Loading...
Two-knot and four-knot string jobs are often discussed, yet objective data are frequently missing, making it difficult to compare how the same frame performs with different patterns. It is also crucial to understand what changes between a correctly executed method and a non-orthodox approach.
For this reason, we compared a four-knot reference job against three common two-knot ATW variants, and we also added three non-orthodox methods to highlight practical consequences, trade-offs, and risks.
The “orthodox” two-knot ATW patterns were:
The additional “non-orthodox” methods were:
We strung the same frame (Babolat Pure Drive 2018) at 24 kg using a monofilament (Signum Pro Poly Plasma 1.23 mm), applying each pattern in turn. This is not meant to produce absolute rankings, but to clarify pros, cons, and outcomes of different approaches.
Protocol:
The four-knot job is used as the baseline because it is a widely adopted standard for practicality and consistency.Ժ Here, mains and crosses were both set at the same nominal tension (24/24 kg), while acknowledging that friction during cross weaving reduces effective cross tension.
Therefore, the effective tension gap between mains and crosses increases with higher inter-string friction and higher applied tension.
Key data: real tension 24 kg; after 4 hours 23.2 kg (−0.8 kg); frequency 625 Hz → 599 Hz; dynamic stiffness upper 38.3 DT-CH, mid 34.5 DT-CH.
For frames that “call” for bottom-up crosses, modern best practice favors starting crosses top-down to reduce deformation and stress. ATW Universal (Wilson box) is the most common two-knot alternative to four knots in competitive contexts, valued for reliability and repeatability.
Key data: real tension 24.3 kg; after 4 hours 23.2 kg (−1.1 kg); frequency 650 Hz → 630 Hz; stiffness upper 40 DT-CH, mid 36.0 DT-CH. Compared to four knots, the lower stringbed area tends to be stiffer, supporting a wide sweetspot and good forgiveness.
The Liam Nolan pattern stems from one of the most influential professional stringing references and aims to enable top-down crosses with two knots on frames historically associated with traditional sequences. It resembles an ATW “no-count” approach and delivers performance comparable to ATW Universal, with solid execution practicality.
Although it has been debated in the past for potential frame deformation, no abnormal deformation was observed during this test.
Key data: real tension 24.3 kg; after 4 hours 23.0 kg (−1.3 kg); frequency 650 Hz → 625 Hz; stiffness upper 39.5 DT-CH, mid 35.8 DT-CH. The lower area again trends stiffer than the four-knot baseline, supporting sweetspot width and tolerance.
The 3+3 box, historically linked to high-level competitive setups, is a more complex pattern designed to keep string paths clean and consistently start crosses from the top. When performed correctly, it can provide distinct feel nuances versus more common ATW schemes.
Key data: real tension 23.8 kg; after 4 hours 22.6 kg (−1.2 kg); frequency 640 Hz → 620 Hz; stiffness upper 39.5 DT-CH, mid 35.5 DT-CH. Uniformity is solid, with slightly lower overall stiffness than ATW Universal and Liam, likely influenced by higher friction as crosses progress downward.
Bottom-up crosses are still used by some stringers, but since the mid-1980s professional practice has increasingly favored top-down to reduce deformation risk and concentrated stress around the throat area.
Key data: real tension 23.4 kg; after 4 hours 22.6 kg (−0.9 kg); frequency 635 Hz → 620 Hz. Stiffness distribution tends to be the “opposite” of top-down sequences, producing a generally softer feel, especially in the upper hoop.
It must be emphasized that this technique has declined in popularity due to the risks of frame deformation and localized stress in critical areas.
This is an outdated and strongly discouraged approach, originating from older machine limitations. It introduces asymmetry in the mains and often uses bottom-up crosses, increasing the likelihood of imbalance.
Key data: real tension 23.5 kg; after 4 hours 22.4 kg (−1.1 kg); frequency 635 Hz → 615 Hz. Lateral stiffness differences can reach about 5–6%, which can translate into a noticeable imbalance (roughly 1–1.5 kg) from one side of the stringbed to the other.
To limit asymmetric deformation, reduce the risk of cracks, and preserve performance, this method should be avoided outright.
This procedure should not be considered a legitimate technique: it is a time-saving shortcut that undermines quality, consistency, and safety. Friction effects and lack of uniform tension lead to an effective stringbed tension that can be far from the nominal setting, with real risk to the frame.
Key data: real tension 20 kg; after 4 hours 19.0 kg (−1.0 kg); frequency 565 Hz → 545 Hz; stiffness upper 35.5 DT-CH, mid 32.0 DT-CH. Tension holding and dynamic durability are heavily penalized, producing an inconsistent and unreliable result.
To prevent abnormal deformation and structural damage—and to protect performance—this approach is strongly discouraged.
