Here's an excerpt from Peter Bodo's Tennis.com blog (http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2007/05/io.html): "Anyway, Pete (Sampras) told me that he finally took the plunge and went to a 95 sq. inch racquet, which is all of five square inches larger than the last one he used on tour and the current Federer wand of choice. He felt comfortable making the switch, he said, because of the new Luxilon strings (which he also uses). 'The trouble for me when I was playing on the tour was that I liked gut, and I found I just didn't have enough control when I tried bigger racquets. But I found these Luxilon strings, and when I mix them with gut, I get a great combination of power and control, even with the 95-inch racquet.'" "In this, Pete was echoing what Andy Roddick had said about the Luxilon strings a few months ago, citing James Blake as a prime example of a player who really benefited from the new strings, which apparently allow you to take big cuts, yet still keep the ball from flying out. In fact, after last night's match, Pete told the press: 'I wish I'd had them (the Luxilon strings) when I was trying to win the French. I'm not as quick now, but I'm hitting the ball great.'" Hmm. So Pete thinks the MP racquets aren't so bad if you use poly strings. Moreover, he's saying that gut doesn't work well on MP racquets. He doesn't quite say that a MP with poly is better than a mid with gut on fast surfaces, but he does imply that polys correct the only problem he had with MP racquets to begin with. Roddick's claims that big hitting fast court players like Blake benefit most from the polys. So if MP with poly is best on clay and apparently provides an advantage to fast court specialists, then what is the purpose of hitting with mids strung with gut? It might feel good, but it sounds like a disadvantage. Does anyone care to discuss?