To stretch or not to stretch

Happy May to everyone.

I get to go play on clay tomorrow (well, har-tru) for the first time in a while. It's nice to slide around on the dirt every now and again. But anyone who has played on properly maintained European Red Clay, knows that Har-Tru just doesn't cut it--like playing with natural gut and switching to cheap nylon. But I digress.

I ask the grand philosophical question for the ages: to stretch or not to stretch?

I was initially of the understanding, I'm not sure why, that typically pre-stretching wasn't a necessity except for
natural gut. I typically stood by that assertion for many years. That was until I talked with some more experienced and learned stringers who informed me that all strings should be pre-stretched. This made since based on their reasoning. It cuts down on tension loss (though very slightly); it makes the string easier to deal with--not so many knots to contend with; and it reduces the chance of "folding" or snagging going through the grommet. An unnoticed snag with natural gut could be disasterous.

I suppose I am still a subscriber to the virtues of pre-stretching as I still continue to do it. Better safe than sorry. Of course, with so many monofilaments/polyesters gaining favor, pre-stretching seems somewhat superfluous as they are already so rigid. One is much more likely to cause cause permanent circulation damage to the hand and fingers than to actually stretch the string. I don't even attempt pre-stretching with mono. In reality though, does stretching even multi-filaments actually do significant good, or is it just an old wive's tale? Again, preventing knots and snags is a plus, but can be avoided with a little extra care and attention.

As far as the notion of pre-stretched string holding the tension better, I am very skeptical. Keep in mind, my experience in the hard-sciences is limited to bio-chemistry and pharmacology. This isn't very applicable to string technology. Yet common sense tells me that any benefit of tension retention, if any, would be negligible. For one, the thousands of fibers comprising multi-filament string are intended to recoil after stress. Stretching simply "straightens" out the fibers that have been sitting in a package for who know how long. I don't believe that simply re-aligning the fibers does anything other than make it slightly easier to work with. Perhaps, a little resiliency could be lost by stretching the fibers twice--once before string, once again during stringing. As far as better tension retention; I'm sure studies have been done, but I would be surprise if the result was greater than a 1/2 pound.

But, I will probably still continue to pre-strech regardless of my skepticism. It's hard to let go of beliefs that we picked up at some time for some particular reason. It reminds me of having arguments with players who insist on using vibration dampeners for the purpose of reducing arm and elbow stress. In my mind it is both a marketing ploy and psycho-semantic. They do little other than block the noise--which for me, is not a result I I want. I can tell when I am hitting the sweet spot and when I am not. I can adjust accordingly. With a vibration dampener, anything other than hitting the frame goes unnoticed. As far as I'm concerned, use softer, more forgiving strings. These will provide slightly less vibration and be more forgiving on the arm--slightly. I'm still not sold on the pre-stretching, yet I can't turn my back on a ritual that I have been doing for years now, Right or wrong, it's just now a part of the routine.

Digital fish scales for tension calibration

Hello to everyone and anyone who follows me. Many apologies for the delay between posts. Between my other blog, playing tennis, marketing and so on and so forth, I have had little time to post. But, I just invested in a moderately priced digital fish scale which I am going to use for tension calibration--similar to the picture on the left.

The reason for this is twofold.

Reason one: price. Tension calibrators made specifically for racquet stringing calibration are very pricey compared to fish scales. Even the most most expensive fish scales are only about $25, where stringing specific calibrators start at about $30 and can go upwards of $75.

Reason two: accuracy. Just based on what I have read, the stringing specific calibrators--even the expensive ones--tend to be wildly inaccurate. The fish scales are accurate up to .01 pounds; well, according to the company specs. Whether or not this is true remains to be seen.

I've even read that the ATP tournament stringers are mostly using fish scales now as well. Again, this is here-say. I'll take is as fact when I actually talk to some ATP tournament stringers. Once I get the fish scale, I am going to test it with a known weight. I have some dumbbells of varying weights which I will use. I'm assuming the weight of the dumbbells are true--so we shall see how this works. I'm of the assumption that my Eagnas is  about 2-3 pounds too low; but I don't want to blindly compensate by going up 2-3 pounds.

Of course, I might be a little less concerned if I upgraded machines. As I stated in an earlier post, I was thinking about getting a Gamma 5003. But I was thinking about getting a Gamma X-ST tabletop. It is essentially the same as the 5003, minus the base. The reasoning for doing this, other than the lower cost, is that I believe I can take the top off and put it on my Eagnas base. I know for sure that the tension pull is compatible with the Eagnas. I most likely would have to rig up a new breaking system, but that isn't very difficult. In case anyone reading this has tried this, or happens to have a X-ST and can give me the diameter of the shaft; I would greatly appreciate your input. We'll see what happens. I truly need to get a set-up with nicer clamps. The Eagnas, while sufficient, pinch a little too much no matter how much I loosen them--I can't loosen them too much, or I'll get slippage.

I will update my fish scale experiment as soon as I receive it and try it out. I welcome everyone's comments if you have tried a fish scale.