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)
The article is new. The gist of the article is old. It has its roots in a 2004 Japanese invention of a string lubricant that supposedly makes the strings slippery, which Prof. Kawazoe was asked to test so that they can submit data to the ITF for product certification. At around that time, players were switching to new generation poly strings en masse supposedly because of its spin-enhancing qualities. Concerned that these strings might affect the integrity of the game, the ITF began testing strings’ effect on spin, particularly on poly strings. That is what the ’07 tests were about.
Cross and Lindsey conducted similar tests 3 years later, in part for the USRSA and the TIA. In my previous post regarding their tests, I provided additional information pertaining to the results of these tests which the article neglected to include.
I don’t disagree with the results of either the ITF or the Cross/Lindsey experiments. They are what they are. No question that polys do increase spin. The question is, how much more spin? ITF says not enough to warrant a rule change. And in the Cross/Lindsey tests, the 20+% increase in clamped rackets is reduced by 30% in hand-held rackets. In addition, they also included a caveat that the properties of the incoming ball has more influence on spin than the string itself. Those are the facts.
So, from this overall perspective, the player has to decide whether a slight gain in spin (which is dependent on the incoming ball anyway) is significant enough for their game. And, like I mentioned, the “new physics of tennis” article failed to mention the relationship of Nadal’s groundstrokes and customized racket to the spin he generates.
As far as Borg is concerned, this is what I stated:
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.
How you would think that I’m implying Borg’s topspin as “equal to the modern era” is beyond me. You seem to read too much into what I say, trying to find a meaning beyond what it actually means.
If there is mockery and name-calling going on, it certainly isn’t coming from me. I don’t have a fondness for smileys either.
Tennis Equipment
