PDA

View Full Version : Swing Weight Or Mass? (dynamic vs static)


rocket
03-02-2006, 11:12 AM
When I look at a racquet's specs, I pay attention to its mass (or static weight). I prefer a heavier racquet so this info is important to me. If a racquet's static-weight is low, but its swing-weight high, I'll pass anyway. What say you?

Bora
03-02-2006, 11:16 AM
Well, if the swingweight is too high then you can't swing it worth anything for when it counts, ie, serves, returns, quick volleys. So, there is a max sw I am willing to put up with, anything more than that is counter productive irregardless of balance and static weight.

vin
03-02-2006, 11:36 AM
Here's what I posted in the Tweener vs Player thread where this discussion arose. In general, I think it's better to use both in combination rather than just rely on one.

Even though swingweight may not be enough by itself, I don't think that static weight is enough by itself either. But I guess that can differ from person to person.

I think because of the way I hit my forehand, I am sensitive to both static weight and swingweight. About 11 oz and a SW of 310 - 315 seems to be my target range. If either measurement changes enough, it's going to cause trouble for me.

With the LM Instince for example, which is 11 oz and has a SW of 330, it feels easy to swing, but I can feel the racket head sort of pulling away.

With the Tour 10 Gen 2, which is 12 oz and has a SW of 315, I never feel like the racket head is pulling away, but I am more suceptible to adjustment problems in my backswing and at contact.

Marius_Hancu
03-02-2006, 01:20 PM
both are important

FWIW
check my posting here:

Best arm friendly racquets?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=77937

Keifers
03-02-2006, 01:46 PM
My preferred ranges are: 340-355g static weight and 315-325 swingweight.

Balance point is very important to me also. I prefer 8-11 pts HL.

Keifers
03-02-2006, 01:48 PM
Here's what I posted in the Tweener vs Player thread where this discussion arose. In general, I think it's better to use both in combination rather than just rely on one.

Even though swingweight may not be enough by itself, I don't think that static weight is enough by itself either. But I guess that can differ from person to person.

I think because of the way I hit my forehand, I am sensitive to both static weight and swingweight. About 11 oz and a SW of 310 - 315 seems to be my target range. If either measurement changes enough, it's going to cause trouble for me.

With the LM Instince for example, which is 11 oz and has a SW of 330, it feels easy to swing, but I can feel the racket head sort of pulling away.

With the Tour 10 Gen 2, which is 12 oz and has a SW of 315, I never feel like the racket head is pulling away, but I am more suceptible to adjustment problems in my backswing and at contact.
Very well said, imo. The difference between sw 330 and 315 becomes that much more of a factor in quick exchanges at net in doubles. 315 is MUCH easier to move into position for reaction volleys.

Kevo
03-03-2006, 04:48 AM
Well, if the swingweight is too high then you can't swing it worth anything for when it counts, ie, serves, returns, quick volleys.

Don't swing at your volleys. :-P

heycal
03-03-2006, 04:44 PM
Don't swing at your volleys. :-P

Speaking of which, how does one measure the swingweight on volleys?...

Bora
03-03-2006, 06:37 PM
Don't swing at your volleys. :-P

what? you never saw Serena do it? Anyway, you know what I mean, you don't want the racquet manueverability to get in the way when you are at the net.

:p

Midlife crisis
03-03-2006, 10:00 PM
Speaking of which, how does one measure the swingweight on volleys?...

Greg Raven described how swingweight is measured and the procedure swings the head through a much larger arc than the handle. Swingweight would not apply for a volley where the head and handle move pretty much the same amount, so static weight will probably more accurately represent how easy it is to "punch" a volley. Static weight, though, tells you little about how effective that racquet may actually be at volleying, though.

Kevo
03-04-2006, 05:14 AM
Midlife is correct. That's why it's important to keep that racquet up and out in front when moving to the net for a volley. You don't want to be flailing around trying to get the racquet to the ball. You want a clean precise punch without a lot of back swing.

And you should always be aware of static weight and swing weight. A frame that's too heavy can do more harm than good if you're not used to it. You're right about the low static but high swing though. Better for most serious players to stay away from those frames.

Gaines Hillix
03-04-2006, 05:39 AM
For what it's worth, I don't agree that a punch volley doesn't involve swinging the racuqet and that static weight has a larger effect on maneuverability on volleys than swingweight. Yes, a punch volley involves a shorter swing, but there's still some racquet rotation taking place. It's not a totally linear motion all the way from your shoulder to the tip of the raquest. As long as there is any rotation taking place, a high swingweight is going to get in the way of moving the racquet quickly.

tennisplayer
03-04-2006, 06:31 AM
A very important factor to consider is balance. Even if a racquet is heavy, if it is very head light, it will have a low moment. Thus, it will not feel heavy when you hold it. For me, this is very important for volleying considerations, since I am not swinging the racquet when I volley. I fact, I am holding it most of the time, and maneuvering it into different poisitions based on the ball I see coming towards me, so the moment plays a very important role in control and comfort. SW is important for generating power in ground strokes, serves, overheads, etc. - where one actually swings the racquet.

Now, although the moment and SW are theoretically independent - that is, one can vary one while keeping the other fixed, by playing with other aspects of the racquet (the mass distribution), in general, practical considerations imply that a racquet that is very head light will also have a lower SW. Thus, in order for a head light racquet to have more SW (for power), it needs to be heavier. Of course, this is a simplified view where the role played by other factors such as stiffness have not even been considered.

So you see, what I (IMHO) would recommend is - demo! Find a racquet you are comfortable with, one that will not hurt you. If you are a beginner, heed the safety advice from Marius first - I believe safety should be the first and foremost consideration unless your livelihood depends on tennis. Even if you are advanced, you are better off selecting as a result of demoing than using some numbers you think might be good for you. Well, that's my $0.02's worth. I got to go play now!

Midlife crisis
03-04-2006, 09:46 AM
For what it's worth, I don't agree that a punch volley doesn't involve swinging the racuqet and that static weight has a larger effect on maneuverability on volleys than swingweight. Yes, a punch volley involves a shorter swing, but there's still some racquet rotation taking place. It's not a totally linear motion all the way from your shoulder to the tip of the raquest. As long as there is any rotation taking place, a high swingweight is going to get in the way of moving the racquet quickly.

Maybe I swing differently than most, but on both my forehand and backhand volleys, the path length of the head versus the handle differs by maybe three inches over a two foot swing to the contact point. In some instances, such as when volleying in a reverse-crosscourt direction (hitting a righty forehand to the extreme ad-court side or a righty backhand volley to the extreme deuce side), the racquet handle moves more than the racquet head. In these cases of minimal rotation, swingweight plays a very small part whereas translational movement is the primary factor, and the ease of translational movement is due to static weight.

NoBadMojo
03-04-2006, 09:54 AM
I think you guys are overlooking the role of the legs on the volley. you can get movement of the frame merely by pushing your legs(body) into the volley, which is the optimal way to volley if you have the time. that's what I also thinks debunks the theory about how impt racquet weight of any kind is on the volley..it's far more important on groundstroking and serves and return of serves I think.

Kevo
03-04-2006, 09:58 AM
For what it's worth, I don't agree that a punch volley doesn't involve swinging the racuqet and that static weight has a larger effect on maneuverability on volleys than swingweight. Yes, a punch volley involves a shorter swing, but there's still some racquet rotation taking place. It's not a totally linear motion all the way from your shoulder to the tip of the raquest. As long as there is any rotation taking place, a high swingweight is going to get in the way of moving the racquet quickly.

I agree there is a little bit of rotational motion, but it's not the same as a ground stroke, which is much closer to the mechanics of the way they test swing weight. This is the kind of thing that gets tricky with swing weight versus static weight. Here is an example of what I am trying to get across.

Here is a Hyper Hammer 6.3
Head Size: 95 sq. in. / 613 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 9.9oz / 281g
Balance: 8 pts Head Heavy
Swingweight: 342

Now here is my stick of choice, the RDX 500 Mid.
Head Size: 90 sq. in. / 581 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 11.8oz / 335g
Balance: 8pts Head Light
Swingweight: 318

The RDX is about 2 oz. heavier, but the swing weight is 24 points lower. One of the older guys on our 4.0 team plays with the Hammer frame, and there is no way he would play with mine. The difference is quite substantial. He plays doubles almost exclusively, and you can easily feel the difference trying to move my frame around at the net versus his. So, when comparing racquets, you need to not look at just one number. If you had picked my frame based on swing weight, and then later picked up someone's hammer, you would think the hammer would have a lower swing weight, but it's not because of the specific way the swing weight is measured. The hammer is definitely the easier of the two to swing in this case. I seriously doubt that anyone after having tried both would disagree with that.

Kevo
03-04-2006, 10:00 AM
I think you guys are overlooking the role of the legs on the volley. you can get movement of the frame merely by pushing your legs(body) into the volley, which is the optimal way to volley if you have the time. that's what I also thinks debunks the theory about how impt racquet weight of any kind is on the volley..it's far more important on groundstroking and serves and return of serves I think.

This makes a very generous assumption. Which is that we can get our legs to move! :-)

BreakPoint
03-04-2006, 11:13 AM
that's what I also thinks debunks the theory about how impt racquet weight of any kind is on the volley..it's far more important on groundstroking and serves and return of serves I think.

However, other than affecting maneuverability, I think heavier racquets help a lot with stability on volleys, even more so than on groundstrokes and serves. Since the speed of the ball coming at you on a volley is usually much faster than for a groundstroke, there's much more momentum on the ball when it impacts your racquet which can push lighter racquets back and around making it feel more unstable, which in turn, makes you lose control. For me, heavier racquets get pushed around less on volleys which make them more stable and provide much better and more accurate control. I've played with heavy racquets with high swingweights that I have a hard time swinging groundstrokes or serves with for several hours but they are great at the net allowing me to hit pinpoint volleys with, thanks to the weight.

rocket
03-04-2006, 01:56 PM
I think you guys are overlooking the role of the legs on the volley. you can get movement of the frame merely by pushing your legs(body) into the volley, which is the optimal way to volley if you have the time.

I agree with that. We put our body into the shot to block the ball back. The arm going forward is more to slice the ball to keep it low. We can 'arm-muscle' the volley too but that's less effective & precise.

travlerajm
03-14-2006, 12:03 AM
Anyone who hasn't tried volleying with a heavier racquet is missing out. An easy way to make your volleys better and get more penetration on your groundies without changing the swingweight drastically is to add an oz or two of lead along the length of the grip. It will flatten out your serve and groundies a little, but the added penetration is worth it. I currently use a hammer 5.0 with 2.5 oz under the grip.

Weight in the buttcap area will do the opposite and make your racquet more spinny - I carry some hammer sticks in my bag with over 2 oz of weight in the buttcap; I need to string these 10 lbs looser to get enough power, but I can serve ridiculous spins with these. But it only works for groundies if you like to use heavy spin like Nadal - almost impossible to hit flat drives.

And if you want to hit a kick serve 120 mph that hits the back curtain 8 ft high and still rising? I just take a hammer 5.0, add 2 oz of weight along the grip, and then a strip of lead all the way around the hoop. With this stick, I can serve as hard as Roddick, but the racquet is so powerful and high swingweight that it's tough to control the groundies.

Techniques
03-14-2006, 02:04 AM
Anyone who hasn't tried volleying with a heavier racquet is missing out. An easy way to make your volleys better and get more penetration on your groundies without changing the swingweight drastically is to add an oz or two of lead along the length of the grip. It will flatten out your serve and groundies a little, but the added penetration is worth it. I currently use a hammer 5.0 with 2.5 oz under the grip.

Weight in the buttcap area will do the opposite and make your racquet more spinny - I carry some hammer sticks in my bag with over 2 oz of weight in the buttcap; I need to string these 10 lbs looser to get enough power, but I can serve ridiculous spins with these. But it only works for groundies if you like to use heavy spin like Nadal - almost impossible to hit flat drives.

And if you want to hit a kick serve 120 mph that hits the back curtain 8 ft high and still rising? I just take a hammer 5.0, add 2 oz of weight along the grip, and then a strip of lead all the way around the hoop. With this stick, I can serve as hard as Roddick, but the racquet is so powerful and high swingweight that it's tough to control the groundies.
Yeah, read the post that diredesire made.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=90220
He made a great post about how to add lead tape and where to add it to do what. I some lead tape to 3/9 and quite alot along the handle, and it gave me way more power and it flattened my groundstrokes out. TONNES.

Midlife crisis
03-14-2006, 12:27 PM
Anyone who hasn't tried volleying with a heavier racquet is missing out. An easy way to make your volleys better and get more penetration on your groundies without changing the swingweight drastically is to add an oz or two of lead along the length of the grip. It will flatten out your serve and groundies a little, but the added penetration is worth it. I currently use a hammer 5.0 with 2.5 oz under the grip.

Weight in the buttcap area will do the opposite and make your racquet more spinny - I carry some hammer sticks in my bag with over 2 oz of weight in the buttcap; I need to string these 10 lbs looser to get enough power, but I can serve ridiculous spins with these. But it only works for groundies if you like to use heavy spin like Nadal - almost impossible to hit flat drives.

And if you want to hit a kick serve 120 mph that hits the back curtain 8 ft high and still rising? I just take a hammer 5.0, add 2 oz of weight along the grip, and then a strip of lead all the way around the hoop. With this stick, I can serve as hard as Roddick, but the racquet is so powerful and high swingweight that it's tough to control the groundies.

But what's the use? You can only play with one racquet at a time, so why sacrifice some aspect so greatly just to increase another singular aspect? Why not just pick a middle ground?

Hey, if you can serve as hard as Roddick, there's a fast serve contest in which you can win quite a bit of money.

travlerajm
03-15-2006, 10:12 AM
I do use a weight and balance that gives me optimal control, but only because I play a lot of doubles lately (where I only serve 1/4 of the points). When I'm focusing on my singles game I like to sacrifice spin and targeting a little and use a higher swing weight, since it's more important in singles to have an unreturnable serve than it is to have control (which is the reason Roddick can have success on the ATP tour in singles with a racquet that has an enormous swing weight).

TennisAsAlways
03-15-2006, 10:35 AM
Hey, if you can serve as hard as Roddick, there's a fast serve contest in which you can win quite a bit of money.I wonder what the inclusion/exclusion criteria are for those types of contests, i.e. - no touring pros or former pros allowed etc.