PDA

View Full Version : Swingweight vs. Maneuverability


nalbandian_fan
11-18-2006, 02:18 PM
well in another thread a disagreement was brought up about swingweight and its relationship to maneuverability. BreakPoint and myself felt that swingweight was not the only factor in affecting maneuverability and that there are several other factors such as density, beam width, aerodynamics, balance, etc. NoBadMojo felt that swingweight was the chief factor in deciding the maneuverability of a racquet. your thoughts?

EDIT: me and NBM also disagreed on the effects of adding weight to the handle... I felt that weight to the handle increased maneuverability, and he felt that it decreased it. your thoughts?

NoBadMojo
11-18-2006, 02:21 PM
to be fair, you should also mention that in that other thread you are insisting that a particular 340 swingweight frame is more maneueverable than a particular 315 swingweight frame.....

BTW this has been endlessly 'discussed' within the forum. you may wish to locate the search key.

nalbandian_fan
11-18-2006, 02:25 PM
to be fair, you should also mention that in that other thread you are insisting that a particular 340 swingweight frame is more maneueverable than a particular 315 swingweight frame.....

you just mentioned it for me :-D

bluegrasser
11-18-2006, 02:25 PM
well in another thread a disagreement was brought up about swingweight and its relationship to maneuverability. BreakPoint and myself felt that swingweight was not the only factor in affecting maneuverability and that there are several other factors such as density, beam width, aerodynamics, balance, etc. NoBadMojo felt that swingweight was the chief factor in deciding the maneuverability of a racquet. your thoughts?

It's funny but a real head light stick like the Prestige or 6.1 ncode maneuvers real easy on the volley, even better than some even balanced lighter sticks. On the groundies though, I have to go with NoBadMojo, the higher the swingweight, the slower the swing, I just can't pass as well with a 12oz racquet even though it's very head light. - go figure..:confused:

bcsax123
11-18-2006, 02:27 PM
I personally think SW somewhat determines maneuverablity, but when comparing two different weights (say 10oz 340sw vs 12 oz 340 sw) The 10 oz frame would be more maneuverable.

nalbandian_fan
11-18-2006, 02:30 PM
to be fair, you should also mention that in that other thread you are insisting that a particular 340 swingweight frame is more maneueverable than a particular 315 swingweight frame.....

BTW this has been endlessly 'discussed' within the forum. you may wish to locate the search key.

typed in "swingweight maneuverability" under search, this was the only relevant thread to pop up.

NoBadMojo
11-18-2006, 03:06 PM
typed in "swingweight maneuverability" under search, this was the only relevant thread to pop up.

you may wish to reduce your keywords down to merely 'swingweight' if you arent getting sufficient hits, and specify it be in the thread title only. guess you couldnt figure that out. i did this and it produced 153 hits, some of which i am sure will be relevant altho certainly no assurance of the content being accurate...nor will your poll results be proof of anything at all other than that so many of so many think something is true or false

BreakPoint
11-18-2006, 03:15 PM
NBMJ,
If swingweight is the only factor that determines maneuverability, please explain to us why you have stated that the nSix-One Tour 90, with a swingweight of 326, feels much more like a "club" and feels "less maneuverable" than the DNX 10 Mid, which has a swingweight of 331?

After you first played with the DNX 10 Mid, and before its swingweight specs were published, you guessed its swingweight to be 318 (documented on these boards), and after swinging the nSix-One Tour, you guessed its swingweight to be much, much higher than its 326 spec. Do you care to clarify these past claims of yours?

nalbandian_fan
11-18-2006, 03:24 PM
you may wish to reduce your keywords down to merely 'swingweight' if you arent getting sufficient hits, and specify it be in the thread title only. guess you couldnt figure that out. i did this and it produced 153 hits, some of which i am sure will be relevant altho certainly no assurance of the content being accurate...nor will your poll results be proof of anything at all other than that so many of so many think something is true or false

tried that and didn't really find anything showing swingweights effect on maneuverability... if i missed something feel free to link me up. The poll will indicate other peoples opinion's and experiences. If others have experiences similiar to mine with racquets that have higher swingweights being more maneuverable than particular racquets with lower swingweights they will vote for option 2.

nalbandian_fan
11-18-2006, 03:25 PM
NBMJ,
If swingweight is the only factor that determines maneuverability, please explain to us why you have stated that the nSix-One Tour 90, with a swingweight of 326, feels much more like a "club" and feels "less maneuverable" than the DNX 10 Mid, which has a swingweight of 331?

After you first played with the DNX 10 Mid, and before its swingweight specs were published, you guessed its swingweight to be 318 (documented on these boards), and after swinging the nSix-One Tour, you guessed its swingweight to be much, much higher than its 326 spec. Do you care to clarify these past claims of yours?

nbm it seems like youve had an experience with swingweight/maneuverability similiar to mine?

NoBadMojo
11-18-2006, 03:41 PM
NBMJ,
If swingweight is the only factor that determines maneuverability, please explain to us why you have stated that the nSix-One Tour 90, with a swingweight of 326, feels much more like a "club" and feels "less maneuverable" than the DNX 10 Mid, which has a swingweight of 331?

After you first played with the DNX 10 Mid, and before its swingweight specs were published, you guessed its swingweight to be 318 (documented on these boards), and after swinging the nSix-One Tour, you guessed its swingweight to be much, much higher than its 326 spec. Do you care to clarify these past claims of yours?

no..i do not care to clarify <again> ... i dont care to 'discuss' anything with you, .conversing with you is worse than nonproductive, and i would like to pass..you twist everything about and come up with really radical twists and distortions and turn things into endless loops and always have to have the last word..it's not interesting discourse for me, as you stalk me perpetually around the forum trying to bust me or catch me on any possible exception or possible anomoly and then try to turn an exception or anomoly into some universal truth <JUST AS YOU ARE DOING NOW>..not my idea of fun. i've previously and patiently explained this query to you more than once and you know it. explaining my stand on anything to you will just cause you to come up with some non analogous analogy to a car or candy bar or some twist of logic..i;ll say something..you'll twist it all about and i will clarify again..you will twist that about...lather rinse..repeat. i've also asked you perhaps more than 100 times to not engage me in conversation and you wont respect that..i'm not interested in 'talking' with you. for starters the DNX10Mid has a swingweight of 325 not 331...that is the target swingweight as published by Volkl...i could go on and on, and explain, but its a worthless exercise. thankyou

For others..I think swingweight is a most excellent way to determine how easy or hard a racquet will be to swing especially when comparing one frame to another..in fact, that's what it does....it's the defacto standard way for determining maneuverability. if people think it isnt, well that's fine by me. lots of people usually jump into these conversations with al kinds of tech speak and insist swingweight doesnt measure how maneuverable a racquet is. since the burden of proof is on people to prove that swingweight doesnt measure maneuverabilty and nobody ever does, i am very comfortable that swingweight indeed does what it is designed to do..it also matches my experiences and perceptions with frames given the racquets are on spec and properly tested in the RDC machine...of course, as in anything, there can be the occasional anomoly or exception...hope you all enjoy your exploration into the wonderful world of swingweight..swingweight is a beautiful thing..i can usually pin an optimal swingweight range on a lesson within 5 mins or so..that makes racquet selection so much easier for them

nalbandian_fan
11-18-2006, 03:53 PM
no..i do not care to clarify <again> ... i dont care to 'discuss' anything with you, .conversing with you is worse than nonproductive, and i would like to pass..you twist everything about and come up with really radical twists and distortions and turn things into endless loops and always have to have the last word..it's not interesting discourse for me, as you stalk me perpetually around the forum trying to bust me or catch me on any possible exception or possible anomoly and then try to turn an exception or anomoly into some universal truth <JUST AS YOU ARE DOING NOW>..not my idea of fun. i've previously and patiently explained this query to you more than once and you know it. explaining my stand on anything to you will just cause you to come up with some non analogous analogy to a car or candy bar or some twist of logic..i;ll say something..you'll twist it all about and i will clarify again..you will twist that about...lather rinse..repeat. i've also asked you perhaps more than 100 times to not engage me in conversation and you wont respect that..i'm not interested in 'talking' with you. thankyou

For others..I think swingweight is a most excellent way to determine how easy or hard a racquet will be to swing especially when comparing one frame to another..in fact, that's what it does....it's the defacto standard way for determining maneuverability. if people think it isnt, well that's fine by me. lots of people usually jump into these conversations with al kinds of tech speak and insist swingweight doesnt measure how maneuverable a racquet is. since the burden of proof is on people to prove that swingweight doesnt measure maneuverabilty and nobody ever does, i am very comfortable that swingweight indeed does what it is designed to do..it also matches my experiences and perceptions with frames given the racquets are on spec and properly tested in the RDC machine...of course, as in anything, there can be the occasional anomoly or exception.

jeeeez, what was with the first paragraph? why don't you clarify like he asked instead of creating a personal attack?

you discredited my previous post on the basis that i felt a particular racquet with a 340 swingweight felt more maneuverable than another racquet with a 314 swingweight; but you stated that you felt the nsix-one tour with a sw of 326 was less maneuverable than the DNX 10 with a sw of 331.

IMO, swingweight does provide significant information about the maneuverability of a racquet- but there are still many other factors that affect maneuverability... which creates many exceptions where swingweight does not give an accurate comparison of maneuverability. As an analogy, maneuverability would be a scatter plot, and swingweight would be the best-fit line. (sorry im in algebra 2 right now :-D )

nickb
11-19-2006, 06:37 AM
I dont really think swingweight gives a realisitic idea of how manuverable a racquet is. I also tried the DNX 10 and thought it felt significantly harder to manuver than my ncode 90 and pro staff tour 90. Something about the DNX 10 just didnt feel right.

Nick

nalbandian_fan
11-19-2006, 05:46 PM
I dont really think swingweight gives a realisitic idea of how manuverable a racquet is. I also tried the DNX 10 and thought it felt significantly harder to manuver than my ncode 90 and pro staff tour 90. Something about the DNX 10 just didnt feel right.

Nick

yea i didnt think i could be the only one