PDA

View Full Version : swingweight for dummies


Ross K
10-24-2007, 01:18 AM
I recently got a new frame that has a swing weight of 369. It's an unbelievably stable frame (no s***!) that's quite exceptional on groundstrokes. However, around the net a bit, and especially with serving, I've found it to be... well, hard work.

Therefore, as I'm pretty clueless on the specifics of sw, I wonder if anyone might want to tell me and others not so wised up on this topic, the following...

What are ppl's preferred swing weight and why?

Also...

What should you expect from the high sw's and low sw's?

How exactly does sw factor in with other aspects (static weight, beam width, whatever)?

And why - from my experience - do some far lower swing weight frames also have such mobility issues?

Cheers,

R.


(BTW, next weeks installment: flex rating for dummies... I mean. How is it one frame of 64 can hardly clear the net and yet another of 57 clears the net and hits deep effortlessly?...)

snoflewis
10-24-2007, 02:45 AM
swingweight is pretty much how heavy/hard the racket is to swing. a racket w/ lower swingweight will be much more maneuverable than a higher one. the main factors of SW are static weight, balance, and mass distribution. the heavier the racket, the harder it is to swing. the more head heavy the racket, the harder it is to swing. as for mass distribution, a racket can have the same balance and static weight, but have different SW due to where the materials are concentrated or whatnot.

lower SW frames dont have mobility issues, but what i found from most lower SW frames is a lack of stability. since there's less mass at the head, the racket doesnt feel as stable, but there are still very good frames out there w/ lower SW.

my preferred SW is anywhere between 315-325..

keithchircop
10-24-2007, 02:51 AM
Swingweight?

If all other things remain constant, the heavier the racquet, the higher the swingweight; the more head-heavy the racquet, the higher the swingweight. Light racquets need head-heavy balance, they need high swingweights to pack some punch. Head-heavy balance and high swingweight make racquets less manouverable. This is especially felt at the net.

Adding weight to the hoop or to the handle will decrease/increase headlight balance drastically. Adding lead to the hoop increases swingweight drastically. Yet, adding that same weight to the handle barely increases SW. Swingweight cannot be reduced by adding weight.

Static weight is more important than swingweight when it comes to stability. A racquet with 340 swingweight can be unstable if very light, like 8 or 9 oz. My racquet has a pretty low swingweight in stock form (311) but it doesn't feel unstable at all because it weighs 12.1oz.

80% of racquets today have a SW between 310 and 330. That's because suppliers believe the average Joe can swing those racquets well. Non-pro players who use very high swingweights tend to avoid the net.

sureshs
10-24-2007, 09:32 AM
Which racquet has a 369 SW in stock form?

carguy
10-24-2007, 10:26 AM
If all other things remain constant, the heavier the racquet, the higher the swingweight; the more head-heavy the racquet, the higher the swingweight. Light racquets need head-heavy balance, they need high swingweights to pack some punch. Head-heavy balance and high swingweight make racquets less manouverable. This is especially felt at the net.

Adding weight to the hoop or to the handle will decrease/increase headlight balance drastically. Adding lead to the hoop increases swingweight drastically. Yet, adding that same weight to the handle barely increases SW. Swingweight cannot be reduced by adding weight.

Static weight is more important than swingweight when it comes to stability. A racquet with 340 swingweight can be unstable if very light, like 8 or 9 oz. My racquet has a pretty low swingweight in stock form (311) but it doesn't feel unstable at all because it weighs 12.1oz.

80% of racquets today have a SW between 310 and 330. That's because suppliers believe the average Joe can swing those racquets well. Non-pro players who use very high swingweights tend to avoid the net.

Keith

agree with most of what you said but are you 100% sure about the comment: "Swingweight cannot be reduced by adding weight."

my understanding is that swingweight is measured by the force or weight excerted by the racquet 4" from the butt. unless i'm wrong about the formula, you should be able to reduce the swingweight by adding weight to the handle before the 4" fulcrum point; this concept is known as counterbalancing in the golf industry.

btw, i'm a custom golf clubmaker so i'm referring to golf theory. swingweight is a highly debated topic in golf and we are seeing the emergence of "high static weight / low swingweight / heavily counterbalanced" clubs nowadays.

Fedace
10-24-2007, 10:31 AM
How do you calculate the SW from Static weight, balance point alone ???

ClayisFun
10-24-2007, 11:00 AM
You sure can't reduce swingweight by adding weight. Unless you put weight directly on the 10cm axis of roation used by the RDC the moment of inertia around that axis increases. If you put weight directly on the 10cm mark the moment of inertia stays the same. Swingweight can only go up.

Sup2Dresq
10-24-2007, 11:15 AM
Keith

agree with most of what you said but are you 100% sure about the comment: "Swingweight cannot be reduced by adding weight."

my understanding is that swingweight is measured by the force or weight excerted by the racquet 4" from the butt. unless i'm wrong about the formula, you should be able to reduce the swingweight by adding weight to the handle before the 4" fulcrum point; this concept is known as counterbalancing in the golf industry.

btw, i'm a custom golf clubmaker so i'm referring to golf theory. swingweight is a highly debated topic in golf and we are seeing the emergence of "high static weight / low swingweight / heavily counterbalanced" clubs nowadays.

I'm so all ears (eyes.. whatever). So I played with the K90 which i loved, but couldnt handle it in tournament play after 2 matches. Just way too heavy at 336 SW. So I got the Babolat APDC which has a 323 SW.

The theory you mention tells me, if I took some weight and added it to the handle of the K90 I could reduce the SW. Im fascinated now.

*Where is Drakulie .. he should chime in*

rvicelli
10-24-2007, 11:37 AM
Great explaination Keith.....I Agree.

Anton
10-24-2007, 12:07 PM
Keith

agree with most of what you said but are you 100% sure about the comment: "Swingweight cannot be reduced by adding weight."

my understanding is that swingweight is measured by the force or weight excerted by the racquet 4" from the butt. unless i'm wrong about the formula, you should be able to reduce the swingweight by adding weight to the handle before the 4" fulcrum point; this concept is known as counterbalancing in the golf industry.

btw, i'm a custom golf clubmaker so i'm referring to golf theory. swingweight is a highly debated topic in golf and we are seeing the emergence of "high static weight / low swingweight / heavily counterbalanced" clubs nowadays.


Adding weight bellow the 4" does not help with the rotation of the racket's head - it is still more effort with it.

Practically speaking - never heard of anyone adding weight to their racket to discover that it became easier to swing.

fishuuuuu
10-24-2007, 12:11 PM
Adding weight bellow the 4" does not help with the rotation of the racket's head - it is still more effort with it.

Practically speaking - never heard of anyone adding weight to their racket to discover that it became easier to swing.

O3, Hybrid, and Speedport racquets seem to be equally easy to swing if not easier when more SW is applied.

Anton
10-24-2007, 12:25 PM
O3, Hybrid, and Speedport racquets seem to be equally easy to swing if not easier when more SW is applied.

are you sure that it didn't just feel better to swing because of certain sw you are used to?

Sup2Dresq
10-24-2007, 12:32 PM
Someone have an RDC and some extra time to test the theory?

jace112
10-24-2007, 01:25 PM
Someone have an RDC and some extra time to test the theory?This so called theory is wrong, it's just basic physics. Each gram added anywhere but on the axis of rotation will increase the moment of inertia along this axe.

haerdalis
10-24-2007, 01:41 PM
After having played with some low weight big frames this week I am inclined to say I like the sw to be as low as possible. But I dont want to give up on comfort and stability and I dont want it too head heavy.
My swing only gets better as sw decreases. But my shots suffer if I lose too much stability.
So which racquet did you get? The k95x?

Ross K
10-24-2007, 01:46 PM
Which racquet has a 369 SW in stock form?

Head Radical Tour Twin Tube XL MP

head size: 98
length: 28
static weight: 12.3
flex: 57
swingweight: 369

(These stats can be confirmed if you search via TT's own 'Racquet Finder'.)


BTW, Cheers to above posters ^^^ for replies.


BTW2, Update: I played this afternoon against someone I haven't beaten for maybe 6 matches previously and is IMO generally a higher level player than myself (we're both intermediate level), and I won on a tie break. Basically... well... it feels maybe a tad sluggish, but a.) I seem to be rapidly getting acclimatized. And b.) with groundstrokes like these who cares about serves and net play!... (No... actually, I was much beter today in these latter respects.) I would also say that my level of unforced errors has suddenly reduced remarkably, though quite what that has to do with swing weight as opposed to other issues is debatable...


BTW3, I'd especially like to hear ppl's experiences who have hit with pretty high sw's.

LPShanet
10-24-2007, 03:27 PM
I recently got a new frame that has a swing weight of 369. It's an unbelievably stable frame (no s***!) that's quite exceptional on groundstrokes. However, around the net a bit, and especially with serving, I've found it to be... well, hard work.

Therefore, as I'm pretty clueless on the specifics of sw, I wonder if anyone might want to tell me and others not so wised up on this topic, the following...

What are ppl's preferred swing weight and why?

Also...

What should you expect from the high sw's and low sw's?

How exactly does sw factor in with other aspects (static weight, beam width, whatever)?

And why - from my experience - do some far lower swing weight frames also have such mobility issues?

Cheers,

R.


(BTW, next weeks installment: flex rating for dummies... I mean. How is it one frame of 64 can hardly clear the net and yet another of 57 clears the net and hits deep effortlessly?...)

I use a fairly high swingweight racquet (mid 350's) and have always felt more comfortable both at the net, and from the baseline with this type of spec. I play at a fairly high level and against hard hitters, and the swingweight keeps the racquet from feeling like a toothpick when hitting or blocking a 120 mph serve.

Generally, you'll find that increased swingweight means increased "heft". However, since a tennis swing isn't a perfect pendulum motion, it's actually affected by a combination of static weight and swingweight, since a proper swing involves both pushing a racquet through the air and swinging it about its axis.

A lower swingweight will feel less stable, but seem to be more maneuverable, mostly in terms of the ability for quick emergency reactions. However, at higher levels of the game (4.5+), those quick flailing movements become less common/necessary and stability becomes more so. Obviously this is a generalization.

As stated earlier, swingweight is a function of both static weight and weight distribution. And to answer an earlier poster's question, it's difficult to measure swingweight by any simple calculation of static weight and balance point...it's more complex than that, as it is affected by distribution. There are fairly complex formulas for figuring out a rough version (try doing a search on these boards), but the best way is usually to go to a racquet tech with diagnostic equipment that can do it for you. Beam width will not affect swingweight at all in and of iteself.

As for low swingweight frames that have mobility issues, there are several possibilities. One is that it's perception, just because of the bulk or shape of the frame. Another possibility is that the racquet is still very heavy in the handle, though usually this will stay play relatively light. The third is that the light swingweight can affect form and cause form breaks that take away from smoothness. Overall, though, swingweight and mobility will usually be inversely proportional.

fishuuuuu
10-24-2007, 06:16 PM
are you sure that it didn't just feel better to swing because of certain sw you are used to?


Sure Anton. That's exactly what happened. The pros that made the switch will tell you too.

Bottle Rocket
10-24-2007, 06:55 PM
Keith

agree with most of what you said but are you 100% sure about the comment: "Swingweight cannot be reduced by adding weight."

my understanding is that swingweight is measured by the force or weight excerted by the racquet 4" from the butt. unless i'm wrong about the formula, you should be able to reduce the swingweight by adding weight to the handle before the 4" fulcrum point;

It is a measurement of the difficulty to swing the racket around a fulcrum point (10 cm, or 3.94 inches), you're right about that. This is all about inertia. Swingweight is basically a calculation for the moment of inertia.

From golf or any spinning object in general, adding a "counterbalance" never makes it easier to spin. It can only increase the moment of inertia by increasing the weight spinning around the center point. Adding a counterbalance, or something on the opposite side of the weight that has the same effect as the weight (usually a greater weight at a shorter distance away from the midpoint) does just what the name implies, it balances things. Spinning a balanced object gives the impression that it is easier to swing, but that's not what is actually happening.

With that said, the increase in swingweight on a tennis racket from adding lead to the buttcap or handle of a racket is extremely mimimal. This is due to the fact that the swingweight is measured at a point almost 4 inches from the butt cap. However small the increase is, it can never decrease.

Hopefully this isn't too confusing, I wrote it up pretty quick. I am sure another poster (Travelerjm?) will do a better job of explaining.

Here is a good link on swingweight-->

http://www.racquettech.com/store/learningcenter/lc_swingweight.html

Ross K
10-24-2007, 11:50 PM
Thanks LP, fish and Bottle Rocket ^^^

A lot to consider then (for me anyway)! Having tried out a few different rods lately, maybe I should just content myself with being pretty happy with my new frame (high sw or not)?

keithchircop
10-25-2007, 12:07 AM
Having tried out a few different rods lately, maybe I should just content myself with being pretty happy with my new frame (high sw or not)?

If you don't have problems swinging it and you think you're playing the best tennis ever, why care about the specs?

keithchircop
10-25-2007, 12:49 AM
Keith agree with most of what you said but are you 100% sure about the comment: "Swingweight cannot be reduced by adding weight."

my understanding is that swingweight is measured by the force or weight excerted by the racquet 4" from the butt. unless i'm wrong about the formula, you should be able to reduce the swingweight by adding weight to the handle before the 4" fulcrum point; this concept is known as counterbalancing in the golf industry.

Think about it in large quantities. If you add 700g to the buttcap, the racquet will become incredibly headlight. But you'll have a 1kg racquet. Will the swingweight go up or down?

travlerajm
10-25-2007, 12:56 AM
If you add weight to the handle of the racquet, the swingspeed increases. It's simple physics.

keithchircop
10-25-2007, 02:05 AM
If you add weight to the handle of the racquet, the swingspeed increases. It's simple physics.

Can one swing a K95 with 500g in the handle faster than a stock K95?

Wannabe
10-25-2007, 04:28 AM
If you add weight to the handle of the racquet, the swingspeed increases. It's simple physics.

Simple and wrong. If you want to tell us that you can swing a racquet faster if it feels lighter in your hand (which I concede that adding weight may well effect) then who's to argue? However, the contribution an element of mass makes to the moment of inertia is given by the mass times the square of the distance from the pivot point. Since you are squaring the distance from the pivot point, it doesn't matter in which direction the mass lies as the square of a negative number is positive. Ergo, adding mass any distance from the pivot point increases the moment of inertia. Since angular velocity is given by angular momentum divided by moment of inertia, a racquet with the same angular momentum will have a lower angular velocity (swingspeed) if you increase the moment of inertia (swingweight).

LPShanet
10-25-2007, 06:21 AM
Do yourselves a favor and listen to keithchircop and wannabe. They have the physics right. You can change the proportion of weight in any area of the racquet, but you can't make it lighter without removing weight.

anirut
10-25-2007, 08:09 AM
er ..... haven't we dicussed this SW issued to death last year?

And we really had very constructive results, right?

Sup2Dresq
10-25-2007, 08:32 AM
Do yourselves a favor and listen to keithchircop and wannabe. They have the physics right. You can change the proportion of weight in any area of the racquet, but you can't make it lighter without removing weight.

Confused. The term swingweight and swingspeed are used interchangeably. Are they not different?

If i add weight to the handle would that not make the head lighter in comparison, resulting in a better swingspeed (though heavy).

If i took one average joe. Gave him a racquet and added lead tape to 12 oclock and asked him to swing. Then took the lead off and added it to the butt cap. Which one would result in a faster swing.

Sorry, Im just confused.

LPShanet
10-25-2007, 08:46 AM
Confused. The term swingweight and swingspeed are used interchangeably. Are they not different?

If i add weight to the handle would that not make the head lighter in comparison, resulting in a better swingspeed (though heavy).

If i took one average joe. Gave him a racquet and added lead tape to 12 oclock and asked him to swing. Then took the lead off and added it to the butt cap. Which one would result in a faster swing.

Sorry, Im just confused.

No, when used correctly, they are not the same. Swingspeed isn't a real word, and is used to refer to how fast you swing the racquet. It is, literally, the speed of your swing. It is measured in MPH, but is essentially unmeasurable in any practical way. Players use it as a relative term to refer to how fast they think they are swinging, and how various other factors affect the speed of swing.

Swingweight is a technical terms that relates to moment of inertia and relates to the perceived weight of a racquet. In practical terms, it's a measure of the combined weight and balance of a racquet, and is affected by how weight is distributed over the frame. Together with the static (actual) weight of a racquet, it is used to determine how relatively heavy a racquet will seem to play. It takes into account how much of the weight is in the head or handle of a racquet and so on. It's measured as a unit of weight, not speed.

Sup2Dresq
10-25-2007, 08:57 AM
No, when used correctly, they are not the same. Swingspeed isn't a real word, and is used to refer to how fast you swing the racquet. It is, literally, the speed of your swing. It is measured in MPH, but is essentially unmeasurable in any practical way. Players use it as a relative term to refer to how fast they think they are swinging, and how various other factors affect the speed of swing.

Swingweight is a technical terms that relates to moment of inertia and relates to the perceived weight of a racquet. In practical terms, it's a measure of the combined weight and balance of a racquet, and is affected by how weight is distributed over the frame. Together with the static (actual) weight of a racquet, it is used to determine how relatively heavy a racquet will seem to play. It takes into account how much of the weight is in the head or handle of a racquet and so on. It's measured as a unit of weight, not speed.

Thanks thats what i thought. It seems to be being used interchangeably in this thread. Thought i was missing something.

budkid
10-27-2007, 07:31 PM
I had my local MRT test my swingweight on his babolat RDC, and it came out to 355. That is pretty high when I read this forum. And I did customize my racket to build more stability.

lgbalfa
02-05-2012, 11:31 PM
If you add weight to the handle of the racquet, the swingspeed increases. It's simple physics.

reviving this thread.

current racquet:

static weight: 11.5

balance: 4

swing weight: 327

if i add more weight to the handle to bring the static weight to about 11.9 ounces, i know it will become a little more head light but approximately how much higher would the swing weight increase?

holytennis
02-06-2012, 12:37 AM
Can you guys clear something up for me? I have a racket A, with a swing weight of 320 and static weight of 345. I also have a racket B with swing weight of 325, but with static weight of 330.Which would feel lighter? I currently use a PDGT. If i bought a head ig prestige pro, will the head feel lighter than my babolat?

sansaephanh
02-06-2012, 12:45 AM
I prefer around the 345-360. It gives the right amount buttery feel on the ground strokes and i can really ease my arm into serves. Though it is a bit rough on my poor wrists. I'm young and they already get exhausted on groundies and serves.

High swingweight. Plow through, stability and low mobility.

Low SW. Opposite.

G2G gf is trolling me.

un6a
02-06-2012, 01:50 AM
Can you guys clear something up for me? I have a racket A, with a swing weight of 320 and static weight of 345. I also have a racket B with swing weight of 325, but with static weight of 330.Which would feel lighter? I currently use a PDGT. If i bought a head ig prestige pro, will the head feel lighter than my babolat?

Lower swingweight mean that racquet will feeling lighter, even it weights more. So prestige pro should feel a bit lighter.

Sreeram
02-06-2012, 07:08 AM
following...

What are ppl's preferred swing weight and why?



I guess 315 to 330 is what a preferred SW for a rec player irrespective of using a players or a tweener frame. Swing weight is how the racquet feels when it swings. When you lift a low weight but high SW racquet you might not think it is heavy but when you swing it you will soon realize this racquet is heavy.

People who take decent swing at the ball like me will be sensitive to SW. So they prefer SW between (315 - 325) but a heavier frame so that the racquet will be stable.

People who just have moderate old style swing will be more sensitive to weight of the frame. They want less heavy but high SW racquet so that they can push at the ball easily at the same time get much punch. Such racquets are close to 10.8-11.4 oz but SW close to 330. Such racquet are good for doubles because they can be easily moved at the same time get good Punch.

Stiffness of the racquet also plays important role to stability of the racquet, a low static weight, low SW racquet can be made stable by increaing the stiffness. Babolat Tweeners like APD and PD are examples of such stable racquets with low static and swing weight.

kaiser
02-06-2012, 08:48 AM
So where would I fit in? I wield a 345-350 SW, 10 pts HL 13 oz racket and take full cuts at the ball. The high SW packs a lot of punch and by taking a full cut I can generate sufficient topspin to keep the ball in court, otherwise it would fly...

I don't think your characterization is very valid. Also, in my book stiffness is no substitute for weight in the head (corresponds to higher SW) when you're talking about stability. It can help to compensate for the inherent loss of power when you remove weight from the head / reduce swingweight.

Sreeram
02-06-2012, 09:16 AM
So where would I fit in? I wield a 345-350 SW, 10 pts HL 13 oz racket and take full cuts at the ball. The high SW packs a lot of punch and by taking a full cut I can generate sufficient topspin to keep the ball in court, otherwise it would fly...

I don't think your characterization is very valid. Also, in my book stiffness is no substitute for weight in the head (corresponds to higher SW) when you're talking about stability. It can help to compensate for the inherent loss of power when you remove weight from the head / reduce swingweight.

Not many will be willing to swing a 13 oz racquet. Also for a 13 oz (370 Gm) Static weight your SW is in lower range (350 gm). You can achieve much higher SW (380-400) by compromising your HL balance. In short people who take bigger swings at the ball like you and me will prefer more HL balance and hence lower SW than Static weight. If a guy with much older style swing (lower swing) tries your racquet, he will feel it is too heavy.

You are infact agreeing my point that higher SW will produce nice punch on the ball. Higher Static weight like in your case will enable you to take big cuts at the ball.

If racquet stiffness does not add to racquet stability then why are most lighter racquets produced stiff? Why Babolat PD and APD are best sellers? You may not like PD or APD, neither do I, but we have to agree that PD can stand heavy hitting at such low Static weight and SW (305 gm). If PD was 60 RDC then it will not stand heavy hitting like how it stands now.

Racquet-Priority
02-06-2012, 09:55 AM
reviving this thread.

current racquet:

static weight: 11.5

balance: 4

swing weight: 327

if i add more weight to the handle to bring the static weight to about 11.9 ounces, i know it will become a little more head light but approximately how much higher would the swing weight increase?

Weight from but cap to 10 cm from but cap won't effect the swingweight. No matter how much weight you add.

luishcorreia
02-06-2012, 01:22 PM
I recently got a new frame that has a swing weight of 369. It's an unbelievably stable frame (no s***!) that's quite exceptional on groundstrokes. However, around the net a bit, and especially with serving, I've found it to be... well, hard work.

Therefore, as I'm pretty clueless on the specifics of sw, I wonder if anyone might want to tell me and others not so wised up on this topic, the following...

What are ppl's preferred swing weight and why?

Also...

What should you expect from the high sw's and low sw's?

How exactly does sw factor in with other aspects (static weight, beam width, whatever)?

And why - from my experience - do some far lower swing weight frames also have such mobility issues?

Cheers,

R.


(BTW, next weeks installment: flex rating for dummies... I mean. How is it one frame of 64 can hardly clear the net and yet another of 57 clears the net and hits deep effortlessly?...)

Red this post on my bog...

http://online-tennis-blog.blogspot.com/2011/07/weight-balance-and-swingweight.html

gameboy
02-06-2012, 01:43 PM
Whenever you increase weight of the racquet, your swingspeed will decrease. THAT's simple physics.

Your body/muscle can generate only finite amount of energy. E=mass*acceleration, which means if you increase mass, the energy required to accelerate it at the same speed will decrease if you put the same amount of energy into your swing.

There is no if, ands, or buts about it.

What is more nuianced is how quickly your swingspeed goes down as the weight of the racquet goes up. Some people are strong enough that the small loss of racquet speed is more than made up by added stability. For others, the loss of speed is significant enough that the benefit does not outweigh the cost.

But make no mistake, if you increase the weight, your swingspeed will suffer. It is just a matter of how much.

user92626
02-06-2012, 03:18 PM
If I put all weight at buttcap to raise my racket's static weight to the max I could handle but it doesn't necessarily increase my shot's power (since virtually no sw increase), where does all extra my energy/effort spent in swinging a heavier racket go? I'd swing slower so what's the benefit from that?

mhj202
02-06-2012, 03:27 PM
5 points head-light means the balance point is 5/8" from the middle of the racquet toward the head.


Really liked your post on your blog but didn't understand the part I've quoted above. You say that if the balance point is above the center toward the HEAD, then it is head-light--- shouldn't that be head-heavy? Alternatively, "HEAD" could have been changed to "HANDLE" to make the statement correct. Earlier in your post, I think you had it right when you say:


If the balance point is more near the head the racquet is head-heavy.

Funbun
02-06-2012, 03:33 PM
If I put all weight at buttcap to raise my racket's static weight to the max I could handle but it doesn't necessarily increase my shot's power (since virtually no sw increase), where does all extra my energy/effort spent in swinging a heavier racket go? I'd swing slower so what's the benefit from that?

Simple; you've made a heavier thing to swing. Proper technique would have you bringing the weight of the head of the racquet around to hitting the ball. So naturally, making it more headlight should make it a tad faster to whip the head around. Since you really haven't increased swingweight by much at all, you're not going to make the racquet any more powerful in terms of play.

However, note that you have too changed the balance of the racquet.

When placing lead, you must consider several factors: how it affects the racquet's weight distribution (balance), power characteristics (swingweight), and it's overall mass (static weight).

Where did you hear that you would swing slower? Slow swings are mostly a matter of technique. In the end, it's you who's choosing how fast you swing that thing. How adding mass to a racquet will affect your generic swing speed is dependent on a combination of the three factors stated above, and added mass is never the ONLY variable taken into account.

@gameboy When you swing a racquet, you must consider the fact that it's a rod, and you're using angular momentum to move it along the axis of your body. Your swing speed will not suffer unless you add considerable mass to the racquet, because you are human. When you take two racquets that are identical in every spec besides their static weight, your body will naturally compensate for the increased mass. In the end, your technique will ensure that you swing both racquets at the same speeds, even if that means exerting more energy to do so.

You're correct that it takes more energy to swing a heavier racquet. However, that does not mean that you won't swing them at the same speed, given proper technique. We're not swinging machines, but humans that can adjust our torque speed.

Yes, to a certain degree, you may slow your swing. However, most racquets in existence are within tolerable human adjustment capacity. Thus, we can certainly swing two racquets that are about an ounce apart at the same speed, but definitely not two racquets that are 2 lbs. apart. I'm putting our argument within realistic parameters, for the sake of actual tennis.

user92626
02-06-2012, 03:47 PM
Funbun,

I used to play with a 318 grams racket, and found mishitting too much from overswinging. Then, I put on extra 12 grams inside the buttcap, static weight now 330grams. My racket feels noticeably heftier and I couldn't swing as fast as before. The extra heft definitely makes it more sluggish.

I'm just going by using extra weight in the buttcap at the moment and not specific SW, balance, etc. There are many rackets on TW that are around 326-330gram static weights but have very different HL points. So, I'm just wondering what the benefit of swinging a more sluggish, many-points-HL racket as opposed to otherwise.

For example: Babolat AeroPro Drive GT vs. Babolat Aero Storm Tour GT
both with sw 330, but I just couldn't swing that latter effectively at all. My shots fell short and I'm exerting too much energy to move the thing.

kaiser
02-06-2012, 04:06 PM
Whenever you increase weight of the racquet, your swingspeed will decrease. THAT's simple physics.

Your body/muscle can generate only finite amount of energy. E=mass*acceleration, which means if you increase mass, the energy required to accelerate it at the same speed will decrease if you put the same amount of energy into your swing.

There is no if, ands, or buts about it.

What is more nuianced is how quickly your swingspeed goes down as the weight of the racquet goes up. Some people are strong enough that the small loss of racquet speed is more than made up by added stability. For others, the loss of speed is significant enough that the benefit does not outweigh the cost.

But make no mistake, if you increase the weight, your swingspeed will suffer. It is just a matter of how much.

Not quite...
F = mass * accelleration,
i.e. FORCE, not energy! Energy is:
E = mass * speed^2

Put simply, the energy required to swing a racket increases linearly with the total mass that needs to be swung, which is the mass of of the racket PLUS the mass of the arm, shoulder, etc that swings the racket... However, this energy increases QUADRATICALLY with the swingspeed! It follows, that as reducing the weight of the racket will slightly reduce the total weight of racket + arm, it will allow you to swing your racket slightly faster for the same energy spent. Not by much, however, because as you swing faster the energy spent will increase quadratically with the increased swingspeed, and you will very quickly spend more energy. So whatever the weight of your racket, as you swing it faster, the energy you need to put in will increase very quickly.

Funbun
02-06-2012, 04:11 PM
Funbun,

I used to play with a 318 grams racket, and found mishitting too much from overswinging. Then, I put on extra 12 grams inside the buttcap, static weight now 330grams. My racket feels noticeably heftier and I couldn't swing as fast as before. The extra heft definitely makes it more sluggish.

I'm just going by using extra weight in the buttcap at the moment and not specific SW, balance, etc. There are many rackets on TW that are around 326-330gram static weights but have very different HL points. So, I'm just wondering what the benefit of swinging a more sluggish, many-points-HL racket as opposed to otherwise.

Mishits are caused by technique, not by the racquet.

I cannot speak for you because I don't know how you swing. My previous post was only spoken on the behalf of proper modern technique.

Yes, the racquet should feel heavier to move around, but it shouldn't affect your overall swing. I will address your problem, because based on how you hit, it apparently does for you:

Again, you are changing two things about the racquet: it's balance and static weight. Your "sluggish, many-points-HL racquet" allows you to have better control of serves and volleys, due to the change in balance. However, it'll make the racquet, well, more sluggish: it'll be a tad harder to run around with it and move it.

Please note that a heavier racquet makes for lesser mobility; you may have trouble with timing because your takeback will be compensated by the added mass. However, the swing itself should not be affected, simply because you did not change its swingweight by much at all.

@kaiser Haha nice point-out. I guess that still complements my argument; it does take energy to produce the force needed to maintain a consistent racquet acceleration/velocity.