Venus', Serena's, and Roddick's racquets.

johncauthen

johncauthen

Semi-Pro
Venus, Serena, and Roddick's losses.

There is a new type of racquet being used by Venus, Serena, and Andy Roddick.

In 1989 with the Constant Taper System, and with Triple Threat weighting Prince has marketed racquets with extra weight at the top of the head, which is countered against weight in the handle.

And in 1989 Wilson marketed an idea where they took weight out of the handle but added a lot of weight above the handle.

Here is a 1987 racquet that has weight added to the shaft above the handle.

5e33e235.jpg


I showed that racquet to Wilson, and the idea became part of the Hammer System. They added weight above the handle and took weight out of the handle itself.

The news was a more head heavy racquet, but that idea has the high polar moment of inertia that Prince was marketing. There is weight at the top of the handle, and weight in the head.

Now at Wilson, the Hammer has been discontinued in favor of a new weighting that is different. It has a low moment of inertia. In Venus and Serena’s new racquets, most of the weight is concentrated at the string bridge. They are light at the top of the head and light in the handle, but heavy at the string bridge for a low polar moment of inertia.

I developed my idea since 1980, and got a lot of control with it. Here is one of the racquets I used regularly back then.

5ba3431c.jpg


But with weight concentrated at the string bridge, there is a low moment of inertia. Serena’s complaint when she lost was that she had no feel for the ball. She said she was timing it well; but she couldn't control where it was going. She couldn't manipulate two weights with a high polar moment of inertia to direct the ball while she was hitting it, which is a skill most avid tennis players possess. They know how to feel the different weights in different parts of the racquet and manipulate those weights to direct the ball.

But the new Roddick racquets also have weight moved from where it was to its new location near the string bridge. There is only one main weight, and no feel. In every rally where Baghdatis returned Roddick’s serve, Baghdatis had the advantage of better, more effective groundstrokes than Roddick! It was due to racquet balance.

Venus, Serena, and Roddick are all using a new philosophy in racquet balance. It feels solid and seems okay, but when you are pressured, when Serena was under the pressure of losing, she said, “I had no feel for the ball.” That's the problem with this new type of weighting, it takes away your feel and control.

Venus and Serena lost while using it and Roddick lost to Baghdatis. The verdict on this new weighting is amazingly definitive.
 
Of course! They lost because of the racquet, not because they were outplayed on the day. Serena is NOT fat, Venus is NOT in decline and Roddick's game is NOT flawed, it's just the freaking racquet!
 
Alexandros said:
Of course! They lost because of the racquet, not because they were outplayed on the day. Serena is NOT fat, Venus is NOT in decline and Roddick's game is NOT flawed, it's just the freaking racquet!
Click to expand...
That's why it's all a game of who comes with the better racquet. Why do you think they all use paintjobs? If the competition knew what everyone else really played with, it'd be all too easy to bring a superior racquet that countered the oppositions precisely.

Silly Andy, Pure Drives are for kids!
 
In 1990 the performance of Hammer weighting became apparent. It was used by the unknown second tier junior, Pete Sampras, who was never as good as Courier or Agassi or Chang. As soon as he got Hammer weighting, he won the 1990 US Open, using a 16 ounce racquet that had 3 1/2 ounces of lead added to the top of the grip of a 12.5 ounce 1970's Pro Staff.

I was modifying 1970s aluminum racquets with it, and getting spectacular results. In 1990 that type of weighting was given to the two little girls, Venus and Serena. They were kept out of junior tournaments. The reason was so as not to call attention to themselves, or to the amazing performance of these racquets.

They had been given an advantage. Pete Sampras had it, but the racquets were kept off the market. And you can't buy or obtain the same racquets pros use today. That policy was started in 1990. Before that, you could buy the same racquets pros used.

This year, someone who is probably supposed to be smart and important believed like you that it wasn't the racquet and changed the weighting in Venus and Serena's racquets. Venus loses in the first round and Serena loses early. Embarassing.

The reason they both lost was because their shots didn't go in the court. Venus made 65 errors. Serena said she didn't have any feel for the ball. Roddick didn't have a clue why he lost. He looked like he felt good.

The reason was low polar moment of inertia, as opposed to high polar moment of inertia. In other words, the weight was in the center of all their racquets near the string bridge, which is a different weighting theory from the last 15 years.

Jack Kramer used a 16 ounce racquet that had a very heavy handle, but the real secret was high polar moment of inertia. He had a lot of weight in the handle and weight in the head. Today, by optimizing the polar moment of inertia, which was Prince's theory, we can make 345 gram racquets that have the same dominating performance as Sampras' or Kramer's racquets, but you can't buy them; they are supposedly bad for the game, and yet, Kramer used that type of racquet.
 
okay you're saying that all of the main weight at the center is bad... so how do we make it better? And all people has trouble when they first change their racquets, so i wouldn't say changing the formula was bad just because the pro's messed up the first time they used it.
 
In the 1920's, all racquets had the exact same weighting that we have redeveloped over the last 15 years, and the tennis was baseline tennis.

In the 1930's racquets changed to having more weight in the middle like this Wilson Jack Kramer, notice the added overlays in the shoulders. Tennis changed to serve and volley.

db7f0f63.jpg


This old racquet didn't have those overlays, and the tennis was baseline.

9591a1ed.jpg


It has weight at the top of the handle and weight at the top of the head.

Experts think if we had racquets with more weight in the middle, that would bring back serve and volley, because those racquets have less control no matter how much you practice with them. Players can't hit passing shots, which theoretically brings back serve and volley. And so, the experts are imposing racquets with less control on tennis to bring back serve and volley.

The irony is that Jack Kramer used a racquet with a form of 1920's weighting. Well, that's like Federer using a racquet with ideal 1920's style weighting and beating everybody.

You might notice, with everyone else the tennis is less entertaining. That will be true for the rest of the Australian Open, and in the next year, because for all pros (except Federer) they are going back to the weight in the middle theory, but that's all the tennis will be: less entertaining. Players won't go back to serve and volley. The idyllic idea of touch and feel won't come into the game. It will just be less entertaining than it has been.
 
What would you propose people do to their racquets to make them weighted in this way though?
Let's take racquets from each genre. Player's racquets such as the Prestige Mid and nCode 90. Midplus and 95 version of those. and the racquets that are at the tweener/player line, such as the Pure Drive, Instinct, and probably the upcoming nBlade.

What form of weighting would you recommend for these various types of racquets? Addition of weight at the top of the head similar to the Prince style at 10 and 2 o'clock, as well as weight added at the top of the handle?
 
I'm hoping the tennis industry will start making racquets just right in stock form.

Pro racquets today weigh 345 grams with the balance point at 30.5mm. They are not heavy, children can use racquets with those specs. The problem is, the tennis industry and insiders who run the game think those pro racquets that children can use will destroy the game. And they think racquets that are less accurate and less effective will take tennis back to the graceful days of old. So, the industry refuses to offer truly good racquets.

They give us "granny racquets" which make it easy to block the ball back but can't generate power. We can get "player's racquets" that feel heavy and are a little hard to use. But I have a 345 gram Pure Drive balanced at 30.5mm that old ladies and children love. The exact racquet can be used by pros.

The tennis industry won't make and sell that racquet because they think it will destroy the game. But I still work as a stringer at a very good tennis shop and we just got some of the newest Head Team racquets in.

The Head Team racquets are a light version of the Flexpoint Radicals and Instincts. Adding a tapered weight to the top of the handle like this (notice what I mean by high polar moment if inertia) makes the new Team Instincts and Radicals that we just got nearly perfect.

c8c690fe.jpg
2cb6c0d4.jpg


But adding the same weight to the older Flexpoints or to the nCode 90 just makes them feel heavy.

The new nBlade racquets might be racquets that are totally devoted to 1950's balance, while the new Instincts and Radicals that we just got are close to my ideal. So maybe the industry is going it two directions. Free market forces are still in operation, and Head is not cooperating with the establishment; that is, if the establishment wants to go back to 1950's balance because they think it will bring back serve and volley.

The newest Head racquets can be easily modified into good pro style racquets that can be weighted correctly. Maybe Head just wants to sell racquets!
 
John, what may cause some confusion to people is the comment that you made about the industries' 1950's weighting concept.

Now I do understand what you mean by implying that that 1950's concept is terrible -- I agree with you on that. The thing is, you mentioned how it was designed in order to influence more serve & volley style of play -- which is true -- and that it didn't give players much control. That's the part that can cause confusion to others. When people think of S&V racquets they think of touch, control, and little power. You stated that those frames offer less control. I agree that those frames are terrible but not that it offers no control. I think it just happens to be a bad weighting concept because it doesn't offer "everything" a player could ask for.

My ideal design and customizations are frames that enable "controlled-power".

Basically I work on frames that are: highly maneuverable (in terms of moment force and moment of inertia/SW); powerful allowing the baseline game to be effective; control-oriented to allow the touch, finesse, precision shooting, technical, and S&V game. So the frames are baseline & S&V all in one but they are not like the typical "tweeners" though. Tweeners offer everything in one, but not all of the "everything". Stock tweeners only gives you a little bit of everything, but not all of each of the individual things.
 
17 years ago, we found the ideal racquet for everything, and it has been kept off the market for 15 years, so far.

Right now, just about all the pros have it, but average players can't get it. There are two directions it can go. We can start to get the good racquets; or, the industry might try to take the good racquets away from pros. They want to go to the racquet design they had planned to go to when the Hammer was born. They want to go to the Profile idea, a racquet that flopped, which had a light handle, it was light at the top of the head, and it was heavy in the middle of the frame, just like its shape suggests.

The ideal serve and volley racquet for tennis is a racquet that doesn't allow anyone to return the ball accurately. That's what we saw in Venus, Serena, and Roddick's losses: inaccurate shots.

Volleyers block the ball into the open court and hit big serves. It was when racquets improved and allowed accurate returns that serve and volley disappeared. Someone who is powerful wants to bring back inaccurate racquets. They are actually doing it, and Roddick, Serena, and Venus do not understand why they could not hit accurately. This is not about how to make better racquets, but it is a spirtual struggle for tennis. The other guys don't want better racquets, and they say it over and over; but tennis boomed as we got metal racquets and the Prince Pro. It boomed as we got better racquets.

The answer, to bring back volleying and make the game less stressful, with fewer injuries is to make the court narrower. The doubles court is narrower for each player, and doubles is a game that works better than it ever has worked, today, with the better racquets.
 
So wait. If i'm understanding this correctly...racquets today have a lack of feel and associated accuracy due to the weight being primarily at the top and middle of the racquet...

So wouldn't the addition of weight at the top of the handle contribute to this effect?

Otherwise how do you counter the effect? Most racquets would probably end up rather heavy I assume, but, where would you add the weight? At the top and in the handle?

Also there are some Wilson frames that might be great for customizing in the same fashion as the new Head Team racquets.
The Wilson nPS 95 is basically a lighter version of the N6.1 95 which when weighted up properly would be a much better performing version of the N6.1 95????? Also the Wilson H Blaze was a good hammer style racquet that was basically a lighter version of the H Tour, this would probably easy to weight.


Also I am wondering if this may tie into what was posted on...darn...the name of the sight escapes me at the moment but...racketdesign or something. They advocate weighting the handle of racquets, in this case they found a Hammer 6.2? maybe? to perform best when they added considerable weight to the handle.

Making that racquet an average weight rather than a light weight hammer type, would that be the same type of weight allocation??? Concentration in the head of the racquet and handle?
 
PurePrestige said:
So wait. If i'm understanding this correctly...racquets today have a lack of feel and associated accuracy due to the weight being primarily at the top and middle of the racquet...

So wouldn't the addition of weight at the top of the handle contribute to this effect?

Otherwise how do you counter the effect? Most racquets would probably end up rather heavy I assume, but, where would you add the weight? At the top and in the handle?

Also there are some Wilson frames that might be great for customizing in the same fashion as the new Head Team racquets.
The Wilson nPS 95 is basically a lighter version of the N6.1 95 which when weighted up properly would be a much better performing version of the N6.1 95????? Also the Wilson H Blaze was a good hammer style racquet that was basically a lighter version of the H Tour, this would probably easy to weight.


Also I am wondering if this may tie into what was posted on...darn...the name of the sight escapes me at the moment but...racketdesign or something. They advocate weighting the handle of racquets, in this case they found a Hammer 6.2? maybe? to perform best when they added considerable weight to the handle.

Making that racquet an average weight rather than a light weight hammer type, would that be the same type of weight allocation??? Concentration in the head of the racquet and handle?
Click to expand...

So wouldn't the addition of weight at the top of the handle contribute to this effect?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It depends on how the mass is distributed on certains points.

Otherwise how do you counter the effect?
Click to expand...
There are different ways. Also, for some frames it is not worth countering the effects simply because the total end resulting mass would be too high, that is why I am designing custom frames in order to be able to control exactly where I want the mass placements to be.

Most racquets would probably end up rather heavy I assume, but, where would you add the weight? At the top and in the handle?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily "most racquets" (Unless you know what I know and you have evaluated all models then you can say "most"), but yes, "some"/"a lot" would end up too heavy compared to the ideal static and dynamic mass.

Also I am wondering if this may tie into what was posted on...darn...the name of the sight escapes me at the moment but...racketdesign or something. Making that racquet an average weight rather than a light weight hammer type, would that be the same type of weight allocation??? Concentration in the head of the racquet and handle? They advocate weighting the handle of racquets, in this case they found a Hammer 6.2? maybe? to perform best when they added considerable weight to the handle.
Click to expand...
I believe you are referring to "Racquet Research", and if so, then no. Making that hammer racquet an average weight rather than a light weight hammer type would not be the same type of "ideal" weight concept.

Racquet research in my opinion does not know much about the ideal dynamics. As far as sweet points (Notice there are no such things as sweet spots but only sweet points and sweet areas exist.), they know what they are talking about. They also cover and understand injury prevention, moment force adjustments, polar torsional stability, stiffness, string resiliency,"sweet point" customization, and all the "basic things that you can find info about just about anywhere" but they do not provide info on racquet dynamics. No one provides info on racquet dynamics. It's a big trade secret. John Cauthen knows about it. I do as well, much more than what John has provided to this board. John has blown the whistle, but not entirely (And I hope you don't John. It would be good to protect some of your ideas. You do have good ones.). I share lots of info as well, but certain things need to be kept unrevealed for certain reasons.

A huge part of the competition among pro tennis is technology warefare. It's not the type of tech that you see manufacturers use for promoting their new designs, such as "Flexpoint", "Nano", "Intelligence Chip" etc. It's a technology that has to do with manipulating power points, control, flex, maneuverablity, and most importantly....swing dynamics.

This trade secret of having the ideal racquet is very much like secrets that different militaries of different countries have. It is kept away from the public. Part of the race in pro tennis is not just being a better conditioned and skilled player, having world-class coaches, having more money, etc. It also has to do with either being smart enough to discover the best techology or being lucky enough to have someone(s) offer the player the tech. So John is not out of his mind for stating certain pro players being disadvantaged due to their equipment. He's also not saying that equipement alone carries a player either. When he mentions these things, being a great player is already a given. He's saying it in a way that the players are already highly talented and highly skilled. That's why it comes down to, "the use of inferior equipment causes losses" -- in the way that John implies it (Of course having a bad day is part of it and just not being the better player that day as well, but the right tech might have enabled a losing player to win more key points in a match that could have been a turning point in momentum, enabling the said player to make come-backs.).

I am the same way. When I refer to players needing a better frame to improve their play, I am not talking about Joe down the street the amature. A lot of people, especially other teaching pros will say that players need to improve techniques and strategy in order to win more. Well of course that is true, but when I speak, all of that is already a given. The player is as elite as he/she can possibly be at the moment and so that's why having the ideal racquet design is the winning-factor advantage, the same way as how John sees it.

If you spend enough time experimenting with different customizations then perhaps you will learn a thing or two.
 
a few slight problems - roddick pays roman in NY a sh!tload of money to make sure that his rackets are all weighted and balanced precisely the same. roman uses his own proprietary software to basically scan every inch of the rackets. you're telling me he would let this slide?

also, why would allowing these "perfectly" balanced rackets "destroy the game" as you claim in the post with your pure drive pics? again, are you saying that the racket manufacturers - publicly traded companies each and all - are conspiring to make an inferior product in a case of wink-wink collusion? what do they have to gain from this?

we're talking about tennis rackets here, not enron conspiring to cause blackouts in california
 
John, how is the Prince O3 tinkering going? I personally have decided to abandon experiments on them. Didn't seem important anymore. Also, if I were to perfect their performance for players then it still wouldn't be usable because not even the best paint job can disguise those O-ports!

I am still curious about your findings though. Did you find the humerus weighting concept along with hoop manipulation to be effective on the O3s?
 
johncauthen said:
In the 1920's, all racquets had the exact same weighting that we have redeveloped over the last 15 years, and the tennis was baseline tennis.

In the 1930's racquets changed to having more weight in the middle like this Wilson Jack Kramer, notice the added overlays in the shoulders. Tennis changed to serve and volley.

db7f0f63.jpg


This old racquet didn't have those overlays, and the tennis was baseline.

9591a1ed.jpg


It has weight at the top of the handle and weight at the top of the head.

Experts think if we had racquets with more weight in the middle, that would bring back serve and volley, because those racquets have less control no matter how much you practice with them. Players can't hit passing shots, which theoretically brings back serve and volley. And so, the experts are imposing racquets with less control on tennis to bring back serve and volley.

The irony is that Jack Kramer used a racquet with a form of 1920's weighting. Well, that's like Federer using a racquet with ideal 1920's style weighting and beating everybody.

You might notice, with everyone else the tennis is less entertaining. That will be true for the rest of the Australian Open, and in the next year, because for all pros (except Federer) they are going back to the weight in the middle theory, but that's all the tennis will be: less entertaining. Players won't go back to serve and volley. The idyllic idea of touch and feel won't come into the game. It will just be less entertaining than it has been.
Click to expand...
nice racket
 
a few slight problems - roddick pays roman in NY a sh!tload of money to make sure that his rackets are all weighted and balanced precisely the same. roman uses his own proprietary software to basically scan every inch of the rackets. you're telling me he would let this slide?

also, why would allowing these "perfectly" balanced rackets "destroy the game" as you claim in the post with your pure drive pics? again, are you saying that the racket manufacturers - publicly traded companies each and all - are conspiring to make an inferior product in a case of wink-wink collusion? what do they have to gain from this?

we're talking about tennis rackets here, not enron conspiring to cause blackouts in California
Click to expand...
But Enron did conspire to cause blackouts in California, and all the tennis establishment can talk about is how they want to bring back 1950’s style serve and volley tennis. They have also talked about how terrible Jimmy Connors is. Their two main themes and goals for tennis are to bring back serve and volley and never allow another Jimmy Connors to exist. So it would not be such a stretch for them to conspire to make these two things happen.

Roddick is potentially another Jimmy Connors, and someone convinced Roddick as well as Venus and Serena to use very solid feeling racquets that hit the ball fine. The shots feel great when they are hit perfectly, but when you start trying to steer the ball, rather than just line up and swing through the shots calmly with total confidence, you discover when under pressure these racquets are not forgiving, you can’t find your shots if you happen to lose them.

And that’s what happened to Venus, Serena, and Roddick.

It wouldn’t have been hard for Babolat to interest Roddick in using this low polar moment of inertia weighting. The racquets hit great when everything is perfect. They probably hit better than the racquets he was using; but they are not forgiving. He didn’t find out he needed forgiving until he was at the Australian Open, missing shots against a guy who was beating him.

So Babalot has convinced Roddick to use this racquet they are calling the Roddick Pure Drive, which Roddick didn’t know until two days ago had a major flaw.

Finally, they tell us we can get the actual racquets a pro uses, except now, they are going to fix it up, so Roddick will be happy. But in March we get the racquet that even Roddick can’t win with.

It’s not forgiving. You can’t find your game if you lose it.

Taylor Made came out with the Bubble Shaft, exactly the same good weighting that I have been talking about: there was an extra weight just beyond the grip. The USGA made them take it off the market (was that a conspiracy?) but Taylor Made's slogan for the Bubble Shaft had been “Find Your Game”, and that’s what this weighting does. I am not going to try to explain how it does it, but this good weighting the tennis industry won’t sell you and they are now trying to take away from pros allows you to find your game when you lose it. Roddick, Venus, and Serena lost their games. And while using racquets with the opposite weighting theory, which can be called low-polar-moment-of-inertia, a lot of weight concentrated at the stringbridge, they couldn’t find their games.

That is interesting. These new racquets hit better than pro racquets when you are right on; so, in spite of the fact they are a little unforgiving, no experts really expected Venus, Serena, and Roddick to lose early.

Roddick said something like "I have to do some real searching" and so does Babolat and Wilson, who obviously didn't expect Roddick, Venus, and Serena to lose this way; except, they knew Roddick couldn't become another Jimmy Connors with these racquets. And that, in their eyes, was a good thing.
 
No, we just agree.

BTW, I discovered the problem with my O3 Red was too much weight in the "forks". It couldn't be fixed, however, other O3 Reds were okay. I hit with an O3 White and added my tapered weight to it. It hit amazingly.
 
"But Enron did conspire to cause blackouts in California, and all the tennis establishment can talk about is how they want to bring back 1950’s style serve and volley tennis. They have also talked about how terrible Jimmy Connors is. Their two main themes and goals for tennis are to bring back serve and volley and never allow another Jimmy Connors to exist. So it would not be such a stretch for them to conspire to make these two things happen."

But Enron and their conspirators attract the worst kind of criminal sycophants and got on the same page because there were billions of dollars to reap. The "tennis establishment" is so fractured and their interests so varied/conflicted (think about it - racket manufacturers, ATP, WTA, ITF, broadcasters) that I have VERY serious doubts that they could all get in the same room, let alone hatch a plot to spur serve-and-volley tennis at the pro level. let's see, who sells more rackets for babolat - roddick, or serve-and-volleyer feliciano lopez? so why would they agree to sabotage roddick, just to teach jimmy connors a lesson??

and what's more, why would the "establishment," especially the racket manufacturers, agree to keep "the ideal" racket out of the hands of rec level players like us? what sort of company, even a family-held company like babolat, would agree to supply a consciously inferior product to the public?
 
What is the point of this thread? What's your objective?

As interesting as it is, nobody wants to read this. Nobody wants to read a post about how good rackets can be, how good yours are, and how ours can never be this way.

The public can't know about these secrets because it will ruin the game? Good for you, you know all the secrets.

So what? :confused:
 
The fact is, when a racquet called the New Pro Staff, and Sampras' racquet were used to pull off five major upsets at the 1990 US Open, Wilson didn't tell you about the accomplishments of this extraordinary new racquet and market it to make money; instead, they took the New Pro Staff off the market. No other pro ever got a racquet like Sampras' racquet.

The most successful racquet in tennis history, Sampras' racquet, was never marketed or promoted, at all.

You can't use "they want to make money" arguments. When I realized there was something more important to the tennis industry than making money, that's when I knew something was very wrong in tennis, and I want you to know.

It might just be a game, but it's details are very serious and important to some people, who have a lot of power. Remember the alphabet wars in tennis? the ATP pros boycotting Wimbledon? the total annihilation of the WCT tour?

Last year, articles were written about how bad Hewitt is. And this year he is out of the Australian early. That was engineered. Martina Hingis claimed the shoes she was provided forced her to retire with injured feet.

In 1996, I had the best shoes I have ever had. I could move like the wind. They (Saucony) changed those shoes in a certain way. No problem, I'll find other shoes, but I found all the shoes had been changed in the same way. I thought maybe the problem was my feet, but I found some of the old Sauconys that I liked, and my feet immediately stopped hurting. It was the shoes, not just one type of shoes but all shoes, all brands, all changed the same way.

I learned HOW they changed the shoes, but I could see that pros were getting the good shoes. They did that same trick to keep Hewitt from winning. These few people who run tennis and recreational sports seem to control a lot of things, including the design of shoes, and they don't like Hewitt so they "did what they could" to help rid tennis of Hewitt.
 
Since you want us to know what is wrong, why can't you tell us the secret to making such a great racket?

What are we supposed to do with this information? I don't get it.
 
"The fact is, when a racquet called the New Pro Staff, and Sampras' racquet were used to pull off five major upsets at the 1990 US Open, Wilson didn't tell you about the accomplishments of this extraordinary new racquet and market it to make money; instead, they took the New Pro Staff off the market. No other pro ever got a racquet like Sampras' racquet."

This is simply not true, every other person on this board have a frickin' st vincent's pro staff in their closet, albeit without nate's custom weight and gripwork. and by "pull it off the market," do you mean close the st vincent factory? as to why it wasn't marketed, let's see... if you're wilson, are you going to spend time marketing a 12.5 oz 85" racket to the masses, or are you going to focus on the new range of hammers that came out around that time that were much easier for the public to hit?

No one loves a good conspiracy more than me, but answer me this: do you really believe the alphabet soup constituents could persuade the manufacturers - publicly owned comanies - to keep "the ideal racket" out of the hands of the public and pros when it would clearly be a moneymaker? I guarantee the shareholders of wilson, dunlop, and head don't give a rat's @ss about mark miles and etienne devivleivldiseurre, or whatever his name is
 
Bottle Rocket said:
What is the point of this thread? What's your objective?

As interesting as it is, nobody wants to read this. Nobody wants to read a post about how good rackets can be, how good yours are, and how ours can never be this way.

The public can't know about these secrets because it will ruin the game? Good for you, you know all the secrets.

So what? :confused:
Click to expand...

believe it or not some of us are interested, and the ideas are interesting.

Also, john does suggest few ways to improve the racquets. i read john's posts and tried modifying my racquet as similar to john's descriptions as i can, and i ended up with a racquet that has helped me play better than ever before. (of course it doesn't help me get into positions, swing at the ball, nor does it help me with my stamina problem, but i been playing a lot better than before.) it's not exactly the same specs as john's descriptions, but it's has the basic ideas that he describs and if feels perfect. only problem is that it's so heavy, and my low stamina doesn't help...
 
This Thread makes me wanna quit tennis.

Venus and Serena were BOTH using the same frames one year ago. Just look at the pics from last year. Serena won the AO, Venus won Wimbledon. If between then and now they actually let Wilson talk them into using a different weighted verison of the frames they used last year, then they deserved to lose. But I'm willing to assume they are using the same setups as last year.
 
johncauthen said:
I learned HOW they changed the shoes, but I could see that pros were getting the good shoes. They did that same trick to keep Hewitt from winning. These few people who run tennis and recreational sports seem to control a lot of things, including the design of shoes, and they don't like Hewitt so they "did what they could" to help rid tennis of Hewitt.
Click to expand...
Now I'm convinced you're just plain nuts!

And Serena lost because she got fat and out of shape! Maybe the tennis companies also control what she eats?!? Hmm, conspiracy #3 surfaces... :shock:
 
Way too many tennis racquets these days start as concepts in MARKETING and end up under-engineered and over-hyped. It's almost as bad as golf....

And, the Jack Kramer Wilsons were some of the best racquets ever made, IMHO.

-Robert
________
LovelyWendie
 
Last edited:
This is hilarious. Either John is a conspiracy nut, or he is an entertainer spinning a great X-Files-like story. Either way, the sad part is the feeble-minded posters that believe it.
 
phil10s said:
This Thread makes me wanna quit tennis.

Venus and Serena were BOTH using the same frames one year ago. Just look at the pics from last year. Serena won the AO, Venus won Wimbledon. If between then and now they actually let Wilson talk them into using a different weighted verison of the frames they used last year, then they deserved to lose. But I'm willing to assume they are using the same setups as last year.
Click to expand...

Yes, but even last year I heard one of the commentators say that they were using way too big and powerful frames. And this was a former top player (don't remember who any more). The sisters' philosophy has always been - "give me the most powerful racquet you got and I will supply the control". And of course they really don't play with the stock N3 or N4 or whatever. They have it weighted up, and Serena has extra powerholes and such, but it is still huge and powerful.

When the strategy works, fine. But when you see them hitting over the line consistently, you have to wonder - why not change the racquet or increase the tension. These women have power to spare in the bodies anyway.
 
Onion said:
Now I'm convinced you're just plain nuts!

And Serena lost because she got fat and out of shape! Maybe the tennis companies also control what she eats?!? Hmm, conspiracy #3 surfaces... :shock:
Click to expand...

Actually, John is right that there are special shoes out there that can give a player a huge advantage over other players who use the ordinary high performance shoes that are usually readily available at your local retailer. The special shoes that I speak of aren't necessarily the brand that he described in his post. I know of one that's of a different brand. As far as the industry insiders attempting to hold back Hewitt though.......... I have never heard of such a thing. (Am I discrediting John Cauthen???......No I am not. I just have never heard of such a story nor I feel the need to investigate that story at the moment.)

From my experiences working with people and customizing frames, as far as superior racquets being kept away from the public and certain peoples, that is very real in my belief. I do not however think that the tennis industry is intentionally preventing the public from getting their hands on these frames. It's more like how I described things in an earlier post.

Sometimes what happened (or is still happening on an ongoing basis) is that different teams (or individuals) have researched and developed their "ideal" frame for their particular individual player(s) (or themselves). It's like a race car team that keeps their secrets out of the hands of their competitors. I don't reveal some secrets for the same reasons. You don't want the other team (or other individual competitor)to get freebies off of you after what you had to do to get the advantage in the first place.

Besides striving to be the better player, part of the competition is also having more and better knowledge about the physics of the ideal racquet and sometimes one may not even need to be doing the actual research and development to attain that knowledge of creating the ideal racquet because the ideal racquet could just simply be handed to him or her.
 
Reply Re: Heavy Weight Above Grip !!

I'm trying to share my thoughts/opinion and playtest results from the information I found in the thread about adding up to 2 oz to the area right above the top of the grip/handle.... Now I'm generally open to experimenting on frames....God knows "I'VE" butchered a few....with working on lengths/counterweights/string combos/etc...etc... When I first read the thoughts on adding such a large amount of weight....I just thought :

????????????????????????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!! EsPECIALLY TWO OUNCES !! So I figured I'd start out with an ounce...I got a tub of plummer's putty and grabbed an old Head Comp Master (white/flexy/102"/etc...) and added 1 oz evenly around the racquet just above the top of the handle --- smoothed it out and made it as 'uniform' as I could. I then wrapped the handle with an overgrip and covered the putty as well (finishing with electrical tape). I then went to 'The Wall' just to see.............. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the....!??!?
HUGE increase in stability....worth REPEATING !! Directional control and ease of followthrough increased OVER 50% (easily!!). I thought; 'maybe I'm just enjoying the DIFFERENCE that it feels...' I then got in to the 'rotation' for some doubles...............
YOU MUST TRY THIS...........!!!! Forget anything else....including how it might 'look' or how il-logical it might seem !! I'm sold....and I wanted to share my enthusiasm, because it really DOES add to the racquet's performance....and I do NOT feel the increase in weight !! I can't wait to try it on one of my more 'serious' frames !! I WOULD like suggestions on other alternative for adding that amount of weight; what other materials might 'work' better ???
 
D. Nelson said:
I'm trying to share my thoughts/opinion and playtest results from the information I found in the thread about adding up to 2 oz to the area right above the top of the grip/handle.... Now I'm generally open to experimenting on frames....God knows "I'VE" butchered a few....with working on lengths/counterweights/string combos/etc...etc... When I first read the thoughts on adding such a large amount of weight....I just thought :

????????????????????????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!! EsPECIALLY TWO OUNCES !! So I figured I'd start out with an ounce...I got a tub of plummer's putty and grabbed an old Head Comp Master (white/flexy/102"/etc...) and added 1 oz evenly around the racquet just above the top of the handle --- smoothed it out and made it as 'uniform' as I could. I then wrapped the handle with an overgrip and covered the putty as well (finishing with electrical tape). I then went to 'The Wall' just to see.............. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the....!??!?
HUGE increase in stability....worth REPEATING !! Directional control and ease of followthrough increased OVER 50% (easily!!). I thought; 'maybe I'm just enjoying the DIFFERENCE that it feels...' I then got in to the 'rotation' for some doubles...............
YOU MUST TRY THIS...........!!!! Forget anything else....including how it might 'look' or how il-logical it might seem !! I'm sold....and I wanted to share my enthusiasm, because it really DOES add to the racquet's performance....and I do NOT feel the increase in weight !! I can't wait to try it on one of my more 'serious' frames !! I WOULD like suggestions on other alternative for adding that amount of weight; what other materials might 'work' better ???
Click to expand...
I don't think you'll get anything else out of John or me. The other customiztions have a more pronouced effect and is more secretive. Can't share those things. Sorry.

Glad my tips and John's helped you though. Thanks for the testimonial.
 
D. Nelson said:
I'm trying to share my thoughts/opinion and playtest results from the information I found in the thread about adding up to 2 oz to the area right above the top of the grip/handle.... Now I'm generally open to experimenting on frames....God knows "I'VE" butchered a few....with working on lengths/counterweights/string combos/etc...etc... When I first read the thoughts on adding such a large amount of weight....I just thought :

????????????????????????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!! EsPECIALLY TWO OUNCES !! So I figured I'd start out with an ounce...I got a tub of plummer's putty and grabbed an old Head Comp Master (white/flexy/102"/etc...) and added 1 oz evenly around the racquet just above the top of the handle --- smoothed it out and made it as 'uniform' as I could. I then wrapped the handle with an overgrip and covered the putty as well (finishing with electrical tape). I then went to 'The Wall' just to see.............. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the....!??!?
HUGE increase in stability....worth REPEATING !! Directional control and ease of followthrough increased OVER 50% (easily!!). I thought; 'maybe I'm just enjoying the DIFFERENCE that it feels...' I then got in to the 'rotation' for some doubles...............
YOU MUST TRY THIS...........!!!! Forget anything else....including how it might 'look' or how il-logical it might seem !! I'm sold....and I wanted to share my enthusiasm, because it really DOES add to the racquet's performance....and I do NOT feel the increase in weight !! I can't wait to try it on one of my more 'serious' frames !! I WOULD like suggestions on other alternative for adding that amount of weight; what other materials might 'work' better ???
Click to expand...
what other materials might 'work' better ???
Click to expand...
Lead of course. It's a lot more condensed.
 
D. Nelson said:
I'm trying to share my thoughts/opinion and playtest results from the information I found in the thread about adding up to 2 oz to the area right above the top of the grip/handle.... Now I'm generally open to experimenting on frames....God knows "I'VE" butchered a few....with working on lengths/counterweights/string combos/etc...etc... When I first read the thoughts on adding such a large amount of weight....I just thought :

????????????????????????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!! EsPECIALLY TWO OUNCES !! So I figured I'd start out with an ounce...I got a tub of plummer's putty and grabbed an old Head Comp Master (white/flexy/102"/etc...) and added 1 oz evenly around the racquet just above the top of the handle --- smoothed it out and made it as 'uniform' as I could. I then wrapped the handle with an overgrip and covered the putty as well (finishing with electrical tape). I then went to 'The Wall' just to see.............. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the....!??!?
HUGE increase in stability....worth REPEATING !! Directional control and ease of followthrough increased OVER 50% (easily!!). I thought; 'maybe I'm just enjoying the DIFFERENCE that it feels...' I then got in to the 'rotation' for some doubles...............
YOU MUST TRY THIS...........!!!! Forget anything else....including how it might 'look' or how il-logical it might seem !! I'm sold....and I wanted to share my enthusiasm, because it really DOES add to the racquet's performance....and I do NOT feel the increase in weight !! I can't wait to try it on one of my more 'serious' frames !! I WOULD like suggestions on other alternative for adding that amount of weight; what other materials might 'work' better ???
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll give your other suggestions that will improve performance. It's already been revealed and so I don't mind sharing it. Here's the link:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=81087

That thread elaborates this technique I am referring to. Enjoy.
 
.....right --- I'd already read/considered that 'concept' too....I'm sure I'll give it a try !! What about using these 2 ideas on a Babolat Pure Power Zylon 360 racquet...and a Yonex RDX 300 ??
 
D. Nelson said:
.....right --- I'd already read/considered that 'concept' too....I'm sure I'll give it a try !! What about using these 2 ideas on a Babolat Pure Power Zylon 360 racquet...and a Yonex RDX 300 ??
Click to expand...
Those 2 are better choices than for a lot of other frames currently on the market, since those frames you mentioned are very light.
 
....you're right....I guess my main objective is to STILL be able to get away with using a 'lighter' frame...ugh !!! I'd like to have the 'before' racquet be in the 10.5-11.0 range.....
 
D. Nelson said:
.....right --- I'd already read/considered that 'concept' too....I'm sure I'll give it a try !! What about using these 2 ideas on a Babolat Pure Power Zylon 360 racquet...and a Yonex RDX 300 ??
Click to expand...
And as John pointed out, with the Babolots, the tip of the head wouldn't look too pointy as a result from the method. This is because Babolats (ProKennex and Yonex as well) hoop tips are rounder than other racquets. This is all just a cosmetic thing though. It's not a big deal if you don't care about having a somewhat awkward looking frame (I doubt people looking from a distance could notice any diffrence anyhow).
 
D. Nelson said:
....you're right....I guess my main objective is to STILL be able to get away with using a 'lighter' frame...ugh !!! I'd like to have the 'before' racquet be in the 10.5-11.0 range.....
Click to expand...
This is why John explains how the frames on the market are not the most ideal. Those 2 frames that you mentioned, however, can be made to be very playable.

Don't get me wrong but you can customize stock frames to make them perform better, but custom designed frames are the way to go if you want full customizations.
 
Mr. Nelson, what you experienced is exactly what happens. That is what they are keeping from us. Sampras used a big chunk of weight above his handle and won 14 Grand Slam titles, but we can't buy a racquet with a big chunk of weight above the handle.

I wrote a letter to Head about this weighting in November 1993. They answered me, and we exchanged 6 more letters from November until January 1994, signed by Robert Marte. Agassi got this weighting in August 1994 after Head had time to experiment with it for eight months. Agassi won the US Open. It increases performance, noticeably, dramatically.

Even better... using this weighting, Agassi said, "I love playing tennis again." It makes tennis more fun.

I works so well there are a lot of insiders who think it will destroy the game, but 99.9999995% of tennis players don't know it exists.

Available frames start out too heavy, so the extra weight makes you tired after awhile. It has to be engineered into the racquet from the racquet's conception. No tennis company is engineering a racquet like that.

I found a 250 gram Babolat Pure Drive (called VS Drive) and added 50 grams, almost two ounces above the handle. It weighed only 300 grams ready to play, and had two ounces above the handle. No one who tried it didn't love it. Babolat could make and sell that racquet. So either, they don't know about it or someone is keeping them from selling it.

I'm not a conspiracy nut. Those are the facts that I have personally experienced. When I have a racquet in my closet this good, and I have communicated with the president of Head about it in detail (and it seemed like Agassi got it, as well as Muster, Ivanicevic, and eventually, the entire pro tour) and yet, no average player can buy it, that seems like a conspiracy.
 
I guess everyone who read the above stuff had become a bit dumber....
It took me almost half an hour of my precious time to get where he wants to add that weight (it's just above the handle, I see!), though he said the Prince Triple weighting system was good, and Hammer was right idea, or ..what the hell he was saying???

it's mental, folks, keep away.
 
Zverev said:
I guess everyone who read the above stuff had become a bit dumber....
It took me almost half an hour of my precious time to get where he wants to add that weight (it's just above the handle, I see!), though he said the Prince Triple weighting system was good, and Hammer was right idea, or ..what the hell he was saying???

it's mental, folks, keep away.
Click to expand...
Prescious time....what you think you're special?.....I think you're not! Why don't you just hit the road jack quietly jack if you find nothing insightful here! Dumbass!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Serena's Racquet....
Replies
2
Views
897
danniflava
D
travlerajm
Roddick Signature Racquet Specs are not Roddick's Actual Specs!
Replies
11
Views
3K
BattleAxe
B
C
Customizing Wilson Pro Staff 97 Countveil
Replies
0
Views
430
crobison
C
Andy Zarzuela
Venus and Serena's Solid Black frames back in the late 90s?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Brettolius
Brettolius
Andy Zarzuela
Comparing Venus and Serena's games yet again...
Replies
5
Views
943
anointedone
anointedone
Back
Top