Budget Natural Gut

If natural gut could be made more affordable, then there would be much less arm injuries.

Maybe, more than half of the current string brands could also close down due to poor demand.

Other than price, there is nothing to hold anyone back from trying or using natural gut. That string alone is capable of elevating anyone's game. Natural gut excels in power, control, spin and comfort like no other.

That's why the lure of cheap gut is irresistible... (Thanks to Cullin Kin for sharing his review here)

As with most new strings, I like to weigh them and check the exact gauge. It's 14 grams for half a set of this budget natural gut. That's very heavy.

Although touted to be 16 gauge, it measured closer to 1.50mm. That's about 14L or 15 gauge! Thick!

The string felt much stiffer and coarser than all other natural guts I had tried. Whatever coating it had appeared very little and somewhat inconsistent. There were many "weak spots" where the gut had no coatings at all.

Coil memory was minimal. It just expanded apart when the cable tie was cut.

From the packing, the string was downright oily! Probably had as much oil as my breakfast bacon. Did they deep fry the natural gut before packing it?!?

Took a few pieces of tissue just to wipe off most of the oil. If not cleaned properly, it would wreck havoc on the string clamps and gripper later on during stringing.

Despite that, more oil seeped out from the string during tensioning. So it became - thread, wipe, tension, wipe, wipe...

Compared to any other natural guts, this had very little elongation during tensioning. It felt stiff, like a poly.

Most of the whitish spots in the close-up pic below were weak spots with almost zero coating. Just plain natural gut fibres twisted together. It held up well after tensioning though.

Strung as a gut/poly hybrid in a 16x19 frame at 52/48 lbs, it played terribly.

The stringbed responded ONLY to all out 100% full swings. Shots hit softer felt dead, stiff and boardy. Nothing like natural gut at all. It resembled dead full poly more than a fresh bed of gut/poly.

Giving it a benefit of doubt, my friend clobbered balls against the wall to see if the string would "break-in". But it remained dead, even after several hours of play over a few sessions.

So we moved on to try another pack that measured thinner although all were labelled as 16 gauge.

Gauge was inconsistent throughout that same piece of 6.5 metres half-set. Some parts measured 1.25mm, other area about 1.40mm.

Fortunately, this second pack was overall thinner than the first pack we tried. However, 16 gauge would mean about 1.30mm, or 1.32mm at most. This 1.40mm diameter would still put it squarely into the 15 gauge category. So gauge wise, it remained unacceptably inconsistent to me.

Using about 3 feet from the end, I pulled tensioned at 52 lbs, marked and measured the elongation and let it stay under tension for about 10 minutes. The creep, frequency and string diameter all behaved close to other natural guts I have used.

To ensure consistency with the first pack, this was strung in another identical frame, with the same poly cross, at the same tension and with the same tie-offs. Literally ceteris paribus.

Even during stringing, I could tell this would play much better. The string no longer resisted stretching like a poly. It was much softer and pliable.

However, the inconsistent gauge seemed to affect elongation slightly. Within the 8 centre mains, which are very close in length (due to the Yonex isometric head shape), the same amount of slack provided for near the string gripper DID NOT allow the tension arm to be as near parallel as it should.

Translated, this meant there would be "hot spots" on the stringbed that may be exceptionally lively and powerful. And there would be "dead spots" where the gut would yield less and have less power. All within just the centre 8 main strings.

The chap whom I strung this for, M, seemed to enjoy this setup very much. While the performance could not be rated similar to better guts, the price/performance ratio was good enough for him to consider converting to this setup. It all depends how long the playability would last.

Exactly what I meant when I mentioned the lure of cheap gut earlier.




   

Badminton Racket with Fishing Line

Recently, there has been some requests for me to re-string badminton rackets. I have no idea how and why this happened. Those who know that I string just started asking.

To them, it seemed like stringing is just stringing. There is no distinction between different sports nor rackets.

So, on a hot and lazy afternoon, out of sheer boredom, and a tinge of curiosity, I ventured out to try stringing my first badminton racket. It's mine, so there's little risk even if damaged. 

After studying the old string pattern carefully, I cut out the three decade's old strings on my Yonex Carbonex 8.

This stringjob was intended for a little girl, so there is no better color to choose other than pink! The centre mains were threaded first since they would be obstructed by the mounting plates.

Most online sources recommended a string tension of between 16 to 20 lbs for this racket. And 20 lbs happened to the minimum tension this stringing machine could accomodate. So 20 lbs it was.

(Even with the minimum calibration at 20 lbs, it is possible to tension it lower by manipulating the angle of the tension arm. If I set the tension at 25 lbs, but only allowed the tension arm to lower to 45 degrees, the actual tension pulled would be only 17.7 lbs)

To prevent the string clamps from snapping the string, I inserted thin pieces of paper to act as a "cushion". This ensures the paper was squashed instead of the thin string. The paper fibres also added a lot more friction and grip. I experienced zero slippage throughout.

It was important to note that badminton rackets are strung bottom-up. Cannot recall the rationale but something alone the lines to prevent distortion I think.

Weaving was difficult. The very dense 22x23 string pattern meant my fingers could not push the strings through the gaps as well as on a tennis racket. I was slow, but got the job done.

The stringjob was far from ideal. But it was an enjoyable learning experience and perfectly playable!




     

Bad Batch of Strings?

It's the school holidays and I was busy with a lot of stringing and customizations. One after another. Almost non stop. 

With the Black Friday sales and Christmas mood, many were testing new string setups. Almost all wanted more spin.

Strangely, there was one poly string that kept snapping during tensioning. After the initial string snap, every single grommet hole was scrutinized thoroughly. All was in order.

The string gripper and clamps were stripped apart, cleaned and checked before re-assembling. 

The poly string was also examined for kinks, nicks or other damages. None were found.

But when I applied tension on the mains, it just snapped. Not very tight, just 50 lbs on a 1.23 mm shaped poly.

Sustained a small cut on my left arm from the string lashing. Guess this is all part of stringing. Another reason why I just cannot like poly...

Should be a bad batch since I cut it out from the reel. At least it was not as bad as my previous lashing (link).

     

Customizations, Strings and Skill Levels

Whenever someone asked, and I recommended some "exotic" string, like gut/poly, their standard response were always:
- natural gut is too expensive,
- it is too fragile and I am afraid of breaking it, &/or
- I am not good enough to use natural gut yet.

Other times, some readers of this blog would ask what level of tennis I play. To them, the credibility of my claims must be tagged to my ntrp level. The higher the level of tennis I play, the more weightage they would accord my advice. 

I wonder what ntrp is Nate Ferguson and Ron Yu... (link)

As with everything anyone reads from any source, there are always statements of facts and of opinions. It is up to the reader to determine which is which. Fact to me, may be opinion to you.

What I cannot understand is, does it really need a gourmet chef with decades of experience, and a couple Michelin stars, to enjoy and appreciate a perfectly prepared Japanese A5 Wagyu beef steak?

Or must someone attain the driving proficiency of Lewis Hamilton before he knows how to enjoy the handling of a Mercedes AMG?

Some months back, I hit with (actually was clobbered by) a group of ex-college competitive players. They claimed to be ntrp 5.0-5.5 during their active days and could have dropped to 4.5 then. They tested a few of my string setups and we shared the same opinions of how it played.

On another occasion, a beginner with less than a year's playing experience, developed such a massive forehand topspin shot that dwarfed our strokes. But since he had no backhand, could not serve nor volley nor return serve well, he rated himself ntrp 2.5. Nevertheless, he benefited from his gut/poly setup.

Even at the professional level, players' skill levels are not uniform across all their strokes. Federer's backhand is weaker than his forehand. Santiago Giraldo is known for his blazing return-of-serves. Samuel Groth and Milos Raonic made their names mainly from their powerful serves. And Nadal for his spin.

So should these pros' rackets and strings setup be done to optimise their strengths or to cover their weaknesses?

Put simply, I am convinced there is no need to achieve specific levels of play before anyone can utilise a good racket and strings setup. The key is how consistent they are at their individual levels. 

Undoubtedly, the better player will bring out more from the setup than the weekend hacker. But both benefits from it!

As long as one can afford it, and wishes to try any fanciful setup available, go get it done! YOLO!




     

Heavy Rackets Again: 400 grams

For at least about 100 years, between the 1870s to the 1970s, tennis was most commonly played with wooden rackets. (link)

At that time, 13 to 14 ounces rackets (368-400 grams) was the norm. Everyone who wanted to play, had to get used to the weight, including women and children.

The last time I used very heavy rackets (370-390 grams) was about 2 years ago. (link) I stopped after injuring my wrist.

Now, with a better understanding of my limited capabilities, plus knowing how to tweak the racket weights and strings, I thought I should give this another try...

This time, I kept swingweight down to "only" about 365 kg/cm².

Air swings after the final adjustments felt good. The swing speed was definitely slower than lighter rackets, but the heavy plow felt really nice, and familiar.

Surprisingly, the first two sessions on court was very good. It did not take me long to get in tune with the weight and timing. It was like bumping into an old friend on the street, and continuing exactly where we left off last time.

However, my partners suffered. Both LOVED receiving heavy balls. So I did not hold back and let it all out.

The first partner showed no emotions throughout. After the session, my partner showed me the red and swollen index finger base knuckle. Apparently, my shots had been pushing back my partner's stick every impact and the hand bore the brunt of the shock.

The second partner uses a racket about 90 grams lighter than mine. Almost all my shots were returned to me very short. Just barely passing the net a meter or so. I had to tone down to get a decent rally going.

At another session with another partner, the outcome was totally different. He was initially surprised by how heavy and spinny the ball was (see ball fur pic above). But got used to it in about 10 minutes.

Instead of blocking my shots, he took compact back swings with full follow-throughs, just like return of serves, and simply re-directed my pace back at me. I do not recall ever seeing him hit such fast paced shots and so deftly placed. He was using MY energy!

I switched back to my normal racket and immediately saw him struggle to generate pace. His balls fell so short it did not even clear the service line. Or they flew out due to loss of control. In the end, he reverted back to flatter shots hit straight to me.

What was unexpected, was that the change back to a lighter stick was much more difficult to adapt than when picking up a heavier stick. My timing became too fast, my footwork wrong, control became very poor, spin levels dipped and volleys were suddenly so unstable!

If you have never tried heavy sticks and think this is ridiculous, you could have missed the point. There are reasons why top pros insist on such heavy rackets. And these heavy sticks are not as unwieldy nor cumbersome as most people think! 

Don't believe me? 

Take a look at how fast and easily these 10 to 12 years old kids adapted to a male tour pro's heavy racket, and with no warmup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCw2gZM-eNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d07GAyQuuY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMeXWXzoJqs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JugXpLT3EVI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uSl3UycOoo

For me, the acid test is when I meet "M" and pit it against his nuclear powered stick. (link) That would be the "Clash of the Titans!"


5th November 2015 update:

Mission accomplished. 

Happy to cross swords with the 200G now!


     

My Thoughts on Low-Powered Setups

In all sports, participants compete with one another on technique, power, speed, control and stamina.

So when someone comes to me asking for the "lowest power string setup", I don't get it (link). Do they have a bionic arm installed? How do they get excess energy to burn?

A short conversation often reveals the true problem - imbalance.

Many recreational players only rally back and forth with about 60-70% of their strokes focused on their forehands. Their backhands remain weak and slow. (Forget about serves and return of serves, they are not interested.)

Among the many self-rated NTRP 3.5 to 5.0+ I played with, most have a huge variance between their strongest and weakest strokes. 

One had serves closer to 5.5. He could hit them flat, with side spin or top spin, aim consistently down the "T" or pull out wide. Not different from what I saw on TV from the pros. But his backhands was around 3.0 at best. Lack of practice partners, he claimed.

Another could execute ANY shot and place it anywhere with his double-backhand, but all other aspects were lacking.

Even among top pros, like Federer, his forehand is superior to his backhand. And Santiago Giraldo most famous for his return of serves (link), although his form is inconsistent.

Just like the way most of us are right-handed, these imbalances are unavoidable.

But when modern rackets are becoming lighter, faster and more powerful, the "problem" arises. This discrepancy between their strong and weak strokes becomes enormous! 

Their stronger wing becomes EVEN stronger! Their weaker wing could not tap fully into the power of the new racket as it still lacks control. So they turned to "taming" the power instead!

Broadly, the tennis game has four components:
- Serve
- Return of Serve
- Groundstrokes
- Net Play

We should train all aspects regularly. 

My recommendation is always to use as heavy a racket as one can handle comfortably, and as powerful a setup as one can control the shots with. Be efficient!



     

Swinging or Hitting?

For a little more than a decade, I played golf and dabbled with clubmaking. 

And when the golf club fitters and club makers started turning away my very unusual requests, I learnt how to DIY. 

Pulling and swapping shafts, shaft flex tunings via tip/butt trims, spine alignments, total weight and swingweight adjustments, MOI matchings, grip sizings, clubhead CG adjustments, wedge grinds, lie/loft alterations, parkerization re-finishing, etc. I did them all.

To match the shafts and clubheads appropriately, I had to understand the golf swing. Both my friends' whom I fit for and my own. That was when I first encountered the term "swinging or hitting". (link1)(link2)

While I have never heard nor read this concept being applied to tennis, a lot of similarities cropped up repeatedly as I modify and re-string rackets. 

Generally, a "swinger":
- uses a light grip pressure,
- takes long loopy backswings,
- relies on the racket's momentum to hit the ball,
- looks relaxed and effortless during impact.

Whereas a "hitter":
- clenches the racket grip tightly,
- takes very short backswings,
- relies on forearm strength to muscle the racket through,
- tenses up during impact.

It is possible to be both swinging and hitting in a series of rallies. However, usually one trait is dominant. In my opinion, Federer swings the racket more often, whereas Nadal hits more than swing.

These two traits translates to very different demands on one's preference for equipment.

A "swinger" usually prefers:
- heavier rackets with high swingweights, 
- de-polarized weight distribution,
- rackets with some flex

Whereas a "hitter" prefers:
- lighter rackets with maneuverable swingweights,
- polarized weight distribution,
- stiffer rackets

Understanding this helped me solve a lot of racket selection struggles, both mine and others. 

As I have mentioned previously (link), more often than not, the racket "problems" many faced tend to be player related rather than equipment.


     

Restringing the Dunlop Max 200G

When I bought this for M (link), I knew I would have to restring it. 

With a tight 18x20 string pattern, 12 shared holes in a tiny 80+ square inch headsize, I was not looking forward to it.

Since it was strung, I took a picture before I cut out the old strings just to ensure I adhere to the correct string pattern.

Just for my own reference (T=Top B=Bottom):
String Pattern: 18x20
Mains Skip 9B
Shared Holes: 7T, 8T, 9T  &  7B, 8B, 10B

Then I cut out the old strings.

There was plenty of hoop squeaks and movements when I cut the strings. This was clear indication of the very soft and flexy hoop. Something to look out for during stringing - to maintain hoop shape.

The mains was extremely easy to do. In the entire frame, there were only 12 grommets. 6 at the throat and the rest scattered at approximately 11 & 1 o'clock, 3 & 9 o'clock and 4 & 8 o'clock. 

Not sure why it was designed that way, but the grommet-less mains holes were huge, super easy to find and thread through. I felt reassured that the shared holes would not pose a huge problem.

It was not difficult to thread through the shared holes at all. Very smooth stringing.

Looks good with the black strings too.




     

Nuclear Powered Softie - Dunlop Max 200G

For a few years now, an old friend, "M", has been searching for his long lost "old love" - the Dunlop Max 200G. The one from the 1980s used by John McEnroe and Steffi Graf. (link1)(link2)

When I saw one put up for sale, I bought it immediately! Since it was from the 80s, to be fair, I brought my 80's stick (ProStaff 85) to pit against the 200G.

Although the 200G was a graphite racket, it played incredibly soft. With a flex of RA 40+, it is probably the softest graphite racket ever made. That flex is almost on par with wooden frames!

I thought it would be a challenge to wield the 365 grams racket. Maneuverability would be pathetic. Not to mention that meagre 84 square inch head size. And that 18x20 dense stringbed...

But I was very very wrong!

While I cannot say the racket was fast, it played extremely well! Effortlessly well. And it had a HUGE sweetspot! Much easier to handle than the PS85. More comfortable. More powerful. And oh so comfortably SOFT!!!

Usually, when I bring out my PS85, I was the bully. The beefed up heavy swingweight of almost 350 kg/cm² meant very few could push me around. Even their hardest shots could easily be returned or simply blocked back deep with a compact swing.

Against the stock 200G, I was the victim!

I took full loopy swings and flattened out my swing path. Smacked the back of the ball directly forward with mere inches of net clearance. 

But I could do no damage to my heavily-armed opponent. 

My partner took a leisurely swing and returned ALL my power into the ball right back at me. I did not have to run. I had enough time to swing, load up and step into the shot. Despite that, I could not sustain the VERY heavy impacts.

By the fourth or fifth of each rally ball, I was spent. My shots became shorter and slower. Then my timing went. Out of about 10 balls we used, 9 eventually hit the tape or went into the net.

The change from bully to victim was demoralizing. This is simple physics. Sir Isaac Newton explained:

Force = Mass x Acceleration

No one can defy this physical law. The one who can wield the heavier stick prevails. Why else would professional tennis players use such ridiculously heavy rackets with high swingweights?

Luckily, my partner could only handle the 200G for brief moments of about 10-15 minutes. So we could take turns to rule the court and dictate play!




     

A Very Close Shave...

A competitive player asked if I could help him fine tune his strings setup.

Both his coach and himself claimed he was hitting well. They attributed the control issues he faced to the strings.

However, he liked his current 1.10mm thin poly strings. Better bite, more feel and more spin, he said. Well, common sense dictates - thicker string, more control right?

But instead, they wanted to increase the string tension on the 16x19 frame. By 10 pounds! To 72 lbs! I felt dizzy just listening to him mentioned THAT number!

As usual, my way of dealing with this pesky behaviour was to quote an insanely ridiculous price (link), hoping to turn him away diplomatically.

But he accepted! And paid upfront! Oh my goodness!!!

Before stringing, I put on a long sleeve shirt to protect my arms. While tensioning, I kept my face away from the racket as far as possible. But it was still not enough...

While pulling the outer mains, the string snapped! The flying clamps flew!

And the string that was under tension, whipped around and lashed me across my neck, chest and left hand. If NASA recorded some earthquake-like shock waves from Asia, it was my scream! 

OUCH...!!!

My first knuckle on my left hand and ring finger turned numb. 

It felt like my skin has split open. Took off my shirt to check, and saw my neck received a lashing as well.

Super lucky it missed my face!

Next time anyone wants high tension with thin strings, it would be US$2,000,000.00. Per racket! Upfront! In cash!




     

Racket Cleanliness

After 18 months of incessant testing of new strings, an old friend, PK (link), got in touch again. He wanted to try proportional stringing with full poly. (link)

So he handed me his Babolat APD which he bought used, for a very good deal. However, the racket was so dirty.

Perhaps ingrained by my mentor many many years ago, I instinctively cleaned up the frame using an old toothbrush and rag.

Then I inspected the racket. And found two hairline cracks at the throat area, previously buried under all the dirt and grime. It doesn't show up well in the pics below, but yes, they are cracks.

Could this be why my mentor always insisted I clean rackets before working on them? I have no idea. Neither any way to check with him now.

After obtaining the green light to proceed from PK, I cut out the old strings, measured all the variables, then started work.

To me, it sure felt better working on a clean racket. The more important lesson though, is to always check used frames carefully before buying them. Clean them first if possible.

Fortunately, the cracks are very minor. It should remain playable for a good while more.

Playtest:
- After playing with it for 3 hours with his regular partners, PK was full of praise for proportional stringing. 
- In his words, he wrote:

"Yo, here is my verdict. Spin, power, comfort and control were all superb..."

- And this was what he wrote about what his playing partners commented:

"They say the spin control really good" and "A lot of pace".

- Downside was he felt he needed to make some adjustments to his grip, swing and serve. But overall, he was very satisfied.
- I replied that I had expected the adjustments because the spin-to-power ratio of this setup was very different from his regular setup of full poly. If he felt no difference and needed no changes, then why should I spend SO MUCH more time stringing his racket proportionately?
- Somehow, I get the feeling that PK is going to be asking ONLY for proportional stringing from now on...




     

Can a 18x20 String Pattern Be Open?

Before the popularity of spin patterns (eg 16x15), there were only two dominant string patterns - 16x19 or 18x20. The former was known as an "open pattern" and the latter a "closed/dense pattern".

But can those definitions of open or closed be universally applied to all 16x19s and 18x20s?

Even with the same racket headsize, I found it was not so straightforward. 

Take a look at the 18x20 ProKennex Black Ace 98 versus the 16x19 Dunlop M-Fil300 below. Both are 98 square inches.

If you examine the string gaps carefully, it would be difficult to ascertain which racket's string gaps are larger, isn't it? The difference is so minute!

The total width of the 18 main strings in the BA98 is about 19.1 cm. For the Mfil300, the 16 mains are about 18.1 cm apart. So on average, each racket's main string are about 1.06 cm and 1.13 cm apart, respectively. With a tiny difference of only 0.07 cm, or 0.7 mm!!!

What about the cross strings' gap then?

All the crosses in the BA98 span over 25.5 cm versus 24.0 cm for the Mfil300. This translates to an average cross string gap of about 1.275 cm and 1.263cm respectively.

To me, both rackets have equally open strings!

It is very important to dispel the generalizations between open and closed string patterns because this has huge implications on tension and string selection, which in turn determines spin, power, string durability, comfort and control. 





     

How I Would Choose a Racket

Despite so much information available online, about how to choose a tennis racket, so many are still confused how to proceed.

For example:
Selecting the Right Racquet
How To Choose The Right Racquet

Both websites above discussed in great detail about important racket features like headsize, length, swingweight, total weight, balance, string pattern, etc.

But how is it that so many people still get their picks way off? Then sell the racket, pick another, just to find the same dislike? (link)

I believe there is nothing wrong with the rackets. Nor the strings. Nor the racket specs. Maybe QC could cause some variances, but they remain completely playable.

What almost everyone overlooked, were their own "specs", such as:
- fitness levels,
- speed around the court,
- style of play,
- strength and endurance,
- tennis objectives, and
- playing partners.

When selecting a racket and string setup, for myself or others, I always prioritize these personal traits above all else. (Although price sometimes take precedence)

The root problem is, everybody over-rates their abilities. For example, when asked about their average serve speed, they state their fastest speed, then add a couple mph. Same for their ntrp levels. And backhand consistency. And amount of topspin they generate.

Ironically, when these same folks see a total beginner wielding Federer's / Nadal's / Djokovic's rackets, they could list so many reasons why that racket does not suit them. Definitely, knowledge is not lacking.

To avert this, one can:
- record and study videos of your own match play, or
- listen to feedback from your playing partners.

Everyone who first saw themselves playing on video were shocked how they actually hit the ball! It brought most back to reality, except for a few stubborn ones with huge egos who blamed the balls, strings, etc, for their dismal performance. So I left them in their rut.

When I last checked, some were still searching for their ideal stick. Some gave up due to too many rackets accumulating. The saddest ones were those who ended up with severe wrist, elbow or shoulder injuries that cut short their tennis hobby.

If all this is still too much information to sift, then start with your own on-court movement and footwork. They determine how much time you have to swing and hit the ball, which ultimately decides how much racket weight you could bear.