PDA

View Full Version : What would produce a heavy ball a heavy racquet or a light racquet?


Dimitrov
07-24-2011, 11:26 PM
Say for instance if you were using the blx six one tour vs aero pro drive and you had the same racquet head speed with the windsheild wiper motion and a western grip? And tell me why.

vincent_tennis
07-25-2011, 03:58 AM
Technique.

larry10s
07-25-2011, 04:49 AM
Say for instance if you were using the blx six one tour vs aero pro drive and you had the same racquet head speed with the windsheild wiper motion and a western grip? And tell me why.

i think you would agree all pros in the top 100 hit a heavy ball
yet the range of weights of their racquets varies
its the indian not the arrow
its the players technique not the racquet

meowmix
07-25-2011, 05:10 AM
Technique. I'm sure that somebody (with better knowledge of physics than me) will chime in about the physics of the thing. Honestly... it doesn't matter. If you can't hit a heavy ball with your current racket, you can't hit a heavy ball with any racket.

tata
07-25-2011, 05:26 AM
Hmm but most of us are nowhere near the top 100. So i'm leaning to racquet weight. I used to swing a exo3 graphite with a swingweight of 334 or so. My hitting partners had a harder time returning/controlling my balls than they do now after toning down to the exo3 tour. The thing was just too heavy to whip for someone of my size (though rewarding on full swings)

dgoran
07-25-2011, 05:45 AM
Swingweight...

Steve Huff
07-25-2011, 06:01 AM
The 2 guys of the ones I play tennis with that hit the heaviest balls use: 1) Prince EXO 3 Ignite w/PSGD 16 at around 60#, and 3) Wilson Triad Hammer 4.0 OS w/Luxilon ALU Power Rough 16L @ 59#. I'm guessing it's in their swing technique, although the guy with the Ignite hits much flatter strokes. His ball can almost knock your racket out of your hand if you aren't prepared.

Gasolina
07-25-2011, 06:02 AM
My stock RQiS XL couldn't create that heavy shot. Put 6 grams to the 3&9 and bingo!

And when I mean heavy, I don't mean just normal topspin. The heavy topspin shots are the ones that go deep, dive down at a sharp angle, and kicks up.

asifallasleep
07-25-2011, 06:07 AM
Wilson PS88 is so heavy and has a huge sweet spot that it's almost impossible not to hit a heavy ball every time. With good technique you'll be blasting the ball as if out of a canon. This is also the one racquet you can't choke with. The weight demands that you swing. So if you're ever in a situation when you tense up and normally would dink the ball back, forget about it with this stick. Because of the weight you can't even dink the ball. Even a dink has some pace, lol. It has been discontinued but they still can be found by members selling them on here.

fuzz nation
07-25-2011, 06:19 AM
Hmm but most of us are nowhere near the top 100. So i'm leaning to racquet weight. I used to swing a exo3 graphite with a swingweight of 334 or so. My hitting partners had a harder time returning/controlling my balls than they do now after toning down to the exo3 tour. The thing was just too heavy to whip for someone of my size (though rewarding on full swings)

That's a tricky issue in itself, though. Your "graphite" is much more stiff than you "tour", so it's going to have inherently more pop at contact than the softer alternative. While your tour might not put the same zip on the ball from the same swing, it might actually give you a substantially greater measure of control with your shots and allow you to swing bigger without putting half your strokes into the fence.

What I'm getting at is that a stiffer frame might seem to have more power, but a softer racquet may allow you to play with more power, depending on the racquets in the comparison. I suppose that's why we demo.

I usually feel as though I need "enough" heft in my gear to really work the ball well and produce a heavy sort of shot. I've got a pair of mids that are especially heavy (13.4 oz.) and also quite soft and dead. So heavy that I really need to be in top form to use them well, but when I am, they seem to have the greatest potential to crank out super-heavy shots.

My go-to racquets are almost an ounce lighter than those tree branches, but they make enough weight of shot for me when I swing them right - back we go to the argument behind technique. No arguing with good mechanics, but I've also made efforts to get along with a few lighter racquets and compared with my regular gear, the lighter stuff seems to have a governor on the peak of its output. Even if I swing harder, there doesn't seem to be any more juice available. That's just me and again, that's why we demo.

movdqa
07-25-2011, 06:28 AM
If you look at the top three players (they hit heavy balls), they have high swingweights (355 and up) even though the static weights of their racquets varies quite a bit.

There are lots of pros with swingweights that are quite a bit lower in the 300-330 range and I think that just about everyone here would be happy to have their games.

TennisCJC
07-25-2011, 06:47 AM
Say for instance if you were using the blx six one tour vs aero pro drive and you had the same racquet head speed with the windsheild wiper motion and a western grip? And tell me why.

My opinion is the blx 6.1 t would produce the heavier ball as it has a slightly hi-er SW. I think SW is the most critical factor in producing a heavy ball (lots of speed and spin). This assumes the swing speed is roughly the same with both rackets. ATP players seem to be consistently over 350 g in SW and WTA players are consistently over 330+ and frequently over 350+ too.

Federer and Nadal both add lead to increase SW over 350+ grams to these rackets.

Boricua
07-25-2011, 06:58 AM
Depends also on each persons strength, stamina and technique. If the racket is too heavy some persons wont be able to generate racket speed and move the racket fast. Thus, the shots wont have pace or land short. Also, technique could be affected in a negative way by trying too hard to move the racket.

BobFL
07-25-2011, 07:41 AM
Light racquet cannot create heavy ball. Nobody beats physics.

Fuji
07-25-2011, 08:38 AM
Last night I decided to bust out my PSC6.1 that's leaded to 14.0oz and I served 18 Aces. During all my service games in 3 sets I only had to do more then a put away volley once....

It had my opponent laughing at how heavy my shots were! When you have a stick that heavy with even moderate technique and placement, you'll more then likely get a winner.

-Fuji

goran_ace
07-25-2011, 11:51 AM
Last night I decided to bust out my PSC6.1 that's leaded to 14.0oz and I served 18 Aces. During all my service games in 3 sets I only had to do more then a put away volley once....

It had my opponent laughing at how heavy my shots were! When you have a stick that heavy with even moderate technique and placement, you'll more then likely get a winner.

-Fuji

if you play so well with it then why don't you use that leaded up PSC 6.1 as your regular racket?

CDestroyer
07-25-2011, 11:56 AM
Heavy swingweight = Heavy ball

goran_ace
07-25-2011, 12:01 PM
Heavy swingweight + fast swingspeed + clean contact= Heavy ball

there. fixed it.

meowmix
07-25-2011, 01:58 PM
Light racquet cannot create heavy ball. Nobody beats physics.

Nobody can beat physics... but you're forgetting about the second half of the equation- velocity. If you can swing a lighter racket much faster... mass is negated.

LeeD
07-25-2011, 02:09 PM
Racket weight is important.
Racket swingweight is important.
Racket aerodynamics is important.
Ability of the player to swing fast enough to hit a ball his opponent doesn't like is the main factor of all.
Why swing slower with a lighter racket?
Why not hit the ball where your opponent doesn't like it?
Heck, why not hit the FIRST ball where your opponent doesn't like it, so you don't have to fetch like a retrieving dog?

Fuji
07-25-2011, 02:17 PM
if you play so well with it then why don't you use that leaded up PSC 6.1 as your regular racket?

No real backup to it! I've only got one PSC6.1 and they are hard to come by in my grip size.

I love playing with it though, last night I just busted it out for giggles, and it worked incredibly well. If I could find another one it would be without a doubt my main racket.

-Fuji

BobFL
07-25-2011, 06:53 PM
Nobody can beat physics... but you're forgetting about the second half of the equation- velocity. If you can swing a lighter racket much faster... mass is negated.

To a degree - yes. However, after a certain point it doesn't matter how fast you swing because the incoming ball carries so much torque/speed that the racquet speed of a light racquet cannot offset it.

LeeD
07-25-2011, 07:04 PM
My problem comes when I use a heavier racket, but then I don't swing as fast, and I can't swing as LONG.
So a lighter racket is one cure, or a younger body.
At 62 heading for the vanishing point, a younger body only exists in my g/f's body, so reality says lighter racket, hit more aggressively, don't fetch like a dog for a hard hitter.

dozu
07-25-2011, 07:05 PM
simple physics - heavy racket heavy ball... the limit is how heavy a racket you can swing for 2 hours without getting tired.

now, if Date Krumm can swing the 13.5 oz war club, all you sissys should be able to swing at least 12 ?

LeeD
07-25-2011, 07:10 PM
And if an old NatalieCoughlan can swim as fast as the top younger women, can YOU do the same?

dozu
07-25-2011, 07:12 PM
good question Lee, how is the dry wall going?

vincent_tennis
07-25-2011, 07:13 PM
(1/2)mv^2
10 characters.

rjw
07-25-2011, 07:16 PM
3a month ago when I started my comeback, I was swinging a 10 oz stick, now I'm swinging an 11.3 oz stick, but not near as fast.....I hope to build the speed back up and move on from there....my stokes are old schol, but a can hit an occasional heavy ball....so there's hope

Gasolina
07-25-2011, 09:34 PM
simple physics - heavy racket heavy ball... the limit is how heavy a racket you can swing for 2 hours without getting tired.

now, if Date Krumm can swing the 13.5 oz war club, all you sissys should be able to swing at least 12 ?
To be fair, kimiko's shot is one of the flattest and one of the slowest swings out there, so her club really suits her game.

I can't imagine doing a windshield wiper forehand for 2+ hours in a 13 ouncer. My shoulder would just rip apart from the recoil.

vincent_tennis
07-25-2011, 10:38 PM
To be fair, kimiko's shot is one of the flattest and one of the slowest swings out there, so her club really suits her game.

I can't imagine doing a windshield wiper forehand for 2+ hours in a 13 ouncer. My shoulder would just rip apart from the recoil.

Recoil should be neglect-able if you;re swinging it at a relatively fast speed.

KenC
07-25-2011, 10:51 PM
If you want to hit a heavy ball, you have to be able to put your whole body in the shot. So, 75kg on average plus the weight of the racquet hitting the ball and you can see that the weight of the racquet is not much of a factor. Heavy feeling balls are hit with the body.

UCSF2012
07-25-2011, 10:52 PM
Go demo rackets

BobFL
07-25-2011, 11:04 PM
simple physics - heavy racket heavy ball... the limit is how heavy a racket you can swing for 2 hours without getting tired.

now, if Date Krumm can swing the 13.5 oz war club, all you sissys should be able to swing at least 12 ?

There is only one 'tiny' problem - she doesn't swing.

goran_ace
07-26-2011, 12:38 AM
To a degree - yes. However, after a certain point it doesn't matter how fast you swing because the incoming ball carries so much torque/speed that the racquet speed of a light racquet cannot offset it.

in theory, sure, but a tennis ball doesn't weigh all that much (~2 oz.) and it loses a lot of momentum in the air and after the bounce. a 5.0 player playing with a 9 oz. racket won't be bothered much a by 3.5 playing with a 13 oz racket swinging as hard as he can.

2Hare
07-26-2011, 02:29 AM
My opinion is the blx 6.1 t would produce the heavier ball as it has a slightly hi-er SW. I think SW is the most critical factor in producing a heavy ball (lots of speed and spin). This assumes the swing speed is roughly the same with both rackets. ATP players seem to be consistently over 350 g in SW and WTA players are consistently over 330+ and frequently over 350+ too.

Federer and Nadal both add lead to increase SW over 350+ grams to these rackets.

No, Federer's racket's swingweight is only about 340. blx 6.1 tour has heavy static weight, but its swingweight is not especially high compared to many other racquets.

IMO heavy balls are produced by stiff racquets for optimal energy transfer. Swingweight should be just heavy enough to allow maximum head speed. Heavy balls require fast swings. Because heavy racquet with low head speed will not hit heavy balls, just flatter balls.

dozu
07-26-2011, 05:44 AM
in theory, sure, but a tennis ball doesn't weigh all that much (~2 oz.) and it loses a lot of momentum in the air and after the bounce. a 5.0 player playing with a 9 oz. racket won't be bothered much a by 3.5 playing with a 13 oz racket swinging as hard as he can.

if a 5.0 with a 9 plays a 5.0 with a 13, my money is on the 13.

Avadia
07-26-2011, 06:30 AM
if a 5.0 with a 9 plays a 5.0 with a 13, my money is on the 13.

This statement sums it up for me. If players of equal strength, ability levels and good technique match up against each other, and one has a much higher swingweight racket than the other, the guy with the higher swingweight is going to be hitting the heavier ball, and he probably has a serious advantage over the other guy. When you control for different variables, I think you find that it really is swingweight that determines the heaviness of the ball. Strings, technique, etc. can all help or hurt, but the swingweight of the racket is the ultimate determinant.

Not to say that hitting a heavy ball is all there is to tennis. But when you get up to 4.0 and above, it sure does help.

dozu
07-26-2011, 06:39 AM
If you want to hit a heavy ball, you have to be able to put your whole body in the shot. So, 75kg on average plus the weight of the racquet hitting the ball and you can see that the weight of the racquet is not much of a factor. Heavy feeling balls are hit with the body.

yes and no -

techniques being equal, a 200 lb del potro is gonna hit harder than a 150 lb davydenko.

but, it's still the racket/string that impacts the ball... think of an extreme case - delpo swings with 1oz racket, vs davy swinging a 12oz racket, who hits heavier?

there you go.

KenC
07-26-2011, 11:16 PM
...but, it's still the racket/string that impacts the ball... think of an extreme case - delpo swings with 1oz racket, vs davy swinging a 12oz racket, who hits heavier?

there you go.

Rather extreme case, no? Here's another one. Take a 6yo girl and give here a leaded up KPS88. Get ready for some really heavy balls because it is the racquet, not the person, that produces the heavy ball, right?

Think what you want, I routinely play with people hitting really heavy balls with all sorts of racquets from unmodified Pure Drives through leaded up BLX90s. What all have in common is the ability to step into their shots and really drive the ball. Good technique can produce a heavier ball with a lighter racquet than bad technique can with a heavier racquet.

0d1n
07-27-2011, 01:46 AM
Rather extreme case, no? Here's another one. Take a 6yo girl and give here a leaded up KPS88. Get ready for some really heavy balls because it is the racquet, not the person, that produces the heavy ball, right?

Think what you want, I routinely play with people hitting really heavy balls with all sorts of racquets from unmodified Pure Drives through leaded up BLX90s. What all have in common is the ability to step into their shots and really drive the ball. Good technique can produce a heavier ball with a lighter racquet than bad technique can with a heavier racquet.

You are obviously right. Also...if top 2-300 ATP pros are not limited by their stock radicals or pure drives I don't buy the 3.5-ers who need pro staff 88's or leaded up prestige mids to counter the "heavy balls" coming from their aunt Marie or uncle Bob's racquet.
I can understand preference for that feel...hell I prefer it as well, but that has nothing to do with how heavy the ball is. Nadal uses one of the lighter racquets on the tour and I expect his forehand to be one of the heavier to return.
I only wish I could hit balls as heavy as some of the ATP Pro players I've seen and really good 18 and under juniors I've seen or played who play with 300-ish grams (unstrung) racquets.

BreakPoint
07-27-2011, 02:44 AM
Nobody can beat physics... but you're forgetting about the second half of the equation- velocity. If you can swing a lighter racket much faster... mass is negated.
There are limitations. Mass is never negated.

For example, take a wiffle ball bat. No matter how fast you can swing it, you're not going to hit a home run out of AT&T Park off of a 90mph fastball.

Likewise, if you use a 4 oz. racquet you're not going to hit heavy balls no matter how fast you can swing it. The incoming ball would push back your racquet too much.

BreakPoint
07-27-2011, 02:50 AM
No, Federer's racket's swingweight is only about 340. blx 6.1 tour has heavy static weight, but its swingweight is not especially high compared to many other racquets.

IMO heavy balls are produced by stiff racquets for optimal energy transfer. Swingweight should be just heavy enough to allow maximum head speed. Heavy balls require fast swings. Because heavy racquet with low head speed will not hit heavy balls, just flatter balls.
Not true. You can swing a heavy racquet and a light racquet at the same slow speed and you'll find that the heavy racquet will produce more spin.

fuzz nation
07-27-2011, 05:55 AM
Not true. You can swing a heavy racquet and a light racquet at the same slow speed and you'll find that the heavy racquet will produce more spin.

Have to agree with this, only after several years of trial and error with different gear.

No, heavier racquets are not more appropriate for tennis players in general. Everyone has a comfort zone that works best for them and from the variety of threads we see around here, that can take some time and effort to figure out.

A local high school champion from a few years back could hit some of the heaviest shots I've seen in that "peer group" and he used those light 'n lively black/yellow Hyper Hammers (I think). Phenomenal technique that made his racquet choice appear to be pretty much irrelevant. Another champ used the nCode Tour 90 and had every shot in the book, including outstanding all-court skills.

Sure, there can be more potential to either "work" or simply direct the ball when swinging something at it that brings more inertia to the collision. Every player just needs to have gear that's "comfortably swing-able", but that needs to go along with solid technique. Sorry, I know - master of the obvious strikes again!!!

TennisCJC
07-27-2011, 07:06 AM
No, Federer's racket's swingweight is only about 340. blx 6.1 tour has heavy static weight, but its swingweight is not especially high compared to many other racquets.

IMO heavy balls are produced by stiff racquets for optimal energy transfer. Swingweight should be just heavy enough to allow maximum head speed. Heavy balls require fast swings. Because heavy racquet with low head speed will not hit heavy balls, just flatter balls.

It is well documented that Federer 6.1 T is customized with lead under the bumper and his SW is 350+ grams. There's a blog on TW that has pictures of about a dozen of his rackets at P1 shop with the bumpers off and they all have 2 strips of 1/4 lead tape across the top. Also, another site compared Fed racket to stock retail and the Fed racket has higher static weight and higher SW. Do some research and you can find them. Fed's static weight was 361 g with customization and overgrip - no dampener.

TennisCJC
07-27-2011, 07:21 AM
You are obviously right. Also...if top 2-300 ATP pros are not limited by their stock radicals or pure drives I don't buy the 3.5-ers who need pro staff 88's or leaded up prestige mids to counter the "heavy balls" coming from their aunt Marie or uncle Bob's racquet.
I can understand preference for that feel...hell I prefer it as well, but that has nothing to do with how heavy the ball is. Nadal uses one of the lighter racquets on the tour and I expect his forehand to be one of the heavier to return.
I only wish I could hit balls as heavy as some of the ATP Pro players I've seen and really good 18 and under juniors I've seen or played who play with 300-ish grams (unstrung) racquets.

Nadal does use a lighter racket but he does customize with lead under the bumper and his final SW is over 350 grams. Carlos Moya used a racket around 10.5-11 oz static weight but it was head heavy and his final SW was around 370 g. Williams sisters use light static weight too but again HH with SW over 350 g.

The vast majority of ATP pros have a SW over 350 g and WTA pros over 335 g. Many WTA pros are over SW 350 g too.

Einstein theory of tennis relativity FORCE = MASS * SPEED. In other words, how hard you hit it is the mass of the racket * the swing speed. You want to play with as heavy a racket as you can up to the point that it does not compromises your swing speed and ability to maneuver the racket. I suggest more players are hurting there games with light rackets than with heavy rackets. I'm in my mid 50s and my current racket is 11.8 oz, SW 331 G, and 4 pts HL, my previous racket was 12.5 oz, sw 338, and 8 pts HL. My wife is 5'4" tall, early 50s, and about 115 lbs. Her racket is 11.1 oz, SW 331, and 1 pt HL.

You don't want a racket that slows your swing significantly and you don't want a racket that you cannot maneuver, but you do want as heavy a racket as you can handle up to these thesholds.

You can not compensate with swing speed for lack of weight in many situations. Best example: you can not expect to return heavy serves by having a very fast swing speed. Even at lower levels, a good serve has too much pace to expect to rip it with a high swing speed and consistently time it well. The pros frequently return serves with smaller, more compact and slower swing speeds and this means you need some mass to absorb the impact and return the ball with a bit of pace. Volleys and slices also benefit enormously from mass as you have slower swing speed and need stability (more mass). Finally, when you do hit your normal topspin drive, it also benefits from mass as you don't have to swing as recklessly to generate the same pace and spin if you have a bit more mass.

Granted, rackets should be sized to the player and a 6 yr old child shouldn't play a 12.5 oz racket. But, anyone pass the age of 12 can handle a SW of 320 or more and would probably benefit enormously from playing a heavier racket. My personal minimum racket specs for 3.5+ level and above 10.5 oz or more, SW 320 or more, balance 4 HL or more HL, and flex 58-68.

thug the bunny
07-27-2011, 08:29 AM
Einstein theory of tennis relativity FORCE = MASS * SPEED. In other words, how hard you hit it is the mass of the racket * the swing speed

F = ma is from Newtonian mechanics, not from Einstein and has nothing to do with relativity. Also, 'm' and 'a' are the mass and acceleration of the object being accelerated, not the object causing the accleration.

However, mass*velocity defines the momentum of an object (p = mv), and if you approximate the hitting of a tennis ball to be an elastic collosion, then momentum must be conserved, so that the m*v of the racquet transfers fully to the m*v of the ball, meaning that, yes, a racquet with more mass will create a faster ball given the same swing speed.

Power Player
07-27-2011, 08:38 AM
There is no doubt to me after leading up my stick to 12.2 and 360SW that a heavier racquet hits a heavier ball. It is not really even a debate.

Nadal's stick is polarized so the static weight IS light for a pro, but it still swings in the 355 SW range. That is a lot of punishment on the ball from a guy who gets the most racquet head speed maybe ever.

Yes, there are young juniors..etc who hit hard with light sticks, but they also expend a ton of energy to do so, and if any of them do go pro, will most likely have their specs adjusted to a heavier SW since just by looking at pro specs you can see the overwhelming majority have done that. Almost every single pro uses a SW at 350 or higher..I believe it actually makes playing tennis easier and is something you discover through modding, which is not anything I ever did as a junior player.

red rook
07-27-2011, 10:19 AM
>>>What would produce a heavy ball a heavy racquet or a light racquet?<<<

So it seems that its not the weight, but the swingweight that is the most important racquet-induced factor determining heaviness?

Power Player
07-27-2011, 10:51 AM
>>>What would produce a heavy ball a heavy racquet or a light racquet?<<<

So it seems that its not the weight, but the swingweight that is the most important racquet-induced factor determining heaviness?

It is a major factor. If you can hit a heavy ball with a 320 SW, you will hit a heavier one with a 360SW. This is what most players learn when they get their sticks modded properly.

Like I said, I am not surprised young juniors use a lighter racquet and hit hard..they have the unlimited energy to swing out all the time. Pros are smart enough to swing out when needed and the high SW allows you to hit at 70-80% and still crush the ball until you force the easy sitter and can swing out.

TennisCJC
07-27-2011, 11:50 AM
F = ma is from Newtonian mechanics, not from Einstein and has nothing to do with relativity. Also, 'm' and 'a' are the mass and acceleration of the object being accelerated, not the object causing the accleration.

However, mass*velocity defines the momentum of an object (p = mv), and if you approximate the hitting of a tennis ball to be an elastic collosion, then momentum must be conserved, so that the m*v of the racquet transfers fully to the m*v of the ball, meaning that, yes, a racquet with more mass will create a faster ball given the same swing speed.

I was just trying to introduce a bit of humor but I am not a physics or math major. I am sure you are correct. I think we agree that assuming the swing speed is the same, the heavier racket produces a faster ball.

I don't have a formula to prove it, but I think a heavier racket at the same speed also produces more spin assuming other factors such as racket angle and upward swing path are the same.

TennisCJC
07-27-2011, 11:54 AM
>>>What would produce a heavy ball a heavy racquet or a light racquet?<<<

So it seems that its not the weight, but the swingweight that is the most important racquet-induced factor determining heaviness?

Agreed. And, pro research seems to support this. As mentioned above, Carlos Moya who has big bulging biceps and could handle at 13 oz racket used a very light but HH racket with a hi SW - around 370 G. He hit a heavy ball. William sisters are the same, they could easily swing heavy rackets but prefer lighter rackets with even or HH balance and 350+ SW.

I don't think even or HH is good though and prefer HL with hi SW.

The doubles players seem to use even higher SW but also almost always HL. I suggest they like HL so the racket feels quick at net and hi SW because blocking volleys becomes very stable, accurate and powerful with mass behind the ball.

0d1n
07-28-2011, 01:17 AM
You people coming up with "physics" and theory that I'm aware of already...keep "assuming same swing speed" ... ok ??
I'll continue "assuming" that the swing speed will be vastly different in that 3rd set for most "non top pros" if you give them a 360 SW racquet or a 315-330 sw racquet with comparable mass and balance.

vincent_tennis
07-28-2011, 04:16 AM
Nadal does use a lighter racket but he does customize with lead under the bumper and his final SW is over 350 grams. Carlos Moya used a racket around 10.5-11 oz static weight but it was head heavy and his final SW was around 370 g. Williams sisters use light static weight too but again HH with SW over 350 g.

The vast majority of ATP pros have a SW over 350 g and WTA pros over 335 g. Many WTA pros are over SW 350 g too.

Einstein theory of tennis relativity FORCE = MASS * SPEED. In other words, how hard you hit it is the mass of the racket * the swing speed. You want to play with as heavy a racket as you can up to the point that it does not compromises your swing speed and ability to maneuver the racket. I suggest more players are hurting there games with light rackets than with heavy rackets. I'm in my mid 50s and my current racket is 11.8 oz, SW 331 G, and 4 pts HL, my previous racket was 12.5 oz, sw 338, and 8 pts HL. My wife is 5'4" tall, early 50s, and about 115 lbs. Her racket is 11.1 oz, SW 331, and 1 pt HL.

You don't want a racket that slows your swing significantly and you don't want a racket that you cannot maneuver, but you do want as heavy a racket as you can handle up to these thesholds.

You can not compensate with swing speed for lack of weight in many situations. Best example: you can not expect to return heavy serves by having a very fast swing speed. Even at lower levels, a good serve has too much pace to expect to rip it with a high swing speed and consistently time it well. The pros frequently return serves with smaller, more compact and slower swing speeds and this means you need some mass to absorb the impact and return the ball with a bit of pace. Volleys and slices also benefit enormously from mass as you have slower swing speed and need stability (more mass). Finally, when you do hit your normal topspin drive, it also benefits from mass as you don't have to swing as recklessly to generate the same pace and spin if you have a bit more mass.

Granted, rackets should be sized to the player and a 6 yr old child shouldn't play a 12.5 oz racket. But, anyone pass the age of 12 can handle a SW of 320 or more and would probably benefit enormously from playing a heavier racket. My personal minimum racket specs for 3.5+ level and above 10.5 oz or more, SW 320 or more, balance 4 HL or more HL, and flex 58-68.

F= MA
Mass x Acceleration.

Power Player
07-28-2011, 06:31 AM
You people coming up with "physics" and theory that I'm aware of already...keep "assuming same swing speed" ... ok ??
I'll continue "assuming" that the swing speed will be vastly different in that 3rd set for most "non top pros" if you give them a 360 SW racquet or a 315-330 sw racquet with comparable mass and balance.

I will be honest, that assumption will vary for everyone. I did more than 3 sets last night and the SW of 360 was not an issue for me when it came to swing speed. You just have to prepare early enough to handle whats coming at you. I think that is important for anyone who plays though.

Going to keep playing the setup against the biggest hitters I can find, but so far I have not had a problem with the higher swingweight. It keeps my swing controlled and consistent. I can get out of control with light racquets really easily.

I do lift weights and am a strong guy for my size, so I am sure that is a factor. But I think some of it is simply moving your feet and setting up your shot as well.

movdqa
07-28-2011, 06:36 AM
If you watch Federer waiting, he's usually bouncing around on his toes waiting for the next shot to hit. Sometimes it seems that he bounces into position instead of stepping into position. Sometimes the bounce continues through his stroke too.

If you can't get into position well, the weight of the racquet isn't going to matter that much.

TennisCJC
07-28-2011, 06:46 AM
You people coming up with "physics" and theory that I'm aware of already...keep "assuming same swing speed" ... ok ??
I'll continue "assuming" that the swing speed will be vastly different in that 3rd set for most "non top pros" if you give them a 360 SW racquet or a 315-330 sw racquet with comparable mass and balance.

You are correct in that if the static weight or swingweight causes you to slow down your swing speed significantly or if the weight causes you to be slow with the racket; your racket is too heavy for you.

My opinion is most people overrate the advantages of a light racket because it feels really easy to swing. But, I think 99% of the adults who play tennis can and should play a SW of at least 320. There is an article on the web from the French Tennis Federation and it talks about the best racket for tennis elbow. It doesn't list models just best specs. It likes SW of 320 or more, balance 4 HL or more, and lower flex ratings 58-66 range. I tend to agree with this. There are at least 2 women on my mixed team that play rackets with SW of 320 and 330 and these are fairly small women.

Also, swingspeed cannot compensate for mass. Returning serve with a blocking motion, slicing groundstrokes and volleys are all short, slow swing speed shots but they are critical to the game. A low SW can never be as good as a higher SW for these shots. Also, if you racket it too light, you will have to swing much faster to generate pace and topspin and a higher SW would allow you to take a fast but controlled swing to generate pace.

Bottom line in my opinion. SW is critical, go as high as you can COMFORTABLY handle as you will have more consistency, more power, and better protection for your arm. Don't go so high that you get tired or are too slow with the racket. Finally, resist the temptation to go too light as these rackets swing great in the retail shop but they don't hold up to decent competition on the court.

thug the bunny
07-28-2011, 07:28 AM
If you watch Federer waiting, he's usually bouncing around on his toes waiting for the next shot to hit. Sometimes it seems that he bounces into position instead of stepping into position. Sometimes the bounce continues through his stroke too.

If you can't get into position well, the weight of the racquet isn't going to matter that much.

Yup. He's like Tigger (Winnie the Pooh). Bouncy wouncy trouncy, full of fun fun fun. The wonderful thing about Roger, is he's the only one.

HEADfamilydynasty
07-28-2011, 11:32 AM
The Ball Isn't Heavy If Your Opponent Doesn't Find It Heavy.:)

max
07-28-2011, 12:09 PM
My opinion is that too many players are believing what the racquet manufacturers are telling them about "lighter is better."

Mass is mass. Put it behind the ball.

BreakPoint
07-28-2011, 12:38 PM
My opinion is that too many players are believing what the racquet manufacturers are telling them about "lighter is better."

Mass is mass. Put it behind the ball.
I spoke to a Prince product engineer a few years ago and he admitted that when it comes to tennis racquets - "There is no substitute for mass, period." That's a direct quote.

UCSF2012
07-28-2011, 05:44 PM
Theoretical "tennis player's physics" is useless. Many of us don't even under the concepts behind physics principles that they're just making up "facts."

From personal experience, I hit harder with my KPS88 stock than with my Exo3 graphite 93 stock. But when I leaded up the Exo3, the Exo3 is now hitting heavier. The overall weight (Exo3) is lower, AND the swingweight is lower; yet, it's producing more powerful shots.

You can't use high school or basic college physics to explain tennis physics. The reason is that there are so many assumptions to intro physics courses that the principles do not apply as you would expect. For example, the law of Conservation of momentum is not explicitly straightforward, because it assumes Center of Mass. The tennis racket's center of mass is on the racket shaft, not the hoop.