PDA

View Full Version : Faster racquet head speed: Federer or Nadal?


Sid_Vicious
06-12-2011, 10:48 PM
I have always thought that Nadal swings his racquet much faster than Federer.

Nicholas Warino
06-12-2011, 10:53 PM
I assume for forehands?

I believe Nadal's racquet is lighter than Federer's, which would be an obvious factor. His swing is also different, so he's come under and over the ball more than Federer, so his head speed through the ball would be reduced compared to Fed.

Sid_Vicious
06-12-2011, 10:57 PM
I assume for forehands?

I believe Nadal's racquet is lighter than Federer's, which would be an obvious factor. His swing is also different, so he's come under and over the ball more than Federer, so his head speed through the ball would be reduced compared to Fed.
Yep, forehands. Sorry, should have mentioned that.

Roger's racquet is 29 grams heavier than Rafa's. You are right, it could make a difference.

Bartelby
06-12-2011, 11:12 PM
When all is said and done, it doesn't really matter as long as it works for them.

downdaline
06-13-2011, 12:01 AM
I think when both players have time to really line up the ball, coil up and unleash a forehand - Nadal.

But on average, I think Fed's is slightly faster off rally shots. I dunno, but it's waaaay too close to make a clear distinction on the tele.

Does faster racquet head speed = more rpm?? If so, then it should be Nadal based on groundstroke rpm.

Nextman916
06-13-2011, 12:21 AM
Does faster racquet head speed = more rpm??

This is often debated, but I don't think so. Rpm is the rotations imparted on the ball by brushing up. The reason Nadal holds the most rpm's ever is due to his swing path which is much more low to high than Federer's. However that doesn't necessarily mean that he has greater racquet head speed.

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 02:58 AM
Federer has more racquet head speed. Nadal's game improvement racquet
is what gives him extra spin.

Federer has the most explosive racquet head speed in the history of the sport. This is why he has the best forehand in history, no one comes close to his combination of spin and pace. The best forehands Nadal has ever hit in his life are about equal to the pace of Federer's average rally forehand. This is why Nadal avoids Federer's forehand, he knows he can't compete in a forehand to forehand battle.

Guaranteed, Federer has hit more winners with just his forehand than Nadal has hit off both wings combined in their careers.

Bobby Jr
06-13-2011, 03:09 AM
Federer has the most explosive racquet head speed in the history of the sport. This is why he has the best forehand in history, no one comes close to his combination of spin and pace.
This ^

His variation is possibly the best lesson you could take away from his forehand. He can rally with plenty of spin deep and then unleash the flat bomb. That's why he catches most players out and can pull players on a hot run right out of their favourite groove and make them look almost clueless.

Smasher08
06-13-2011, 03:09 AM
Force = mass x acceleration.

Ergo because Rafa gets more pace and spin from a much lighter racket, his acceleration must be considerably greater.

Ipso facto, even if his pace and spin were the same as Federer's, he would necessarily be generating more racket head speed to accomplish this.

QED, and you're welcome. ;)

Bobby Jr
06-13-2011, 03:14 AM
Force = mass x acceleration.

Ergo because Rafa gets more pace and spin from a much lighter racket, his acceleration must be considerably greater.
He does not get more pace than Federer. You only have to watch a few of their matches to see this is not the case. He does however get more spin. No doubt his racquet head speed it right up there - maybe more... someone will have to work out the average angle of each stroke etc...

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 06:22 AM
Fed's racket is just designed for hitting winners easier compared to Nadal's racket. It should be easier to get faster racket head speed with Fed's racket. Nadal's racket is designed for spinning the ball more. SInce Nadal has faster racket head speed, If Nadal used Federer's racket his shots would go for winners easier than Fed's shots do now.

If Fed used Nadal's racket he'd struggle to put the ball away, and he wouldnt get as much Spin as Nadal now does,his shots would just sit up, as he has less racket head speed, so his shots would be pretty average.

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 06:27 AM
Force = mass x acceleration.

Ergo because Rafa gets more pace and spin from a much lighter racket, his acceleration must be considerably greater.

Ipso facto, even if his pace and spin were the same as Federer's, he would necessarily be generating more racket head speed to accomplish this.

QED, and you're welcome. ;)

In other words if Nadal used Federer's racket he would hit more winners and demolish Federer even easier.

Sentinel
06-13-2011, 06:41 AM
Nadal is better than Fred in every respect. He hits "flatter yet spinnier forehands". Ask the experts if you don't believe me.

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 06:54 AM
Nadal is better than Fred in every respect. He hits "flatter yet spinnier forehands". Ask the experts if you don't believe me.

that legend has grown..lmao...

I dont know how someone took a statement comparing "flatter faster more penetrating forehands" to "somewhat hard but spinnier whip forehands." and turned it into "flatter and spinnier forehands" lmao...maybe some people have reading comprehension problems. :)

sunof tennis
06-13-2011, 07:29 AM
Fed's racket is just designed for hitting winners easier compared to Nadal's racket. It should be easier to get faster racket head speed with Fed's racket. Nadal's racket is designed for spinning the ball more. SInce Nadal has faster racket head speed, If Nadal used Federer's racket his shots would go for winners easier than Fed's shots do now.

If Fed used Nadal's racket he'd struggle to put the ball away, and he wouldnt get as much Spin as Nadal now does,his shots would just sit up, as he has less racket head speed, so his shots would be pretty average.

I am not sure I follow you. Fed's racquet is considered the ultimate control racquet, not the ultimate power racquet. In stock form, it is considerably heavier than Nadal's racquet, so logically it should be easier to generate more head speed with Nadal's racquet. However, simple physics (the only kind I understand) dictate that if you can generate similar head speed with both, then you are going to impart more force on the ball and create a faster shot with Fed's racquet. Having hit with both, I can tell you that if you are set up and execute a proper swing you will definitely hit the ball faster with Fed's racquet. Problem is, it is harder to do on a consistent basis with a heavier, smaller head racquet.

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 07:54 AM
I am not sure I follow you. Fed's racquet is considered the ultimate control racquet, not the ultimate power racquet. In stock form, it is considerably heavier than Nadal's racquet, so logically it should be easier to generate more head speed with Nadal's racquet. However, simple physics (the only kind I understand) dictate that if you can generate similar head speed with both, then you are going to impart more force on the ball and create a faster shot with Fed's racquet. Having hit with both, I can tell you that if you are set up and execute a proper swing you will definitely hit the ball faster with Fed's racquet. Problem is, it is harder to do on a consistent basis with a heavier, smaller head racquet.

I know, but Nadal has the best foot work and positioning in the game, he wouldnt have much trouble hitting the sweet spot. Lendl didnt have many problems using a racket half the size as Feds. Nadal would put the ball away faster than he does now if he used the Fed racket so there would be no need for him to do it as consistently as he does now with his babolat.

Your bolded text is also probably the reason why Nadal now extends the rallies. Feds racket encourages you to hit out more for higher rewards because as you said the ball travels faster with Feds racket than Nadal's if you execute a proper swing with both rackets .

Comet Buster
06-13-2011, 07:55 AM
Federer has more racquet head speed.


Agree.


The best forehands Nadal has ever hit in his life are about equal to the pace of Federer's average rally forehand
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKoUrBhhh7k


Nice to know Federer's average FH speeds are above 110mph :roll:.

Netzroller
06-13-2011, 08:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKoUrBhhh7k
Nice to know Federer's average FH speeds are above 110mph :roll:.
I was going to write the same:)

Force = mass x acceleration.

Ergo because Rafa gets more pace and spin from a much lighter racket, his acceleration must be considerably greater.
Guys, please stop trying to use physics to prove a point unless you really have a clue what you're talking about...:-?

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 02:15 PM
Agree.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKoUrBhhh7k


Nice to know Federer's average FH speeds are above 110mph :roll:.

I imported this video into my motion analysis program and got a real calculation of this forehand's speed, it isn't 110mph. The shot speeds they show on some of these broadcasts are quite often off by a substantial margin.
This is the correct information for this shot
His slice serve in this same video clocked 105mph out wide.

Contact to bounce = 18 frames, video is shot at 30 fps.

time in flight: .6 sec
initial speed: 91 mph
avg. speed: 76 mph
final speed: 63.9 mph
distance traveled 67 feet

max height of shot: 5.79 ft.


Roger Federer's avg. forehand speed is over 76mph

Netzroller
06-13-2011, 02:41 PM
I imported this video into my motion analysis program and got a real calculation of this forehand's speed, it isn't 110mph. The shot speeds they show on some of these broadcasts are quite often off by a substantial margin.
This is the correct information for this shot
His slice serve in this same video clocked 105mph out wide.

Contact to bounce = 18 frames, video is shot at 30 fps.

time in flight: .6 sec
initial speed: 91 mph
avg. speed: 76 mph
final speed: 63.9 mph
distance traveled 67 feet

max height of shot: 5.79 ft.


Roger Federer's avg. forehand speed is over 76mph
What kind of motion analysis program is that? I think it is a little surprising that you claim to get more accurate results from anayzing a youtube clip (not even in HD) while the guys actually being there with expensive equipment are off by ~20mph (which is huuuge).

Secondly, even if your numbers were correct, Fed average fh is still not faster than this shot. Usually one refers to initial speed when talking about the velocity of a shot (that's how it's done with serves as well). Therefore, the numbers you have to compare are 91mph and 76mph.
I do agree with you that Federers avrage fh is faster than Nadal's, though.

tlm
06-13-2011, 02:41 PM
Don't any of you play tennis? Fed hits through the ball more than rafa, so yes he hits a harder more penetrating shot on average. But he does not need as much racket speed as nadal does, rafas energy goes into super fast racket speed to apply as much spin as possible.

Rafa is coming over the ball so much that he has to generate incredible racket head speed to get that much spin plus enough power and depth.If any of you play tennis i would think you would know that. If you do play next time out try to hit like fed and then try to hit with mega spin like rafa and you will obviously see that it takes more speed to hit the heavy spin.

sureshs
06-13-2011, 02:51 PM
Paging Breakpoint .....

He claimed that Fed had the faster RHS, only Nadal's movement was more upward and so produced more TS.

I think Nadal's RHS is greater.

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 03:01 PM
What kind of motion analysis program is that? I think it is a little surprising that you claim to get more accurate results from anayzing a youtube clip (not even in HD) while the guys actually being there with expensive equipment are off by ~20mph (which is huuuge).

Secondly, even if your numbers were correct, Fed average fh is still not faster than this shot. Usually one refers to initial speed when talking about the velocity of a shot (that's how it's done with serves as well). Therefore, the numbers you have to compare are 91mph and 76mph.
I do agree with you that Federers avrage fh is faster than Nadal's, though.

I have dartfish team pro and also kinovea, both show the same speed.

Being in HD or not doesn't make any difference, HD only makes a difference in the number of pixels , the video is still shot 29.97fps regardless if it is HD or standard definition.

FedererBestTennis
06-13-2011, 03:07 PM
Nadal's racquet head speed is faster, but their shots are equally heavy because of the mass of Federer's racquet.

FedererBestTennis
06-13-2011, 03:15 PM
Agree.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKoUrBhhh7k


Nice to know Federer's average FH speeds are above 110mph :roll:.
What do you mean? Nadal's aren't either. Nadal average groundstroke speed is considerably slower than Federer's and they are equally heavy.

No, Roger can only hit 110 BHs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeK0Xq3Lrqc

Bobby Jr
06-13-2011, 03:17 PM
This thread is simple to unravel.

People who know something about tennis know Federer, on average, hits his forehand faster than Nadal.

People who don't know anything about tennis think, on average, Nadal does.

Racquet head speed is a tricky calculation as others have said. It entails working out the angle of the swing etc. It may well be Nadal that has a higher racquet head speed on average - but he puts it more towards spin than velocity than Federer. They're trying to achieve different things.

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 03:17 PM
Here are two separate videos shot at the same frame rate 210fps of Nadal and Federer warming up hitting forehands. Using track path and speed calculations in the Kinovea motion analysis software.

The first forehand of Nadal in this video his racquet head speed is measured at 58.52 mph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQvbT8uEGk

Here is Federer same frame rate his first forehand racquet head speed measures at 65.02 mph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImeQaAyFPc

Federer's warmup forehands are 5-7 mph faster than Nadal's, measuring the racquet head speed.

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 03:18 PM
Nadal's racquet head speed is faster, but their shots are equally heavy because of the mass of Federer's racquet.

what do you think would happen if they swapped rackets and played for the whole next 12 months on tour with eachothers rackets.

I wonder how their racket head speed, and shots will compare, say in 6 months after changing rackets.

Polaris
06-13-2011, 03:28 PM
Fed's racket is just designed for hitting winners easier compared to Nadal's racket. It should be easier to get faster racket head speed with Fed's racket. Nadal's racket is designed for spinning the ball more. SInce Nadal has faster racket head speed, If Nadal used Federer's racket his shots would go for winners easier than Fed's shots do now.

If Fed used Nadal's racket he'd struggle to put the ball away, and he wouldnt get as much Spin as Nadal now does,his shots would just sit up, as he has less racket head speed, so his shots would be pretty average.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. :)

Force = mass x acceleration.

Ergo because Rafa gets more pace and spin from a much lighter racket, his acceleration must be considerably greater.

Ipso facto, even if his pace and spin were the same as Federer's, he would necessarily be generating more racket head speed to accomplish this.

QED, and you're welcome.

Unfortunately, academic pretentiousness is no substitute for getting your facts right. :twisted:

FedererBestTennis
06-13-2011, 03:33 PM
what do you think would happen if they swapped rackets and played for the whole next 12 months on tour with eachothers rackets.

I wonder how their racket head speed, and shots will compare, say in 6 months after changing rackets.
Federer would probably loop up his swing, and Nadal would hit through it more as too many shanks would come off his racquet with his swing pattern.

As for the effect on the actual shots:

Let us say that the weight of Federer's racquet is 10 and Nadal's is 8.
Let us say that the racquet head speed of Federer is 8, and Nadal's is 10.

F=ma

The original Formula is:
Federer - F=10x8=80
Nadal - F=8x10=80
80=80
This is why their shots have equal heaviness.

Now let's switch their racquets.

Federer - F=8x10=80
Nadal - F=10x8=80
80=80

Conclusion: No difference in weight of shot.

piece
06-13-2011, 03:37 PM
Tough to say.

Still, I've rarely been as impressed with a player's racquet head speed off the forehand side as I was with Federer's at the 2004 and 2005 US Opens. Especially the way he could swing fast enough to hit clean winners from behind the baseline even while backing away from the baseline.

BrooklynNY
06-13-2011, 03:44 PM
Nadal CAN hit harder/faster than Fed.

Fed's shot is naturally more penetrating, as it his hit 'flatter'..IE he hits through the ball more, although he can hit shots with much spin as anybody, and sometimes does.

Nadal's forehand is heavier, as it has more spin onto it, he also hits through the ball, but at a different angle, and a bit more brush on the ball.

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 03:46 PM
Nadal grunts really loud when he swings, which adds a dramatic effect when viewed, that he is really swinging harder than anyone else, in actuality he isn't.

Fedex
06-13-2011, 03:48 PM
This thread is simple to unravel.

People who know something about tennis know Federer, on average, hits his forehand faster than Nadal.

People who don't know anything about tennis think, on average, Nadal does.

Racquet head speed is a tricky calculation as others have said. It entails working out the angle of the swing etc. It may well be Nadal that has a higher racquet head speed on average - but he puts it more towards spin than velocity than Federer. They're trying to achieve different things.

Too many people who don't know anything about tennis think they know everything about tennis.

piece
06-13-2011, 03:49 PM
Nadal CAN hit harder/faster than Fed.

Fed's shot is naturally more penetrating, as it his hit 'flatter'..IE he hits through the ball more, although he can hit shots with much spin as anybody, and sometimes does.

Nadal's forehand is heavier, as it has more spin onto it, he also hits through the ball, but at a different angle, and a bit more brush on the ball.

Off the backhand, sure. Off the forehand it's not so obvious. The fastest Nadal forehand I can recall seeing is the one that was recorded at 110mph against Ancic. However I can recall at least one, maybe two Federer forehands that were noticeably faster, IMO.

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 03:53 PM
Off the backhand, sure. Off the forehand it's not so obvious. The fastest Nadal forehand I can recall seeing is the one that was recorded at 110mph against Ancic. However I can recall at least one, maybe two Federer forehands that were noticeably faster, IMO.

That's the forehand I analyzed in this thread it wasn't close to 110mph in actuality.

piece
06-13-2011, 04:02 PM
Here's the one I referred to in my previous post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jor57AFsxU&feature=player_detailpage#t=418s

Sid_Vicious
06-13-2011, 04:07 PM
Nadal CAN hit harder/faster than Fed.

Fed's shot is naturally more penetrating, as it his hit 'flatter'..IE he hits through the ball more, although he can hit shots with much spin as anybody, and sometimes does.

Nadal's forehand is heavier, as it has more spin onto it, he also hits through the ball, but at a different angle, and a bit more brush on the ball.
And Federer can hit harder than Nadal as well if he wants as well. As far as pace is concerned, Federer is usually above Nadal in that department.

Sid_Vicious
06-13-2011, 04:09 PM
Here are two separate videos shot at the same frame rate 210fps of Nadal and Federer warming up hitting forehands. Using track path and speed calculations in the Kinovea motion analysis software.

The first forehand of Nadal in this video his racquet head speed is measured at 58.52 mph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQvbT8uEGk

Here is Federer same frame rate his first forehand racquet head speed measures at 65.02 mph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImeQaAyFPc

Federer's warmup forehands are 5-7 mph faster than Nadal's, measuring the racquet head speed.
http://www.tennishelpdesk.com/TennisVideos/Videos/TabId/61/VideoId/227/Nadals-Racket-Head-Speed.aspx

Nadal's forehand was recorded at 84.7 mph

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPLmCqGIotM

Federer's forehand was recorded at 71.1 mph



On the thread: This is a hard question to answer. Lots of differing opinions. Poll is pretty even.

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 04:27 PM
http://www.tennishelpdesk.com/TennisVideos/Videos/TabId/61/VideoId/227/Nadals-Racket-Head-Speed.aspx

Nadal's forehand was recorded at 84.7 mph

This is a bogus video analysis it isn't a High Speed video clip, thats why it jerks from one frame to the next and his racquet moves so much in each frame it is 29.97 fps, to get an accurate measurement of racquet head speed it needs to be shot in high speed at 210+ fps.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPLmCqGIotM

Federer's forehand was recorded at 71.1 mph

This is more accurate using HS video.

FedererBestTennis
06-13-2011, 04:29 PM
http://www.tennishelpdesk.com/TennisVideos/Videos/TabId/61/VideoId/227/Nadals-Racket-Head-Speed.aspx

Nadal's forehand was recorded at 84.7 mph

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPLmCqGIotM

Federer's forehand was recorded at 71.1 mph



On the thread: This is a hard question to answer. Lots of differing opinions. Poll is pretty even.
You obviously don't understand the most basic principle for conducting an experiment: constants.

Fedex
06-13-2011, 04:35 PM
Here's a fast one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzsJFxwo1sY

BreakPoint
06-13-2011, 04:47 PM
Force = mass x acceleration.

Ergo because Rafa gets more pace and spin from a much lighter racket, his acceleration must be considerably greater.

Ipso facto, even if his pace and spin were the same as Federer's, he would necessarily be generating more racket head speed to accomplish this.

QED, and you're welcome. ;)
1. Nadal's ball DOES NOT have more pace. Are you kidding me? Federer pounds flat forehands at tremendous pace, whereas Nadal just spins the crap out of the ball. The loopier trajectory of Nadal's shots means his balls have to travel slower to stay in.

2. Nadal's racquet has a higher swingweight than Federer's racquet, therefore, more mass is making contact with the ball. So even if Nadal's balls had the same pace, he must be swinging his racquet slower than Federer.

3. You must have failed physics because hitting a tennis ball is all about the transfer of momentum, not force. Momentum = mass x velocity. That's the relevant equation, not F = ma.

BreakPoint
06-13-2011, 04:49 PM
Fed's racket is just designed for hitting winners easier compared to Nadal's racket. It should be easier to get faster racket head speed with Fed's racket. Nadal's racket is designed for spinning the ball more. SInce Nadal has faster racket head speed, If Nadal used Federer's racket his shots would go for winners easier than Fed's shots do now.

If Fed used Nadal's racket he'd struggle to put the ball away, and he wouldnt get as much Spin as Nadal now does,his shots would just sit up, as he has less racket head speed, so his shots would be pretty average.

In other words if Nadal used Federer's racket he would hit more winners and demolish Federer even easier.
Yeah, which is why everyone is saying Federer needs to switch to a BIGGER racquet in order to beat Nadal. :rolleyes:

Fedex
06-13-2011, 04:51 PM
1. Nadal's ball DOES NOT have more pace. Are you kidding me? Federer pounds flat forehands at tremendous pace, whereas Nadal just spins the crap out of the ball. The loopier trajectory of Nadal's shots means his balls have to travel slower to stay in.

2. Nadal's racquet has a higher swingweight than Federer's racquet, therefore, more mass is making contact with the ball. So even if Nadal's balls had the same pace, he must be swinging his racquet slower than Federer.

3. You must have failed physics because hitting a tennis ball is all about the transfer of momentum, not force. Momentum = mass x velocity. That's the relevant equation, not F = ma.

That's why it takes a slow moving giant tanker 37 miles to stop.

FedererBestTennis
06-13-2011, 04:51 PM
Here's a fast one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzsJFxwo1sY
That is INSANE! I totally agree with the commentator...

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 04:52 PM
Here's the one I referred to in my previous post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jor57AFsxU&feature=player_detailpage#t=418s

This forehand is around 98 mph according to calculations.

FedererBestTennis
06-13-2011, 04:55 PM
1. Nadal's ball DOES NOT have more pace. Are you kidding me? Federer pounds flat forehands at tremendous pace, whereas Nadal just spins the crap out of the ball. The loopier trajectory of Nadal's shots means his balls have to travel slower to stay in.

2. Nadal's racquet has a higher swingweight than Federer's racquet, therefore, more mass is making contact with the ball. So even if Nadal's balls had the same pace, he must be swinging his racquet slower than Federer.

3. You must have failed physics because hitting a tennis ball is all about the transfer of momentum, not force. Momentum = mass x velocity. That's the relevant equation, not F = ma.
But force is the same thing as heaviness...If a tennis ball is carrying a lot of force, then it will push the player back, which is what heaviness will do.

Sid_Vicious
06-13-2011, 04:58 PM
You obviously don't understand the most basic principle for conducting an experiment: constants.
Oh I am so sorry. I should have posted videos of Nadal and Federer hitting forehands in an MIT laboratory where all factors are accounted for.

I am just posting what I found. No one here has any scientific proof. I was just posting those two videos because I found them earlier and they pertain to racket head speed.

BreakPoint
06-13-2011, 04:58 PM
Nadal grunts really loud when he swings, which adds a dramatic effect when viewed, that he is really swinging harder than anyone else, in actuality he isn't.
Very good point. :)

Nadal seems to exert a lot more effort than Federer but still produces a slower ball. :shock:

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 05:02 PM
What kind of motion analysis program is that? I think it is a little surprising that you claim to get more accurate results from anayzing a youtube clip (not even in HD) while the guys actually being there with expensive equipment are off by ~20mph (which is huuuge).


They messed up inputting the data for the distance traveled, it comes out to 110mph if you use the full length of the court at 78' , the ball traveled around 67'.

BreakPoint
06-13-2011, 05:06 PM
But force is the same thing as heaviness...If a tennis ball is carrying a lot of force, then it will push the player back, which is what heaviness will do.
Um...no. A "heavy" ball means it has a lot of spin on it. It's the heavy spin that pushes players back. All balls decelerate as they travel through their trajectory and decelerate more after they bounce. But even a decelerating ball that has a lot of spin can be "heavy".

Fedex
06-13-2011, 05:06 PM
But force is the same thing as heaviness...If a tennis ball is carrying a lot of force, then it will push the player back, which is what heaviness will do.

Mass is the common denominator here.

Mass and acceleration relate to force.

Mass and velocity relate to momentum.

Hope I'm not being pedantic.

Sid_Vicious
06-13-2011, 05:10 PM
They messed up inputting the data for the distance traveled, it comes out to 110mph if you use the full length of the court at 78' , the ball traveled around 69'.
Since you know how to use this software, do you mind figuring out how fast the second backhand is in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAze6rSmVFI

FedererBestTennis
06-13-2011, 05:12 PM
Um...no. A "heavy" ball means it has a lot of spin on it. It's the heavy spin that pushes players back. All balls decelerate as they travel through their trajectory and decelerate more after they bounce. But even a decelerating ball that has a lot of spin can be "heavy".
A ball with a lot of spin is not necessarily heavy! If I were to brush my racquet low to high without putting any of my weight into it, it would have a lot of topspin, but it would not be heavy at all. Therefore your argument is not valid.

Fedex
06-13-2011, 05:15 PM
A ball with a lot of spin is not necessarily heavy! If I were to brush my racquet low to high without putting any of my weight into it, it would have a lot of topspin, but it would not be heavy at all. Therefore your argument is not valid.

I think what Breakpoint means by" heavy" is that a heavily topspinned ball will have a lot of kick on it when it hits the surface.
It'll kick up.

tlm
06-13-2011, 05:18 PM
Here are two separate videos shot at the same frame rate 210fps of Nadal and Federer warming up hitting forehands. Using track path and speed calculations in the Kinovea motion analysis software.

The first forehand of Nadal in this video his racquet head speed is measured at 58.52 mph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQvbT8uEGk

Here is Federer same frame rate his first forehand racquet head speed measures at 65.02 mph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImeQaAyFPc

Federer's warmup forehands are 5-7 mph faster than Nadal's, measuring the racquet head speed.

Warm up does not mean squat.

BreakPoint
06-13-2011, 05:19 PM
Mass is the common denominator here.

Mass and acceleration relate to force.

Mass and velocity relate to momentum.

Hope I'm not being pedantic.
Yes, exactly. Since the mass of your racquet and the mass of the ball do not change no matter how fast you swing your racquet or how fast the incoming ball is, what matters is the velocity of your racquet and the velocity of the incoming ball at the instant that you make contact with the ball (the collision). That is the instant when momentum is transferred from your racquet to the ball. Acceleration is not important since the collision is instantaneous. What matters is the velocity at the collision.

BreakPoint
06-13-2011, 05:22 PM
A ball with a lot of spin is not necessarily heavy! If I were to brush my racquet low to high without putting any of my weight into it, it would have a lot of topspin, but it would not be heavy at all. Therefore your argument is not valid.
I'm comparing a ball with the same pace on it with and without spin. It doesn't have to be topspin, you can also hit a "heavy" underspin ball. The more spin, the heavier the ball is (all else being equal).

tlm
06-13-2011, 05:22 PM
The topic was racket head speed which somehow changed to ball speed. Fed hits a faster ball, but rafa uses more racket speed because he does not hit through the ball as much as fed. Please explain why this is so hard to understand.

Fedex
06-13-2011, 05:24 PM
But force is the same thing as heaviness...If a tennis ball is carrying a lot of force, then it will push the player back, which is what heaviness will do.

The tennis ball doesn't carry force. It carries momentum.
And an increase in momentum is caused by the force of the racket hitting the ball.
The force from the racket equals the mass of the racket times the acceleration of the racket generated by the player.

piece
06-13-2011, 05:26 PM
This forehand is around 98 mph according to calculations.

Does the fact the the ball was hit nearly at a right angle to the axis of viewing affect the accuracy of the final figure delivered by your program?

Fedex
06-13-2011, 05:28 PM
Yes, exactly. Since the mass of your racquet and the mass of the ball do not change no matter how fast you swing your racquet or how fast the incoming ball is, what matters is the velocity of your racquet and the velocity of the incoming ball at the instant that you make contact with the ball (the collision). That is the instant when momentum is transferred from your racquet to the ball. Acceleration is not important since the collision is instantaneous. What matters is the velocity at the collision.

Sorry to correct you but I think it's the acceleration that's important.
Without acceleration, there's no force.
I may be wrong but I think that's the way it is.
Actually, I think you're right afterall.
You need force to increase the momentum but, as you say, at the point of contact, it's the velocity that matters.

Netzroller
06-13-2011, 05:28 PM
I have dartfish team pro and also kinovea, both show the same speed.

Being in HD or not doesn't make any difference, HD only makes a difference in the number of pixels , the video is still shot 29.97fps regardless if it is HD or standard definition.
They messed up inputting the data for the distance traveled, it comes out to 110mph if you use the full length of the court at 78' , the ball traveled around 69'.
Alright thanks, I guess I was wrong.
(regarding HD, I thought you need a somewhat better resolution to see the path of the ball accurately in order to calculate i.e. max height.)

If you have time, can you maybe check these forehands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBctFQT1Dxg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu5qFYumKes
Apparently, they were clocked at 116mph and 117mph respectively...

SoBad
06-13-2011, 05:29 PM
I have always thought that Nadal swings his racquet much faster than Federer.

Nadal has much better tennis technique and is therefore able to generate far greater racquet head speed, which means more pace and spin on his shots.

piece
06-13-2011, 05:30 PM
Also, lsmkenpo, was 98mph the initial speed of that Federer forehand? (I'm assuming so)

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 05:33 PM
Yeah, which is why everyone is saying Federer needs to switch to a BIGGER racquet in order to beat Nadal. :rolleyes:

he has to change something, he's obviously not skilled enough to beat rafa with his current racket. He needs a bigger AND heavier racket, and he needs to pump iron :)

Netzroller
06-13-2011, 05:33 PM
Sorry to correct you but I think it's the acceleration that's important.
Without acceleration, there's no force.
No, he is right.
The ball has no force, it has momentum and energy.

You need acceleration to accelerate the racket prior to contact (which requires force). What he is saying is, it doesn't matter how fast you accelerate it, it only matters what final velocity you have at contact. You can get the same final velocity by high acceleration over a short distance or a low acceleration over a long distance.

Fedex
06-13-2011, 05:37 PM
No, he is right.
The ball has no force, it has momentum and energy.

You need acceleration to accelerate the racket prior to contact (which requires force). What he is saying is, it doesn't matter how fast you accelerate it, it only matters what final velocity you have at contact. You can get the same final velocity by high acceleration over a short distance or a low acceleration over a long distance.

Yes I corrected myself above. Breakpoint was right.
And the example you give in bold is a good example.

powerangle
06-13-2011, 05:43 PM
In other words if Nadal used Federer's racket he would hit more winners and demolish Federer even easier.

No.

Nadal beats Federer with spin (ie huge spins to his backhand). If Nadal used Fed's racket (designed for more pace and less spin), Fed would have an easier time. Federer handles flatter/faster balls better (which is why he prefers playing Djoko over Rafa).

FedererBestTennis
06-13-2011, 05:55 PM
he has to change something, he's obviously not skilled enough to beat rafa with his current racket. He needs a bigger AND heavier racket, and he needs to pump iron :)
2010 World Tour Finals? Wasn't that long ago. And don't give me the excuse "That is the worst possible surface for Rafa to play on...the balls bounce too low..." *******s will have to think of another excuse but that shouldn't be hard because most have already perfected that. :)

BreakPoint
06-13-2011, 06:00 PM
Sorry to correct you but I think it's the acceleration that's important.
Without acceleration, there's no force.
I may be wrong but I think that's the way it is.
Actually, I think you're right afterall.
You need force to increase the momentum but, as you say, at the point of contact, it's the velocity that matters.
An object moving at constant velocity has zero acceleration. It doesn't matter if you're accelerating your racquet or moving it at a constant velocity. What matters as far as momentum transfer to the ball, is the velocity of your racquet at the point of collision with the ball. That's why someone using a heavy racquet can swing slowly (at a constant velocity) and still hit the ball very hard (i.e., transfer a lot of momentum to the ball).

A moving ball has momentum, a moving racquet has momentum, so what matters is the transfer of this momentum from the racquet to the ball during the collision. Acceleration is not important, and you do not need to accelerate your racquet to achieve a significant amount of momentum.

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 06:01 PM
Also, lsmkenpo, was 98mph the initial speed of that Federer forehand? (I'm assuming so)

yes, initial speed

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 06:04 PM
Since you know how to use this software, do you mind figuring out how fast the second backhand is in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAze6rSmVFI

around 91 mph.

It could be faster than this, there seemed to be a difference in frame rate, there were frames with zero ball movement, it may be in 25fps PaL format, if it is PaL format at 25fps instead of 29.97 it could be around 108mph.

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 06:09 PM
No.

Nadal beats Federer with spin (ie huge spins to his backhand). If Nadal used Fed's racket (designed for more pace and less spin), Fed would have an easier time. Federer handles flatter/faster balls better (which is why he prefers playing Djoko over Rafa).

It depends on how good the flatter shots become. It will be that much easier to put the ball away with his forehand. Its also more likely that Fed's racket would strengthen Rafas backhand, serve, slice and return, and he'd have even more options to use to demolish Fred.

BreakPoint
06-13-2011, 06:10 PM
Nadal has much better tennis technique and is therefore able to generate far greater racquet head speed, which means more pace and spin on his shots.
Nadal doesn't use tennis technique at all. He uses ping pong technique. Uncle Toni was a ping pong player so he taught Nadal to play tennis as if he was playing ping pong. No one else uses this technique because it is not better and doesn't work for anyone else. People who have tried it have ended up in the hospital from banging their own heads so many times and giving themselves concussions and making a bloody mess on the courts from hitting their own heads on every follow-through. :shock:

piece
06-13-2011, 06:13 PM
Lsmkenpo, looks like your skills would be of use over in this thread :)http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=324566

The Blake and Krajicek returns are probably the fastest groundstrokes I've ever seen.

Fedex
06-13-2011, 06:20 PM
An object moving at constant velocity has zero acceleration. It doesn't matter if you're accelerating your racquet or moving it at a constant velocity. What matters as far as momentum transfer to the ball, is the velocity of your racquet at the point of collision with the ball. That's why someone using a heavy racquet can swing slowly (at a constant velocity) and still hit the ball very hard (i.e., transfer a lot of momentum to the ball).

A moving ball has momentum, a moving racquet has momentum, so what matters is the transfer of this momentum from the racquet to the ball during the collision. Acceleration is not important, and you do not need to accelerate your racquet to achieve a significant amount of momentum.

You know there's something bothering me BreakPoint. I was always taught in physics that without force you cannot create acceleration and a tennis ball certainly must accelerate when it leaves the racket.
And another thing just to confuse the issue is that a tennis ball has a lot of elasticity, the latent force within the structure of the ball.
Wherever it's coming from, there must be a force to create acceleration and you need acceleration to create the force.
I have to go to bed now but let me think more about it and we'll continue this later.
This isn't as simple as it seems.
Cheers.

SoBad
06-13-2011, 06:20 PM
Nadal doesn't use tennis technique at all. He uses ping pong technique. Uncle Toni was a ping pong player so he taught Nadal to play tennis as if he was playing ping pong. No one else uses this technique because it is not better and doesn't work for anyone else. People who have tried it have ended up in the hospital from banging their own heads so many times and giving themselves concussions and making a bloody mess on the courts from hitting their own heads on every follow-through. :shock:

If anyone has ping pong no-technique its your Fred. Slow lazy cheating people play inside the baseline (take the ball “early”) because they have no movement or baseline game. I bet in the juniors he called everything landing a foot inside the baseline “out” too.:lol: No wonder he is always whining about line calls, clay marks, and hawkeye replays. Glad to see it retiring soon.

powerangle
06-13-2011, 06:22 PM
It depends on how good the flatter shots become. It will be that much easier to put the ball away with his forehand. Its also more likely that Fed's racket would strengthen Rafas backhand, serve, slice and return, and he'd have even more options to use to demolish Fred.

It is that much easier to put the ball away for other players too (who play with bigger and flatter shots), yet Federer does better against them. Federer does better with players that hit bigger and flatter shots than Nadal.

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 06:23 PM
Alright thanks, I guess I was wrong.
(regarding HD, I thought you need a somewhat better resolution to see the path of the ball accurately in order to calculate i.e. max height.)

If you have time, can you maybe check these forehands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBctFQT1Dxg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu5qFYumKes
Apparently, they were clocked at 116mph and 117mph respectively...

Those speeds are close to legit, I got 113mph for Monfils and 114mph for Gonzalez. Some of the fastest I have measured!!!

wy2sl0
06-13-2011, 06:24 PM
Some don't understand. Federer's technique is godly. Nadal is yelling out loud when he nails the ball consistently to try to hit with depth and spin. Federer is using a ridiculously smaller percentage of energy to hit the ball, and uses his flawless technique (forehand at least, hahaha) to generate pace and spin. His arm extending fully allows alot of energy to be bound, and then released toward racquet head speed on the moment of impact. So pure racquet head speed? Probably Fed. Watch an average rally when Fed is "on" with the forehand. You can't even follow it.

Watch the first few rallies. He is hitting balls at his ankles with a TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RACQUET head speed. Nadal can't do that.

The forehand at 2:50 is out of this world. Deep, hard, ton of arc/spin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvj7MtLiiAI

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 06:31 PM
It is that much easier to put the ball away for other players too (who play with bigger and flatter shots), yet Federer does better against them. Federer does better with players that hit bigger and flatter shots than Nadal.

Nadal is a 10 slam winner not just 'another' player so he is far more talented than those other players. That's the problem in your comparison with those other big flat hitters - they are not Nadal. You'd have to imagine a better version of the best and most consistent big flat hitters there are now, which may not be possible to imagine.

AM95
06-13-2011, 06:41 PM
i think if they both held the exact same racket with exact weight/balance, federer would swing faster because he's using a 13 oz racket right now and is close to the speed that nadal is at with a 11 oz.

Clay lover
06-13-2011, 06:42 PM
Contrary to popular belief, higher racquet head speed does not automatically make you a better tennis player. I would say Nadal still generates more racquets head speed despite having an inferior forehand to Federer. He hits with a lighter racquet which allows him to swing the racquet faster, he also has a more low to high swing than Fed and generates more spin. Racquet head speed is different from ball speed...,you can brush up really quickly and put tons of spin on the ball but still not match the ball speed of a flat forehand.

MichaelNadal
06-13-2011, 06:43 PM
Nadal doesn't use tennis technique at all. He uses ping pong technique. Uncle Toni was a ping pong player so he taught Nadal to play tennis as if he was playing ping pong. No one else uses this technique because it is not better and doesn't work for anyone else. People who have tried it have ended up in the hospital from banging their own heads so many times and giving themselves concussions and making a bloody mess on the courts from hitting their own heads on every follow-through. :shock:

http://michaeljacksonanimatedgifs.com/images/others/mjgifs67.gif

BreakPoint
06-13-2011, 06:44 PM
No, he is right.
The ball has no force, it has momentum and energy.

You need acceleration to accelerate the racket prior to contact (which requires force). What he is saying is, it doesn't matter how fast you accelerate it, it only matters what final velocity you have at contact. You can get the same final velocity by high acceleration over a short distance or a low acceleration over a long distance.
That is correct. A ball traveling at a constant velocity or decelerating (as it does as it travels across the net and even more after it bounces) has no acceleration, so since Force = mass x acceleration, it also has no force.

You know there's something bothering me BreakPoint. I was always taught in physics that without force you cannot create acceleration and a tennis ball certainly must accelerate when it leaves the racket.
And another thing just to confuse the issue is that a tennis ball has a lot of elasticity, the latent force within the structure of the ball.
Wherever it's coming from, there must be a force to create acceleration and you need acceleration to create the force.
I have to go to bed now but let me think more about it and we'll continue this later.
This isn't as simple as it seems.
Cheers.
See above. A tennis ball does indeed accelerate when it leaves the racquet but starts to decelerate almost immediately afterward. That's why they measure serve speeds at the point of impact with the racquet because that's when the ball is at its maximum velocity. After the bounce, the ball decelerates even more (the amount of deceleration also depends on the surface being played on and its coefficient of friction) so that at the apex of the bounce (when most people hit the ball), the velocity of the ball is near zero. That's why it's so much easier to hit the ball at the apex of the bounce than hitting the ball on the rise because the timing doesn't have to be perfect.

You need force to get the racquet up to speed, but once it's up to speed, you no longer need any force to keep it moving at the same speed. That's when momentum takes over. A moving object will continue moving until an opposing force acts upon it.

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 06:53 PM
Lsmkenpo, looks like your skills would be of use over in this thread :)http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=324566

The Blake and Krajicek returns are probably the fastest groundstrokes I've ever seen.

The Krajicek return was one of the fastest I have seen measured around 117mph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqGuIaHu4Tc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This Blake return measured 97mph, but seems much faster watching on video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E0hQIbdZgg&NR=1

piece
06-13-2011, 06:55 PM
The Krajicek return was one of the fastest I have seen measured around 117mph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqGuIaHu4Tc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This Blake return measured 97mph, but seems much faster watching on video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E0hQIbdZgg&NR=1

Bummer about the Blake return. Not surprised about Krajicek being up there though.

powerangle
06-13-2011, 07:04 PM
Nadal is a 10 slam winner not just 'another' player so he is far more talented than those other players. That's the problem in your comparison with those other big flat hitters - they are not Nadal. You'd have to imagine a better version of the best and most consistent big flat hitters there are now, which may not be possible to imagine.

Except, every player is different. You can't assume things. Rafa is a 10 slam winner playing the way he does, which is proven. Rafa being able to perform well enough, better than other big flat hitters, playing a completely different style than he currently does...is not proven. It is hypothetical.

DAS2011
06-13-2011, 07:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rl0fwXTrr8&feature=related

I don't know, this clip may have already been brought up, but take a look. I know, it could just be the perspective playing a trick on my eyes but it really does appear that in the final milliseconds before contact, the tip of Nadal's racquet is going faster.

That said, Federer hits the ball with more horizontal force which is really all that matters when talking about the speed of a ball.

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 07:35 PM
Except, every player is different. You can't assume things. Rafa is a 10 slam winner playing the way he does, which is proven. Rafa being able to perform well enough, better than other big flat hitters, playing a completely different style than he currently does...is not proven. It is hypothetical.

yes and the key difference between him and every other player is that he's more talented, so its highly unlikely he'll do things worse than less talented players with the same equipment. He uses similar technique to flatter hitters when he hits his flat shots now, so it would not be a completely different style, he'd just use his current flat hitting technique more often.

jkang909
06-13-2011, 07:38 PM
ok guys no need to fight... i think everyone would agree that gilles simon has the fastest racket head speed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2plcxAE5nLM&feature=related
just look at it... omg

TennisFan3
06-13-2011, 08:04 PM
he has to change something, he's obviously not skilled enough to beat rafa with his current racket. He needs a bigger AND heavier racket, and he needs to pump iron :)

I think Nadal needs a heavier racquet too; his current hollow babolat stick (with the small grip) is lighter than WTA racquets. Nadal relies on his arm speed and racquet head acceleration to generated depth/penetration.

As Nadal is getting older + losing energy, he tends to hit more shorter balls, which is what we've been seeing recently. It's almost as if he loses arm speed, and throws in short loopy moonballs. This is why he was taken to the woodshed by Djoker.

IMO to contend with guys like Djoker/Delpo, Nadal needs a bit more assistance from the frame - whether it is by changing the stick or adding more weight - because at the end of the day, he just isn't getting enough POWER. See Djokovic who recently went with a modified Head frame; look at how he crushes the ball and the power he gets..

powerangle
06-13-2011, 08:19 PM
yes and the key difference between him and every other player is that he's more talented, so its highly unlikely he'll do things worse than less talented players with the same equipment. He uses similar technique to flatter hitters when he hits his flat shots now, so it would not be a completely different style, he'd just use his current flat hitting technique more often.

Yes, and in the end it is still hypothetical. Just because he is talented, doesn't mean he will be as successful (or more successful, as you point out) if he played with a different style. Nadal has made his bread and butter the way he plays. A lot of tennis is about matchups, if he played more flat, would he be even more successful? Maybe. Maybe not.

In the end, Nadal plays the way he does because he is most comfortable with it, and he excels and succeeds with it. Anything else is guess work.

TennisandMusic
06-13-2011, 08:53 PM
Wow, what another thread devolving into absurdity. It's funny how closely the talk around here has followed the stages of grief over Federer's most recent loss. First we had anger...looks like we are up to the bargaining stage. The latest TW memes are "Federer only loses when he doesn't play his best!", "It's only a mental block. Federer is the better player." and now "But Federer has more racquet head speed!"

Really guys?

Ok let's go over a few things. First off, Nadal's racquet is definitely "harder to swing." Greg Raven posted actual numbers on here a few years back of the gear these guys use. Federer's swingweight was in the 330 range I believe, and Nadal's was in the 350's. It doesn't matter that Federer's racquet has a slightly higher static weight (and to the goofballs who think Nadal's racquet weighs 11oz...come on...he's not using a stock racquet! Geez), the way they are weighted and balanced, Nadal's is harder to get moving. Not that that means anything in and of itself, but lets get facts straight.

Secondly, Nadal's technique is ridiculously good, regardless of what you want to believe. Ok? Federer has good technique, Nadal has good technique, they are both amazing players. Nadal doesn't use "ping pong" technique (even though his Uncle Toni did see that it was easier to get spin with a smaller grip, LIKE ping pong players), he uses state of the art, bad *** tennis technique that will shape the game in the decades to come far more than Federer will. Those are just the facts. So again, no need to denigrate Nadal here. He can hit fine off a low slice, drive through a ball, whatever. He hits a lot of reverse forehands because it's often his game plan to hit hard, high, heaavy balls that push opponents back and wear them down. You know who else hits reverse forehands at times? Yeah that's right, everyone. Even Federer and Sampras, blah blah blah.

Nadal's racquet head speed has to easily be among the fastest there ever was on the forehand side. He hits with the highest RPM's on the tour. Yes, Federer uses gut mains and ALU rough crosses (as opposed to Nadal's full poly), but that is one very spinny setup as well. If Federer used full poly he would probably hit less effective shots because he wouldn't be getting the power he gets from the gut mains. His setup is perfectly geared towards his game.

Also, to the "person" saying many people have ended up in the "hospital" because they have bloodied their heads trying to swing like Nadal....please cite one example? You know, before claiming there is an epidemic at least. I would be SHOCKED if there was one. And if it did happen, I'll show you someone that really really sucks at tennis, and probably shouldn't be walking the streets for fear they will fall into traffic, seeing as how they are THAT uncoordinated and all. You either know some clumsy slobs or you're straight up lying.

Man what a joke though...seriously, the board is devolving into trying to denigrate Nadal's racquet head speed now? Really? Calculating frame rates and saying tournaments have the wrong speed numbers but YOU do, based on youtube? This is what you guys have to resort too? Why can't people just accept that Federer and Nadal probably hit the two heaviest balls on tour and BOTH have marvelous technique. Are some of you actually walking around during the day pondering new ways in which to put Nadal down? Does he really ruin your day that much?

Nadal swings a heavy racquet, and swings it faster than just about anyone in tennis history ok? So does Federer. Hate to break it to you.

namelessone
06-14-2011, 12:04 AM
A measurement would be interesting but it's not as clear cut as people think(in Fed's favor).

Nadal has one of the fastest racket head speeds I've ever seen and he is using that fast swing to produce SPIN.

Here's what you get when a 17 year old is focusing on getting pace from his fast swing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikNlsRBT8-0

Monfils is also capable of generating some tremendous racket head speed.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 12:25 AM
I think Nadal needs a heavier racquet too; his current hollow babolat stick (with the small grip) is lighter than WTA racquets. Nadal relies on his arm speed and racquet head acceleration to generated depth/penetration.

As Nadal is getting older + losing energy, he tends to hit more shorter balls, which is what we've been seeing recently. It's almost as if he loses arm speed, and throws in short loopy moonballs. This is why he was taken to the woodshed by Djoker.

IMO to contend with guys like Djoker/Delpo, Nadal needs a bit more assistance from the frame - whether it is by changing the stick or adding more weight - because at the end of the day, he just isn't getting enough POWER. See Djokovic who recently went with a modified Head frame; look at how he crushes the ball and the power he gets..

Definitely, he needs a racket that swings itself easier once he gets it moving, Now Nadal needs to have infinitely more talent than the rest of the guys to win with that hollow racket he uses. His talents will be rewarded more with a better more solid racket and all of his shots will be improved. The players only get a 2 week off season at the end of the year, so it's difficult to try other rackets so perhaps he has never even tried a better racket and doesnt know what he is missing.

Now when Nadal plays the 3 set events like the Masters series events he's too tired playing on so many back to back days and it makes it hard to swing his hollow racket, he needs to use something better.

I think if any of the other top players like Murray, Djoko or Fred tried to play with Nadal's racket they'd never win a match.

kOaMaster
06-14-2011, 01:33 AM
The topic was racket head speed which somehow changed to ball speed. Fed hits a faster ball, but rafa uses more racket speed because he does not hit through the ball as much as fed. Please explain why this is so hard to understand.

I don't know either. People should go on court and just try to hit both shots once and would notice the difference immediately.

aldeayeah
06-14-2011, 01:35 AM
In other words if Nadal used Federer's racket he would hit more winners and demolish Federer even easier.

I see, then the question is...

Should Nadal switch to a smaller racquet head size?

:shock::confused::twisted:

Totai
06-14-2011, 05:18 AM
Force = mass x acceleration.

Ergo because Rafa gets more pace and spin from a much lighter racket, his acceleration must be considerably greater.

Ipso facto, even if his pace and spin were the same as Federer's, he would necessarily be generating more racket head speed to accomplish this.

QED, and you're welcome. ;)

Not QED. You are assuming Nadal hits with greater or equal force to Federer, which you have not proven, therefore your "proof" is irrelevant

President
06-14-2011, 05:38 AM
I think Igor Andreev has both of them beat, his forehand is just monstrous in terms of pace and spin and he is a very muscular individual.

On topic, I think its got to be Nadal but Federer has great racquet-head speed as well. But for Nadal to get that much spin AND good pace his racquet-head speed must be very high.

jackson vile
06-14-2011, 08:48 AM
i think if they both held the exact same racket with exact weight/balance, federer would swing faster because he's using a 13 oz racket right now and is close to the speed that nadal is at with a 11 oz.



I agree, Federer would swing faster if this were an alternate reality.

sureshs
06-14-2011, 08:52 AM
Yes, exactly. Since the mass of your racquet and the mass of the ball do not change no matter how fast you swing your racquet or how fast the incoming ball is

Not true, but it is OK for non-relativistic speeds.

sureshs
06-14-2011, 08:59 AM
You know there's something bothering me BreakPoint. I was always taught in physics that without force you cannot create acceleration and a tennis ball certainly must accelerate when it leaves the racket.
And another thing just to confuse the issue is that a tennis ball has a lot of elasticity, the latent force within the structure of the ball.
Wherever it's coming from, there must be a force to create acceleration and you need acceleration to create the force.
I have to go to bed now but let me think more about it and we'll continue this later.
This isn't as simple as it seems.
Cheers.

There is no contradiction. In classical physics, both viewpoints are the same.

Conservation of linear momentum is a consequence of F=ma and the third law. Force exerted on one = - Force exerted on another (third law). So, change of momentum of one = - change of momentum of the other. So, net change is 0. The contact force acting for a small period of time (called an impulsive force) causes change of momentum (transfer of momentum if you will) to both bodies. Reason that people focus on momentum rather than force is that the force acts for a very small time and is not constant. It starts from 0 before contact, goes to a very high value during the impact, then falls to 0 when the bodies separate. It is very tough to calculate and use.

Fedex
06-14-2011, 10:42 AM
Ok BreakPoint and Sureshs. Here we go.

Elasticity in both the ball and the racket strings really complicates things because there are also forces inherent within the structures.

Let's assume, for example and for simplicity, that the ball is just a wooden sphere with no elasticity travelling at constant velocity and zero acceleration, and the racket head is just a solid wooden plate with no elasticity travelling at constant velocity and zero acceleration.
At point of contact, there are 3 scenarios:

1. the solid wooden ball and racket have equal and opposite momentum and they stick together at point of contact because, theoretically there's no elasticity, balanced deceleration and opposing forces occur and both racket and ball come to a standstill.

2. the solid wooden ball has a greater and opposite momentum to the racket and they stick together at point of contact because, theoretically there's no elasticity, unbalanced deceleration occurs causing a reversing force in the opposite direction and ball and racket would accelerate or recoil backwards.

3. the solid wooden ball has a lesser and opposite momentum to the racket and they stick together at point of contact because, theoretically there's no elasticity, unbalanced deceleration occurs causing a forward force and the ball and racket move forwards.

The point I'm making is you can't have momentum transfer without an accompanying acceleration or deceleration and force to cause that.
And then when we add the elasticity of both ball and racket, now things get really complicated.

jonnythan
06-14-2011, 10:47 AM
Force = mass x acceleration.

Ergo because Rafa gets more pace and spin from a much lighter racket, his acceleration must be considerably greater.

Ipso facto, even if his pace and spin were the same as Federer's, he would necessarily be generating more racket head speed to accomplish this.

QED, and you're welcome. ;)

No, this is completely incorrect. I hope you know that.

sureshs
06-14-2011, 11:14 AM
Ok BreakPoint and Sureshs. Here we go.

Elasticity in both the ball and the racket strings really complicates things because there are also forces inherent within the structures.

Let's assume, for example and for simplicity, that the ball is just a wooden sphere with no elasticity travelling at constant velocity and zero acceleration, and the racket head is just a solid wooden plate with no elasticity travelling at constant velocity and zero acceleration.
At point of contact, there are 3 scenarios:

1. the solid wooden ball and racket have equal and opposite momentum and they stick together at point of contact because, theoretically there's no elasticity, balanced deceleration and opposing forces occur and both racket and ball come to a standstill.

2. the solid wooden ball has a greater and opposite momentum to the racket and they stick together at point of contact because, theoretically there's no elasticity, unbalanced deceleration occurs causing a reversing force in the opposite direction and ball and racket would accelerate or recoil backwards.

3. the solid wooden ball has a lesser and opposite momentum to the racket and they stick together at point of contact because, theoretically there's no elasticity, unbalanced deceleration occurs causing a forward force and the ball and racket move forwards.

The point I'm making is you can't have momentum transfer without an accompanying acceleration or deceleration and force to cause that.
And then when we add the elasticity of both ball and racket, now things get really complicated.

Correct. If the initial net momentum is 0, then it will be 0 after the collision. Since the bodies stick together (called a complete inelastic collision), they must come to rest (at least in the horizontal plane).

These are modeled as if the bodies have a joint spring which is compressed from both sides. In an elastic collision, the spring compresses, then expands. In a purely inelastic collision, the spring compresses and stays compressed. Energy is always lost in such a collision. This is the principle of car crumple zone design. After a collision, the bodies are designed to stick together, absorbing the energy, and not passing it on to the passengers.

Fedex
06-14-2011, 11:30 AM
Very interesting Sureshs. I like the model of the compressed springs.
Really helps to understand the elasticity side of things.

sureshs
06-14-2011, 11:45 AM
Very interesting Sureshs. I like the model of the compressed springs.
Really helps to understand the elasticity side of things.

If that excites you, there is more in store. Do you know how topspin is put on the ball by the strings? TW professor has a model for that. It is not like people think that a tangential force will start spinning the ball. It is not obvious. I don't think a perfectly inelastic sphere can be set spinning by a tangential force.

It is modeled by two springs which connect the ball to the strings - one upper and one lower. During the deformation period (dwell time), it is modeled as if the upper spring is compressed more than the lower spring as the strings pass over the ball. This is what produces the topspin, by spinning the ball from the lower to the upper side.

BreakPoint
06-14-2011, 11:50 AM
Not true, but it is OK for non-relativistic speeds.
I'm assuming no one is able to swing their racquet nor hit a tennis ball anywhere near the speed of light. Pretty safe assumption, don't you think? :???:

sureshs
06-14-2011, 11:52 AM
I'm assuming no one is able to swing their racquet nor hit a tennis ball anywhere near the speed of light. Pretty safe assumption, don't you think? :???:

Not in the case of the GOAT.

jonnythan
06-14-2011, 11:54 AM
I'm assuming no one is able to swing their racquet nor hit a tennis ball anywhere near the speed of light. Pretty safe assumption, don't you think? :???:

Speak for yourself, amateur.

Fedex
06-14-2011, 02:50 PM
If that excites you, there is more in store. Do you know how topspin is put on the ball by the strings? TW professor has a model for that. It is not like people think that a tangential force will start spinning the ball. It is not obvious. I don't think a perfectly inelastic sphere can be set spinning by a tangential force.

It is modeled by two springs which connect the ball to the strings - one upper and one lower. During the deformation period (dwell time), it is modeled as if the upper spring is compressed more than the lower spring as the strings pass over the ball. This is what produces the topspin, by spinning the ball from the lower to the upper side.

That's really interesting and very complex.
And what about sidespin?
I read the theory for that on a football and it is very complex.
There's a critical speed and spin which makes the ball accelerate half way on it's trajectory!
See Roberto Carlos - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb2qykj6_ZU
If you don't reach that then the ball dies.
I'll try and find the theory link for you.
It is fascinating.

sureshs
06-14-2011, 02:54 PM
I think the poll results have been skewed by the irrational exuberance of Fed fans.

Smasher08
06-14-2011, 04:04 PM
No, this is completely incorrect. I hope you know that.

Yawn. See posts 105 - 106 for some accurate commentary, sockpuppet.

Smasher08
06-14-2011, 04:14 PM
The loopier trajectory of Nadal's shots means his balls have to travel slower to stay in.

Uh-huh. You clearly don't have the slightest clue about what topspin does, now do you?

A friendly suggestion: Maybe you should read up a little before making troll posts.

Smasher08
06-14-2011, 04:50 PM
A ball traveling at a constant velocity or decelerating (as it does as it travels across the net and even more after it bounces) has no acceleration, so since Force = mass x acceleration, it also has no force.

Actually, a decelerating ball has negative acceleration. But you'd know that, right?

You need force to get the racquet up to speed, but once it's up to speed, you no longer need any force to keep it moving at the same speed. That's when momentum takes over.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Oh and btw, since you clearly need it pointed out to you, what gets the racket up to speed is a little something called "acceleration".

Better luck next time, Breakpoint.

You can get the same final velocity by high acceleration over a short distance or a low acceleration over a long distance.

In the abstract perhaps, but what we're talking about here is a racket behing held by a human arm: in the real world a slow accelerator won't travel the distance required to match the fast accelerator's velocity.

And roughly speaking, acceleration and velocity are quite arguably interchangeable with the concept of racket head speed.

jonnythan
06-14-2011, 05:12 PM
Yawn. See posts 105 - 106 for some accurate commentary, sockpuppet.

Sock puppet? Seriously? Google my username and see how prolific I am on various boards, then say that again. Hell, go to jonnythan.com.

Smasher08
06-14-2011, 05:23 PM
Well then perhaps in the future you should contribute something substantive.

You sure sounded to me like someone's sockpuppet.

jonnythan
06-14-2011, 05:44 PM
Well then perhaps in the future you should contribute something substantive.

You sure sounded to me like someone's sockpuppet.

Wow, I'm sorry my single line of text informing you that your statement is wrong sounded like someone else.

I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, so I kept my reply short instead of launching into a discussion of the physics (which suresh has unsurprisingly been taking care of anyway).

I sincerely beg your pardon.

BreakPoint
06-14-2011, 08:27 PM
Uh-huh. You clearly don't have the slightest clue about what topspin does, now do you?

A friendly suggestion: Maybe you should read up a little before making troll posts.
Well, at least it's only topspin that I don't have the slightest clue about. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have the slightest clue about anything. :oops:

Spin makes the ball travel slower, not faster. Flat balls travel faster because all of its energy goes into velocity of the ball instead of rotating the ball.

Anyone who thinks that loopy topspin shots that go 10 feet over the net travel faster than flat shots that are crushed and travel only 2 feet over the net has never played tennis before.

BreakPoint
06-14-2011, 08:30 PM
Actually, a decelerating ball has negative acceleration. But you'd know that, right?



Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Oh and btw, since you clearly need it pointed out to you, what gets the racket up to speed is a little something called "acceleration".

Better luck next time, Breakpoint.



In the abstract perhaps, but what we're talking about here is a racket behing held by a human arm: in the real world a slow accelerator won't travel the distance required to match the fast accelerator's velocity.

And roughly speaking, acceleration and velocity are quite arguably interchangeable with the concept of racket head speed.
I see that you were no physics major despite the fact that everything being discussed in this thread is high school level physics.

2Hare
06-14-2011, 09:07 PM
After watching it dozens of slow mo forehand vids by Federer and Nadal on youtube, it's obvious Nadal has faster head speed in general, but not by a lot. I'm way more of a Federer fan than Nadal, but I know what I saw.

I know Nadal lead his aeropro drive to a much higher swing weight. but my personal experience with aero pro drive compared to 6.1 tour is that it does go through air in the direction parallel to the racket quite a bit faster, but around the same as 6.1 at the direction perpendicular to the racket. So that's why federer has faster RHS for serve, but less for topspins.

Fintft
02-01-2013, 05:23 PM
Hi,

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2013/01/c.../#.UQwqtx1bNes

Law of Conservation of Momentum:
What that means is that the two momentum (of the racket and the ball, after the impact) have to be equal and with a heavier racket, the ball's speed will be increased, while the racket will not slow down as much (being more stable in your hands, as opposed to lighter frames).

Now that got me thinking? Which one of the two would be affected more?
The crux of the problem being:

1. Would we be hitting much harder with a heavier racket?
or
2. Would the heavier racket be drastically more stable?

What's your guess?

So, I've dusted off my rusty physics (ahem, googled it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision) and the answer is:

Ive done some calculations (based on the equations bellow) and it seems that by adding 100g to a 500g racket:

2. Wed be hitting about 18% harder and the heavier racket(by 100g) would be about 13% more stable.

A bit more realistic calculations, with the ball at around 60g and considering that the pros hit in average around 75-85 mph and the hardest at around 100 mph, so they probably are able to swing the racket faster, say at 10 m/s:

Example A:
Ball: mass = 0.06 kg , velocity = 30 m/s (around 60 mph)
Racket: mass = 0.5 kg, velocity = -10 m/s

After collision:
Ball: velocity = -41.4 m/s (about 93 mph)
Racket: velocity = - 1.42 m/s (The racket continues to swing forward at around 73% of the original speed)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Example B:
Ball: mass = 0.06 kg , velocity = 30 m/s (around 60 mph)
Racket: mass = 0.6 kg, velocity = -10 m/s

After collision:
Ball: velocity = -50 m/s (around 100 mph an increase of 18% when hitting with the heavier racket)
Racket: velocity = -2.7 m/s (The heavier racket continues to swing forward at around 86% of the original speed. Hence more stable, less impact on the arm and inducing longer swings/easier to go more through the ball as opposed to coming over too soon)


Equations
One-dimensional Newtonian


Consider two particles, denoted by subscripts 1 and 2. Let m1 and m2 be the masses, u1 and u2 the velocities before collision, and v1and v2 the velocities after collision.
The conservation of the total momentum demands that the total momentum before the collision is the same as the total momentum after the collision, and is expressed by the equation

m1u1 +m2u2 = m1v1+m2v2

Likewise, the conservation of the total kinetic energy is expressed by the equation

m1u1u1/2 +m2u2u2/2= m1v1v1/2+m2v2v2/2

These equations may be solved directly to find vi when ui are known or vice versa. However, the algebra involved can be cumbersome[dubious discuss]. An alternative solution is to first change the frame of reference such that one of the known velocities is zero. The unknown velocities in the new frame of reference can then be determined and followed by a conversion back to the original frame of reference to reach the same result. Once one of the unknown velocities is determined, the other can be found by symmetry.
Solving these simultaneous equations for vi we get:

v1= (u1(m1-m2)+2m2u2)/(m1+m2)

v2=(u2(m2-m1)+2m1u1)/(m1+m2)


HTH,
Fintft@yahoo.com

Sid_Vicious
02-01-2013, 06:25 PM
Hi,

http://www.tennis.com/gear/2013/01/c.../#.UQwqtx1bNes

Law of Conservation of Momentum:
What that means is that the two momentum (of the racket and the ball, after the impact) have to be equal and with a heavier racket, the ball's speed will be increased, while the racket will not slow down as much (being more stable in your hands, as opposed to lighter frames).

Now that got me thinking? Which one of the two would be affected more?
The crux of the problem being:

1. Would we be hitting much harder with a heavier racket?
or
2. Would the heavier racket be drastically more stable?

What's your guess?

So, I've dusted off my rusty physics (ahem, googled it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision) and the answer is:

I’ve done some calculations (based on the equations bellow) and it seems that by adding 100g to a 500g racket:

2. We’d be hitting about 18% harder and the heavier racket(by 100g) would be about 13% more stable.

A bit more realistic calculations, with the ball at around 60g and considering that the pros hit in average around 75-85 mph and the hardest at around 100 mph, so they probably are able to swing the racket faster, say at 10 m/s:

Example A:
Ball: mass = 0.06 kg , velocity = 30 m/s (around 60 mph)
Racket: mass = 0.5 kg, velocity = -10 m/s

After collision:
Ball: velocity = -41.4 m/s (about 93 mph)
Racket: velocity = - 1.42 m/s (The racket continues to swing forward at around 73% of the original speed)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Example B:
Ball: mass = 0.06 kg , velocity = 30 m/s (around 60 mph)
Racket: mass = 0.6 kg, velocity = -10 m/s

After collision:
Ball: velocity = -50 m/s (around 100 mph an increase of 18% when hitting with the heavier racket)
Racket: velocity = -2.7 m/s (The heavier racket continues to swing forward at around 86% of the original speed. Hence more stable, less impact on the arm and inducing longer swings/easier to go more through the ball as opposed to coming over too soon)


Equations
One-dimensional Newtonian


Consider two particles, denoted by subscripts 1 and 2. Let m1 and m2 be the masses, u1 and u2 the velocities before collision, and v1and v2 the velocities after collision.
The conservation of the total momentum demands that the total momentum before the collision is the same as the total momentum after the collision, and is expressed by the equation

m1u1 +m2u2 = m1v1+m2v2

Likewise, the conservation of the total kinetic energy is expressed by the equation

m1u1u1/2 +m2u2u2/2= m1v1v1/2+m2v2v2/2

These equations may be solved directly to find vi when ui are known or vice versa. However, the algebra involved can be cumbersome[dubious – discuss]. An alternative solution is to first change the frame of reference such that one of the known velocities is zero. The unknown velocities in the new frame of reference can then be determined and followed by a conversion back to the original frame of reference to reach the same result. Once one of the unknown velocities is determined, the other can be found by symmetry.
Solving these simultaneous equations for vi we get:

v1= (u1(m1-m2)+2m2u2)/(m1+m2)

v2=(u2(m2-m1)+2m1u1)/(m1+m2)


HTH,
Fintft@yahoo.com

http://thumbs.newschoolers.com/index.php?src=http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110721075802/glee/images/7/73/Genius-new.gif&size=200x300

President
02-01-2013, 06:34 PM
How the hell did Federer win this poll? Roger has amazing racquet head speed but Nadal has more than anyone else (barring maybe Andreev).

Fintft
02-02-2013, 07:14 AM
Lol thanks!

The is not mine (see the link) and besides the impact is not total elastic, but I believe only around 85% according to USTA...

Finally my comments should have read:

"I’ve done some calculations (based on the equations bellow) and it seems that by adding 100g to a 500g racket:

2. We’d be hitting about 18% harder and the heavier racket(by 100g) would be about 13% more stable.

A bit more realistic calculations, with the ball at around 60g and considering that the pros hit in average around 75-85 mph and the hardest at around 100 mph, so they probably are able to swing the racket faster, say at 10 m/s:

Example A:
Ball: mass = 0.06 kg , velocity = 30 m/s (around 60 mph)
Racket: mass = 0.5 kg, velocity = -10 m/s

After collision:
Ball: velocity = -41.4 m/s (about 93 mph)
Racket: velocity = - 1.42 m/s (The racket continues to swing forward at around 14% of the original speed)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Example B:
Ball: mass = 0.06 kg , velocity = 30 m/s (around 60 mph)
Racket: mass = 0.6 kg, velocity = -10 m/s

After collision:
Ball: velocity = -50 m/s (around 100 mph an increase of 18% when hitting with the heavier racket)
Racket: velocity = -2.7 m/s (The heavier racket continues to swing forward at around 27% of the original speed. Hence more stable, less impact on the arm and inducing longer swings/easier to go more through the ball as opposed to coming over too soon)"

Fintft
02-02-2013, 07:20 AM
How does one edit posts?

"The science is not mine (see the link) and besides the collision is not totally elastic, but I believe only around 85% according to USTA..."

That's in light with this youtoube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaZtx...QZFTvtJUheX4LQ

tudwell
02-02-2013, 09:21 AM
How the hell did Federer win this poll? Roger has amazing racquet head speed but Nadal has more than anyone else (barring maybe Andreev).

I don't know about the Andreev bit, but I agree that Nadal can get more racquet-head speed than Federer, especially on the inside out forehand. Rafa just blasts that. If we took the average of their groundstrokes, though, I'm not sure I could pick between them.

zagor
02-02-2013, 09:28 AM
Rafa IMO .

Fintft
02-02-2013, 09:54 AM
I don't know about the Andreev bit, but I agree that Nadal can get more racquet-head speed than Federer, especially on the inside out forehand. Rafa just blasts that. If we took the average of their groundstrokes, though, I'm not sure I could pick between them.

I would be curious to know the actual numbers in terms of raquet head speed.
Anyhow if we just look at the end results, i.e.:

a) The RPMs of the balls. Didn't they measure Rafa's as to being way higher?
And that can't be attributed only to his western grip, nor strings, can't it?

b) The average ground strokes: if what people posted here is true and Rafa's is higher, then considering that he's also hitting with a lighter frame (see my Netwon law of momentum calculations above), then we can infer that his raquet head speed has to be higher.

Clay lover
02-03-2013, 03:29 AM
Typical talk tennis for you. Roger Federer wins any poll. It is ironic that, out of the people who voted Federer, I could spot at least 20 names who are notorious Nadal haters.

This is what emotion does to a person.

Le Master
09-06-2013, 07:42 PM
Here's the one I referred to in my previous post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1jor57AFsxU#t=418s
This forehand is around 98 mph according to calculations.
Thanks for measuring the speed of this one; I've always wanted to know.

Nadalgaenger
09-06-2013, 07:43 PM
Nadal's racquet is lighter but I would still give Fed the edge (in his prime at least)...

DeShaun
09-06-2013, 08:48 PM
Federer has more racquet head speed. Nadal's game improvement racquet
is what gives him extra spin.

Federer has the most explosive racquet head speed in the history of the sport. This is why he has the best forehand in history, no one comes close to his combination of spin and pace. The best forehands Nadal has ever hit in his life are about equal to the pace of Federer's average rally forehand. This is why Nadal avoids Federer's forehand, he knows he can't compete in a forehand to forehand battle.

Guaranteed, Federer has hit more winners with just his forehand than Nadal has hit off both wings combined in their careers.

We have not seen Vines' stroke but they say is was highly explosive. I agree, though, Federer whips through his forehands faster than Rafa IMO.

90's Clay
09-06-2013, 09:00 PM
Yea I dont understand the comparison here. Nadal's game and racket is designed for topspin.. Hence the light racket and loosely strung strings

If Nadal wanted to crank shots like Federer or Sampras Im sure he would have a long time ago. But in this era its better to keep the routine he has going

BrooklynNY
09-06-2013, 09:06 PM
Yea I dont understand the comparison here. Nadal's game and racket is designed for topspin.. Hence the light racket and loosely strung strings

If Nadal wanted to crank shots like Federer or Sampras Im sure he would have a long time ago. But in this era its better to keep the routine he has going

Clearly, you've never seen him play live. He is cranking the ball

This is a no brainer, Nadal

phnx90
09-06-2013, 09:18 PM
Yea I dont understand the comparison here. Nadal's game and racket is designed for topspin.. Hence the light racket and loosely strung strings

If Nadal wanted to crank shots like Federer or Sampras Im sure he would have a long time ago. But in this era its better to keep the routine he has going

Roger strings at a lower tension than does Rafa.

firepanda
09-06-2013, 09:31 PM
Must Federer win every poll? Here's a quick physics proof.

They hit the ball at similar speeds, right? A quick look at winner statistics will tell you that. Federer has a slightly faster ball, but it's all pretty much in the same range. The difference is that Nadal gets oodles more spin.

A rotating object has momentum, just like a moving object. This means that Nadal's balls have more momentum than Federer's. Ignoring small differences in how they take the ball, Nadal will imparts a greater impulse upon his balls, changing the rotational momentum as well as the linear momentum.

Impulse = force x time

The amount of time their racquets are in contact with the ball will be similar. They both string around 55 pounds, maybe Federer slightly looser. Therefore, Nadal imparts more force on the ball than Federer.

Force = mass x acceleration

Nadal's racquet is lighter than Federer's. More force divided by less mass means that he gets greater acceleration, or in other terms, racquet head speed.

TL;DR They hit at similar speeds, but Nadal imparts more spin, so needs to put more force into his shots. This means more speed, particularly with a lighter racquet.

For the record, I think Federer has the best forehand of all time, and thus better than Nadal. The fact he gets less racquet speed doesn't mean it's worse or affect his mind boggling precision.

abmk
09-06-2013, 09:34 PM
^^

no, prime to prime they don't hit at similar speeds. federer's speed on an average is significantly faster while rafa gets significantly more topspin .

BeGreat
09-07-2013, 07:12 AM
why are you taking a poll on this? the answer is one of a 'fact'. you can't take a poll on issues like that.
it's like asking "what's gravity? Is it a force? Is it an apple? Is it a sex act?"

jg153040
09-07-2013, 07:18 AM
Must Federer win every poll? Here's a quick physics proof.

They hit the ball at similar speeds, right? A quick look at winner statistics will tell you that. Federer has a slightly faster ball, but it's all pretty much in the same range. The difference is that Nadal gets oodles more spin.

A rotating object has momentum, just like a moving object. This means that Nadal's balls have more momentum than Federer's. Ignoring small differences in how they take the ball, Nadal will imparts a greater impulse upon his balls, changing the rotational momentum as well as the linear momentum.

Impulse = force x time

The amount of time their racquets are in contact with the ball will be similar. They both string around 55 pounds, maybe Federer slightly looser. Therefore, Nadal imparts more force on the ball than Federer.

Force = mass x acceleration

Nadal's racquet is lighter than Federer's. More force divided by less mass means that he gets greater acceleration, or in other terms, racquet head speed.

TL;DR They hit at similar speeds, but Nadal imparts more spin, so needs to put more force into his shots. This means more speed, particularly with a lighter racquet.

For the record, I think Federer has the best forehand of all time, and thus better than Nadal. The fact he gets less racquet speed doesn't mean it's worse or affect his mind boggling precision.

I guess this is correct. If the assumption that their ball is similar speed and Nadal has lighter racket is correct, Nadal has to have faster swing.

But do you know for a fact that peak vs peak their ball speeds are the same on average?

MLB_MOB
09-07-2013, 07:20 AM
Fed's racket is just designed for hitting winners easier compared to Nadal's racket. It should be easier to get faster racket head speed with Fed's racket. Nadal's racket is designed for spinning the ball more. SInce Nadal has faster racket head speed, If Nadal used Federer's racket his shots would go for winners easier than Fed's shots do now.

If Fed used Nadal's racket he'd struggle to put the ball away, and he wouldnt get as much Spin as Nadal now does,his shots would just sit up, as he has less racket head speed, so his shots would be pretty average.

And what happens when Nadal cannot even hit the center of the string bed in a 6.1....Nadal uses the Aero Pro because it is the best for his game. Arguing that the 6.1 is a better offensive racquet is utterly ridiculous. It is about personal preference and liking the feel of a racquet, so that it can best assist you on court. No friggin way the 6.1 benefits Nadal in any way, shape, or form.