next »

[jay20]

is it poly or multifilament or hybrid?

[racketwiz]

natural gut

[mikki_blinkme]

natural gut

wala ng tatalo dyan.  kaso sir di na uso yan gusto ng karamihan yung gamit nina IDOL  Lakas daw spin e lakas kapit daw sa bola sarap ipalo. 

[edreams11]

e kung hybrid ng natural at synthetic kaya?

[daryl]

the best natural gut!the best din price!

[racketwiz]

natural gut

wala ng tatalo dyan.  kaso sir di na uso yan gusto ng karamihan yung gamit nina IDOL  Lakas daw spin e lakas kapit daw sa bola sarap ipalo. 

And that’s the problem. Most of us get carried away with marketing hype and what our Idol uses. The reality is that spin is largely a product of the player’s stroke and swingspeed, not strings.
 
If you consider the racket in question (KBlade Tour 93), it has a small head and a tight string pattern.  Not only is it a control racket all the way, it’s also quite a demanding racket. Matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of pro players who use the KBlade model use the 98 version.

Unless jay20 has a pro-type swingspeed of 70-90 mph and the clean strokes of at least a 4.5 player, the racket is a limiting factor.  In which case, it doesn’t matter what strings you put in, you’re not going to extract optimum performance out of the racket.

In my opinion, the average player using a racket like this would benefit more from a quality multifilament string. ATBE, strings would tend to last longer on a racket with a small head and a tight string pattern. Hence, natural gut if the budget is there, or a quality multi, would yield a more playable stringbed.

[jay20]

sir racketwiz 3.5 lng po ako.. expensive po ung natural gut pero maganda performance po biphase po b ng tecni is natural gut?

[luxilionwave]

natural gut

wala ng tatalo dyan.  kaso sir di na uso yan gusto ng karamihan yung gamit nina IDOL  Lakas daw spin e lakas kapit daw sa bola sarap ipalo. 

And that’s the problem. Most of us get carried away with marketing hype and what our Idol uses. The reality is that spin is largely a product of the player’s stroke and swingspeed, not strings.
 
If you consider the racket in question (KBlade Tour 93), it has a small head and a tight string pattern.  Not only is it a control racket all the way, it’s also quite a demanding racket. Matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of pro players who use the KBlade model use the 98 version.

Unless jay20 has a pro-type swingspeed of 70-90 mph and the clean strokes of at least a 4.5 player, the racket is a limiting factor.  In which case, it doesn’t matter what strings you put in, you’re not going to extract optimum performance out of the racket.

In my opinion, the average player using a racket like this would benefit more from a quality multifilament string. ATBE, strings would tend to last longer on a racket with a small head and a tight string pattern. Hence, natural gut if the budget is there, or a quality multi, would yield a more playable stringbed.

natural gut

wala ng tatalo dyan.  kaso sir di na uso yan gusto ng karamihan yung gamit nina IDOL  Lakas daw spin e lakas kapit daw sa bola sarap ipalo. 

And that’s the problem. Most of us get carried away with marketing hype and what our Idol uses. The reality is that spin is largely a product of the player’s stroke and swingspeed, not strings.
 
If you consider the racket in question (KBlade Tour 93), it has a small head and a tight string pattern.  Not only is it a control racket all the way, it’s also quite a demanding racket. Matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of pro players who use the KBlade model use the 98 version.

Unless jay20 has a pro-type swingspeed of 70-90 mph and the clean strokes of at least a 4.5 player, the racket is a limiting factor.  In which case, it doesn’t matter what strings you put in, you’re not going to extract optimum performance out of the racket.

In my opinion, the average player using a racket like this would benefit more from a quality multifilament string. ATBE, strings would tend to last longer on a racket with a small head and a tight string pattern. Hence, natural gut if the budget is there, or a quality multi, would yield a more playable stringbed.

natural gut

wala ng tatalo dyan.  kaso sir di na uso yan gusto ng karamihan yung gamit nina IDOL  Lakas daw spin e lakas kapit daw sa bola sarap ipalo. 

And that’s the problem. Most of us get carried away with marketing hype and what our Idol uses. The reality is that spin is largely a product of the player’s stroke and swingspeed, not strings.
 
If you consider the racket in question (KBlade Tour 93), it has a small head and a tight string pattern.  Not only is it a control racket all the way, it’s also quite a demanding racket. Matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of pro players who use the KBlade model use the 98 version.

Unless jay20 has a pro-type swingspeed of 70-90 mph and the clean strokes of at least a 4.5 player, the racket is a limiting factor.  In which case, it doesn’t matter what strings you put in, you’re not going to extract optimum performance out of the racket.

In my opinion, the average player using a racket like this would benefit more from a quality multifilament string. ATBE, strings would tend to last longer on a racket with a small head and a tight string pattern. Hence, natural gut if the budget is there, or a quality multi, would yield a more playable stringbed.

Racketwiz,
Any string suggestions for an incoming Futures player who uses Wilson Ncode ,head size 90, length 27 quarter inch, 12 ounce heavy,9 points Head light, open string pattern, who breaks string every 4 to 7 hours of play, who uses compact heavy strokes, and a grinder in the court ala Michael Chang. That kid have been using Wilson Hollowcore and a variety of Gamma TnT Tour 16 gauges multifilament strings and still not satisfied. Desperately want to try new strings but is unwilling to spend more than $12 US per string. Your expert opinion is appreciated

[racketwiz]

Racketwiz,
Any string suggestions for an incoming Futures player who uses Wilson Ncode ,head size 90, length 27 quarter inch, 12 ounce heavy,9 points Head light, open string pattern, who breaks string every 4 to 7 hours of play, who uses compact heavy strokes, and a grinder in the court ala Michael Chang. That kid have been using Wilson Hollowcore and a variety of Gamma TnT Tour 16 gauges multifilament strings and still not satisfied. Desperately want to try new strings but is unwilling to spend more than $12 US per string. Your expert opinion is appreciated

lux
Quick question:
Performance-wise,any idea what the player is looking for from his strings? Durability, perhaps?

If it's ok with you, I can pm you my number and we can discuss.

[luxilionwave]

RW,
That kid was looking for more durability than playability. He is trying Solinco right now as he might get some possible sponsorships. He seems satisfied as he is liking the bite and feel of the string. I'll wait for his feed back in a month as he is set to play futures.

[Tennis_Guy]

natural gut

wala ng tatalo dyan.  kaso sir di na uso yan gusto ng karamihan yung gamit nina IDOL  Lakas daw spin e lakas kapit daw sa bola sarap ipalo. 

And that’s the problem. Most of us get carried away with marketing hype and what our Idol uses. The reality is that spin is largely a product of the player’s stroke and swingspeed, not strings.
 
If you consider the racket in question (KBlade Tour 93), it has a small head and a tight string pattern.  Not only is it a control racket all the way, it’s also quite a demanding racket. Matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of pro players who use the KBlade model use the 98 version.

Unless jay20 has a pro-type swingspeed of 70-90 mph and the clean strokes of at least a 4.5 player, the racket is a limiting factor.  In which case, it doesn’t matter what strings you put in, you’re not going to extract optimum performance out of the racket.

In my opinion, the average player using a racket like this would benefit more from a quality multifilament string. ATBE, strings would tend to last longer on a racket with a small head and a tight string pattern. Hence, natural gut if the budget is there, or a quality multi, would yield a more playable stringbed.

I've played with this racket and in my opinion it plays bigger than it's head size.  You don't need a swing speed of 70-90 mph not even most small compact cars can reach those speeds.  You don't even need a greater than average swingspeed.   But it does require more concentration and focus to learn how to use this racket, which i think is not a bad thing.  We could all be more focused to play better tennis.  For most mid sized rackets the kblade 93 is by far the most comfortable and easy to use of the bunch.

A regular swing with good form, timing and a solid contact paired with a premium polyester or a high end multifilament will most definitely do the job.  String your kblade at the lower tension range to compensate for the moderate power this racket generates.  The racket has enough heft and good plow through that it will remain stable through your stroke, even a moderate swing can generate a heavy ball.  This racket has tons of control losing a bit of the control for power is the key.  Find the perfect balance for your playing style.  The kblade 93 is a good solid all around racket and if you learn how to use it, the kblade will serve you well.



 

 

[racketwiz]

sir racketwiz 3.5 lng po ako.. expensive po ung natural gut pero maganda performance po biphase po b ng tecni is natural gut?

Tecnifibre X-1 Biphase is a synthetic multi. Anong strings ang gamit mo ngayon? What tension?

[racketwiz]

I've played with this racket and in my opinion it plays bigger than it's head size.  You don't need a swing speed of 70-90 mph not even most small compact cars can reach those speeds.  You don't even need a greater than average swingspeed.   But it does require more concentration and focus to learn how to use this racket, which i think is not a bad thing.  We could all be more focused to play better tennis.  For most mid sized rackets the kblade 93 is by far the most comfortable and easy to use of the bunch.

A regular swing with good form, timing and a solid contact paired with a premium polyester or a high end multifilament will most definitely do the job.  String your kblade at the lower tension range to compensate for the moderate power this racket generates.  The racket has enough heft and good plow through that it will remain stable through your stroke, even a moderate swing can generate a heavy ball.  This racket has tons of control losing a bit of the control for power is the key.  Find the perfect balance for your playing style.  The kblade 93 is a good solid all around racket and if you learn how to use it, the kblade will serve you well.

Control rackets are designed with the premise that the player has the capacity to supply their own power, i.e., a fast swingspeed, and the stroke consistency to put the ball within the midsized racket’s small sweetspot.  A racket’s mass, heft, or weight represents only half of the requirement to generate a heavy ball.  The other half is acceleration, i.e., swingspeed.  While the KBlade 93 has the mass, the small head and tight pattern mitigates a heavy ball; hence, the player’s ability to consistently generate a fast swingspeed is paramount for optimum performance.

Sure, a player with moderate swingspeed (about 40-45 mph for the average guy) can play with this stick. But a heavy ball? I don’t think so. There’s not going to be enough power, and whatever power there is will be further reduced by the relatively small hitting area and tight pattern. A player like this would be better served by a midplus racket with an open pattern.

[Tennis_Guy]

I've played with this racket and in my opinion it plays bigger than it's head size.  You don't need a swing speed of 70-90 mph not even most small compact cars can reach those speeds.  You don't even need a greater than average swingspeed.   But it does require more concentration and focus to learn how to use this racket, which i think is not a bad thing.  We could all be more focused to play better tennis.  For most mid sized rackets the kblade 93 is by far the most comfortable and easy to use of the bunch.

A regular swing with good form, timing and a solid contact paired with a premium polyester or a high end multifilament will most definitely do the job.  String your kblade at the lower tension range to compensate for the moderate power this racket generates.  The racket has enough heft and good plow through that it will remain stable through your stroke, even a moderate swing can generate a heavy ball.  This racket has tons of control losing a bit of the control for power is the key.  Find the perfect balance for your playing style.  The kblade 93 is a good solid all around racket and if you learn how to use it, the kblade will serve you well.

Control rackets are designed with the premise that the player has the capacity to supply their own power, i.e., a fast swingspeed, and the stroke consistency to put the ball within the midsized racket’s small sweetspot.  A racket’s mass, heft, or weight represents only half of the requirement to generate a heavy ball.  The other half is acceleration, i.e., swingspeed.  While the KBlade 93 has the mass, the small head and tight pattern mitigates a heavy ball; hence, the player’s ability to consistently generate a fast swingspeed is paramount for optimum performance.

Sure, a player with moderate swingspeed (about 40-45 mph for the average guy) can play with this stick. But a heavy ball? I don’t think so. There’s not going to be enough power, and whatever power there is will be further reduced by the relatively small hitting area and tight pattern. A player like this would be better served by a midplus racket with an open pattern.

This may be true if we play in a laboratory.  Fortunately we don't 

This racket has a bigger sweetspot than lets say the head prestige which has the same head size of 93 sq. in..  A ball is just 2½"and 2 5/8" how big a head size does one really need?  There are other players members here who have hit, owned or owns this racket and I have seen one 3.5 play big with this racket.   

the KBlade 93 has the mass, the small head and tight pattern mitigates a heavy ball; hence, the player’s ability to consistently generate a fast swingspeed is paramount for optimum performance.

Matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of pro players who use the KBlade model use the 98 version.

That maybe true but if your original assumption was to be believed that the swing weight and swing speed was the limiting factor of the 93 then I suggest you do your research better.  The 93 has a swing weight of 323 while the 98's is 325   

The smaller head and lighter head of the 93 makes it more maneuverable than the 98.  Does this mean that a player can generate a faster swing speed with the 93 than the 98? Hell yes!   Maybe it's some other factor that the pros (statistics pending) favor the 98 over the 93

Sure, a player with moderate swingspeed (about 40-45 mph for the average guy) can play with this stick. But a heavy ball?

Do you have a speed gun that works on peoples arms?  Well I dont know about how much speed (because i don't own a speed gun) you need to generate, but with an average swing with Good Timing, Solid Contact and Good Form  you can hit a heavy ball with the kblade 93.  The lower tension will add to the velocity and heaviness of the ball. 

Besides I don't think that jay20 will be playing with ATP pros so a heavy ball is relative to the class of players he plays with, but if he grows in his rating so does the heaviness of the ball he can generate with his racket.  A player who is serious in improving his skills will definitely benefit from this racket.

[mikki_blinkme]

teka teka... bilang isang club player looking at the technical side....

ano ang tinatawag nyong "Average Player"(Average Class A,B,C)? Ano din yun fast,average,slow swingspeed na specific para sa isang level ng player (Average Class A Swingspeed for example).

halimbawa CLASS A heavy/hard hitters, CLASS A average(swingspeed) hitters.

depende pa nga sa athletic ability ng isang players per class e.

[racketwiz]

These are indisputable facts:
-- smaller racket heads have less power
-- tighter string patterns have less power
-- control rackets are designed for players who can generate their own power

If you’re playing a racket with this triple power whammy, the only way to add more sting to your shots is to add more oomph to your swing.

This racket has a bigger sweetspot than lets say the head prestige which has the same head size of 93 sq. in..

Really? Would you mind quantifying how much bigger “bigger” is? If you’re referring to the feel of a larger sweetspot as opposed to the actual dimension of it, then it’s a subjective opinion, not a fact.

A ball is just 2½"and 2 5/8" how big a head size does one really need?

Whatever the player desires, up to 135 sq.in., according to the ITF.  I know a few players who swear by their Weed rackets.

That maybe true but if your original assumption was to be believed that the swing weight and swing speed was the limiting factor of the 93 then I suggest you do your research better.

First, I never said anything about swingweight.  Understand that mass, heft or weight is not the same as swingweight.
Second, please understand what I said and take it within the context of the specific condition upon which the statement was based on.

The 93 has a swing weight of 323 while the 98's is 325  The smaller head and lighter head of the 93 makes it more maneuverable than the 98.  Does this mean that a player can generate a faster swing speed with the 93 than the 98? Hell yes!   Maybe it's some other factor that the pros (statistics pending) favor the 98 over the 93

It’s one thing to look at individual spec numbers and draw corresponding individual conclusions.  It’s another to interpret these numbers collectively and understand what it means as a whole in order to get the total picture.  You believe that a difference of 2 points in swingweight translates to more maneuverability or faster swingspeed? Practically-speaking, it doesn’t.

The addition of an overgrip makes the racket 1-2 pts more headlight, adds 4-6 g of weight  and results in a swingweight difference of 5-10 points.  I haven't seen a player jump up and down and exclaim that wrapping a Tournagrip makes their racket more maneuverable and juices their swingspeed.

It’s not enough to take swingweight numbers, then hastily jump to misguided conclusions.  Did you know that swingweight measurements simulate racket head rotation about the hand? That’s only half of the swingspeed story.  You also need to take into account the rotation of the entire racket about the player's torso.

Now, according to your data, the Mid is 20 g heavier than the MP. Why is this significant? Well, that’s 20 g of extra racket mass that has to be moved.  If anything, this extra mass could certainly slow down swingspeed.

Did you ever consider that the pros prefer the MP because it’s practically just as maneuverable as the Mid, but it’s easier to swing because its 20 g lighter, it’s less demanding and more forgiving? 

Do you have a speed gun that works on peoples arms?  Well I dont know about how much speed (because i don't own a speed gun) you need to generate, but with an average swing with Good Timing, Solid Contact and Good Form  you can hit a heavy ball with the kblade 93.  The lower tension will add to the velocity and heaviness of the ball.

So, how much velocity will lower tensions add to the ball?  0.7%, that’s how much. I don’t think that’s significant enough to be a game-changer.

The force, velocity or power a player imparts on the ball is a product of racket’s mass and player’s swingspeed.  That’s a fact.

An average swing with all the bells and whistles of good form and timing is still an average swing. Average swings yield average ball velocities.  Otherwise, it wouldn’t be called average.

No, I don’t have a speed gun. Speed guns are commonly used to measure ball speed.

What I do have is a Doppler radar sensor that is used for measuring swingspeeds in golf and baseball, but works for tennis, too.  I think it’s a useful tool for coaches and instructors.  Having a measurable baseline reference of the students’ swingspeed relative to their racket could help the coach tweak the students’ strokes to maximize their power potential.

[edreams11]

nosebleed! nosebleed! di ko na to ma-take! english pls... english hehehe

[renald]

Best string for a racket? or best string for a player? Players using the same racket does not neccessarily use the same string or tension. Best string is relative just like best racket. Choosing the right string is like choosing the right tires for your car.

For frequent string breakers, use poly as long as you are using atleast 300g racket. If you have arm problem, stay away from poly,

Techni xcode, Luxilon M2 and Solinco Tour Bite are must try strings

When Novak used the KBlade Tour, he used Techni NRG, X1 and experimented with Alu and Hybrids.

Lastly, dont change strings to compensate for a wrong racquet, change the racket.

[mikki_blinkme]

nosebleed! nosebleed! di ko na to ma-take! english pls... english hehehe

ting tong te! 

[Tennis_Guy]

wohooo it's getting hot in here hahaha  

These are indisputable facts:
-- smaller racket heads have less power
-- tighter string patterns have less power
-- control rackets are designed for players who can generate their own power

I bet you that i can dispute these so-called indisputable facts  

lets define indisputable first

beyond doubt; not open to question

ok lets go point for point

-- smaller racket heads have less power
-- tighter string patterns have less power

A kblade 93 will have better power potential than Prince Pro 110 aluminum racquet    The Prince also has a more open string pattern than the kblade so it's two birds with one stone  

-- control rackets are designed for players who can generate their own power

what about for those people who just want control?  It is called a control racket and not a generate your own power racket  

Quote
This racket has a bigger sweetspot than lets say the head prestige which has the same head size of 93 sq. in..

Really? Would you mind quantifying how much bigger “bigger” is? If you’re referring to the feel of a larger sweetspot as opposed to the actual dimension of it, then it’s a subjective opinion, not a fact.

Well it is... my opinion ( I didnt say it was an undisputable fact ) I have actually played with both rackets.  My opinion is based on my experience with the rackets in question.  If i had to be a scientist and have a degree on quantum physics to play tennis or to just post my opinions in this forum, then i'm not qualified and you can erase all my posts.  But that would leave PTO with just one member and the tennis courts with a handful of individuals who spends too much time researching rather than playing tennis  

Quote
That maybe true but if your original assumption was to be believed that the swing weight and swing speed was the limiting factor of the 93 then I suggest you do your research better.

First, I never said anything about swingweight.  Understand that mass, heft or weight is not the same as swingweight.
Second, please understand what I said and take it within the context of the specific condition upon which the statement was based on.

Quote
The 93 has a swing weight of 323 while the 98's is 325  The smaller head and lighter head of the 93 makes it more maneuverable than the 98.  Does this mean that a player can generate a faster swing speed with the 93 than the 98? Hell yes!   Maybe it's some other factor that the pros (statistics pending) favor the 98 over the 93


It’s one thing to look at individual spec numbers and draw corresponding individual conclusions.  It’s another to interpret these numbers collectively and understand what it means as a whole in order to get the total picture.  You believe that a difference of 2 points in swingweight translates to more maneuverability or faster swingspeed? Practically-speaking, it doesn’t.

The addition of an overgrip makes the racket 1-2 pts more headlight, adds 4-6 g of weight  and results in a swingweight difference of 5-10 points.  I haven't seen a player jump up and down and exclaim that wrapping a Tournagrip makes their racket more maneuverable and juices their swingspeed.

It’s not enough to take swingweight numbers, then hastily jump to misguided conclusions.  Did you know that swingweight measurements simulate racket head rotation about the hand? That’s only half of the swingspeed story.  You also need to take into account the rotation of the entire racket about the player's torso.

Now, according to your data, the Mid is 20 g heavier than the MP. Why is this significant? Well, that’s 20 g of extra racket mass that has to be moved.  If anything, this extra mass could certainly slow down swingspeed.

Did you ever consider that the pros prefer the MP because it’s practically just as maneuverable as the Mid, but it’s easier to swing because its 20 g lighter, it’s less demanding and more forgiving?  

Quote
Do you have a speed gun that works on peoples arms?  Well I dont know about how much speed (because i don't own a speed gun) you need to generate, but with an average swing with Good Timing, Solid Contact and Good Form  you can hit a heavy ball with the kblade 93.  The lower tension will add to the velocity and heaviness of the ball.

So, how much velocity will lower tensions add to the ball?  0.7%, that’s how much. I don’t think that’s significant enough to be a game-changer.

The force, velocity or power a player imparts on the ball is a product of racket’s mass and player’s swingspeed.  That’s a fact.

An average swing with all the bells and whistles of good form and timing is still an average swing. Average swings yield average ball velocities.  Otherwise, it wouldn’t be called average.

No, I don’t have a speed gun. Speed guns are commonly used to measure ball speed.

What I do have is a Doppler radar sensor that is used for measuring swingspeeds in golf and baseball, but works for tennis, too.  I think it’s a useful tool for coaches and instructors.  Having a measurable baseline reference of the students’ swingspeed relative to their racket could help the coach tweak the students’ strokes to maximize their power potential.

This is too long... you lost me at indisputable facts.  

If you think that opinion is a non factor then why do companies have playtesters?  Couldn't they just build a perfect racket for everyone?  There's always the human factor to be considered.   Luxilon made the blue ALU Power strings specifically for Gustavo Kuerten, it was their show of gratitude for being one of the first to use Luxilons.  It's exactly the same composition as the original ALU they just used a blue dye in the lab the dye added was so small that it was considered a non factor in the laboratory, it was even called the GUGA strings.  But did Guga use it?  Nope

The force, velocity or power a player imparts on the ball is a product of racket’s mass and player’s swingspeed.  That’s a fact.

An average swing with all the bells and whistles of good form and timing is still an average swing. Average swings yield average ball velocities.  Otherwise, it wouldn’t be called average.

pardon me I really meant to say an average swing speed with all the bells and whistles of good form and timing    

Case in point: If player 4.5 hits hard towards player 3.5 and 3.5 was able to time the ball on the rise and right smack on the sweet spot with an average swing speed could he not produce a heavy ball with his kblade 93 by using the velocity from player 4.5?  

You can say fact this and fact that, but a lot of your research can be disputed by how many people have positive feedbacks on the kblade 93.  People who actually used it and experienced playing with it.  Most of them did not string it with Natural Gut as you have first suggested, not even Novak Djokovic(who could easily afford or get sposored with natural gut).  
 
  

 




  




 

[Tennis_Guy]

Just out of curiosity

So, how much velocity will lower tensions add to the ball?  0.7%, that’s how much. I don’t think that’s significant enough to be a game-changer.

How were you able to quantify this? 

[renald]

Unless jay20 has a pro-type swingspeed of 70-90 mph and the clean strokes of at least a 4.5 player, the racket is a limiting factor.  In which case, it doesn’t matter what strings you put in, you’re not going to extract optimum performance out of the racket.

In my opinion, the average player using a racket like this would benefit more from a quality multifilament string. ATBE, strings would tend to last longer on a racket with a small head and a tight string pattern. Hence, natural gut if the budget is there, or a quality multi, would yield a more playable stringbed.

Hi,

What do you mean by more playable stringbed? Please explain

[Tennis_Guy]

Just out of curiosity

So, how much velocity will lower tensions add to the ball?  0.7%, that’s how much. I don’t think that’s significant enough to be a game-changer.

How were you able to quantify this? 

I'm not sure if i am understanding this correctly.

A player who normally strings his racket at 60lbs and then decides to string his racket at 56lbs will just gain .028 in velocity?

or is it just constant .007 no matter how low the player strings his tension?

What kind of test were used?

[mikki_blinkme]

vice! kelangan natin ng arbitter 

[Tennis_Guy]

vice! kelangan natin ng arbitter 

haha mikki di na kailangan ng arbiter nagtatanong lang sa "expert".  Tayo naman ay manlalaro lang ng tennis at may kaunting opinyon    Syempre pag sinabi ng tao na "fact" ang ibig bang sabihin non dahil lang sa sinabi na fact yon eh di mo na pwedeng batikusin?

Marami ng fact na napatunayang mali at kung walang tao na magtatanong lahat tayo uto uto.  Kung i-google mo marami ka ng makikita

Halimbawa:

Cats always land on their feet
The Great Wall of China is the only man made structure seen from space
Drinking Alcohol will warm you up when out in cold weather
Drink 8 glasses of water a day to stay healthy
An elephant cant jump
Spinach makes you strong

nung elementary ako 9 lang yung planets sa solar system natin ngayon at least ten (siguristang sagot yun)
Medical doctors thought that baby formula was much better than breast milk for children. Now doctors say the exact opposite is said to be true
atbp...


Walang mali sa magtanong at alamin kung tama talaga ang sinasabi ng isang tao.  Lalo na kung salungat sa opinyon mo, kung napatunayang tama at may saysay ang sinasabi ng isang tao, hindi ang kahulugan non ay talo ka, panalo ka dahil may natutunan kang bago    Talo ka lang kung magmamatigas ka sa mali kahit napatunayan ng tama

Pero habang may butas pa at di ka pa masaya sa mga sagot na nakukuha mo ... tanong lang ng tanong, batikos lang ng batikos  libre naman yun di ba? Wala naman mawawala, may posibilidad pang may matutunan ka 

[jay20]

sir may signum pro pa rin b kayo?

[jay20]

anu po number nyo sir tennis guy order po ako

[racketwiz]

wohooo it's getting hot in here hahaha

That’s what usually happens when you’re feeling the heat.   

I thought we were comparing the Blade Mid & MP?  But, ok. Let’s give your argument a go.

-- larger racket heads have more power (the Prince is 17 sq.in. larger)
-- open string patterns have more power (the Prince has an open pattern)
-- heavier rackets have more power (the Prince is 35 g heavier) 

So how exactly did you figure that the Blade 93 will have a better power potential than the Prince Pro 110 aluminum?

I never said opinions are non-factors.  Regarding your statement about the size of the Blade 93’s sweetspot, I merely said yours was a subjective opinion.  Other players may not share that opinion.

Opinions or player feedback has a place and use for various purposes. But, as it’s been said, opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one.  One man’s super stick is another man’s walking stick. Numbers, on the other hand, are not biased or opinionated.  They are what they are. A racket weighing 315g is a physical fact.  What varies is a player’s opinion or interpretation of it. Some will say it’s heavy, others will say it’s light.

While many people, as you say, may have positive feedbacks on the Blade 93, not everyone who’ve tried it likes it enough to switch to it, and that includes the touring Blade pros who prefer the Blade MP.

In normal groundstrokes rally, the incoming ball will always leave the racket faster than when it came in.  So, in your given player scenario, the ball coming off player 3.5’s racket will be faster. However, you have to also consider that the ball has to travel the length of the court and bounce off the ground before it is struck by player 4.5.  Gravity, air resistance, surface friction among other variables will slow the ball down. By the time player 4.5 hits the ball, much of its initial velocity has dissipated. Is the ball that player 4.5 about to hit, “heavy”? I suppose that would depend upon what you would qualify as a “heavy” ball.   

As far as your question regarding lower tensions v. ball speed, you might want to refer to the works of Howard Brody (UPenn) and Rod Cross (U of Sydney).  0.7% represents a 10-lb tension drop. Anything in between is pro-rated accordingly. After 10 lb, a point of diminishing returns is breached.

[racketwiz]

Hi,

What do you mean by more playable stringbed? Please explain

renald
Elastic, resilient, soft, comfortable, the opposite of stiff.  But I think as a USRSA stringer you already know this.

[racketwiz]

vice! kelangan natin ng arbitter 

Some people are genuinely interested,
others are just trying to be a smartarse.
Then there are those who seek payback
and those who just hate your guts for whatever reason.

I heard the same is true in politics.

[luxilionwave]

This thread has been informative, there's always new stuff to learn about tennis equipments.The game is truly evolving. Appreciate the extra research,RW.

[Tennis_Guy]

vice! kelangan natin ng arbitter 

Some people are genuinely interested,
others are just trying to be a smartarse.
Then there are those who seek payback
and those who just hate your guts for whatever reason.

I heard the same is true in politics.

... and some are just paranoid when their facts are questioned

As far as your question regarding lower tensions v. ball speed, you might want to refer to the works of Howard Brody (UPenn) and Rod Cross (U of Sydney).  0.7% represents a 10-lb tension drop. Anything in between is pro-rated accordingly. After 10 lb, a point of diminishing returns is breached.

Omg hahaha that's your source?  This one I took the time to research on because it intrigued me if it was true or not. 

Brody's tests were made in 1987 in lab conditions using rackets clamped on a table using NYLON and GUT.   

You were able to compute for an exact data of .7% for the kblade's using modern strings with lower string tensions, with data that was more than 2 decades old?
The thing is your statement is misleading, you use data as it suits you

Which of Cross's study were you pertaining too?  You might want to update yourself with his studies, you might find something interesting that you might want to retract your .7% data because it is outdated and doesn't hold water and offering it as a data for our argument in regards to the kblade 93 is highly irresponsible and misleading

[mikki_blinkme]

[commander ians]

vice! kelangan natin ng arbitter 

Some people are genuinely interested,
others are just trying to be a smartarse.
Then there are those who seek payback
and those who just hate your guts for whatever reason.

I heard the same is true in politics.

hahaha. 

probably 'Why Federer lost to Djoko in the semis of the Australian open' was out of his fear of Nadal.   
 

[edreams11]

potah oh! haha

[mikki_blinkme]

probably 'Why Federer lost to Djoko in the semis of the Australian open' was out of his fear of Nadal.   
 

OT. di ka maka get over  move on... rackets and strings ang usapan dito... not federer.

at dahil dyan may nagpost:

[Tennis_Guy]

vice! kelangan natin ng arbitter 

Some people are genuinely interested,
others are just trying to be a smartarse.
Then there are those who seek payback
and those who just hate your guts for whatever reason.

I heard the same is true in politics.

hahaha. 

probably 'Why Federer lost to Djoko in the semis of the Australian open' was out of his fear of Nadal.   
 

Oh wow... hahaha  tuwang tuwa si CI na natalo si Fed... 

Let me just clarify something kasi parang may pinapahiwatig ang mga statement na ito na hindi kanais nais.


Some people are genuinely interested, <--- I hope this means me 
others are just trying to be a smartarse. <----- I definitely hope that's not me because it's so childish to resort to name calling in an argument 
Then there are those who seek payback <------ Di ba ang tumtakbo sa usapan ang talo?  so I guess di rin ako yon why would i need payback? hahaha
and those who just hate your guts for whatever reason. <----- Di rin ako to kasi i don't know how to hate people... i just feel indifferent to people i dont like but i dont hate

Nakakahawa yung paranoia!   

[commander ians]

vice! kelangan natin ng arbitter 

Some people are genuinely interested,
others are just trying to be a smartarse.
Then there are those who seek payback
and those who just hate your guts for whatever reason.

I heard the same is true in politics.

hahaha. 

probably 'Why Federer lost to Djoko in the semis of the Australian open' was out of his fear of Nadal.   
 

Oh wow... hahaha  tuwang tuwa si CI na natalo si Fed... 

Let me just clarify something kasi parang may pinapahiwatig ang mga statement na ito na hindi kanais nais.


Some people are genuinely interested, <--- I hope this means me 
others are just trying to be a smartarse. <----- I definitely hope that's not me because it's so childish to resort to name calling in an argument 
Then there are those who seek payback <------ Di ba ang tumtakbo sa usapan ang talo?  so I guess di rin ako yon why would i need payback? hahaha
and those who just hate your guts for whatever reason. <----- Di rin ako to kasi i don't know how to hate people... i just feel indifferent to people i dont like but i dont hate

Nakakahawa yung paranoia!   

hahaha. happy ako kasi smart and hoping ka. 
smart dahil magaling ka sa fearless forcast and hoping na tama ka. 
laugh trip muna ako 

[racketwiz]

Brody's tests were made in 1987 in lab conditions using rackets clamped on a table using NYLON and GUT.

Wrong guy, wrong year.   

You were able to compute for an exact data of .7% for the kblade's using modern strings with lower strings, with data that was more than 2 decades old?
The thing is your statement is misleading, you use data as it suits you

Ball speed = (apparent coefficient of restitution x incoming ball speed) + (1 + apparent coefficient of restitution) x racket speed

There are 3 variables involved, and neither of them require 20-yr-old data nor a clamped racket.  So, there you go. Knock yourself out.

----------------
Perhaps you could dial down the mockery for just a bit and actually provide some sort of substantiation about your own statements, such as the Blade 93 having a larger sweetspot or having a higher power potential than the Prince OS aluminum.

Rather than trying to cut me off at every turn, why don’t you offer an alternative technical argument that is valid and supported by the industry?  Why don’t you give us some other research, test or experiment that offers a counterpoint to the technical issues at hand?

[Tennis_Guy]

Quote
Brody's tests were made in 1987 in lab conditions using rackets clamped on a table using NYLON and GUT.

Wrong guy, wrong year.   

My bad that was jack groppel

Quote
You were able to compute for an exact data of .7% for the kblade's using modern strings with lower strings, with data that was more than 2 decades old?
The thing is your statement is misleading, you use data as it suits you

Ball speed = (apparent coefficient of restitution x incoming ball speed) + (1 + apparent coefficient of restitution) x racket speed

There are 3 variables involved, and neither of them require 20-yr-old data nor a clamped racket.  So, there you go. Knock yourself out.

So if you did not use the data from their experiments.  You are implying that you did the tests yourself on the kblade 93 using lower tensions and using modern  strings and came up with  .7%?  Is this correct?

Perhaps you could dial down the mockery for just a bit and actually provide some sort of substantiation about your own statements, such as the Blade 93 having a larger sweetspot or having a higher power potential than the Prince OS aluminum.

That's the difference i'm not a self proclaimed expert and never have posed as one.  You're the expert show me your computation regarding those two rackets and show me that i'm wrong and your statement stands.  Also to equate for human factor you should conduct a survey with those two rackets in real world conditions.

Rather than trying to cut me off at every turn, why don’t you offer an alternative technical argument that is valid and supported by the industry?  Why don’t you give us some other research, test or experiment that offers a counterpoint to the technical issues at hand?

As i said your the expert.  So all your points are valid and supported by the industry?  The industry itself has varied opinions

And that’s the problem. Most of us get carried away with marketing hype and what our Idol uses. The reality is that spin is largely a product of the player’s stroke and swingspeed, not strings.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-new-physics-of-tennis/8339/

May video pa.  15 years the scientists ignored what the players already knew. 

Copoly strings help generate so much spin that today’s players—dubbed the “new-string generation” by Federer— can hit once-inconceivable drives, angled winners, and passing shots. But despite the widespread belief of players that copoly strings have changed the game, scientists until recently could find no evidence that a string’s material, thickness, tension, or texture made a real difference in spin generation.

Enter the Japanese engineer Yoshihiko Kawazoe. In 2004, he decided to test a string lubricant that its inventor, Kenji Okimoto, thought would “revive” old, worn strings. Kawazoe realized that, despite much research, scientists had only a shadowy idea of what happens during the 4 or 5 milli­seconds when the ball is on the strings, simply because they couldn’t see it. But with an ultra-high-speed, 10,000-frame-per-second camera, Kawazoe solved the mystery of strings and spin.

Copoly strings—slippery and stiff—generate more spin not because of more friction, but because of less.
The old argument was that the better the grip between the strings and the ball, the more spin you would get. But that’s not true,” said Rod Cross, an Australian physicist and co-author of Technical Tennis.
Last April, Cross and his co-author, Crawford Lindsey, published their study showing that copoly strings generate 20 percent more spin than nylon strings, and 11 percent more than natural gut. Such differences help explain how a contemporary powerhouse like Rafael Nadal can hit with twice as much spin as Andre Agassi did.

Looking back, Lindsey and Kawazoe told me they are befuddled by how long people took to realize that polyester strings generated extra spin through sideways sliding and snapback. -excerpts from the article

Copoly strings generate 20 percent more spin than nylon strings, and 11 percent more than natural gut.  Game changers?  Ask the players they definitely think so.

“Yep, that’s impossible,” Nate Ferguson, the stringer and racket technician of Federer, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, and Soderling, told me later. “The ball’s 18 inches off the ground and hit for a winner [from there]—that’s bullshit.”

Fact proven wrong or should I say RW Fact proven wrong? 


 

[mikki_blinkme]

hala tumawa na mag-isa yung isa dun o. hahaha! pacheckup nyo na yan. delikado yun. 

jay20 tignan mong ginawa mo... 

[whizzard]

jay20 tignan mong ginawa mo... 

 

[mikki_blinkme]

hahaha. happy ako kasi smart and hoping ka. 
smart dahil magaling ka sa fearless forcast and hoping na tama ka. 
laugh trip muna ako 

TG pakisagot nga to... di ko na maintindihan e. bigla na lang tumawa mag-isa. 

[mikki_blinkme]

jay20 tignan mong ginawa mo... 

 

idol! musta? naformat pc ko e bad trip dami kong matches na di naburn... pag nadl ko ulit update ko na list ko. 

so anong string para kay jay20 sa tingin mo para sa kblade nya? 

[racketwiz]

So if you did not use the data from their experiments.  You are implying that you did the tests yourself on the kblade 93 using lower tensions and using modern  strings and came up with  .7%?  Is this correct?

I gave you the formula. Surely you can figure this one out with a calculator.

That's the difference i'm not a self proclaimed expert and never have posed as one.  You're the expert show me your computation regarding those two rackets and show me that i'm wrong and your statement stands.  Also to equate for human factor you should conduct a survey with those two rackets in real world conditions.

In which case perhaps you should refrain from making assertions on sweetspots and power potential without technical basis. I don’t recall making an announcement that I am THE expert. But as human factors go, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Blade pros choose the MP version speaks for itself.

As i said your the expert.  So all your points are valid and supported by the industry?  The industry itself has varied opinions

Thank you, I’m flattered. Are my points valid? You're the skeptic, so you tell me.

May video pa.  15 years the scientists ignored what the players already knew.

Interesting article, but it’s old news.  What can I say, the Japanese guy was trying to sell the merits of his string lubricant.

The ITF did commission a test back in ’07, I think, and concluded that polys do impart slightly more spin, emphasis on “slightly”.  These tests were done on clamped rackets.

Cross and Lindsey did their own tests on both clamped and hand-held rackets, and although your referenced article mentions a 20% spin increase v. nylon and 11% increase v. gut (on clamped rackets), it failed to mention that hand-held rackets produced 30% less spin than clamped rackets.  The article also failed to mention the caveat of these tests, that the resulting spin is more sensitive to the parameters of the incoming ball than the parameters of the string.

Which brings us back to ITF’s conclusion of “slightly more spin”.  Just like the lower tension v. power issue, yes, there is an increase, but the increase is only “slightly”. Whether or not “slightly” is significant enough, that’s open to the player’s interpretation.  The ITF doesn’t seem to think that the “spin advantage” is significant enough to violate its equipment rules.

The embedded video goes to show that players of today swing a lot harder and put a lot more power in their shots.  And that’s the whole point of polys: it allows a player to swing harder than ever before in order to get some action on the ball while keeping it in play, well, as long as the player knows how to hit the ball hard properly.

I understand why Nadal was used as an example, but I’m disappointed that the article did not spend some time to talk about Nadal’s swing arc, racket speed and the fact that his trusty AeroPro is heavily weight-customized. You would think that the characteristics of his groundstrokes and the custom racket job, not to mention his guns, has much to do with the amount of spin that he generates.

What’s interesting about the video is that while it does show the deflection of 3 main strings (with the topmost string deflecting the most), it also shows that when the strings snap back into place, the ball has already slid past the deflected strings. So, I think that the extra spin, however slight, has more to with the actual deflection than the snapping back.

It would have been nice if the article also explained how Borg was able to generate heavy topspin using a tiny wood racket strung with gut at 80 lb., considering that his strings obviously didn’t have the snap back qualities of poly.

One thing that the poly and Borg’s woodie racket have in common is a stiff stringbed. Perhaps Borg had the right idea of how to increase spin long before polys became the rage.

[edreams11]

parang gusto kong sumagot... naiintindihan ko na kc eh.. mga 10% nga lang hehe

di lang ilong ko dumudugo.. pati tenga na!

[luxilionwave]

So if you did not use the data from their experiments.  You are implying that you did the tests yourself on the kblade 93 using lower tensions and using modern  strings and came up with  .7%?  Is this correct?

I gave you the formula. Surely you can figure this one out with a calculator.

That's the difference i'm not a self proclaimed expert and never have posed as one.  You're the expert show me your computation regarding those two rackets and show me that i'm wrong and your statement stands.  Also to equate for human factor you should conduct a survey with those two rackets in real world conditions.

In which case perhaps you should refrain from making assertions on sweetspots and power potential without technical basis. I don’t recall making an announcement that I am THE expert. But as human factors go, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Blade pros choose the MP version speaks for itself.

As i said your the expert.  So all your points are valid and supported by the industry?  The industry itself has varied opinions

Thank you, I’m flattered. Are my points valid? You're the skeptic, so you tell me.

May video pa.  15 years the scientists ignored what the players already knew.

Interesting article, but it’s old news.  What can I say, the Japanese guy was trying to sell the merits of his string lubricant.

The ITF did commission a test back in ’07, I think, and concluded that polys do impart slightly more spin, emphasis on “slightly”.  These tests were done on clamped rackets.

Cross and Lindsey did their own tests on both clamped and hand-held rackets, and although your referenced article mentions a 20% spin increase v. nylon and 11% increase v. gut (on clamped rackets), it failed to mention that hand-held rackets produced 30% less spin than clamped rackets.  The article also failed to mention the caveat of these tests, that the resulting spin is more sensitive to the parameters of the incoming ball than the parameters of the string.

Which brings us back to ITF’s conclusion of “slightly more spin”.  Just like the lower tension v. power issue, yes, there is an increase, but the increase is only “slightly”. Whether or not “slightly” is significant enough, that’s open to the player’s interpretation.  The ITF doesn’t seem to think that the “spin advantage” is significant enough to violate its equipment rules.

The embedded video goes to show that players of today swing a lot harder and put a lot more power in their shots.  And that’s the whole point of polys: it allows a player to swing harder than ever before in order to get some action on the ball while keeping it in play, well, as long as the player knows how to hit the ball hard properly.

I understand why Nadal was used as an example, but I’m disappointed that the article did not spend some time to talk about Nadal’s swing arc, racket speed and the fact that his trusty AeroPro is heavily weight-customized. You would think that the characteristics of his groundstrokes and the custom racket job, not to mention his guns, has much to do with the amount of spin that he generates.

What’s interesting about the video is that while it does show the deflection of 3 main strings (with the topmost string deflecting the most), it also shows that when the strings snap back into place, the ball has already slid past the deflected strings. So, I think that the extra spin, however slight, has more to with the actual deflection than the snapping back.

It would have been nice if the article also explained how Borg was able to generate heavy topspin using a tiny wood racket strung with gut at 80 lb., considering that his strings obviously didn’t have the snap back qualities of poly.

inOne thg that the poly and Borg’s woodie racket have in common is a stiff stringbed. Perhaps Borg had the right idea of how to increase spin long before polys became the rage.

I've always wondered how Borg could produce such a high RPM with that Donnay racket. When I was a junior and using that racket, it was too stiff to hit heavy topspins. Imagine with a string with no snap back qualities. Grabe siguro yung wrist action and also rotation and loading up phase ni Borg. What if Borg is at his prime today?

[Tennis_Guy]

Interesting article, but it’s old news.  What can I say, the Japanese guy was trying to sell the merits of his string lubricant.

The ITF did commission a test back in ’07, I think, and concluded that polys do impart slightly more spin, emphasis on “slightly”.  These tests were done on clamped rackets.

Cross and Lindsey did their own tests on both clamped and hand-held rackets, and although your referenced article mentions a 20% spin increase v. nylon and 11% increase v. gut (on clamped rackets), it failed to mention that hand-held rackets produced 30% less spin than clamped rackets.  The article also failed to mention the caveat of these tests, that the resulting spin is more sensitive to the parameters of the incoming ball than the parameters of the string.

OML Old news? Please tell me that a january 2011 article is not old news!  An april 2010 study is actually more recent than your ITF 07 test. 
How could you even try to use an 07 test against a more recent test conducted by the same sources that you also use Cross(Sydney)
 
So you're now going against your owns source??? kung sabagay you already used them as source for your .7% which you offered as evidence and now expect us to compute for ourselves  Doesn't that sound wrong?

This is a perfect example of how you use data as it suits you

BTW the japanese guy is not the inventor and the April 2010 study was by Rod Cross, an Australian physicist and co-author of Technical Tennis.
which was also your source

As far as your question regarding lower tensions v. ball speed, you might want to refer to the works of Howard Brody (UPenn) and Rod Cross (U of Sydney).  0.7% represents a 10-lb tension drop. Anything in between is pro-rated accordingly. After 10 lb, a point of diminishing returns is breached.

    

It would have been nice if the article also explained how Borg was able to generate heavy topspin using a tiny wood racket strung with gut at 80 lb., considering that his strings obviously didn’t have the snap back qualities of poly.

inOne thg that the poly and Borg’s woodie racket have in common is a stiff stringbed. Perhaps Borg had the right idea of how to increase spin long before polys became the rage

Wow now your going against the scientists and going to the players (war na kayo ng scientist mo?)

Your statement is implying that borg's spin is equal to the modern era?  I didn't realize your calculator also had a time machine

This is something noone can measure for! How can we compare Borg's heavy topspin to Nadal's heavy topspin, so it's safe to say your statement is "subjective" even in your standards

Thank you, I’m flattered. Are my points valid? You're the skeptic, so you tell me.

Your welcome  and no you hardly represent the tennis industry... maybe in your own mind you do... If the tennis industry can't agree among themselves how can you even THINK to represent your ideas as the industry's TRUTH?  Wait did the tennis industry voted RW it's representative for PTO or humankind?  I don't think so

I noticed something... you hardly say fact now  I wonder why   

[Tennis_Guy]

I don’t recall making an announcement that I am THE expert.

But you do consider yourself as an expert am i correct?  If not then all your recommendations are just mere opinions and you should address it as that not facts

quote]In which case perhaps you should refrain from making assertions on sweetspots and power potential without technical basis. 

If you don't consider yourself an expert then I suggest you follow your own advice if you do consider yourself as an expert then still follow your advice.  Don't just blurt out numbers and data without reference you can't produce.  Just because you know their names it doesn't make you right.  Show us at least what studies you were talking about, and please don't tell us to just find it ourselves and just take your word for it that you actually understood what you read. 

But as human factors go, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Blade pros choose the MP version speaks for itself.

Where is your proof of this? Did the ITF make a survey regarding the Blades?  You offer this as "fact" when you don't have any evidence to prove such a claim.  Do you have a reference for this or is this just your personal observation?  Until you show proof this is not a valid point.  If you think that i can't use my personal observation as a basis then what makes you think you can use yours as basis? 

What about the statistic that when Novak was using the 93, the kblade 93 had a monopoly on the ATP's top 10? Why are we even using the ATP as a statistic when it is common knowledge that their rackets are highly modified to suit their needs? Are we to assume that the kblade in question from the thread starter is like the kblades in the pro tour?

If you don't consider yourself as an expert then we have no argument you have your opinion and I have mine.  You should address your views then as opinions, But if you claim that your views are fact and that you are an expert then it should at least go under careful scrutiny before we accept it as true.  If you are an expert then you should at least support your claims and explain them in a more professional manner.  You won't see a doctor mocking and calling people names just because they have opposing views do you? Well at least not in a professional capacity 

 

[whizzard]

jay20 tignan mong ginawa mo... 

 

idol! musta? naformat pc ko e bad trip dami kong matches na di naburn... pag nadl ko ulit update ko na list ko. 

so anong string para kay jay20 sa tingin mo para sa kblade nya? 

ayos lang.  pm mo na lang sa akin kung me na-dl ka na.

so anong string para kay jay20 sa tingin mo para sa kblade nya? : ayokong tingnan hehehehhe

nice discussion on this thread.    it brings out the wonders of a simple question.