PDA

View Full Version : Swingweight means nothing??


Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 06:01 AM
:confused: First off, could someone please explain once more how swingweight is calculated. Secondly, what does it really tell you. My coach told me last night that quote, "swingweight means nothing. It's the actual weight you should be concerned about." Clear me up on this swingweight business.

NoBadMojo
11-21-2006, 06:36 AM
:confused: First off, could someone please explain once more how swingweight is calculated. Secondly, what does it really tell you. My coach told me last night that quote, "swingweight means nothing. It's the actual weight you should be concerned about." Clear me up on this swingweight business.

actually the actual weight (static weight) is the last thing people usually notice when actually playing tennis. most people notice swingweight and balance far more whilst playing than static weight. obviously if you pick up a racquet and dont swing it, then actual weight (pick up weight/static weight) is noticed more. i like to think the swingweight is far more important since everyone i know who plays tennis, SWINGS the racquet during play to some level of competency or incompetency, rather than just standing there holding it ;)

you can have a 10oz racquet that is harder to swing than a 12 oz racquet

swingweight is measured in a RDC machine. the racquet is mounted in the machine and mechanically SWUNG. based upon how easy/how hard the racquet is to swing, a value is assigned based upon a formula residing in the chip of the machine.

BounceHitBounceHit
11-21-2006, 06:43 AM
:confused: First off, could someone please explain once more how swingweight is calculated. Secondly, what does it really tell you. My coach told me last night that quote, "swingweight means nothing. It's the actual weight you should be concerned about." Clear me up on this swingweight business.


I respectfully disagree with your coach. SW is probably THE single most important stat to know about a frame, and knowing your ideal SW range is critical to finding the right frame. Static weights don't tell you nearly as much about how the frame will 'feel' in live play.

The best approach is to demo a bunch of frames w/ a broad variety of SW's, and then narrow your range down according to what 'feels' and plays best for you.

CC

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 06:53 AM
That's actually what I thought, guys. What he was saying didn't completely make sense to me. I might have misunderstood him or something.

bcsax123
11-21-2006, 06:58 AM
Well your coach is partially right because it would not be right to use something inder maybe 10.5 oz strung, or something more than 13.5 oz strung (Even if it is super HL)

But SW seems to be the factor you need to look for with racquets. A too low of a swingweight would make it so you may need to adjust your swing to play with it, and the sameting applies to high SW. Once you find the right SW, you generally get more power because your swing isn't slowed by a high SW, and more control because of less chance of over hitting with a lower SW.

ohplease
11-21-2006, 08:15 AM
:confused: First off, could someone please explain once more how swingweight is calculated. Secondly, what does it really tell you. My coach told me last night that quote, "swingweight means nothing. It's the actual weight you should be concerned about." Clear me up on this swingweight business.

Your coach is overstating the point, but he's mostly right.

Swingweight is misunderstood by many as a measure of a racket's manuverability. It is, in fact, a measure of how a racket behaves in one very specific movement - which happens to not correspond to any particular tennis shot. It sacrafices repeatability and consistency in the method of measurement for real-world relevance.

Don't believe me? Consider how swingweight ratings completely disregard a racket's mass. You'll find plenty of lightweight, high swingweight frames here at TW that have high ratings for manuverability (check out the Head LM 5 review). You'll also find heavy, low swingweight frames. I guarantee that if you took an example of either and compared them side-by-side, you'd see for yourself that swingweight is not accurate or useful in real-world situations.

In my opinion, that makes it worse than useless, because it's only sometimes useful, and can steer alot of people wrong. That's why your coach tells you to ignore it - and I agree with him.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 08:29 AM
Thanks, ohplease. Yeah, he was probably overstating because I thought swingweight was so important. He was probably trying to get the idea drilled in my head.

NoBadMojo
11-21-2006, 08:30 AM
[quote=ohplease;1078364]
Swingweight is misunderstood by many as a measure of a racket's manuverability. It is, in fact, a measure of how a racket behaves in one very specific movement - which happens to not correspond to any particular tennis shot.

*** and that very specific movement is a SWING. the beauty of it is the relativity..how one frame swings compared to the other.

Don't believe me? Consider how swingweight ratings completely disregard a racket's mass.

**** swingweight clearly incorporates the racquets mass, and further more also considers how and where it is concentrated within the frame. you can have two racquets of identical weight and balance with significantly differening swingweights...so it not only tells you about the mass, but it tells you where it is concentrated within long axis of the frame..ya right..te static weight tells you more than swingweight

You'll find plenty of lightweight, high swingweight frames here at TW that have high ratings for manuverability (check out the Head LM 5 review).

*** If anything, I would not pay attention to the maneuverablity ratings and def pay attention to the swingweight ratings as that is consistent, measured by a machine rather than perceived by a human who may or not have a good sense of such things, and it is measured the same way time after time. we have people within this forum stating things like a DNX9 (swingweight 315 or so) swings heavier than a nCode90...those types of people would give the nCode90 a high manueverabilty rating

You'll also find heavy, low swingweight frames.

*** absolutely..those are headlight frames which have more mass concentrated down low, which is considered in the swingweight measurement

*** all you are doing is telling people why swingweight IS the best way to determine how easy or hard a racquet is to swing. is it perfect? naah..what is? are there exceptions and anomolies? sure..not many

ohplease
11-21-2006, 08:51 AM
*** and that very specific movement is a SWING. the beauty of it is the relativity..how one frame swings compared to the other.

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/presentations_files/image010.jpg

Know what this guy's doing? He's measuring a racket's swingweight. Does that look like a swing to you? This is how you'd do it at home, absent an RDC machine.

Yes, a Babolat RDC machine will derive the same value as the sticks and stopwatch, with something that roughly approximates a tennis stroke - but in reality that tennis stroke would be no more effective than what this fellow is doing.

Raise your hand if you think the sticks and stopwatch dance is how you evaluate a frame. Now raise your hand if you actually TRY THE RACKET OUT ON COURT. Wow - swingweight is so important that almost no one does the first test, yet everyone does the second.

ohplease
11-21-2006, 08:53 AM
Thanks, ohplease. Yeah, he was probably overstating because I thought swingweight was so important. He was probably trying to get the idea drilled in my head.

No worries, people overstate things all the time. The difference is that sometimes people do it to make a point (like your pro) while others do it because they're genuinely ignorant.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 08:57 AM
Thanks for your input, ohplease and NBMJ. However, can you both agree on this: suppose I had two rackets, for example the m-fil 200 and the FXP Prestige. They both weigh almost exactly the same weight. The swingweight on the prestige is lower. In theory, would it take less work to generate racket head speed with the prestige?

ohplease
11-21-2006, 09:06 AM
Thanks for your input, ohplease and NBMJ. However, can you both agree on this: suppose I had two rackets, for example the m-fil 200 and the FXP Prestige. They both weigh almost exactly the same weight. The swingweight on the prestige is lower. In theory, would it take less work to generate racket head speed with the prestige?

You could make that assumption, but you know what happens when you assume.

Consider the Wilson Tour 90/nCode 90. It's got a swingweight around 325. Now go try it out compared to other rackets with very similar mass/swingweight. You'll notice a dramatic difference in manuverability - that racket is SLOW - much slower than even some 28 inch longbodies with swingweights approaching 340, 350.

Again, swingweight and manuverability are not the same. Swingweight might be the best measure we have, but that doesn't mean it's any good.

NoBadMojo
11-21-2006, 09:22 AM
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/presentations_files/image010.jpg

Know what this guy's doing? He's measuring a racket's swingweight. Does that look like a swing to you? This is how you'd do it at home, absent an RDC machine.

Yes, a Babolat RDC machine will derive the same value as the sticks and stopwatch, with something that roughly approximates a tennis stroke - but in reality that tennis stroke would be no more effective than what this fellow is doing.

Raise your hand if you think the sticks and stopwatch dance is how you evaluate a frame. Now raise your hand if you actually TRY THE RACKET OUT ON COURT. Wow - swingweight is so important that almost no one does the first test, yet everyone does the second.

you didnt even really address what i said other than to agree with it and put up some picture which isnt how swingweight is actually measured. most people would agree that swingweight is measured in a specific machine designed for that purpose (amongst others)...following your logic, i could easily say that when someone picks up a racquet they dont just hold it there <static weight>..they SWING it in an effort to determine what the SWINGWEIGHT might be.

i'm not saying people shouldnt demo..they would be foolish not to..what i am saying is that if you know what SWINGWEIGHT would suit you the best, you've made your selection process so much easier. using me as an example, my optimum swingweight range is 315-320. i could play with pretty much any static weight and balance within that range provided it wasnt balanced too head heavily. by doing this. i've really narrowed down the selection process and made finding a really good racquet for my game pretty easy

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 09:23 AM
I think I understand, ohplease. And I've always been a big proponent of demoing first. This just confirms that even more.

NoBadMojo
11-21-2006, 09:42 AM
No worries, people overstate things all the time. The difference is that sometimes people do it to make a point (like your pro) while others do it because they're genuinely ignorant.

yet another revealing post by you..ya know..i hope TW is reading this because they could save a whole heck of a lot of money and time by not bothering to measure swingweight, since you say that swingweight measurement is worse than no measurement at all..maybe the USRSA will read this as well, and the manufacturers...you could correct the entire tennis industry with your wisdom..this must be a conspiracy designed to steer people wrong..you're truly amazing how you know something that all these people and company's dont, and you're not hesitant to deem them ignorant either! nice

ohplease
11-21-2006, 09:44 AM
you didnt even really address what i said other than to agree with it and put up some picture which isnt how swingweight is actually measured.

from here: http://www.usrsa.com/store/learningcenter/lc_swingweight.html

"How do you measure swingweight?

...The easiest method to measure swingweight is with a commercial machine such as those made by Babolat, Pacific, or Alpha...

If you do not have such a device, you can use the pendulum method, as described in our on-line swingweight calculator."

Pendulum method? What's that look like? Oh, wait - I already showed what the pendulum method looks like. Same numbers as the RDC machines - just as divorced from the realities of racket manuverability.

KFwinds
11-21-2006, 10:23 AM
Thanks for your input, ohplease and NBMJ. However, can you both agree on this: suppose I had two rackets, for example the m-fil 200 and the FXP Prestige. They both weigh almost exactly the same weight. The swingweight on the prestige is lower. In theory, would it take less work to generate racket head speed with the prestige?

Having owned and played with both of these racquets I can tell you that it takes a LOT less work to swing the Prestige (mid OR mp) than it does the M-Fil 200.

Thor
11-21-2006, 10:50 AM
i have a question
i played with the aeropro drive,which i felt swings really light.i read here on tennis warehouse that it has a 324 swingweight,is that possible???
i mean,ive played with racquets that have lower swingweights which felt far easier to swing(and they were also 5-7 HL).this seems to be the case for all babolats though

sureshs
11-21-2006, 11:08 AM
SW is also quoted in the USRSA racquet finder. Are those guys so stupid as to measure and record this for every known model and put it in their database if it means nothing?

vkartikv
11-21-2006, 11:13 AM
SW is just a reference index - it is measured on a machine on one frame. It is not the average SW of say 10 or 20 frames, all from the same batch and stock. So when you consider a company like wilson, their SW means little to me. Their quality control is so poor that I have three prostaff mids, all of the same mold and origin that differ in SW by 12 pts. Are 332 and 344 worlds apart? Ask your coach that question. BTW, static weight means very little to me too. Unless you know where the mass is concentrated and the composition of the frame, the static weight is meaningless.

skraggle
11-21-2006, 11:40 AM
Having owned and played with both of these racquets I can tell you that it takes a LOT less work to swing the Prestige (mid OR mp) than it does the M-Fil 200.

This is true, as my only issue with the M-Fil 200 (my favorite sticks hands down)is the high swingweight. I've owned both prestiges, and they definitely swing easier.

But the payoffs are worth it. The plowthrough on the M-Fil makes up for the high SW and then some...

SteveI
11-21-2006, 12:02 PM
:confused: First off, could someone please explain once more how swingweight is calculated. Secondly, what does it really tell you. My coach told me last night that quote, "swingweight means nothing. It's the actual weight you should be concerned about." Clear me up on this swingweight business.

DunlopKID...

Is this a setup?? All you have to is mention the word "swingweight" and the fires begin to burn. Label your post "swingweight means nothing" and you might as well just burn down the TW boards. Anything to do with swingweight seems to get the juices flowing. BTW.. you might want to consider looking for the new coach. Anyone that thinks (with all due respect) "swingweight means nothing" seems not to know that much about tennis or coaching. It might be IMHO the most important spec when looking for a frame to suit your playing style and level. Most of the really sharp folks (players) on the board know their SW range. Just my 2 cents.

Regards,
Steve

anirut
11-21-2006, 12:06 PM
Swingweight is VERY important, especially when YOUR strokes are already well grooved.

If your strokes are still erratic, SW may not mean much.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 12:30 PM
Well, actually I knew people would look at my thread if I titled it "Swingweight means nothing." So yeah, it was sort of a ploy.:p Also, my coach plays professionally and is probably better than 98% if not more of the people on this board.:p

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 12:31 PM
Anirut,

My strokes are pretty much grooved. It seemed like he was almost saying the opposite of you.

ohplease
11-21-2006, 12:38 PM
Let's say NBMJ is right - swingweight and manuverability are the same. Well, then - TW's manuverability ratings in their reviews should roughly follow the trend in swingweight, right? Let's take a narrow sample - rackets with swingweights around 326 +/- 3, regardless of weight:

tw manuverability|weight|swingweight|racket
63|12.4|326|nCode 90
67|12.6|329|pro staff 6.0 85
70|10.0|326|hyper hammer 5.3 mp
73|12.2|326|nxg graphite mp
73|11.4|327|warrior mp
75|11.9|328|nxg graphite os
76|11.8|325|ki5
78|12.0|324|fxp rad tour
78|11.1|327|shark mp
80|11.3|324|aeropro drive
80|11.2|325|lm radical mp
80|11.6|327|o3 tour mp
87|9.50|323|lm5

Let's see, swingweight: +/- 3 units.

Playtest derived manuverability ratings: +/- 12 units

Do the numbers even trend in the same direction? No, correlation coefficient: -0.59

If there's a manuverability difference detected on court - why isn't that reflected in the All Holy Swingweight rating, as well?

Wait, it gets better - what if we just look at high swingweight rackets?

71|11.7|340|pure drive roddick plus
73|12.0|340|aeropro control
74|9.90|337|bandit os
74|12.2|335|Tfight 325
76|11.3|335|aeropro drive plus
78|10.7|335|liquidmetal 4
78|12.1|335|Core1 No. 6

All with SIGNIFICANTLY higher swingweights than the previous range, all tested to be more manuverable than two wilson sticks with lower singweights, with both heavy and light static masses.

anirut
11-21-2006, 12:54 PM
Anirut,

My strokes are pretty much grooved. It seemed like he was almost saying the opposite of you.

Well, I'm not saying your strokes aren't grooved. My bad for using second person terms here.

I should've said "one's" instead of "your". Hope you know what I mean.

I should think certain SW range is suitable for certain swing style. Otherwise I wouldn't have to SW-adjust my rackets to suite my long-time grooved strokes. Of course, racket weight and balance also come into play here.

It's more or less a personal thing.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 01:27 PM
Anirut,

I know you weren't saying my strokes weren't grooved. Thanks for the input and I know what you are/were saying regarding the SW.

BreakPoint
11-21-2006, 01:32 PM
Let's say NBMJ is right - swingweight and manuverability are the same. Well, then - TW's manuverability ratings in their reviews should roughly follow the trend in swingweight, right? Let's take a narrow sample - rackets with swingweights around 326 +/- 3, regardless of weight:

tw manuverability|weight|swingweight|racket
63|12.4|326|nCode 90
67|12.6|329|pro staff 6.0 85
70|10.0|326|hyper hammer 5.3 mp
73|12.2|326|nxg graphite mp
73|11.4|327|warrior mp
75|11.9|328|nxg graphite os
76|11.8|325|ki5
78|12.0|324|fxp rad tour
78|11.1|327|shark mp
80|11.3|324|aeropro drive
80|11.2|325|lm radical mp
80|11.6|327|o3 tour mp
87|9.50|323|lm5

Let's see, swingweight: +/- 3 units.

Playtest derived manuverability ratings: +/- 12 units

Do the numbers even trend in the same direction? No, correlation coefficient: -0.59

If there's a manuverability difference detected on court - why isn't that reflected in the All Holy Swingweight rating, as well?

Wait, it gets better - what if we just look at high swingweight rackets?

71|11.7|340|pure drive roddick plus
73|12.0|340|aeropro control
74|9.90|337|bandit os
74|12.2|335|Tfight 325
76|11.3|335|aeropro drive plus
78|10.7|335|liquidmetal 4
78|12.1|335|Core1 No. 6

All with SIGNIFICANTLY higher swingweights than the previous range, all tested to be more manuverable than two wilson sticks with lower singweights, with both heavy and light static masses.

Great post, ohplease! :D

Hard to argue with concrete numbers and statistical analysis.

I think anyone (like myself) that has played with a large number and variety of different racquets knows that swingweight does not equal maneuverability in actual tennis play.

SteveI
11-21-2006, 01:35 PM
Well, actually I knew people would look at my thread if I titled it "Swingweight means nothing." So yeah, it was sort of a ploy.:p Also, my coach plays professionally and is probably better than 98% if not more of the people on this board.:p

Hi,

BTW.. being a great player does not always equal being a good coach... it does in many cases but not in all cases. You would also be amazed just how little some good players know about equipement and the finer points of the selection of proper gear.
Better for you to know all you can...

regards,
Steve

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 01:37 PM
SteveI,

I can believe that. I do know that he happens to be a very good coach as well. How much he knows about equipment, I can honestly say I don't know.

Amone
11-21-2006, 01:39 PM
SW is just a reference index - it is measured on a machine on one frame. It is not the average SW of say 10 or 20 frames, all from the same batch and stock. So when you consider a company like wilson, their SW means little to me. Their quality control is so poor that I have three prostaff mids, all of the same mold and origin that differ in SW by 12 pts. Are 332 and 344 worlds apart? Ask your coach that question. BTW, static weight means very little to me too. Unless you know where the mass is concentrated and the composition of the frame, the static weight is meaningless.

False. It's not just "Some Reference Number." It's a very specific physics principle, called 'Moment of Interia,' and has a proper unit, which is kg/cm^2. It's measured most accurately by dissecting the frame into 68 1 centimeter long (and 1 half centimeter long) segments, and measuring each one in kilograms, then multiplying that weight by the distance in centimeters it is from the 10 cm point, squared. It's not random at all. It's a reference-- no, not reference: Measurement-- of the amount of torque required to spin it around an axis 10 centimeters up the handle. However, because it's a [I]very specific number, with very specific effects on the racquet, we can make machines to measure the frame without dissecting it.

rocket
11-21-2006, 01:52 PM
Don't believe me? Consider how swingweight ratings completely disregard a racket's mass. You'll find plenty of lightweight, high swingweight frames here at TW that have high ratings for manuverability (check out the Head LM 5 review). You'll also find heavy, low swingweight frames. I guarantee that if you took an example of either and compared them side-by-side, you'd see for yourself that swingweight is not accurate or useful in real-world situations.

So true, a super-light racquet can boast a high SW yet is easier to get into position for a hit than a heavier, lower SW stick. Otherwise, why bother making light racquets with a high SW if we believe that a high SW limits maneuvrability & tires the arm more easily?

rocket
11-21-2006, 01:54 PM
Not to confuse with a 12+oz racquet with a high SW. That beast needs a strong arm & good stamina to handle it.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 01:59 PM
Not to confuse with a 12+oz racquet with a high SW. That beast needs a strong arm & good stamina to handle it.

Hence the fact I need to switch!

NoBadMojo
11-21-2006, 03:01 PM
False. It's not just "Some Reference Number." It's a very specific physics principle, called 'Moment of Interia,' and has a proper unit, which is kg/cm^2. It's measured most accurately by dissecting the frame into 68 1 centimeter long (and 1 half centimeter long) segments, and measuring each one in kilograms, then multiplying that weight by the distance in centimeters it is from the 10 cm point, squared. It's not random at all. It's a reference-- no, not reference: Measurement-- of the amount of torque required to spin it around an axis 10 centimeters up the handle. However, because it's a [I]very specific number, with very specific effects on the racquet, we can make machines to measure the frame without dissecting it.

good explanation, and no rebuttals by our "experts" <not surprising>

Amone
11-21-2006, 03:13 PM
good explanation, and no rebuttals by our "experts" <not surprising>

Amazing what a physics class in high school with teach with a little ingenuity.

ohplease
11-21-2006, 03:16 PM
False. It's not just "Some Reference Number." It's a very specific physics principle, called 'Moment of Interia,' and has a proper unit, which is kg/cm^2. It's measured most accurately by dissecting the frame into 68 1 centimeter long (and 1 half centimeter long) segments, and measuring each one in kilograms, then multiplying that weight by the distance in centimeters it is from the 10 cm point, squared. It's not random at all. It's a reference-- no, not reference: Measurement-- of the amount of torque required to spin it around an axis 10 centimeters up the handle. However, because it's a [I]very specific number, with very specific effects on the racquet, we can make machines to measure the frame without dissecting it.

True, it's VERY specific. The number changes if you grip it further up the handle, at the throat, etc. It changes where you're doing the rotation.

In fact, the number also changes when you do something like, oh I don't know, hit a forehand, or a backhand, or a serve, or a volley. There's NOT ONE stroke in tennis that involves rotating a racket longitudinally 10 cm up from the end of the handle, exclusively. Insert ANY OTHER motion at the elbow, the shoulder, the torso, the hip - ANYWHERE - and you'll perceive a difference in how much effort it takes to get a racket moving, even with frames of the same measured swingweight.

That's also why you can measure swingweight by timing the pendulum motion by mounting a racket with a cross on sticks near the tip. That's just as useless with regard to real, live, actual tennis as the procedure you've just described - and that's why humans perceive racket manuverability in a way that is almost completely independent of swingweight.

ohplease
11-21-2006, 03:17 PM
good explanation, and no rebuttals by our "experts" <not surprising>

Funny, you don't seem to be explaining why TW playtesters come up with manuverability numbers so different from swingweights.

That's not surprising, at all.

skraggle
11-21-2006, 03:24 PM
Hence the fact I need to switch!

I'll be interested to hear if you can do that. I tried to break away from the M-Fil 200 but just couldn't do it. Instead, I've totally ramped up my strength/fitness routine...

NoBadMojo
11-21-2006, 03:26 PM
Funny, you don't seem to be explaining why TW playtesters come up with manuverability numbers so different from swingweights.

That's not surprising, at all.

i've previously addressed that..you'll excuse me if i dont wish to continue this with you.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 03:29 PM
I'll be interested to hear if you can do that. I tried to break away from the M-Fil 200 but just couldn't do it. Instead, I've totally ramped up my strength/fitness routine...

I've been wondering the same thing. I've tried many other rackets, but none feel as good as the m-fil. Skraggles, what other rackets did you try when you were "trying to break away?"

eunjam
11-21-2006, 03:37 PM
Well, actually I knew people would look at my thread if I titled it "Swingweight means nothing." So yeah, it was sort of a ploy.:p Also, my coach plays professionally and is probably better than 98% if not more of the people on this board.:p

name him please.

i am very curious who your professional coach is.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 03:39 PM
name him please.

i am very curious who your professional coach is.

*******10 char

Amone
11-21-2006, 03:39 PM
True, it's VERY specific. The number changes if you grip it further up the handle, at the throat, etc. It changes where you're doing the rotation.

In fact, the number also changes when you do something like, oh I don't know, hit a forehand, or a backhand, or a serve, or a volley. There's NOT ONE stroke in tennis that involves rotating a racket longitudinally 10 cm up from the end of the handle, exclusively. Insert ANY OTHER motion at the elbow, the shoulder, the torso, the hip - ANYWHERE - and you'll perceive a difference in how much effort it takes to get a racket moving, even with frames of the same measured swingweight.

That's also why you can measure swingweight by timing the pendulum motion by mounting a racket with a cross on sticks near the tip. That's just as useless with regard to real, live, actual tennis as the procedure you've just described - and that's why humans perceive racket manuverability in a way that is almost completely independent of swingweight.

Firstly, I wasn't arguing that perhaps it's irrelevant-- I highly doubt it is, because you could just as easily (okay, with difficulty) measure and synthesize a number for swingweight based on a tennis stroke-- the problem is, it's pointless. You'd need a seperate measurement for every person, a seperate measurement for every stroke, not only between forehand and backhand, but between my forehand and yours. Because I rotate the racquet differently for my stroke than you do for yours, and because my arm is probably shorter than yours (I have somewhat short arms) our 'forehandweights' would be so vastly different with the same frame, it's pointless to try to get it more tennis specific. On the other hand, based on your arm measurements and your swing style, the swingweight is a ratio. Are there other factors? Yes. There are. Things like (to a small extent) beam width, or (to a larger one) mass, or even something as random as arm strenght-- I, because I frequently lead my racquets up to 13+ oz, wouldn't have much problem with a racquet of different mass, but my friend who uses a Pure Drive couldn't handle my DNX10 for five minutes.

So the short version of that is that you're right. It's not the only factor. But just because it's not the only factor, doesn't mean it's not one. Don't throw away information.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 03:41 PM
You have some very impressive analysis, Amone, for just being 16!

Amone
11-21-2006, 03:42 PM
You have some very impressive analysis, Amone, for just being 16!

Yeah, well. You folks watch television. I do physics equations. It's a depressing existance. But I like it.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 03:45 PM
I actually don't watch that much tv. On the other hand, you're right, I don't sit around doing physics equations!

Rafa's best friend
11-21-2006, 03:45 PM
Swingweight determines everything and static weight means nothing. Physics 101

Zuras
11-21-2006, 03:46 PM
Swing weight is poor indicator of a racquets manueverability versus power.

Generally, a "head heavy" racquet will result in more powerful strokes but it will not be as easy to direct shots/spins. "Head heaviness" directly correlates to swing weight.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 03:47 PM
Right, head-heavy rackets also have good plow-through, which I like in the m-fil. It's not technically HH, but it's not overly HL.

eunjam
11-21-2006, 03:50 PM
Rahman Smiley played at Indiana Bloomington.

Doesn't seem to be a D-1 school.

You're probably right about beating most people in this forum, but certainly not 98%.

You claim he plays professionally. Please ask him when you get a chance of his latest results.....anywhere that is verfiable.

Challengers would be good.

I wouldn't really consider him to be a top pro unless he's top 5 in men's open in his division.

****http://www.************.com/records05.htm

in fact, he didn't even make the top 1800 ATP in '05.

my point isn't to ridicule the guy, because he's a solid player, but there are a lot of people who claim to be a lot more than they are.

most people....who are something.......don't really claim anything.

you can tell who are really who they are by the way they carry themselves.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 03:52 PM
Here's a thought kind of taken from Skraggle's post. While a lower swingweight racket "might" be easier to "start" swinging, wouldn't a heavier swingweight (HH racket) be easier to "keep going" during the swing? Especially, against heavy hitters. Once the swing starts wouldn't the weight of the racket carry it through the swing as opposed to a lighter racket not coming through as fast? Hope that made sense.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 03:57 PM
Rahman Smiley played at Indiana Bloomington.

Doesn't seem to be a D-1 school.

You're probably right about beating most people in this forum, but certainly not 98%.

You claim he plays professionally. Please ask him when you get a chance of his latest results.....anywhere that is verfiable.

Challengers would be good.

I wouldn't really consider him to be a top pro unless he's top 5 in men's open in his division.

Yes, it is D-1. And he played number one singles for them his senior year. Played number one doubles all four years. He won the New Jersey state high school singles title at least once. Look him up on ITF if you want to his challenger record. Also, don't be so sure he wouldn't beat 98% of the people on this board. In the "best players on TW" thread, serveitup and a couple other D-1 kids are put forward as candidates for the "best." No offense to them, as they are no doubt phenomenal players, but my coach played number one for a D-1 school and then turned pro. And from what I understand he improved a lot after turning pro. And I never said he was a "top pro" as you say in your post. Although he used to beat James Blake when they were in juniors.:grin:

eunjam
11-21-2006, 03:58 PM
Yes, it is D-1. And he played number one singles for them his senior year. Played number one doubles all four years. He won the New Jersey state high school singles title at least once. Look him up on ITF if you want to his challenger record. Also, don't be so sure he wouldn't beat 98% of the people on this board. In the "best players on TW" thread, serveitup and a couple other D-1 kids are put forward as candidates for the "best." No offense to them, as they are no doubt phenomenal players, but my coach played number one for a D-1 school and then turned pro. And from what I understand he improved a lot after turning pro.

oops. my bad. i guess indiana bloomington is D-1.

but, like i said:

****http://www.************.com/records05.htm

in fact, he didn't even make the top 1800 ATP in '05.

my point isn't to ridicule the guy, because he's a solid player, but there are a lot of people who claim to be a lot more than they are.

most people....who are something.......don't really claim anything.

you can tell who are really who they are by the way they carry themselves.

Rafa's best friend
11-21-2006, 03:59 PM
Here's a thought kind of taken from Skraggle's post. While a lower swingweight racket "might" be easier to "start" swinging, wouldn't a heavier swingweight (HH racket) be easier to "keep going" during the swing? Especially, against heavy hitters. Once the swing starts wouldn't the weight of the racket carry it through the swing as opposed to a lighter racket not coming through as fast? Hope that made sense.

Are you in high school ?(not a insult). What you are talking about there is Stability and momentum. You are right that heavier racket once gets going will want to keep going against heavy ball, which mean it will be more Stable against Heavy topspin ball like RAFA the great's. But the Lighter swingracket will be easier to start up so you will be less likely to be late on fast flat type of shots, so you need balance of both/.....:-D

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 04:00 PM
I understand Eunjam. (By the way, I edited my last post a bit.) My coach is very humble. All the info I just gave you was basically from research. It's not like he's bragging to me or something. Please look at his ITF record if you want to see proof that he is very good.

eunjam
11-21-2006, 04:01 PM
you're right:

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/players/activity.asp?player=30016758

he's a solid player.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 04:01 PM
Are you in high school ?(not a insult). What you are talking about there is Stability and momentum. You are right that heavier racket once gets going will want to keep going against heavy ball, which mean it will be more Stable against Heavy topspin ball like RAFA the great's. But the Lighter swingracket will be easier to start up so you will be less likely to be late on fast flat type of shots, so you need balance of both/.....:-D

Yes, and I understand. I'm just seeking to find that so-called "perfect balance."

Amone
11-21-2006, 04:05 PM
Swing weight is poor indicator of a racquets manueverability versus power.

Generally, a "head heavy" racquet will result in more powerful strokes but it will not be as easy to direct shots/spins. "Head heaviness" directly correlates to swing weight.

Not exactly. See, I hate to bring my own "work" with number play into the discussion, but I could lead up a racquet to have a balance even or head heavy with probably the same swingweight that I could use to get one headlight, using the same amount of tape as well. It's all a matter of (Dare I say it?!) polarization. A big hunk of tape won't add nearly as much to your swingweight as the same amount of tape will more spread out.

---

For instance, with... I guess the base stats were for the Redondo 98. So, I popped open one of my handy-dandy excel spreadsheets to work with!

The first example, I added 70 grams, plop, right there to the 3 and 9 o'clock positions. Think as if I had two 35g fishing plombs taped to it.

Final (depolarized) results:
413g mass,
1.2 pts HH,
447 kg/cm^2 Swingweight.

The second, I added 37 to the tip of the racquet-- again, with fishing-plomb precision. Then, I added (mathematically, not literally) 33 grams into the butt cap right near the cap, at the 0 cm mark.

Final (polarized) results:
413g mass,
7.5 pts HL,
448 kg/cm^2 Swingweight.

---

Now, are you sure about that correlation?

NoBadMojo
11-21-2006, 04:05 PM
Firstly, I wasn't arguing that perhaps it's irrelevant-- I highly doubt it is, because you could just as easily (okay, with difficulty) measure and synthesize a number for swingweight based on a tennis stroke-- the problem is, it's pointless. You'd need a seperate measurement for every person, a seperate measurement for every stroke, not only between forehand and backhand, but between my forehand and yours. Because I rotate the racquet differently for my stroke than you do for yours, and because my arm is probably shorter than yours (I have somewhat short arms) our 'forehandweights' would be so vastly different with the same frame, it's pointless to try to get it more tennis specific. On the other hand, based on your arm measurements and your swing style, the swingweight is a ratio. Are there other factors? Yes. There are. Things like (to a small extent) beam width, or (to a larger one) mass, or even something as random as arm strenght-- I, because I frequently lead my racquets up to 13+ oz, wouldn't have much problem with a racquet of different mass, but my friend who uses a Pure Drive couldn't handle my DNX10 for five minutes.

So the short version of that is that you're right. It's not the only factor. But just because it's not the only factor, doesn't mean it's not one. Don't throw away information.

key word ratio..if you view it as that, which is its' real value, it becomes irrelevant to how long the arms are of others, the strength of others, the mechanics of others, etc....you are comparing different racquets for YOURSELF and establishing a relationship to an accurately measured finite measurement done on a machine rather than the perception of humans which can often be really off base. off course the data which comes out of the machine is only as good as the data going in (how close to spec the test frame(s) are.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 04:07 PM
you're right:

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/players/activity.asp?player=30016758

he's a solid player.

Thanks eunjam. A couple more things, and not to attack you or drill this into the ground but, he can serve 140 mph. I don't many forum members are clocking speeds that fast. Also, when he won the singles title I'm pretty sure he beat Jamal Parker in the final. You can look him up on ITF too.

eunjam
11-21-2006, 04:11 PM
Thanks eunjam. A couple more things, and not to attack you or drill this into the ground but, he can serve 140 mph. I don't many forum members are clocking speeds that fast. Also, when he won the singles title I'm pretty sure he beat Jamal Parker in the final. You can look him up on ITF too.

which singles title?

....and your coach's records shows.....all because you have a huge serve doesn't mean that you are even top 1000.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 04:14 PM
which singles title?

....and your coach's records shows.....all because you have a huge serve doesn't mean that you are even top 1000.

I was referring to the NJ HS title. I know that a huge serve isn't everything. I just don't think many other forum members are hitting it that hard. I also believe that he has beaten guys ranked around 100.

Amone
11-21-2006, 04:15 PM
lolz @ complete digression, guys.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 04:17 PM
Oh well, LOL. There were so many varying opinions, and the swingweight posts were starting to get above my level of comprehension.

DANMAN
11-21-2006, 04:35 PM
I am going to attempt to simplify things a little bit. First of all, swingweight is a measure of the racket's swinging characteristics. Swingweight is also defined as inertia, which we all know is the tendency of an object to either remain in motion or at rest. Overcoming this inertia is directly related to how easy it is to swing a racket. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for a racket with a higher swingweight to be easier to swing than a racket with a lower swingweight. Babolat, which has been in the business of making RDCs, which are used to measure swingweight, uses the terms swingweight and inertia interchangeably and describes these measurements as defining manueverability. I am going to take a leap and assume that they know what they are talking about and that TW knows as well (by their listing SWs). See: http://www.babolat.com/english/tennis/machine/index.php?src=tennispro&page=rdc.

Other than the above: I hope you lower level players continue swinging your 85's and 90's. There is nothing more exciting than playing 4.5 and below players who swing these and are unable to whip/flick desperation shots and just straight overpower you. I think the number of tweeners and lighter player's rackets on tour and in college say more than what anyone can say in words.

Dunlopkid
11-21-2006, 04:52 PM
Thanks, Danman. You're definitely right about tweeners/light rackets in college/tour.

BreakPoint
11-21-2006, 08:24 PM
Firstly, I wasn't arguing that perhaps it's irrelevant-- I highly doubt it is, because you could just as easily (okay, with difficulty) measure and synthesize a number for swingweight based on a tennis stroke-- the problem is, it's pointless. You'd need a seperate measurement for every person, a seperate measurement for every stroke, not only between forehand and backhand, but between my forehand and yours. Because I rotate the racquet differently for my stroke than you do for yours, and because my arm is probably shorter than yours (I have somewhat short arms) our 'forehandweights' would be so vastly different with the same frame, it's pointless to try to get it more tennis specific. On the other hand, based on your arm measurements and your swing style, the swingweight is a ratio. Are there other factors? Yes. There are. Things like (to a small extent) beam width, or (to a larger one) mass, or even something as random as arm strenght-- I, because I frequently lead my racquets up to 13+ oz, wouldn't have much problem with a racquet of different mass, but my friend who uses a Pure Drive couldn't handle my DNX10 for five minutes.

So the short version of that is that you're right. It's not the only factor. But just because it's not the only factor, doesn't mean it's not one. Don't throw away information.
I think you've hit the nail on the head!

Swingweight is just a number, but there are almost infinite "numbers" that occur when you actually play tennis. Then multiply those infinite numbers by who's actually playing (e.g, arm length, swing style, etc.), and you get an unlimited number of real measurements. So for those who think "one number" exclusively represents billions of possible numbers, then you should be buying lottery tickets everyday. ;) LOL

ohplease
11-21-2006, 10:06 PM
Overcoming this inertia is directly related to how easy it is to (rotate around a point 10 cm up from the butt cap). Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for a racket with a higher swingweight to be easier to (rotate around a point 10 cm up from the butt cap) than a racket with a lower swingweight.

Fixed it for you. Wrist flicks aren't swings. Y'all can continue to place value in "flickweight" if you want - because swingweight, in the context of tennis, simply does not exist.

ohplease
11-21-2006, 10:13 PM
On the other hand, based on your arm measurements and your swing style, the swingweight is a ratio.

A ratio of what, exactly?

Swingweight = x/y. Where x/y is a ratio of x to y.

What are x and y?

skraggle
11-21-2006, 10:25 PM
I've been wondering the same thing. I've tried many other rackets, but none feel as good as the m-fil. Skraggles, what other rackets did you try when you were "trying to break away?"

You name it, I've tried it or currently own it. In particular, I tried going back to the C-10, which feels very different and is terrific all-around. But the bottom line was I just play better with the M-Fil.

I also had a try with the RDS-001 mid, which was very impressive for it's weight.

You might want to try the Technifibre 335 18x20, which has some similarlity to the M-Fil, but at a lighter weight.

But man, I hit my ball machine tonight with my M-Fils and towards the end of the session was really hitting out with a big swing, and the resulting balls were on the mark with a lot of penetration and weight. And in my match this morning, I was returning serve with conviction, slicing the ball in wicked fashion, and dictating the action.

For whatever reason, this stick hooks me up in a big way. I just need to keep getting stronger so I can continue using it for the long run...

SteveI
11-22-2006, 01:38 AM
Oh well, LOL. There were so many varying opinions, and the swingweight posts were starting to get above my level of comprehension.

Hi Dunlopkid,

Abot 50 posts ago I asked you if this was as "setup" regarding your question about SW. As all can see, the word "Swingweight" is like some magic word that creates its own life when spoken or written on this board. You now know more about SW than you ever wanted to know. Maybe the heading for this post should be "All you wanted to know about Swingweight, but were afraid to ask"? BTW... have you decided if Swingweight means nothing?

Regards,
Steve

Thor
11-22-2006, 03:02 AM
Let's say NBMJ is right - swingweight and manuverability are the same. Well, then - TW's manuverability ratings in their reviews should roughly follow the trend in swingweight, right? Let's take a narrow sample - rackets with swingweights around 326 +/- 3, regardless of weight:

tw manuverability|weight|swingweight|racket
63|12.4|326|nCode 90
67|12.6|329|pro staff 6.0 85
70|10.0|326|hyper hammer 5.3 mp
73|12.2|326|nxg graphite mp
73|11.4|327|warrior mp
75|11.9|328|nxg graphite os
76|11.8|325|ki5
78|12.0|324|fxp rad tour
78|11.1|327|shark mp
80|11.3|324|aeropro drive
80|11.2|325|lm radical mp
80|11.6|327|o3 tour mp
87|9.50|323|lm5



71|11.7|340|pure drive roddick plus
73|12.0|340|aeropro control
74|9.90|337|bandit os
74|12.2|335|Tfight 325
76|11.3|335|aeropro drive plus
78|10.7|335|liquidmetal 4
78|12.1|335|Core1 No. 6

.

those manuverability stats are just evaluations given by test players,which most of them dont play at the level required fro these 'player sticks',so i can see why the second groups recieves higher marks.
all of this in contrast to SW,so i think this isnt a good point

Dunlopkid
11-22-2006, 05:17 AM
SteveI,

LOL. I don't think that "swingweight means nothing." But I think it's a lot less important than I thought before.

Dunlopkid
11-22-2006, 05:19 AM
You name it, I've tried it or currently own it. In particular, I tried going back to the C-10, which feels very different and is terrific all-around. But the bottom line was I just play better with the M-Fil.

I also had a try with the RDS-001 mid, which was very impressive for it's weight.

You might want to try the Technifibre 335 18x20, which has some similarlity to the M-Fil, but at a lighter weight.

But man, I hit my ball machine tonight with my M-Fils and towards the end of the session was really hitting out with a big swing, and the resulting balls were on the mark with a lot of penetration and weight. And in my match this morning, I was returning serve with conviction, slicing the ball in wicked fashion, and dictating the action.

For whatever reason, this stick hooks me up in a big way. I just need to keep getting stronger so I can continue using it for the long run...


Thanks for the suggestion, Skraggles.

Zuras
11-22-2006, 05:30 AM
Not exactly. See, I hate to bring my own "work" with number play into the discussion, but I could lead up a racquet to have a balance even or head heavy with probably the same swingweight that I could use to get one headlight, using the same amount of tape as well. It's all a matter of (Dare I say it?!) polarization. A big hunk of tape won't add nearly as much to your swingweight as the same amount of tape will more spread out.

---

For instance, with... I guess the base stats were for the Redondo 98. So, I popped open one of my handy-dandy excel spreadsheets to work with!

The first example, I added 70 grams, plop, right there to the 3 and 9 o'clock positions. Think as if I had two 35g fishing plombs taped to it.

Final (depolarized) results:
413g mass,
1.2 pts HH,
447 kg/cm^2 Swingweight.

The second, I added 37 to the tip of the racquet-- again, with fishing-plomb precision. Then, I added (mathematically, not literally) 33 grams into the butt cap right near the cap, at the 0 cm mark.

Final (polarized) results:
413g mass,
7.5 pts HL,
448 kg/cm^2 Swingweight.

---

Now, are you sure about that correlation?

Yes. I'm guessing you just don't know what the hell you are doing/talking about.

SteveI
11-22-2006, 07:16 AM
SteveI,

LOL. I don't think that "swingweight means nothing." But I think it's a lot less important than I thought before.

Dunlopkid,

Your next post should be "swingweight means everything"... LOL :)

Have a great ThanksGiving!
Steve

ohplease
11-22-2006, 07:18 AM
those manuverability stats are just evaluations given by test players,which most of them dont play at the level required fro these 'player sticks',so i can see why the second groups recieves higher marks.
all of this in contrast to SW,so i think this isnt a good point

Um, what?

There are 7 rackets in that second group. At least 3 can be unequivocably described as playa sticks - 43%. There are 13 rackets in the first group. Are 43% (5 or 6) of those playa sticks? Easily. If anything, the first group has a HIGHER proportion of playa sticks than the second.

I'd eviscerate you further, but I'll leave you to figure out averages and standard deviations in headsize, mass, even TW's recommended NTRP level for each of the frames and the NTRP's of the playtesters between the two groups - you're not going to find a significant difference between them. Certainly not one that allows your point make any sense at all.

I'll amend my comments for you, however. If a large part of your game involves flicking your wrist at the ball, in complete isolation from the kinetic chain of your elbow, shoulder, torso, hips, knees, ankles (i.e. - more in the fashion of racquetball or squash players) - then flickweight is INDEED an important spec for you to pay attention to.

If, however, you don't suck at TENNIS and don't depend on what even flickweight's proponents describe as shots made in "desperation" - you'd be well-served to pay no more attention to flickweight than to the aesthetic concerns of a racket's bumper guard: it might have value, but it ain't much.

Tell you what, I'll make a metric that measure a racket's "feel," based purely on specs, where evaluations by human playtesters can be dismissed as "often way off base." Then I'll pay one of my racket company's shills to spam the board with posts about how my rackets have higher machine measured "feel" ratings than all the other brands.

Sounds ridiculous to you? Flickweight (nee "swingweight") is exactly the same situation.

ohplease
11-22-2006, 07:18 AM
SteveI,

LOL. I don't think that "swingweight means nothing." But I think it's a lot less important than I thought before.

Good. You learned something today.

rocket
11-22-2006, 08:13 AM
Take a 10oz stick with a 330 SW and take a 12oz stick with the same 330 SW, go play tennis with those two, see if SW is all you need to know.

NoBadMojo
11-22-2006, 08:57 AM
I'm glad to know the value of swingweight..it's advantages and limitations, and am glad to NOT be a coach who is ignorant enough to say 'swingweight means nothing'. i am also glad to NOT be like several TW posters.
So we have manufacturers spending the time and money to measure swingweight, entities like TW, USRSA, etc spending the time and money to measure swingweight, myself, and some other well informed knowledgable TW posters...and we have a few TW posters spouting off and resorting to personal attacks because they've got nothing. this most usually ends up as certain tw posters who must have the last word having the last word and therefore somehow thinking themselves right..in realty what happens is they are not right, but reasonable people who dont need to have the last word by people who have nothing so they resort to personal attacks and twisting things around to suit, simply leave...this will have the same outcome.
As for myself..i too am a Teaching pro..have been one for a number of years and have helped hundreds choose the right gear for their games. I've also served on racquet advisory for manufacturers and have been selected as a prototype tester for both string and racquet companies because these compoanies know i have a keen sense for such things.
I also believe racquets designed for advanced players are best when used by advanced players...silly me
I also know my posting this will get personal attacks and people intentionally twisting things about..that's cool..thats what some TW posters do..attack away all you wise people

BreakPoint
11-22-2006, 11:22 AM
those manuverability stats are just evaluations given by test players,which most of them dont play at the level required fro these 'player sticks',so i can see why the second groups recieves higher marks.
all of this in contrast to SW,so i think this isnt a good point

But THAT IS the point! That swingweight does not necessarily correspond to how maneuverable a racquet feels when someone actually play real tennis with it. Therein lies the "contrast" between swingweight and maneuverability.

And what do you mean the TW playtesters "don't play at the level required for these 'player sticks'"? :confused: Most of the TW staff playtesters are at the 4.5, 5.0 and 5.5+ levels, all certainly good enough to be using player's sticks!

BreakPoint
11-22-2006, 11:37 AM
i am also glad to NOT be like several TW posters.
Do you mean the ability to admit when we're wrong?

So we have manufacturers spending the time and money to measure swingweight, entities like TW, USRSA, etc spending the time and money to measure swingweight, myself, and some other well informed knowledgable TW posters...
Just because something is measured does not mean that it's of critical importance. Everyone says that size doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop men from measuring their johnsons does it? ;) :mrgreen: LOL

SteveI
11-22-2006, 11:52 AM
I'm glad to know the value of swingweight..it's advantages and limitations, and am glad to NOT be a coach who is ignorant enough to say 'swingweight means nothing'. i am also glad to NOT be like several TW posters.
So we have manufacturers spending the time and money to measure swingweight, entities like TW, USRSA, etc spending the time and money to measure swingweight, myself, and some other well informed knowledgable TW posters...and we have a few TW posters spouting off and resorting to personal attacks because they've got nothing. this most usually ends up as certain tw posters who must have the last word having the last word and therefore somehow thinking themselves right..in realty what happens is they are not right, but reasonable people who dont need to have the last word by people who have nothing so they resort to personal attacks and twisting things around to suit, simply leave...this will have the same outcome.
As for myself..i too am a Teaching pro..have been one for a number of years and have helped hundreds choose the right gear for their games. I've also served on racquet advisory for manufacturers and have been selected as a prototype tester for both string and racquet companies because these compoanies know i have a keen sense for such things.
I also believe racquets designed for advanced players are best when used by advanced players...silly me
I also know my posting this will get personal attacks and people intentionally twisting things about..that's cool..thats what some TW posters do..attack away all you wise people

Hi Ed,

The bottom line is that most racket makers, Proshops, TW, and etc post information, ie the static weight, flex, beam, stringing pattern, construction materials, balance point, grip size, flex and SWINGWEIGHT. All of these specifications are important in their own way. I use a frame with a 4 5/8 or large 4 1/2 grip size. Would I get one in 4 1/4 and think it might work for me??? Heck no.. and I would not try to play with a frame that is 13.0 oz and has a swingweight of 330. Playing people of my own level.. I would have to begin swinging the the frame in the parking lot to get it back in time to win matches. Most of us know our SW limit as we do flex..headsize.. etc. Example..for me. When I play outdoors (daylight) I can use a frame with a slightly higher SW... take me under the lights.. or indoors, I at times have to reach for a frame with a lower SW as it takes me longer to pick the ball up and therefore longer to get the frame into hitting position. The frame with the lower SW gives me a extra faction of time to adjust to the lower light. This is not something that I am making up, it is a fact.. Happy Thanksgiving to all..

Steve

max200G
11-22-2006, 12:06 PM
I am amazed at how many people can go on & on arguing with the facts 83 post now in all Amazing! Nobadmojo and Danman are simply stating the facts, the laws of physics not opinions. The swing-weight of a racquet is in fact the only,ONLY aspect in determining the maneuverability of a racquet! PERIOD!! Nothing else.

byealmeens
11-22-2006, 12:33 PM
I'm glad to know the value of swingweight..it's advantages and limitations, and am glad to NOT be a coach who is ignorant enough to say 'swingweight means nothing'. i am also glad to NOT be like several TW posters.
So we have manufacturers spending the time and money to measure swingweight, entities like TW, USRSA, etc spending the time and money to measure swingweight, myself, and some other well informed knowledgable TW posters...and we have a few TW posters spouting off and resorting to personal attacks because they've got nothing. this most usually ends up as certain tw posters who must have the last word having the last word and therefore somehow thinking themselves right..in realty what happens is they are not right, but reasonable people who dont need to have the last word by people who have nothing so they resort to personal attacks and twisting things around to suit, simply leave...this will have the same outcome.
As for myself..i too am a Teaching pro..have been one for a number of years and have helped hundreds choose the right gear for their games. I've also served on racquet advisory for manufacturers and have been selected as a prototype tester for both string and racquet companies because these compoanies know i have a keen sense for such things.
I also believe racquets designed for advanced players are best when used by advanced players...silly me
I also know my posting this will get personal attacks and people intentionally twisting things about..that's cool..thats what some TW posters do..attack away all you wise people
Wow - somebody forgot to take their medication. Is everybody out to get NBMJ? I guess so....

I'll throw in my 2 cents, because really, that's all it's worth. I feel both sides of this discussion are correct. Swingweight is not an actual measurement of maneuverability. It IS a specific measurement under specific conditions - done (usually) by a specific machine - measuring the moment of inertia about a 10cm axis. Maneuverability, however, is NOT a measurement, and is very subjective. Yes, there are playtests and so on - yes, there are reviews - but ultimately, how maneuverable a frame feels can only be determined by the end user. Saying a frame is very "maneuverable" is like saying it is very "comfortable" and lower swingweight indicates better maeuverability about as much as lower flex indicates better comfort.

That being said, it is also a bit unfair to say that measurements like swingweight are totally useless. Perhaps they are indeed useless to some - those who have specific requirements from a frame and a "feel" refined enough to know when they find it. Most players, however, do not. This may be my experience only, but I've found that many players (even those of a higher NTRP level) cannot notice the difference between frames of comparable static weight, but differing swingweight (unless they are VERY different). I have found very few that can tell the difference between 330 and 320, or even 335 and 315. It seems most players notice the static weight first, then perhaps the balance, and it's downhill from there. To these individuals, the swingweight measurement does prove to be useful, as it provides a starting point, and a means of comparison. If they know that (in general) they are not comfortable with swingweights over 330, then that is useful in eliminating certain options. If they feel they need to be within a narrow range (say 320-325) based on experience, then I feel that is useful information as well. Does this mean that they will NEVER find frames out of their range to be maneuverable - of course not. Does it mean they should NEVER try other frames of varying swingweight - no way. All it means is that players now have some guideline for narrowing down options, and in this day and age, that is very helpful when one considers the ridiculous number of options out there. There is very rarely such a thing as too much information, and very little information that is totally useless to most of us. This case is no different.

So I agree that swingweight doesn't measure maneuverability AND I agree that some may find this silly measurement useful to some extent. So use the information how you see fit - even if that means ignoring it all together. But if you're new to the game, or if you're struggling to find a frame that's right for you, I feel it can be useful to use swingweight along with static weight, balance, and flex as guidelines to help you in your search.

tom4ny
11-22-2006, 12:37 PM
Everyone says that size doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop men from measuring their johnsons does it? ;) :mrgreen: LOL

this is disturbing

max200G
11-22-2006, 12:45 PM
Wow - somebody forgot to take their medication. Is everybody out to get NBMJ? I guess so....

I'll throw in my 2 cents, because really, that's all it's worth. I feel both sides of this discussion are correct. Swingweight is not an actual measurement of maneuverability. It IS a specific measurement under specific conditions - done (usually) by a specific machine - measuring the moment of inertia about a 10cm axis. Maneuverability, however, is NOT a measurement, and is very subjective. Yes, there are playtests and so on - yes, there are reviews - but ultimately, how maneuverable a frame feels can only be determined by the end user. Saying a frame is very "maneuverable" is like saying it is very "comfortable" and lower swingweight indicates better maeuverability about as much as lower flex indicates better comfort.

That being said, it is also a bit unfair to say that measurements like swingweight are totally useless. Perhaps they are indeed useless to some - those who have specific requirements from a frame and a "feel" refined enough to know when they find it. Most players, however, do not. This may be my experience only, but I've found that many players (even those of a higher NTRP level) cannot notice the difference between frames of comparable static weight, but differing swingweight (unless they are VERY different). I have found very few that can tell the difference between 330 and 320, or even 335 and 315. It seems most players notice the static weight first, then perhaps the balance, and it's downhill from there. To these individuals, the swingweight measurement does prove to be useful, as it provides a starting point, and a means of comparison. If they know that (in general) they are not comfortable with swingweights over 330, then that is useful in eliminating certain options. If they feel they need to be within a narrow range (say 320-325) based on experience, then I feel that is useful information as well. Does this mean that they will NEVER find frames out of their range to be maneuverable - of course not. Does it mean they should NEVER try other frames of varying swingweight - no way. All it means is that players now have some guideline for narrowing down options, and in this day and age, that is very helpful when one considers the ridiculous number of options out there. There is very rarely such a thing as too much information, and very little information that is totally useless to most of us. This case is no different.

So I agree that swingweight doesn't measure maneuverability AND I agree that some may find this silly measurement useful to some extent. So use the information how you see fit - even if that means ignoring it all together. But if you're new to the game, or if you're struggling to find a frame that's right for you, I feel it can be useful to use swingweight along with static weight, balance, and flex as guidelines to help you in your search.

miss posted

Amone
11-22-2006, 12:50 PM
Just because something is measured does not mean that it's of critical importance. Everyone says that size doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop men from measuring their johnsons does it? ;) :mrgreen: LOL

BP, you're not a fellow I'd like to pick a fight with. Your comment on the length of a man's johnson is almost correct. However, you assume there's a contradiction here. There's no such thing. In this case, your assumption that size doesn't matter is completely false-- if to no one else, it matters to the man who measures it.

I am amazed at how many people can go on & on arguing with the facts 83 post now in all Amazing! Nobadmojo and Danman are simply stating the facts, the laws of physics not opinions. The swing-weight of a racquet is in fact the only,ONLY aspect in determining the maneuverability of a racquet! PERIOD!! Nothing else.

You're half right and half wrong. It is a physical measurement. However, to say there are no other factors is also fallacious. The two racquet setups I threw out earlier (obviously more-or-less unusable, but good demonstration tools) involving the Redondo 98 are a good example of this. The weights are the same, swingweights almost identical (inconsequently different) but on the other hand, the balance point is way out there on one of them. How much would you be willing to bet that there's no difference in swinging them? I don't know, I think it would be interesting to find out, but I DO know that one would be a hell of a lot more powerful-- that's a discussion for another time. EDIT: I don't say this for no reason. This, too, is plain ol' physics. *shrug*

BreakPoint
11-22-2006, 01:00 PM
I am amazed at how many people can go on & on arguing with the facts 83 post now in all Amazing! Nobadmojo and Danman are simply stating the facts, the laws of physics not opinions. The swing-weight of a racquet is in fact the only,ONLY aspect in determining the maneuverability of a racquet! PERIOD!! Nothing else.

I guess you haven't played with too many different racquets of varying static weights, balances, weight distributions, head sizes, beam widths, beam shapes, and swingweights then?

rocket
11-22-2006, 01:01 PM
I am amazed at how many people can go on & on arguing with the facts 83 post now in all Amazing! Nobadmojo and Danman are simply stating the facts, the laws of physics not opinions. The swing-weight of a racquet is in fact the only,ONLY aspect in determining the maneuverability of a racquet! PERIOD!! Nothing else.

Ask Danman about the tweeners/lighter-racquets used in colleges/on tour, find out if the emphasis is on the (lighter) overall weight of the racquet or its SW.

Ask MBMJ if he's seen too many of those who swing their heavy sticks around & are late on most balls, find out if the high SW of those sticks cause them to be late, or the sheer static weight.

Ask both of them which is easier to swing, the Prince O3 Silver (9.6oz, 325 SW), or the Wilson n6.1 Tour 90 (12.4oz, 326 SW)?

Amone
11-22-2006, 01:03 PM
Man, this has gone from total digression, to total hardlinery. Some folks come around saying swingweight is more or less meaningless, and you can't dissuade them with a physics dissertation and a big stick, some come around saying swingweight's the only thing and they're just as stuck on it. Man, it is in the middle, you can be 100% sure of that!

BreakPoint
11-22-2006, 01:03 PM
this is disturbing
If you claim you've never measured yours, I'd say you're lying. ;) LOL

max200G
11-22-2006, 01:04 PM
AMONE
You are confusing the issue. The balance point of a racquet is separate from swing-weight and weight. Together is what makes up the maneuverability,and power of a racquet.
If you have two of the same racquets lets say the Head Prestige 600 same weight same balance but the swing-weight is 30 points higher on one that racquet will be lsee maneuverable but will also have increased power

Amone
11-22-2006, 01:08 PM
AMONE
You are confusing the issue. The balance of a racquet is separate from swing-weight and weight. Together is what makes up the maneuverability,and power of a racquet. Not one with out the other.
If you have two of the same racquets lets say the Head Prestige 600 same weight same balance but the swing-weight is 30 point higher that racquet will be lsee maneuverable but will also have increased power

Excuse me, max200G, but I think I was the one who originally espoused-- in this thread-- that they were seperate, I was the first to suggest that swingweight was a big but not deciding factor. The power issue was just an aside, the meat of the comment was regarding the effect on maneuverability. However, you stated that swingweight was the only one for that factor. It's not.

BreakPoint
11-22-2006, 01:12 PM
BP, you're not a fellow I'd like to pick a fight with. Your comment on the length of a man's johnson is almost correct. However, you assume there's a contradiction here. There's no such thing. In this case, your assumption that size doesn't matter is completely false-- if to no one else, it matters to the man who measures it.


It wasn't meant to be a contradiction, it was meant to point out a similarity. Just because a man measures his johnson because he feels it's important does not mean that information is critcal to anyone else, likewise, just because an organization measures swingweight (as NBMJ used as evidence of its importance), does not mean that information is critical to the general pubic.

If you look at most racquet manufacturer's websites and paper catalogs or tennis magazine reviews, most do not even list swingweights for their racquets.

rocket
11-22-2006, 01:12 PM
AMONE
You are confusing the issue. The balance point of a racquet is separate from swing-weight and weight.

The balance point is the indice of weight distribution. It has everything to do with SW.

Amone
11-22-2006, 01:15 PM
It wasn't meant to be a contradiction, it was meant to point out a similarity. Just because a man measures his johnson because he feels it's important does not mean that information is critcal to anyone else, likewise, just because an organization measures swingweight (as NBMJ used as evidence of its importance), does not mean that information is critical to the general pubic.

If you look at most racquet manufacturer's websites and paper catalogs or tennis magazine reviews, most do not even list swingweights for their racquets.

I got a magazine from a tennis store (a 'pro shop' of sorts) and they were nice enough not to even list the price. So, I can agree with your statement, because frequently useful information is not published.

tom4ny
11-22-2006, 01:31 PM
If you claim you've never measured yours, I'd say you're lying. ;) LOL

honestly i have not needed to. but the whole concept does give new meaning to 'swing weight'!! ;-)

i'm kinda with amone on this - but do not mind the debate.

have a happy thanksgiving all.

Bolt
11-22-2006, 01:35 PM
honestly i have not needed to. but the whole concept does give new meaning to 'swing weight'!! ;-)

Now I have to worry if my johnson has a big enough swingweight. Gee thanks! ;)

rocket
11-22-2006, 01:36 PM
Now I have to worry if my johnson has a big enough swingweight. Gee thanks! ;)

You might get T/E if it's too stiff. ;)

BreakPoint
11-22-2006, 02:00 PM
You might get T/E if it's too stiff. ;)

Or develop T/E from making it so. ;) LOL

Amone
11-22-2006, 02:01 PM
Oh me, oh my, all this innuendo's far too much for my 16 year old brain!

BreakPoint
11-22-2006, 02:06 PM
Back on topic.

Just to clarify, and for the record, I am NOT saying that swingweight is absolutely meaningless. All I'm saying is that swingweight may not be necessarily indicative of a racquet's perceived maneuverability in actual tennis play.

So, for example, someone who passes on a 9.8 oz. racquet because they fear that it's 335 swingweight may make it too unmaneuverable, may be shortchanging themselves. Likewise, someone who buys a 12.7 oz. racquet because it has a 323 swingweight, thinking it'll be easy to play with, may be making a mistake that they'll regret.

rocket
11-22-2006, 02:10 PM
Or develop T/E from making it so. ;) LOL

I'll stay old-school & play it flexi then. ;)

Amone
11-22-2006, 02:16 PM
Back on topic.

Just to clarify, and for the record, I am NOT saying that swingweight is absolutely meaningless. All I'm saying is that swingweight may not be necessarily indicative of a racquet's perceived maneuverability in actual tennis play.

So, for example, someone who passes on a 9.8 oz. racquet because they fear that it's 335 swingweight may make it too unmaneuverable, may be shortchanging themselves. Likewise, someone who buys a 12.7 oz. racquet because it has a 323 swingweight, thinking it'll be easy to play with, may be making a mistake that they'll regret.

This, I agree with.

rocket
11-22-2006, 02:23 PM
Oh me, oh my, all this innuendo's far too much for my 16 year old brain!

Sorry, are we corrupting you? ;)

SW is important, but so is static weight (why else would they make lighter sticks?), balance point, headsize (don't even go there...), string pattern, grip shape, etc.

I think most of us can agree on the combination of the above.

Amone
11-22-2006, 02:50 PM
Sorry, are we corrupting you? ;)

SW is important, but so is static weight (why else would they make lighter sticks?), balance point, headsize (don't even go there...), string pattern, grip shape, etc.

I think most of us can agree on the combination of the above.

No, not really. Not corrupting at all. lol :p

I have set about trying to figure out how they fit together, using our handy little 'reviews,' and published specs. It's not easy, I've been working for almost a week on the 'topspin' category. Haven't gotten any farther in that week. Wish me luck...

NoBadMojo
11-22-2006, 02:51 PM
this thread is disgusting..especially with the 9th grade kiddie humour.

to set the record straight , i dont think swingweight is the only useful measurement..i think it is the most useful measurement. i dont suggest extremes to anyone, and rarely suggest anything very head heavy. if you know your swingweight you've got it made..i can play well with anything in my target swingweight range provided it isnt seriously head heavy..good players can. for people to pick this all apart as they have isnt very productive i dont think...they've taken something simple and useful and turned it into a bunch of whack

twist this about and turn it into something else all you like..

NoBadMojo
11-22-2006, 02:55 PM
Wow - somebody forgot to take their medication. Is everybody out to get NBMJ? I guess so....

.

nice cheaphot..you must be really special

drakulie
11-22-2006, 03:27 PM
I agree with NBMJ, swingweight means everything. Especially if you have a racquet equipped with "new technology", and you use "new technique".

Dunlopkid
11-23-2006, 06:38 AM
Thanks for the replies guys. It helped me understand swingweight a lot better even if there still is quite a bit of debate.:)

Steve Huff
11-23-2006, 10:47 PM
I think swingweight is very important when comparing rackets. And, it does indirectly take mass into consideration, more specifically, tells a little of how that mass is distributed. Say you like a racket with a swingweight of around 310. Your current racket is 12.0 oz. You know it's very head light. You see another racket whose sw is listed at 310. This racket weighs only 10.5 oz. You know the racket has to be more head heavy (there is more mass toward the top of the racket). Then you see and even lighter racket at 9.0 oz, yet the sw on this one is 320. How can that be? Well, the weight is nearly all in the head. With a little research, you can probably conclude that lighter rackets within a swingweight will have higher balance points (be more head-light).

BreakPoint
11-23-2006, 11:25 PM
I think swingweight is very important when comparing rackets. And, it does indirectly take mass into consideration, more specifically, tells a little of how that mass is distributed. Say you like a racket with a swingweight of around 310. Your current racket is 12.0 oz. You know it's very head light. You see another racket whose sw is listed at 310. This racket weighs only 10.5 oz. You know the racket has to be more head heavy (there is more mass toward the top of the racket). Then you see and even lighter racket at 9.0 oz, yet the sw on this one is 320. How can that be? Well, the weight is nearly all in the head. With a little research, you can probably conclude that lighter rackets within a swingweight will have higher balance points (be more head-light).
Steve,
I think this is generally true. However, I believe there are some exceptions or anomalies to this rule. For example, the Wilson nSix-One Tour 90 is 12.4 oz., has a very headlight balance of 9 pts. HL, and thus, has a relative low swingweight rating of 326. However, when you actually play with it, the racquet swings like a club, and feels to me (and I think to most people) like its swingweight should be much higher than 326, perhaps more like 336 or more. I think this is one example where the swingweight rating was not able to take a racquet's true weight distribution into account. Remember that weight distribution is not the same thing as balance, as balance only tells you where half of the weight is above and the other half is below that balance point, but it doesn't tell you how and where that weight is distributed throughout the upper half and throughout the lower half of the frame.

jonolau
11-24-2006, 12:40 AM
Following is an explanation of swingweight which has been taken from a technical resource (cannot be quoted here as it is a competitor's site):

"SwingWeight: Swinging and impacting a ball torques a racquet in three ways and each torque rotates a racquet around a different axis. The resistance to rotation around any axis is the “swing weight” around that axis. Swing weight around the handle is simply called swing weight. This measures the distribution of weight along the length of the racquet, which in turn determines maneuverability, and stability along that axis when you swing the racquet. Most tennis racquets fall between 200 and 400 kg·cm2. The lower the value the more maneuverable the frame. Values are given for unstrung and strung frames."

Another excerpt which goes on to explain the importance of swingweight on swingspeed:

"When swinging with maximum effort, swing speed (V) was found to decrease as swing-weight (Io) increased ..."

Which goes to show that those who have not mastered the correct strokes to generate sufficient swingspeed should use a lower swingweight to compensate for this. A racquet with a lower swingweight would be able to generate more power.

ohplease
11-24-2006, 10:20 AM
Following is an explanation of swingweight which has been taken from a technical resource (cannot be quoted here as it is a competitor's site):

"SwingWeight: Swinging and impacting a ball torques a racquet in three ways and each torque rotates a racquet around a different axis. The resistance to rotation around any axis is the “swing weight” around that axis. Swing weight around the handle is simply called swing weight. "

Thank you. People are able to perceive multiple "swingweights" in roll, pitch, and yaw, across multiple pivot points. The swingweight we all know and love measures along only one axis, along only one pivot point.

Perhaps a human derived manuverability playtest rating isn't as repeatably consistent as measuring traditional swingweights - but the point is that those human derived values account for all the different swingweights, in actual play - and those numbers don't reasonably match up to simple swingweights precisely because simple swingweights represent a much smaller amount of information.

Don't want to throw away information? Exactly. Flickweight gives you some. Demos and TW manuverability ratings give you more.

haerdalis
11-24-2006, 10:44 AM
Personally I like a high swingweight with a medium headlight balance and above average static weight. When moving the racquet around in non swings I hold the racquet around the balance point with my left hand. So manouverability is also alot about a suitable balancepoint.