Many people claim that they are able to sustain pace in a rally. But without actually measuring that pace, it is very easy to over-estimate their hitting ability.
It is actually very easy to measure average pace. Start a rally with your hitting partner and get a third party to start the stopwatch at the moment the racket first strikes the ball. That first strike is counted as zero. Get that friend to count to a total 10 hits and stop the stopwatch.
Divide the total time taken for 10 consecutive hits to get an average timing per shot. Most rallies are contacted quite close from baseline to baseline. That's 78 feet long, or about 24 metres.
Since we have distance and time, we can now work out the average rally speed:
Distance = Speed x Time
Speed = Distance / Time
If you take a look at some videos of pros in actual match conditions. Their ball speed is quite astounding!
On average, for men, they have about 1.3 seconds between impacts. Translated, each player have a total of only 2.6 seconds to run and hit each shot.
Their average rally ball speed would approximately be:
24 metres in 1.3 seconds, or 18.46 m/s (24/1.3). Or about 66 kilometres per hour.
If you are unable to sustain a consistent rally for at least 10 shots, tone down to a level where you can. Most likely you are over-hitting above your ability to control the ball. There is no point hitting this hard or fast without control.
Or if you think that it is your hitting partner giving you junk balls that you cannot hit any pace with, think again.
Most of the time, it is because you yourself could not generate pace. Therefore, you need a heavily loaded and fast incoming ball so you could tap on the speed through the rebound off your strings.
Maybe the circle of old players I know does not hit hard, but so far, among those who claimed they hit with fast pace, very few really could. Especially when given no paced "junk balls" bunted back at them.
To me, the acid of a good player is the ability to take any shot - lobs, low skidders, topspin, slices, flat, and generate pace consistently.
Similarly, it is this group that benefits most from full poly stringjobs as well. (link)
Monday, 13 February 2017
Tuesday, 31 January 2017
Frivolous Demands for Perfection
Since the 1990s, when I first starting stringing tennis rackets, I have not met nor heard of anyone who restrings multiple rackets daily.
Not even someone who does so every few days. Only a few restring every week.
And all these refer only to those who are using the same rackets with same strings and same tensions.
Conversely, there are plenty who play till the strings break, or restring only once every few months.
Ironically, it is this group of infrequent re-stringers, that is the most unreasonably demanding of stringjobs.
They purport to have exactly matched rackets from special sources. So the strings must all have identical tensions, frequency and stringbed stiffness.
Else the inaccuracies would cause a complete derail and loss of control of their otherwise perfect strokes.
If a Wilson Pro Knot was used instead of their regular Parnell knot, they cannot serve aces anymore. Or if tension was applied for half a second longer on one string than the other racket, they could not clear the net.
What these folks do not understand is that all rackets are strung one at a time. The moment each string is clamped, tension starts dropping via string creep. And the mains are always completed first before the crosses.
Even within strings from the same reel, there are tolerances. I have seen differences that could even be picked up by the naked eye. For some brands, the start of the reel snaps easily while others may play stiffer nearer the end of the reel.
If one is fussy enough to measure the string gauge with a pair of vernier calipers, you would find the differences in gauge unsettling. All these within the same reel.
Obviously, different batches from different reels fare much worse.
As for rackets, everyone knows the manufacturing tolerances are getting wider compared to the 80s. Total weight, swingweight and balance tolerances seem to be getting wider than before.
From my experience, the general pattern appears to be, the better skilled the player, the less fussy about the equipment. And vice versa.
If anyone still expects perfect stringjobs from me, they would first have to:
(1) send in 100% identical sticks and strings, and
(2) send in video proof that you can hit ten consecutive serves that are exactly 100mph, clears the net tape over the same spot by exactly 3.5", have a ball spin rpm of precisely 2500, and leave only ONE ballmark on the ground due to your immaculate accuracy.
I look forward to meeting you!
Not even someone who does so every few days. Only a few restring every week.
And all these refer only to those who are using the same rackets with same strings and same tensions.
Conversely, there are plenty who play till the strings break, or restring only once every few months.
Ironically, it is this group of infrequent re-stringers, that is the most unreasonably demanding of stringjobs.
They purport to have exactly matched rackets from special sources. So the strings must all have identical tensions, frequency and stringbed stiffness.
Else the inaccuracies would cause a complete derail and loss of control of their otherwise perfect strokes.
If a Wilson Pro Knot was used instead of their regular Parnell knot, they cannot serve aces anymore. Or if tension was applied for half a second longer on one string than the other racket, they could not clear the net.
What these folks do not understand is that all rackets are strung one at a time. The moment each string is clamped, tension starts dropping via string creep. And the mains are always completed first before the crosses.
Even within strings from the same reel, there are tolerances. I have seen differences that could even be picked up by the naked eye. For some brands, the start of the reel snaps easily while others may play stiffer nearer the end of the reel.
If one is fussy enough to measure the string gauge with a pair of vernier calipers, you would find the differences in gauge unsettling. All these within the same reel.
Obviously, different batches from different reels fare much worse.
As for rackets, everyone knows the manufacturing tolerances are getting wider compared to the 80s. Total weight, swingweight and balance tolerances seem to be getting wider than before.
From my experience, the general pattern appears to be, the better skilled the player, the less fussy about the equipment. And vice versa.
If anyone still expects perfect stringjobs from me, they would first have to:
(1) send in 100% identical sticks and strings, and
(2) send in video proof that you can hit ten consecutive serves that are exactly 100mph, clears the net tape over the same spot by exactly 3.5", have a ball spin rpm of precisely 2500, and leave only ONE ballmark on the ground due to your immaculate accuracy.
I look forward to meeting you!
Thursday, 15 December 2016
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!
"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!
Tuesday, 6 December 2016
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)