PDA

View Full Version : another SW question - sorry.


bluegrasser
10-26-2007, 05:04 AM
If you have a stick that weighs in at 10 oz, head heavy ( bandit OS ) and another at 11 oz, head light ( OSRadical) ) which racquet do you think will maneuver better at the net.

Having not played with the bandit in a doubs match yet, it seems to be as quick as the radical just swinging it at home. I guess the question should be static weight v/s swingweight - which is quicker.:confused:

Douggo
10-26-2007, 08:34 AM
You're going to want opinions from more experienced folks than me, but at least my reply will get you a bump. My opinion is the Bandit will be as maneuverable if not more so. I've got a Vendetta OS with similar specs to the Bandit (343 SW, 10.5oz strung) as well as Diablo XP MP and Tour Diablo MP, and the Vendetta seems miles lighter than the other two.

NoBadMojo
10-26-2007, 08:41 AM
If you have a stick that weighs in at 10 oz, head heavy ( bandit OS ) and another at 11 oz, head light ( OSRadical) ) which racquet do you think will maneuver better at the net.

Having not played with the bandit in a doubs match yet, it seems to be as quick as the radical just swinging it at home. I guess the question should be static weight v/s swingweight - which is quicker.:confused:

if the swingweights are similar, headlight racquets are considered more effective and just plain better for the volley than head heavy

grass_hopper
10-26-2007, 09:46 AM
the racquet you end up winining the match with is the best. let your double do all the work.

TripleB
10-26-2007, 10:40 AM
I'd say the Bandit would be easier to maneuver.

TripleB

LPShanet
10-26-2007, 12:15 PM
If you have a stick that weighs in at 10 oz, head heavy ( bandit OS ) and another at 11 oz, head light ( OSRadical) ) which racquet do you think will maneuver better at the net.

Having not played with the bandit in a doubs match yet, it seems to be as quick as the radical just swinging it at home. I guess the question should be static weight v/s swingweight - which is quicker.:confused:

Do you have the specific swingweights of each? Also, for many people it's a matter of perception rather than numbers, so I'd say the best strategy is to play both and see which FEELS like it maneuvers better. There are quie a few factors to perceived maneuverability...in addition to weight, SW, etc., racquet shape and head size can also seem to change it, among other things.

bluegrasser
10-27-2007, 05:04 AM
Do you have the specific swingweights of each? Also, for many people it's a matter of perception rather than numbers, so I'd say the best strategy is to play both and see which FEELS like it maneuvers better. There are quie a few factors to perceived maneuverability...in addition to weight, SW, etc., racquet shape and head size can also seem to change it, among other things.

The Bandit's sw is 336, while the Rad is 318 - after hitting a half dz balls with the Bandit ( which is 6 pts head heavy ) my elbow was in pain, so I guess I'm staying with the rad.

LPShanet
10-28-2007, 01:21 PM
The Bandit's sw is 336, while the Rad is 318 - after hitting a half dz balls with the Bandit ( which is 6 pts head heavy ) my elbow was in pain, so I guess I'm staying with the rad.

I would guess with that significant a difference in swingweight, the Rad is probably going to feel more maneuverable at net (to answer your original question). That's based on technical application, not personal experience (have never been a Bandit user).

Midlife crisis
10-28-2007, 01:37 PM
If you have a stick that weighs in at 10 oz, head heavy ( bandit OS ) and another at 11 oz, head light ( OSRadical) ) which racquet do you think will maneuver better at the net.

Having not played with the bandit in a doubs match yet, it seems to be as quick as the radical just swinging it at home. I guess the question should be static weight v/s swingweight - which is quicker.:confused:

The statically lighter racquet will probably feel more maneuverable.

Swingweight does not significantly matter in a volley stroke. Swingweight is a calculation of inertia around a center of rotation about 4 inches up from the bottom of the handle. In a volley, the racquet should move forward with almost no rotation, and so in that case it is static weight that will be the bigger factor.

LPShanet
10-29-2007, 09:35 PM
The statically lighter racquet will probably feel more maneuverable.

Swingweight does not significantly matter in a volley stroke. Swingweight is a calculation of inertia around a center of rotation about 4 inches up from the bottom of the handle. In a volley, the racquet should move forward with almost no rotation, and so in that case it is static weight that will be the bigger factor.

Numerically logical, but in actual practice that's not what people find. While the swingweight doesn't really affect a volley stroke specifically, it GREATLY affects the overall use and maneuverability at net, where time and quick head movement is at a premium. The reason is that the maneuverability at net doesn't relate much to the actual hitting of the stroke (which for a volley is minimal) but to the getting the racquet head in position, which often involves reflexes and quick movements/adjustments of the head. So actually, most serve and volleyers find the opposite of what you just said: they prefer a head light racquet regardless of static weight because it allows them to quickly move the racquet into good volley position as a reaction to the incoming shot (for which they have LESS time than they do at the baseline). To most serve and volleyers a head heavy racquet will feel sluggish, even if the static weight is low. This is why you'll find almost all high level serve and volley players playing with head light racquets.

Midlife crisis
10-30-2007, 12:22 AM
Numerically logical, but in actual practice that's not what people find. While the swingweight doesn't really affect a volley stroke specifically, it GREATLY affects the overall use and maneuverability at net, where time and quick head movement is at a premium. The reason is that the maneuverability at net doesn't relate much to the actual hitting of the stroke (which for a volley is minimal) but to the getting the racquet head in position, which often involves reflexes and quick movements/adjustments of the head.

Why? When you move a racquet from your ready position to a volley position, the movement is primarily translational and not rotational. Swingweight plays a much lesser factor because it is a measure or rotational inertia, not translational inertia.

At the higher levels, there really is no quick adjustment of the head of the racquet unless the ball is going pretty slowly, in which case the location and timing of the ball is very easy to judge. For faster balls, it is one complete movement to meet the ball. There is insufficient time and inability to saccade the eyes sufficient iterations to adjust. By the time the ball is about 20 feet away on a fast shot, you're either going to hit it good or you're going to miss it. Anything adjustment after that time is more luck than anything else.

So actually, most serve and volleyers find the opposite of what you just said: they prefer a head light racquet regardless of static weight because it allows them to quickly move the racquet into good volley position as a reaction to the incoming shot (for which they have LESS time than they do at the baseline). To most serve and volleyers a head heavy racquet will feel sluggish, even if the static weight is low. This is why you'll find almost all high level serve and volley players playing with head light racquets.

Serve and volleyers tend to use heavy, headlight racquets because of the physics of the impact. But besides that, I never said they preferred a head heavy racquet. I said it is my belief that swingweight plays a lesser role in volley maneuverability than static weight, and I outlined the reasons I believe that. I never said that I thought serve and volleyers preferred that weighting.

By the way, if you search and find Jura's list of racquet weights for ATP pros, I think you'll find that something like seven or eight of the ten heaviest racquets used are by doubles players. At that level, there really is little swinging involved, and there is sufficient strength and fitness to use heavy racquets. That's probably a good lesson for us recreational players.

LPShanet
10-30-2007, 01:24 AM
Why? When you move a racquet from your ready position to a volley position, the movement is primarily translational and not rotational. Swingweight plays a much lesser factor because it is a measure or rotational inertia, not translational inertia.

At the higher levels, there really is no quick adjustment of the head of the racquet unless the ball is going pretty slowly, in which case the location and timing of the ball is very easy to judge. For faster balls, it is one complete movement to meet the ball. There is insufficient time and inability to saccade the eyes sufficient iterations to adjust. By the time the ball is about 20 feet away on a fast shot, you're either going to hit it good or you're going to miss it. Anything adjustment after that time is more luck than anything else.


Once again, correct in physics, and in my own personal tournament experience, but incorrect in application, at least for most recreational players below the 4.5 level, whose mechanics are very different from higher level players. While the distance traveled from ready position to volley position has a large translational component, the rotational component is controlled by less powerful muscle groups (which are also less developed in lower level players), and in lower level players it is much more exaggerated than in tournament level players. So their PERCEPTION has shown in many cases to indicate that they find head heavy racquets to SEEM less maneuverable, even if they have a low static weight, probably because many volleys for them are "flails" or "stabs/pokes". This is even more so when they play matches, rather than receive instruction. This may also be exacerbated by the fact that when they're trying to consciously analyze maneuverability, they wave the racquet around in a fashion that amost exclusively isolates the rotational component. As mentioned in my last post, most recreational players are concerned with reacting to the ball and getting their racquets in position to volley rather than with the inertia of the stroke itself, and this frequently requires last minute adjustment of the racquet, not to mention that most of them swing more than is optimal. The racquets that allow them to do this, and not be late as often, give them the impression of being maneuverable, for better worse. On the tournament level, though, I tend to agree with you. (And by that I mean anyone with the technique of a mechanically sound 4.5 or above.)

N.B. I don't totally agree with you on the issue of adjustments being impossible on fast balls once they're within 20 feet of the volleyers. There are small adjustments and triangulations constantly happening until much closer to impact, as we discovered when we blocked the vision of a large group of pros and top juniors at Harry Hopman's Academy at various points in their strokes and found a huge difference when they couldn't make microadjustments prior to contact. It is true, however, that you can't make a major adjustment to a volley, like switching sides of the body or allowing for a drop of more than a foot, etc. It had less to do with the actions of the eye itself than with the speed of processing the information instinctively. Nice use of "saccade", though!

LPShanet
10-30-2007, 01:28 AM
By the way, if you search and find Jura's list of racquet weights for ATP pros, I think you'll find that something like seven or eight of the ten heaviest racquets used are by doubles players. At that level, there really is little swinging involved, and there is sufficient strength and fitness to use heavy racquets. That's probably a good lesson for us recreational players.

I'm sure that's correct, since the stability of the added weight is critical at that level of play, especially on the volley. And I totally agree with your thoughts about heavy racquets, by the way.

Leoboomanu
10-30-2007, 01:40 AM
Yes, practically, you need a heavier static for volleys so it doesn't get pushed around... light static raqs are only effective for volleys on the sweetspot, off-center hits are just painful...

Yes, there may be a compromise wherein a light10oz-HH-highSW raq is as maneuverable a 12oz-HL-lowSW raq... But when actual hitting/volleying of the ball is concerned, heavier beats lighter everytime...

This is where we strike a balance when we decide on a raq... or just add lead...

Leo

Leoboomanu
10-30-2007, 01:49 AM
And yes I agree with LPS... You can adjust the raq head positions even at the last moments of the fast volley for that more solid hit, or to disguise a drop volley... This is a sort of a gauge of your hand-eye coordination... Skill with practice, not found in bookshelves anywhere...

If you can't adjust in time then your not there yet... more practice...

Peace,
LEO