Spaghetti Strings

[captnemo]

Josh,

What a wonderous and bizarre tale. I remember hearing about these strings at the time and always wondered if there was more of a story about who and how that all happened.

Thanks to you for fereting that all out and to Tennisplayer for once again bringing fascinating new information to us players.

[blake_b]

I also enjoyed this article. Has anyone tried only stringing every other cross string and lubricating with WD40? It sounds like something Geoff would try.

[don_budge]

Too much engineering...

From the two articles...some views of the top players

Following his victory in the 2007 US Open final, Roger Federer explained that copoly strings had forced a tactical shift in the men's game, pushing attacking players away from the net and back onto the baseline.

In 2003, a group of former pros, including McEnroe, Navratilova and Becker, sent the game's rules-making body, the International Tennis Federation, a letter expressing concern about the state of the game. "The sport has lost something, lost some subtlety, some strategy, some of the nuance," they said, and argued for a return to smaller racket head sizes.

"Tennis is about dimensions and angles," said Andre Agassi in a recent interview with The Sunday Telegraph. "And when you add spin to the equation, that kind of spin, you're talking about changing the dimensions of the game. You're not talking about tennis anymore. You're talking about a different sport."

Then there is this person...what does she know that we don't?

But not everyone agrees with that assessment. J. Nadine Gelberg, founder of GetCharged, a non-profit group that consults with manufacturers and institutions on the interaction of sports and equipment, says that, given the massive changes in tennis since the 70s, the alarms should have been ringing long ago.

"When [tennis rules makers] decided they may want to consider banning the large-head racket it was too late," Gelberg says. Banning a product once it's on the market is extremely difficult in any sport, she adds, because manufacturers are likely to line up and sue the rules-makers on lost revenue and anti-trust grounds.

The problem, says Gelberg, is that "the ITF has a history of being very reactive," rather than proactive. She points out that large-headed rackets were initially slow to catch on with professionals, but were accepted much more quickly by the general public.

End of article quotes.

Me...

The reason that large headed racquets were initially slow to catch on with professionals was...the professionals at the time had great respect for the game, great respect for the history of the game, great respect for the traditions in the game and great respect for the great players that played before them. Somebody should of asked them how they felt about reinventing the game. I suspect that I know what their answer might of been. The four semi finalists in the 1984 US Open were Pat Cash, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl. The technology had finally caught up to the best players in the game. Björn Borg left the game rather than switch to the new equipment. Of the four semi finalists, only Ivan Lendl was playing with a standard sized racquet on that day. He barely squeaked by Cash in five sets and was demolished by McEnroe the next day despite the fact that McEnroe was just finishing up Connors in five sets around midnight the night before. Cash had switched to oversized earlier but McEnroe and Connors were both using oversized for the first time at the Open. One of the television commercials aired during the 1984 Open was for the Prince Racquet and the spokesperson was none other than a player named Eric Korita. Anybody remember that name? Arthur Ashe also did a commercial for a mid sized Head racquet.

The over sized racquet was introduced sometime around 1976 or so. No real tennis player would of been caught dead with one at first. The players who began using these racquets truly needed them to compete because they were inferior players. Once they began to use this monstrosity they became competitive with the tier of players immediately above them so this next tier of players began to feel the pressure from below them so they slowly began to switch...this creeping change worked its way up the ladder. It would be fascinating to see the rankings of the top 100 players from 1976 until 1984 and have the racquet that each player was playing with identified in the lists. Those lower tiered players did not have nearly as much invested in the game in terms of their relative merits as the most talented players did thus they had less respect for the game and were quicker to change to gain the advantage. By 1984 (the Orwellian year by coincidence) the metamorphosis was nearly complete as Lendl was the last hold out.

Without any doubt in my mind...anybody who knows anything about tennis and the way that it was played through the years...anybody that knows how the game was evolving without the engineering...any true aficionado knows that the game that is being dished up today is not tennis by definition...as Agassi ironically says. I say ironically because he was one of the first to switch and use the Prince oversized racquet. Much of his initial success could conceivably be attributed to his using an oversized racquet when the other professionals were not because...it was cheating.

Call it engineering....or cheating...and realistically speaking it was cheating back then, it is creating an element to the game that was never meant to be an element. That is where one player can seek to have an advantage over his opponent because of the equipment factor. This in itself goes completely against what was for so many years called...tennis etiquette. The change in equipment has effectively cheated the whole game of tennis...the fans, students of the game, players past and present. It made comparisons of players past and present impossible...but somehow this is viewed as a legitimate change. This in the end is not progress...it is more like the social engineering of the modern day world which has completely transformed our society and our world...as well as the great sport of tennis. Does everyone think the game or the world for that matter is for the better? Do you realize that now the powers that be in tennis are realizing that they are losing television audience and are seeking ways to get it back? The game is losing audience because it is boring. Do you know what that means? More engineered change coming down the pipe.

The game was not broken at the time these changes were being implemented. Borg and McEnroe played perhaps one of the most compelling and thrilling Wimbledon finals ever in 1980. The same pair played another dandy in 1981. So if it wasn't broke, why did they "fix" it? The answer...money. The game was sold to the equipment manufacturers.

All I can say...it is too bad and too sad. It was a great game. Just a little tennis history for you younger guys. The outcome of the game was not originally meant to be decided by equipment issues. Anybody care to dispute me?

[stotty]

Is it true that Mecir was the last player to stop using a wooden racket?

I imagine the Spagetti racket would hardly be a weapon at all these days...or would it? I never tried it. The fear at the time was that Borg wold be unplayable with it and the game would become boring. I remember this was a chief concern.

[GeoffWilliams]

I also enjoyed this article. Has anyone tried only stringing every other cross string and lubricating with WD40? It sounds like something Geoff would try.

I used silicone spray, which would not degrade the strings like WD-40 would. The spray removed all "grab", due to its slickness, and I had no control at all, and lost 6-0, when I had won a previous set, same guy, same day, same strings 6-4. Never did it again, due to a total lack of feel/grab time on the bed.

[stumphges]

Thanks for the feedback guys!

Mr. budge, the commercial angle of the story - the interaction of the equipment companies and the rules' makers (and the tournaments, and other vested money interests) - is an interesting one, but beyond the scope of this tennisplayer.net series.

[gzhpcu]

I remember when the spaghetti strings hit the Swiss tennis circuit. Previously, low-ranked players scored one upset after another and climbed rapidly up the ranking ladder. Those who used it well, hit a ball which flew irregularly through the air and bounced very high with unpredictable amounts of topspin and sidespin.

They were not power shots but very annoying shots, often hit high like lobs, bouncing near the baseline. No pop when hitting the ball, just a swishing sound. There was no finesse, just boring, high-bouncing spin shots. Serves had no great speed, just very high bouncing kickers. No aces. All-in-all very effective on clay courts. Devastating at the club level. Never saw it at the pro level.