After stringing for while, I realized that some "conventional rules" could actually be bent. Some completely ignored.
Most basic of all, is the mandate to preserve the shape of the racket hoop after stringing.
I had some brushes with hoop distortion due to my unorthodox attempts, but also encountered them when the same rackets were professionally strung. (link1)(link2)(link3)
So? What matters?
Ultimately it's how the sticks and strings perform after they were strung. So I did up a pair - same rackets, same specs, same strings and same tension. Just to experience how different they play!
The normal one was done first. Straightforward string job, no problems.
The other one was intended to be "compressed shorter but wider". So I mounted the racket but left one mounting posts completely loose and untightened! Just to let the racket shorten when the mains were tensioned.
With the super soft hoop of the Black Ace 98, this experiment was easy.
This was the normal one at 329 mm and 245 mm.
Below was the distorted one at 324 mm and 250 mm.
From stringbed frequency measurements, the distorted frame registered a higher pitch by about 37 hz. This represents the amount that would drop overnight with no play, so it was significant.
To ensure the shortened racket had the same swingweight, a 4 grams dampener was used whereas the normal racket was dampened by rubberbands weighing 0.5 grams.
Some online folks claimed that shortened and widened hoops play better with a slightly larger sweetspot due to the elongated cross strings. I did not experience it.
Power and control felt close, with the distorted one slightly lowered-powered. Spin also felt similar.
The only significant difference I picked up seemed to be comfort. With or without dampeners, there was more dull vibrations coming from the distorted frame during off-centred hits.
A minor difference was the distorted frame seemed to flex less, especially when I was in the perfect position ready to unleash a winner. I could not be sure of this though.
By any standard, 5 mm is a significant distortion. I have cut strings out and re-done them even with 4 mm distortions. Given how little differences I felt, I may need to re-evaluate my hoop distortion tolerances.
But before I do that, I suspect a hoop narrowing is more damaging. (link) I may need to re-do this experiment.
Having tried many variants of proportional stringing (link) successfully, I became a believer.
Of course there are pros and cons, but from my experience, proportional stringing worked great to enlarge the sweetspot, add power and heaps of comfort to any racket.
However, my success was limited to synthetic gut. Given how passe synthetic gut is now, it is difficult to convince anyone to try proportional stringing with it.
Strangely, the greatest dislike of synthetic gut, was string movements. Not the lack of spin, since almost everyone who tried, commented spin was similar to their full poly setups!
The basic premise of proportional stringing is managing string elasticity. When tensioned equally, for example at 50 lbs, the shorter strings in the racket would always feel tighter than the longer strings. The difference between mains and crosses is often quoted to be in the 25-35% region.
With synthetic gut, it is easy to string proportionately. Just measure the lengths of every string, select a base tension, then apportion it based on string length. The average 10% elasticity of synthetic gut is wide enough for small differences in tensions to be felt.
With poly strings, it is a different story due to their very narrow elastic range of about 2-4%. As a result, even when strung proportionately, the reduced tension is insufficient to add enough elasticity to the shorter strings. My testers and myself could not feel any difference during playtests.
After many failures, an eureka moment suddenly came! I added a "string elasticity factor" to widen the tension gap, and thereby widening the elasticity gap as well.
For example, if a poly string's elasticity is about 3%, and the player wanted to increase forgiveness, I could add a string factor of about 1.3. When applied to the string lengths and tensions, it would look something like:
Without String Elasticity Factor
30cm --> 60 lbs
20cm --> 40 lbs (20/30 x 60)
With String Elasticity Factor of 1.3
30cm --> 60 lbs
20cm --> 34 lbs [30-(1.3 x (30-20))]/30 x 60
(Round to the nearest lbs)
Correspondingly, to tighten up the control of proportional stringing using high elasticity strings like multi or synthetic gut, I would use a string factor of below 1.0 to narrow the gaps.
Since every poly has different elasticity and a distinct elasticity curve, coupled with the player's unique hitting pattern, it took a few attempts to get the factor right.
But once it was ascertained, a competitive junior remarked that "he was in poly heaven". Others described it as "incredibly soft and comfortable" and "powerful and very spinny".
With the factor applied, some of the shorter strings could end up at a ridiculous 10+ lbs. To prevent that, you can make your own adjustments to the string factor, or set a minimum/maximum tension. Also, a gentle pre-stretch would eliminate the string buzz often found in very low tensioned poly strings.
That said, it still does not negate the fact that most polys are harsh and need to be restrung after every 8-10 hours of play, or less.
And by the way, Tim, to answer your question, this was exactly how your racket was strung with full poly.
This racket elicits strong emotions from everyone. Those who have used it, keeps reminiscing about how well it felt and played. Those who have not tried it, could never resist the urge for a few swings.
The most dramatic incident I encountered while playing with a ProStaff, was a verbal lashing from an elderly man.
Within minutes of taking this racket on court, he started scolding me for using that stick because I was not Pete Sampras. Then proceeded to grab/pry the stick from my hands, wanting to teach me how to wield it properly.
I held firmly, stood still and calmly asked:
"Then are you Pete Sampras? I don't think so. You would not know how to use this racket too. Please leave."
Despite having played for only about 20 minutes, he packed up and left the courts.
I must have been doing great injustice to the ProStaff...
Having done full syn gut (link) and gut/poly (link), the next step would be to try how full poly would play in this 80/20 graphite/kevlar composite racket.
I was curious how much spin could I extract from this old faithful? And how much more difficult to use would poly make this racket?
Nothing could compare with gut/poly. Against full syn gut, surprisingly, full poly was only marginally more demanding. Sweetspot size felt the same. Power was very close. Control was slightly better.
I thought it would have been a no contest against syn gut and was prepared for a lot of hard work. But it wasn't. Although I had mis-hits and framed shots, those that caught the stringbed were enjoyable - baseline rallies, high forehands/backhands, swinging volleys, drop shots, serves and return of serves.
Makes me wonder if the softness and playability of the latest poly strings has surpassed syn gut?
The choice to use the thinnest gauge (1.10mm) poly was good. It added a lot of spin which covered some of my other deficiencies. So I focused on hitting deep and spinny and got away winning the first set, although the energy expended on the heavy frame felt like I have already played several.
Still, if anyone wants to continue to use this antique piece, gut/poly is the best only way to keep it fit for use in today's fast-paced game. Even then, I would not suggest anyone use it for serious matches. Only for training and friendlies.
A little after this post (link), several asked if I could help them spot their ball impact areas and then to optimize their racket sweetspots.
If you cannot find anyone, nor capture the impact on video, one very simple way is to study your string notches. The deeper the notch, the more regular the impact.
The above picture was shot from the side of the racket, somewhere around 10 o'clock.
The strings have been played with for about 8 hours. All the cross strings were pulled apart to reveal the notches. Regardless of string type, the deepest notches always occur in the main strings between the 7th, 8th and 9th cross for me.
So I know, for this racket with 20 cross strings, my natural bias is to hit the ball a little higher than the middle. This would be one basis for my stringing adjustment later on.
Another way would be to apply some stencil ink all over both sides of the stringbed. Note the ink would stain your tennis balls.
If you could hold the racket the same side up, such that your forehand and backhand are always hitting on different sides of the string bed, you could even study your impact patterns for both wings!
