Discussion in 'Racquets' started by The Dark Knight, Oct 7, 2012.
The Darkside is seductive and lucrative.
Is there any need for so many racket companies? A pro shop owner told me recently that he would be happy if Prince did not succeed after its bankruptcy filing, as its models were just more burden on him and there was nothing too special about them.
What is the big deal....there's no big technological breakthrough .....they are simply changing the damn string pattern from 16x19 to 16x15......
This is not revolutionary.
I don't see how this is any different than just stringing your crosses a few lbs lower than the mains.
While it is nothing new, it symbolizes what some people think is wrong with Tennis.
Video for the new Wilson looks pretty cool :
Well, it's good for the economy...more companies mean more jobs. And Prince is an American company.
I'm surprised that that pro shop owner felt that way. Prince is one of the few companies that has tech that is actually visible. I've been using Prince my entire tennis career, and I have really enjoyed playing with a number of Prince frames (Rebels, SP Tour, O3 Tour Mid).
Not true. There were more racquet companies back during the days of wood racquets than there are today even though most wood racquets were essentially the same, i.e., much less differences between them than there are today with racquets. They pretty much were all the same size, weight, string pattern, etc. In fact, most of the companies that made wood racquets are no longer around today or are no longer making tennis racquets, e.g., Snauwaert, Davis, Spalding, Bancroft, Rossignol, Garcia, Slazenger, Le Coq Sportif, Fila, Donnay (the original company), etc. And making wood racquets was more labor intensive so they provided even more jobs than making graphite racquets today.
If it's a positive development, why are fewer Americans playing tennis today than in the 1970's when everyone played old style tennis?
So? What is his opponent using? If his opponent was using a wood racquet, I'm sure Sampras would have no problem using one also. In fact, Sampras did use an old Donnay wood racquet to play an exhibition match against Lendl (who was using graphite) like a year ago. Sampras still won.
And did you see that Champions Tour match in which Todd Martin took out an old wood racquet and proceeded to spank his opponent with it? He was hitting winners all over the place with that wood racquet as if he never switched. He might have played even better.
However, distribution is completely different these days. If we were to switch at this point, I'm certain we would lose some companies.
Manufacturing jobs would probably stay oversees.
Tennis is less popular then during the big boom...there are many more options to play other sports these days.
The big boom happened not because of technology bit because of the personalities ....Mcenroe , Connors , Borg.
Next to the big boom , Tennis today is more popular than its ever been.
Tennis has been gaining in popularity again in recent years. In fact, there was a Wall Street Journal article that stated this fact...it was written this summer (sorry, I don't know the specific date).
More companies does not always mean more jobs in the long term. For example, Wilson could sell more rackets to replace Prince rackets. And a company which is employing people but losing money is simply making owners and shareholders poorer and taking out loans it may not pay back. Prince filed for bankruptcy. In such cases, entities like creditors and vendors typically get a fraction of what they are owed, which is not good for the workers in those companies.
The pro shop owner speaks from experience because in his shop, Prince does not sell much. He also used to stock Volkl, but got away from it. Wilson, Bab, Dunlop and Head are what he focuses on.
Selling more racquets doesn't provide more jobs in the US...it just means an increase in production (so, possible more work in China).
The management, sales force, customer service, etc are all jobs here in the states (for American companies at least). Prince is in NJ.
We need obamatennis care . . He needs to jump In like he did for GM. .....
Print more money ! Problem solved.
Printing more money doesn't solve any problems. It just kicks the can down the road and eventually leads to even greater problems.
I know break....I was joking .
We don't need the Gov't. Just buy more racquets. And balls. Buy till it hurts.
Aha so some players can get more spin with these new racquets and some like yourself, can get more spin with more closed pattern strings like the 18x20 you mentioned.
Am I missing something or are you just blatantly self serving and self interested?
I don't know if it's more spin or what but I really love an open string pattern.
I guess my racquet progression went from the Kblade 18x20 and just going more and more open and loving it more and more.
I switched over to the Donnay pro one 16x19 and LOVED it. It was basically the same racquet as the Kblade just a more open string pattern.
Then the Vortex Tour 100 came out with a 14x15 pattern and I went nuts. It's basically the same stick as the Kblade and the Pro one but an even more open string pattern .
Now Wilson has really come out with something so intriguing.....less crosses than Mains ? WOW!!!!
Luckily I know the weight balance and size stick I love the most....but the more open a string pattern the better I seem to play.
I'm wondering if anyone knows the specs of the Wilson 99s? I saw the rumored specs and it seemed a bit on the light side . Will it be the same specs as the regular 99 steam just with a more open string pattern? Is there anyway to get the stick before January?
Also I've seen people talk about prince having a stick with a really open pattern....which stick is it?
I have never been so anxious to buy a stick.....this is more exciting than the IPhone 5 ...lol.
The current prince racquet with the most open pattern is the Warrior DB Team at 14x18: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Prince_EXO3_Warrior_DB_Team_100/descpageRCPRINCE-XOWDB.html
Thanks for that ! Very intriguing.....but I'm not even going to try it as after years of fiddling I have my specs pretty much down. These racquet specs are all wrong.
I am looking for a head light stick at about 11.0-11.6 strung with an open string pattern, and qite stiff.....67 at the least.....I don't want to deal with customization.
I will go off my range a little but not this much. At 10.4 ounces and 4 Pts head head heavyand 62 stiffness the prince is just all wrong for me.
But again thanks ! I'm sure there have been discussions on the stick so I am not going to ask anyone's thoughts on it.....unless you want to give it?
All players should have to generate their own spin using a 65 sq. in. racquet with an 18x20 pattern because that was the standard for over 100 years. Bjorn Borg could do it. If you can't do it then your technique is the problem.
So I need to cheat...lol....
The open string pattern really helps me.
Apparently Mark Woodforde possibly the greatest doubles player of all time played with a really open string pattern.....maybe the most open in history....I think 12x13?
The Vortex is more closed at a mere 14x15 so it's actually more old school than the old school.
Here's a pic of the high ten and the more modern Vortex es 100
On another note even the string is old school.....
Woodforde used a 15 gauge polyester....the Vortex which is modeled after the woodforde racquet recommends a similar 15 gauge polyester or a multifilament 15 gauge which is more old school than woodfordes poly .
In an article entitled the 'inch that changed tennis' it was shown rather satisfactorily that the modern topspin game requires a racquet far wider than the traditional wood one.
Beyond that it is a question of technique, although string pattern will change launch angle and strings will change slipperiness.
Great article if its the one in thinking of . Polyester strings by the way have been around since at least the 70's . I think Polystar was the first and before that they simply refered to it as Nylon....pretty much the same thing.
But the inch that changed tennis happened in the 70's .....it was inch added to the tennis racquet and it states that its not the equipment that has changed but the players. Their techniqie amd physique. Here ya go:
Tennis: String Theory
Professional tennis players call it "the Luxilon shot," and, apparently, you can hear it coming. The ball crosses the net hissing and spitting like some enraged tropical insect. Its most lethal element is its topspin, which can dip the ball crosscourt in short angles so extreme that "the game has gone from linear to parabolic," as ex-pro turned coach Scott McCain recently put it. "It's like ping-pong out there."
The Luxilon shot can be traced back to 1997, when Gustavo Kuerten, a gangly, low-ranked Brazilian player, decided to string his racket with a co-polymer monofilament designed by Luxilon Industries, a small Belgian company specializing in medical sutures and bra straps (it still makes both). Kuerten confounded opponents with his aggressive, dipping shots, winning three French Open Championships and reaching number one. He credited Luxilon for a crucial role in his unlikely ascent. (See pictures of Wimbledon.)
Today, natural gut strings — the strands of sterilized cow entrails once used by most professionals — have all but disappeared from pro tennis. At this year's French Open beginning May 24, 65% of men and 45% of women will use a Luxilon string, and almost all those who don't will use an imitation. This despite the fact that the family-owned company based in Antwerp refuses to pay top players to use its products and requires most to buy the string — almost unheard of in the freebie-filled world of professional tennis.
But is the "Luxilon shot" all down to Luxilon string? In a 2006 article titled "The Inch that Changed Tennis Forever," Rod Cross, a physics professor at the University of Sydney, argued that the innovation in equipment that transformed topspin from a looping, defensive shot into a dive-bombing, offensive play actually happened in the late 1970s, when equipment makers widened the heads of professional rackets from nine inches to 10 (they also dropped wood for metal and eventually graphite). The extra inch allowed players to tilt the racket forward and swing from low to high without worrying about clipping the edge of the frame when brushing up on the ball.
According to Cross, nothing much has changed since that innovation; it's only in the last 10 years that players have developed the physique and technique to take advantage of the extra width by whipping the racket up in a motion that generates about five times more spin than the ground strokes players were hitting in the 1970s. "Players were given an inch in the 1970s and they took a mile," he says.
Pinpointing the role equipment has played in tennis's evolution can be tricky, however. Conventional wisdom once held that more powerful racket frames led to the hard-serving power game of the late '90s. But a 1997 test by Tennis Magazine found that 6 ft. 5 in. (1.96 m) Australian Mark Philippoussis served at an average speed of 124 m.p.h. (200 km/h) with his own graphite racket, and an only slightly slower 122 m.p.h. (196 km/h) with a classic wooden racket.
Polyester monofilament strings do generate "slightly more" spin than older generation strings, according to the International Tennis Federation (ITF), which started testing the playing characteristics of strings three years ago, but ITF head of science Stuart Miller says he's not sure why. One theory is that far from "biting" the ball, as many players describe it, the strings are "slippery" — when the ball pulls the strings out of their gridded alignment, they snap back quickly, propelling the ball's rotation. (See pictures of Pete Sampras.)
Yet even as strings offer greater potential for spin, players need technique to fulfill that potential. As Miller says, "the most important factor in the generation of spin is racket speed." Research by Cross at the University of Sydney has shown that pro tennis players have much less feel for strings than they think, and tend to overestimate their importance. A study published last year found that 90% of professionals could not feel a 6 lb. (2.7 kg) difference in the tension of strings in two different frames — even though most professionals insist on exacting string specifications for their matches.
Players who use Luxilon string say it feels "stiff" and "dead" on impact. But Luxilon general manager Nico van Malderen says that internal testing has shown the string is actually more powerful than the average. So it's possible that players developed aggressive topspin strokes with Luxilon because they felt they needed to swing harder to generate the same pace. As former world No. 1 Jim Courier says, "Technology has been the catalyst, but my guess is that if you forced all players to go back to technology from 1950 they would play much more aggressively than previous generations. The new style is working for them." Whatever the exact interplay of man and equipment may be, it has allowed fans to witness a thrilling revolution.
Are you really that stupid? "spaghetti strings" are completely different from just fewer crosses.
Doesn't matter, with your stupid logic, it still have to be banned.
Why don't you just permanently blind fold yourself so you don't have to see the world progresses?
Completely avoids the question and tries to question my form instead. Wow.
You never directly answered so I'll take that as a "yes, the main reason I want to ban any tech is so I would have the advantage over everybody else. I'm most important."
You generate as much spin with poly as with multis, but you dont use spin.
I see now how you have 35k post. I think this is called a "circular argument".
I don't think he's saying that, exactly. I think it has more to do with the idea of using a racquet as a shortcut to improvement. As a coach, I understand and agree with that. Technique is vital to becoming better.
However, I think the game is a lot more fun with current technologies.
I wonder if the triangle pattern of the Vortex mains causes less friction as the mains would slide down the crosses at an angle instead of straight on.
If so, then Wilson's fewer crosses may not yield much more spin improvement if any over Vortex's greater number of crosses, while the Vortex may have more control due to the greater number of crosses.
Somebody will need to buy both and experiment!
It is probably just a gimmick. Somebody is not telling us the full story about the disadvantages of fewer strings.
Control .....less control with open pattern.....
But really not a big deal in my opinion
Haha, so true. Of course they recommend using their string to maximize the benefits. lol
This should be their most interesting gimmick in some time though.
I dont get why people are saying this. Unless the article that was written on Tennis.com does not have actual science behind it I dont understand why people keep calling it a marketing scheme. Have you read the article?
Do you have a link? I could not find it under Gear
Um....no. It's the same idea. Fewer or no crosses to allow the mains to move around much more to create the spin. Whether it's spaghetti strings or fewer crosses, the concept is the SAME!
Oh, and here's a tip - calling others "stupid" is a great way to get yourself banned. :???:
How is today's modern baseline bashing game "progress"?
If that's "progress", we should all go back to living in caves.
All the creativity, variety, touch, strategy, intelligence, etc. have been eliminated from the sport. That is NOT 'progress". That is regression. The game is worse now than it was before. Watching baseline bashing is mind numbing. People should get paid for sitting through an entire WTA match.
Um....how do I gain any "advantage"? I'll be using the same exact non-spin enhancing equipment as my opponent. If I can generate more spin, then I have the better technique because there was no help at all from the equipment. If my opponent can generate more spin, then he has the better technique. It's crystal clear who the better player is since it's not muddled by differences in equipment.
I prefer to hit flatter, so of course I generate the same amount of spin with multis as I do with polys. Why is that hard to understand?
If I generate 1 RPM of spin with a multi and 1 RPM of spin with a poly, then I generate "as much spin with a multi as with a poly", don't I?
I'm not taking sides here....and I understand your desire for the purity of the sport over technology.
However the answer to your question is : no.
All shots even flat shots have some spin on it.
I grant you that a ball coming in waist high you will hit flat with the same RPM regardless of the type of string.
However not all bounces are created equal....for example if someone hits a low skidding slice at you then you must lift that ball to get it over the net. It cannot be hit flat.
No, they are BETTER, because they can WIN. Your argument is all TALK, ATP tour is about who can WIN.
Points last pretty long these days. That takes a certain level of fitness, and leads to some pretty incredible shot making when the right players are competing.
Sampras on grass was not always great to watch because points were so quick...that doesn't necessarily make the game more interesting.
Just my 2 cents.
And players 40 years ago never "won"?
So how is a win today "better" than a win 40 years ago? And if it's not, how does that make today's players "better"?
Separate names with a comma.