There is more equipment that is designated as conforming by ITF than the products appear on the non-conforming list which only includes items for which a ruling has been specifically requested and rendered. Essentially the list of conforming items is equipment that has been formally challenged on some basis. I find it interesting to look at this equipment to see if I can figure out the reason why a challenge was warranted.
In the “boring” category, some equipment is on the list simply because the dimensions are pushing the edge of the legal limits. This includes four racquets made by Head including the i.S18, Protector, Youtek Five Star, and Youtek Six Star. The Prince O3 also appears on the list which may have been a self induced challenge to put a shot across the bow to remind Head that Prince is, and always will be, the king of over-sized racquets.
Contrasted with the prohibited Spaghetti stringing system discussed yesterday, the PowerAngle racquet seems to be on the confirming equipment list simply due to a diagonal string pattern. The PowerAngle string dampener also is legal and notable because it is a two piece system required to be effective due to the diagonal strings. This would seem to indicate that using two string dampeners in conventional racquets would also be permitted.
There are a couple of asymmetric frames that are legal, but by my eye would likely produce the opposite of a competitive advantage. The X-45 PRO has an asymmetric head, and appears to be warped. The Neoxx is of similar constriction, but without a straight shaft which looks like something straight out of a Dr. Seuss book. The OJOEE racquet contains a bridge across the top and the bottom of the frame that brings the mains and strings to the same length within a square stringing area. It is a safe assumption that none of these racquets pose a danger to the traditional skills required to play the game, otherwise they would be banned.
Marcos Baghdatis played for a while with the “Fischer Magnetic Pro No One 98,” featuring the “Magnetic Speed System.” I found this awesome video which is really a commercial for the racquet where the associated “technology” is explained. There are two magnets on either side of the frame that apparently constitute the implementation of the “technology.” How magnets contribute to the speed of either the racquet head or the non metallic ball, I have no idea. I feel like Copper Fit is missing an opportunity to market a tennis racquet on similar technology.
Also legal is a “Gotta Grip” device which is a tube containing a tacky substance used to evenly distribute said substance on the grip. This tube of goo is actually patented technology (US6685372B1) but I have no idea why it would be necessary. I have a couple of friends who sometimes use rosin bags which seems to work just fine for them. Most players don’t apply tacky foreign substances to the grips of their racquets, instead relying on a combination of overgrips and a towel.
Also permitted is the “Grip You” silicon ring device which can be used under the grip to add little bulges. The marketing on this product claims that they “improve spin” but I don’t see how that assertion possibly lines up with the underlying physics.
Last on the list the “Scoring Right” which is a little plastic sticker with sliding pegs forming a miniature scoreboard which can be applied to the inside of the throat of the racquet. So assuming that a player who cannot remember the score needs assistance, this device could be useful… assuming that the player remembers to change the score after each point and whether he or she has already changed the score.
The “Scoring Right” device does provide a nice segue as this concludes my examination of the equipment. Tomorrow the topic will shift to examination of the scoring system of tennis.
- Product Conformity, ITF, November 2019.
