Wilson PS95s again...

Both Z and I have unfinished business with this frame. (link1)(link2)

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...

Wilson Pro Staff 95s + Full Poly @ 48/45 lbs

If I recall correctly, I think Z mentioned that he clocked about 10 hours of play on the PS95s strung with 17g syn gut. And the string has not snapped yet! (link)

There was severe notching though...

It took me quite a bit of convincing before Z decided to try full poly again. He just liked the feel of syn gut too much even though durability was pathetic.


I selected a soft co-poly this round to see if the feel would closer mimic the syn gut that Z liked.

White strings go well with the racket...

After stringing, I added about 6 grams near 2 & 10 o'clock to beef up the swingweight to about 320 kg/cm².

Playtest:
- The plowthrough was better with increased stability, power and depth.
- However, Z did not like the typical stiffer stringbed with full poly, even when it was a soft poly. Comfort and ball feel are definitely prioritized way above durability for him.
- Surprisingly, spin was ridiculously low when I tried hitting with it. Even power and control was poor despite the full poly stringjob!
- Back to the drawing board...

Wilson Pro Staff 95s with Syn Gut + Spin Challenge

Online forums reported on how quickly strings break in the PS95s. While the very open 16x15 stringing pattern is excellent for spin, it is terrible for string durability.

As a result, everyone strings with either full poly, kevlar or 15g syn gut. Even then, most enjoyed only a few hours of play before it snapped.

After trying Z's PS95s (link), I was exceedingly curious: 
(1) how long would 17g syn gut last in that racket, and
(2) between racket, type of strings and stringing method, which factor would influence the amount of spin more?

Since Z also felt that his PS95s was due for a restring, he gave me a free hand on how it was to be done. 

I chose full syn gut modified proportional stringing with base tension of 50lbs. A lot of the strings would end much MUCH LOWER than the recommended range of 54-64 lbs!

Then we took it out for a playtest cum spin challenge with some of my previously strung spin setups.

Rackets in above pic, from top to bottom:
Wilson Hammer 5.8 + syn gut varied tension (link)
Wilson ProStaff 95s + syn gut proportional stringing
Head Prestige Mid + full poly
Dunlop AG200 + fullbed fishing line (0.9mm mains)(link)
Yamaha EOS + 17g syn gut (link)

Our ranking was unanimous. From best spin to worst, it was:

1. Dunlop AG200

2. Yamaha EOS

3. Wilson PS95s

4. Wilson Hammer 5.8

5. Head Prestige Mid

What we gathered there was:

Stringing Pattern

Even dense string patterns (18x20) can generate heaps of spin. Although the Dunlop was strung as 16x19, the gaps between the strings remain small and tight. The fishing line bites extremely well compared to the full poly in the Head Prestige, which ranked last.

String Wear

The Yamaha ranked 2nd while Hammer was 4th. Reason being different hours of use - Yamaha had about 6 hours versus 10 hours (or more) for the Hammer.

Stringing Method & Swingweight

The Yamaha, PS95s & Hammer were all strung with a modified form of proportional stringing that varies tension among the strings. The same 17g syn gut was used for all. 

Despite that, spin in the Yamaha trumps PS95s. Why?

I believe it's the low total and low swingweight of the PS95s. Both the Yamaha and Hammer have modified swingweights of about 330-340 kg/cm² whereas the PS95s was only about 300 kg/cm². That is a huge difference!

String Type and Tension
It is indisputable that poly is excellent for spin. But with so many different types of polys & co-polys, many stringers get confused about what tension to use. 

All polys have a very narrow useful plastic range before it fails. Once exceeded, poly plays totally dead (link). The 18x20 Head Prestige was strung at 60lbs.

Here's some pics of the stringbed after play... look at the amount of ball fur...

So what next?

I believe there is a lot of modification potential in the PS95s. Forums are rife with comments to add weight under the buttcap. That's one avenue to explore.

Another would be to add swingweight. (link) I cannot help but wonder, did the PS95s designers intentionally kept swingweight low to prevent the strings from snapping too fast, like in the Steam 99s? 

According to their spec sheets, both PS95s and 99s have 16x15 string patterns. Other specs like total weight and flex are very close. However, swingweight differs by 28 kg/cm².

It is Z's racket after all, he'll call the shots how he wants it to be done after this syn gut wears or snaps. Or maybe, he'll just stick with the 18x20...

Spin Challenge: 16x18 Syn Gut vs 16x15 Full Poly

Haze or not, I guess the amount of PM2.5 in the air is not enough to deter me from tennis.

I met an interesting chap named Z. He claimed to be an NTRP 1.0 but runs me all over the court, front to back, left to right. He places the ball very well.

Claiming that he only started playing tennis from Nov 2013, his backhand slice is almost unreturnable! It skids extremely LOW, hard and fast after hitting the ground. How do I return these shots that are only 3 or 4 inches off the ground? He makes Steffi Graf's backhand look like child's play!

Then, I realised what his racket was! He was using the 16x15 Wilson Pro Staff 95s!!! (link) I think... See for yourself...

He did not like the colour, so he sanded off the paintjob. Initially, I thought it looked familiar, but dismissed it as another old racket looking at the amount of paint "wear" it had. I was fooled!

After the "Aha!" moment, everything started falling in place. His footwork gave him away as a beginner. However, his forehand topspin and backhand slice were pretty good, especially the backhand.

For someone who has played tennis for only 4 months, he could generate some serious spin. I'm reminded of another playing partner, M, whose topspin shots mostly kicks up to my head level.

So I changed my strokes. I hit flat or slice off both wings and kept the ball deep and very low. Now, it's my turn to run him around.

I was extremely curious just how much spin this 16x15 could perform. So I asked if we could swap rackets for a while. He kindly agreed.

Here's my observations:
- The full poly stringjob was old. It felt a little flat.
- He did not use any dampeners, so vibrations are present.
- The Amplifeel took away a lot of ball feel. It was muted.
- Since it was full poly, control was very good. It felt a little like syn gut in the 60s. There was no hints at all that this had only 15 cross strings.
- The flex felt just right, neither too stiff nor too flexy. It was a nice compromise that offered comfort and yet maintaining the level of accuracy I expected.
- Relaxed hits had ordinary spin. But when I stepped it up, the spin increased! It was a matter of watching the ball kick up to his hips level versus ear level, both with the same level of net clearance. And yes, my backhand slices could probably be on par with Steffi Graf's too!
- As a comparison, I repeated the same test after swapping back to my 16x18 Yamaha strung with syn gut at varied tension. (similar to the Hammer5.8 link)
- The Yamaha fared better for spin. Much better. Even with about 7-8 hours of use on the syn gut, the spin latitude is much wider. I could whip and the spin increases. But with the poly strung 95s, the range of spin is less. In other words, with relaxed hits, the Yamaha had more spin. When I hit hard, it was also the Yamaha that outshone the 95s.
- One significant difference I felt was the very low swingweight of the 95s. The specs stated 305 with balance at 32.08cm. It did feel very light and maneuverable, very fast. 
- However, the plowthrough and the feel of compressing the ball was absent. The poly did not give much pocketing as well, compared to the syn gut. Ball directional changes also needed more effort or accuracy would suffer.
- If I owned this racket, I would beef up the swingweight and stick with syn gut. I wonder how it will play with syn gut strung with varied tension?

Note:
As a recreational player, I hit with many different partners. I rarely meet players that generate more spin than me, but there are. So it is very different when I am on the receiving end of this amounts of spin instead of from the hitting perspective. That's why I had problems determining whether the 95s was indeed a spinny racket initially.