Originally Posted by Donnay Quixote
balls were "really" tried. They were changed to slow the game down. What would you propose? making them even slower???? You cant make them faster because the game has already become to powerful .
Scientific facts change with the times. It used to be a scientific fact that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. All Im saying is try this contraption first and then say it doesnt provide anymore spin.
Your ITF quote says what makes spaghetti stringing illegal ....it does NOT comment at why it worked (and everyone agrees that it did in fact work). The reason it worked is sort of obvious......
Just look at the picture.....there are two strings through each hole. These double strings are each tied together with string. Now think about it .....think what happens when you hit the ball? You have two sets of strings acting in unison that come into contact with the ball. These two sets of string are "grabbing the ball" in a vice grip. As the theory "two heads are better than one"...."two sets of string are better than one set of string".
Two sets of strings are also thicker than on set of say 18 guage string for sure. this goes against the common wisdom that thinner strings create more thus creating more spin. I completely disagree with the "scientific data". I personally believe that thicker strings will give you more spin.
The spaghett idea is badly trying to be simulated today by trying to make strings rougher to "grab the ball" the way spaghetti strings did. As you originally pointed out if this device creates more spin as spaghetti stringing did then it should be banned the same way spaghetti stringing was.
manufacturers are constatntly trying to think of a way to "grab the ball" more to create more spin the way spaghetti strings did . The problem is they cant really get the same drastic effect that the double strung spaghetti did.
The closest thing that I have seen to create the spaghetti string is the Woodforde racquet. he had an extremely wide string pattern with really thick strings.....I think like 15 guage and a 16 x 14 string pattern. Players like mcenroe have said they have never seen spin like what Woodeforde created. The wide string pattern "grabs the ball" like a vice...sort of the way spaghetti "grabbed the ball" but not nearly as drastic. (by the way Vortex strings are rough and VERY thick...15 guage)
Woodfordes racquet also goes against the "conventional wisdom" which holds that the thinner the string the more spin. I believe Woodforde completely proved that to be wrong.
By the way if you want to see the modern woodforde racquet there is a modern copy called the Vortex. Its based on the Woodforde premise. really thick strings and a VERY wide string patter.... go to store.vortextennis.com .
i wouldnt say the earth being flat and the sun revolving round the earth were scientific facts. just because they were the prevailing opinions of the time and regarded as true, it doesnt mean they were facts; there were still people who believed otherwise. textured and profiled strings have been scientifically tested by the itf and found not to be effective. these tests are scientific and objective, and it even says they don't work on the itf technical centre website. surely there should be no dispute that they dont work.
i have seen mark woodfordes racket several times as its been in the stringing rooms i've worked in. it has 14 mains and 16 crosses and his string is a specially made luxilon string 1.60 mm thick. however, what i would point out is that he is a one off. there are no current tour players using rackets with that string pattern, nor are there any players using a string that thick. what that goes to show is that this kind of setup (very open string pattern, very thick string) is not for everyone. and, in order to get control from that setup, woodforde has to string at a tension of around 76 lbs, which is incredibly tight (about 21 lbs higher than nadal, who hits with the most spin on tour).
whilst conventional wisdom says that thinner strings can generate more spin, that has also been disproven by the itf: Although thinner strings are believed to impart more spin on the ball, there is little empirical evidence to support this theory.
I am excited to see this thread is living on but I am confused:
1. The string manufacturers spent millions of dollars to upgrade their process to make textured/profiled strings, for nothing?
2. Nadal changed his string to a profiled string because someone told him that the profiled string could make more spin but actually it really does not?
3. So many tennis players, so many websites and so many string manufacturers make contradicted statement to itf, they are all wrong because itf cannot prove their statement with the instruments itf has? itf has a test lab, most of string manufacturers have a test lab too, and probably much more advanced than the one in itf.
4. Did you ever try Luxilon strings? The main string is hardly moved when you hit the ball, I wonder where the spin comes from? Perhaps from the friction between string and ball?
i'll address point 3 first. the itf has the most advanced lab in the world. to measure spin they use a video camera that operates at 1000 frames per second. i have used this camera myself and the software they use to calculate spin. furthermore, the itf is more objective than the manufacturers. manufacturers want to sell their products, so they will surely be more inclined to report what they want.
next, i'll move onto point 4. i have tried luxilon strings and they are used by a large proportion of tour players. the reason the players use these strings is because they can swing very hard at the ball and still have control. the fact that they can swing very hard means they have greater racquet head speed, which means they will generate greater spin. luxilon's popular alu rough string is a lot less popular on tour than people think. for every 100 rackets i string on tour, less than 10% will be in alu rough.
on to point 2. how do we know someone at babolat told nadal the string generates more spin. one potential reason for nadals change is pressure from the babolat management. for several years babolat had to disguise his duralast strings as pro hurricane tour and maybe they finally wanted him to actually endorse and use the same string, and with rpm blast being their new string that was a logical choice. also, rpm blast is a slightly more powerful string than duralast, so that extra power would benefit his game.
finally point 1. strangely, i would argue that the manufacturers havent wasted their money. most people (falsely) believe that these textured and profiled strings generate more spin, so they buy them. the fact that these strings sell well is justification for making them. the fact that they dont actually work is lost on most people.