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!