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

[Tigerarp1]

JohnCauthen: I was serious about wanting to get in contact with you about your ideas. I would like to put them to use on my racquets. Please email me at Tigerarp11@yahoo.com

Thanks!

 

[johncauthen]

I have three ideas. One is to add extra weight between eight and nine inches from the butt. I showed it to Wilson, and it became the standard for most graphite racquets. I wanted a job, but didn't get it.

This is a racquet with that extra weight.

That weight allows you to direct the ball as you hit. It allows you to muscle the ball a little, and feel it come off the racquet the way you feel a basketball come off your fingertips. Racquets with that weight changed the look of tennis. Returns and passing shots became accurate.

Some people high up in tennis thought more accurate shots were ruining the game. A Dutch group bought Wilson, and they came out with the nBlade, a racquet like the Pro Staff Classic, but without the extra mass at the top of the handle, which I developed for my Prince Pros in the 1980's (and showed Wilson, asking for a job)...

That change in design doesn't seem significant; but the part that is missing from the nBlade is exactly the weight I showed Wilson. The nBlade has my idea specifically removed from it, even though they denied they used my idea. They specifically removed it.

And today, the same thing happened with the nBlade that happened with Venus and Serena's racquets. On the Tennis Channel at Monte Carlo, Mathieu was leading Coria 6-1, 5-1. Mathieu was going through Coria with his nBlade racquet. It hits like magic; you barely feel it; it has power.

But in it's design, the lack of the weight I showed Wilson makes it so that you can't muscle the ball. You can't finish the shot by muscling it, which was the entire point of my idea. It allowed you to muscle the shot as you finished it. Mathieu needed to make sure of his shots when he was serving for the match against Coria at 5-2. When he started to muscle a little, to make sure of his shot, he started to miss: just like Roddick, and like Venus and Serena.

Pros are beginning to look bad with these new racquets. Mathieu served for the match three times, in two service games, and in the Tiebreak, and he lost all three times! Being up 6-1, 5-1, Mathieu, and his nBlade lost.

That is serious.

I can't fix everyone's racquets. The most successful and sure thing I have discovered is my idea of stretching the racquethead. A lot of people have tried it here, and it works. It works for me, and for customers, but it cost me my job. Techincally, according to all established stringers, you aren't supposed to string racquets that way. But it works, it works for people here.

My third idea that I am working on is I want to make a weight you can add to any racquet that makes it hit better, but I have never been successful doing that. I think I am close, then, I find out I'm not. The whole racquet has to be right. Only with the resources of the tennis industry can anyone create racquets that allow you to muscle the ball and direct the shot, giving you confidence when you want to make sure the shot goes in.

I am still trying to make those weights work, and maybe it will be good if a magic weight is possible. I know that by precisely manipulating the weight you can make the racquet feel very good. But so far, I haven't perfected a magic weight, even though from time to time I think I have, and make promises.

The real problem is, the tennis industry did not respond to the amazing success of Sampras racquets. You couldn't buy Sampras' racquets. You can't buy Federer's actual racquet that he uses, nor can you buy the racquets that most pros use. And these are not heavy racquets. They weigh around 350 grams with a balance point of 30.5 cm, which makes them very light-headed.

I have a racquet that fits those specs. A kid and an old lady liked it. But my lightest available production racquet that is balanced at 30.9 cm weighs 365g, making it heavier in the head than a pro's racquet. Kids and women tend not to like that racquet. I thought I found the secret to making that heavier racquet feel light, and I have made progress, but a complete fix is asking too much. I'm still trying.

In a thread about Blake's racquet, I said Blake was losing the feel for his racquet because of faults in its weighting. I was right. Blake has had a major meltdown. I know how to fix his racquet, if I worked for Prince.

I'm still working on the weights, but I think that simple solution to all racquet problems is too simplistic. The real problem is the tennis industry, itself. The industry seems to be resistant to pursuing racquets that allow you to muscle the ball, that pros win with, and look good with. It is designing new racquets that are making pros look bad. I want to help turn this around. I can contribute if given a job with someone like Prince.

 

[travlerajm]

John, I think you're right that the key to a well-perfroming racquet is perfect weight and balance. But I disagree with you about your assertion that weight in the butt is not needed because it is inefficient.

Your concentrated mass in the hilt idea can be used to tune a racquet, but the problem with this is that the racquet is then too sensitive to slight changes in the grip position. Rather, the mass needs to be distributed more evenly over a longer distance extending underneath the place where it is gripped.

For those with 1hbs, tuning a racquet is easy because the axis of rotation is virtually the same for all of the shots. The real trick is getting a finely tuned racquet that works equally well for all shots even when you use a 2hb.

When tuning a racquet for someone with a 2hb, the added mass needs to be distributed along almost the entire grip length.

I don't believe that there is a universal mass that works for all racquets, but I think you and I share the belief that it's definitely possible to tune any racquet simply by adding weight so that it hits like a dream.

 

[MT120]

johncauthen maybe you should stop trying the onsize fits all approch and go with an assortment of size and a esay to read sclae so people can find which one they need to buy. that should be very practicle since you have so many "arrowhead weights" that work well on some rackets and not others. It could be like picking specfic strings or shoes (only not a many to choose from) and let the people using them decide what feels right instead of you killing yourself over it.

 

[MT120]

sorry 4 the type O's

 

[travlerajm]

johncauthen maybe you should stop trying the onsize fits all approch and go with an assortment of size and a esay to read sclae so people can find which one they need to buy. that should be very practicle since you have so many "arrowhead weights" that work well on some rackets and not others. It could be like picking specfic strings or shoes (only not a many to choose from) and let the people using them decide what feels right instead of you killing yourself over it.

John, this sounds like a good business model for you. You could publish a chart with the recommended weighting instructions for every racquet model. Then people could order your custom weights without having to worry about tuning the racquet, because you would have already done the trial-and-error tweaking for them.

Or perhaps it would be better to keep your chart hidden, but you could give out the list of racquet models that you have already tuned to perfection.

 

[bluegrasser]

You know John is right, about Fed using different racquets that is, but I thought is was the picture making the beam look different in past shots. Good observation my man.

 

[Bill Tilden]

Jhon, this is my experience i hope it can help you. I have a little hand and last year i loose with player with a big structure and big hand.


I man with a big hand when take up a racket rebalanced the racket with weigth in the handle that is his own hand, so a person like me that have a little hand need moore weight in the handle, I put on 100/110 grams and i have all my raquet at 16.2 oz.

Now i can compete with players with big physicist and skeleton, last year when i give them my hand at the end of the mach I always thougt: "what big hand".

Now i have understand. I have a photo of Rod Laver, the only players that have won two grand slam, where he pick up the trophy of Wimbledon with only one hand like a glass.

So i think you need to make a weight that every one can modify in relation of his own characteristics. Where peaple can add or take off weight. Rod problably don't need weight he has weight in his

 

[travlerajm]

Jhon, this is my experience i hope it can help you. I have a little hand an last year i loose with player with a big structure and big hand.


I man with a big hand when take up a racket rebalanced the racket with weigth in the handle that is his own hand, so a person like me that have a little hand need moore weight in the handle, I put on 100/110 grams and i have all my raquet at 16.2 oz.

Now i can compete with players with big physicist and skeleton, last year when i give them my hand at the end of the mach I always thougt: "what big hand".

Now i have understand. I have a photo of Rod Laver, the only players that have won two grand slam, where he pick up the cup of Wimbledon with only one hand like a glass.

So i think you need to make a weight that every one can modify in relation of his own characteristics. Where peaple can add or take off weight. Rod problably don't need weight he has weight in his hand

This is a good point. The smaller the hand, the more weight is needed in the handle.

 

[Ripper]

You know John is right, about Fed using different racquets that is, but I thought is was the picture making the beam look different in past shots. Good observation my man.

I don't know about that, but, specifically regarding the different colors on the 2 raquets of the 2 pics posted by JC, if you look at Fed's skin color, you'll notice that the hue, saturation, etcetera, on the pics are different. I wouldn't be surprised, if you photoshopped one of the pics so that his skin color is the same as in the other pic, that the 2 raquets end up the same color, too... and, this time, I'm not joking...

 

[Bill Tilden]

This little

 

[Bill Tilden]

The secret in tennis is having weight and don't feel it

 

[TennisAsAlways]

04-19-2006, 07:17 PM

John, after I adjusted your tapered weight on the 6.3 (lowering it a bit), I got the frame to play a lot better.

The groundstrokes were amazing. The dynamics were very efficient. It was almost alive. To exaggerate the effect that I am talking about, just hold the frame "loosely" and sway it in the air, during a "windy" day. It doesn't need to be extremely windy, just a gust. The frame almost floats in your hand. That's what I mean by describing it as "alive". Of course you can still feel this phenomenon inside your house, with no wind; it's just more pronounced in the wind, since the wind is a "force" that gets the frame moving.

The reason why the frame behaves that way is due to it's "quick action". The added mass at the precise location makes the frame move as if it were a very short "sling", and that leads to "quick acceleration". So it (the racquet head) essentially responds instantly when you force it to, rotating around.

This is why the frame feels lighter. Going by the law of physics, moving mass feels lighter. Since the frame reacts quickly and even the slightest force gets it started (moving), that is why it is so easy to move the frame around. You don't need to exert a lot of energy to get the mass moving. Just one slight subtle movement gets it going, therefore you can control and direct the frame, rather.

I've been having a lot of fun with this frame. My groundstrokes have been very consistent with that modded 6.3. The only thing that I am still trying to get used to is serving with that frame. It just feels so different. For serves, when I swing at ball, I can feel the momentum going up into the ball, but it feels awkward. The groundstrokes, on the other hand, are just beautiful, but the serves feel weird. It's almost as if you have to learn how to serve differently with this frame. I don't know.

Also, John, I don't know how you could market this weight concept. You see, it took me a while to notice the benefits of the weight. It also took me some time to tune it right. How would Joe Average notice the benefits? Also, what about beginners?....They can't tell the difference between the best feel vs the worst. What I am saying is that I don't see exactly how Joe and Jane would appreciate the concept if they don't understand what it does and its differences.

Overall, the racquet was very efficient. It is like a super tweener. Good to use against the Pure Drive players (the ones who get their power from the midplus head + the PD's incredible power). I like the power. My only problem is that I cannot serve very well with it. For some reason, the "pop" is just not there. I'm spending the day tomorrow serving with it, so I'll let you know how things turn out.

When serving, my mechanics are way off when using that frame. This is a huge dilemma. I can most likely adapt to the frame, having my serve re-developed, but then that may impair my form when I go to use my main midsized PS 6.0 frame. I suppose I could just make that modded 6.3 my main frame, but I am still hesitant to abandon my PS 6.0.

 

[Bill Tilden]

Ok! i think i'm going crazy:mrgreen: but i have add 20 gramms more at my prokennex 5G, now it weights 482 gramms.


All the lead tape start from the butt cup and finish at 20 cm from the but cup, so some lead is under my hand, I can generate a lot of power in service and the power seems to be too much for the graundstroke some time the stroke are impressive because i need only give the direction at the ball, and I must have attention during the swing.

The balance of the racquet now is at 24,5 cm from the butt cup.

Now haven't more space in the handl.

 

[travlerajm]

Ok! i think i'm going crazy:mrgreen: but i have add 20 gramms more at my prokennex 5G, now it weights 482 gramms.


All the lead tape start from the butt cup and finish at 20 cm from the but cup, so some lead is under my hand, I can generate a lot of power in service and the power seems to be too much for the graundstroke some time the stroke are impressive because i need only give the direction at the ball, and I must have attention during the swing.

The balance of the racquet now is at 24,5 cm from the butt cup.

Now haven't more space in the handl.

If your 17-oz rocket launcher gives you an unreturnable serve, who needs groundtrokes? This stick is probably an excellent racquet for volleys because you can just stick it out in front of the ball and let the ball bounce off it. And it's probably good for blocking back big serves. You'll need to get to the net quickly to utilize the advantages of such a heavy frame.

 

[Bill Tilden]

If your 17-oz rocket launcher gives you an unreturnable serve, who needs groundtrokes? This stick is probably an excellent racquet for volleys because you can just stick it out in front of the ball and let the ball bounce off it. And it's probably good for blocking back big serves. You'll need to get to the net quickly to utilize the advantages of such a heavy frame.

I think so, I will try

 

[Bill Tilden]

If your 17-oz rocket launcher gives you an unreturnable serve, who needs groundtrokes? This stick is probably an excellent racquet for volleys because you can just stick it out in front of the ball and let the ball bounce off it. And it's probably good for blocking back big serves. You'll need to get to the net quickly to utilize the advantages of such a heavy frame.

Ok with this rocket launcher I have done another kind of strategy: the serve and serve the volley is not necessary , but this stick is more than exellent for high volleys that have precision and power.

Low volleys are good too, give direction and little back spin

I haven' try well the groundstroke

With surprise after two hours I wosn't too much tired.

This is a question: if I can use this stick with satisfaction, what can do a pros?

 

[travlerajm]

Ok with this rocket launcher I have done another kind of strategy: the serve and serve the volley is not necessary , but this stick is more than exellent for high volleys that have precision and power.

Low volleys are good too, give direction and little back spin

I haven' try well the groundstroke

With surprise after two hours I wosn't too much tired.

This is a question: if I can use this stick with satisfaction, what can do a pros?

At the end of his career (1999-2002), Sampras used a stick very much like yours. If you go back and watch the tapes of his matches in the last couple of years, and look at the way the ball comes off his racquet on the volleys, you can see that it's as if the ball was hitting a stationary wall. I wouldn't be surprised if he was using a stick well over 14 oz. by then. However, the added weight made it very difficult for him to sustain long rallies in these last few years, because his groundstrokes were hit and miss.

I think you'll see more pros with heavy sticks when serve-and-volleying comes back in vogue. For baseliners, there is just too much power to keep a rally going, but for serve-and-volleying, the heavier the better.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

So my assumptions seem to be a fact afterall......

John, before, I told you that the 6.3 frame with your tapered weight added did not perfrom very well on serves. What I felt through playtesting may actually be a "fact". Here's is some techinical data from the physics department at the University of Sydney Australia back in 2001 that happens to support my findings. The math and all the other technical jargon is not what I am trying to point out. The graph should suffice in showing my point. The graph below IS the original graph. I just added "color" in order to make it easier on the eyes. Also, obviously, I added the text in red:

Comment on racket power

Given that the ACOR is increased signifcantly by
adding a small mass to the tip of a racket, an
obvious question is whether or not this acts to
increase racket power. In the case of a serve, the
ball speed, v, is given by v ‹ (1 + eA)V where V is
the speed of the racket at the impact point and eA is
the ACOR. The serve speed is therefore directly
proportional to V and depends only weakly on eA.
For example, a 20% increase in V leads to a 20%
increase in serve speed, but a 20% increase in eA,
from say 0.40±0.48, leads to only a 5.7% increase in
serve speed.

Any useful defnition of racket power must
therefore include both the ACOR and the swing
weight of the racket. If the swing weight was
infinite, the racket head speed would be zero. If the
swing weight was zero, the racket head speed would
not be infinite since a player cannot swing his or
her arm that fast. However, within the normal
range of racket weights from about 250 g to about
400 g, it is reasonable to assume that racket head
speed will be proportional to some inverse power of
swing weight, I. The head speed itself depends on
the impact point on the racket. If the racket is
swung at angular velocity x about an axis at a
distance A beyond the butt end of the handle, and
the ball strikes the strings at a distance x from the
tip of the racket, then the velocity of the impact
point is V ‹ (A + L ) x)x. The angular velocity
will depend on the swing weight about that axis,
given by I = Icm + (A + h)². If w = k/In , then the
serve speed is given by
v = k 1 ⁄ eA ƒ– A ⁄ L ÿ x ƒ
Icm ⁄ – A ⁄ h ƒ
2
h i
n
– 14 ƒ
where k is a constant that depends on the strength
of any given player and n is a number, yet to be
determined, that describes the relation between
head speed and swing weight for any given player.
This number is not well known for tennis rackets.
Nevertheless, it is of interest to examine solutions
of Eq. (14) for typical values of n that may be
relevant. For example, if one assumes that the total
energy of the racket, 0.5Ix
2
, remains constant when
the swing weight is varied, then n ‹ 0.5. If the total
energy of the arm remains constant, then n ‹ 0. If
the total energy of the racket plus the arm remains
constant, then n will be less than 0.5. Studies of golf
clubs and baseball bats (Daish 1972; Watts & Bahill
1990) are more consistent with the latter assump-
tion, and indicate that n is typically about 0.2 for
these implements.
Plots of v vs. x for the eA pro®les in Fig. 9 are
given in Fig. 10. It was assumed that the racket
could be swung to generate a serve speed v =
200 km h )1 for an impact at x ‹ 15 cm, when
A ‹ 0.05 m, regardless of the additional mass or
its location. There is no logical reason for such an
assumption, but (a) it provides a convenient if
somewhat arbitrary means of comparing the three
pro®les and (b) the resulting value of n is within
the range of interest between 0 and 0.5. Con-
versely, if one were to arbitrarily assume other
values of n, then the three pro®les would intersect
at different points. The results in Fig. 10 were

Figure 10 Serve speed v vs. impact distance from the tip, x,
when the angular velocity of the racket is chosen to give
v ‹ 200 km h )1 at x ‹ 15 cm and when the axis of rotation is
5 cm beyond the end of the handle.

R. Cross
12 Sports Engineering (2001) 4, 1±14 · Ó2001 Blackwell Science Ltd

 

[normrose]

Query for TennisAsAlways

Just a thought having read your last post,

Have you experimented by placing the lead weight directly under where your hand would be normally placed on the handle.

I have tried this and apart from the different feel of the handle due to the intrusion of the lead weight the racquet swings beautifully even though the weight is 42gms.

The racquet in question is a Babolat PD Std.

I would be interested to hear your comments....................Norm

 

[TennisAsAlways]

Just a thought having read your last post,

Have you experimented by placing the lead weight directly under where your hand would be normally placed on the handle.

I have tried this and apart from the different feel of the handle due to the intrusion of the lead weight the racquet swings beautifully even though the weight is 42gms.

The racquet in question is a Babolat PD Std.

I would be interested to hear your comments....................Norm

The thing about adding mass to that area, basically, you would not be increasing inertia about the axis of rotation of the racquet handle. Of course, any amount of added mass will increase inertia about other axi, such as the ones about your elbow, shoulder, torso, hips, etc.

Mass added directly on the axis of rotation about the handle is perhaps more effective for linear impacts.

As far as adding mass to that point(s), I personally do not prefer it there, due to the great shift (lowering) of the C.O.P.

With John's concept (adding mass to the top of the handle), the C.O.P. also shifts downwards, but the vibration node remains at the same location or near the same location . The reason why I say that it stays "near the same location" is because his tapered mass isn't added along ONE exact point. It is 4+ inches long, therefore spread across numerous points.

All I have to say is, everyone may have different swinging mechanics and different preferences. Experiment with things, and if you find something that you like, there's nothing wrong with sticking with it.

 

[Galactus]

TennisAsAlways - what's your current setup on your racquets...and what are the effects produced?

 

[normrose]

TennisAsAlways

Thank you for your interesting response.

 

[paulfreda]

I have three ideas. One is to add extra weight between eight and nine inches from the butt. I showed it to Wilson, and it became the standard for most graphite racquets. I wanted a job, but didn't get it. I want to help turn this around. I can contribute if given a job with someone like Prince.

John
You have innovative ideas that are working. The LAST thing you want is a job with Wilson or Prince. They will pick your ideas clean and you will likely end up with nothing in the end. They should be paying you to NOT work so you do not make them look bad.

You live in America .... the free market. You just need some capital and a business model and business plan that makes sense and the money people will find you to be sure you have what you need to succeed.
Do not give your ideas away too much and certainly not to Wilson or Prince.

You need to speak to a tennis buff who is also a busness professor or biz developemnt guy at a major corporation.

Good luck.

 

[mislav]

Hey TennisAsAlways, John, and others - what do you think?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=98733

Is this alongside your recommendations? I have no idea how to calculate the balance though.

 

[Bill Tilden]

The idea of john work..

 

[jackson vile]

Oh man.... Let me just dust this thread off a bit.... Oh ok ok.


Hey everyone TA John ect.

I have been meaning to report some finding for some time now.

I full customized a light weight racket on a from type that I liked a lot. I did the stringing and kinda the weighting.


And... Drum roll pleas.....


















It kicks major major @$$, I did not think it would be like this, I knew it would be different and might be good.

but this is just amazing, the feel, the spin ect.

I dont' have a standard to compare it to but this racket is just amazing, no other racket even the POG give this much spin, the control is amazing.

The sweetspot is really high and extrememly sweet, you can not hit a ball out with this thing especially on the serve, and it hits mean heavy shots.

The weird thing is that it whips so damn easy and is really easy to handle and a joy.

I want to switch but it does not have as much feel as my LMP+

But I am going to put gut in their next with some NXT Max mains and that will improve the feel a bit, I may need to drop the weight.

It is just like John siad though, you don't feel the shot.

My wife loves this racket, and returned everything and with spin and she is a flat hitter.

She says it is really easy to use, and I agree, but it is really deadly.

The best is the serve, this thing whips better than any any racket I have used and I have demoed or owned almost all players racket even many classic and wood.

TA got the same racket so I would like to hear back form him.

I hope to see some input to marrow, if not I will start emailing and try to get the guys back.

Man I am not sure if I want to share this setup though:mrgreen:

 

[MT120]

c'mon share the set up

 

[darkaug]

guys i think that everyone has different requirements of a racquet . thats why there is no perfect racquet . u cant say if u have federer's racquet , means you play like federer.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

Jackson, are you talking about the modified Dunlop?

Anyways, how does the current modded frame that you are referring to handle opponent's "heavy" groundstrokes? How does it handle returning heavy serves? How are the block volleys?

The reason why I ask is because there is a type of setup that I am aware of that enables tremendous pace on serves, AND at the same time it offers plenty of spin, so much that placement of balls are cake! I am wondering if the setup that you came across is anything like what I am referring to. If so, then you should test it under EVERY condition (hitting against the wall, against paceless pushers, agaist HEAVY HEAVY hitters etc..).

Sometimes you might find something that works like a dream....that is, until you test it out and find a flaw in it! That's why I am asking you this. John mentioned something sort of like this too. He mentioned about one of his findings whereas something may work magnificently when practicing, but then when competing under pressure, it just doesn't quite work due to the "cerebral tennis-playing" not being all there in those tense moments.

The problem with that "particaular" setup is with the returning of serves, volleying, and the handling of opponent's heavy groungstrokes (unless you have PLENTY of time to setup your shot so that you can swing ahead fast enough to a degree whereas the the built up momentum from the contributive velocity of the racquethead will overtake the instability of the frame (which is highly unlikely to happen even during standard rally exchanges against NON-pushers)). The racquet ends up feeling unstable, and vibrates when remaining static. With that setup, the less the racquet is in motion, then the more unstable it is when returning shots; that's why you need to have a full swing AND an extremely fast swing into the ball.

With John's concept (or other setups similar to John's), you get the best of both worlds. You end up with a raquet that is solid, maneuverable, and powerful.

 

[mislav]

Hey TAA, nice to see you.

What would you say would be the minimum weight of a racquet for a male player of average strength? Or optimum?

 

[TennisAsAlways]

Hey TAA, nice to see you.

What would you say would be the minimum weight of a racquet for a male player of average strength? Or optimum?

Good to see you too!

‘‘Minimum’’ weight??? Now that's just too general so I will give you a "general" response: "They should use racquets weighted as heavy as they can handle and that they can swing around comfortably — "usually", the heaviest that would enable the player with the most ball speed."

Coming from me, the way tennis is being played today at higher levels, I would have to say at least 11.5 - 12 ounces should be the minimum weight.

As far as swing weight, there are too many variables that come into play there (e.g. player styles: aggressive baseliner, tremendous spin, S & V, all-courter, etc.; player's forward swing, swing pattern, swing path, backswing, player's timing etc.).

If I had to come up with a figure, I'd say that the minimum SW for a male tennis player of average strength should be at least 310 kg • cm² (For high level tennis — NTRP 4.5 +. I would even actually think the same for the 4.0 level males.). This is all roughly estimates from my observations of people, from my experinces with those people.

P.S. If any of your specs. fall below what I listed, don't feel like less of a man! Plus, it's not like anyone would have to know about it anyways!

Good day now. 8)

 

[mislav]

Thanks TAA.

Yep, I meant that as a general guideline. People ask me sometimes for an advice on which racquet to choose and once they get it, they often go along the "thanks, it's nice, but too heavy" route. So, I needed your help with this.

And nope, none of my preferred specs go below your recommendations. I'm still a man.

You can actually check my setup here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=98733

If you have a minute, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Regardless whether you do or you don't - Thanks As Always.

 

[jackson vile]

Jackson, are you talking about the modified Dunlop?

Anyways, how does the current modded frame that you are referring to handle opponent's "heavy" groundstrokes? How does it handle returning heavy serves? How are the block volleys?

The reason why I ask is because there is a type of setup that I am aware of that enables tremendous pace on serves, AND at the same time it offers plenty of spin, so much that placement of balls are cake! I am wondering if the setup that you came across is anything like what I am referring to. If so, then you should test it under EVERY condition (hitting against the wall, against paceless pushers, agaist HEAVY HEAVY hitters etc..).

Sometimes you might find something that works like a dream....that is, until you test it out and find a flaw in it! That's why I am asking you this. John mentioned something sort of like this too. He mentioned about one of his findings whereas something may work magnificently when practicing, but then when competing under pressure, it just doesn't quite work due to the "cerebral tennis-playing" not being all there in those tense moments.

The problem with that "particaular" setup is with the handling of opponent's heavy groungstrokes (unless you have PLENTY of time to setup your shot so that you can swing ahead fast enough to a degree whereas the the built up momentum from the contributive velocity of the racquethead will overtake the instability of the frame (which is highly unlikely to happen even during standard rally exchanges against NON-pushers)), returning serves, and volleying. The racquet ends up feeling unstable, and vibrates when remaining static. With that setup, the less the racquet is in motion, then the more unstable it is when returning shots; that's why you need to have a full swing AND a extremely fast swing into the ball.

With John's concept (or other setups similar to John's), you get the best of both worlds. You end up with a raquet that is solid, maneuverable, and powerful.

I am extremely excited about this, so bare with me here if anything seems to ramble/incoherent ect.

*It sucks up the heavy balls very well, an amazingly stable racket, so naturally it deals with it all, and the sweet spot is high and a different shape that I have never felt before, It is just in the dream spot if you know what I mean and it relatively large...


*Yes, it just puts the spin on the serve for you, and it just has such a feel, so that you can feel the end of the stick and as you whip it you can feel more and more weight, but in the direction you are hitting, ie it feels very easy. And I mean you can crank this thing, I am just so suprised. I hit with a heavy enough pace and spin at times to tear the racket out of the opponents hands, that is when I am doing this on purpose after being extrememly warmed up and it is still hard to do, but to the point, it handles it solid, it just pockets and then rockets on out.

Another thing that is weird is that it can go from feel lowpowered like a 90sqin to high powered depending on how you whip it and how you spin. So it handles paceless balls realy well, makes them no problem


*As for not working underpressure that is just simply the player, the racket can't do everything, other wise there has been 0 complications that I can think of, I put it throught the test and the more I tested the more amazing I thought it was.

* with the momentum coment you are making, that is a hammer based racket, this is stable 100%. I would compare it to doing everything a tweener does and everything a players does, I know this sounds weird and I think so also, but that is what it does, I guess I could yell at it and argue with it

* It could over take my 200gMW90sqin, but do all sorts of things that racket just can't.

I strung the mains 50lbs and the crosses 64lbs with uniqe irradiated (it was left over) I would like to thin it out even more so that it is a skinny as my MW90sqin and use gut int he crosses and NXT max-tour in the crosses, and keep the first crosses at 62-60lbs.


As for the weighting I did not make is scientific, I had some lead tape I took off an old frame wrapped it around the handle so that it was just barly above my hand and then too some Bab lead strips that were left over and put them on the nose. Just really messing around, but it turned out to be just right, so that the SW is not too high and the racket does not fell too heavy, the racket feels heavy in a sense, but you really can't feel it affecting your wrist, you would just have to experience it.


I am just so suprised, I realy don't believe it

 

[jackson vile]

Good to see you too!

‘‘Minimum’’ weight??? Now that's just too general so I will give you a "general" response: "They should use racquets weighted as heavy as they can handle and that they can swing around comfortably — "usually", the heaviest that would enable the player with the most ball speed."

Coming from me, the way tennis is being played today at higher levels, I would have to say at least 11.5 - 12 ounces should be the minimum weight.

As far as swing weight, there are too many variable that come to play there (e.g. player styles: aggressive baseliner, tremendous spin, S & V, all-courter, etc.; player's forward swing, swing pattern, swing path, backswing, player's timing etc.).

If I had to come up with a figure, I'd say that the minimum SW for a male tennis player of average strength should be at least 310 kg • cm² (For high level tennis — NTRP 4.5 +. I would even actually think the same for the 4.0 level males.). This is all roughly estimates from my observations of people, from my experinces with those people.

P.S. If any of your specs. fall below what I listed, don't feel like less of a man! Plus, it's not like anyone would have to know about it anyways!

Good day now.

The questions are vauge and the answers are vuage:mrgreen:


The reason is that it is all relative, for your abilitys, your oppenents level your level, the racket, your preferences ect ect.

You want the heaviest racket you feel comfortable with and I agree from 11.5oz but many go all the way up to 14oz.

I agree about the SW and then take into the racket and string type and weight ect. So I say just use the swing weight that feels best to you and alows you to actually play, I like 330 for example and others will like 318-360, so there you go.

This is the point of personalizing, John just has general theories and ideas, and it is up to you to make what feels best and that is what is so good about this, you get to make the racke that is just right for you.

At any time you feel you need more of this or that you just slap it on, or take away

 

[TennisAsAlways]

*As for not working underpressure that is just simply the player, the racket can't do everything, other wise there has been 0 complications that I can think of, I put it throught the test and the more I tested the more amazing I thought it was.

Of course it is simply the player.

What I was describing in my previous post, I was not saying anything in any way as if it were the racquet that dictates everything. I was pointing out the "muscling-the-ball" factor — John commented on this briefly, and so I assumed that you would know what I was referencing to, but it appears that you didn't, hence you wrote back saying: "As for (a racquet weighting setup) working under pressure, it's simply the player." I don't think you would have written that if you knew what I was referring to from the start.

Basically what I was saying is that with a certain type of weighting setup, whereas when in a playing situation, you are using it and happen to be caught up being "out-of-the-zone", exhauted, blurred etc., the racquet becomes unstable (vibrates, tugs around in your hand, etc.) due to the reactive forces against the statical properties of the racquet setup; the lost of (what John refers to as) the ‘‘cerebral’’ playing ability causes a loss of the compensatory action needed to overtake the instability — as how John would describe it (in his own unique way of course). It is more stable when you are in better position, with more time, have the energy to exert fast swings etc. (and yes it is true that performance would degrade with "any" type of setup as one is exhausted, but with typical normal stock setups, this vibration is not as apparent as it is with that particular setup that I am mentioning).

That's why that setup that I was referring to is not really that ideal, since in real play, you are seldomly ever 100% (consistency, physically, mentally, etc.) throughout the whole entire session.

With the more ideal concept(s), you can swing late, end up with a slower swing etc., yet the racquet still wouldn't vibrate and become too unstable — which would result in less shank hits, less errors, etc. John mentioned that his concept even enables you to muscle the ball, which is a good thing when you are worn out and need to grind out!

This was what I was referring to. I was NOT speaking as if "individual" player skill was not a factor. I took that indepenent skill factor out of the equation: making it a given that at some point, everybody's abilities will deteriorate to some extent.


P.S. From what you have describe about your setup, you have a high, dynamical, polar weighting setup. I incorporate some of those dynamical properties into my setup as well.

Good day now. 8)

 

[MT120]

John was the Gamma racket line based off of your findings?

 

[jackson vile]

Of course it is simply the player.

What I was describing in my previous post, I was not saying anything in any way as if it were the racquet that dictates everything. I was pointing out the "muscling-the-ball" factor — John commented on this briefly, and so I assumed that you would know what I was referencing to, but it appears that you didn't, hence you wrote back saying: "As for (a racquet weighting setup) working under pressure, it's simply the player." I don't think you would have written that if you knew what I was referring to from the start.

Basically what I was saying is that with a certain type of weighting setup, whereas when in a playing situation, you are using it and happen to be caught up being "out-of-the-zone", exhauted, blurred etc., the racquet becomes unstable (vibrates, tugs around in your hand, etc.) due to the reactive forces against the statical propeties of the racquet setup; the lost of the cerbral playing ability causes a loss of the compensatory action needed to overtake the instability — as how John would describe it (in his own unique way of course). It is more stable when you are in better position, with more time, have the energy to exert fast swings etc.

That's why that setup that I was referring to is not really that ideal, since in real play, you are seldomly ever 100% (consistency, physically, mentally, etc.) throughout the whole entire session.

With the more ideal concept, you can swing late, end up with a slower swing etc., yet the racquet still wouldn't vibrate and become too unstable — which would result in less shank hits, less errors, etc. John mentioned that his concept even enables you to muscle the ball, which is a good thing when you are worn out and need to grind out!

This was what I was referring to. I was NOT speaking as if "individual" player skill was not a factor. I took that indepenent skill factor out of the equation: making it a given that at some point, everybody's abilities will deteriorate to some extent.


P.S. From what you have describe about your setup, you have a high, dynamical, polar weighting setup. I incorporate some of those dynamical properties into my setup as well.

Good day now. 8)

Sorry I don't read minds:mrgreen: , so if that was part of the question then you have to put it in there.

Like I said the racket is easy to use and does not exauhts the player and can bunt/block very very well with high to low power depending on how you do it. I stated that earlier. All rackets are better when you are properly set up, and swinging correctly, there is no way around this, this racket is stable reguardless.

You don't have to be perfect anything IMO this has a very very high degree for error and very user friendly.

But seriously in the end it is the player reguardless, for instance when you say muscle the ball, late hittting ect. I am able to do that with my LMPresitge+ and other various rackets POGmid ect, I can hit late ect ect, that is IMO not the racket but me making the needed adjustments.

You can answer the question with all the info I gave, but seriously there is no magic stick that allows you to suck all day and win.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

It seems as if you took what I said a bit too literally. Of course it is up to the player. How could I miss the "obvious"? I didn't, hence it should be apparent that there was "another" implication. It may be that you are just not understanding the feeling of the particular setup that I am trying to describe, perhaps because you are not familiar with it. Simple as that.

Lastly, who ever said anything about a ‘‘magic stick’’?

 

[jackson vile]

It seems as if you took what I said a bit too literally. Of course it is up to the player. How could I miss the "obvious"? I didn't, hence it should be apparent that there was an "other" implication. It may be that you are just not understanding the feeling of the particular setup what I am trying to describe, perhaps because you are not familiar with it. Simple as that.

Lastly, who ever said anything about a ‘‘magic stick’’?

Alright this is getting OT, what is your point you are attempting to make

I have given you all the information that I have with out giving away all measurements, and the racket it's self.

This racket feels and performs better than any racket I have ever used, better than new PC600classic or old PC600classic, LM series and all other head rackets, 200gMW90sqin, RDX 90, POGmid, ect

That is just IMO and I expected this racket to be a throw away, I did not even play with it for 1 week after the full mods because I thought it would be trash. My wife picked it up and started causing serious problems (mor than usual) for me on the court, so then I demaned:mrgreen: to have it back and I set forth testing it.

I am ordering up more and will put good string in this time even though it does not need it.

Does this help at all? Oh and the racket is 13oz~ and feels and swings like a 11.5-11.8oz racket, and kicks/whips out of this world.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

Alright this is getting OT, what is your point you are attempting to make

I have given you all the information that I have with out giving away all measurements, and the racket it's self.

This racket feels and performs better than any racket I have ever used, better than new PC600classic or old PC600classic, LM series and all other head rackets, 200gMW90sqin, RDX 90, POGmid, ect

That is just IMO and I expected this racket to be a throw away, I did not even play with it for 1 week after the full mods because I thought it would be trash. My wife picked it up and started causing serious problems (mor than usual) for me on the court, so then I demaned:mrgreen: to have it back and I set forth testing it.

I am ordering up more and will put good string in this time even though it does not need it.

Does this help at all? Oh and the racket is 13oz~ and feels and swings like a 11.5-11.8oz racket, and kicks/whips out of this world.

I know what racquet that you are referring to now.

Yes, I felt the same way about it at first. I just decided to cough up some money and decided to not "expect" anything "dramatical" in return, but rather I treated the expense as an experiment expenditure.

Low and behold, after a hours if using that frame (modded of course), — using it every once in a while on certain days — the dynamics of that setup just clicked, and I was beginning noticing more consistency from using that frame.

I too did not expect much from that frame, but in the end, I have been using it ever since. I mainly use it against the Babolat PD/power tweener-type players ("Fighting fire with fiery!" is how I would put it, when facing those powerful racquet players!).

Of course I have not abondoned my PS. I still use it. I actually got the dynamics of the PS to perform magnificently as well. I'm thinking about using lower tensions on the next string job. I think that would be a good fine tuning, since I wouldn't mind more power.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

Hey TennisAsAlways, John, and others - what do you think?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=98733

Is this alongside your recommendations? I have no idea how to calculate the balance though.

Your H4 seems like it would hit really well, with that tail weighting. The nCode nSix One is nice with lead added onto the hoop; I prefer most of the mass on the sides (e.g. where you have it: 2-10; and primarily 3-9) and find that it hits nicely without needing any tailweighting. I can't really speak for the 95in² model though, as I've only tried the mid. I'm pretty sure that the 95 feels different. Hey, as long as you like the feel is all that matters.

 

[jackson vile]

Yea the PS woudl be nicer in a 90sqin, So did you just take out the foam and redistribute the weight? I am sure you could do the same with the PS95 and that would make it more user friendly?

How did the Hammer work out for you, I was not interested at all in that racket.

Also remember that Ausie place that sells racket from the mold of the MW90sqin but with no weight add so it is 100% customizable

 

[tennissavy]

These posts have gone so far off topic that it is absurd. This thread is about certain pros' racquets not what you people are posting. Here is an idea: start another thread.

 

[jackson vile]

These posts have gone so far off topic that it is absurd. This thread is about certain pros' racquets not what you people are posting. Here is an idea: start another thread.

You are a moron, this is what the point of the thread is, we are part of the people that started the John experiements fool

 

[TennisAsAlways]

You are a moron, this is what the point of the thread is, we are part of the people that started the John experiements fool

Good point.
_______________________________________________________

P.S. Why not comment on John (the thread OP), since John himself went (so-called) "off-topic", dicussing EXACTLY what we have recently been discussing! I guess some people here are just too quick to speak.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

Yea the PS woudl be nicer in a 90sqin, So did you just take out the foam and redistribute the weight?

Only in the handle area. That gave me plenty of room for leading it up.

How did the Hammer work out for you, I was not interested at all in that racket.

Good groundstokes. Serve suffered a bit. I fixed that problem by leading up the hoop though (and yes, BTW, I know that the SW of that frame is already high).

 

[mislav]

Your H4 seems like it would hit really well, with that tail weighting. The nCode nSix One is nice with lead added onto the hoop; I prefer most of the mass on the sides (e.g. where you have it: 2-10; and primarily 3-9) and find that it hits nicely without needing any tailweighting. I can't really speak for the 95in² model though, as I've only tried the mid. I'm pretty sure that the 95 feels different. Hey, as long as you like the feel is all that matters.

Thanks TAA.

Yes, they both hit comparably well. With the difference of H4 being a bit lighter and with that dreaded hollow feel, though.

When others try my racquets they tend to like them both. Generally they find my n6.1 to be too heavy for them and H4 just right.

 

[AJK1]

JohnCauthen,
I have recently bought a Head Team Radical and read with great interest how you think with a bit of tweaking they would be nearly perfect. Could you tell me how you would do this?

 

[jackson vile]

Sorry buddy he is not around, you have to do the work and experimenting youself and that is what John intended.



As another note I want people to know that I customized the 200gxl, i put it at 13oz but it feels 12oz, sw is around 325+, funnything is that my wife stole it from me and damn she can do all the Fed shots now.

I am going to make a second one, but different and try to make it even better

An amazing racket experience

I am using a customized tnt-90, feel heavier more demanding, but more stable and I just plain like the extra weight if that makes any sense