In online forums, this racket is notoriously difficult to string.
Specifically, it is the combination of:
(1) very low swingweight of about 300 kg/cm²,
(2) very flexible hoop and throat, and
(3) open 16x15 string pattern.
Conventional wisdom dictates:
(1) Low swingweight = low power
So lower tensions or soft and powerful strings like gut or multifilaments are recommended.
(2) Flexible hoops affects accuracy and requires stiff strings or a very high tension to provide impact stability. But that reduces power and pocketing, which in turn reduces spin.
(3) Open strings require stiff and thick poly strings or thick (1.40mm or more) nylon strings for durability, but these strings inhibit spin and are low-powered as well.
Professional players who use the PS95s like Dolgopolov or Dimitrov (link) focus on control and spin. It is rumoured they lead up their swingweights to 360+ kg/cm² so power is a non-issue. Neither is durability relevant since they restring so often.
But what about mere mortals like Z and I? How do we balance the traditional stringing variables of comfort, spin, control, power and durability?
Something must be sacrificed. For the premium price paid for this "heavy spin" model, and with marketing targeted at "spin chasers", spin cannot be compromised.
Power and control are already lacking, and Z absolutely loved the comfort of synthetic gut. So what could we achieve by sacrificing durability alone?
See the dilemma now?
After some deliberation, I decided to increase both swingweight and total weight to add power, ball pocketing, stability and also "stiffen" the dynamic flex of the racket.
Once the low swingweight and flex problem can be dismissed, stringing would be a little easier. Moreover, I felt a heavier racket could improve Z's timing, considering how fast, strong and fit he is.
After calculating the desired numbers, the previous 6 grams I added was re-positioned. Another 11 grams was added under the butt cap to keep balance at about 31.5cm. Swingweight should now be around 325 kg/cm2 and total weight about 345 grams.
Still being new to this 16x15 string pattern, I aligned the PS95s on top of my ProStaff Classic to understand just how open it was.
The above picture had some parallax error. So I took two closer snapshots from directly on top of the head and throat of the rackets.
Both the first and last cross string of the PS95s are about 1cm nearer the centre of the stringbed than the ProStaff Classic.
Total distance from first cross to last is 24cm for the PS95s and 26cm for the ProStaff Classic. So it seems quite evident, that the open strings are not really THAT open after all.
After establishing that, I decided to use Z's favourite syn gut again. To minimise the string variables so that we can better feel the effects of the weight modifications, I strung using the same modified proportional stringing as before.
Let's see how this would turn out...
Playtest:
- Z's first comments were "I can feel the pocketing and bite". I could see he was very comfortable with syn gut.
- However, the added weight slowed down his swing prep and timing. From my side, I could see he was late in hitting for a lot of balls.
- When he got the timing right, both power and spin came across strongly, especially those ankle-high fast-skidding @#$%^&* unreturnable backhand slices.
- Getting the ideal swingweight and total weight takes several sessions. I advised him to move the lead around and keep trying.
- For the few shots I hit, both spin and power increased significantly from previous setups due to the extra pocketing from the added weight.
- Feel wise, the racket is getting very close to how a traditional ProStaff usually feels like.
- The hoop also seemed to flex less and was a little more stable on off-centre hits.
- String movement was minimal but ball fur adorns the stringbed after playing, as usual, showing how much the strings were biting...
No comments:
Post a Comment