Tweet
Another Rod Cross test that I found to be of limited use is his string tension sensitivity. Another example of why you have to read about how the test was conducted and controlled. This test could tend to lead some to believe that tension in your strings matters little and that you can't the difference in loose strings and tight ones, despite what you may think.
It surely does not prove that.
He has 5 volkl pro comps strung with nylon string at varying tensions and conducts trials.
While I feel I have a pretty good idea of my racket's tension with my current string, due to experience with it, I have NO idea of what could be told about some random Volkl, strung with some random nylon string, not with my guage string, loaded with some random dampner.
To make matters worse, the test is conducted in such a way that would allow players to be right by guessing 25% of the time, so that you now need a much larger % for any positive outcomes to be recognized. Well Heck, I might only expect 10-20% of players to be good at this test anyway, or even less with these random rackets and string! If he wants to prove that an avg player has not got a clue about string, he didn't need a test to prove that.
Then he concludes that most of his subjects only change their strings about twice per year, therefore have very limited experience with fresh strings, even in their own sticks! So why would we expect any of these players to be good at noticing a 2kg diff in string tension in strange racket with strange string?
If a test is set up in fashion as this, it can really make you wonder how good any of the controls really were?
It surely does not prove that.
He has 5 volkl pro comps strung with nylon string at varying tensions and conducts trials.
While I feel I have a pretty good idea of my racket's tension with my current string, due to experience with it, I have NO idea of what could be told about some random Volkl, strung with some random nylon string, not with my guage string, loaded with some random dampner.
To make matters worse, the test is conducted in such a way that would allow players to be right by guessing 25% of the time, so that you now need a much larger % for any positive outcomes to be recognized. Well Heck, I might only expect 10-20% of players to be good at this test anyway, or even less with these random rackets and string! If he wants to prove that an avg player has not got a clue about string, he didn't need a test to prove that.
Then he concludes that most of his subjects only change their strings about twice per year, therefore have very limited experience with fresh strings, even in their own sticks! So why would we expect any of these players to be good at noticing a 2kg diff in string tension in strange racket with strange string?
If a test is set up in fashion as this, it can really make you wonder how good any of the controls really were?