PDA

View Full Version : Only suckers use a head light balance


Thomas Bird-Itch
04-10-2007, 12:20 PM
Or do I just stink? ;) I'm beginning to think HL balanced racquets are not for me. I like low weight racquets, and combined with a HL balance, but the head is sometimes too unstable and the sweetspot is small.

I can generate my own power, but on off days with many mishits, many of my balls are sitters. I want to go lighter and slightly HH (same SW). I hate swinging anything over a 310 swingweight (I swing VERY fast - also a control freak), but I keep telling myself I don't need a granny stick. Am I in denial? :-(

EDIT: I am a 3.5/4.0, using an 11oz stick balanced even, 64 stiffness, 98 sq/in.

BreakPoint
04-10-2007, 12:23 PM
A low static weight racquet with a headlight balance doesn't really work as it'll be unstable and hard to transfer much momentum to the ball. What works much better is a heavy racquet with a headlight balance. That gives you both stability and maneuverability.

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-10-2007, 01:55 PM
But I don't like anything "heavy," ie, over 11oz. I've tried many, many good 11-12oz, HL frames, but I just do not like the bulk. The only way it seems possible to make a sub 11oz frame stable in the head is change the balance, right? Is that so "wrong?" ;)

SlapShot
04-10-2007, 01:57 PM
Where your argument fails, however, is that you transfer your own preference to everyone else. Personally, I can't play with anything less than 11 ounces - it just feels "squirrely", for lack of a better phrase.

As they say, different strokes for different folks.

<----perfectly happy with 12.5 ounce sticks.

headfan91
04-10-2007, 01:59 PM
try the m-fil 300. Its a little under 11 oz, and very stable for its wieght. It is also a little head light. Another option is the aerogel 300. It feels a little more hh, and its also very stable.

haerdalis
04-10-2007, 02:04 PM
Just add 6 g of lead at 3 and 9. It will stabilize most racquets. Even the lighter ones.

Ripper
04-10-2007, 02:19 PM
For me, the best is somewhere between 11.5-12 ounces and close to even balance (towards headlight side).

tennis_nerd22
04-10-2007, 02:26 PM
you might be a babolat pure storm candidate

fgs
04-10-2007, 02:39 PM
have you tried the ntour two 95?

Tennis Man
04-10-2007, 03:03 PM
I hope it's still true: :)

http://www.racquetresearch.com/sevencri.htm#lightweight

Is a Lightweight Racquet a Good Idea?

No, a lightweight racquet is a dumb idea, as pro customizers attest. Weight is not bad. You need weight to return a "heavy" ball (lots of pace and spin). Wimpy racquets can't put much pace on the ball if you don't have time to develop a long stroke, such as when you are stretched wide. Pete Sampras uses a racquet that is 14 oz. and evenly balanced, and when he is going for a putaway, he chokes down so the swingweight is even higher. Andre Agassi uses one that is 13.2 ounces and 5/8 inch (5 points) head-light. Mark Philippoussis uses one that is 13.5 ounces and is 3/4 inch head light. Lest you think that these heroic sticks are as unwieldy as the sword of Goliath, remember that the lightest wood racquet was 13 ounces. Ladies and children used them.

Maybe, in the short space that you have to execute your stroke, you might swing the wimpy racquet a little faster -- but swing speed is not the key. Momentum, not energy, and not force, is what counts in a collision (Conservation of Momentum is the principle), and in computing momentum the racquet's mass is just as important as its velocity (momentum = mass times velocity). Readers with baseball experience know what happens when you try to hit a hardball home run with a softball (i.e. lightweight) bat. A softball bat cannot hit a hardball very far because it doesn't bring enough mass to the collision, and therefore its momentum on impact is low.

High Tip Speed is bad for accuracy because it is harder to time a violent swing precisely. Even if you succeed in increasing the Tip Speed enough to offset the racquet's lack of mass, the shot will be hard to place.

Aside from the foregoing performance considerations, there is the even more important question of safety. Light racquets are bad for tennis elbow.

Most racquet customers and their stringers know little, and care less, about the difference between weight, Moment, and swingweight. "Pick up appeal" (how light the frame is when you pick it up in the pro shop) is the predominant criterion (after cosmetics) for the ignorant. An epidemic of elbow and other arm injuries has been the result. Tennis is losing players at an alarming rate, and slowly declining in popularity. It's all because of the fundamental mistake of amateurs regarding racquet weight, a mistake that some racquet salesmen apparently have chosen to exploit for their short-term profit.

The touring pros know better. They add weight when they customize their racquets. A more massive (heavier) racquet will crush majestically through the ball instead of bouncing off, which makes it more comfortable on impact and more accurate. See the Official Rules of the ATP Tour regarding racquets. This little secret vexes the sponsors that pay them lots of money to pretend to play with granny sticks, so you won't hear much about it. See page 8 of the June 1996 issue of Stringer's Assistant (published by the US Racquet Stringer's Association) for some data on pro customized racquets.

Tennis Man
04-10-2007, 03:05 PM
http://www.racquetresearch.com/

Should Your Racquet Be Head-Heavy or Head-Light?

Head-light is better, no question. A head-light racquet (balance point closer to the hand than the midpoint of the racquet's length), has significantly lower Moment, resultant forces from impact (Torque and Impulse Reaction), Shock, Work, Shoulder Pull, Shoulder Crunch, Wrist Crunch, and Elbow Crunch. And it can have high mass (M) and high swingweight (I), but low Moment, with a handle end counterweight. That's good, remember.

In the formulas, the key variable is r (the mass center radius, or the distance from the axis of rotation to the balance point). Head-light balance means that r is small. When r is small, r2 will be tiny, and the key coefficient in the formulas, Mr2/I (which, as astute students will note, is equal to r / q because q = I / Mr) in the formulas for Torque and Shock, will be small, which is good. The linear velocity of the mass center is critical, and when the mass center is close to the hand (small r), its linear velocity (v) in rotation will be smaller than when it is distant. A distant mass center goes much faster in rotation -- remember the carousel at the playground? So head-light is the smart choice. Head-light (low r) with a high sweet spot (high q) is the really smart choice for reducing the risk of tennis elbow. That means a racquet with a large handle end weight (~5 ounces). This handle end weight customization produces significant improvement: check this.

An important additional benefit of head-light balance is that Moment is less, so the racquet is easier to position for volleys and returns, and is not so heavy to hold up all afternoon. Moreover, with a low Moment, the Torsion from impact will be small, so the racquet will be easy on the elbow. Head-heavy racquets, on the other hand, increase the risk of tennis elbow because of their high Moment and high Torque (therefore high Torsion), their high Elbow Crunch, and their high Shock.

fgs
04-10-2007, 03:21 PM
tennis man,
there is no secret that "heavy" headlight racquets are basically the right way to go if your game implies also some speed. that's in my opinion an undisputed fact, even if i prefer slightly headheavy setups (currently 337g with 1pt hh). i would not recommend a headheavy setup to anyone, if they chose so, it's their option as it was mine (playing like this since my junior days).
the point our op was making is that he is into rather light and hl racquets, and that's where the problems start. but i think that there are some racquets out there like the nblade 98 or the fxp radical to name just two i have hit with, that could fit his bill even in stock.

th____44
04-10-2007, 03:55 PM
oh, right....
if i suck, then try to use a heavier than 12 oz. racket with hh balance....
it's obvious that a light racket (240-300) will be not to good with stability....but there are some exceptions....

abenguyen
04-10-2007, 04:07 PM
Or do I just stink? ;) I'm beginning to think HL balanced racquets are not for me. I like low weight racquets, and combined with a HL balance, but the head is sometimes too unstable and the sweetspot is small.

I can generate my own power, but on off days with many mishits, many of my balls are sitters. I want to go lighter and slightly HH (same SW). I hate swinging anything over a 310 swingweight (I swing VERY fast - also a control freak), but I keep telling myself I don't need a granny stick. Am I in denial? :-(

EDIT: I am a 3.5/4.0, using an 11oz stick balanced even, 64 stiffness, 98 sq/in.

only a noob like you would post something like this. lol im just kidding. whether you like a head heavy stick a head light stick, does it matter? what you like is what you like. don't worry about what anybody else thinks.

BreakPoint
04-10-2007, 05:10 PM
But I don't like anything "heavy," ie, over 11oz. I've tried many, many good 11-12oz, HL frames, but I just do not like the bulk. The only way it seems possible to make a sub 11oz frame stable in the head is change the balance, right? Is that so "wrong?" ;)
A 12 oz. racquet that's 9 pts. HL feels more maneuverable to me than a 11 oz. racquet that's 6 pts. HH, so I'm not sure what you mean by "bulk". Most heavier player's racquets also tend to have thinner beams which also makes them feel less "bulky" to me.

Z-Man
04-10-2007, 06:16 PM
Try a Triple Threat Bandit. It's a great HH racquet. The other extreme--the POG LB--it's 12pts HL. It can be light, stiff, and head heavy, or heavy, flexy, and head light. And then you have all shades in between. However, the total package has to make sense. I prefer a swingweight between 330 and 340. Different strokes for different folks...

netman
04-10-2007, 06:38 PM
Or do I just stink? ;) I'm beginning to think HL balanced racquets are not for me. I like low weight racquets, and combined with a HL balance, but the head is sometimes too unstable and the sweetspot is small.

I can generate my own power, but on off days with many mishits, many of my balls are sitters. I want to go lighter and slightly HH (same SW). I hate swinging anything over a 310 swingweight (I swing VERY fast - also a control freak), but I keep telling myself I don't need a granny stick. Am I in denial? :-(

EDIT: I am a 3.5/4.0, using an 11oz stick balanced even, 64 stiffness, 98 sq/in.

Okay. Go lighter and slighty HH. If this convinces you that you are a better player, its worth the switch.

Tennis is a very mental sport. :)

-k-

sabi
04-10-2007, 08:21 PM
I would not shy away from a light, head heavy stick. You may find it to your liking. In contrast to some of the above posts, I know certified club pros that do use them. I know 5.0 players that use head heavy wilson racquets. Do they play tournaments with them, I doubt it. Can they play effectively against other 5.0 players, use. It is very much a matter of feel.

In general, heavy static weight and a high headlight balance are a great combination for feel, stability, and regularly playing, but you have to be able to handle the weight in the first place. I don't you know your mechanics, strength, body type, weight, any of the things that could be factors in whether you should consider heavy 11.5 oz and up (or whatever) as better.

It's no shame to like a lighter racquet, and think about demoing slightly head heavy and see what you think.

Alex132
04-10-2007, 08:22 PM
its more like low weight racquet's are for pussies :P

if u wanna play well you wont stay with light racquet

SoBad
04-10-2007, 09:46 PM
OK, so the question is "Only suckers use a head light balance OR do I just stink?". Without getting into too much detail, the obvious answer is that you just stink, since there are many players out there who use head light racquets that are not suckers.

stormholloway
04-10-2007, 09:55 PM
Without mass, you can't transfer momentum into the ball. You need as heavy a racquet as you can swing around consistently.

I don't know any pros who use a head heavy racquet, so I don't get your rant.

shojun25
04-10-2007, 09:55 PM
I guess I'm a sucker ;)

If you like hh racquets, then stick with them. hl racquets won't improve your game if you don't like them. everyone has a personal favorite. personally, i like even weight racquets.

dr_punk
04-10-2007, 10:38 PM
again, i'm selling my nTour

grizzly4life
04-11-2007, 05:47 AM
HH is good up to a point in play.... but once your opponent starts to pressure you time and set-up wise, i think those balls will end up going long alot.

Ripper
04-11-2007, 06:22 AM
you might be a babolat pure storm candidate

I had one of those. It was too light. I prefered it with some lead around the throat area.

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-11-2007, 07:32 AM
Wow, lots of posts, thanks! First I would like to say the title was a joke. I just feel I'm still coming to terms with reality in this sport. Also very good info for everyone, Tennis Man. I'm familiar with that site however I don't always listen to reason. ;)

I guess I will just experiment more. I wasn't thinking anything less than about 10.5oz and no more than 2-3pts HH ...not a Ti.S6, etc. I can imagine an insanely high HH balance would be very difficult to control and be brutal on the body at 4.0+. I think what some people misunderstand though is that moderate-very HL racquets are not ideal either, say when the HL balance approaches the weight in ounces, eg, 12oz, 12pts HL. 11oz and even seems about the point that the balance should begin to be HL, in my opinion.

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-11-2007, 08:38 AM
I guess my biggest complaint with heavier racquets is I can't do the litttle topspin flicks around the net as easily. It's hard to get so much weight moving so fast, especially with low shots from players with no pace. Not that I would be able to do that with a HH racquet though...

From the baseline and serving/returning, yes it absolutely makes sense to have some heft, but I know a LOT of guys at my level who lose to softballers, etc who don't give them pace to work with. Being able to get those meaty 12oz sticks moving quickly through the air like Federer is not common in 3.5, lol. At this level, the heft isn't really necessary, is it?

grizzly4life
04-11-2007, 09:38 AM
thomas, good point on the soft ballers.... i think light, HH racquets are good for playing the soft ballers, unless you're (generic "you") really good player, in which case soft ballers can be beaten with any racquet...... even myself as a weak 4.0, probably the #1 thing i do if i'm being killed by a better player is hit deep with alot less pace and wait for the unforced errors. usually not disciplined to stick with it, but it works.

BreakPoint
04-11-2007, 11:57 AM
I guess my biggest complaint with heavier racquets is I can't do the litttle topspin flicks around the net as easily. It's hard to get so much weight moving so fast, especially with low shots from players with no pace. Not that I would be able to do that with a HH racquet though...

You shouldn't be hitting "topspin flicks" at the net anyway. That's the wrong form. You should be punching through the ball at the net, and heavier racquets with headlight balances are better at doing that. Some of the top doubles players in the world use racquets that are almost 14 oz. but like 16 pts. headlight. This gives them both the stability and the maneuverablity to punch through those volleys to put the ball away.

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-11-2007, 02:12 PM
LOL, yes, I know I shouldn't hit topspin flicks at the net, but I'm good at it ...at least when the ball isn't at my ankles!! ;)

I do agree with you though, BreakPoint. Transition is a weak area of my game, as described in the "lost to a soft baller" thread (tips/instruction). It would be easier, as you said, to punch these low volleys with a heavier, HL racquet. That's something I'm going to have to work on. The very low, paceless ones cannot be put away though obviously.

I think my problem/frustration is that I started playing several years ago thinking I needed a players frame instead of something that would have been more appropiate for me at the time - ie, a tweener, or <gasp> even game improvement racquet. I've sort of developed with the usual logical racquet progression in reverse. It's been humbling, yet educational.

fgs
04-11-2007, 02:35 PM
thomas bird-itch,
in spite of not being new to tennis i'm new to "modern" tennis marketing terminology (hype) - please instruct me about what is a "game improvement racquet", because as far as i understood, and i might be very wrong in my understanding, that would be sort of a n1 "rocket launcher", and that would rather be a "game destruction racquet":D

BreakPoint
04-11-2007, 02:45 PM
LOL, yes, I know I shouldn't hit topspin flicks at the net, but I'm good at it ...at least when the ball isn't at my ankles!! ;)

You see, I think the problem is that a lot of people who use racquets that are too light end up developing the wrong techniques and then have a hard time changing those wrong techniques when they switch to a heavier racquet. It's very hard to hit topspin flicks with a heavier racquet so you would have never developed that poor technique in the first place. You would have been forced to punch through the ball all along. This is why those who learned the game with small, heavy wood racquets tend to have most fluid strokes today because that was the only way you could hit the ball well with a wood racquet.

BTW, those soft balls are the ones you smash away at the net. ;)

jackson vile
04-11-2007, 05:52 PM
Or do I just stink? ;) I'm beginning to think HL balanced racquets are not for me. I like low weight racquets, and combined with a HL balance, but the head is sometimes too unstable and the sweetspot is small.

I can generate my own power, but on off days with many mishits, many of my balls are sitters. I want to go lighter and slightly HH (same SW). I hate swinging anything over a 310 swingweight (I swing VERY fast - also a control freak), but I keep telling myself I don't need a granny stick. Am I in denial? :-(

EDIT: I am a 3.5/4.0, using an 11oz stick balanced even, 64 stiffness, 98 sq/in.

Why not try a low static racket at SW2 ie HH, no reason to fight it.

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-11-2007, 07:24 PM
fgs, by "game improvement" I mean, 9oz, 115 sq/in, 75 stiffness, 8pts HH, etc. Not that I ever needed one of those, but people w/ a 6 inch swing might? ;)

BreakPoint, the "flick" I speak of is really a full swing with heavy spin, sort of Nadal-esque (unfortunately, I can't create heavy top off my shoe laces like him). I don't think a whipping motion like that is poor technique. It is my best shot actually. I can do it with my PS 6.0, but to get the same racquet head speed my bicep would need to be the size of my thigh (like Nadal's).

jackson vile, I'm going to try some lighter (10+oz) HH racquets. I can always put lead in the handle later to make them even balanced or sell them if if doesn't work out. Also, what exactly is the definition of SW2? I'm pretty sure I incorrectly understand it as a 360 SW for every type of racquet. I have no clue if there are balance guidelines...

fgs
04-11-2007, 07:32 PM
thomas bird-itch,
with 6 inches swing and those specs the fences are under assault.:D
i just find the wording funny "game improvement racquets". i know that there are a lot of people out there simply having fun with those sticks and it's good so. but this game basically is about taking a swing at the ball, and an improvement in my opinion would be to make the transition from pushing the ball to hitting the ball. now, that really is something you can't do with a "game improvement racquet" because you would not be able to keep that ball in court anymore, so i don't know where the game improvement would be other than the balance sheets of the game improvement racquet producers.

tlm
04-11-2007, 08:00 PM
To me headheavy sucks, i like to take full swings+ that + hh = balls sailing long.Give me 8 points hl + i can whip that stick in a flash, also they are great for topspin.If you have enough strength you can hit the ball hard with a hl racquet.

fgs
04-11-2007, 08:07 PM
tlm,
i think it's a matter of personal preference. i agree that hh sucks for you, but funny as it is it works for me. i play heavy topspin with 1pt hh, hit quite some pace and don't have them sailing. one man's junk is another man's treasure.:D

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-11-2007, 08:14 PM
fgs, I agree. I don't see how people can use those racquets, but on the other hand, they're not really swinging are they? ;)

tlm, I'm not He-Man, although if I watched Rocky movies before I played every match (Hewitt) it might seem a little easier.

tlm
04-11-2007, 09:25 PM
Not really swinging, no thats why people use hh racquets because they need that weight at the head to get anything on there shots.They dont have enough racquet head speed to develop thier own power so they use hh racquets.

I use a racquet that is just under 12 ounces+ 8 points hl+ you have to swing hard to get some juice on the ball. I have tried even balance or hh racquets + you dont have to swing near as hard to get the ball going.

It also makes it more difficult against hard hitters because of the time it takes to get a hh stick moving.Plus the extra topspin that a hl racquet can generate is another plus for hl.But hey if you guys like hh then go for it, different hitting styles use different racquets.

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-12-2007, 06:22 AM
tlm, that is all true when the static weight is the same. The only way i could have the same SW (not be harder to swing) is to reduce the static weight when moving the balance toward the head, which is what companies have done (balance -> HH as weight decreases). The difference in feeling and power is noticeable to me even by adding only a gram or two between 3/9 to 12. It is more comfortable to me as long as I don't increase the tension to compensate.

A lot of people add lead to the hoop anyway. I'm just trying to start with a lower weight, platform racquet so I don't reach a higher SW immediately, that I might be uncomfortable with - easier to add than remove. String type can change the balance significantly as well. I use 16g polys which shift the balance 2pts to the head in my weight range.

The power is not an issue for me, it's the balance and manueverability. You can be comfortable with a lighter frame if there is weight in the head to move the ball; eg, 11oz, even etc. I'm mostly a baseliner, but I'm learning to play all court. The weight in the head feels best from the back of the court obviously. I can't imagine too many dubs specialist using very HH racquets.

fgs
04-12-2007, 09:58 AM
tlm,
your logic has a flaw and that is: in order to play topspin with a headheavy racquet you need more power to get the racquetheadspeed than with a hl balance. same goes for a kick serve. so, a racquet with the same static weight and hl balance will be easier to swing than one with a hh balance in order to get the same results.

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-12-2007, 12:17 PM
tlm,
your logic has a flaw and that is: in order to play topspin with a headheavy racquet you need more power to get the racquetheadspeed than with a hl balance. same goes for a kick serve. so, a racquet with the same static weight and hl balance will be easier to swing than one with a hh balance in order to get the same results.

I think tlm agreed that more power was necessary to get the same head speed with the same static weight. Where I disagree is... "They dont have enough racquet head speed to develop thier own power so they use hh racquets." I have plenty of power with many HL racquets, I just don't like the extra bulk required in the bottom of the racquet.

tlm
04-12-2007, 05:22 PM
Whatever you guys like thats fine with me.I have added as little as 3 grams of lead to my rds 001 mp at 3+9 + i liked the way it drove through the ball.It also helped on the serves+it made the hits seem more solid.The drawback was that it took away from the control way to much to make it worth the gains.

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-13-2007, 07:26 AM
It's surprisingly strange how noticeable 3g can be on a 310g+ racquet. It really does make a difference, more in feel than in power, I would say. But the feeling is very important. Several months ago I wouldn't have dared string below 50#'s on any of my racquets, but I'm getting more comfortable with it. [EDIT: 16g poly, drop weight.]

Since I accidentally broke my primary (experimenting, so I don't have a backup) I've had to use to 10pt HL racquets in my last few matches. One was a 6.0 95 (12.2, 68, 95in) and the other was a MP Tour 5 (extended, 11.2, 59, 98in). I played pretty well with them, better with the Yonex, but I still felt the weight slowed me down. I have a ton of power, too much really, with them both; more with the PS. The PS is too stiff for my liking.

I have some light ones coming soon I can lead up and try around an even balance. The stiffnesses will be between 55-70 and the heads 95-102. The weight I'm shooting for is 10-11oz. Should be interesting...

MountAiryPHL
04-17-2007, 09:55 AM
I actually think that any head-light racquet is bad, no matter how much it weighs.

I recently demoed and subsequently purchased the Wilson nCode Tour 90 (340g, HL racquet). People have said it's a challenging racquet, and I was up to the challenge. After a week or so, my wrist really started to hurt. I felt like my wrist was being flexed back on forehands, like there just wasn't enough weight to get through the ball. It got to be so bad that I started running around my forehand to hit backhands. So, I decided to add some lead tape at 3 and 9, which made it a little better. Later, I added lead tape at the 12 position, and that has made all the difference. It finally feels like a normal racquet now, and it plays beautifully.

I typed all this to say that mass in your racquet head is extremely important (IMHO). A lot of people say that the light head gives you greater maneuverability, but I don't think you can get a lot of pace with it b/c the part of the racquet that's meeting the ball is so light. I don't know if a light, head heavy racquet is a bad thing, but I do know that a head-light racquet can wreak havoc on your arm. Now I can definitely see why Sampras would add all of that weight to an already heavy racquet.

As far as loss of maneuverability, I think you just get used to the weight and after a while you don't notice it anymore. You adjust to it, and after a month or so, it feels weird when hitting with a lighter racquet.

iksmols
04-17-2007, 11:46 AM
A low static weight racquet with a headlight balance doesn't really work as it'll be unstable and hard to transfer much momentum to the ball. What works much better is a heavy racquet with a headlight balance. That gives you both stability and maneuverability.
I do agree.The racquet I currently play with is the example of headlight racquet with high static mass (Avery M3 Control)

dave333
04-17-2007, 12:03 PM
But I don't like anything "heavy," ie, over 11oz. I've tried many, many good 11-12oz, HL frames, but I just do not like the bulk. The only way it seems possible to make a sub 11oz frame stable in the head is change the balance, right? Is that so "wrong?" ;)

Try the tour diablo MP; fantastic racquet and it feels LIGHTER than an m-fil 300.

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-17-2007, 02:29 PM
I've been wrapping up my little experiment and made some headway for what works best for me. I'll keep that to myself for now...

About some of the topics from today: I agree mass in the head is important, as is a certain mass overall. This goes back to the saying, swing something as heavy as you're comfortable with. Heavier racquets are better for established swings (as they require better technique, strength, and preparation) and will also do more work, provided you can swing it comfortably. Wood racquet are great learning tools, however, people can accel more quickly with a racquet designed for beginner and intermediate players with today's technology; eg: l<11oz, bigger sweetspot, higher stiffness, etc - workarounds for people lacking smooth swings basically.

Finding my ideal balance and weight was one of the purposes of this experiment, which I solved; stiffness was another. What I found during my experiment was that as the racquet got lighter and slightly more head heavy, a loss of control became noticeable. I had to generate a certain speed to have good depth and there was no easy way to maintain power just by changing the balance (keeping the SAME swingweight). There is a certain range for each player, but HL in general will yield more control. Unfortunately, overall weight has an important relationship with stability and power. I won't claim increasing weight increases control because I doubt many of use would play well with a 15oz frame. I will say stability is greatly affected as playing level increases and static weight decreases. It's no wonder that tour players do not use less than say, 10oz racquets.

The other elements of my experiment were how stiffness, length, headsize, and overall power affect my game. Most of you probably know a lot of this but I found: more flex is better for longer, fluid strokes. Stiffer frames do more of the work, but generally reduce control. Stiffer frames are often used with stiffer strings to maintain control, which reduce comfort (better grips, strings, construction, etc can alleviate discomfort). Stiffer frames usually have a bigger sweetspot, however they quickly become too powerful at higher weights and powerless at lower weights. The other factors are self explanitory - length and headsize both increase power and may reduce manueverability. Overall, I found what I was looking for and the sarcasm of the title is, well, still that... only sarcastic.

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-17-2007, 02:31 PM
I've had a quick hit with the Diablo Tour MP. I liked it, but never had one to do multiple hits with. Right now, I'm just going to upgrade my current racquet to something that's still on the market.

goosala
04-17-2007, 04:43 PM
If you say you swing very fast then you of all people need a heavy frame to have stability on your shots. Lightweight frames are for people who swing slowly or moderately.

superstition
04-17-2007, 08:02 PM
I prefer a racquet that's slightly headlight and very heavy by today's standard. I also won't use a head larger than 85 sqin. 80 in is my ideal size. I really wish Wilson would have released a racquet with the same head shape and composition as the PS 85 in an 80 sqin size with a 20mm beam.

guynamedsean
04-17-2007, 08:23 PM
i agree. I actually will not use anything above 75 square inch head size. I like my racquets at 18 ounces with an even balance. I string with kevlar strings at about 80 lbs.

guynamedsean
04-17-2007, 08:23 PM
ok. none of that is really true. sorry

BreakPoint
04-17-2007, 09:15 PM
ok. none of that is really true. sorry
I didn't think so. ;)

Thomas Bird-Itch
04-18-2007, 11:35 AM
ok. none of that is really true. sorry

LOL, it was funny though. :p

So after my annoying post, and essentially 2 years of demoing and improving, I have come to the same conclusion that I knew was true anyway. There are no shortcuts to control, power, and stability. WEIGHT IS GOOD, just not too much or too little of it. I think as I progress as a player I'll be able to handle a 12oz stick with ease, but that day is not here yet. I have fast compact strokes and 11oz is just fine for 3.5/4.0. If/when I reach 4.5 or 5.0 higher weight and stability will be needed.

Thanks all for your input!