A sponsored player was struggling with arm pain. He asked if I could replicate his preferred specs in an arm friendly frame instead, then black it out.
His requirements were unique. It was not based on the usual mass, balance nor swingweight. I had to do some "reverse calculations" to determine how to proceed.
Since it was a first for me, I suggested trying the paint and mod on my personal frames to ascertain if I could pull it off. Then let him conduct a playtest before starting work on his actual sticks.
Took the opportunity to spray paint my trusty rusty wedge as well...
He agreed to the costs. And was happy with the comfort, playability, feel and control after testing it.
But by then, we only had about half a day left before his flight. And he wanted me to modify, match, paint and string SIX rackets. I only agreed to try my best.
There was not enough time to do a proper paint job - stripping out old paint, prime, two coats before a final top coat. Add to that, drying time between coats and final layer.
The black out was to meet his sponsorship obligations. Not for aesthetic purposes. I told him I would spray-paint right over the grommets. And with minimal sanding. He gave the thumbs up.
Within seven hours, I managed to complete four. And when I strung them, the paint was not even completely dry!
The most time consuming part was the pre/post paint measurements, calculations and adjustments. Depending on how much paint was removed or added, the weight impact was very significant to its end state playability.
If anyone wishes to try a similar DIY, do not under-estimate the weight implications of the paintjob.
Conversely, if you have a thorough understanding of the implications and effects of mass at different areas of the racket, you could make use of this sanding/painting to re-distribute weight to your desired end state, which would otherwise be unachievable.
Even with minimal sanding, which took me probably 15 minutes per racket, initially using 400 grit followed by 800 grit sandpaper, I removed an average of 10 grams per racket!
Final weight adjustments could only be done after the paint completely cured. In the earlier experiment on my own frames, I noticed that the solvent based paint lost weight gradually as it cured. I had to add that back to restore proper specs.
As I did not have time for the paint to cure fully, I added an extra 3 grams per racket to make up for the evaporating solvent. If my calculations were correct, it would end up 1 gram below his target specs when fully cured.
I gave him enough lead tape to cover any potential shortfall, should he need any.
Needless to say, my stringing machine mounts, hands, arms and shirt were all paint-stained during stringing.
Even though this was a paid project, I have no wish to repeat this mad rush. More time would have been helpful. And I would be more selective on the type of modifications.
But I must admit any rackets look nicer all black. They seem to play better too...
(This example #2 is a follow-up from a previous post here)
More than a few times, I came across tour or serious competitive players with very difficult to use rackets.
When asked, they would sheepishly tell of how small the sweetspot is, how heavy and difficult to maneuver and how tough it was to generate power or spin.
I could not understand why.
Suppose if a chef uses an old blunt knife to prepare food, then cooks over a candle flame instead of a stove, and serves soup on disposable paper plates without cutlery, what would your impression of the chef be?
Even if they were the greatest player on earth, was there any need to make things difficult? Would they earn more points if they use old rackets? Or triple points and prize money for using a woody?
Not surprisingly, many of these same folks, whom I asked about their challenging equipment, all admitted struggling in matches.
All quoted impeccable feel or sentimental reasons for sticking with their "old faithful".
Player B
Mid 30s. 1.7+ metres tall. Weighs about 70 kg. Moves well but commented he was not as fast as before. Reads opponents fast and accurately.
Flattish or sidespin forehand. Flat or slice backhand. Flat to mid-spin serves. All serves and strokes executed with very good placements to opponents' weaknesses. Volleys often and well to end points fast.
Initially played with the ProStaff 85, then to a 90 sq inch Yonex and to a 100 sq inch for about one year. Been struggling with touch and feel and confidence of the 100 sq inch, so would rotate back to the 90 occasionally.
After initial hits, I was impressed by his extremely consistent contact point on the stringbed. There were very few shots I could see that missed the sweetspot. Even those did not miss by much.
When I examined his used stringbed, the deepest notches were concentrated in the centre 8 mains and crosses. He mentioned that usually one of the centre strings would snap after some use.
I had him rotate between his 90 and the 100 while he showed me his serves. The difference was huge. The ease and relaxation, the smoothness of the swing, pronation and release, tempo and most importantly, the consistency and placement accuracy was superior with the 90.
When I measured both his 90 and 100, the weights were all very close. Some matching had been done.
My thoughts
Topspin is an extremely inefficient stroke (link) and difficult to execute well. Since he hits flat, and does not swipe the racket upwards steeply to generate topspin, he rarely frames the ball or catches it off-center.
With the very consistent notches, he proved his ability to hit the centre regularly. In this rare case, I suggested he ditch the 100 and switch back to the 90 with two minor weight tweaks - redistribution and reduction.
While this might seem a simple conclusion, there were important reasons behind this decision.
First, the isometric shape of the 90 sq inch Yonex played with an almost similar sweetspot size of the 100. Only thing was, according to him, the 100 sweetspot felt distinctly less "sweet".
Second, even though both the 90 and 100 were on similar specs, I felt the weight was more "productive" in the smaller 90.
With a smaller hoop size, the advantage was the weight in the hoop was closer to the sweetspot. That contributed to better feel. And less weight was needed to stabilize the smaller hoop, making it more efficient and allowing weight to be redistributed to achieve other objectives, while maintaining a lower total weight than the 100.
Third, the sweetspot in the 90 Yonex was located significantly higher on the racket face than the 100. That was exactly the spot I saw him deliver some of his best placed serves.
Fourth, I felt he had no need for a larger head size as he does not use topspin. During the hitting sessions, I did not observe any instance where he brushed the ball upwards. It was all flat or slices.
Since hitting flat or slices was much more efficient in imparting energy to the ball, this reinforced my view that he did not need any extra "free power" from a larger head size. For without topspin, the ball would float out, which I saw some with the 100.
The changes
The 90 still performed extremely well for his serves, as he had full control of his own ball toss, tempo and timing. But since I have never seen his play last time, I could only base my recommendation on his own remark that his movement was not as fast as before.
That recommendation was to reduce the weight of the 90 just a tad, to speed it up, to make up for "lost time" from the slightly slower footwork he claimed.
In this instance, his greatest efficiency was achieved by downsizing back to a 90 sq inch which performed best to his natural strength, ability and style of play.
It might not work for another player, but in my opinion, the weight adjusted 90 was a much better fit for him than the 100.
In my opinion, for the 100 to play similar in feel, control, stability and power with the 90 would require the 100 be substantially heavier than the 90. That would not be efficient, nor advisable given his remark about feeling slow.
When I asked him a few months after, he was still using the 90 exclusively, happily.
Since the last post (link), I received some questions regarding the "efficiency" I mentioned.
I will share one real-life example which I thought exemplifies efficiency. No names would be revealed. And to protect the anonymity of the actual player, some details might be altered.
Player A
Male. 20+ years old. Very fit and fast footwork. Has ranking points, but he felt he was "stuck" at a certain level and could not move up the rankings despite changing coaches.
He was a heavy-topspin baseliner. Big slice/topspin serves. Very little volleys. From his match videos, I saw most of his shots were contacted about a metre or more outside the baseline.
From our discussions, he believed that racket head speed (RHS) was the most important attribute and had selected his racket and strings to maximise RHS.
RHS is vital for spin. For his case, I agreed that high RHS was important for his game style.
However, to achieve his desired RHS, he chose a very light racket. About 330 grams strung. Swingweight at low 310s. Using a golf swing speed radar, I clocked his swing speed at 70+ mph average for both wings. Pretty good.
Then I videoed him in a co-operative rally with both players hitting directly to each other's forehands. Then backhands.
Even with his 100 sq inch racket, he was contacting the ball all over the stringbed. Out of 100 forehands and 100 backhands, his sweetspot or COP contact was less than 25%.
For a co-operative rally, this was disastrous!
What I felt he omitted in his racket selection, was that he was extremely strong, fit and moved fast.
He was not convinced.
So, after the two hours hitting session, I asked him to run 2.4km at 80% of his fastest pace. He clocked in at 7.25 minutes.
Physically, he was almost 1.8 metres tall, had long limbs, and weighed just below 80 kg. In my opinion, that was very good proportion.
To me, he was not optimising his physical strength, speed and stamina.
His racket was too light. I saw his very well developed footwork and early racket prep. Many of the half volleys he executed aggressively, when his opponent sent the ball just outside the baseline, had near perfect timing.
In my view, his was a case of "over-acceleration". That led to too early release of the wrist hinge and racket face closing too fast. That resulted in poor directional accuracy and inconsistent contact, both on the stringbed and contact point relative to his body position. That held him back from playing 100%.
Both his coach and himself thought these were a result of his grip, timing and lost string tension (ie wear and tear) but I disagreed.
At the next session, I got him to test a modified version of his racket with the same strings and tension. I did not restring his used strings.
Immediately, his timing fell in place. He could "go for it", step in and chase the ball aggressively without fearing the ball veer left or right.
His shot placement accuracy, depth control and trajectory control all improved. He could place return of serves confidently.
In a video I shot from the side of the baseline, his contact point relative to his body position also improved. Sweet spot hit percentages on the stringbed for co-operative rallies went up to 70% for 100 shots.
This led to other improvements such as a much heavier ball and more offensive forward and high-kicking topspin.
His coach struggled much more rallying with him this session versus the previous. The coach contacted and returned more shots above his shoulder level vs mid-torso level previously due to the increased kick from the topspin. (And I heard expletives during the rally!!!)
Despite this, the player felt he was struggling with the racket weight. It took him more effort to swing and he was unsure if he could sustain three sets or more with it.
Before I could answer, his coach retorted: "This is it! This is what we wanted. The kind of shots we have been trying to achieve".
His efficient racket was actually 20+ grams more than what he had believed in.
Part of the weight was used to beef up the recoil and slow down his racket slightly so he had time to fully release his power into the shots.
As I expected much more consistent contacts, I believed he would experience less racket twists, so I reduced his excessive twistweight and adjusted his spin-to-power ratio to "compensate" for the increased weight.
It took him about three weeks to acclimatise to the new weight. And when he switched back to one of his lighter sticks for comparison, he felt he could not perform anymore - power, accuracy, spin, control and stability all dipped.
And the acid test? He managed to beat a player he previously struggled with for a very long time!
