PDA

View Full Version : Heaviest racquet used by a pro?


Frank Silbermann
02-25-2004, 04:46 PM
I used to believe that the heaviest racquet ever used by a highly ranking player was that of Don Budge, whose was 16 oz. Recently, though, I read that Pete Sampras' racquet was also 16 oz. If that's so, then maybe someone had a heavier one.

So, what's the heaviest racquet ever used by any pro?

Shaolin
02-25-2004, 07:11 PM
I thought Samps' prostaff was more like 14oz, which is still a club.

Anonymous
02-25-2004, 07:47 PM
No no no. Sampras' racket was a bit under 14 ounces. I heard of some Jack Kramer Pro Staff or something or another that was made for Jack Kramer himself, almost 17 ounces or therabouts.

Rabbit
02-26-2004, 07:28 AM
Sampras' racket was weighted very closely to the Jack Kramer ProStaff.

I heard one of the pros on TV say that Johann Kriek played with a 16 ounce frame.

@wright
02-26-2004, 07:40 AM
I bet you'd get used to that kind of a club after awhile. If you could lift it up to serve, you could hit a seriously heavy ball.

deflori
02-26-2004, 09:32 AM
i only say "thomas Muster"

i dont know how much,but that was a big hammer: )

Frank Silbermann
02-26-2004, 04:36 PM
I know that Sampras' racquet weighs less than 16 ounces new. I meant 16 ounces after he applies the lead tape. Whose racquet was heaviest _after_ customization?

joe sch
02-26-2004, 06:14 PM
I have not heard of any of the current players leading up thier rackets over 14 oz's and I thought Sampras was in the 13+ range. Many of the players in the wood era would weightup the stock 13 oz rackets by a few ozs and some had custom produced wood rackets like Borg and Kramer. The custom JK autograph was about 17 oz's. The standard Donnay Borg Pro was 13oz so the one that was made for Bjorn with the extra wood laminations on the throat lower hoop must have added atleast 1..2 ozs, maybe more like the Kramer ? I have one of the JK auto rackets made for Jack and it is approx 17 oz.

galain
02-26-2004, 07:21 PM
Not that I know this through any personal experience, but from what I've heard and read here, both Taylor Dent and Mark Philippousis swing a pretty heavy frame. I don't know what the specs are though - maybe Takumi or Thomas might be bale to help out?

Rabbit
02-27-2004, 03:56 AM
Nate Fergueson, Sampras' racket technician, said that Sampras' rackets after customization weigh close to 14 ounces. His rackets are weighted and balanced like a Jack Kramer ProStaff (the wooden model) which weighed around 14 ounces in the Medium weight.

Richard Parnell
02-27-2004, 04:51 AM
I remember having Thomas Musters racquets in my hand and they were about 400 grms (seriously heavy).How much is 16oz anyway.Have a great one..

mach1
02-27-2004, 01:44 PM
400.000 gram [g] 14.12000 ounce [oz]
&
16.000 ounce [oz] 453.60000 gram [g]

Ronaldo
02-27-2004, 04:10 PM
Read Ivan Lendl loaded up between 16 to 18 oz when playing on clay. Bet that stick could deliver a melonshot that would send you straight to palookaville, Termination complete.

Rabbit
02-28-2004, 03:14 AM
<clearing throat> I have a couple of Ivan Lendl's frames. They go at around 14.5 ounces.

@wright
02-28-2004, 05:34 AM
18 frickin oz? Geez, he must have had tree trunk hitting arm syndrome real bad.

joe sch
02-28-2004, 07:28 AM
Rabbit raised a point that all of the customized frames, like the bosworth lendl frames, were not leaded up until Warren would actually string them for Ivan. Thus for clay events, he added an extra oz or so. It would be a nightmare to be on the other side of the court against a hard flat hitter like Lendl or Connors. I would image it would be sorta like trying to return Sampras serve for a match.

Rabbit
02-28-2004, 02:14 PM
I'm not so sure that he added an extra ounce or better. Lendl's frames never had any visible lead on them, and I think I remember reading that early on, Bosworth would actually inject lead into the frame. It would be interesting to know how much additional work was done on the frames that Bosworth sold. Later in Lendl's career, he most certainly would have had frames sent from the factory to a closer spec to what he wanted. I suspect that the rackets are very close to what Lendl wanted as the final product with just a little tweaking.

Deuce
02-29-2004, 01:09 AM
I've got mine up to 390 grams, which is about 13.75 oz. It only feels 'heavy' after I pick up my opponent's racquet.

Sean Dugan
02-29-2004, 08:05 AM
Yea, me too. My frames are all 390 to 400m grams. As long as the balance is an inch, or so, head light, I can still whip them around rather fast. I haven't noticed any decrease in swing speed. The real difference for me is the frame is much more stable. If you hit with hard hitters, it makes a huge difference, as a heavy racquet doesn't recoil the way a lighter one does. If I hit with a sub 13 ounce frame, it feels like a toy now. I don't see how any male touring pro could play with a sub 13 ounce frame, as those guys hit the ball so hard, and with so much spin.

PureCarlosMoyaDrive
02-29-2004, 01:12 PM
My racquet was 13.4 ounces, pretty heavy. Now like 13.1, but it feels fine. I hate using lighter racquets now too.

Matt H.
03-02-2004, 08:10 AM
well, you have to put it into perspective a bit.


Pete's racquet being 14 ounces while playing TODAY's style of game, versus a 16 oz racquet back in the day....and on clay to top it off.


After looking at it that way, i think Pete has the heaviest racquet.

Kobble
03-02-2004, 04:34 PM
Seems like alot of boys like PCMD, Deuce, and Dugan are shunning the sissy sticks. I agree, I cannot stand anything under 13 oz. Mine weighs in at around 13.2 oz. head light. If I remember correctly, Sampras used a 14.0 oz stick that is evenly balanced. Muster uses something over 14.0 oz, and it is head heavy! The weight is nothing, but the balance is nuts. I have an evenly balanced 12.5 racquet, and it is almost as difficult to swing as a 14.0 oz stick. Has anybody tried to copy the specs of Muster and Pete? What were your results?

PureCarlosMoyaDrive
03-03-2004, 07:36 PM
Ya, Muster with the 14 ounce head heavy racquet, one-handed backhand, all with amazing head speed and spin, not to mention some of the best consistency ever, is insane. I don't know how he did it.

But even when I use like a 12.2 or so racquet that's headlight, it's junk to me. My 13.4 ounce racquet was closer to even, like 5 pts head light, and that was pretty beastly. Now at 13.1 at like 7 + points headlight, much easier to generate the spin I need.

But I would even want to try to use Muster's racquet.

BILLYBORG
03-10-2005, 05:22 PM
I had the opportunity at the US Indoor Open in Memphis, TN years ago, where the pro's stringer was doing several of Connors' T-2000's, and he let me actually hold one of the racquets. He had so much lead tape on top of the racquet head that it would totally blow away the 18 oz. of others!

gregraven
03-10-2005, 07:32 PM
Not that I know this through any personal experience, but from what I've heard and read here, both Taylor Dent and Mark Philippousis swing a pretty heavy frame. I don't know what the specs are though - maybe Takumi or Thomas might be bale to help out?

I've posted the specs for Taylor's frame elsewhere on this BB, but if I remember correctly the weight was around 386 grams. As to Mark, Nate told me that his racquet was pushing 14 ounces.

bamboo
03-10-2005, 08:27 PM
Ernie Banks used a 30 oz. baseball bat - Nadal uses a stock Aeropro, 11.2 oz. - whatever floats your boat - the 14 ouncer on the pro tour is extinct and not about to stage a comeback.

alan-n
03-10-2005, 09:03 PM
My NCode 6.1 95 is 12.8 Oz, no additional weight was added, just overgrip and rubberband dampener. Anything less than 12.5 Oz just doesn't seem to provide enough stability to handle heavy shots on the 1HBH side.

Astennix
03-11-2005, 07:48 AM
Gaudio's frame is 13.5 ounces...

oiler90
03-11-2005, 05:32 PM
Frame for frame, when you look at the technology these guys have available to them, Lendl and Connors clearly were cavemen competing against men of the future. Although Connors used a metal frame and did quite well into the mid-80's, he really just got over-powered late in his career after '84. Lendl really was amazing to be able to use a small headed racquet, with a very flexible neck and head, strung at 72#, and loaded with weight that measured into the 14-16 ounce range. He hung with the best of the best into the early 90's when he was forced out w/ a chronic back injury. In my opinion, to do what Lendl did to 3 different generations of players (80-84: Borg/McEnroe/Connors; 85-88: Wilander/Mecir/Krickstein; 89-92: Edberg/Sampras/Becker) with the inferior equipment that he chose to do it with is simply amazing to me.

AAAA
03-11-2005, 06:12 PM
From what I heard/read:

Sampras ~ 380g strung.
Phillippoussis ~ close to 400g strung.

and the source was reliable.

chad shaver
03-11-2005, 06:32 PM
I think I've heard the same thing, AAAA. And most of the weight added to Flipper's racquet was in the head too, right?

Cuzza
03-12-2005, 01:55 AM
Phillippoussis uses close to 450g, from what I've heard from the pro at the local tennis/pro shop.

mctennis
03-12-2005, 08:33 PM
All of these statements are the things we've "heard". Does ANYONE really know what their racquets weight?

morten
03-13-2005, 09:29 AM
Cussa,Mark P close to 450...LOL No way.About the same as Sampras,lead in head,still headlight. average weight now on tour is 360-370 strung, with overgrip and dampener.

pro10is
03-17-2005, 03:08 AM
I own some Wilson PS 85 racquets made by Nate Furguson to the exact specs as Sampras's racquet. Nate even had me send him my string because it's that exact. If you really want to know I can find out how much it weighs. I'm sponsored by Babolat now so I use a Pure Drive and would need to get the Wilson's out of my storage locker. I believe I have one that's still wrapped in the original plastic and never used. Allthough I never played on the tour, only coached, I did have Nate make me a Wilson PS 85 training racquet that weighs 600 grams. To Nate's and my best knowledge it is the heaviest racquet ever made. Please don't try this on your own. This racquet was built by the best racquet builder on earth. The purpose was to find the most biomechanicaly efficient strokes and build internal shoulder strength. This was done over a two year period with racquets increasing by 50 grams every 6 months. It was also important to increase the external shoulder muscles on both sides as well as the entire region.
And yes it does hit a monster heavy ball.

AAAA
03-17-2005, 03:47 AM
I think I've heard the same thing, AAAA. And most of the weight added to Flipper's racquet was in the head too, right?

Something like that Chad. A former-player-now-commentator had a hit with it and said it was extremely difficult to maneuver but if he got the thing swinging in the right direction he could murder the ball.

tennisnoob
03-17-2005, 04:57 AM
I did have Nate make me a Wilson PS 85 training racquet that weighs 600 grams. To Nate's and my best knowledge it is the heaviest racquet ever made.

Sounds like Nate made you a Rocket Propelled Launcher, not a tennis racquet.....

Marius_Hancu
03-17-2005, 05:05 AM
This is what Nate says himself about Pete's racket:

Q & A with Nate Ferguson, Sampras' personal stringer
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Features/9908NateFerguson.html
I custom "build" his racquet to take as much of the power out of the
racquet as possible. It is a stiff racquet, has a very small head
size, weighs nearly 400 grams/14 ounces and is strung with gut at
around 75 lbs.


I have independent confirmations of this.
An italian journal weighted in the 90s his racket and found 393g, balanced 32.3 cm from the grip.

One of the stringers in Montreal worked for Pete in the 90s. He mentioned to me 389g.

bc-05
03-18-2005, 11:07 AM
mine's actually around 420-430 grams.. even balanced.. do u consider as a shotgun? or is it still light? i mean i could go increasing it more.. but pwoahhh those weight increasing things that they do at my stringer are damn expensive... if i use lead tape itll make my racquets look ugly so ill just leave it at this.. but what do u guys think with 420-43o grams racquet evenly balanced?

Marius_Hancu
03-18-2005, 11:28 AM
mine's actually around 420-430 grams.. even balanced.. do u consider as a shotgun? or is it still light? i mean i could go increasing it more..

Are you playing S-V? Because then it might be difficult to go higher.

And you must have a performance-related target, not just loading the racket for the sake of it.

In my case (410g 6.0 85) it was mainly for helping me with my tennis elbow, and it did.

bc-05
03-18-2005, 11:40 AM
well sometimes i play against pennant players.. who serves like close to 200ks an hour but as for perfomance-related target.. people say loading it will give u heavy balls.. like watermelon balls.. i wanna know what a watermelon balls feels like.. as for serve and volleying on my serves mostly i go forward.. but then when returning i mostly stay at the baseline.. unless i really feel the need to go forward.. does loading weight onto a racquet help tennis elbow? i thought itll make it worse.. plus adding a shoulder injury to it...

Marius_Hancu
03-18-2005, 11:46 AM
does loading weight onto a racquet help tennis elbow? i thought itll make it worse.. plus adding a shoulder injury to it...

well, it helps, but you must find your limits, and after multiple attempts, I found my current ones.

fedex27
03-18-2005, 03:21 PM
mine's actually around 420-430 grams.. even balanced.. do u consider as a shotgun? or is it still light? i mean i could go increasing it more.. but pwoahhh those weight increasing things that they do at my stringer are damn expensive... if i use lead tape itll make my racquets look ugly so ill just leave it at this.. but what do u guys think with 420-43o grams racquet evenly balanced?
thats a big stick, what is it?

splink779
03-18-2005, 03:37 PM
I'm curious, what level are you guys who weigh your racquets 13+ oz? Seems pretty ridiculous for anyone but collegiates or pros to use something heavy like that, especially if you swing anything other than eastern.

foetz
03-19-2005, 04:08 PM
must second that.
i can't play with under ~350g. otherwise i have the feeling like i would flatter...

i go continental on nearly everything except very low balls i want to speed up.

bamboo
03-19-2005, 07:06 PM
Phillippoussis uses close to 450g, from what I've heard from the pro at the local tennis/pro shop.
He's a challenger level player by now on a good day, why would anyone want to follow his lead?

bc-05
03-20-2005, 07:25 AM
thats a big stick, what is it?
ncode n61 tour.. u know whats funny though.. when i play competition tennis.. it feels normal using it.. like u cant feel the difference.. but then when i play with my gf or some friends.. i normally use my other n61 which hasnt got any mods to it.. and i picked up my modified one.. u can feel the difference.. but for some reason with the heavier one it feels better.. it doesnt shake when u hit the ball and i like the noise it makes when u hit the ball.. the noise u make is a thump noise and feels like ur thumping cricketball with a tennis racquet.. rather than a popping sound u make with a standard n61

TennisD
03-21-2005, 02:41 AM
must second that.
i can't play with under ~350g. otherwise i have the feeling like i would flatter...

Same with me. Ever since I went up to a heavy racquet, I can not go back. In fact, I just got 5 new PC's with LM paintjobs in today! However, my racquet is "light" compared to some here. It's only 380 grams...

SAMPRAS
05-24-2006, 11:53 AM
Hi friends
I have a China one Wilson ProStaff 6.0 85sm with 4 3/8 grip ,so i made it 4 / 58 with adding some extra tarboard to make the grip 5.
Making this my racquet weights now 386 gr. with string Wilson Sensation 15 L Gauge.The balance is at 30sm from the grip.So know i want to put some lead tapes at 3 and 9 o'clock but i don't knowhow much.Someone told me about Pete's racquet that is around 390-395 gr but with balance 32.5 so i schould put now 50 gr. to make my racquet like sampras one.And it will be about 436gr-CRAZY :mad: .But without lead tapes at the frame i don't feel the racquet- and don't have problems with the elbow and when i put weights -what will happend?

What schoud i do?

THANKS

sureshs
05-24-2006, 11:56 AM
Someone posted here recently that the Bryans use 14.5 oz sticks.

thomas martinez
05-24-2006, 01:00 PM
Whoever posted that about the Bryans had quite poor information. They are not that heavy.

BaseLineBash
05-24-2006, 01:10 PM
I've got mine up to 390 grams, which is about 13.75 oz. It only feels 'heavy' after I pick up my opponent's racquet.
If there ever was a good tennis motion picture, that quote would have to be in it somewhere. That quote is too good.

sureshs
05-24-2006, 01:13 PM
Whoever posted that about the Bryans had quite poor information. They are not that heavy.

I argued that, but opinion was that dubs players use such heavy sticks for volleying.

BaseLineBash
05-24-2006, 01:19 PM
I'm curious, what level are you guys who weigh your racquets 13+ oz? Seems pretty ridiculous for anyone but collegiates or pros to use something heavy like that, especially if you swing anything other than eastern.
Splink, as I told Mojo...senior citizens free coffee is on Thursday between 7:30 and 10:30am at Burger King. C'mon.

"The average player should use a racquet that weighs between 13 1/2 and 14 1/2 ounces inclusive. I think that the best results may be obtained by a balance that is almost even or slightly heavy on the head. Decide your handle from the individual choice. Pick the one that fits comfortably in the hand. Do not use too small a handle or too light a racquet, as it is apt to turn in the hand. I recommend a handle of 5 1/4 to 5 3/8 inches at the grip. Do not use a racquet you do not like merely because your best friend advises it. It may suit him perfectly, but would not do for you at all. Do not start children playing tennis with an under-sized racquet. It weakens the wrist and does not aid the child in learning strokes. Start a child, boy or girl, with a full-sized racquet of at least 13 ounces."-Bill Tilden

sureshs
05-24-2006, 01:50 PM
Splink, as I told Mojo...senior citizens free coffee is on Thursday between 7:30 and 10:30am at Burger King. C'mon.

"The average player should use a racquet that weighs between 13 1/2 and 14 1/2 ounces inclusive. I think that the best results may be obtained by a balance that is almost even or slightly heavy on the head. Decide your handle from the individual choice. Pick the one that fits comfortably in the hand. Do not use too small a handle or too light a racquet, as it is apt to turn in the hand. I recommend a handle of 5 1/4 to 5 3/8 inches at the grip. Do not use a racquet you do not like merely because your best friend advises it. It may suit him perfectly, but would not do for you at all. Do not start children playing tennis with an under-sized racquet. It weakens the wrist and does not aid the child in learning strokes. Start a child, boy or girl, with a full-sized racquet of at least 13 ounces."-Bill Tilden

Times change.

"I think there is a world market," IBM chief Thomas Watson famously declared one day in 1943, "for maybe five computers..."

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- President, Chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977]

foetz
05-24-2006, 02:15 PM
not playing racquets below 350g helped me a lot during my youth (besides the fact there were no sticks with e.g. 270g at that time :D).
they prevented me from pushing and/or playing table tennis like strokes.

i've tried lighter ones in the meantime but i just don't feel them during the stroke so i stayed around 350g.

BreakPoint
05-24-2006, 02:41 PM
Times change.

"I think there is a world market," IBM chief Thomas Watson famously declared one day in 1943, "for maybe five computers..."

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- President, Chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977]

Not very good analogies, I'm afraid. What do computers have to do with tennis?

The entire purpose of a tennis racquet is to counter the tennis ball, and since that tennis ball has not changed since the days of Bill Tilden, why should the thing that you use to hit that same object need to change? His advice on the optimal racquet to use is based upon the size and weight of the tennis ball, and since the size and weight of the tennis ball has not changed, I'm sure his opinion of the optimal racquet wouldn't change either.

NoBadMojo
05-24-2006, 02:46 PM
Splink, as I told Mojo...senior citizens free coffee is on Thursday between 7:30 and 10:30am at Burger King. C'mon.



you're an idiot for insulting me and also proving you know nothing about tennis thinking it is the same now as when tilden played.

psp2
05-24-2006, 02:51 PM
my max200g is around 14.2 oz due to the buildup sleeves in the handle, thus making it much more HL than stock. i can still swing the racquet easily and get good pops on the serve. my volleys and chip shots from that racquet are SOLID.

after playing with the 200g, i would switch to a leaded up OpenX (12.3 oz) and it feels very light.

BaseLineBash
05-24-2006, 03:06 PM
you're an idiot for insulting me and also proving you know nothing about tennis thinking it is the same now as when tilden played.
Here's a cup for you to drool in Mojo...

Times change.

"I think there is a world market," IBM chief Thomas Watson famously declared one day in 1943, "for maybe five computers..."

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- President, Chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977]
Yeah, the game may evolve and change, but the need for stability will always be constant.

sureshs
05-24-2006, 03:07 PM
Not very good analogies, I'm afraid. What do computers have to do with tennis?

The entire purpose of a tennis racquet is to counter the tennis ball, and since that tennis ball has not changed since the days of Bill Tilden, why should the thing that you use to hit that same object need to change? His advice on the optimal racquet to use is based upon the size and weight of the tennis ball, and since the size and weight of the tennis ball has not changed, I'm sure his opinion of the optimal racquet wouldn't change either.

His opinion on the optimal racquet may have been flat out wrong, e.g. Many kids may have swung a 13 oz racquet and given up or had wrist pain and been told you have no business playing tennis. Or women might have swung the racquets awkwardly and been told that is all you women can do. Why allow kids to use calculators? Doesn't it weaken their skills? People had a pompous style of talking and lecturing others in those days and saw things in black and white all the time. (In fact, such opinions of other people got Tilden into a lot of trouble)

Even if his advice was correct, lighter weight materials with stability were not available in those days. He may not have had an alternative to evaluate.

And I did not get the point of the ball being the same. If you can hit the ball harder by swinging faster with a sub-14 oz racquet, and more people can do so, why does it matter that the ball is the same? The game is not the same and the game is not just the ball. Why do Olympic boat racers use the latest lightweight composite materials in their boats? The water is still the same. Why do table tennis players use the latest rubber surfaces which have revolutionized spin? The ball is practically the same and so is the table.

LowProfile
05-24-2006, 03:18 PM
I think Flipper used a racquet that was about 13.6 ounces and 5-6 points head light. Sampras's stick was definitely an even balanced 14 ounces.

On the opposite extreme, isn't Moya's racquet about 11.4 ounces?

AAAA
05-24-2006, 03:24 PM
I read Mark Phillippoussis used a slighty heavier racquet than Sampras.

Andres
05-24-2006, 08:42 PM
I won't comment on the weights of the racquet, because I'm a racquet weight maniac, actually :? :p

travlerajm
05-24-2006, 09:06 PM
Yea, me too. My frames are all 390 to 400m grams. As long as the balance is an inch, or so, head light, I can still whip them around rather fast. I haven't noticed any decrease in swing speed. The real difference for me is the frame is much more stable. If you hit with hard hitters, it makes a huge difference, as a heavy racquet doesn't recoil the way a lighter one does. If I hit with a sub 13 ounce frame, it feels like a toy now. I don't see how any male touring pro could play with a sub 13 ounce frame, as those guys hit the ball so hard, and with so much spin.

How's your spin level? I'm at 12.2 ounces with a racquet that I love for topspin groundies. I'd love to go heavier to improve my serve and volley game, but it seems like I end up with a rocket-launcher when I get up around 13 oz. It's a lot harder to hit a heavy topspin dipper to the netperson's feet when you play with a rocket-launcher.

slice bh compliment
05-24-2006, 09:13 PM
...seems like I end up with a rocket-launcher when I get up around 13 oz. ...

NASA, at the forefront of rocket-launching technology, just reverse-engineered some rocket launchers based on Guazzelli's frames.

travlerajm
05-24-2006, 09:27 PM
NASA, at the forefront of rocket-launching technology, just reverse-engineered some rocket launchers based on Guazzelli's frames.

I actually played a 5.0 tournament match with a 14oz+ tweener once. Both my regular racquets had just cracked on me, and it was a fast surface, so I said what the hell - why not give the NASA experiment a chance? Using primarily hard (and I mean VERY hard) topspin serves, I ended up hitting service winners on about 90% of the serves that landed in the box. And I hit the guy once in the ear on a body serve. And my aces (I had a dozen or so) were hitting the curtain 7ft high and still rising...

But I hit more than 20 double faults. And I couldn't break serve very well because my groundstrokes were too flat and powerful. And I lost a tight 3-setter. And the guy was unseeded. And I was the #1 seed. So that was my one and only USTA match I played with the rocket-launcher. Experiment aborted.

Andres
05-24-2006, 09:32 PM
I actually played a 5.0 tournament match with a 14oz+ tweener once. Both my regular racquets had just cracked on me, and it was a fast surface, so I said what the hell - why not give the NASA experiment a chance? Using primarily hard (and I mean VERY hard) topspin serves, I ended up hitting service winners on about 90% of the serves that landed in the box. And I hit the guy once in the ear on a body serve. And my aces (I had a dozen or so) were hitting the curtain 7ft high and still rising...

But I hit more than 20 double faults. And I couldn't break serve very well because my groundstrokes were too flat and powerful. And I lost a tight 3-setter. And the guy was unseeded. And I was the #1 seed. So that was my one and only USTA match I played with the rocket-launcher. Experiment aborted.
Never EVER experiment on an official tourney, travlerajm!!! Too much risk!! :?

BreakPoint
05-24-2006, 09:33 PM
And I did not get the point of the ball being the same. If you can hit the ball harder by swinging faster with a sub-14 oz racquet, and more people can do so, why does it matter that the ball is the same? The game is not the same and the game is not just the ball. Why do Olympic boat racers use the latest lightweight composite materials in their boats? The water is still the same. Why do table tennis players use the latest rubber surfaces which have revolutionized spin? The ball is practically the same and so is the table.

Think of it in terms of physics. Hitting a tennis ball is a collisions of two objects of finite weight. If you were in a head-on collision with a 2,500 lb VW Jetta, would you rather be in a 5,000 lb Lincoln Navigator SUV or a 2,000 lb Toyota Tercel?

slice bh compliment
05-24-2006, 09:33 PM
Cool, man. You've got a hell of a serve there.

I Love my sticks' specs: 8 pts HL, 13.1 ounces. No desire / no need to go any lighter. Light sticks have never felt right (to me), unless I'm just rallying with a friend who's a hacker).

Peace,
slice.

Andres
05-24-2006, 09:33 PM
NASA, at the forefront of rocket-launching technology, just reverse-engineered some rocket launchers based on Guazzelli's frames.
LOL! That's a good one :)
But still, my frames are special. A nice combination of toomuch weight, and a VERY LOW powered racquet :)

Serves pops nicely, clean contact, big sweetspot. Peeerrrrfeeeeccctttt :mrgreen:

travlerajm
05-24-2006, 09:38 PM
Think of it in terms of physics. Hitting a tennis ball is a collisions of two objects of finite weight. If you were in a head-on collision with a 2,500 lb VW Jetta, would you rather be in a 5,000 lb Lincoln Navigator SUV or a 2,000 lb Toyota Tercel?

SUVs are built on truck frames, which are too stiff for me. Minivans are designed from the ground up like cars, so they have more crunch space, which cushions the impact. And they handle better when you hit a curved road.

Roddick The Beast
05-24-2006, 10:10 PM
LOL! That's a good one :)
But still, my frames are special. A nice combination of toomuch weight, and a VERY LOW powered racquet :)

Serves pops nicely, clean contact, big sweetspot. Peeerrrrfeeeeccctttt :mrgreen:Where did you add the weights to your racquet? You added like what? . . . 3 oz.?

travlerajm
05-24-2006, 10:24 PM
Cool, man. You've got a hell of a serve there.

I Love my sticks' specs: 8 pts HL, 13.1 ounces. No desire / no need to go any lighter. Light sticks have never felt right (to me), unless I'm just rallying with a friend who's a hacker).

Peace,
slice.

Currently my hard spin serves are 5.0 level and only hitting 3-4ft up on the curtain with with my 12.2oz customized NXG OS. Hands down it's the best groundstroke racquet I've ever used. But sometimes I wonder if I should compromise my control on the groundies and go heavier to make my serve-and-volley game more overpowering.

travlerajm
05-24-2006, 10:52 PM
Q & A with Nate Ferguson, Sampras' personal stringer
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Feat...eFerguson.html
I custom "build" his racquet to take as much of the power out of the
racquet as possible. It is a stiff racquet, has a very small head
size, weighs nearly 400 grams/14 ounces and is strung with gut at
around 75 lbs.

Does anyone else find this quote to be a contradiction? Even if you string a racquet at 75 lbs, if it's 14oz with a 32.3cm balance point, that's still going to put a lot of zing in your shots.

BaseLineBash
05-24-2006, 11:51 PM
Does anyone else find this quote to be a contradiction? Even if you string a racquet at 75 lbs, if it's 14oz with a 32.3cm balance point, that's still going to put a lot of zing in your shots.
Pete had his racquet killed, he didn't want to have to balance back and forth from the racquet from the arm and come to a center, he wanted complete control. And yeah there was serious zing, but it was controlled directy from Pete's powerband, no middleman.

Midlife crisis
05-25-2006, 07:22 AM
Think of it in terms of physics. Hitting a tennis ball is a collisions of two objects of finite weight. If you were in a head-on collision with a 2,500 lb VW Jetta, would you rather be in a 5,000 lb Lincoln Navigator SUV or a 2,000 lb Toyota Tercel?

Breakpoint, I've heard you use this analogy many times, but it's not a good one. First, there is nothing to "survive" in either the ball or the racquet. Both the ball and racquet handle the collision without problems, unlike people who ride in cars. If the racquet contained an ant that you were required to keep alive, then it is another story. But it doesn't, so that analogy doesn't apply to tennis.

Midlife crisis
05-25-2006, 07:24 AM
Does anyone else find this quote to be a contradiction? Even if you string a racquet at 75 lbs, if it's 14oz with a 32.3cm balance point, that's still going to put a lot of zing in your shots.

Just goes to show again that those who are experts in their craft may not understand the science behind their craft any better than a person off the street.

Andres
05-25-2006, 07:44 AM
Where did you add the weights to your racquet? You added like what? . . . 3 oz.?
I added around 80 gs to the racquet, which is around 3 oz, at least to the ProStaff. Around 20 to the head, with lead, and the rest to the handle, because I need a huge grip (I'm using well above 6 inches), so all the weight is down there, in the handle, and it's extremely HL (between 14 and 16 pts HL)

travlerajm
05-25-2006, 07:52 AM
I added around 80 gs to the racquet, which is around 3 oz, at least to the ProStaff. Around 20 to the head, with lead, and the rest to the handle, because I need a huge grip (I'm using well above 6 inches), so all the weight is down there, in the handle, and it's extremely HL (between 14 and 16 pts HL)

Have you had your serve clocked with that club?

BreakPoint
05-25-2006, 11:25 AM
Breakpoint, I've heard you use this analogy many times, but it's not a good one. First, there is nothing to "survive" in either the ball or the racquet. Both the ball and racquet handle the collision without problems, unlike people who ride in cars. If the racquet contained an ant that you were required to keep alive, then it is another story. But it doesn't, so that analogy doesn't apply to tennis.

I'm not talking about "survival". I'm talking about which object pushes which object around due to its higher or lower mass. Does the racquet push the ball around or does the ball push the racquet around? There's a good reason why people add lead tape to their racquets. There's just no getting around mass. That's why just about every physics (mechanics) equation contains the variable m (mass).

Midlife crisis
05-25-2006, 12:21 PM
I'm not talking about "survival". I'm talking about which object pushes which object around due to its higher or lower mass. Does the racquet push the ball around or does the ball push the racquet around? There's a good reason why people add lead tape to their racquets. There's just no getting around mass. That's why just about every physics (mechanics) equation contains the variable m (mass).

Sure, but just about every physics equation that deals with moving things also contains velocity in some format as a component, and your analogy ignores this. I responded because suresh said this:

And I did not get the point of the ball being the same. If you can hit the ball harder by swinging faster with a sub-14 oz racquet, and more people can do so, why does it matter that the ball is the same?

and you responded with your car analogy, which has no relevance to the discussion. This is not about aspects of impact harshness or preceived arm safety, but about the ability to hit a ball with a certain amount of velocity. However, you've used this analogy many times also interjecting it when it did not seem appropriate to me, so if I'm missing the point somehow, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain it to me.

sureshs
05-25-2006, 12:30 PM
Think of it in terms of physics. Hitting a tennis ball is a collisions of two objects of finite weight. If you were in a head-on collision with a 2,500 lb VW Jetta, would you rather be in a 5,000 lb Lincoln Navigator SUV or a 2,000 lb Toyota Tercel?

I would rather be in the 5000 lb vehicle.

But I don't need to swing the Lincoln Navigator with my hands. I just push the pedal.

And the ball does not weigh half as much as my racquet, so I don't have to worry about the racquet (or me) being blown into the fence on impact. I only need to worry that the racquet weighs enough to not give arm pain and withstand the shots hit by my opponent with some stability. If my opponent is a 3.5 or 4.0 player, I can manage with a 11.5 oz strung weight.

If I was a pro player, I would not play with anything less than a 12 oz. But then I would be fit and strong enough to swing it fast over 3 sets.

Roddick The Beast
05-25-2006, 12:31 PM
So far . . .

BreakPoint = 0

Midlife = 2

:mrgreen:

BreakPoint
05-25-2006, 12:39 PM
Sure, but just about every physics equation that deals with moving things also contains velocity in some format as a component, and your analogy ignores this. I responded because suresh said this:

And I did not get the point of the ball being the same. If you can hit the ball harder by swinging faster with a sub-14 oz racquet, and more people can do so, why does it matter that the ball is the same?

and you responded with your car analogy, which has no relevance to the discussion. This is not about aspects of impact harshness or preceived arm safety, but about the ability to hit a ball with a certain amount of velocity. However, you've used this analogy many times also interjecting it when it did not seem appropriate to me, so if I'm missing the point somehow, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain it to me.

OK, swinging faster does not necessarily mean you hit the ball "harder".

Momentum (M) = mass (m) x velocity (v). Thus, if you swung twice as fast with something that's half the weight, you end up with the same magnitude of momentum to collide with the ball. Therefore, you are not hitting the ball "harder". Same goes when you're swinging a little faster with something that's a little lighter.

Don't you have a ton of lead tape on your racquet so that it weighs almost 14 oz.? Why? Why don't you remove all of that lead tape? You should be able to swing it faster, and therefore, hit the ball "harder", right?

In the car analogy, both cars are moving at a certain velocity in opposite directions. The car with the greater weight will have more momentum than the car with the lighter weight. So which car pushes which car when they collide? It's the same when a racquet collides with the ball (disregarding the strings).

Roddick The Beast
05-25-2006, 12:45 PM
*waits patiently for Midlife to put someone in their place*

:mrgreen:

BreakPoint
05-25-2006, 01:03 PM
And the ball does not weigh half as much as my racquet, so I don't have to worry about the racquet (or me) being blown into the fence on impact.

Not necessarily true.

To make it simple: Let's say the ball weighs 2 oz. and your racquet weighs 10 oz. Your racquet is evenly balanced so that the head weighs about 5 oz. The head is what makes impact with the ball and it is the part of the racquet that travels at the highest velocity.

Now, M = mv, so a ball traveling at 80mph has a momentum of 2 x 80 = 160

For the racquet to have a momentum equal to that of the incoming ball or 160, 160 = 5 x v or v = 32. Thus, you would have to swing your racquet at a velocity of 32 mph for the racquet to "feel" it has the same weight as the moving ball. If you swing it slower, the ball will "feel" as if it was heavier than the racquet as the ball will push the racquet around.

The above would also hold true for slightly heavier but more headlight racquets. What matters is the weight behind the moving part of the racquet and also the part that collides with the ball.

Of course, the above is simplified for brevity and clarity's sake, but I think you get the idea.

BTW, you may only need to push the gas pedal on the Navigator, but you're still expending more energy than with the Tercel. You'll realize that everytime you fill up at the gas station. ;) However, if you drive slower in the Navigator, you'll use up less energy, but can still have more momentum than the Jetta. Same goes with the racquet.

Roddick The Beast
05-25-2006, 01:07 PM
*is now waiting "frantically" for Mid's reply* :mrgreen:

sureshs
05-25-2006, 01:07 PM
Momentum (M) = mass (m) x velocity (v). Thus, if you swung twice as fast with something that's half the weight, you end up with the same magnitude of momentum to collide with the ball. Therefore, you are not hitting the ball "harder". Same goes when you're swinging a little faster with something that's a little lighter.


It is not just about momentum at impact. A slightly faster swing with a slightly lighter stick can help you get to the ball earlier and that makes a big difference. It also helps in reacting during doubles and tires you less over long matches (something I cannot explain because I thought fatigue was due to the feet).

Roddick The Beast
05-25-2006, 01:08 PM
So far. . .

Break = 4

Mid = 2

Roddick The Beast
05-25-2006, 01:11 PM
It is not just about momentum at impact. A slightly faster swing with a slightly lighter stick can help you get to the ball earlier and that makes a big difference. It also helps in reacting during doubles and tires you less over long matches (something I cannot explain because I thought fatigue was due to the feet).A slightly faster swing with a slightly lighter stick can help you get to the ball earlier and that makes a big difference. So you are saying that "it makes a big difference", but the question IS: "How does it make the big difference?"


(Hahha, just saying what I predict would be posted by someone else, that's all.) :mrgreen:

sureshs
05-25-2006, 01:14 PM
However, if you drive slower in the Navigator, you'll use up less energy, but can still have more momentum than the Jetta. Same goes with the racquet.

But I may never reach my destination if I drive so slowly. Like the ball will be on me or past me by the time I get my Navigator racquet swinging.

djones
05-25-2006, 03:33 PM
There was a list posted with the pro player's racquet weight here, a little while ago.
I believe Blake had one of the heaviest racquets, which weighted 365 grams unstrung.

Roddick The Beast
05-25-2006, 04:52 PM
Status . . .

Breakpoint = 4

Midlife = 0

You lost Midlife. I guess you just decided to take the easy way out and fleed for your life, you coward! :mrgreen:

Midlife crisis
05-25-2006, 06:17 PM
OK, swinging faster does not necessarily mean you hit the ball "harder".

Momentum (M) = mass (m) x velocity (v). Thus, if you swung twice as fast with something that's half the weight, you end up with the same magnitude of momentum to collide with the ball. Therefore, you are not hitting the ball "harder". Same goes when you're swinging a little faster with something that's a little lighter.

Don't you have a ton of lead tape on your racquet so that it weighs almost 14 oz.? Why? Why don't you remove all of that lead tape? You should be able to swing it faster, and therefore, hit the ball "harder", right?

In the car analogy, both cars are moving at a certain velocity in opposite directions. The car with the greater weight will have more momentum than the car with the lighter weight. So which car pushes which car when they collide? It's the same when a racquet collides with the ball (disregarding the strings).

I think you're getting away from the reason for my first comment. You responded to suresh's comment:

And I did not get the point of the ball being the same. If you can hit the ball harder by swinging faster with a sub-14 oz racquet, and more people can do so, why does it matter that the ball is the same?

with:

Think of it in terms of physics. Hitting a tennis ball is a collisions of two objects of finite weight. If you were in a head-on collision with a 2,500 lb VW Jetta, would you rather be in a 5,000 lb Lincoln Navigator SUV or a 2,000 lb Toyota Tercel?

And my comment was that this didn't follow and doesn't relate to the gist of what he says. I'm sure people would definitely agree that they'd rather be in the heavier car, just like most advanced players would rather use a heavier racquet, but that's not the context of the original discussion, which is why I commented like I did.

And yeah, I do have currently about 2.75 ounces of lead in/on my racquet, and it's likely the same reason as you - a heavier racquet is better for arm safety and just feels better because I, like you, grew up and learned tennis using wood racquets. I'd actually prefer a little more, but can't use it because I get overwhelmed by higher level players who have the ability to make me hit shots when I'm out of position, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Roddick The Beast
05-25-2006, 06:17 PM
New Status (update)

Breakpoint = -4

Midlife = "10"

Breakpoint is the loser.

:mrgreen:

Andres
05-25-2006, 06:55 PM
Have you had your serve clocked with that club?
Yeah. Email me. Won't say it in here. It's not worthy ;)

Roddick The Beast
05-25-2006, 07:12 PM
Yeah. Email me. Won't say it in here. It's not worthy ;)What's that supposed to mean? : "I'm too embarrassed to say it here"? or "Naw, my serve is so fast that people here would think that I'm full of it"?

And what the heck do you mean by "It's not worthy"? What, you think you're too cool to post on some silly message board, that it's not "worthy" of your private words?

If it is the latter, then you are just self-flattering yourself!

Andres
05-25-2006, 07:15 PM
What's that supposed to mean? : "I'm too embarrassed to say it here"? or "Naw, it's so fast that people here would think that I'm full of it"?

If it is the latter, then you are just self-flattering yourself!
Whatever I reply, then SOMEONE will find SOMETHING to bash about, like it happens ALWAYS here... so it's a topic of discussion which is NOT WORTHY of discussing here.

But the difference, is, whatever my reply is, I have video footage to proove everything I said. If I say "HEH, I CAN SERVE 150 MPH (which I can't), everyone will bash me somehow. If I say 120+, same. 110+, same. 100+, same. Bragging, or whatever the right word for this is, it's not my thing ;)

I know my skills, I know my game, and that's only for me, and the people REALLY interested of knowing me, or my game. I won't post here, because I think it's bragging, except when I'm asking for advice.

Andres
05-25-2006, 07:18 PM
And what the heck do you mean by "It's not worthy"? What, you think you're too cool to post on some silly message board, that it's not "worthy" of your private words?
And yes, I'm TOO COOL. You see this smiley? : :cool:
That shows I'm TOO COOL.

:cool: :cool:

Roddick The Beast
05-25-2006, 07:19 PM
Whatever I reply, then SOMEONE will find SOMETHING to bash about, like it happens ALWAYS here... so it's a topic of discussion which is NOT WORTHY of discussing here.

But the difference, is, whatever my reply is, I have video footage to proove everything I said. If I say "HEH, I CAN SERVE 150 MPH (which I can't), everyone will bash me somehow. If I say 120+, same. 110+, same. 100+, same. Bragging, or whatever the right word for this is, it's not my thing ;)

I know my skills, I know my game, and that's only for me, and the people REALLY interested of knowing me, or my game. I won't post here, because I think it's bragging, except when I'm asking for advice.I think the right word would be: "self-flattering" -- as is apparent. ;)

Andres
05-25-2006, 07:20 PM
No, self flattering would be like: "Roddick the Beast. I'm better than you. I serve better, and my overall game is 10 times better. I'm the best around here."

That's self flattering. But naturally, you're just here to bash people, and frankly, I can't care less. I don't need to bash you back, nor insult you, like other do.

I live my life peacefully ;)

Roddick The Beast
05-25-2006, 07:23 PM
No, self flattering would be like: "Roddick the Beast. I'm better than you. I serve better, and my overall game is 10 times better. I'm the best around here."

That's self flattering. But naturally, you're just here to bash people, and frankly, I can't care less. I don't need to bash you back, nor insult you, like other do.

I live my life peacefully ;)you're just here to bash peopleYou don't even know.

Andres
05-25-2006, 07:25 PM
You don't even know.
Probably I don't. But I don't want to know either.
And why did u edit the "and also with you ;)" part?
What was wrong with that?

Roddick The Beast
05-25-2006, 07:27 PM
Probably I don't. But I don't want to know either.
And why did u edit the "and also with you ;)" part?
What was wrong with that?Cause it wasn't relevant. It was a side note pertaining to the "peace" part!

travlerajm
05-25-2006, 10:33 PM
It is not just about momentum at impact. A slightly faster swing with a slightly lighter stick can help you get to the ball earlier and that makes a big difference. It also helps in reacting during doubles and tires you less over long matches (something I cannot explain because I thought fatigue was due to the feet).

In my experience, a heavier stick is better than a lighter one when you have less time to react. Because with a heavy racquet, it's much easier to just stick it out in front of the ball and punch it back. And I find that lighter racquets tend to make me take a bigger backswing. The bigger backswing is fine against light-hitting opponents. But then when I run into someone who hits bigger than I'm used to, I always seem to be late because my backswing is too big. The heavier racquet keeps my backswing shorter.

To summarize, I've found that the biggest advantage of a heavy stick is that it makes your shot less dependent on your opponent's pace and spin level. This is huge, because it means I know that my shot is going to come off my racquet the same no matter who I play against. This is even more true for my volleys.

For me, the only downside to a heavy racquet is that if you go too heavy, the power-to-spin ratio goes up too much, so that keeping the ball in the court becomes an issue if you don't string a lot tighter. Going with the heavier-and-tighter approach (a la Sampras) takes a lot of the spin out of your game, but serve-and-volley tennis becomes a lot easier.

Bottle Rocket
05-25-2006, 11:31 PM
"OK, swinging faster does not necessarily mean you hit the ball "harder".

Momentum (M) = mass (m) x velocity (v). Thus, if you swung twice as fast with something that's half the weight, you end up with the same magnitude of momentum to collide with the ball. Therefore, you are not hitting the ball "harder". Same goes when you're swinging a little faster with something that's a little lighter."

.................................................. ....

Momentum of the racket says nothing about energy transferred to the ball. A heavier racket, because of impulse (an equation accounting for contact time), causes a more elastic collision. Doubling mass and cutting velocity of the racket in half does not cancel out when it comes to hitting the ball. In fact, there is no linear relationship. Connections are being made that do not exist.

I guess I am not even sure what you guys are trying to convince eachother of, but BP's argument doesn't hold a lot of water.

BreakPoint
05-25-2006, 11:33 PM
And yeah, I do have currently about 2.75 ounces of lead in/on my racquet, and it's likely the same reason as you - a heavier racquet is better for arm safety and just feels better because I, like you, grew up and learned tennis using wood racquets. I'd actually prefer a little more, but can't use it because I get overwhelmed by higher level players who have the ability to make me hit shots when I'm out of position, but that's a whole 'nother story.

But why does the heavier racquet feel better? Because it allows you to plow through the ball more easily and make the ball go where you want it to go. In essence, it helps you to win that collision between your racquet and the ball. You can push the ball around rather than allowing the ball to push you around.

It's much nicer to be in that Navigator plowing through that Jetta than being in that Tercel being plowed through by the Jetta, isn't it? ;)

BreakPoint
05-25-2006, 11:41 PM
Momentum of the racket says nothing about energy transferred to the ball. A heavier racket, because of impulse (an equation accounting for contact time), causes a more elastic collision. Doubling mass and cutting velocity of the racket in half does not cancel out when it comes to hitting the ball. In fact, there is no linear relationship. Connections are being made that do not exist.


I did say disregarding the strings (i.e., assume a solid, unyielding surface). I should also add, disregarding the deformation of the ball.

In my experience, I can control the ball better when I swing slower with a heavy racquet than I can with a light racquet swinging faster, disregarding spin.

There's a good reason why Sampras weighed up his ProStaff to 14 oz.

travlerajm
05-25-2006, 11:55 PM
In my experience, I can control the ball better when I swing slower with a heavy racquet than I can with a light racquet swinging faster, disregarding spin.

Yes. To maximize depth control you want to maximize the ratio of your momentum to the ball's momentum. That way, the pace on your shot depends less on your ability to judge how fast your opponent's shot is traveling, and less on your ability to calculate how fast you need to swing to generate the proper depth based on that judgment. In other words, with a heavier racquet, what you put in = how fast the ball goes. That's not the case with a lighter stick.

Bill Tilden
05-26-2006, 12:18 AM
"OK, swinging faster does not necessarily mean you hit the ball "harder".

Momentum (M) = mass (m) x velocity (v). Thus, if you swung twice as fast with something that's half the weight, you end up with the same magnitude of momentum to collide with the ball. Therefore, you are not hitting the ball "harder". Same goes when you're swinging a little faster with something that's a little lighter."

.................................................. ....

Momentum of the racket says nothing about energy transferred to the ball. A heavier racket, because of impulse (an equation accounting for contact time), causes a more elastic collision. Doubling mass and cutting velocity of the racket in half does not cancel out when it comes to hitting the ball. In fact, there is no linear relationship. Connections are being made that do not exist.

I guess I am not even sure what you guys are trying to convince eachother of, but I bet you guys agree on more than you disagree on.

...Do you guys ever go back and read what you've said? This is getting pretty childish. :rolleyes:


you are talking about the linear momentum, the tennis racquet swing around an axis of rotation

this is the formula of momentum of inertia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/3/9/b39c5ae4c2e610ffa192c782fd257b49.png

where I is inertia M the mass and r is the distance from the axis of rotation, we can see that r is squared

Bill Tilden
05-26-2006, 01:15 AM
So the location of the mass is very important.

Roddick The Beast
05-26-2006, 06:45 AM
"OK, swinging faster does not necessarily mean you hit the ball "harder".

Momentum (M) = mass (m) x velocity (v). Thus, if you swung twice as fast with something that's half the weight, you end up with the same magnitude of momentum to collide with the ball. Therefore, you are not hitting the ball "harder". Same goes when you're swinging a little faster with something that's a little lighter."

.................................................. ....

Momentum of the racket says nothing about energy transferred to the ball. A heavier racket, because of impulse (an equation accounting for contact time), causes a more elastic collision. Doubling mass and cutting velocity of the racket in half does not cancel out when it comes to hitting the ball. In fact, there is no linear relationship. Connections are being made that do not exist.

I guess I am not even sure what you guys are trying to convince eachother of, but I bet you guys agree on more than you disagree on.

...Do you guys ever go back and read what you've said? This is getting pretty childish. :rolleyes:If it's so "childish", then get lost, assmunch! :mrgreen:

Roddick The Beast
05-26-2006, 06:47 AM
But why does the heavier racquet feel better? Because it allows you to plow through the ball more easily and make the ball go where you want it to go. In essence, it helps you to win that collision between your racquet and the ball. You can push the ball around rather than allowing the ball to push you around.

It's much nicer to be in that Navigator plowing through that Jetta than being in that Tercel being plowed through by the Jetta, isn't it? ;)Status update............the score is:

Breakpoint = -3

Midlife = "10"

sureshs
05-26-2006, 07:44 AM
I did say disregarding the strings (i.e., assume a solid, unyielding surface). I should also add, disregarding the deformation of the ball.

In my experience, I can control the ball better when I swing slower with a heavy racquet than I can with a light racquet swinging faster, disregarding spin.

There's a good reason why Sampras weighed up his ProStaff to 14 oz.

You yourself said on another thread (top 20 pros racquet head sizes) that pro's racquet choices are irrelevant to recreational players.

Ball control is better with a heavier racquet, that is why I find that a 18*20 pattern on a lighter stick is good. The danger with swinging slow with a heavy racquet (I used a 13.5 oz racquet for a couple of months due to some grip size mods and lead experiments which went wrong) is that you get used to blocking the ball and hitting flatter. It also felt very nice when I could take a limited swing and feel a comfortable response. Serves were also heavier and some forehands when I could swing faster where humongous. But the downside is that you lose the ability to swing faster and put more spin and be more agile in general. Today's game is about more racquet head acceleration. Watch the teaching pros teach more advanced juniors, and they are constantly pounding on racquet head speed. And when you play a more advanced player who hits hard and deep, it is going to be difficult no matter what. They key there is much earlier footwork and racquet takeback. You may get a few blocks in with a heavy racquet, but that won't improve your game.

BreakPoint
05-26-2006, 12:00 PM
You yourself said on another thread (top 20 pros racquet head sizes) that pro's racquet choices are irrelevant to recreational players.


I'm not saying that all recreational players should weigh their racquets up to 14 oz. I'm saying that a heavy racquet helped Sampras win his collisions with the fast moving balls hit by his opponents. None of us here face the same level of competiton as Sampras did, so we don't face such heavy balls. Many of us also don't have the ability to win those collisions with the ball everytime because we're not strong enough to consistently swing a heavy racquet.

But that doesn't change the physics. A heavier racquet transfers more momentum to the ball given the same swing speed, regardless of the capability of the operator to do so or not.

sureshs
05-26-2006, 12:33 PM
I'm not saying that all recreational players should weigh their racquets up to 14 oz. I'm saying that a heavy racquet helped Sampras win his collisions with the fast moving balls hit by his opponents. None of us here face the same level of competiton as Sampras did, so we don't face such heavy balls. Many of us also don't have the ability to win those collisions with the ball everytime because we're not strong enough to consistently swing a heavy racquet.


But Fed manages with 12.8 or so. How?

ta11geese3
05-26-2006, 12:51 PM
What kind of question is that? Fed could dominate with a wilson sledgehammer if he wanted =X

sureshs
05-26-2006, 01:10 PM
Yes, but could he with a 14 oz? Why isn't he using one like Sampras' then? Could it be that such heavy racquets don't suit the modern game any more?

Midlife crisis
05-26-2006, 01:55 PM
Yes, but could he with a 14 oz? Why isn't he using one like Sampras' then? Could it be that such heavy racquets don't suit the modern game any more?

Yeah, that's true, and the same reason why with the modern game you have very few elite players using 85 sq. in. heads (if any). The game has sped up and the hitting stances don't allow the body to brace against the levels of acceleration that need to be imparted to a racquet.

Much the same as in baseball, where the bats have not only gotten lighter than used to be used, but the players are stronger.

BreakPoint
05-26-2006, 03:38 PM
Yes, but could he with a 14 oz? Why isn't he using one like Sampras' then? Could it be that such heavy racquets don't suit the modern game any more?

First of all, Federer's racquet is almost evenly balanced. Someone said his racquet's swingweight is 350-360. That's as high as a 14 oz. racquet that's balanced headlight (I don't know what Sampras' balance was).

Second, Fed's racquet has a bigger head which inherently is more powerful so he doesn't need as much weight (for the same reason OS racquets can afford to be light). His racquet is also stiffer (and possibly has HyperCarbon and/or nCode to add even more power) which makes it more powerful, again, compensating for the lower weight (but at the possible risk of bodily injury).

Third, Sampras served-and-volleyed a lot more than Fed does. Both the serve and the volley benefit from a heavier (and smaller) racquet. That's why Sampras had both a better serve and a better volley than Fed does. Taylor Dent's racquet is at least 14 oz. and has a swingweight that is off the charts.

Lastly, Fed swings at the ball violently with much higher racquet head speed than Sampras did. This compensates for the lower weight and provides equal or greater momentum (at the possible cost of bodily injury). However, how many of us mortals can swing at the same racquet head speed that Fed does, even with a light racquet, and still hit the middle of the sweetspot almost every time? Since we can't, most of us are better off using something heavier and swing slower to achieve that required momentum IMHO.

sureshs
05-26-2006, 08:27 PM
First of all, Federer's racquet is almost evenly balanced. Someone said his racquet's swingweight is 350-360. That's as high as a 14 oz. racquet that's balanced headlight (I don't know what Sampras' balance was).

Second, Fed's racquet has a bigger head which inherently is more powerful so he doesn't need as much weight (for the same reason OS racquets can afford to be light). His racquet is also stiffer (and possibly has HyperCarbon and/or nCode to add even more power) which makes it more powerful, again, compensating for the lower weight (but at the possible risk of bodily injury).

Third, Sampras served-and-volleyed a lot more than Fed does. Both the serve and the volley benefit from a heavier (and smaller) racquet. That's why Sampras had both a better serve and a better volley than Fed does. Taylor Dent's racquet is at least 14 oz. and has a swingweight that is off the charts.

Lastly, Fed swings at the ball violently with much higher racquet head speed than Sampras did. This compensates for the lower weight and provides equal or greater momentum (at the possible cost of bodily injury). However, how many of us mortals can swing at the same racquet head speed that Fed does, even with a light racquet, and still hit the middle of the sweetspot almost every time? Since we can't, most of us are better off using something heavier and swing slower to achieve that required momentum IMHO.

What I am hearing is that baseline or all-court players like Federer are using lighter, inherently more powerful, and larger head racquets than S&V oriented players like Sampras and Dent (a declining breed). Nadal is taking it one step further with his more modern topspin game and Babolat racquet. So why should recreational players move in the opposite direction?

Your logic appears sound yet has holes. I really admire the content in it and have to read it several times otherwise I will end up believing you! You are saying that mere mortals cannot swing like Federer, so they should try to use equipment like Sampras?

I also suspect that you are focusing on 1 H BHs. The majority of upcoming players (both male and female) use a 2H BH, for which larger head seems beneficial. Agassi uses a 107! Not only that, they have an unbelievable sharp cross court angled backhand which I have never seen 1 H BH players able to do (not even Federer). I suspect that requires lower swingweight and using a slow heavy racquet will not cut it. I just came back after playing a young college kid tonite who used such strokes repeatedly, so my info is very current. A slow heavy racquet may at most execute a backhand "roll" with a 1 H, even real topspin will be difficult.

chess9
05-26-2006, 08:36 PM
Much the same as in baseball, where the bats have not only gotten lighter than used to be used, but the players are stronger.

I didn't know this was happening. When I was playing American Legion ball I used a 32 oz bat, as I recall (good grief, it's been a long time). Are you saying Bonds is using that weight bat, or less? I think 36 oz was the biggest I saw in the bag, but I was only 13 and that was years ago. Interesting analogy.....

-Robert

Roddick The Beast
05-26-2006, 08:39 PM
What I am hearing is that baseline or all-court players like Federer are using lighter, inherently more powerful, and larger head racquets than S&V oriented players like Sampras and Dent (a declining breed). Nadal is taking it one step further with his more modern topspin game and Babolat racquet. So why should recreational players move in the opposite direction?

Your logic appears sound yet has holes. I really admire the content in it and have to read it several times otherwise I will end up believing you! You are saying that mere mortals cannot swing like Federer, so they should try to use equipment like Sampras?

I also suspect that you are focusing on 1 H BHs. The majority of upcoming players (both male and female) use a 2H BH, for which larger head seems beneficial. Agassi uses a 107! Not only that, they have an unbelievable sharp cross court angled backhand which I have never seen 1 H BH players able to do (not even Federer). I suspect that requires lower swingweight and using a slow heavy racquet will not cut it. I just came back after playing a young college kid tonite who used such strokes repeatedly, so my info is very current. A slow heavy racquet may at most execute a backhand "roll" with a 1 H, even real topspin will be difficult.Yeah, he only says that mere mortals cannot swing like Fed only cause HE can't do so (or in a way similar to it), and he probably sucks, with the old school strokes! Haha :mrgreen:

I hate it when people always say something like: "Don't even bother trying to build a stroke like Fed's. Only HE can do it, only pros can hit like that." :rolleyes: It's like, not all of US (so-called mere mortals) are cheezy players like him. Some of us actually learned *cough cough* "MODERN" tennis from world-famous tennis academies. eh hemmmmm . . . ;)

chess9
05-26-2006, 09:24 PM
Roddick The Beast:

I'm sure there is a sub-text of modesty in all of these posts. We should simply gently insert them as we read. Thus, we won't have visions of red-faced tyrants screaming obscenities at us for not having MODERN strokes.

-Robert

BreakPoint
05-26-2006, 09:57 PM
What I am hearing is that baseline or all-court players like Federer are using lighter, inherently more powerful, and larger head racquets than S&V oriented players like Sampras and Dent (a declining breed). Nadal is taking it one step further with his more modern topspin game and Babolat racquet. So why should recreational players move in the opposite direction?
Again, those are pros. We are recreational players. They do what they do. And we do what we do. We are not clones of the pros nor should we copy the pros. It doesn't matter if no pros at all serve and volley, there will still be plenty of recreational players that serve and volley. Almost no pros serve and volley now, but the majority of people I play against at the recreational level still serve and volley today.

Your logic appears sound yet has holes. I really admire the content in it and have to read it several times otherwise I will end up believing you! You are saying that mere mortals cannot swing like Federer, so they should try to use equipment like Sampras?
Again, momentum can only be increased by either increasing mass or increasing velocity. So if you can't generate the racquet head speed, you can compensate for that by increasing the weight. Besides, slowing down your swing will give you better chance of hitting the sweetspot more consistently. (BTW, we're disregarding spin and talking about plowing through the ball.)

I also suspect that you are focusing on 1 H BHs. The majority of upcoming players (both male and female) use a 2H BH, for which larger head seems beneficial. Agassi uses a 107! Not only that, they have an unbelievable sharp cross court angled backhand which I have never seen 1 H BH players able to do (not even Federer). I suspect that requires lower swingweight and using a slow heavy racquet will not cut it. I just came back after playing a young college kid tonite who used such strokes repeatedly, so my info is very current. A slow heavy racquet may at most execute a backhand "roll" with a 1 H, even real topspin will be difficult.
I hit a 1HBH and I have no trouble hitting very sharp crosscourt angles. In fact, I find it easier to hit sharp acute angles with 1HBH than 2HBH because with a 1HBH, I can take the ball earlier out in front and cut the ball off by hitting a sharp angle. Just tonight I played some doubles receiving in the ad court and I hit several sharp angle crosscourt 1HBH's right past the net rushing server. The angles were so sharp that the ball landed in the doubles alley but only about 3 feet from the net. The net rusher had no chance since he was barely at the service line when the ball whizzed by 10 feet in front of him at an angle that was nearly parallel to the net! :D

I also have no trouble hitting topspin with my 1HBH. BTW, haven't you seen Federer generate heavy topspin with his 1HBH? He hits that BH all the time.

anirut
05-26-2006, 10:41 PM
I hit a 1HBH and I have no trouble hitting very sharp crosscourt angles.
<snip>
I also have no trouble hitting topspin with my 1HBH.


Same here, BP. We're the old breed. Rare to find these days I suppose? Hope they don't put us into museums and consider us "the endangered species"...

Your description of that backhand your played illustrates the devastating effect of a well-learned, well-trained 1HBH. And I do it too.

Long live 1HBH!

BreakPoint
05-26-2006, 10:50 PM
Same here, BP. We're the old breed. Rare to find these days I suppose? Hope they don't put us into museums and consider us "the endangered species"...

Your description of that backhand your played illustrates the devastating effect of a well-learned, well-trained 1HBH. And I do it too.

Long live 1HBH!

Hip, hip, horray for the 1HBH!!! :mrgreen:

Shall it live on for all eternity!! :p

anirut
05-26-2006, 11:03 PM
Yes, the 1HBH shall live on ...

I know of at least one younger generation that plays it .... my son.

Double G
05-29-2006, 12:48 PM
DonBudge's racket was like 19 oz.

slice bh compliment
05-29-2006, 12:54 PM
Double G,
I do not mean to step on your toes here, pal, but here's the deal.

In the early 1930's, Budge actually broke a branch off a tree and started kicking *** all over the eastern grasscourt circuit. His results became more consistent by the late '30's when he got the thing strung up.

How consistent? All four majors in 1938.

sureshs
05-29-2006, 01:06 PM
I also have no trouble hitting topspin with my 1HBH. BTW, haven't you seen Federer generate heavy topspin with his 1HBH? He hits that BH all the time.

That is him. Don't think many recreational players will able to hit a 1 H BH topspin like that with such a heavy racquet.

I see little junior girls effortlessly hit sharp crosscourt jumping 2 H BHs with light big racquets and their games seem so symmetrical compared to the older 1 H adult men who struggle with any ball on the BH. Venus was doing that devastating BH today with her monster head racquet (though I can't believe it is really as light as the N1 or N4 or whatever it supposed to be).

Anyways, this is a digression. Question is, are less swingweighty racquets better for a 2 H BH or not.

BreakPoint
05-29-2006, 05:40 PM
Question is, are less swingweighty racquets better for a 2 H BH or not.

I say yes. You actually need a heavier racquet to a 1HBH well because you need more of the racquet to do the work for you and less of your arm since you only have one arm on the racquet. The heavier racquet allows the momentum to take over in hitting the ball rather than muscling it with your arm/shoulder/wrist.

BTW, my 1HBH is my stronger side.

travlerajm
05-29-2006, 06:02 PM
Yes, but could he with a 14 oz? Why isn't he using one like Sampras' then? Could it be that such heavy racquets don't suit the modern game any more?

I agree with some of what breakpoint said in response to this. He explained why Sampras uses a 14oz stick (better for volleys and penetrating serves), but I also think he left out the most important reason why Federer doesn't use a 14oz, racquet -- Spin.

Sampras' racquet setup was what I would call a "minimum-spin" setup. His racquet was 14oz with a 32.3cm balance point. If he strung his racquet at 54 lbs (as Fed does), then his racquet would have been an uncontrollable over-powered rocket-launcher. By stringing at 75 lbs, he brings the power level down enough that his balls stay in the court. His frame has a lot higher hitting weight than Federer's. This has the advantage of higher stability on volleys, and it's a much better setup for playing against a heavy-spin player (like Nadal). The big disadvantage of Sampras' setup is that it doesn't allow the curvy, loopy spin shots and amazing angles that Federer is famous for.

Sampras' racquet setup has a lot less spin for 2 reasons. The main reason is that the high hitting weight means the frame deflects less, so that the strings deflect more. Strings that absorb more of the impact are less free to deform in the tangential direction, so the spin is substantially less, even if Sampras is strong enough to swing the racquet with the same vertical velocity component. Secondly, the tighter stringbed is less able to generate spin. Tighter strings can deform less in the tangential direction, so the spin is less.

The bottom line is that you should use a racquet setup like Sampras if serve-and-volley is a major part of your game. Otherwise, a racquet setup like Federer's is probably preferable.

NoBadMojo
05-29-2006, 06:36 PM
I agree with some of what breakpoint said in response to this. He explained why Sampras uses a 14oz stick (better for volleys and penetrating serves), but I also think he left out the most important reason why Federer doesn't use a 14oz, racquet -- Spin.

Sampras' racquet setup was what I would call a "minimum-spin" setup. His racquet was 14oz with a 32.3cm balance point. If he strung his racquet at 54 lbs (as Fed does), then his racquet would have been an uncontrollable over-powered rocket-launcher. By stringing at 75 lbs, he brings the power level down enough that his balls stay in the court. His frame has a lot higher hitting weight than Federer's. This has the advantage of higher stability on volleys, and it's a much better setup for playing against a heavy-spin player (like Nadal). The big disadvantage of Sampras' setup is that it doesn't allow the curvy, loopy spin shots and amazing angles that Federer is famous for.

Sampras' racquet setup has a lot less spin for 2 reasons. The main reason is that the high hitting weight means the frame deflects less, so that the strings deflect more. Strings that absorb more of the impact are less free to deform in the tangential direction, so the spin is substantially less, even if Sampras is strong enough to swing the racquet with the same vertical velocity component. Secondly, the tighter stringbed is less able to generate spin. Tighter strings can deform less in the tangential direction, so the spin is less.

The bottom line is that you should use a racquet setup like Sampras if serve-and-volley is a major part of your game. Otherwise, a racquet setup like Federer's is probably preferable.

This is way way off base. Samps had the highest spin rate ever on his serves..it was some insane RPM's that was levels above where the others were. it was the result of being able to swing somethng very heavy very fast
Also many people seem to confuse spin with trajectory..Just because a ball doesnt have high net clearance and doesnt rapidly take a dive doesnt mean it isnt spinning at a very high rate of speed.
I think Samps used that setup because he figured out it hit the heaviest nastiest ball..the kind that would go right through Rafters stringbed and also <acording to Rafter> be at least partly responsible for Rafter blowing out his shoulder trying to deal with the Sampras high spinning heavy serve.
Sampras had the uniquely superior technique and body makeup to swing something that heavy that fast and to spin it like crazy.

BaseLineBash
05-30-2006, 12:41 AM
This is way way off base. Samps had the highest spin rate ever on his serves..it was some insane RPM's that was levels above where the others were. it was the result of being able to swing somethng very heavy very fast
Also many people seem to confuse spin with trajectory..Just because a ball doesnt have high net clearance and doesnt rapidly take a dive doesnt mean it isnt spinning at a very high rate of speed.
I think Samps used that setup because he figured out it hit the heaviest nastiest ball..the kind that would go right through Rafters stringbed and also <acording to Rafter> be at least partly responsible for Rafter blowing out his shoulder trying to deal with the Sampras high spinning heavy serve.
Sampras had the uniquely superior technique and body makeup to swing something that heavy that fast and to spin it like crazy.
Usually we don't see eye to cataract eye lens, but I totally agree with you on this.

travlerajm
05-30-2006, 12:57 AM
This is way way off base. Samps had the highest spin rate ever on his serves..it was some insane RPM's that was levels above where the others were. it was the result of being able to swing somethng very heavy very fast
Also many people seem to confuse spin with trajectory..Just because a ball doesnt have high net clearance and doesnt rapidly take a dive doesnt mean it isnt spinning at a very high rate of speed.
I think Samps used that setup because he figured out it hit the heaviest nastiest ball..the kind that would go right through Rafters stringbed and also <acording to Rafter> be at least partly responsible for Rafter blowing out his shoulder trying to deal with the Sampras high spinning heavy serve.
Sampras had the uniquely superior technique and body makeup to swing something that heavy that fast and to spin it like crazy.

I agree with you that Sampras had a nasty heavy ball, but the nastiness came from the combo of pace plus spin. Guys with "max-spin" setups like Fed and Nadal hit with much higher rpm than Sampras ever did, but neither of them can hit a ball that has the penetration/spin combo of Pete.

Galactus
05-30-2006, 04:10 AM
This is way way off base. Samps had the highest spin rate ever on his serves..it was some insane RPM's that was levels above where the others were. it was the result of being able to swing somethng very heavy very fast
Also many people seem to confuse spin with trajectory..Just because a ball doesnt have high net clearance and doesnt rapidly take a dive doesnt mean it isnt spinning at a very high rate of speed.
I think Samps used that setup because he figured out it hit the heaviest nastiest ball..the kind that would go right through Rafters stringbed and also <acording to Rafter> be at least partly responsible for Rafter blowing out his shoulder trying to deal with the Sampras high spinning heavy serve.
Sampras had the uniquely superior technique and body makeup to swing something that heavy that fast and to spin it like crazy.
Agreed.
Marat Safin serves a similar 'heavy' ball - and he also strings at 65-70lb+.

Doesn't a clean, full follow-through with bodyweight behind the serve also help with delivery of a 'heavy-serve'?

slice bh compliment
05-30-2006, 04:49 AM
Agreed.
Marat Safin serves a similar 'heavy' ball - and he also strings at 65-70lb+.

Doesn't a clean, full follow-through with bodyweight behind the serve also help with delivery of a 'heavy-serve'?

Of course not. Sound strokes are overrated. Didn't you get the memo? Professional and recreational tennis is all about equipment: racquet weight, balance, layup, string construction, tension, grip size, overgrip, shoe brand and apparel. Get a clue, man.

Be careful not to fixate on the technique or talent of a player -- only a small part of the equation. People get too caught up in Pete this and Marat that....Rafa this and Roger that. It is far more important to obsess over things you can discuss empirically on a message board! Hhahahah, Roger that.

Galactus
05-30-2006, 04:59 AM
Of course not. Didn't you get the memo? Professional and recreational tennis is all about equipment: racquet weight, balance, layup, string construction, tension, grip size, overgrip, shoe brand and apparel. Get a clue, man.

Be careful not to fixate on the technique or talent of a player -- only a small part of the equation. People get too caught up in Pete this and Marat that....Rafa this and Roger that. It is far more important to obsess over things you can discuss on a message board! Hhahahah, Roger that.
Yep - you are a true comedian with that last sentence... :rolleyes:

slice bh compliment
05-30-2006, 05:01 AM
Thanks for the eyeroll. The not-so-subtle last sentence was just to make sure everyone knew I was horsing around. Sometimes other people do not get sarcasm....and I'm not so good with the emoticons.

Galactus
05-30-2006, 05:05 AM
Thanks for the eyeroll. The not-so-subtle last sentence was just to make sure everyone knew I was horsing around. Sometimes other people do not get sarcasm....and I'm not so good with the emoticons.
Yeah - I know - I forgot the grinning-greenie to add to it.
Sorry!
:mrgreen:

paulfreda
05-30-2006, 07:21 PM
No no no. Sampras' racket was a bit under 14 ounces. I heard of some Jack Kramer Pro Staff or something or another that was made for Jack Kramer himself, almost 17 ounces or therabouts.

I saw Jack Kramer interviewed talking about his racquet. He said that he was at around 13oz when Don Budge suggested to him that he try a heavier frame. As I recall he said he went up to 15oz and found that he got more power and better volleys so he stuck with it.

framebreaker
06-01-2006, 08:52 PM
some sound like they are talking about something else rather than their racquet.
by the way if you have too much power, a heavy racquet will be unproductive. remember, the faster you swing the heavier your swing will feel.

framebreaker
06-01-2006, 08:57 PM
one name: NADAL:o :D :mrgreen:

travlerajm
06-01-2006, 08:59 PM
some sound like they are talking about something else rather than their racquet.
by the way if you have too much power, a heavy racquet will be unproductive. remember, the faster you swing the heavier your swing will feel.

My philosophy:

If you need more power... add mass.

If you have too much power... string tighter.

Tempest344
11-29-2007, 02:05 AM
Mark Woodforde

used one that was pretty heavy

500 g I believe
sorry I can't remember the link to where i read it

lol this thread is a over a year old

javier sergio
11-29-2007, 06:24 AM
http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/gear/general/general.aspx?id=45730

Who has the heaviest racquet?
The heaviest frame I use to do was for Gabriela Sabatini. It was over 400 grams [or about 14.1 ounces]. Mark Woodforde was incredibly heavy, and Thomas Muster was incredibly heavy. They played a little bit over 400.

Harry_Wild
11-29-2007, 09:59 PM
No no no. Sampras' racket was a bit under 14 ounces. I heard of some Jack Kramer Pro Staff or something or another that was made for Jack Kramer himself, almost 17 ounces or therabouts.

Jack Kramer's racket was named after himself; Jack Kramer Autograph, just before he retired. It was a top seller along with the Dunlop Maxply. Then came the Prostaff and Donnay's Borg Racket!

quest01
11-29-2007, 10:23 PM
I bet you'd get used to that kind of a club after awhile. If you could lift it up to serve, you could hit a seriously heavy ball.

I wouldn't. I don't know why anyone would want to use a racket that heavy. It's insane unless your as good as Pete Sampras.

dunlo
07-24-2008, 02:38 AM
hi
Muster was in Istanbul for Legends Cup last week.
There was an article about his stick:weight 500gr produced genuinely by Head for himself!!And he is still playing with that weight.
Federer:470gr i guess...