Tweet
If stiff rackets cause fewer control errors, why do all the touring pros use very flexible rackets? I know they use heavy rackets to get momentum (mass x velocity), but why do they use flexible rackets? According to science, flexible rackets vibrate more and bend more. Wouldn't that hurt?
-
-
Not sure I know the answer to that--AJ are you around?? But my experience is that flexible rackets dissipate the shock while stiff ones pass it on to your arm. I know I can feel the difference--just not completely confident on the science.
Not sure that sitffer rackets per se create more control either. Anyone else?? -
To add to your points...
There's shock and then there's vibration.
Shock is that immediate feeling on impact you get with the stiffer frames. I guess that's why tennis has an entire sub-industry of vibration dampening technologies.
Flexible frames are associated more with vibration rather than shock. Vibration is gentle, later and longer in duration, but pretty harmless overall.
Shock is the one that hurts people. The additional bending of the flexible racquets MAY be a little less precise, but we're talking about a degree or two.
Neither of the above factors is a dealbreaker for the finely tuned, deceptively strong athletes playing pro tennis today.
Their priorities are more along these lines:
FEEL (oh so personal),
stability (up against the serious pace and weight of today's ball)
and maneuverability (echoing Halley's F=mv point). Plus, I think there's a lot of perceived value in the extra fraction of a millisecond of dwell time and the ability to take pace OFF a ball. I believe that's why most pros (and college players) opt for the thinner frames.
That said, a few pros do use stiff frames (Clijsters/Feliciano Lopez/Roddick/Nadal's Babolats, and to a greater extent, whatever huge Wilsons the Williamses use). Of course, many of these are customized.Comment
-
Measuring control
Excellent answer, thanks. I wonder if there have been any measurements of control and how much different each racket is.
It seems rather paradoxical that Head's new racket caves in (flexpoint) on purpose and they claim better control. The previous view was that the stiffer frame was better for control.Comment
-
Measurements and research
There's actually a lot of data on stringbed deflection and stiffness index, etc.
Mr. Halley, you would love some of the USRSA literature by Howard Brody and Crawford Lindsey. There's a great book called The Physics of Tennis, and those two masters (among others) address a lot of the variables. There's really nothing like it out there.
Probably the only limitation of the existing research is that some of it based on data from a fixed frame, or from a robot arm swinging a racquet, and the like.
Just my humble opinion here, but I think it is difficult to quantify CONTROL, in the practical sense of the word. The way I see it, the assessment of CONTROL is as subjective and personal as TOUCH or FEEL, and each player has his own measuring stick. I know, I am thinking much more like a player than a scientist. Sorry.
In the future, I see Mr. Yandell's research discovering some serious answers, straight from the match court, courtesy of some non-invasive high-speed video with multiple cameras. Paging Doctors Yandell , Brody and Lindsey, please.
Now, I can't fully comment on the new Flexpoint since I do not use one, -- but I did attend Head's product introduction and saw the animation. I must say, I really like the concept of arranging a racquet to flex in a certain area. The concept is actually not totally new, though. More recently, Dunlop has had a few frame shape manipulations designed to flex at the head, too, but they promoted it differently. Remember the wood days? People who liked stiff shafts and flexy heads went with Maxplys. If you liked a firm head and a flexible shaft, you were a Wilson or a Bancroft man. Oh, and speaking of the wood era, back then, the pros had custom frames made to be stiffer, and with more distinct layers of harder woods. Were they going for control or durability? But that was wood, a whole different scale of flexibility. The difference now is that these Flexpoints are designed to flex INTO the ball. You're making me want to try one again to see if I can really feel it.
As for the recent view that stiffness = control, I'd say that the manufacturer's marketing departments have as much to do with that as their R&D people.
A quick aside: I got roped into a fast serve contest at a tour event a few summers ago. All they had strung-up were oversized widebodies. I am totally positive I would not have registered anywhere near the upper 120's with my 93 sq. in., 18 mm cross-section stick. Of course, any gun near a sponsor's tent is bound to be uhm, generous...and they had you hitting into a screen, not an actual tennis court with a net and a service box. No time to adjust, I took three serves. No pain, no shortage of control and obviously plenty of power, but .... could you pay me to play with it? No thanks. I've demoed them. Let's just say it would take a lot of getting used to for the shots other than the serve. Then you've got some tremendous players who have gotten used to them and think a Wilson Pro Staff has more in common with a Kramer than a graphite racquet! Ahh, the subjective nature of equipment and control.
Thanks for writing in...and thanks for reading.
---ajcComment
-
I need a 20,000 frame/sec camera. I want to film the contact with the racket. but just as interested in the bounce of the ball on the court. It comes into the bounce at 90mph and 2500rpm, and 1/250 of a second later it's going 60mph and spining at 5000rpm. What the heck does that look like???
TComment
-
Right, we need to check up on Head's claims:Originally posted by johnyandell
---------
The theory being, that by having the racquet flex at the 3 & 9 positions, the racquet will cup the ball.
---------
Does the racket really flex the way it's shown in the pic at the top on the right? ("Flexpoint on impact"). Very probably, but would like to see it filmed.Comment
-
Yeah and just to see really what happens in those crazy 4 millisecond interactionsComment
-
Dr. Brody's books
Yes, I have read and reread Dr. Brody's books on tennis science and technology and that prompted my question. It seems Head is doing exactly the opposite of what should be done. I would think that you would want a stiff racket head and a very flexible handle. That way you get a steady hit and the handle absorbs the shock.
Interesting. We need that camera and we need a way to measure control.Comment
-
I'm with you, sir. I think a stiff head and a flexible throat is the way to go. I'm not quite sure what a flexible handle would do, sounds strange. But I know Yonex has been using the stiff head, flexy throat combo in their racquets for a while. Brody's stuff is great. I'm excited about the articles Mr. Cross is writing for Tennisplayer!Comment
-
What equipment are you using today?
Watching your high speed video I was wondering what kind of equipment are you using today? I believe there are high speed video camera on the market that make 20,000 frame/sec, but probably very costly.Originally posted by johnyandellComment
-
Although cost is a factor, it's not so much the cost as the difficulty of operation. They can't be easily used in a pro tennis venue. They need too much light, have short record times, have short lenses, etc. Eventually, we hope to create a situation where we can get some top players to help us in more laboratory conditions. But honestly that is a much lower priority compared to the stroke filming that Advanced Tennis is currently doing.Comment
Comment