Earlier this month we had the opportunity to interact with some of the top professionals in the world of racquet stringing and customization. One particular session we found facinating was facilitated by Mr. John Elliott who flew in from France to share some of his observations and thoughts on world of poly-based strings. During his presentation we noted the following observations he has made through his years of working with polyester strings.
- Polyester strings are sensitive to the cold.
- Basic polys offer less than 2 hours of string life.
- Luxilon ALU strings are a very high quality offering. Similar to formula one performance racing tires in that they perform well for a short period of time and then need to be replaced. (Optimal performance time is very limited, usually less than a match)
- Tension determines the length of the ball. 2 pounds of tension equates to 1 foot of ball length. Increase 2 pounds to reduce length by one foot, decrease 2 pounds to increase one foot.
- Stringmeter tool is more accurate than most people give credit for. The reason the readings vary from string to string is due to either the stringing machine or the stringer. A number of variables can lead to inconsistency. Ideally the tension of all mains (except out ones) strings should measure the same with this tool.
- The best playing racquet set-up for recreational and league players is a hybrid with a poly-based main and synthetic gut cross string (not a multi).
- Racquet tuning is not the same as racquet stringing. Racquet tuning is working toward an end result…the desired stringbed stiffness.
- To tune racquet, find desired stringbed stiffness. Ask customer to let you know when racquet is performing optimally. Using stringmeter, measure string tension. Increase +4 pounds for polys and +10 pounds for nylon at next stringing. Also use Dynamic Tension readings to confirm.
- Stringing is most consistent and best when stringer uses a FLUID and REPEATABLE motion.
- With friction tension in crosses ends up measuring approx. 1/3 less in crosses than mains when strung at same reference tension.
We hit the same yellow fuzzy balls and we run in the same shoes as the U.S. Open players. Maybe we even juice up our racquets with lead tape and change the balance points like they do.
But the biggest worlds-apart difference in their gear and ours is the zing in their string and how often it's reapplied to the racquet face. For most recreational players, we restring when it breaks; for them it can be something as minor as a small break in the weather.
Indeed, most U.S. Open players will drop the tension a pound or two on cooler Flushing Meadows nights to put more zip on the ball and lessen the harshness on their hands and arms, while tensions go up on warm days as the balls get heavier collecting moisture from the humidity. Sometimes they'll split their usual eight racquets they bring to a match evenly between lower and higher tensions.
But no matter what the weather, Roger Federer picks up a freshly strung racquet each time new balls are put into play because he's looking to control their fresh-from-the-can liveliness. Ivan Navarro, the Spanish serve and volleyer, uses one racquet for serving (strung at a looser tension for power) and another for returning (strung higher for control).
In fact, all U.S. Open players are as fussy about their strings as first-chair violinists in a symphony orchestra. They are the maestros of multifilament and monofilament and can detect the smallest deviation from the rigid set of specifications they provide to the stringing crew that could send their games more out of tune than a Roseanne Barr/William Hung duet.
"There's no room for error here," says Wilson's Ron Rocchi, who is running the U.S. Open stringing room in Arthur Ashe Stadium these two weeks, where a crew of 14 craftspeople are busier than Santa's elves on December 23. The handpicked crew from around the globe each string as many as 35 racquets in an 18-hour shift. By the men's final on Sunday, they will have collectively strung some 3,500 racquets.
And no two will be strung the same, starting with the biggest variable, string tensions. Some players string tight for better control. The all-gut strings in the Williams sisters' Wilson K Blade Team sticks are stretched to 68-70 pounds, exceeding the top of the manufacturer's recommended tension of 53-63 pounds, which is the equivalent to blowing up a balloon to see how big it can get before it pops. This is why Venus usually sets the mark for most broken strings at Grand Slams. She will probably go through more than 40 sets before her doubles matches end this week.
Then there's Taylor Dent, who lives on the other side of the string-tension fence. His racquets are strung the loosest at only of 40 pounds, 10 pounds under the lower end of the recommended tension on his Wilson n Six-One 95. That provides him with some additional comfort he needs after coming off a pair of back surgeries, and gives him more bombs-away pop on his groundstrokes and serves which is part of the reason he hit a tournament-high 147 mph serve last week. The loose-string tradeoff is control, which is why you saw a lot of his volleys fly off the court in his loss to Andy Murray (who strings his Head YouTek Radical Pro at the top of the recommended range of 62 pounds for control).
While Dent and Murray may string at opposite ends of the tension scale, they both swing racquets laced with Luxilon string, along with about 60 percent of the rest of the U.S. Open field, who use this blend of rugged polyester mixed with a number of other carbon or metallic fibers.
"Luxilon gives them tremendous bite when they hit, and allows them to create spins they just can't do with other strings," says Rocchi.
But the downside is Luxilon is as harsh on the arm as Lex Luthor was on Superman, which is why recreational players with sore arms or elbows should stay away no matter how much it might improve their slice-and-dice game.
Another aspect of the book’s goodness is it’s unique take on the subject of expertise. The underlying thread that ties the book together is microscopic physically but has a heft that belies its size. Coyle introduces us to brain science and the discovery of myelin and the role it plays in how the brain processes signals. In a nutshell, myelin is an insulator that allows neurons to fire more efficiently with better timing, allowing signals to be sent either faster or slower, depending on what’s needed. And myelin is grown through focused effort. You know that feeling when you’re totally focused on something and trying to figure it out? You might feel confused and even frustrated, but you persist, you break the task down into its component parts and do those until you get it, then you put the parts together. You’re building myelin around the neurons needed to perform that task.
Turns out that myelin, part of what scientists call white matter in the brain is much more important to brain function than anyone thought. Einstein’s brain had a significantly larger proportion of myelin to neurons than other brains. The number of neurons were the same, but Einstein’s brain had a lot more myelin (Diamond, et al, 1988). Myelin is one of the common denominators of high ability in any field, and it’s the struggle to understand or to do that creates it.
Coyle breaks the book into 3 parts. Part I: Deep Practice gives an overview of what kind of practice seems to build myelin and gives examples from sources as diverse as skateboarders, the Bronte sisters, and Renaissance artists. Coyle’s term Deep Practice is in most ways similar to Ericsson’s Deliberate Practice and my own notion of Intentional Practice. He culls three rules of Deep Practice:
1. Chunk it up: Basically this consists of breaking things into pieces that are more easily done or thought about. It also includes listening to and/or absorbing the whole before breaking the skill down and includes changing the material to make it easier, for example, slowing down a difficult musical passage.
2. Repeat it. This is pretty self-explanatory, but also not as simple as it sounds.
3. Learn to Feel it. This includes sensing (and remembering!) how something feels when it is done right, but also developing awareness of how it feels to struggle.
Part II: Ignition handles some of the general information about motivation and inspiration. Coyle calls this ignition and points to circumstances that help to motivate people to strive for greatness. He gives many examples from sport. He also cites some important research that indicates attitude prior to starting a task (in this case, music) has a significant impact on how good you get. Also a factor in his observations was that the more gritty and spare the surroundings, the more it can inspire one towards greatness. Places soft and warm and inviting don’t inspire the “hungriness” that a rougher setting might.
Part III: Master Coaching is all about how teachers, coaches, and mentors approach the task of nurturing and helping their tutors to grow “talent” (aka myelin, in Coyle’s belief). He is quick to point out (and correct) that coaching/teaching/mentoring is a skill in itself that takes a long time to build and he presents some fantastic examples of coaches, music teachers, and school teachers who have put in many thousands of hours of deep practice as teachers
http://intentionalpractice.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/book-review-the-talent-code/But Ponkka, Salazar and the other coaches at the Junior Tennis Champions Center believe what has been lacking is a model for the patient, thorough and systematic development of native talent from an early age. Drawing on training methods used in the former Soviet bloc, their own experience as players and coaches, and trial and error, they believe they've developed that model in College Park, and that their results prove it works.
In the past five years, 11 boys and girls training at the tennis center have either won national championship tournaments or been ranked No. 1 in the nation in their age groups. The Junior Tennis Champions Center has had 51 graduates: 41 have attended Division 1 universities -- 38 of them on scholarships. Seven have attended Division III and Ivy league schools, and three have turned pro.
With rare exceptions, these are not gems discovered elsewhere, then imported for polishing, as is the rule at places such as Nick Bollettieri's famed tennis academy in Florida. Instead, the tennis center has identified local kids with above-average potential, then transformed them from "above average" into some of the nation's and the world's most elite junior athletes.
In the end, what's been happening in College Park may be less interesting because of what it says about the hopes for American tennis than because of what it suggests about how people become exceptional. Even as the program at the tennis center was starting to obtain its remarkable results, a raft of new research seemed to offer an explanation. Recent books such as "The Talent Code" by Daniel Coyle and "Talent Is Overrated" by Geoff Colvin have summarized discoveries in neuroscience that have shown how sophisticated abilities arise through the development of neural pathways built and refined over time through constant repetition. In other words, practice makes perfect.
The thrust of the new research is this: Geniuses aren't born; they are created. This is true not only for tennis but also for any complex activity, such as playing an instrument or learning languages. Regardless of the activity, this theory goes, if you take children who can focus obsessively and follow direction, add expert instruction and thousands of hours of drills -- then, abracadabra: You've got talent.
This is precisely the program that the tennis center seems to have anticipated by a decade, a program that has proved so successful that the U.S. Tennis Association has used it as a model for its plan to create eight regional tennis centers around the country. It has also become a proving ground for a revolutionary idea: Almost anyone with some basic ability who is willing to put in the effort and the hours can become exceptional.
*****That outlines an idea echoed frequently at the tennis center: The skills that enable a kid to play high-level tennis might just also create a high-level human being. When the coaches are asked if a lopsided regimen of so much tennis training couldn't create a miserable child instead, they say that's highly unlikely. A child who didn't love the game, even love the process of training, would never be able to make it far enough to get into the champions program. In the 10-year history, they say, they've had very few dropouts.
