PDA

View Full Version : Mark Petchey on Murrays racket


jamumafa
05-20-2007, 03:25 AM
when Murray retired from Hamburg a few days ago, Mark Petchey (Murrays ex coach) Said that he uses a racket that is leaded up heavier tham Sampras' ever was, hence the wrist injuries.

Anyone know if theres any truth in this?

Duzza
05-20-2007, 03:34 AM
I'm sure Mark knows more than everyone but 2 people. Andy and stringers. There seems to be a few pros out with wrist injuries these days...

thomas martinez
05-20-2007, 04:58 AM
No, it's not that heavy, it was only 342 g or something like that unstrung. His balance was 32.x cm, and the swingweight, it was the heaviest I've ever measured. I can't find my notes from what I took it, but it was interesting.

finky
05-20-2007, 06:02 AM
There is an article on this subject in the Sunday Times in the UK today . According to the journalist, Barry Flatman, Murray is using a Flexpoint Prestige with a swingweight of 490 grams . AmI alone in thinking this is all BS?

I thought AM was using a genuine iradical,albeit leaded up.

onkystomper
05-20-2007, 06:36 AM
I remeber Petchey saying that the racquet had a higher swingweight than sampras. Murray puts all the extra lead at 12 o'clock making the racket like a hammer to swing.

This would lead to a swingweight which i huge witout the racket having to be heavier than 342.

I am pretty sure Mark Petchey knows what he is talikng about as he coached him for some time.

christo
05-20-2007, 07:02 AM
No, it's not that heavy, it was only 342 g or something like that unstrung. His balance was 32.x cm, and the swingweight, it was the heaviest I've ever measured. I can't find my notes from what I took it, but it was interesting.

Come on Thomas, we want to know the swingweight

thomas martinez
05-20-2007, 05:15 PM
Even if i found my notes, the swingweight reading I have, it will mean nothing, since the machine I use, it's not commercially available. it's higher then Sampras and Gaudio two guys who had some high swings

AAAA
05-20-2007, 05:32 PM
Even if i found my notes, the swingweight reading I have, it will mean nothing, since the machine I use, it's not commercially available. it's higher then Sampras and Gaudio two guys who had some high swings

Are you saying different machines can give different swingweight readings for the same racquet.

NoBadMojo
05-20-2007, 05:54 PM
I presume Thomas has a machine which measures stuff like moment of inertia.

With a racquet that hard to swing fast, no small wonder he seems to have conditioning issues..that racquet would wear anyone down and also make him suseptable to injury perhaps

dr_punk
05-20-2007, 06:14 PM
I had heard that andy uses one of the heavier swingweighted racquets on the tour.

ajs72us
05-21-2007, 06:26 AM
I have heard moya puts a lot of lead tape at 12 oclock under the bumber guard. He has had lots of shoulder issue in the past.

sureshs
05-21-2007, 07:27 AM
Whether Murray's stick weighs 15 oz or not, we can at least take away the fact that he uses something very heavy and probably with a swingweight like the so-called SW2, and someone in the know thinks that is the reason for his injuries. It may only be 10% accurate for all I know. But there is an important lesson from this. Granted he is not built like Moya, but he is a top professional with access to the best training and nutrition that the UK can provide him. Most posters here are nowhere as fit as these players. Before they jump on the SW2 bandwagon (btw, Nadal does not use SW in the 360s as was once claimed and subsequently disproved by factual evidence) and go with the "swing slow like a heavy pendulum" to put more "weight on the ball", they should take careful note about this. Some of the lead experiments described on this board are downright dangerous. Even advocating demanding sticks like K90 or PS85 to low-level players because Federer won one match against Nadal or whatever can be dangerous to health.

nickb
05-21-2007, 07:35 AM
A lot of people are talking about this.....like finky says there was a really crappy article in the UK papers saying he used a flexpoint etc etc....one interesting thing it did say was his swingweight was 490g.

sureshs
05-21-2007, 07:52 AM
A lot of people are talking about this.....like finky says there was a really crappy article in the UK papers saying he used a flexpoint etc etc....one interesting thing it did say was his swingweight was 490g.

Do you mean static weight of 490 g or SW of 490? SW does not have units of grams.

nickb
05-21-2007, 07:54 AM
Sorry I got confused and put grams after it. The paper said he has a SW of 490.

Nick

z-money
05-21-2007, 08:19 AM
wow! i cant even imagine that log

morten
05-21-2007, 08:27 AM
no way, even 360sw is a log...

travlerajm
05-21-2007, 09:46 AM
Maybe he means SW 490 kg-cm^2 around the axis through the butt end, rather than the customary 10cm axis? This would convert to 370 or the high 390s, depending on whether the spec is strung or unstrung.

RMB
05-21-2007, 09:55 AM
No, it's not that heavy, it was only 342 g or something like that unstrung. His balance was 32.x cm, and the swingweight, it was the heaviest I've ever measured. I can't find my notes from what I took it, but it was interesting.

That means that the weigth of AM racquet is around 12.8 oz. strung.

In the big leagues you just have to use a real bat not a stock racquet like some people here thinks pros use or suggest we should use. Ask those who favor light racquets why they do not play tennis with a badmington racquet.

sureshs
05-21-2007, 09:59 AM
Nadal plays with a 11.9 or 12 oz stick so he must not be a pro or playing the big leagues. Maybe he is too weak with undeveloped muscles.

travlerajm
05-21-2007, 10:02 AM
Nadal plays with a 11.9 or 12 oz stick so he must not be a pro or playing the big leagues. Maybe he is too weak with undeveloped muscles.

With 15g under the bumper, I'd say Nadal is using a big-league bat.

sureshs
05-21-2007, 10:05 AM
With 15g under the bumper, I'd say Nadal is using a big-league bat.

With 15 g and 5 g in the handle, it is 12 oz, as posted many times here. His SW is also in the 350s, not in the 360s, as actually measured.

travlerajm
05-21-2007, 10:07 AM
With 15 g and 5 g in the handle, it is 12 oz, as posted many times here. His SW is also in the 350s, not in the 360s, as actually measured.

The 355 measurement is dubious, because it's not possible to get a swingweight that low by adding 15g of lead tape under the bumper of an Aeropro Drive, especially when you use 1.35mm poly. I welcome you to do the math yourself.

sureshs
05-21-2007, 10:12 AM
I am just going by what a professional stringer posted here from his measurements on a machine. In the future, somebody may be able to confirm or contradict.

Whatever it is, a former coach things Murray is being injured because of his leaded racquet. I assume the coach has much better knowledge of these things than anyone here.

This in spite of Murray's beefing up regimen under Brad Gilbert.

travlerajm
05-21-2007, 10:15 AM
Whatever it is, a former coach things Murray is being injured because of his leaded racquet. I assume the coach has much better knowledge of these things than anyone here.

This in spite of Murray's beefing up regimen under Brad Gilbert.

From a natural skeptic as yourself, I'm disappointed that you would be so hasty to make this assumption.

sureshs
05-21-2007, 10:17 AM
Actually a link to the coments would be nice as I can't find it. Only info out there is that he was injured when returning a particularly hard shot from his opponent.

vsbabolat
05-21-2007, 10:23 AM
Couldn't it be the strings? Doesn't Murray use a hybrid of Luxilon and gut? I know when I experimented with putting a hybrid of Polyester strings and Natural gut strings in my racquets it hurt my wrist and I never had any kind of wrist problem before. When I stopped using the racquet with the Polyester my pain went away.

RMB
05-21-2007, 10:24 AM
Nadal plays with a 11.9 or 12 oz stick so he must not be a pro or playing the big leagues. Maybe he is too weak with undeveloped muscles.

Is not a stock racquet, is it? If it is around 12.oz, is not a light racquet by today terms. Do the search and tell me what percent of today's stock tennis racquets weights more than 12 oz. BTW, 7 oz. of lead is 28 inches of unique lead tape and if Nadal put most of all that lead under the bumper, is not a piece of cake to swing it, right? So I guess it is bat. May be in the WTA you will find a good example. Good luck.

RMB
05-21-2007, 10:30 AM
Whatever it is, a former coach things Murray is being injured because of his leaded racquet. I assume the coach has much better knowledge of these things than anyone here.

And if he used a real stock i.radical, he would be so injured that he probably could not even play tennis again. Wait... may be I'm wrong. If AM used a real stock i.radical he could be playing tennis but ranked around 1,000 in the ...UK.

sureshs
05-21-2007, 10:36 AM
And if he used a real stock i.radical, he would be so injured that he probably could not even play tennis again. Wait... may be I'm wrong. If AM used a real stock i.radical he could be playing tennis but ranked around 1,000 in the ...UK.

I would go by what a professional coach says, to be frank. We can all speculate all we want.

RMB
05-21-2007, 10:44 AM
If I have to choose between a ligth racquet and a heavy racquet in order to avoid injuries, I will choose the heavy one, eyes closed. Obviously there are other things to consider, like stifness and the type of strings.

From racquetresearch.com

"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."

* * * * * *
"If you are inclined to buy a granny stick, consider this: if you were in a car accident, which would you rather be driving, a compact or a truck? We all know that the light car will get crushed. The collision of a racquet and a ball is the same thing: a heavy racquet will keep going on impact, crushing the ball more for better pace and spin.

Light racquet partisans argue that because you can swing the light racquet faster, it will hit harder than a heavy racquet. Granted that if you have the time and energy to execute a long violent stroke, you can swing the light racquet faster and get greater head velocity on impact. Three problems with that: (1) a violent stroke is harder to control; (2) when you are stretching for a shot, you don't have time to execute a long stroke, so velocity will be small and because racquet weight is small also, your shot will be weak; and (3) the light, fast racquet will slow down a lot on impact, stressing the arm. All of that lost energy will have to go somewhere, like your arm. Momentum (mass times velocity) and not force (mass times acceleration) or energy (1/2 mass times velocity squared) is what counts in a collision. Oops, sorry -- a little scary physics there, but the point is crucial for understanding the principle. It's an elementary point called Conservation of Momentum, which any first semester physics student should know. It is a common mistake to think that high racquet kinetic energy is desirable, and therefore a badminton racquet is the best because you can swing it fastest.

What you want is a racquet that will give you the most ball speed for the least effort (Efficiency), and which will not stress your elbow or shoulder (Elbow Safety and Shoulder Safety). What you don't want is to put in a lot of effort on a wild shot that wrecks your arm.

But what if you put most of the mass in the head, making the racquet head-heavy? Wouldn't you then have a light racquet that hits hard? The light, head-heavy racquet will have a high swingweight, which is good for pace and spin. Swingweight is the inertia (resistance to change in motion) of the racquet as it rotates, and what this means in practice is that it's harder to whip, but once you get the racquet rotating (e.g. on the wrist snap of the serve) it will want to keep rotating when it meets the ball and will crush through, mashing the ball against the strings for better spin and pace. That's the advantage of the Hammer and the extra-longs. But in combination with light weight, there are these drawbacks on closer scrutiny: (1) a light and head-heavy racquet is bad for the elbow and shoulder, for technical reasons explained elsewhere; (2) it feels heavy and sluggish to position for volleys and returns; (3) the power comes from your effort, not the racquet, and you have to work a lot harder to get a certain ball speed than with a heavy and head-light racquet."

sureshs
05-21-2007, 10:52 AM
That article has been posted many many times. The site has not been updated for a few years now. The points are basically valid, but other factors have become important over the years which the site does not track. Recreational sticks have more comfort technology, like cushioned handles, foam filling in the racquet, material changes and so on, which have made many of these sticks much more "stable" than in the past. I personally get arm pain with anything less than 12 oz strung, but that is just me. Many juniors are playing with lighter racquets these days and doing fine. The emphasis has also shifted to fast swingspeed as the most cherished attribute of a junior player, which is easier with lighter racquets. Seniors also are making the move towards these comfortable lighter sticks. Of course many show up with the elbow pad, but I think the sticks are becoming safer now.

RMB
05-21-2007, 10:54 AM
I would go by what a professional coach says, to be frank. We can all speculate all we want.

The professional coach is not a MD, right? So may be he is speculating as well. Would you take some medical advice from him?

sureshs
05-21-2007, 10:57 AM
The professional coach is not a MD, right? So may be he is speculating as well. Would you take some medical advice from him?

No, but I would choose his speculation over somebody else's in this matter only.

BreakPoint
05-21-2007, 11:42 AM
Even advocating demanding sticks like K90 or PS85 to low-level players because Federer won one match against Nadal or whatever can be dangerous to health.
Using a light, stiff racquet like Nadal's APD is what's really dangerous to my health as it was this type of racquet that gave me tennis elbow a few years ago. Heavier, flexier racquets like the K90 are much safer for my health.

BreakPoint
05-21-2007, 11:46 AM
Nadal plays with a 11.9 or 12 oz stick so he must not be a pro or playing the big leagues. Maybe he is too weak with undeveloped muscles.
Plus a lot of lead which I'm sure raises the swingweight to something much, much higher than the APD's stock 324, I'm sure.

BreakPoint
05-21-2007, 11:48 AM
Ask those who favor light racquets why they do not play tennis with a badminton racquet.
Exactomundo!!! :D

Also ask major league baseball players why they don't try to hit 90mph baseball pitches with a lightweight plastic wiffle ball bat.

BreakPoint
05-21-2007, 11:56 AM
That article has been posted many many times. The site has not been updated for a few years now. The points are basically valid, but other factors have become important over the years which the site does not track. Recreational sticks have more comfort technology, like cushioned handles, foam filling in the racquet, material changes and so on, which have made many of these sticks much more "stable" than in the past.
Do the laws of physics need to be updated every few years? It has nothing to do with any "comfort technologies" or anything. They just mask the damage you are doing to your body so that you don't feel it as much as you're tearing apart your tendons. You cannot change the laws of physics with technology. A lighter racquet is always going to have less momentum to counter the momentum of the incoming ball.

BTW, has the weight of the ball changed in the past few years? No? Then what makes you think that you can now miraculously use a lighter racquet to counter a ball that is still the same weight as before? :confused: That would defy the laws of physics.

sureshs
05-21-2007, 12:24 PM
Plus a lot of lead which I'm sure raises the swingweight to something much, much higher than the APD's stock 324, I'm sure.

No, with the lead apparently applied in a polarized way. SW is 353 or something like that.

sureshs
05-21-2007, 12:26 PM
A lighter racquet is always going to have less momentum to counter the momentum of the incoming ball.


No, if swung faster. In fact, a faster swing speed produces more kinetic energy growing faster than the momentum compensated for.

The Gorilla
05-21-2007, 12:30 PM
Whether Murray's stick weighs 15 oz or not, we can at least take away the fact that he uses something very heavy and probably with a swingweight like the so-called SW2, and someone in the know thinks that is the reason for his injuries. It may only be 10% accurate for all I know. But there is an important lesson from this. Granted he is not built like Moya, but he is a top professional with access to the best training and nutrition that the UK can provide him. Most posters here are nowhere as fit as these players. Before they jump on the SW2 bandwagon (btw, Nadal does not use SW in the 360s as was once claimed and subsequently disproved by factual evidence) and go with the "swing slow like a heavy pendulum" to put more "weight on the ball", they should take careful note about this. Some of the lead experiments described on this board are downright dangerous. Even advocating demanding sticks like K90 or PS85 to low-level players because Federer won one match against Nadal or whatever can be dangerous to health.



Ihave to disagree with you, 15oz used to be the standard weight of racquets and injuries were far less usual back then.Mark Petchey doesn't know what he's talking about, he's a pundit and had to come up with something right away.Any misgivings he has are not based on fact but instinct.Heavier racquets greatly reduce your risk of injury.

sureshs
05-21-2007, 12:40 PM
Ihave to disagree with you, 15oz used to be the standard weight of racquets and injuries were far less usual back then.Mark Petchey doesn't know what he's talking about, he's a pundit and had to come up with something right away.Any misgivings he has are not based on fact but instinct.Heavier racquets greatly reduce your risk of injury.

15 oz was not the standard weight of racquets. The balls were also coming much slower then. Today's movement and speeds are much more taxing on the body. Also many injuries would not have been reported or discussed like today.

If 15 oz is so great, how come no pro today uses them?

The Gorilla
05-21-2007, 12:52 PM
murray does lol, I'm not saying it's great, I think it's impractical myself, but anything up to 14oz is great, and philopouses, agassi and sampras all had racquets that weighed between 13-14oz.It gives you more bang for your buck, a lot more.
All these light racquets cause you to have to make a huge effort to hit the ball, you have to amp up the acceleration to make up for the loss of mass.Did you ever see how slowly Sampras would strike the ball sometimes and get a huge reaction out of the ball?

BreakPoint
05-21-2007, 01:17 PM
No, with the lead apparently applied in a polarized way. SW is 353 or something like that.
In my book, 353 is much, much higher than 324. Have you ever tried playing with a racquet with a SW of 354?

I can play with 324, no problem, but 354? Nope, since I'm not a pro.

BreakPoint
05-21-2007, 01:26 PM
No, if swung faster. In fact, a faster swing speed produces more kinetic energy growing faster than the momentum compensated for.
Wrong! It's all about conservation of momentum.

If what you said was true then major league baseball players would be swinging 2 oz. bats and Federer would be swinging a 1 oz. racquet. :rolleyes:

There is NO substitute for mass. Period!

You can swing a lighter racquet faster but when your racquet impacts the ball, it will decelerate even faster, and your arm will pay for it. This is why you can "plow-through" the ball with a heavy racquet but not with a light one. With a heavy racquet, you control the ball, whereas with a light racquet, the ball controls you.

AndrewD
05-21-2007, 01:51 PM
Mark Petchey doesn't know what he's talking about, he's a pundit and had to come up with something right away.Any misgivings he has are not based on fact but instinct.Heavier racquets greatly reduce your risk of injury.


Mark Petchey was formerly ranked 80 in the world and, formerly, the coach of Andy Murray. That makes him far more than a mere pundit and puts him in the bracket of people who do actually know what they're talking about.

Weight does not automatically equal comfort: it is not that simple. A heavy racquet might offer more support at impact BUT, in being heavier (especially when that includes a higher swingweight and a less head light balance), it becomes harder to swing. In being harder to swing it puts more strain on the body and can lead to injury. Therefore, heavier racquets do not greatly reduce the risk of injury.

If Murray, a player with a double-handed backhand, is having wrist problems, my guess is that the cause of the problem will be the same as it has been for numerous other players with two-handed backhands - technique and repetition. That isn't to say his technique is inherently flawed but that it involves a bit more wrist than players like Evert, Austin, Connors, etc and is easier to aggravate over the course of numerous hits.

odessa
05-21-2007, 02:46 PM
Mark Petchey was formerly ranked 80 in the world and, formerly, the coach of Andy Murray. That makes him far more than a mere pundit and puts him in the bracket of people who do actually know what they're talking about.

Weight does not automatically equal comfort: it is not that simple. A heavy racquet might offer more support at impact BUT, in being heavier (especially when that includes a higher swingweight and a less head light balance), it becomes harder to swing. In being harder to swing it puts more strain on the body and can lead to injury. Therefore, heavier racquets do not greatly reduce the risk of injury.

If Murray, a player with a double-handed backhand, is having wrist problems, my guess is that the cause of the problem will be the same as it has been for numerous other players with two-handed backhands - technique and repetition. That isn't to say his technique is inherently flawed but that it involves a bit more wrist than players like Evert, Austin, Connors, etc and is easier to aggravate over the course of numerous hits.

wrist problem of murray is on the right hand and happened hitting a pretty normal forehand. no super hard shot. he could hit backhands no problem. infact he played a point after the treatment from the doc. he served (i believe) and played three backhands no problem. next point first forehand big ffffffffffuuuuuuucccccccckkkkkkkkkk and end of story. i was there front row and murray looked spectacular. Hitting absolute bombs from the baseline looking very smooth and relaxed. Not wristy at all. Only Blake was hitting similar bombs in Hamburg.
I hope he recovers faster than Kiefer. (he is out nearly a year)
The wrist problems on tour are very different. Kiefer was falling on his hand, Clisters was using alot of wrist with her two hander and Agassi ?
I believe it is simple bad luck.

BluDiamond
05-23-2007, 01:11 AM
okay...for those people who want 2 know about Murray's racket...last time I hit with him it seemed pretty heavy and the lead is all tucked away under the bumper you can see this when he breaks one...he uses the Radical with the prestige special bumper and he will supposedly use the new microgel. WHen i felt his racket it felt around 350g unstrung.

AndrewD
05-23-2007, 02:45 AM
The wrist problems on tour are very different. Kiefer was falling on his hand, Clisters was using alot of wrist with her two hander and Agassi ? I believe it is simple bad luck.

If I was seeing an equal amount of wrist injuries occurring in players with a single-handed backhand, I might consider it bad luck. However, I'm not and there continues to be far more wrist injuries occurring at all levels of the game (not only talking about the pro tour) when players use two hands on the backhand.

Even though Murray injured the right hand and more of the wrist injuries are coming on the left side, that doesn't mean it isn't the backhand which is causing the problem. He still uses the right hand and despite what you saw, he still uses quite a bit of wrist in his shot (that's one reason he's able to generate such acute angles and hit with so much touch).

Jonnyf
05-23-2007, 02:54 AM
If I was seeing an equal amount of wrist injuries occurring in players with a single-handed backhand, I might consider it bad luck. However, I'm not and there continues to be far more wrist injuries occurring at all levels of the game (not only talking about the pro tour) when players use two hands on the backhand.

Even though Murray injured the right hand and more of the wrist injuries are coming on the left side, that doesn't mean it isn't the backhand which is causing the problem. He still uses the right hand and despite what you saw, he still uses quite a bit of wrist in his shot (that's one reason he's able to generate such acute angles and hit with so much touch).


The only thing I can say is remember that he hit atleast 2 backhand's and a serve or two after the initial injury with no pain, but the minute he hits a forehand BANG FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU***********

Jules
05-23-2007, 05:20 AM
okay...for those people who want 2 know about Murray's racket...last time I hit with him it seemed pretty heavy and the lead is all tucked away under the bumper you can see this when he breaks one...he uses the Radical with the prestige special bumper and he will supposedly use the new microgel. WHen i felt his racket it felt around 350g unstrung.

just out of interest...how come you hit with Murray?...friend?...hitting partner or something?

sureshs
05-23-2007, 05:24 AM
In my book, 353 is much, much higher than 324. Have you ever tried playing with a racquet with a SW of 354?

I can play with 324, no problem, but 354? Nope, since I'm not a pro.

I do 335. I can imagine Nads doing 353.

sureshs
05-23-2007, 05:26 AM
murray does lol, I'm not saying it's great, I think it's impractical myself, but anything up to 14oz is great, and philopouses, agassi and sampras all had racquets that weighed between 13-14oz.It gives you more bang for your buck, a lot more.
All these light racquets cause you to have to make a huge effort to hit the ball, you have to amp up the acceleration to make up for the loss of mass.Did you ever see how slowly Sampras would strike the ball sometimes and get a huge reaction out of the ball?

So we are now down from 15 to 13 oz?

Geez Don Budge's 16 oz racquet was considered the heaviest of all time. 15 oz was certainly not the standard weight which grandmas and toddlers used to swing, as the legend goes, with no arm pain. TE was always around, as many old-timers have said on this board.

BreakPoint
05-23-2007, 11:43 AM
Geez Don Budge's 16 oz racquet was considered the heaviest of all time. 15 oz was certainly not the standard weight which grandmas and toddlers used to swing, as the legend goes, with no arm pain. TE was always around, as many old-timers have said on this board.
Not a "legend" as I lived it. In the wood era, a wood racquet marked "Light" was around 13.5 oz. (this was the "Asian version" of its day), a racquet marked "Medium" was around 14.5 oz. (this was what I believe the majority of players used), and a racquet marked "Heavy" was around 15.5 oz. Also with wood racquets, the most popular grip sizes were 4 5/8 and 4 3/4. 4 7/8 was also quite common, and they also made them with 5 and 5 1/4 grips. I don't recall ever seeing a grip smaller than 4 1/2.

My question is, if tennis players have supposedly become bigger and stronger over the past 30 years, why are they now using lighter racquets with smaller grips? :confused:

I also never even had a hint of tennis elbow when I used wood racquets because they were so flexible and heavy.

BTW, here are the specs of a typical wood racquet. Notice the swingweight of 380, static weight of 14.3 oz., flex of 47, and the typical 4 5/8 grip size.
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBOS-STRATO.html

sureshs
05-23-2007, 12:02 PM
My question is, if tennis players have supposedly become bigger and stronger over the past 30 years, why are they now using lighter racquets with smaller grips? :confused:
[/URL]

That is very easy to answer. The pros have become stronger, not the average person. The best athletes don't go into tennis, if indeed they did so back then.

The pros don't use these racquets either because modern graphite racquets with larger head sizes help generate faster swingspeed and more topspin, and make it easier to play against them too.

Smaller grips are used to generate more topspin. Larger grips favor flatter shots.

Availability of more powerful yet lighter equipment has changed the nature of the game. Could you imagine telling someone 60 years ago that auto bodies could be made of fiberglass? Every day there is some materials innovation where a lighter material is as strong as the heavier material it replaces.

I remember the debates about how automatic transmissions were for women and no man would drive them. Or how calculators were harmful for developing math skills. With more democratization, easier to use equipment becomes widespread, and the old-timers are left complaining that these days anyone can use them.

Shorter answer is: "because they can".

BreakPoint
05-23-2007, 12:17 PM
The pros have become stronger, not the average person.
Not true. The average person is bigger than 30 years ago, and bigger translates into stronger (more mass thus more power).

The pros don't use these racquets either because modern graphite racquets with larger head sizes help generate faster swingspeed and more topspin, and make it easier to play against them too.
But that only depends on what your opponent is using. If Borg played against Nadal on clay today and both used a 15 oz., 65 sq. in. wood racquet with 47 flex, I'd still put my money on Borg.

Smaller grips are used to generate more topspin. Larger grips favor flatter shots.
Neither Borg nor Vilas (nor Solomon nor Dibbs, etc.) had any trouble hitting lots of topspin with bigger grips.

Could you imagine telling someone 60 years ago that auto bodies could be made of fiberglass? Every day there is some materials innovation where a lighter material is as strong as the heavier material it replaces.
But lighter is not always better for everything. Would you want a 1 oz. paperweight or a lighter dumbell?

I remember the debates about how automatic transmissions were for women and no man would drive them. Or how calculators were harmful for developing math skills.
Automatic transmissions ARE for women. ;) And when was the last time you met a college student that knew how to do long division by hand? Can YOU still do long division by hand? No? So calcualtors have indeed harmed your math skills, hasn't it?

morten
05-23-2007, 01:53 PM
You are on a roll now Breakpoint ;) great stuff

sureshs
05-24-2007, 08:24 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/tennis.html?in_article_id=457149&in_page_id=1956&ito=1490

sureshs
05-24-2007, 08:26 AM
You are on a roll now Breakpoint ;) great stuff

Except all his logic is wrong .... Too many fallacies for me to point out now

BreakPoint
05-24-2007, 01:22 PM
Except all his logic is wrong .... Too many fallacies for me to point out now
Perhaps only in your illogical mind? ;) LOL

BreakPoint
05-24-2007, 01:24 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/tennis.html?in_article_id=457149&in_page_id=1956&ito=1490

You see, Murray's wrist injury had absolutely nothing to do with his racquet being too heavy. In fact, the only time I feel any stress or pain in my wrist is when I play with a racquet that's too LIGHT or too stiff (but they go hand in hand with most modern racquets).

sureshs
05-24-2007, 03:10 PM
You see, Murray's wrist injury had absolutely nothing to do with his racquet being too heavy. In fact, the only time I feel any stress or pain in my wrist is when I play with a racquet that's too LIGHT or too stiff (but they go hand in hand with most modern racquets).

Could be that Brad Gilbert is afraid of losing his million-dollar contract with the LTA if it did turn out that he had been pushing a heavy racquet on Murray and that caused the injury? Imagine: LTA snubs its own people, hires an American, whose advice injures Murray. Not a good headline.

Murray is not as well built as Gilbert. He is a lanky thin sort of guy. May not be able to handle a heavy racquet (if it is true that Gilbert used a similar stick). It is also not stated whether Gilbert's stick had a similar SW to Murray's. The game has also become faster now.

NoBadMojo
05-24-2007, 03:39 PM
Could be that Brad Gilbert is afraid of losing his million-dollar contract with the LTA if it did turn out that he had been pushing a heavy racquet on Murray and that caused the injury? Imagine: LTA snubs its own people, hires an American, whose advice injures Murray. Not a good headline.

Murray is not as well built as Gilbert. He is a lanky thin sort of guy. May not be able to handle a heavy racquet (if it is true that Gilbert used a similar stick). It is also not stated whether Gilbert's stick had a similar SW to Murray's. The game has also become faster now.

good points. also what Gilbert used when he USED to be on tour is very non relevant as the game is much different know then then, and his game was unorthodox <to say the least> anyway....Murray creates lots more racquet head speed than Gilbert and I can see how a heavy racquet could cause him injury, not to mention a reason why he used to throw up out there on court from exhaustion or otherwise run out of gas late in matches.....ask a boxer if there's much difference between using 9 oz gloves or 10's

War, Safin!
05-25-2007, 01:39 AM
I used to use a Prostaff Original 85 with an extra 20g of Babolat lead tape position in 6" long strips, central to the PWS or 3 and 9 o'clock - this made the overall racquet weight 380g (but I don't know how to work out the swing-weight from this)

I'm 6'3", 210lb and fairly strong, I found this great to swing and got a lot of power just by serving without using the lower half-of my body.

The downside to this was I couldn't keep that consistency up for more than 90mins....the more tired I got, the more my serves and shots started to become sloppy.
However, I only got mild ache in my shoulder and elbow - nothing like I got when I played with a Babolat Pure Drive+ with no lead added at all, 320g - that just killed my arm after 30mins.

Nowadays, I've compromised and use a more flexible frame, Head Liquidmetal Prestige, with just 10g of lead added at 3 and 9 o'clock, making the racuqet weight 360g - and it suits me fine for two hours - no tiredness or arm-ache at all.

thomas martinez
05-25-2007, 03:17 AM
ok, I found my notes on Murray. It was a 349.5g weight, 32.5 cm balance, and according to our swingweight, 42.8, now prior to that, the highest I measured was Gaudio's swing at 38.1!

BluDiamond
05-25-2007, 03:19 AM
just out of interest...how come you hit with Murray?...friend?...hitting partner or something?

i used to be good friends with him at the Sanchez Casal academy in Spain...i hit with him in England once (because that's where i'm from) but i haven't seen him in a year and a half

Jonnyf
05-25-2007, 06:25 AM
ok, I found my notes on Murray. It was a 349.5g weight, 32.5 cm balance, and according to our swingweight, 42.8, now prior to that, the highest I measured was Gaudio's swing at 38.1!

Hey Thomas, anyway you could give us a rought idea of that in the 200-400 scale (Ie. SW of 330 etc.)

joe sch
05-25-2007, 07:23 AM
So we are now down from 15 to 13 oz?

Geez Don Budge's 16 oz racquet was considered the heaviest of all time. 15 oz was certainly not the standard weight which grandmas and toddlers used to swing, as the legend goes, with no arm pain. TE was always around, as many old-timers have said on this board.

RE: TE ...

Many of the greats from the wood tennis era played 13 .. 15 oz rackets, 13 .. 14 was most common. It was not coincedental that when the rackets started transitioning to composites and metals, many of these greats started developing TE problems. Wonder why ? Not because of weight changes but rather racket stiffness, flex & dampening changes. This is the same case with modern rackets, most are too stiff, which is even worse after leading them up.

bluegrasser
05-25-2007, 07:40 AM
I found a Head ( red head) Pro alum in the basement of my friends shop, a stick I played with in my early twenties & it weighed in at 13.3 oz. It's funny but back then i thought it felt light - how things change..

BreakPoint
05-25-2007, 10:14 AM
I found a Head ( red head) Pro alum in the basement of my friends shop, a stick I played with in my early twenties & it weighed in at 13.3 oz. It's funny but back then i thought it felt light - how things change..
Yes, the aluminum racquets (like the Head Pro) were marketed as lighter, easier to use, and more powerful than the standard wood racquets of its time. I guess nothing has changed in 30 years. ;)

tennisplayer
05-25-2007, 12:24 PM
I guess it is a testament to how strong/fit pros are, to be able to use relatively heavy racquets. In my opinion, excess weight is a terrible thing for the modern game. True, a heavy racquet can/will protect one's arm by absrobing more shock, but you pay a heavy price in the racquet head speed department, and consequently, your strokes. As my game improved and I started hitting with some really heavy hitters, I found that excess weight began to get in my way big time. If the racquet is too heavy, all I can reliably do is to block back very fast/heavy shots, but with somewhat lighter racquets, I am able to take full cuts. I am sure this is true for pros also, except their conditioning and skill allows them to use heavier racquets.

Of course, by advocating lighter racquets, I am not endorsing 9 oz matchsticks. I believe there will a range of weight and swingweight that will be optimal for a given person, based on their individual attributes and skill. All I am saying now is that for the modern game, it would better to choose from the lower end of the weight/SW spectrum than from the higher end. You may need to compromise - for example, since groundstrokes and serves may impose different requirements on racquets, and you want to do both as well as you can with the same racquet.

Thus, instead of choosing the heaviest (static weight and SW) racquet that one is comfortable with, one should choose the lightest racquet one feels comfortable with and is the best overall compromise. Note that in the end, you are still comfortable with your choice, so you are definitely not choosing a racquet that will cause you TE.

sureshs
05-25-2007, 04:31 PM
I guess it is a testament to how strong/fit pros are, to be able to use relatively heavy racquets. In my opinion, excess weight is a terrible thing for the modern game. True, a heavy racquet can/will protect one's arm by absrobing more shock, but you pay a heavy price in the racquet head speed department, and consequently, your strokes. As my game improved and I started hitting with some really heavy hitters, I found that excess weight began to get in my way big time. If the racquet is too heavy, all I can reliably do is to block back very fast/heavy shots, but with somewhat lighter racquets, I am able to take full cuts. I am sure this is true for pros also, except their conditioning and skill allows them to use heavier racquets.

Of course, by advocating lighter racquets, I am not endorsing 9 oz matchsticks. I believe there will a range of weight and swingweight that will be optimal for a given person, based on their individual attributes and skill. All I am saying now is that for the modern game, it would better to choose from the lower end of the weight/SW spectrum than from the higher end. You may need to compromise - for example, since groundstrokes and serves may impose different requirements on racquets, and you want to do both as well as you can with the same racquet.

Thus, instead of choosing the heaviest (static weight and SW) racquet that one is comfortable with, one should choose the lightest racquet one feels comfortable with and is the best overall compromise. Note that in the end, you are still comfortable with your choice, so you are definitely not choosing a racquet that will cause you TE.

That is a great perspective. There is always someone who brings up the old article from racquetresearch.com or Tom Avery which recommends the "select the heaviest" philosophy. Times have changed. Pros are not playing with 15 oz racquets, even assuming they did so at one time. Federer is what, 12.8 oz? Nadal and Roddick 12 oz? I once played with a 13.5 oz leaded up racquet with 5/8 grip and though once in a while a ground stroke was so powerful the opponent literally gasped, I was swinging slowly and hitting flat, blocking the ball.

Advanced juniors I see don't play with too-heavy racquets either. These are the ultra competitive kind, with college scholarships at stake.

The philosophy has indeed changed to favor lighter sticks.

McGee
05-25-2007, 06:20 PM
Too light and stiff equals arm problems. Too heavy might give you shoulder or wrist problems (although with low flex that might not be the case). String setup can help quite a bit. Headsize varies for each user. IMHO, after watching all of this lighter stick, modern game, heavy stick, old school game, headsize war debate it has become kind of comical. Most good players..especially in the 4.5 and above range, and typically Open Level, are using frames in the 11.6-12.5 oz range after lead and grips, etc. Swingweights in the 318-335 range. What's the big deal - it ain't rocket science?? Most of it is user preference and experience. The rest of this weight/headsize cr*p has become nonsense. There is no "one size fits all" credo in tennis. Just play ;)

BreakPoint
05-25-2007, 07:04 PM
Times have changed. The philosophy has indeed changed to favor lighter sticks.
But the ball has NOT changed. It is still the same weight as before, so we're still talking about a collision with the same momentum on the ball. Lighter racquets only makes sense in physics terms if the ball has also gotten lighter by the same percentage. You cannot defy the laws of physics.

PBODY99
05-25-2007, 09:13 PM
Wood frames were commonly found in the Pa area in the 4 1/8 to 4 3/8 range.
The current style of play with a swing pattern that is quite different from the one we were taught in the 1960's lend itself to a smaller overall grip size. You actually want to whip the frame rather than plow through. I do feel that there is something happening with two handed players and their wrist injuries. I do hope that Andy makes a full recovery, no matter what the cause.

biggsy
06-23-2007, 05:27 AM
for thos interested Murray has just said his racquet weighs 365g...and said it was rediculous to think that it caused his wrist problemo

NamRanger
06-24-2007, 10:05 AM
I think we can all agree that having a heavier racquet up to a certain extent is better then a lighter racquet. However, when the racquet is too heavy and is causing injury or stamnia issues, then it's bad.



You cannot use Federer and Nadal's sticks as examples. This is because their forehand form is completely different from everyone elses. They both have very similiar forehands, just different grips.


When you look at the standered of today's technique though (double bend, pushing and lifting through the ball), you will see that it's much better to have a heavier racquet. Your racquet doesn't do any true swinging like the days of the old, it's you pushing the racquet through the ball. Thus why a heavier racquet is better then a lighter racquet.



Junior players cannot be used as examples. Not even top D1 college players can be used as examples. They aren't pros. A typical pro racquet weighs at least around 12 oz if not heavier. It's just that with the advent of more advanced strings, they don't have to lead it up anymore to increase their momentum.

War, Safin!
06-24-2007, 10:56 AM
I use a Prestige Classic 600 leaded-up to make it 375g and I can swing this like a toy. For 2-3 hours, no problem at all.
And I'm in my mid-30s.

Either Murray has weak-wrists or he's knocking one out more often than is healthy for him.

sureshs
06-24-2007, 03:32 PM
I use a Prestige Classic 600 leaded-up to make it 375g and I can swing this like a toy. For 2-3 hours, no problem at all.
And I'm in my mid-30s.

Either Murray has weak-wrists or he's knocking one out more often than is healthy for him.

With all due respect, we are talking about the pro game.

BreakPoint
06-24-2007, 04:39 PM
With all due respect, we are talking about the pro game.
Which means the pros should be using even heavier racquets than War, Safin! does since I'm sure the pros face much heavier balls than he does.

NamRanger
06-25-2007, 06:01 PM
Which means the pros should be using even heavier racquets than War, Safin! does since I'm sure the pros face much heavier balls than he does.


Exactly the point. Sampras had a racquet that swung like a friggin brick, and that was well after his prime and when he was older. Lendl, Laver, and guys of old played with racquets that were extremely heavy. Murray really should have no problem swinging with a racquet of his setup, especially when he's got the best fitness training his country has to offer.