PDA

View Full Version : 380 Swing Weight Ugh (video inside!)


DavaiMarat
10-13-2011, 01:24 PM
So Modified my frame (TGK237.1) into the SW2 range (380) ish. Watch how I deteriorate over time as I can't keep the RHS and Form going. Footwork and form followed shortly.

Yes, yes very ugly...

In fact the only good forehand I hit was at 2:17.

A lesson to all. Keep your SW under 350. Or.....don't get old. OR both!!

http://youtu.be/RYplyS9SRdg

SFrazeur
10-13-2011, 01:47 PM
Just goes to show you need world class form and fitness to use such a massive swingweight. Most pros do not even have swingweights that high.

-SF

salsainglesa
10-13-2011, 01:48 PM
Please do not abandon your form after your stroke, I mean, do not lt the racquet be dropedd like that. Return to your ready position. enen if you are trainig with a ball machine

LeeD
10-13-2011, 01:50 PM
To me, there is no reason for a SW much over 320, unless your average opponent can hit a 5.5 level ball most times.
That sub 5.0 opponent just cannot maintain the pace with any consistency, and even a 300SW racket is more than enough to hit near the sidelines, forcing the opponent to hit weaker and weaker shots.
Of course, to each his own, but as a 4.0, very few 5.5's are willing to play sets with anyone of my level.
Most likely, I attract other 4.0's and strong 3.5's, who never hit hard enough to bother a light SW racket.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 02:10 PM
So Modified my frame (TGK237.1) into the SW2 range (380) ish. Watch how I deteriorate over time as I can't keep the RHS and Form going. Footwork and form followed shortly.

Yes, yes very ugly...

In fact the only good forehand I hit was at 2:17.

A lesson to all. Keep your SW under 350. Or.....don't get old. OR both!!

http://youtu.be/RYplyS9SRdg

It even sounded like a 380 SW. BTW, you have one of the longest FH swing paths I've seen. Gonzalez'ish. No wonder you ran out of gas.

aimr75
10-13-2011, 03:01 PM
So Modified my frame (TGK237.1) into the SW2 range (380) ish. Watch how I deteriorate over time as I can't keep the RHS and Form going. Footwork and form followed shortly.

Yes, yes very ugly...

In fact the only good forehand I hit was at 2:17.

A lesson to all. Keep your SW under 350. Or.....don't get old. OR both!!

http://youtu.be/RYplyS9SRdg

Why did you get the SW up so high? even the non TGK prestige mids in stock form are very solid with great plow through

papa
10-13-2011, 03:28 PM
So Modified my frame (TGK237.1) into the SW2 range (380) ish. Watch how I deteriorate over time as I can't keep the RHS and Form going. Footwork and form followed shortly.

Yes, yes very ugly...

In fact the only good forehand I hit was at 2:17.

A lesson to all. Keep your SW under 350. Or.....don't get old. OR both!!

http://youtu.be/RYplyS9SRdg

Strokes look pretty solid but I'm curious how you calculated the NEW swing-weight. Do you have a machine?

Xizel
10-13-2011, 07:12 PM
Strokes look pretty solid but I'm curious how you calculated the NEW swing-weight. Do you have a machine?

I thought it was pretty easy. 3 grams at 12 o'clock give you just slightly over 10 more swingweight (whatever the unit is).

I've leaded up a racquet to 396-397 SW before. Your rotator cuffs really suffer when you play with dead or stiff poly. Balls fly out when you barely tap it. Any flat balls like a first serve or smash REALLY kill, though.

To me, there is no reason for a SW much over 320

That's interesting, because my racquet in stock form supposedly (Wilson quality control) measures in at 320 swingweight and it's only 10.8 oz. Pretty light and leaves a lot to be desired.

papa
10-14-2011, 04:15 AM
I thought it was pretty easy. 3 grams at 12 o'clock give you just slightly over 10 more swingweight (whatever the unit is).


Well, its not quite that easy and the machine used to calculate swing-weight cost about $5,000 - 7,000. You "probably" have changed the swing rate but its different than balance points, racquet weight, etc.

DavaiMarat
10-14-2011, 05:40 AM
Well, its not quite that easy and the machine used to calculate swing-weight cost about $5,000 - 7,000. You "probably" have changed the swing rate but its different than balance points, racquet weight, etc.

Sorry for the late reply. Nope no RDS but just simple old stopwatch, SW calculator App and lots and lots of lead. I even had to take some of the silicon out of the handle.

I just wanted to see what it would feel like. Some monsters like Berdych, Soderling, Safin may be able to handle this beast throughout a match but a mere mortal like myself, maybe a set? If that?

Hmmm maybe berdych should switch too with the shoulder injuries he had lately?? (his arm going numb???). MG Rad Pro is a heavy beast in itself.

Nellie
10-14-2011, 06:58 AM
I bet if you played with that racquet for a couple of weeks, your arm would adjust. It is not that much different (in SW) from wooden racquets people used in the past. OF course, you are taking a big loopy stroke that was not used historically.

It shows how important the small stabilizer muscles are to you game.

olliess
10-14-2011, 07:21 AM
Well, its not quite that easy and the machine used to calculate swing-weight cost about $5,000 - 7,000. You "probably" have changed the swing rate but its different than balance points, racquet weight, etc.

There's no reason why it shouldn't be that easy to calculate the additional swing weight, as long as you can properly measure the weights and the position where you added them.

LeeD
10-14-2011, 09:46 AM
Actually, you cannot just keep upscaling the weight war without paying the ultimate penalty in the end. That's why baseball players don't use 40oz bats, and golfers don't weight their clubs anymore than what they know they can handle in the LONG run.
Your body doesn't have the ability to match up muscle to compensate for heavier and heavier rackets.
The old wood rackets were SMALLER, more aerodynamic, and much softer, in addition to shorter, more direct strokes.
Those big ATP pros are used to hammering the ball THROUGH the opposition with heavy bats. Maybe they need to learn more statagy

papa
10-14-2011, 12:01 PM
There's no reason why it shouldn't be that easy to calculate the additional swing weight, as long as you can properly measure the weights and the position where you added them.

Well, I'm not an expert on this subject but I know its a rather complicated process - there are physics experts who probably know much more about it than I do.

DeShaun
10-14-2011, 12:14 PM
Higher SW is enticing to me because it gets me better match results. Period. I am certain. One trade-off, though, is that while a higher SW is easier on my elbow, it is harder on my shoulder. So, I have to be careful when serving...and my timing of overhead smashes with higher SW tends to suffer. Higher SW also places greater demands on my lower body as good positioning behind the ball seems to become more crucial with the decline in wristiness abilities.

DavaiMarat
10-14-2011, 09:13 PM
Higher SW is enticing to me because it gets me better match results. Period. I am certain. One trade-off, though, is that while a higher SW is easier on my elbow, it is harder on my shoulder. So, I have to be careful when serving...and my timing of overhead smashes with higher SW tends to suffer. Higher SW also places greater demands on my lower body as good positioning behind the ball seems to become more crucial with the decline in wristiness abilities.

Aye overhead reaching back over your head is a killer with a heavy swinging frame!!

papa
10-15-2011, 04:56 AM
I really like Lees comments on this subject (weighting) and think that many, especially younger kids, are using racquets that are too heavy - as he says, there is a point of no return. I've used lead tape and experimented with different placement over the years but haven't bothered with it as much lately.

DavaiMarat
10-15-2011, 02:58 PM
I really like Lees comments on this subject (weighting) and think that many, especially younger kids, are using racquets that are too heavy - as he says, there is a point of no return. I've used lead tape and experimented with different placement over the years but haven't bothered with it as much lately.

I've always use a little lead at 3 and 9 on all my frames way back to my old POG. However never to this extent. My tgk 237.1s are made for customization so in recent years I've been more incline to play with silicon in the handle and lead all over the hoop. I like my frames buttery feeling and I find it's only achievable with heavier frames. Sure there were frames that came straight from retail that felt like this, pc600, pt260, pt280, rad pro, ps 85, 6.1 etc but for the most part I find retail frames lacking.

Travejam has some great articles on sw2 so this was me trying that type of frame. I'm too small and not strong enough to handle it.

Frank Silbermann
10-16-2011, 05:37 PM
As an experiment a few years ago I gradually upped the weight of my rackets to a ridiculous degree, thinking that maybe it would make it easy for me to hit on-the-rise. It did make that a bit easier, but not enough to matter, and it destroyed my serves and volleys (maybe because I did not practice them enough while upping the weight).

I've gradually gone way back down on swing weight. I still have a significant amount of lead tape just above the grip, but that doesn't add all that much to swing weight. I put an inch of lead table at the 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock positions so I could pick up low balls without risk of hitting the court with the racket (i.e. by moving the sweet spot a bit closer to the tip).

I analyzed the physics of momentum and decided that the ideal swing weight for hitting a stationary or slow-moving ball (e.g. a serve) is going to be much lighter than the ideal swing weight for redirecting a fast-moving ball (e.g. the return of a serve). I suspect that the ideal swing-weight for windshield-wipering is going to be much lower than the ideal swing weight for pre-1990 textbook-style hitting.

LeeD
10-16-2011, 06:05 PM
You suspect what lots of us have figured out.
Depending on how you hit, a light OR a heavy racket can be the right call.
Neither is better FOR EVERYONE, than the other.
Could this be one factor? If you choke up the handle to hit most balls, maybe you should use or CAN use a lighter racket.
If your grip is all the way down at the end, maybe you can use a heavier racket or the same one... !!!
I tend to choke up on my 12 oz Aero200.
I hold it a little lower on my 10.2 oz Aero500.
But for the best POP on my serves, low toss style, I choke up the handle a bit, suggesting 10.2 oz might be a hair too much for this old decrepit fart.