Pat Cash on racquets, nothing new really but interesting

[stroke]

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1GVzNxjAUW/

[stroke]

Interesting to see Pat likes large racquets "for volleying", but no one has used the Prince Graphite 107(and that spec racquet) since Andre it seems.

[stotty]

I tend to agree with Pat in that racquets haven’t changed that much, although small changes do seem to make a difference in today’s tennis. No one in my memory played with a bigger head than the Prince Graphite 110, which was a prominent racquet in club tennis but less so on the tour. It was really the first large-headed racket that became available as I recall. Large heads were great for volleying and overheads but would balloon the ball when it came to ground shots, which is why I assume they never really took off beyond a given head size. I hadn’t realised Andre had played with a 107 head, which is surprising as he was a baseliner, but might explain how he could take the ball so early and time it.

For me, it’s strings that caused the real revolution.

[stroke]

I tend to agree with Pat in that racquets haven’t changed that much, although small changes do seem to make a difference in today’s tennis. No one in my memory played with a bigger head than the Prince Graphite 110, which was a prominent racquet in club tennis but less so on the tour. It was really the first large-headed racket that became available as I recall. Large heads were great for volleying and overheads but would balloon the ball when it came to ground shots, which is why I assume they never really took off beyond a given head size. I hadn’t realised Andre had played with a 107 head, which is surprising as he was a baseliner, but might explain how he could take the ball so early and time it.

For me, it’s strings that caused the real revolution.

I agree, as does most everyone that knows tennis. The poly strings made a big difference. I remember Roddick saying that one time. There are certainly a lot of thicker beam racquets out there in high level tennis, such as the Babolat Pure Drive and Pure Aero, but most ATP players do not play with the thicker beam racquets. Kuertan was maybe the first to break through to the top of the game using poly strings, and using a traditional Head racquet.

[jimlosaltos]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but found Fed's comments on designing the latest RF 01 interesting. "ATP players today like a lighter head to get more racket head speed." That's supposedly also why the RF 01 has a thin beam.

As a lowly weekend hacker, my opinion is that Fed's RF 01 has the smallest sweet spot i can remember using. But then I don't remember my Kramer pro staff that well now. We were speculating at the tennis shop that the RF 01 had a smaller sweet spot than "The Saber", a training tool with a head size barely larger than the ball ( blue stick shown in my left hand, RF01 in my right). The Saber is fun to hit with, tho.

Just remembered another Roddick quote, roughly "I changed rackets after many years. I tried 20 rackets and could have gone with an RF but it's too unforgiving for me." Andy once accepted a challenge to play a match vs a tennis journalist while using a frying pan as a racket { His tip: Use the inside of the pan to hit the ball. }. If it's too unforgiving for Andy, who can play with a frying pan, imagine me using it. I do like a challenge.

Pic from Tennis Town and Country, Palo Alto, CA

filedata/fetch?id=108709&d=1765662562&type=thumb

C

[don_budge]

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1GVzNxjAUW/

Pat Cash is what I consider a first rate shill. A sycophant for the establishment. I saw him playing Ivan Lendl in the semi-finals of the U. S. Open in 1984 using a Prince Magnesium. It was at least 100 square...significantly better than Lendl's stick. Whatever that was. Lendl beat him in five sets. An absolutely scintilating match. I believe that Cash actually had match point on Lendl. Cash was one of the first of the top players to capitulate. He continues to be a mere shill. Still trying to cash in on the game. All the players do it in some form or another. Making money is not a crime. Some of the stuff they do is rather unseemly at times. Undignified. This is a case in point. Cash's voice. Trying to remain relevant.

I haphazardly took a listen to the Facebook video. Was I mistaken or did he refer to 100 square as mid-size? That's interesting. In my lexicon that is full blown over-sized. He glosses over the "bigger" sticks. These morons are all clueless about ethics. They have no idea at all what that word means. How could they? They were raised under a cloud of deception. I remember vividly how the game made its transition away for the equipment that was considered standard for a 100 years or so. Ever since even Leo Tolstoy enjoyed a hit in his rural garden in Russia. Way back when. There's a fellow who knew a thing or two about ethics.

The thing about the Russians these days that the liberals hate with a vengeance is that they are steering away from modernism and even post modernism. They are attempting to steer their ship along traditional lines. This is one of the glaring reasons that the West has declared war on Russia. They defy the liberal order. Much as I do. I categorically reject Modern tennis. The equipment has changed the game by definition. It changed the concept. The concept of the racquets face controling the speed, trajectory and placment of the ball by passing the racquet face through the path of the ball.

Pat Cash is a joke. They all are. Throw John McEnroe in there as well. Probably Borg as well, although in his defence he made a quasi stand back in the day when he used his wooden racquets in a rather satirical comeback after years of retirement. The entire sport was using over-sized racquets. People must have looked at him as if he was insane. Much as they were thinking I lost it when I was screaming at opponents during the initial transition. Accusing them of being cheaters. Which they were or weren't depending upon which side of the street you stood on ethics. It sort of depended where you stood in line at the food chain. The lower echelon switched first in a bid to make up for their lack of talent with additional engineering help. The top tier were the last. Jimmy Connors notably stuck with his vastly inferior Wilson T2000. McEnroe was one of the last, holding out with his Dunlp Maxply before changing horses. Lendl was one of the very last. Kevin Curren was a real stud in this department. Miloslav Mecir as well.

Oh well. This has all been neatly swept under the rug. Everybody continues to believe that they are playing tennis. The game sadly ceased to evolve and was altogether reengineered. Pat Cash is a shill. He was one of the first to take his portion of silver.

[don_budge]

Pat Cash is what I consider a first rate shill. A sycophant for the establishment. I saw him playing Ivan Lendl in the semi-finals of the U. S. Open in 1984 using a Prince Magnesium. It was at least 100 square...significantly better than Lendl's stick. Whatever that was. Lendl beat him in five sets. An absolutely scintilating match. I believe that Cash actually had match point on Lendl. Cash was one of the first of the top players to capitulate. He continues to be a mere shill. Still trying to cash in on the game. All the players do it in some form or another. Making money is not a crime. Some of the stuff they do is rather unseemly at times. Undignified. This is a case in point. Cash's voice. Trying to remain relevant.

Pat Cash leading the charge for "FAKE" tennis. 1984 U. S. Open semifinal. Do you see me in the crowd?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0FXM44FIWs

[don_budge]

Pat Cash leading the charge for "FAKE" tennis. 1984 U. S. Open semifinal. Do you see me in the crowd?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0FXM44FIWs

I've been watching this match through the first set...while doing some exercise sets. Some fascinating some, looking back in retrospect. It isn't hard to understand where I get my point of view regarding traditional tennis. Tony Trabert and Pat Summerall in the booth doing a fine job of commentary. The first thing that got my attention was the camera zooming in on Don Budge, his wife and Jack Kramer. Trabert notes that any discussions of greatest of all time always included those two names. Budge more so than Kramer, I believe. Again, Trabert makes an astute observation about the volley of Pat Cash as he misses a rather easy one by over hitting. Trabert suggests that placement is more important in volleying than speed...validating my concept of power. Control is power...various amounts of speed, placement and spin depending upon the situation. Another very interesting observation about the speed of the court. It was being said that the courts were playing rather fast and Trabert off sets this with the observation that they should perhaps play with a heavy duty ball to slow down the play somewhat. The speed of the court magnified by the use of the oversized racquets. Already the engineering was in play in the game. Constant fixes and adjustments that tried to compensate for the previous tinker.

The play is from another time and place. This tennis does not even resemble the modern game...although Lendl sort of gives a preview of things to come. Yet, even Lendl goes to the net 19% of the time. One thing missing from this video is the commercials as they are understandably edited out...the commercials on this day of the CBS broadcast were almost entirely of computers. 1984 being the year when one might conclude that the computer went more or less mainstream. An Orwellian observation if there ever was one. The computers from all of the makers were being showcased and they were all huge dinosaurs. Compared to today's iphone...dreadfully slow and cumbersome. You can extrapolate on this observation and ask the question...if the computers in 1984 were this big and slow...how in the hell did man land on the moon in the late 1960's? Answer to that? They probably didn't. FAKE news. How Orwellian.

[don_budge]

"Nothing new...but interesting."

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1GVzNxjAUW/

Interestingly enough...the racquet issues and development is always interesting. As it turns out, Pat Cash is not playing with a Prince Magnesium. This is the problem when deferring to others. A long time ago when discussing this 1984 U. S. Open the question came up as to what racquet was Pat Cash actually using. None other than bottle, aka John Escher the prolific forum contributor who succumbed to "Trump Derangement Syndrome" even before his first term ended, opined that Cash was using a Prince Magnesium. While watching this video it appeared to me that this was something other than...the Prince Magnesium. As it turns out the racquet is actually a Slazenger 24...the 24 refers to the percentage larger than the standard sized wood. The Slazenger is actually wood with graphite inlays.

As I mentioned in a previous post, John Newcombe has entered the commentary and he actually played in the Senior Men's singles semi-finals on this day against Stan Smith. Newcombe won the first set and lost the next two and the match. More trivia of interest...Newcombe was using a Prince Boron. Probably a 110 size. Being in the 35 and over event gave him full license to use whatever he could get his hands on to give him an advantage. Of further interest and perhaps most interesting of all...not a single word mention at all from anyone about the over-sized racquets. This was a historic day in tennis when the four men's semi-finalists at a Grand Slam event were using over-sized racquets for the first time ever. A rather serious omission in my estimation. It couldn't have been that they were not aware of it. I was aware of it. Their silence speaks volumes...me thinks.

[stroke]

I tend to agree with Pat in that racquets haven’t changed that much, although small changes do seem to make a difference in today’s tennis. No one in my memory played with a bigger head than the Prince Graphite 110, which was a prominent racquet in club tennis but less so on the tour. It was really the first large-headed racket that became available as I recall. Large heads were great for volleying and overheads but would balloon the ball when it came to ground shots, which is why I assume they never really took off beyond a given head size. I hadn’t realised Andre had played with a 107 head, which is surprising as he was a baseliner, but might explain how he could take the ball so early and time it.

For me, it’s strings that caused the real revolution.

Another thing that was interesting about the Prince Classic 107 was around early 2000's, this site called "racquetresearch"(I think) came out with a ranking on all tennis racquets that ranked them for arm safety. The light wide body racquets were at the bottom of the rankings as least safe for the arm. The number 1 racquet for arm safety was the Prince Graphite 107.

[don_budge]

Interesting to see Pat likes large racquets "for volleying"...

No likes for this comment. I guess your PIC were asleep at the wheel. I don't know how many times Tony Trabert and John Newcombe came down on Pat Cash for not executing his forehand volley. After watching how badly he executed this shot it reminded me of how it felt trying to execute a forehand volley when the nerves were flared up. No amount of racquet can help you if you cannot get the racquet face through the path of the ball with a "crisp" action. Trabert finally attributed that word to a volley that Cash hit late in the match when he finally knocked off a forehand volley. When the nerves are in play and you start to try to bunt the ball you are in real trouble and this may have cost Cash this match.

All in all, this match was an excellent example of how tennis used to be played. Two opposing styles and two polar opposites in terms of personality and temperament. Lendl for his part seemed to be particularly nervous. It was a rather windy day and the racquets being used were not larger than 85 square inches...Lendl's a bit smaller. In the neighborhood of 80 square probably. During the course of the match there were a bunch of mishits by Lendl. The wind. The racquet size. Nerves. The combination of the three have a quantifying effect...they pile on top of one another. What to do? Manage. Managing the dysfunction of a tennis match is the hallmark of great champions. Lendl had his B- or C+ game with him during this match and in the final against Johnny Bad Boy.

As it turned out, Lendl barely edged out Cash in this extremely tight five set epic. Not particularly cleanly played as you see in the modern game and this is because of a number of reasons and racquet size works on each of these reasons. Lendl appeared to be on the defense against Cash in the beginning and it appeared that Cash was hitting the ball that much cleaner than Lendl. I attribute this to the size of the racquet for the most part. When it feels like your opponent is hitting it so much cleaner than you it really puts you on the defensive psychologically and you are forced to test your metal on a primal level. You hang in there and that is precisely what Lendl did on this Saturday afternoon against a precocious and up and comer in 19 year old Pat Cash. Cash had made the semis at Wimbledon this year and was riding a wave of confidence. Ivan just got down and gritty and ground out a win. Toward the end he was just pushing everything he had to the floor and executed brilliantly at just the right and most opportune moments. You could see it in his face and his body language. This fellow was a real stud in the end. His reputation of a bit of a choke was largely hype. Anyone who knows anything about tennis understands the immense pressure there is in being out in front of a large audience all alone. I loved this match...watching it again. You had to be there to fully appreciate all of the nuance in play.

The style of play is a fascinating contrast. Lendl resorted to making his stand at the baseline, yet he made a couple of key forays to the net that paid off. Cash started off the match being very aggressive and going in at every opportunity, but he backed off in the middle of the match. Trabert and Newcombe were both exhorting his to get in to the net and apply pressure to a nervous and somewhat indecisive Lendl. Towards the end, Cash convinced himself that he must get in and nearly pulled off the biggest upset of his young career. As it was, he pretty much stomped off the court in frustration and declined to answer any questions. Which I think is completely normal.

More than anything this match was played on the cusp of Classic Tennis and what was to come in the sport. Years of chaos and confusion in a sport without any sort of guidelines for equipment specifications. I remember thinking it was beyond stupid. I never could get over the feeling that this could not be happening to the sport that I grew up playing and learning to dearly love. It was a betrayal on a massive level. The equipment became larger to give the inferior a chance against the superior. It was dumbed down for the masses. It remains dumbed down...mainly for the uninformed. Although there are quite a few dummies out there. Know what I mean?

[stroke]

As my wife often tells me, you don't seem to get many "likes" Stroke.

[don_budge]

Fake Moon Landing?

Compared to today's iphone...dreadfully slow and cumbersome. You can extrapolate on this observation and ask the question...if the computers in 1984 were this big and slow...how in the hell did man land on the moon in the late 1960's? Answer to that? They probably didn't. FAKE news. How Orwellian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpujtWEVxR0

[stotty]

Another thing that was interesting about the Prince Classic 107 was around early 2000's, this site called "racquetresearch"(I think) came out with a ranking on all tennis racquets that ranked them for arm safety. The light wide body racquets were at the bottom of the rankings as least safe for the arm. The number 1 racquet for arm safety was the Prince Graphite 107.

It would make sense, as the bigger the sweet spot, the less chance of vibration from miss-timing the ball. I mostly remember the Prince 110, which a number of players started using and getting better results with. Paul McNamee springs to mind. He was primarily a doubles player but who started to achieve good singles results with the Prince 110.

[stroke]

It would make sense, as the bigger the sweet spot, the less chance of vibration from miss-timing the ball. I mostly remember the Prince 110, which a number of players started using and getting better results with. Paul McNamee springs to mind. He was primarily a doubles player but who started to achieve good singles results with the Prince 110.

It was also a relatively heavy racquet in the early 2000's, over 12 ounces strung, with a low stiffness ranking, and headlight. That was pretty much the reason it was number 1 per that site.