Oldie: 1970s Head Master Aluminium

After decades of hearing from his old man on how well the old aluminium stick played, a young chap finally dusted off his dad's old racket and asked if I could restring it.

"With full poly", he asked.

I always have a thing for oldies, such as:
My 30+ Years Old Slazenger Woody
Another 30+ Years Old Racket By Head
Oldie: Yonex R-10
Yonex Couguss II
Exploding Woody - 1980s Slazenger Vilas

So I accepted after the usual disclaimers and upfront payment.

I'll let the pics do the talking...

I had a session with the chap. The racket was very flexible and comfy. Despite it's strung and gripped total weight of about 380 grams, it was not that difficult to whip this around. 

Even serves were good! I managed an out-wide ace!

Strangely, with a head size of probably 60+ sq inches, coupled with a dense 18x18 string pattern, the string gaps were still large enough to generate more than enough spin to match today's spin effect sticks! I attribute that to the soft flex and heavy swingweight. (link)

The young chap did not fancy this racket, so he traded it with me for something else he liked. 

Glad to add another nice find to my collection!




     

Replicating an ATP Top Ten Professional Racket Specs

Through an introduction from someone I have worked with, I met a chap who claimed to be a ntrp 4.5-5.0 player and needed some help.

Everytime I hear about someone's self-rated ntrp rating, it was always inflated. So I took it with a pinch of salt.

We met for coffee.

He requested for anonymity so I cannot post too much details. I'll call him "RX".

In a nutshell, RX was a college player who dabbled in several futures tournaments. He trained and played through pain, and is now paying the price with recurring tennis elbow. 

Surprisingly, he has never heard of ProKennex rackets. And the racket manufacturer's claim that it helps with tennis elbow! 

If you missed the test report by the professor from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it was quite impressive! (link)

The question RX kept asking was whether this comfort-oriented racket could perform for a high level player. Other than Andreas Seppi, he could not google anyone else using a ProKennex on tour. 

RX was not the first, nor the only high-level player asking me that question. So I had expected it.

Ultimately, there was only one way to find out. RX gave me his racket specs and asked if I would be willing to modify one of my ProKennex to his exact specs. Then let him test. He offered to bear all materials cost plus labour.

I accepted. 

What intrigued me was that his specs was similar to a current ATP top ten male player. I have always wondered how would such a stick wield. How could I turn away this chance to kill two birds with one stone? And I still get to keep my racket after!!!

If you are a hardcore follower of tour pro's racket specs, you will know there are only three variables that determine every other aspect of the racket.

RX allowed me to share only one digit from each of the three variables. See if you can make any sense out of it:
x6x
x5x
x2x

Here's some pics of the process...

Added three layers of lead tape under the bumper in above pic.

Added three layers of lead tape inside throat grommets.

Can still see the thick layers of lead tape after replacing the throat grommet.

This was the peek inside the butt before some silicone and lead was inserted. If you are attempting this, please remove the rusty staples first.

These were just a part of the changes made. There were others that I agreed to keep confidential.

When all was completed, I went to RX's apartment for a playtest with his hitting partner. I observed.

As RX was here on holiday and recuperating from his tennis elbow, he was a little rusty. His timing was off for some difficult shots. But during co-operative hitting, I was amazed at his consistency, depth, direction and spin. It looked so effortless!

It rained last night so I could see the ball marks where his shots landed. For that co-operative hitting, I could fit 90% of his shots within a 4 ft by 4 ft square! And they were not pushing, blocking nor dinking the ball!

Search youtube for tour pro practice videos. That's how it looked like. Very humbling for a hacker like me. With their kind of pace and spin, I would not have lasted more than 3-4 shots in their usual 15-20 shots rallies.

And the sound of their ball impacts were loud and crisp. The ball crushing came with loud distinct pops.

Then they played a match while I sat miserably staring at my phone.

Almost two hours and very little pain or discomfort. I could see RX was back to swinging the racket freely. He was no longer held back by pain, nor fear of pain. 

When I had my chance later, the racket was quite maneuverable. Heavy but not completely unwieldy. Not as difficult to use as I had imagined it to be. I liked the plowthrough and stability!

Thanks RX, I enjoyed working with you and have learnt much too!


     

It's the Racket & Strings!!!!

During my game, I noticed a group of teenagers playing a doubles match next court under the watchful eyes of their coach.

School team players I suppose. After my session, I sat outside to chill and see if I could learn a thing or two from them.

Between sips, I observed their footwork, movement, anticipation, strategy, serves, strokes, style of play, etc. 

As the coach barked instructions, it appeared clear to me that all four players were struggling not because of technique, but due to "inferior" equipment.

Among them were two Babolats, one Wilson and one Head racket. From the impact sound, all were strung with poly strings. New tournament balls were used.

Those are all good rackets. By "inferior", I meant ill-fitting. It seemed like they were selecting based on marketing hype rather than proper fit. (link1)(link2)

Physically, all four of them were about 1.6+ metres tall, and probably only low-60s kg. All were tanned and skinny.

The table below summed up my observations, assuming their rackets were unmodified:

Other than Player "C", the rest were all late on contact for serves and return of serves. It was evident the swingweights of 335, 327 and 332 were too much for Players "A", "B" and "D" respectively. Second serves were all suicide serves.

Neither could they control their serve returns accurately. Other than "C", most of their serve returns were either mere blocks or mis-hits. "C" hit some beautiful down-the-lines and passed the net guy, and some lob returns as well.

Groundstrokes were the only part of the game they did well in. But ironically, players "B" and "C" who were using the spinnest rackets were hitting the flattest groundstrokes! 

From my estimate, about two-thirds to three-quarters of "B" and "C" topspin shots were sitters which their opponents slammed down on. That could be why they hit flat to keep the bounce low.

For volleys, only "A" managed some consistency in imparting backspin and placing the shots into blank spaces. Even "C", who used the lowest swingweight, struggled. Could be pain in his elbow. 

A soft spoken lady, I presume to be the mother of one of the boys, saw me shaking my head incessantly, and came over to ask why.

I asked which kid was hers and shared the same information I posted above. Being a long-time tennis player herself, she agreed. However, the kid was insistent not to lose his strongest part of the game - groundstrokes.

From the impact sounds, the bite, dwell time and the way the ball comes off the strings, I felt the poly strings were all past their prime or tensioned way too high. In my opinion, none needed poly strings.

If they would heed advice, this would be one group where a racket and string change would yield almost immediate improvements to their game. I have made it happen many times.

But well..... like the mother said, they are entitled to their own choices.




     

Which Racket Characteristic Comes First?

All who have played with me know I use ProKennex rackets. 

Many made the "mistake" of trying them, and ended up getting hooked to the impeccable comfort. Even those with no arm injuries.

Before you place an order for ProKennex, note that all my rackets are heavily modified. And it's not just lead tape or silicone added. If you have missed them, here's some of the mods I've tried:

http://unorthodoxstringing.blogspot.sg/2015/02/custom-drilling-10x19-spin-pattern.html

http://unorthodoxstringing.blogspot.sg/2013/04/overhaul-wilson-hammer-58-syn-gut-3228.html

http://unorthodoxstringing.blogspot.sg/2013/06/overhaul-pro-kennex-black-ace-98.html

http://unorthodoxstringing.blogspot.sg/2014/07/extending-racket-by-inch.html

http://unorthodoxstringing.blogspot.sg/2014/01/tri-brid-stringing-vs-varied-tension.html

With the spin and power craze, marketing has been focusing on what consumers want, just to generate sales.

But has anyone considered what is the most important factor in a tennis racket? Is it spin? Or power? Or control?

For me, and a lot of people who thought otherwise, it is comfort. 

Think of the folks who play the most amount of tennis - professionals. Do you notice most prefer a flex in the high-50s to mid-60s? And many have silicone to both add weight and dampening.

Once comfort is established, we can enhance other variables. If we want more spin, use full poly with proportional stringing (link). For power and spin, gut/poly. For control and spin and durability, kevlar/poly or kevlar/zyex.

Almost all aspects, like power, spin or control can be added. But if comfort is absent, then all the other variables become limited. 

Think about it, how much spin or power do you want to add if every impact was already jarringly painful?

Please keep this in mind before your next racket purchase.

Play safe!


PS: Please do not take this as my endorsement for ProKennex rackets. There are many other comfortable playing sticks from other brands.


     

Update to No More Tennis Elbow!!!

Here is "F's" stiff RA 70s flex, over-sized, head-heavy, light-weight racket restrung with full poly! (link)

Quite unheard of for someone with tennis elbow!

And a very thin gauge to add plenty of feel and ball bite.



     

No More Tennis Elbow!!!

About 18 months after modifying the racket for a tennis elbow sufferer (link), this friend "F", handed me another racket to try to make it "similarly comfortable".

With the initial modified stick, "F" enjoyed 18 months of pain free tennis. Hard hitting singles, doubles, volleys, serves and swing volleys could again be executed without pain, nor fear of pain.

It seems "F" was playing so much that a backup stick is now necessary.

My point is, some may experience pain or discomfort due to their technique. Some due to equipment. But if you really enjoy the game so much, why live with the pain? 

Usually a technique change, or re-hab, or equipment change can mitigate the problem. Talk to your stringer to find a solution.

Here's the newly matched specs for "F".

Apparently, two weeks after matching up the rackets and handing it back to "F", "F" is now requesting for a full poly setup in the rackets!

To me, that was a sure sign that the equipment was the culprit in her case of tennis elbow!



     

Minimizing Lead Tape Exposure

While I was adding lead tape to a young player's racket, his mum asked if there were any safer alternatives.

I have read about tungsten tape but have not seen nor used it before. Neither did I know where to buy it.

After some thought, the mother asked if the lead tape could be covered up with another layer of masking tape or duct tape.

Eventually we settled for electrical tape so we could colour-match with the racket's paintjob as well!

I thought this was a great idea. So I'm just passing this along...

(Thanks Mum!)




     

Are Racket Modifications One-off or Perpetual Adjustments?

Several competitive players asked my opinion whether racket weights modifications should be one-off, or a series of perpetual adjustments.

Once, I replied a parent (of a tennis kid) by asking him how would he match the below 3 rackets to the 3 players below:

Racket 1: 100 sq inch, 360 grams strung, 27" long
Racket 2: 100 sq inch, 250 grams strung, 25" long
Racket 3: 110 sq inch, 300 grams strung, 28" long

Player A: 30 years old gym instructor
Player B: 7 years old school kid
Player C: 70 years old retiree

Even with zero information about their tennis skills or ability, the match up was completely predictable. No matter who I asked.

This is why I lean strongly towards a one-time adjustment. And this one-time modification should be able to tune the racket to at least a 80% match with the player's abilities.

We are not discussing beginners, or recreational players who have not honed their consistency. Although still useful, they would benefit more from coaching than racket mods.

Even if the seasoned player, or professional is still refining their strokes, I cannot see the constant need to re-tweak.

Racket weights like swingweight, balance, total weight, MOI, twistweight, recoil weight, etc, are far more correlated to the player's movements and strength, rather than skills.

Take the human body weight for example. Most people hover around a certain weight. Absent of special events like holidays or celebratory feasts, body weights usually maintain within a tight band of 2% to 3% over time. So much so, that doctors often use unexplained weight gain/loss as a clue for serious illnesses!

Similarly, muscle mass and strength do not vary much too. 

Even for gym rats who train relentlessly, they peak and plateau. And if they do not put in the consistent effort to maintain their diet and physique, they would drop back into their normal state of equilibrium. If their appetite maintains, they grow fat.

Hence the conventional wisdom is for the serious tennis player to use as heavy a racket as he or she can manage effectively.

This translates the game of tennis to one where opponents fight to out-power, out-run, out-last or out-wit each other. Whoever wields the "bigger gun" usually prevails, or have a significant advantage.

When the going get tough, or with new rackets being marketed aggressively, it is easy to fall into the lure of new equipment. 

However, every new setup, whether just weight tweaks or new racket, takes a long time to truly adjust and acclimatize. 

The player needs to test the racket on different court surfaces, different strokes, types of spin and pace, different brands of balls and narrow down string type and tension before putting it into match play. Easily a multi-months episode costing hundreds of dollars.

It is easy to tweak, but how much time, money and energy does a player have to go through a racket so thoroughly? Or risk losing an important match when the racket, or strings, "mis-behave" mid-match?

This is the reason why so many professional players would rather have a paintjob to endorse the lastest release instead of changing sticks.

If these top tier players in the world opt to maintain equilibrium, why should we be so quick to disrupt ours?




     

Exploding Woody - 1980s Slazenger Vilas International

Someone requested me to string an old wood racket and I turned it down immediately. Most woodies are at least 30+ years old. No one could predict how it would turn out.

But he insisted. So I asked for payment in advance, and his written full disclaimer, absolving me of any blame in the event of any damage.

It was the Slazenger Vilas International (link1)(link2).

A quick search online shows someone asking for US$254 for one on Ebay (link).

The racket was unplayed and in near mint condition. No scratches, nor chips nor scrapes could be found anywhere. Even the original plastic wrap was still on the handle!

Although unstrung, I could see it had been strung before. Some string cuts could be seen at the throat grommet.

Since it was not intended for serious play, I suggested stringing it with full synthetic gut at 38 lbs. That would significantly reduce hoop stress and hopefully preserve the frame intact. He agreed.

It was smooth sailing installing and tensioning the mains. Some very slight "creaks" sounds was heard while tensioning the outer mains. So I paused for a few minutes.

(If you observe the above pic carefully, you could see the laminate fracturing at the bottom right corner of the picture.)

After ascertaining the squeaking stopped and everything was intact, I continued slowly, completed the mains, then tied-off on the short side. For wood frames, that would the side with the zig-zag on top of the frame.

(Despite the dangers explained, the owner asked for one-piece stringing.)

With the long side, I started weaving the crosses from bottom-up. This was the standard pattern for one-piece stringing with wood frames.

I was tensioning the 8th cross from the bottom when there was a sudden loud snapping sound. 

But I could not see any damage nor distortion anywhere. Nevertheless, for my own safety, I stepped out of the room and observed from the door way.

An exploding racket hoop is any stringers' nightmare. Although tales have been told of it, none have seen it happen, nor could provide any evidence of it. 

Could it happen to me this time? I wondered...

Mere seconds later, the side of the hoop gave way outwards!!!

I removed the clamps immediately to release the tension! Then more loud snapping sounds...

But it was too late. The damage was done. A beautiful vintage frame completely ruined.

I could not bear to see the frame explode, so I cut out the strings.

To anyone wanting to re-string an old woody, even if it seemingly appears perfectly intact, my advice is don't. 

It is just too much risk.




     

Tying Knots

When I was first taught how to string about two decades ago, my teacher instructed that I tie knots on top of the stringbed and pull them upwards.

His reasoning was that it was easier to see the knot, and that there would be less obstruction, especially with the clamps below.

Since I was earning my keep then, he accepted no variations. I had to follow exactly what I was told.

Over the years, somehow, I instinctively switched to tying knots below instead. 

I just felt it was easier to pull downwards instead of up. And I did not feel any major obstructions hindering me from tying the knot below.

Another very important advantage to tie it below is safety.

Even though most were taught to pull knots only by hand, or with a starting clamp, many still using pliers to do so.

The most common pliers stringers use is the needle nose plier. When using this pliers to pull knots upwards, slippage is extremely common.

When it slipped, the stringer ended up either back-fisting himself on the face, or stabbing his eye with the needle nose plier.

Clumsy as it may sound, I back-fisted myself several times while tightening knots upwards. Those that string very often would know that there were plenty of near misses as well. 

So, why take the risk? 

I suggest all stringers pull knots below instead.




     

String Tension and Effect on Racket Stability

In the past few weeks, more than a few very good players have asked me to add more lead to their racket hoops. 

All wanted a little more stability, especially when dealing with heavy balls, or when returning hard first serves.

Most of these folks already have their swingweights in the 320s to 340s region. So I thought it was decent enough.

After reviewing some of their shots in question, it seemed to me that the problem was a little more string related than racket.

Most were using stiff frames of RA68 and above. All were strung with full poly above 50 lbs. To me, that was the problem.

Let me explain...

Playing tennis is managing a series of collisions between stringbeds and a tennis ball. When both the racket and stringbed is very stiff, and the ball is new, hard and bouncy, where does the energy dissipate?

Some of the impact energy would be absorbed by the racket, stringbed or tennis ball. But not all. So the racket, deflects backwards or twists and turns. And the ball compresses too.

I have posted this slow motion video of Federer's racket wobbling on impact. Here it is again. Take a look at 1:16 in the video below. That's the racket flexing and absorbing the energy on impact. 

Stiff frames with tight strings would always be less stable than softer frames, or when strung looser.

To prove the point to an unbelieving player, we beefed up his stiff racket (with tight strings) to 365 swingweight, total weight about 360 grams and balance 32.5 cm. Then got him to try returning first serves from his coach.

Same twisting. Same instability.

Eventually, he moved a gauge up to a slightly thicker string to compensate for a slight drop in tension and obtained his desired stability.

Some may claim the thicker string added weight as well.

Yes it did.

Merely 2 grams. 






     

"Breaking Into" Rackets

Some months back, a junior competitive player asked for advice on how to continue playing with an arm injury.

Then, he was using a Babolat strung very tightly with full poly. Switching to a hybrid or even full multi did not help.

I felt a more flexy racket was necessary. After testing different sticks, he made his choice and stuck with the new racket since. According to published specs, the RA was around the low-60s.

During a recent restring, he started lamenting how the accuracy was still poor compared to his previous stiff Babolat.

I was perplexed.

He has been happily using the four new stick for about four months. Even managed to beat some team-mates he regularly lost to. Why the sudden nostalgia about his old Babolats?

He rang up his coach, passed me the phone and we spoke.

Top on my mind was whether he was "arming or swinging" (link) the new stick. This technique has huge implications on accuracy, especially when one is switching from a stiff flex to something softer. I also asked about his timing.

All seemed well. 

To ascertain, I even dropped in on one of his training sessions to see for myself how he was hitting. And there he was, leaking some forehand shots just a tad right. First serve consistency was not as good as what I recalled.

I borrowed and played a tie-break each with all four of his sticks. Then realised that the flex has changed! The rackets has all broken-in and the graphite has softened!

The pieces started falling into place. Like when he mentioned that he felt he was not able to "load" the strings and "pocket" the ball as much as before. And the reduced spin. And the "not enough time" to shape the ball.

It was finally confirmed after we put the rackets into a Babolat RDC machine. The RA stiffness for all four of them now measured 59, 60, 60 and 61 compared to 63, 64, 63, 65 when new.

To address this, I proposed to:
(1) add some lead tape to increase mass, which would "stiffen" the dynamic flex, &/or
(2) lower the tension of his existing strings, &/or
(3) change to a thinner gauge or softer string.

As it was near an important competition, he selected option (2). It was a quick-fix that addressed most of his problems. His accuracy returned while the arm pain stayed away.

Perfect!




     

Racket Flex and String Tension Preference

Many users of very flexible frames like to string very tight. 

The most common reason was to improve accuracy and that they enjoyed the feel of the racket flex. When strung at normal tensions, these folks claimed the frame stopped flexing.

Out of curiousity, my friends and I tried stringing some very flexy frames (RA 50s) to investigate the flex response.

Tight (75 lbs)
Both the full poly and the full synthetic gut felt like a board. 

The stringbed was so stiff and tight we did not feel any string pocketing at all. 

However, impacts did not feel harsh as we could clearly feel the racket flexing on impact. 

Contrary to the beliefs about stringing it tight for greater accuracy, all our shots suffered some loss of directional control. Some forehands leaked to the right and backhands leaked left. It felt like our timings were slightly late and off.

We tried "swinging" the racket and "arming" the racket. (link) Well connected sweetspot hits felt nicer but it was still boardy, extremely low powered and inaccurate.

Neither could we generate any decent spin. Not even slices.

Serves were pathetic. No power, no pace, no spin, no height and plenty of double faults!


Normal (55 lbs)
This was near our usual tensions so everything felt familiar.

It was comfortable, spinny, accurate although still a tad low powered.

It was interesting to note that when we had sufficient time to prepare, step into the shot before "swinging" the frame, there was a very powerful delivery. The string and racket flex worked in unison.

Even when we were late, on the run and half-muscling through the shot, we were able to partially load the strings before flexing the racket.

After hitting with this, we discovered what and why we did not like about the racket flex earlier with the tight tension. 

Whenever it flexed, power was absorbed by the frame. The energy that was incoming from the ball, and the energy which we threw into the forward swing, was heavily dissipated by the racket flex. 

And before the flex could rebound, the ball has left the strings. Hence the very low power and poor directional control.

Swinging worked much better.


Loose (35 lbs)
For this tension, we chose a stiff poly string and strung it full bed.

The first thing we noticed was the extra huge sweetspot. It was so forgiving we thought we were using an oversized racket!

The second thing that impressed us was the abundance of power and spin. A huge increase over the normal tension.

Along with this was the ability to load and pocket the strings. With the added advantage that the harshness of any off-centred shots would be safely cushioned by the racket flex.

At this tension, the usual downsides were the high rebound angle of the stringbed and some light string buzzing. However, this had nothing to do with the racket flex. It was a common problem across all types of racket frames.

Most distinctly, we did not feel much of the racket flex.


Conclusion
Among the three, we preferred the one lowest tensioned. 

However, for practical play, mainly to mitigate the high rebound angle, we would string somewhere around the mid-40s lbs, depending on strings.

What we unanimously agreed was:
(1) flexible frames felt superior to very stiff frames,
(2) flexible frames are very demanding to wield properly, and
(3) stringing flexible frames loosely made them much easier to use for recreational players as it was much better to load the strings than to flex the racket.




     

Measuring String Left in Reel

Most who favour a particular brand of strings end up buying reels. 

However, many of my friends still get caught not knowing how much string there is left in the reel.

Depending on the brand, gauge and type of string, the more common strings weigh between 15 grams to 20 grams per set of 40 ft. It is easy to use weight as a proxy to estimate how much string there is left.

Below is a partially used reel of poly a friend handed to me. It weighs 331 grams.

He wanted 3 rackets strung with full poly, so I cut out 3 sets of 40 ft each, total 120 ft of string from the reel.

That left me with 275 grams.

The simple calculations that follow:

120 ft of string weighs 56 grams (331-275)

Each set of 40 ft weighs ~19 grams (56/3)

This full reel of strings only should weigh ~308 grams (56/120 x 660)

So when you next buy a new reel, measure and record the weight of the entire reel before using it. You will have a better idea how much string there is left.