Help me get a woody

[faultsnaces]

I'm now at the point where my interest is maximally aroused and I need to experience this for myself: I want to feel first hand what it is like to play with a woody, old school.

Are modern oversized rackets and poly strings really essential to the modern strokes? Is my modern top spin power game dependent on graphite (oh, excuse me, graphene) and poly? Will I be able to swing a woody loaded with animal guts, or will I get injured in the course of a blanking insult?

I would really like to find out!

But first, I need a woody - so which one should I get? I would like a woody as close to my current racket as possible, without breaking the rules: I play with an 18x20 Head Prestige mid plus (98?) leaded up to a 365 swingweight. For a woody, I don't want an oversized head (that's a key part of the challenge here), but I would like a more flexible frame (does such a thing exist - did they vary in flex?). And were there options for string density - or does that not matter at the small head size?

Any pointers to wooden rackets greatly appreciated!
Thanks....
-frank

[don_budge]

I'm now at the point where my interest is maximally aroused and I need to experience this for myself: I want to feel first hand what it is like to play with a woody, old school.

Are modern oversized rackets and poly strings really essential to the modern strokes? Is my modern top spin power game dependent on graphite (oh, excuse me, graphene) and poly? Will I be able to swing a woody loaded with animal guts, or will I get injured in the course of a blanking insult?

I would really like to find out!

But first, I need a woody - so which one should I get? I would like a woody as close to my current racket as possible, without breaking the rules: I play with an 18x20 Head Prestige mid plus (98?) leaded up to a 365 swingweight. For a woody, I don't want an oversized head (that's a key part of the challenge here), but I would like a more flexible frame (does such a thing exist - did they vary in flex?). And were there options for string density - or does that not matter at the small head size?

Any pointers to wooden rackets greatly appreciated!
Thanks....
-frank

Get a hold of a Jack Kramer Autograph and a Dunlop Maxply Fort. John McEnroe used the "Pro Staff" model for most of his "woody" career. As did I.

The wooden racquet strung with animal intestine gut was close to a living thing. The tree and the beast. It felt almost alive when it was new with fresh strings. So you want to play the real game of tennis faultsnaces? God bless you.

[gzhpcu]

Funny you should mention getting an old wooden racket: last week in a flea market, I picked up for 10 Euro a like new Spaulding impact record. This was a model they produced in Italy. It is like new, gut strings look like new. I think it was never played with, kept in an attic, and sold.

when I recover from my meniscus tear, want to try it out. Not sure how gut holds up with age though.

when I started playing i used a Jack Kramer Wilson, handed down from my father.

[don_budge]

Not sure how gut holds up with age though.

Just spray a little "gut life" on it...remember that?

[klacr]

Frank,

Congrats on your journey to wood.
If you are going to do it, do it right. Jack Kramer Autograph or Dunlop Maxply as don_budge suggested is the way to go. Good luck.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[faultsnaces]

OK - so I got me a woody! Thanks to your suggestions, I got a Dunlop Maxply, in Light and 3/8. It's in great condition, and measures flat and true. Compared to my current racket, it feels comparable in weight, probably a few 10s of grams heavier.

Now the big question: what to string this at? I have a few sets of VS 17,but what tension? I string my current racket at 44/42,but I'm guessing this should be a bunch tighter - can anyone point me to a decent starting reference tension?
Thanks!

[don_budge]

OK - so I got me a woody! Thanks to your suggestions, I got a Dunlop Maxply, in Light and 3/8. It's in great condition, and measures flat and true. Compared to my current racket, it feels comparable in weight, probably a few 10s of grams heavier.

Now the big question: what to string this at? I have a few sets of VS 17,but what tension? I string my current racket at 44/42,but I'm guessing this should be a bunch tighter - can anyone point me to a decent starting reference tension?
Thanks!

If I remember correctly around 55 lbs. might be a good starting point. The internet confirms this tension. The 3/8 grip is pretty small. I remember playing with a 5/8.

[faultsnaces]

Thanks, don_budge - I will start with VS 17 @ 55. I got a 3/8 as that's what I currently play with; definitely find that smaller grips help me get more wrist flex, which helps a lot with spin on groundies and the serve - hope this works the same in woody-world....

I'm really looking forward to hitting with this racket - but wow, that's a tiny little hitting area!

[doctorhl]

Be prepared for blisters because of increased torque when hitting strong topspin unless you are really good at hitting the small sweet spot in wood rackets.

[faultsnaces]

OK, got my woody, got it strung, and got to play with it!

First, the racket and stringing: thanks for everyone's help and advice; I got a Dunlop Maxply Fort Light, approximate build date is 1982 or so. It's in great condition, and Roman at RPNY had no trouble stringing it. We did decide against VS gut however, for durability reasons; instead went with TechniFibre X1, one of my favorite multis as it plays very similar to VS but with more durability, especially on wet HarTru. Roman also recommended stringing at 45# for durability and to be closer to my normal tension.

We didn't have time to run specs on the woody, but it feels only slightly heavier than my usual Head Graphene Prestige (which has been modified with a much higher than stock swingweight). But it has a tiny head....

Playing with my woody: starting against my favorite local wall - following in the footsteps of Johnny Mac et al - I found the woody surprisingly easy to hit with. The first thing I noticed was that the launch angle was much lower than my modern racket, but this was pretty easy to adjust to. The launch angle probably has more to do with the tension and string; while the string is very soft (compared to Lux 4G) and it is strung relatively loose (45 compared to 44/40), the small head makes it behave much stiffer. In any case, easy to adjust to. So I warmed up and found the basic grove for my woody strokes against the wall for about an hour. (Alas, unlike the famed Don Budge, I wasn't able to exploit any weakness in my wall - it returned everything like a 20 foot tall slab of concrete, and continued it's perfect record of demonstrating far more endurance than I have.)

Onwards to the club to play with my good friend Bill....

[klacr]

Great stuff faultsnaces.

Roman does a great job with the racquet customization.
Your Head Prestige is probably the best racquet to play with if making the transition to wood. It's a solid frame. I have quite of few and still use the Head Prestige Classics from the early-mid 90's. They are relics but feel so good as they are my regular playing sticks. I have them customized, weighted and balanced at 385 grams. They are battle axes. Glad you experienced the thrill of wooden racquets.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[faultsnaces]

So on to playing with my woody with Bill.....

(Indoor HarTru, relatively wet and slow)

On court, the low launch angle took a lot of getting used to: it's not just the low launch angle, but the woody has zero power. Absolute zero. It's like hitting with a piece of wet spaghetti. Overcooked spaghetti. Modern topspin strokes work great - no problem finding the sweet spot - but it really takes a full clean accurate stroke to get the ball back over the net deep with net clearance. Once we got warmed up, Bill judged that I was hitting just as much top and pace as with my Prestige, and once I grooved the depth, I was approximately equal in consistency. No problem with shanks or off center hits.

This was a big revelation: modern strokes definitely don't require graphite and poly - you can hit modern strokes with wood and gut (or a soft multi substitute).

But it's not all back to the future!

The woody has a microscopic sweet spot, approximately the size of a Higgs Boson. ok, perhaps bigger, but only marginally so. This isn't really a problem, as it just means I need to make contact happen at the precise right place and time. Alas, that is A LOT of work! Net-net, the woody places huge demand on footwork: I have never moved my feet so much on a tennis court as when playing with my woody. And to get the top and pace when hitting with a piece of overcooked spaghetti, turns out I really need to do that Aussie thing of "hitting through four balls" - so, get positioned well, develop huge racket head speed, and drive through the ball with full extension. The reward: FANTASTIC feedback from the racket, and the feeling of precise hits is just AMAZING. I love the feel of the Head Prestige line (the Microgel was better than the Graphene IMHO), but this blows the Prestige away for feedback, comfort, and all around feel.

20 minutes of baseline cooperative rallies and drills was EXHAUSTING. Not from the weight - this was exhaustion from moving my feet, working on being in place early, moving, moving, moving, always moving, hit, bounce, split and MOVE! Not about getting my shoulders around - that apparently happens automagically when I split, move MOVE MOVE!

The best aspect was definitely the feedback: the woody talks to me even more than my Prestiges do. "That was close but could be better." "Oh yeah hit it right there!" "You thought that was close? Nope!" "Too early! Make a correction or we're going to start shanking!" "Don't blame me for hitting the fence - you're the one that didn't drive through the ball!"

Hitting some volleys and overheads was yet another revelation: I now know why I suck at dubs. Well, I know two more reasons....

Hitting volleys with the woody is an experience of emotional extremes: getting involved with a fickle bipolar lover is probably not everyone's cup of tea. Track it to the racket and find that micro sweet spot and WOW - the force is with me, light saber volleys, just amazing. But that's, um, really hard to do. Really really hard. And thus rare. And when I can't find that little magical spot, I get a nasty clunk, a dull thud, a ball going anywhere except where I was willing it to go, anywhere except into the court. And it's SO unfair: it's not like I shanked the volley - I found the stringbed, but the Rules of Wood seem to be a perfect bullseye hit is worth infinity and anything else is less than zero.

And let's not talk about overheads. Really, best not to. (The old Maxply just laughed at me. Seriously. Even Bill heard it - the whole stringbed, laughing and taunting me to find it on the next attempt....)

After our rallying session, we played a set. Oddly enough, I served better with the woody than with the Prestige: more reliable, better control, a bit more pace. And oddly enough, I played overall well enough with the woody to get approximately equal results - our sets are always very close, and we just called this at 6 all as we were out of time.

[faultsnaces]

So my first outing with the woody went well, very well; to sum up, it was fairly easy to adjust to hitting modern groundies with the woody, with no significant loss of spin nor pace. Yes, it's definitely more demanding, but it was workable for me on the groundies - and the feedback was amazing. This racket talked to me more than some teaching pros I've worked with, and the feedback really helped me adjust quickly. Rallying groundies was quite exhausting, mostly because of all the footwork - which is really a good thing.

Serving worked well, on par with my modern Prestige with a full bed of 4G; not a lot of difference one way or the other.

Volleys and overheads were a problem. A huge gaping problem. There's no excuse for the overheads - that really comes down to not watching the ball, not being in position, being sloppy. (Thanks, racket - noted, will work on, and get back to you.)

I have two problems on the volleys: one, the standard problem that the woody reveals overall - feet, feet, feet, watching the ball. Volleys with the woody - against a wall or over a net - really demonstrate that it's not about the racket, it's about the feet. Tennis is a "game of the feet" (say that in French to sound more officially tennis-y), and this racket constantly reminds of that. The second problem with my volleys, I suspect, is that at 45#, this racket is strung just too loose, and it's just too demanding. I've experienced this with modern frames when messing with string and tension - as the tension drops, the rackets become increasingly difficult to maintain accurate directional control. Tightening the woody by a good 10# would probably help my volleys a lot, but that will be even less power - which seems almost impossible!

Switching back to my Prestige was eye opening: I instantly played significantly better. Top spin 1hbh was much cleaner, with a significant gain in consistency, and I really noticed I was moving better, earlier, and really intent on watching the ball. Alas, it was (too) easy to revert to bad old habits and get lazy again. But I have a strong belief that continuing to train with the woody will be net positive, especially on volleys and the 1hbh, both strokes that I have had perennial problems with.

One interesting note: the woody is going to EAT string. After approx 3 hours total hitting, the X1 is no longer returning to place and is really starting to notch. Will definitely get less than 10 hours total out of a stringing....

[faultsnaces]

Leaping to conclusions - the post where I take my low level amateur skills and brief woody stroking experience and extrapolate to grandiose sweeping conclusions.....

First, everything I've read about balls rolling across the face of larger rackets generating more spin is simply wrong - and probably written by someone who has never hit a tennis ball. Balls don't roll across the face of the racket. Well, maybe in a poorly hit shot, but not in the ordinary standard modern baseline rally stroke - neither top nor slice. A proper stroke has the racket virtually normal to the court (perpendicular face) and a very brief contact duration where the racket head momentum is transferred to the ball, and there is very little relative movement during this transfer - certainly not enough relative movement to take up any significant string bed area. This simple fact is why it is possible to hit modern strokes with old woodies.

(The only exception to this I could accept is if pros are contacting the ball at 5+ feet above the court with a closed racket face - but it boggles the mind to consider the vertical racket head speed that would be required to have a positive launch angle with a significantly closed face.)

(Yeah, I'm an amateur - hard working 4.0 level for singles. But get a top 20 pro to hit with one of these and fully expect you will see the same result. In justification, I will add that I have measured my own fh with modern frames at over 1500 rpm on high speed video - and the woody doesn't seem at all different here, though I haven't had a chance to do any video yet.)

Second, given the lack of power of these old frames, I suspect that it would have been impossible to develop the modern fh stroke exclusively with these old soft frames. Seems to me this was a mutual symbiotic evolution between the equipment - frames and string - and the stroke. Not least in this evolution would have been simple cost: training heavy top spin power with gut in one of these frames would be prohibitively expensive; the juniors at my club would probably shred this stringing in under an hour. Poly in a modern frame is dirt cheap in comparison.

Third, hitting modern strokes with the woody is more physically demanding, but in contrast, the modern equipment has caused the game itself to become more athletic. The modern equipment lets us play with a lot more power - more pace - and the spin really opens the whole court; simultaneously, it also relaxes the precision required to get tough shots back. So points go on and on and on - and the sport becomes more demanding of athletic endurance than precision of skills. That's not really a new idea. But consider two players with woodys: if one or both players are hitting with modern heavy top, would the net play situation be any different than with modern equipment? The woodys are far more demanding on the volley than groundies in my (very limited) experience - so approaching against a player with modern heavy top strokes is still going to be a major challenge, regardless of the equipment. An opponent playing with wood takes a bit of pressure off the approach shot perhaps, but a half decent passing attempt will place a much larger demand on a quality volley - and a modern heavy top stroke offers a lot of opportunity for a decent passing shot.

In short, while I previously agreed that the equipment changed the game (some perhaps may say 'ruined'), I now believe the situation is far more nuanced: the game has changed with the development of modern strokes - strokes that are possible to execute with the old equipment, but which could never be developed exclusively with the old equipment. We can't put the genie back in the bottle! Take away the modern equipment and high level athletes will still play a modern game....

Then again, I'm probably wrong about this - after all, my woody told me I suck at volleying and net play in general.

[tennis_chiro]

.....

First, everything I've read about balls rolling across the face of larger rackets generating more spin is simply wrong - and probably written by someone who has never hit a tennis ball. Balls don't roll across the face of the racket. Well, maybe in a poorly hit shot, but not in the ordinary standard modern baseline rally stroke - neither top nor slice. A proper stroke has the racket virtually normal to the court (perpendicular face) and a very brief contact duration where the racket head momentum is transferred to the ball, and there is very little relative movement during this transfer - certainly not enough relative movement to take up any significant string bed area. This simple fact is why it is possible to hit modern strokes with old woodies.

It isn't that the ball rolls across a larger surface area of the new rackets; it's that the surface area that makes up the "sweet spot" is much greater and therefore much more forgiving. It's interesting to remember how many balls no less a groundstoke master than Borg sent flying into the stands off mishits on the frame.

You make a good point about the need for better footwork. I played with a Wilson T2000 in the late 60's and early 70's. It gave me an advantage serving and volleying; I had no groundgame. Hardly any of the top players were effective with the T2000. It was actually a perfectly engineered stroking device with tremendous accuracy, ... as long as you struck the sweet spot. But that sweetspot was even smaller than the sweetspot of a regular 70sq. in. wooden racket and anything a little off center was slingshoted way off target. But there was one guy who ruled the ranking roost for upwards of 5 years with that racket and he has significantly better footwork than anyone else. He made that infinitesimal sweetspot and his tremendous hand-eye, timing and footwork work for him in a way almost no one else could duplicate. He played with depth and accuracy unmatched by his peers. His ball speed would be considered slow by today's standards, but he overpowered his peers with that depth, and very little topspin - but great footwork.

You talk of the great feel of hitting the volley well, but not being able to execute the shot with any reliable consistency. It took more than a couple of hours for the players of the past to develop the great volleys that they had in those days. Players today simply do not have the same skills. Volleys and approach shots were not simply struck into the last 4 or 5 feet of the court; those shots were consistently placed within 2' of the lines; then it is not so easy to hit those great passing shots. Try volleying with your woodie for a couple of hundred hours and you may develop the ability to hit the volley with a consistent solid feel (if someone is showing you correct technique and you are working along those lines), but it will take you much longer than that to develop the ability to place those well struck volleys within a couple of feet of the lines, especially off well struck returns and passing shots.

Finally, as for racket weights. A 12 ounce racket is a heavy racket today. Indeed, some of the players weight them up to almost 13 ounces, but that is rare. The modern racket also has a lot less natural wind resistance than the old woodies (another advantage of the T2000.) Our wooden rackets were generally at least 14 ounces; if you went any lighter than that, the frame was likely to disintegrate as the layers delaminated; it couldn't hold up to the stress. Yes, the women did play with slightly lighter rackets, but they didn't hit with anywhere near the force of today's women, much less today's men. (By the way, KLACR is not a small man!) And grips were generally much bigger. Few men played with less than a 5/8 grip. Budge and Tilden had used big grips and there was sentiment for following their lead. In 1968, I took a set off Tom Gorman in the quarters at Ojai with a 5" gripped T2000 weighing in at over 15 ounces and I was a mere 6' and 165 lbs.

But big props to you, faultsnaces, for going back and trying to get a feel for the classic game. How did your shoulder and arm hold up? Did you have any repercussions in the days following your experiment? It sounds like the experience helped you get a better sense of how to hit through the ball and use the weight and momentum of the racket head to your advantage.

don