-rail the thread, but I have always wondered why tennis (ATP/WTA/ITF) chose to let technology advance within the pro game, but American baseball did not. Was there a single decision point this can be traced back to?

Pro cycling has obviously also followed tennis' path and let the sport evolve as well.

GOAT debates would certainly be more fun if wooden rackets had stayed mandatory equipment.

The GOAT debate would be different as Fed and the others would never have won so many majors

 

[socallefty]

In tennis you need that balance of power and control which is why it is hard to correlate on-court results with lab measurements. For instance if you have high RHS and a full swing, you will swing faster with a low power stiff string like poly while you might need to curb your swing speed with a more powerful string like gut. So, advanced players hit harder and higher pace with poly than if they played with gut because they can swing much more uninhibited. But, if a lower level player has a low ceiling on swing speed, they will hit higher pace with gut than with poly. It is similar with racquets where what a lab measurement calls a powerful racquet might be too much of a missile launcher for an advanced player who has to swing it slower to hit the ball where they want.

Even the definition of ‘control’ changes with level as a low level player might just want the racquet/strings to keep the ball in the whole court or the serve in the service box while an advanced player might be trying to hit targets the size of a frisbee when they hit/serve.

 

[TennisCJC]

I think the only big changes in racket tech are 1. wood, followed by 2. metal (aluminum or steel) which allowed larger heads and finally 3. graphite and similar composites continuing with larger heads and lighter frames. All the other stuff such as wider stiffer beams, lighter and stiffer frames, and dampening systems, etc... are simply refinements of the initial graphite era which started in the 1980s and a lot of the "refinements" are simply marketing gimmicks to get the public to blow their hard earned money. The wood era lasted a bit over 100 years and metal era was short lived lasting only a decade or two. For all we know, the graphite/composite era will likely last a 100 years.

 

[emhtennis]

I think the only big changes in racket tech are 1. wood, followed by 2. metal (aluminum or steel) which allowed larger heads and finally 3. graphite and similar composites continuing with larger heads and lighter frames. All the other stuff such as wider stiffer beams, lighter and stiffer frames, and dampening systems, etc... are simply refinements of the initial graphite era which started in the 1980s and a lot of the "refinements" are simply marketing gimmicks to get the public to blow their hard earned money. The wood era lasted a bit over 100 years and metal era was short lived lasting only a decade or two. For all we know, the graphite/composite era will likely last a 100 years.

Maybe when 3D printing becomes cheap and fast enough there will be wild carbon honeycomb rackets - at least in the throat (think how much faster it'll swing!)

 

[TennisHound]

Man, I haven’t read this much in a while. The OP made some good points. I wish there was a speaker button that would read it for me out loud. Gawd I’m so lazy

 

[Crocodile]

In tennis you need that balance of power and control which is why it is hard to correlate on-court results with lab measurements. For instance if you have high RHS and a full swing, you will swing faster with a low power stiff string like poly while you might need to curb your swing speed with a more powerful string like gut. So, advanced players hit harder and higher pace with poly than if they played with gut because they can swing much more uninhibited. But, if a lower level player has a low ceiling on swing speed, they will hit higher pace with gut than with poly. It is similar with racquets where what a lab measurement calls a powerful racquet might be too much of a missile launcher for an advanced player who has to swing it slower to hit the ball where they want.

Even the definition of ‘control’ changes with level as a low level player might just want the racquet/strings to keep the ball in the whole court or the serve in the service box while an advanced player might be trying to hit targets the size of a frisbee when they hit/serve.

We may end up with a situation where you download a video of your stroke production and AI decides what is your optimal tennis racquet, and then an individualised racquet is manufactured for your biometric characteristics. Sounds a bit creepy but I wouldn’t put it past those in central big data to try this sought of thing on.

 

[optic yellow]

I think the only big changes in racket tech are 1. wood, followed by 2. metal (aluminum or steel) which allowed larger heads and finally 3. graphite and similar composites continuing with larger heads and lighter frames. All the other stuff such as wider stiffer beams, lighter and stiffer frames, and dampening systems, etc... are simply refinements of the initial graphite era which started in the 1980s and a lot of the "refinements" are simply marketing gimmicks to get the public to blow their hard earned money. The wood era lasted a bit over 100 years and metal era was short lived lasting only a decade or two. For all we know, the graphite/composite era will likely last a 100 years.

This is correct based on the fact that late 80s graphite racquets are still playable today.

 

[optic yellow]

Man, I haven’t read this much in a while. The OP made some good points. I wish there was a speaker button that would read it for me out loud. Gawd I’m so lazy

Copy paste into a translation service imo

 

[dennis]

This is something that I’m about to research. An example wouid be comparing serving speeds between a Head Prestige and a Babolat Pure Drive?
There are other variables as well such as mass, length and string tension and string type that you mentioned: The other day for example I was working with a player and I switched from a PK Q Tour :315 from 2021 and demoed the new Percept H and my customer immediately felt the impact.
I have some continuing work to do and will report back at a later date. Should be interesting to see what will happen not just on diagnostic testing and findings but also what the player experiences who is receiving your shots and what they report.

Are there some tennis university articles with some answers already?

How can you do a blind test on court?

 

[Crocodile]

Are there some tennis university articles with some answers already?

How can you do a blind test on court?

There are some studies that have been done in the past and a book released by Rod Cross. Blind tests are hard for the average person to do unless manufacturers are prepared to work directly with you on prototypes.

 

[heavyD]

I've used and play tested a lot of frames over the past two years and there were few if any that I couldn't play with at a reasonable level. Most of today's frames are very good at what they have set out to do and are much better as a whole than decades past. Graphite isn't going anywhere as the material of choice so going forward as has been said it's a matter of incremental improvement with technologies for varying flex in specific areas of the racquet which companies seem to be doing right now with stiff heads for energy transfer and flexible throats for shock absorption. The Shift is actually a pretty ambitious frame with how Wilson has altered the vertical flex and I would expect other brands to follow with this type of experimentation.