so how did the racket play? actually it was quite decent. i didn't find that being a cab/oval shaped racket affect the sweetspot that much. however, even though it was a 25/26lb stringing, since it is PT, i find that the resulting tension was way too low. perhaps i was being too agressive with lowering 1lb per string after the center few mains string. i calculated the effective tension averaged out across the string bed is only 22lbs. that compared to the 24-26lbs that i am normally accustomed to, i didn't like it that much. the bouncy string bed is not very good for touch shots like net shots. since kwun and yong didn't see any noticable string movement (tension equalization), I'm puzzled why kwun can detect or feel overall lower racquet tension, assuming kwun hits the shuttle at the sweetspot and in PT case, the sweetspot is made up of strings of 25/26 lbs tension. When i do my hybrid stringing, i don't lower by 1 lb increment. I don't see the curvature of the racquet corresponds 1 lbs per row/column of grommet. My techinque sounds similar to luxis, i just drop to X lb after finishing the core pattern. It's much simpler to keep track and u still need decent tension to balance the stress of the overall racket.
Of course we would like to think increased playability = more points. I'm just saying the relationship is not exactly there for a small thing like PT. Maybe an analogous situation is if you had two cars, A & B. B has better suspension, better turning stability but if I drive both of them at 30kph all the time, I would still travel between two points in the same amount of time.
Well, the goal of badminton is to score points right? Otherwise, i'm sure people would perform more trick shots like ones Gade does to show at the cost of a few points or smash hard for the fun of it when a drop would have been better. Maybe they do sometimes, but points is what people are usually after. If in your example they were race cars, like dragsters, then all the extra suspensions and such doesn't affect the performance and is uneeded. Those dragsters tend to have horrible turning stability anyway. So the test to be used have to correlate with the actual goal. For a formula-one race car, a drag race test would be incomplete. A game of badminton however, is a complete test of how well its use would be in a game of badminton... or at least more so than simply hitting birds a few times to see how it feels (that would analogous to using race cars on a drag race.) I think you argued against your own test Cheung!!
BRL, Let's go away from racecars as they are very specialised peieces of equipment. The point is that for ordinary cars, driven at 30kph, there isn't much difference at end result fro the example I gave. Yes, the point is to score more points in badminton. But playability doesn't mean getting more points. How many people do you know who change their racquets and have a wonderful increase in the number of points they get because of better playability? In the end, it comes down to personal preference. PT vs CT is the same except we have stringer and stringing equipment considerations. I've played singles with an ex-HK player (ex-China) province. I've never been able to get more than a few points off him. The only way I will win is if I break his leg with my racquet or stab one of his leg muscles with the broken shaft of my racquet. I doubt a racquet strung with PT will help much becasue he's so fast around the court, I can;t get to the shuttle very well to get a good contact and play a good enough quality shot. Even if I do play a good shot, he nearly always plays a good quality shot back which I can't reach. For a realistic game. I can only get more points if I improve my speed, and imporve my consistency - that takes training, not stringing PT. That's why I suggested the standardised test for a range of shots in a double blind manner. This tests only the feel. We eliminate most of the other variables that people would tend to say impinge on the test. It's simple to understand for the layman. We wouldn;t need to argue with everybody 2 pages on statistics to justify the test. Why use a test which people intuitively have doubts on compared to a simple test? Cooler's suggestion of a mechanical swing removes the human subjectiveness. I also support that because it gives data that everybody can understand and interpret. I'm not saying that your test won't work. we might not see the difference early on. And the variables involved are actual points, not playability. I would say the next stage after my test is your experiment. That's also a point where Cooler's mechanical swing falls down on. Playability of strings is essentially a human opinion on the impact of the shuttle on the strings. Wether the shuttle flies to where you want it to go is another matter. The mechanical swing can give us hard data, yes. As you know, human opinion can be opposite to hard data. sorry for the shortened post. My baby is acting up
cheung, that is why is I had included both mechanical and human testing of PT vs CT. A machine test measures one variable at a time where as human can evaluate multiple variables (playability) simultaneously but playability is subjective depending on skills and past experience of that player. Take a chapter from golf, which is also a very technical oriented sports. Every golf magazines have instructions to tell the reader how to swing a club, in every issue since the first golf magazine. In golf, you'll see clubs and balls are mechnanically tested although it give one dimensional results. If we just looking for any advantage of repulsion & control between PT vs CT question, i think machine testing can provide answers to that but will never tell you how it feel or its playability. That is where human testing required for this parameter. If i play badminton for 20 years using CT method, changing to PT would degrade my game although it might help others. That is why using game score results to indirectly derive subtle differences between PT and CT is realistically impossible (unlessl one has data from many many games). Statistical method advocated by BRL works fine in paper and theory but not in the real world.
yup........ so true. sorry havent finished reading all (up to page 5 now) but fell i got to support this b4 i forget where it is cheers
after going thru 11 pages of this thread. this is my stand on PT 1) using this method i would most prob need to use the 10% diff incremental on the crosses to maintain the shape compared to CT. 2) i agree that it is a 'fake tension' and wouldnt last 'long'. 3) i feel that to many players are playing at tensions too high for their own good. im not saying that they cant handle it, but it is over their optimum tension. most prob psychological. 4) no comment on how to test PT vs CT. 5) time consuming........ 6) im not taken over by claims of 'wider sweet spot' using PT. just my opinion 7) IMHO, the root of this argument is becoz most of you are using racquets strung from the center for the mains and are experiencing 'running' center mains............. hahahaha. but of course method is only part of the solution disclaimer: being a commercial stringer (where time equals money) it can also be assumed that my negative views againts PT is bias....... hahaha
im very interested on the reason why Badrad no longer 'bothers' to practice PT. the only possible conclusions that i can think of are the following; 1) the monetary incentive does not justify the effort/time put in or 2) he finds that it is a 'fake tension' or 3) he feels that the effort that he puts into the process of PT goes unappreciated or 4) the diff is insignificant or 5) it doesnt matter what tension/method of stringing he gives you, on court he'll still own you. im going to PM Badrad and see if he can facilitate us with the answer.
okay - i'm here... for PT - i simply stopped doing it because it really doesn't matter all that much. this is a technique/skill that you as a stringer may prefer if you have the time and the ability to do it. but over time, you'll find that this debate is much like having a couple of cooks arguing over whether one should give a hamburger patty an extra 1/4 twist to give the patty an nice set of grill marks... it takes a second or two extra, but it quickly gets covered up with the condiments, trimmings and bun, that the effort will be lost to the customer. (take note that I am not comparing charcoal grilling to pan-fry). the customer only wants a burger - how the cook makes it (as long as it is good, tasty and safe) really doesn't matter all that much to most consumers. so for those cooks who still want to grill burgers with grill marks - make the burger open face - then the consumer wll see the effort taken...
hey badrad, nice to see u r still surfing here, albeit in semi cloaking mode Let me add one more reason of why PT is no longer popular That is: Assuming that the virtues of PT are all true, how can one be assured that players get this special stringer all the time. For pros, if there ask for PT stringing from the tournament stringers, they'll laugh at him/her. (at risk of not getting his or her autograph too ) Same as if one loved hamburgeer from one particular restaurant and then one day he goes to McDonald and ask for medium rare beef burger with low Sodium low fat special sauces and whole wheat buns. Ie, repeatibility can't be achieved for PT stringing outside your regular stringer. Only solution is learn and string your own racket. However, that is not a guaranteed successful option.
thank you badrad i just really want to thank badrad for answering this request. im happy that we share the same views on PT, but i would still be happy otherwise as well. its just nice to hear from another stringer. happy trails
hmm, i thot your general comments were that u don't fundamentally believe in PT's benefits where as in Badrad's case he stop doing PT because his clients don't appreciate or notice his effort, quite a different reason although u both dont use PT.
If a player wants his or her racquet strung the PT method, so be it. Some players may actually prefer PT, just like some prefer very high tension. Who are we to question them? However, a proper PT stringing job should start stringing from the middle for both the cross and main strings. This ensures better tension integrity of the higher tension of the middle cross and main strings. Also, you should come clean and advise the customer that PT stringing does stress the four corners of the racquet frame more than the Yonex recommended pattern.
I'll go with your first statement ' Who are we to question them?' because your second statement is in conflict of interest with the 1st plus that imo your 2nd statment is not accurate.
It is not the type of "conflict of interest" which is generally frowned upon, but more like a "let the buyers beware" information which I feel morally obliged to offer. You have a right to your opinion on my "2nd statement is not accurate", which is obviously different to that of mine.
taneepak. let's see if we can persuade you to change your opinion... in post #66 of this thread, the link is provided here: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8079&page=4&pp=18 i have outlined why PT puts less stress on the badminton frame's 4 corners. perhaps you can give that a thought.
I have brought up this proportional stringing method with Yonex and asked them for their opinion. After several days, Yonex responded with a very diplomatic reply. They did not offer any comment on proportional stringing, but reminded me to follow the Yonex pattern! BTW, has anybody strung a racquet without any side strings on the mains and crosses?
stringing Confusious says, go easy and move along with your chi....ie. gut feeling and the tune you fell its good. rgds
hello guys, i have the some question about racket stringing methods... should the vertical & horizontal string tension be the same for optimum performance or it is just purely for preservation of racket shape? as my armortec tensioning specs are from 20 - 25 lbs...currently stringed at 23 lbs. but i read from an article saying that horizontal stringing tension should be 22 - 25 lbs & vertical tensions 20 - 23 lbs. pls advise. thank you.
Epiphany: How does the string bed look like at max stretch? 1. PT: * * * * * * * * * 2. Constant Tension * * * * * * * * * The illustrations show how both string beds ought to look like after equalizing. PT allows the outer strings to stretch more than with CT. PT would allow the racket to cheat death a little longer by having less stress at the corners while still achieving peak warranty-voiding stringing tensions. Neither technique would show any significant advantage if the player hits at the center all (most) of the time. Please note that I have only been stringing for 5 years and I am not a certified stringer. But, I obsess over badminton stringing. Here's a mind bender: Combine Newton's 2nd Law of motion with Hooke's Law given mass of the racket, string, (approx) player's forearm, and the player's swing speed, while equilibrium (string tension) is the variable. Enough said.
