PDA

View Full Version : Swingweight !


danielno
03-03-2006, 07:24 PM
I still cant understand swingweight clearly....
whats the basic difference between a 330SW frame and a 310SW??? Which one should be better?
thanks!!

Midlife crisis
03-03-2006, 09:58 PM
I still cant understand swingweight clearly....
whats the basic difference between a 330SW frame and a 310SW??? Which one should be better?

There is no "better" because that depends on you.

The 310 swingweight frame will be easier to swing than the 330 swingweight frame. It's just a number that represents how apparently heavy a racquet feels when being swung, with higher numbers representing a racquet that takes more effort to swing.

danielno
03-04-2006, 03:59 AM
But which one gives more weight to the ball?

And if theres no difference, whats the point of making frames with high SW?

ssuHeartsRivald
03-04-2006, 04:29 AM
heavier racquet produce less power and take more effort to you to swing it.
And that would fix, if your aim is acc.

Gaines Hillix
03-04-2006, 04:49 AM
Swingweight is a measure of an object's resistance to change in its rotation. In the case of a tennis racquet, it's the amount of torque that must be applied to the handle of the racquet to get it to swing. A racquet with a high swingweight is going to be more difficult to swing. One with a low swingweight will be easier to swing. In general, a frame with a high swingweight is going to plow through the ball more easily and is going to generate a bit more power, but you can't look at this element of racquet construction by itself. Some light weight racquets have relatively high swing weights and they aren't going to stand up to pace as well as a heavier racquet with the same swingweight. Racquet balance also has an effect on swingweight. As a general rule, for a given racquet weight, a head-heavy racquet will have a larger swingweight than a head-light racquet of the same length and weight. A longer racquet of the same weight will generally have a higher swingweight. To answer your specific question, a frame with a 330 SW is going to be harder to swing than one with a 310 SW. The one with the lower SW is going to be more maneuverable. However, if the weight and length of the racquets is the same, the one with a 330 SW will be a little more powerful and handle a heavy ball a little better.

rocket
03-04-2006, 05:01 AM
Swingweight is a measure of an object's resistance to change in its rotation. In the case of a tennis racquet, it's the amount of torque that must be applied to the handle of the racquet to get it to swing. A racquet with a high swingweight is going to be more difficult to swing. One with a low swingweight will be easier to swing. In general, a frame with a high swingweight is going to plow through the ball more easily and is going to generate a bit more power, but you can't look at this element of racquet construction by itself. Some light weight racquets have relatively high swing weights and they aren't going to stand up to pace as well as a heavier racquet with the same swingweight. Racquet balance also has an effect on swingweight. As a general rule, for a given racquet weight, a head-heavy racquet will have a larger swingweight than a head-light racquet of the same length and weight. A longer racquet of the same weight will generally have a higher swingweight. To answer your specific question, a frame with a 330 SW is going to be harder to swing than one with a 310 SW. The one with the lower SW is going to be more maneuverable. However, if the weight and length of the racquets is the same, the one with a 330 SW will be a little more powerful and handle a heavy ball a little better.

This summary should be a sticky!!! Very concised! :cool:

Kevo
03-04-2006, 05:09 AM
I still cant understand swingweight clearly....
whats the basic difference between a 330SW frame and a 310SW??? Which one should be better?
thanks!!

It depends a lot on static weight as well. If the two frames are somewhat close in static weight then the 310 will be easier to play with. If the 330 happens to be a hammer type frame with most of it's weight towards the head of the frame, then it might actually be the easier of the two to play with. You probably wouldn't want to play with it though since it will most likely be hard on your wrist and arm.

What you need is to find your range for both static weight and swing weight. So if you like the feel of an 11oz. frame, then try a few frames that are about that weight and see which one you can swing well for a couple of sets of tennis. Then you can look at that frames swing weight, and use the two weights to find some other suitable frames for demo. In the end you'll need to find something that feels right to you. These numbers are totally up to personal preference.

danielno
03-04-2006, 06:29 PM
Swingweight is a measure of an object's resistance to change in its rotation. In the case of a tennis racquet, it's the amount of torque that must be applied to the handle of the racquet to get it to swing. A racquet with a high swingweight is going to be more difficult to swing. One with a low swingweight will be easier to swing. In general, a frame with a high swingweight is going to plow through the ball more easily and is going to generate a bit more power, but you can't look at this element of racquet construction by itself. Some light weight racquets have relatively high swing weights and they aren't going to stand up to pace as well as a heavier racquet with the same swingweight. Racquet balance also has an effect on swingweight. As a general rule, for a given racquet weight, a head-heavy racquet will have a larger swingweight than a head-light racquet of the same length and weight. A longer racquet of the same weight will generally have a higher swingweight. To answer your specific question, a frame with a 330 SW is going to be harder to swing than one with a 310 SW. The one with the lower SW is going to be more maneuverable. However, if the weight and length of the racquets is the same, the one with a 330 SW will be a little more powerful and handle a heavy ball a little better.


thanks man!

danielno
03-04-2006, 06:29 PM
Swingweight is a measure of an object's resistance to change in its rotation. In the case of a tennis racquet, it's the amount of torque that must be applied to the handle of the racquet to get it to swing. A racquet with a high swingweight is going to be more difficult to swing. One with a low swingweight will be easier to swing. In general, a frame with a high swingweight is going to plow through the ball more easily and is going to generate a bit more power, but you can't look at this element of racquet construction by itself. Some light weight racquets have relatively high swing weights and they aren't going to stand up to pace as well as a heavier racquet with the same swingweight. Racquet balance also has an effect on swingweight. As a general rule, for a given racquet weight, a head-heavy racquet will have a larger swingweight than a head-light racquet of the same length and weight. A longer racquet of the same weight will generally have a higher swingweight. To answer your specific question, a frame with a 330 SW is going to be harder to swing than one with a 310 SW. The one with the lower SW is going to be more maneuverable. However, if the weight and length of the racquets is the same, the one with a 330 SW will be a little more powerful and handle a heavy ball a little better.


thanks man!

J D
03-05-2006, 06:19 AM
Sorry, but there some things in here that are slightly inaccurate that could lead to some misconceptions
Swingweight is a measure of an object's resistance to change in its rotation. Correct.

In the case of a tennis racquet, it's the amount of torque that must be applied to the handle of the racquet to get it to swing. Not to get it to swing, just to get it to rotate.

A racquet with a high swingweight is going to be more difficult to swing. One with a low swingweight will be easier to swing.Not always true. A 12 ounce frame with a slightly lower swing weight will still take more effort to swing than a 10 ounce frame with a slightly higher swing weight.

...To answer your specific question, a frame with a 330 SW is going to be harder to swing than one with a 310 SW. Once again, not necessarily true. A 12 ounce frame with a 310 swingweight will take as much effort to swing as a 10 ounce frame with a 330 swing weight. The 330 SW will require more effort from the wrist to generate racquet head speed while the 12 ounce frame will take more effort from the shoulder.

The one with the lower SW is going to be more maneuverable. Not necessarily true. Regardless of how it is defined by an equation, in real life, maneuverability is a combination of swingweight and weight.

NoBadMojo
03-05-2006, 06:48 AM
Gaines gave a very simple and accurate explanation of swingweight I feel. It's all you really need to know

The higher the swingweight, the harder it is to swing. The lower the swingweight, the easier it is to swing...that's the very purpose of the swingweight measurement..end

Find out the most swingweight you can swing fast for as long as your sessions last when you are playing someone at least as good as you are, and buying a new racquet and using it to the best of your ability becomes much easier. Dont buy anything with more swingweight than you can realistically swing fast as it's much easier to add weight than take it away

J D
03-05-2006, 08:53 AM
NBM, you are so on the money most of time. I do not understand why you keep trying to oversimplify a very complex technical issue. I could bring out a bunch of physics formulas but I won't at this point. If you keep insisting I'm wrong, though, I will have to.

In simple language, swingweight measures the amount of torque needed to rotate a frame around in a CIRCLE from its HANDLE (and when does this happen in tennis other than at wrist pronation on the serve?). Thus, swingweight measures the amount of force required by the WRIST to accelerate the head. It does NOT measure the amount of force (energy) needed to swing the whole frame from the shoulder. So far, there is no measurement for this.

How hard a frame is to swing is a combination of its weight and swingweight. Swingweight alone isn't enough of an indicator because the weight in the handle isn't measured since the center of the handle is the point of rotation while measuring swingweight. However, the shoulder has to swing that extra weight in the handle (which is generally where all of the extra 2 ounces between a 10 ounce and 12 ounce frame is located). This is why a 12 ounce frame with a lighter swing weight can be harder to swing than a 10 ounce frame with a heavier swingweight.

Why am I making a big deal out of this? First, because I don't want anyone misled. Second, because people with shoulder problems should know that frame weight is just as important as (and sometimes more important than) swingweight in determining how much stress a frame will place on the shoulder joint.

NoBadMojo
03-05-2006, 09:06 AM
I dont think I am over simplifying JD, I think I am keeping things appropriately simple. For the purpose of playing tennis, I dont think this has to be any more complex than what Gaines has said. I almost never suggest hammer weighted frames, so as long as people avoid those and know how much swingweight they can handle, I think they're good to go.

Keifers
03-05-2006, 10:28 AM
While I appreciate and admire Gaines' masterful summary description of swingweight, I think J D is adding an important level of detail here, which, as he says, should be considered by players concerned about shoulder injuries -- and, imo, even those concerned about the effects of playing a long match with a heavy racquet.

All tennis swings involve 2 elements: a movement of the racquet as a whole and a rotation of the racquet about the handle. Swingweight is a measure of the how hard it is to perform the second element only. (More accurately, sw is the rotational inertia of the racquet about the racquet handle.)

The effort required to wield a racquet effectively -- during one stroke or in the course of a match -- is indicated by a combination of its weight and swingweight. Similarly, the maneuverability of a racquet is a function of its weight and its swingweight.

NoBadMojo
03-05-2006, 11:21 AM
I think the topic of this thread is what is swingweight..Midlife told the guy all he needed to know and Gaines backed it up with a bit more info...plenty good enough..now people are surely confused once again, as this thread is now convuluted IMO..and around and around we go
Swingweight already considers static weight. All static weight tells you is how hard the racquet is to pick up ..not very useful unto itself,,swingweight is however, since it incorporates a number of elements including static weight
Typically I dont even know how much my frames weigh. I could care less. It's about how they swing and I've got a good feel for what the swingweight is and what my target swngweight might be...could guess at the static weight i suppose. Also companies who are good at tweaking their layups can really change how a racquet swings, and often it belies whatever the static weight and balance is.
Somehow I think we're about to get yet another physics lesson....

Midlife crisis
03-05-2006, 11:49 AM
Greg Raven described how swingweight is measured. He said, paraphrasing, that the handle is gripped and swung through a radius of about 10 cm. I don't recall exactly (and can't find that post right now) whether or not the head of the racquet moves in a greater arc than the handle, but the impression I got was that both the handle and the head move through the same arc.

So, in referring to what J D wrote about this only happening on the serve, that is not totally correct either unless you are just looking at the part from the wrist upward - there is a large translational movement in getting the racquet handle from the mid-back up to overhead, and there is a large angular movement getting the handle from behind the body to in front of the body.

And, in referring to the simplified examples that I started, that's also not technically correct because there is again a large translational component in any groundstroke like swing, and because on certain shots like volleys, there can be little, no, or negative rotation of the head in relation to the handle.

I still think that the simplified explanation is going to be the most understandable and applicable to most tennis players, as long as it's also said that swingweight should be used in conjunction with static weight.

Keifers
03-05-2006, 12:38 PM
In response to NBM's post #13, I don't understand what is so confusing about having two levels of complexity. Gaines' summary is a very good one -- for people who only want a cursory level of understanding. For those who want (or need) to know more (including those concerned about arm/shoulder safety), saying "How hard a frame is to swing is a combination of its weight and swingweight" is surely not giving too much information, is it?

Keifers
03-05-2006, 12:48 PM
Greg Raven described how swingweight is measured. He said, paraphrasing, that the handle is gripped and swung through a radius of about 10 cm. I don't recall exactly (and can't find that post right now) whether or not the head of the racquet moves in a greater arc than the handle, but the impression I got was that both the handle and the head move through the same arc.

On a Babolat RDC, swingweight is measured with the racquet rotating about a point 10cm from the bottom of the butt cap. That point is fixed; it does not move. So sw really is a measure of rotational inertia only -- no translational component.

I still think that the simplified explanation is going to be the most understandable and applicable to most tennis players, as long as it's also said that swingweight should be used in conjunction with static weight.
Very much agree.

J D
03-05-2006, 01:06 PM
NBM, perhaps you should get a science lesson if you are going to keep declaring that the earth is half-flat. Enough people on this board that understand the physics involved keep telling you (and others) what swingweight does and doesn't measure, yet you keep insisting otherwise. If people are confused, they should be, because it is more complicated than swingweight. However, it is not so complicated that most can't understand it with a little effort, including yourself. I wish you would take the time to read and think about what people like Keifers and myself are saying.

Swingweight does not consider the entire static weight of the racquet proportionally to the effort of a full tennis swing, so weight must also be factored in. Unfortunately, there is not a formula that will work for everyone since physiology and playing styles differ. However, once again, weight is just as important as swing weight to how a frame swings and plays.

Midlife, I'm guessing you have never seen an RDC. When measuring swingweight, the frame is not swung, it is rotated in such a fashion that it would go in a complete 360 degree circle around a point 10 cm above the bottom of the handle. Once again, the only thing that ever happens consistently on the tennis court that even remotely resembles this motion is the point where the arm stops moving forward and the wrist pronates during the service motion. In the case of the serve, the frame is actually rotating around wrist, which is just about even with the bottom of the frame. Still, it's about the only motion at all similar to the SW measurement that a player makes with his frame on the court except for maybe a reflex shot using just the wrist.

So, in reality, swingweight is not an accurate measure of anything other than the end motion of the serve. Still, it does give a better general indication as to weight distribution than just balance alone and so is still useful. It's just not the complete picture of the effort to swing a frame or anything close (although it is a pretty good indicator for how "whippy" a frame is).

Guys, I understand the desire for meaningful numbers and simplicity. You just are not going to find these with swingweight, though. To say otherwise is incorrect and misleading.

J D
03-05-2006, 01:09 PM
Keifers, I see you were writing some of the same things I was at the same time.

For those who want (or need) to know more (including those concerned about arm/shoulder safety), saying "How hard a frame is to swing is a combination of its weight and swingweight" is surely not giving too much information, is it?Excellent point.

Keifers
03-05-2006, 01:52 PM
Keifers, I see you were writing some of the same things I was at the same time.
Yes, I think we're on the same track, J D. I'm not sure, though, that I can agree with you when you say, "swingweight is not an accurate measure of anything other than the end motion of the serve."

In my mind, there are many occasions when the racquet is rotated about the wrist (almost always in conjunction with moving the racquet translationally). One example would be the wrist snap motion when we hit many forehands and backhands, especially when trying to impart topspin to the ball using some of the modern grips. Another example would be the rotation we do to get the racquet into position to meet an incoming volley. Another would be slapping at a shot that's almost out of reach. And a fourth would be the stab volleys you mentioned.

Swingweight is a spec I always look at because I want to get an idea of how easy it will be to do the above things. And I look at static weight. And I look at balance. They're all important, imo, and I know the range that I prefer for each.

NoBadMojo
03-05-2006, 01:57 PM
But which one gives more weight to the ball?

And if theres no difference, whats the point of making frames with high SW?

danielo allow me to see if i can answer your question. the heavier racquet would give you more weighty shots provided you can swing the racquet fast enough to generate power.
if you would swing the 330sw frame as fast as you swing the 310sw frame you would generate a heavier ball with the 330. There are some other considerations of course like stiffness, and I'm not going to try and cover every eventuality.

Midlife crisis
03-05-2006, 03:07 PM
Midlife, I'm guessing you have never seen an RDC. When measuring swingweight, the frame is not swung, it is rotated in such a fashion that it would go in a complete 360 degree circle around a point 10 cm above the bottom of the handle. Once again, the only thing that ever happens consistently on the tennis court that even remotely resembles this motion is the point where the arm stops moving forward and the wrist pronates during the service motion. In the case of the serve, the frame is actually rotating around wrist, which is just about even with the bottom of the frame. Still, it's about the only motion at all similar to the SW measurement that a player makes with his frame on the court except for maybe a reflex shot using just the wrist.

I have never seen this machine but as unclear as my explanation was, my understanding is correct. The racquet is swung through an arc in a fixed manner so that the head does not rotate a greater angular amount than the handle, and the machine measures this, either by measuring how much power is required to perform the rotation in a certain time, or by timing how long a certain amount of power takes to rotate the racquet through a fixed angular range.

I was swinging a racquet earlier and realized that swingweight has very little to do with the top portion of the serve. Swingweight at that point is immaterial because there is no muscular effort going into rotating the racquet. The rotation is initiated during the translational acceleration of the racquet upwards from its lowest point behind the back. The elbow leads the hand, and the racquet is accelerated upwards handle first. At the top of the swing, the handle is constrained by being held with the hand, and the ligaments and muscles that were under tension during the upstroke help to further initiate the rotational compoent. However, it is really the the translational momentum of the racquet head creates the rotation due to the handle being constrained by being held. I think there's very little possibility someone can add rotational momentum to the racquet at this point because muscle fibers just contract that fast and especially so in such a biomechanically and geometrically poor position as the wrist and forearm are in at that time. Swingweight will only affect how hard it is to maintain a grip on the racquet at the top of the swing and how difficult it is to slow down the racquet head after the impact.

heycal
03-05-2006, 03:53 PM
You guys want to make this really simple and keep phsyics and all that jazz out of it? Me too. So go play an actual tennis match for two hours with a lightweight and head-heavy racket with a swingweight of say, 325. Then go play for a couple of hours with a 12+ plus headlight stick with the same swingweight. You'll find out pretty quick that it ain't "all about swingweight". When my grandmother has a a higher "swingweight ceiling" than Roger Federer, there is something wrong here.

Wait, you say we're not talking about Hammer-style rackets when we say "it's all about swingweight"? We aren't talking about the O3 Pink? We aren't talking about the O3 Silver? Well, why not?... These head-heavy rackets are hardly isolated exceptions that I'm mentioning just to "bust" somebody. They are popular rackets, and of the 220 or so rackets sold by TW at the moment, about 1/3 of them are head-heavy.

In light of this, I think it's just plain reckless for anyone to keep making statements like it's "all about swingweight" and "the swingweight is all you really need to know". I think you are right on the money about many other matters, NBMJ. But I think you need to rexamine your stubborn insistence on making blanket statements on swingweight that range from misleading to obviously false.

EliteNinja
03-05-2006, 04:38 PM
When a person "swings" a racquet, there are two components of inertia.

1) Rotational inertia. The racquet rotating around an axis (head swinging around the handle)

2) Linear inertia. The WHOLE racquet moving forward.

Swingweight is the SECOND MOMENT OF INERTIA and is directly related to rotational inertia AND ROTATIONAL INERTIA ONLY.

Static weight contributes to the momentum of the whole system moving forward not counting rotation.

If you know physics, you will understand.
If you don't, it's hard to explain with my sucky explanation skills.

NoBadMojo
03-05-2006, 04:57 PM
This thread is funny.....some experts come in to school us on swingweight and cant even agree on what what it measures and how it is measured....:O
This thread was good thru # 6 or so and then turned into whack I think. I think now you guys need to speak in terms of 'serve swingweight', 'rally swingweight', and 'volley swingweight'..that will really help simplify matters. ;O

Keifers
03-05-2006, 05:04 PM
EliteNinja,

So "head swinging around the handle"... Does that mean that if weight, say 2 oz., is added to the handle, right at the axis of rotation (the fixed point about which the rotation/swing happens), swingweight will not increase?

Thanks.

EliteNinja
03-05-2006, 05:08 PM
EliteNinja,

So "head swinging around the handle"... Does that mean that if weight, say 2 oz., is added to the handle, right at the axis of rotation (the fixed point about which the rotation/swing happens), swingweight will not increase?

Thanks.

Yes.

tennisplayer
03-05-2006, 05:21 PM
Some very good points have been made in this thread. I have a real life example that you all might find very interesting.

I have used two fairly heavy racquets in the past - a Prince Precision Equipe Standard MP, and a Yonex RD Power 10 Long MP.

The PE's specs are: weight 12.6 oz, SW 335, 10 points HL, very stiff

The RD 10's specs are: weight 12.7 oz, SW 350+, 4 points HL, very stiff

The PE was sweet on volleys, was very comfortable, had reasonable power, would plough through the ball, and was very maneuverable. Control was excellent.

The RD 10 was a bit of a behemoth, took a bit more effort than the PE to maneuver so volleying was harder. It was very comfortable, and would also plough through the ball. It was much more powerful than the PE - especially on serves. Control was poorer than the PE, though. Lugging the RD-10 around was more of an effort, and if I weren't pumping iron I wouldn't have been able to handle it.

This, I feel, is a perfect example that illustrates the role played by the different racquet parameters.

I believe the static mass contributed to overall comfort, even though both racquets were on the stiff side. The PE, being very head light, was easier to handle and maneuver, and had greater control than the RD-10. The HL balance also contributed to a feeling of comfort and did not tire the arm. The RD-10, with its higher SW, had a lot more power.

I have tried lighter racquets (less than 11 oz) with high SW, and yes they did have power, but to me it seemed they were lacking in comfort (I developed arm problems) and control - but a more skilled, stronger person than me might have felt differently. Ironically, after so many years of playing, I can sympathize with the point of view that it takes greater skill and fitness to use a light, stiff, head heavy racquet compared with what it takes to use your garden variety player's racquet!

I can feel NBM is going to flame me now, but that's okay, I still respect him for his contributions! :-)

NoBadMojo
03-05-2006, 05:32 PM
<snip>
Author-Allen St. John
One-of-the-best articles we have come across explaining the concept of "swing weight".

When can an 11-ounce racquet feel lighter than a 10-ounce racquet? When you swing it.

Welcome to the world of "swing weight," one of the least understood parameters of racquet performance. Swing weight refers to how heavy or light the racquet feels when it's in motion. "It's a measure of a frame's maneuverability," says David Bone, executive director of the U.S. Racquet Stringers Association. "And it's the number one thing that people feel when they're swinging a racquet."

Swing weight is the combination of the racquet's length, stationary weight, and balance point. Together, these factors determine if a racquet feels light or heavy when it's in motion. High stationary weight, head-heavy balance, and a length longer than 27 inches all increase swing weight.

The most accurate measure of swing weight is determined by a machine like the Babolat Racquet Diagnostic Center (RDC) (we use a Babolat RDC Machine). After clamping the butt of the racquet handle to vise, you push the frame and let it swing, pendulum-style. In seconds, the machine spits out a number-expressed in kilograms times centimeters squared-that indicates how much energy it took to move the frame through the arc. Based on scale of 000 to 999, most racquets fall between 280 (more maneuverable) and 380 (less maneuverable).

For example, the 27-inch-long, three-quarter-inch head-light Volkl Quantum 10 Tour tips the scales at 11.5 ounces but has significantly lower swing weight, 313, than the 10-ounce Wilson Hyper Hammer 5.9 oversize, which is a half inch longer, and almost an inch head heavy, and has a swing weight of 338.

You may be thinking, How can I tell a racquet's swing weight when it's not listed on the frame? Many pro and specialty ships have the RDC machine and can provide your racquet's swing weight. Also, beginning this month, TENNIS will include the swing weight of every racquet it reviews.

According to Bone, you should use a racquet that has the heaviest swing weight you can handle without it feeling unwieldy. "In almost every way, a racquet with a high swing weight is better," he says. "It's more powerful, transmits less shock, and twists less on impact."

Finding an optimum swing weight is not only about how strong you are, but also about what style you play. Someone looking for more power from the baseline and on the serve should try a racquet with a substantial swing weight; those seeking easier maneuverability for net play should opt for a frame with a lighter swing weight.
<end snip>

Keifers
03-05-2006, 05:38 PM
Yes.
Many thanks. Good to get that clarified.

So an 11 oz. racquet with a measured sw of 315 can have 2 ozs. of lead tape added to the handle at a point 10 cm from the bottom of the handle -- and its sw will still measure 315. Similarly, instead of 2 ozs., you could add 16 ozs. at that same spot, and you would end up with a 27 oz. racquet with a measured sw of 315. (Try swinging that for 3 sets!)

I'm not trying to be facetious here -- I'm pointing out that that is the definition of swingweight.


To the Original Poster, danielno, you might be interested in taking a look at a web site by the name of r a c q u e t r e s e a r c h . c o m. There's a ton of very useful information there about racquet parameters and design.

EliteNinja
03-05-2006, 05:59 PM
There's only one value called swingweight for a single racquet. Swingweight is just another word for the Second Moment of Inertia and the units that are given at the TW site is in kgxcm^2.

I believe that it is useful to describe qualitatively what the swingweight feels like for different strokes like for volleying, groundstrokes, serving etc. But you can't really put a number to volley swingweight, serve swingweight, etc. because there's no definition to those physically in an actual number with units.

TennisAsAlways
03-05-2006, 06:03 PM
So an 11 oz. racquet with a measured sw of 315 can have 2 ozs. of lead tape added to the handle at a point 10 cm from the bottom of the handle -- and its sw will still measure 315. Similarly, instead of 2 ozs., you could add 16 ozs. at that same spot, and you would end up with a 27 oz. racquet with a measured sw of 315. (Try swinging that for 3 sets!)

Yes, that's right. You could add an infinite amount of mass on a single axis of rotation and the SW would not be increased at all about that single particular axis.

Now of course for a tennis racquet, if you were to add mass on the axis of rotation about the handle, you would still feel an increase in mass. That's because generally, multiple axes come into play when swinging a racquet -- i.e. A.O.R. about the :legs, hip, shoulder, elbow, etc. You wouldn't feel the increase in mass about the axis along the handle where the weight was added, but you would feel it about the other axes.

Good day now. 8)

NoBadMojo
03-05-2006, 06:18 PM
There's only one value called swingweight for a single racquet. Swingweight is just another word for the Second Moment of Inertia and the units that are given at the TW site is in kgxcm^2.

I believe that it is useful to describe qualitatively what the swingweight feels like for different strokes like for volleying, groundstrokes, serving etc. But you can't really put a number to volley swingweight, serve swingweight, etc. because there's no definition to those physically in an actual number with units.

I was joking

Keifers
03-05-2006, 08:28 PM
I was joking
I think that was sarcasm, wasn't it?

NoBadMojo
03-05-2006, 08:32 PM
I think that was sarcasm, wasn't it?

whatever you say......nit pick away, but this just doesn't look good on you

EliteNinja
03-05-2006, 09:19 PM
I was joking

I knew he was joking.
I ALSO KNEW people would miss the sarcasm/tone.

heycal
03-05-2006, 09:34 PM
<snip>
Author-Allen St. John
One-of-the-best articles we have come across explaining the concept of "swing weight".

When can an 11-ounce racquet feel lighter than a 10-ounce racquet? When you swing it.

Welcome to the world of "swing weight," one of the least understood parameters of racquet performance. Swing weight refers to how heavy or light the racquet feels when it's in motion. "It's a measure of a frame's maneuverability," says David Bone, executive director of the U.S. Racquet Stringers Association. "And it's the number one thing that people feel when they're swinging a racquet."

Swing weight is the combination of the racquet's length, stationary weight, and balance point. Together, these factors determine if a racquet feels light or heavy when it's in motion. High stationary weight, head-heavy balance, and a length longer than 27 inches all increase swing weight.

The most accurate measure of swing weight is determined by a machine like the Babolat Racquet Diagnostic Center (RDC) (we use a Babolat RDC Machine). After clamping the butt of the racquet handle to vise, you push the frame and let it swing, pendulum-style. In seconds, the machine spits out a number-expressed in kilograms times centimeters squared-that indicates how much energy it took to move the frame through the arc. Based on scale of 000 to 999, most racquets fall between 280 (more maneuverable) and 380 (less maneuverable).

For example, the 27-inch-long, three-quarter-inch head-light Volkl Quantum 10 Tour tips the scales at 11.5 ounces but has significantly lower swing weight, 313, than the 10-ounce Wilson Hyper Hammer 5.9 oversize, which is a half inch longer, and almost an inch head heavy, and has a swing weight of 338.

You may be thinking, How can I tell a racquet's swing weight when it's not listed on the frame? Many pro and specialty ships have the RDC machine and can provide your racquet's swing weight. Also, beginning this month, TENNIS will include the swing weight of every racquet it reviews.

According to Bone, you should use a racquet that has the heaviest swing weight you can handle without it feeling unwieldy. "In almost every way, a racquet with a high swing weight is better," he says. "It's more powerful, transmits less shock, and twists less on impact."

Finding an optimum swing weight is not only about how strong you are, but also about what style you play. Someone looking for more power from the baseline and on the serve should try a racquet with a substantial swing weight; those seeking easier maneuverability for net play should opt for a frame with a lighter swing weight.
<end snip>

"When can an 11-ounce racquet feel lighter than a 10-ounce racquet? When you swing it."

And when does an 11 ounce racket feel HEAVIER than a 10 ounce racket? When you stop swinging it in the pro shop and and actually go play tennis with it for a few sets.

"Also, beginning this month, TENNIS will include the swing weight of every racquet it reviews."

If it was such an important spec, they probably would have been listing it from the start...

"In almost every way, a racquet with a high swing weight is better," he says. "It's more powerful, transmits less shock, and twists less on impact."

Phew. For a second there, I was worried that my Hammer might not be such a great racket. Turns out its relatively high swingweight means it's fine...

"Welcome to the world of "swing weight," one of the least understood parameters of racquet performance".

You can say that again. if an otherwise intelligent 5.5 teaching pro struggles with it, we can conclude that trying to determine its relative importance or lack thereof in real world situations can be tricky for some folks.

Keifers
03-06-2006, 04:19 AM
whatever you say......nit pick away, but this just doesn't look good on you
So you agree it was sarcasm. That's good.

rocket
03-06-2006, 05:38 AM
I think the original poster asked which delivers more power, a low or high swingweight. It has been determined that all other things being equal, a higher swingweight is more powerful, but is probably more taxing on the body after a while. At the end of the day, one has to demo the racquet to find out if that racquet is right for the player, as specs are just... well, specs. Playing with the racquet can tell a whole different story, the Wilson Tour 90 is a fine example of that (sw 326, but so hard to get around the ball for many). :D

NoBadMojo
03-06-2006, 06:14 AM
So you agree it was sarcasm. That's good.

I think you are very annoying

NoBadMojo
03-06-2006, 06:36 AM
"You can say that again. if an otherwise intelligent 5.5 teaching pro struggles with it, we can conclude that trying to determine its relative importance or lack thereof in real world situations can be tricky for some folks.

So to summarize, I take a minute to try and help confused people by pasting an article regarded as one of the best about swingweight which was creeated by an authority, and which pretty precisley matches what I have been sayng, which tells you what you need to know, and I get to endure crap like this from one of the very people i am trying to help....this is very revealing of the true nature of this person

oldguysrule
03-06-2006, 07:29 AM
There were a couple of wrong assumptions posted in response to the article. When the article states that a higher SW will be "more powerful, transmit less shock, and twist less", it is assuming you are comparing to another racquet with the same static weight. An 11oz racquet with a SW of 325 will have those advantages over an 11oz racquet with a SW of 305. However, a 10oz racquet with SW of 325 will not necessarily be better than a 12 oz racquet with a SW of 305.

In order to compare different specs, you have to keep the other specs constant.

Also, when various posters suggest that SW is a key element for comparison, they are assuming that the racquets you are comparing are similar in terms of other key specs.

SW can be as complicated or as simple as you want it to be. For me, it is simple. How heavy does my racquet feel when I am playing my usual level of competition? If a light racquet feels the same as a heavier racquet, I will prefer the heavier racquet because it will be more powerful, transmit less shock, and be more stable. That seems pretty simple to me and I don't even have to know the actual weight and SW.

Kevo
03-06-2006, 07:44 AM
Wow, that article was crap. According to Allen St. John I should immediately go get rid of my RDX and get a Hammer. There isn't a Hammer made I couldn't swing all day long, and that's the only way I'd ever be able to handle a 342 swingweight. The Hyper Hammer 6.3 has a 342 at only 9.9 ounces. The PK Ki 5 PSE has a 345 swingweight at 12.9 ounces. The Hammer is 8 pts head heavy and the PK is 9 pts. headlight. I'm quite certain after trying out my coach's hammer (he is about 60 I think and has some back troubles so he likes a light frame) that I could swing it all day long without tiring. I took a second look at it after I picked it up to make sure it was actually a racquet. It felt like a feather. I doubt I could swing the PK for 3 sets without experiencing some fatigue. I played 4 hours Saturday with my RDX 500 which is 12oz. and 8pts headlight and I was a bit tired. I had to concentrate to keep the swing going properly in the last hour.

oldguysrule
03-06-2006, 08:27 AM
Wow, that article was crap. According to Allen St. John I should immediately go get rid of my RDX and get a Hammer. There isn't a Hammer made I couldn't swing all day long, and that's the only way I'd ever be able to handle a 342 swingweight. The Hyper Hammer 6.3 has a 342 at only 9.9 ounces. The PK Ki 5 PSE has a 345 swingweight at 12.9 ounces. The Hammer is 8 pts head heavy and the PK is 9 pts. headlight. I'm quite certain after trying out my coach's hammer (he is about 60 I think and has some back troubles so he likes a light frame) that I could swing it all day long without tiring. I took a second look at it after I picked it up to make sure it was actually a racquet. It felt like a feather. I doubt I could swing the PK for 3 sets without experiencing some fatigue. I played 4 hours Saturday with my RDX 500 which is 12oz. and 8pts headlight and I was a bit tired. I had to concentrate to keep the swing going properly in the last hour.

The article in no way suggested that a Hammer would be better than an RDX. You have to keep things in context. I will admit, the article did not mention the static weight, but my guess is that the authours assumed the audience would have a modicum of tennis knowledge and realize that the assumption is you are comparing racquets of a similar static weight.

The concepts in the article are completely valid if you read in the logical assumptions. (or maybe not so logical, it seems)

If you are playing 3.5 level and above, you do not want to be playing with a heady heavy racquet. Please, in all other discussions of the relative attributes of static weight and SW, can we leave out the discussions of hammer style racquets. My elbow is hurting just thinking about it.

J D
03-06-2006, 08:36 AM
So to summarize, I take a minute to try and help confused people by pasting an article regarded as one of the best about swingweight which was creeated by an authority, and which pretty precisley matches what I have been sayng, which tells you what you need to know,


The fact that you could say this shows you have no grasp on the basics of physics or swingweight. Just because swingweight is "the number one thing that people feel when they're swinging a racquet" doesn't mean that it is the most important aspect of how a frame behaves when swung. Even if it is the most significant factor of how a frame plays, it is only one of at least four (depending on how detailed you really want to get about a swing and energy transfer, etc...). It is still less than 50% of an accurate representation of the effort required to swing a frame for comparison purposes.

So, you're going to claim that any two frames of the same swingweight will swing exacltly the same? So, the DNX 10 swings exactly like the Boris Becker since there are just a couple of points (insignificant) difference in their swing weight? Or an n-Six One 95 swings just like an n code N4? If not, then you are yourself saying that there are other important factors besides swingweight.

Hopefully, from these two examples alone, most people will see just how far off base your arguements are.

TennisAsAlways
03-06-2006, 08:37 AM
In some instances -- like what I am witnessing going on in this thread -- I don't even bother elaborating swing weight. Sometimes trying to explain things to others is like talking to a wall. Just an FYI. ;)


Good day now. 8)

NoBadMojo
03-06-2006, 08:43 AM
-I suggest you go out and try and swing a 342 swingweight hammer all day long and then come back after actually having done this and give us an honest report rather than declare peoples' opinions crap first..after you ice down and take a few IB's of course.
-I suggest that your 60yo coach may not have a 342 SW Hammer..he may have something lke a 290-295 sw hammer
-the diff of 50 sw points is enormous, but you seem to think all hammer frames are the same

NoBadMojo
03-06-2006, 08:49 AM
There were a couple of wrong assumptions posted in response to the article. When the article states that a higher SW will be "more powerful, transmit less shock, and twist less", it is assuming you are comparing to another racquet with the same static weight. An 11oz racquet with a SW of 325 will have those advantages over an 11oz racquet with a SW of 305. However, a 10oz racquet with SW of 325 will not necessarily be better than a 12 oz racquet with a SW of 305.

In order to compare different specs, you have to keep the other specs constant.

Also, when various posters suggest that SW is a key element for comparison, they are assuming that the racquets you are comparing are similar in terms of other key specs.

SW can be as complicated or as simple as you want it to be. For me, it is simple. How heavy does my racquet feel when I am playing my usual level of competition? If a light racquet feels the same as a heavier racquet, I will prefer the heavier racquet because it will be more powerful, transmit less shock, and be more stable. That seems pretty simple to me and I don't even have to know the actual weight and SW.

Oldguys I think the article does mention static weight once when it mentions it as a component of swingweight...it's figured into the equaton. and that's one of the beauties of swingweight...that you dont have to speak of static weight provided you take hammer stuff out of the equation, and i never recommend those anyway

NoBadMojo
03-06-2006, 09:00 AM
The fact that you could say this shows you have no grasp on the basics of physics or swingweight. Just because swingweight is "the number one thing that people feel when they're swinging a racquet" doesn't mean that it is the most important aspect of how a frame behaves when swung. Even if it is the most significant factor of how a frame plays, it is only one of at least four (depending on how detailed you really want to get about a swing and energy transfer, etc...). It is still less than 50% of an accurate representation of the effort required to swing a frame for comparison purposes.

So, you're going to claim that any two frames of the same swingweight will swing exacltly the same? So, the DNX 10 swings exactly like the Boris Becker since there are just a couple of points (insignificant) difference in their swing weight? Or an n-Six One 95 swings just like an n code N4? If not, then you are yourself saying that there are other important factors besides swingweight.

Hopefully, from these two examples alone, most people will see just how far off base your arguements are.

Now you are really trying to state things which I never said....all i said is that frames of equal swingweight will take the same amount of energy to swing <end>
of course they arent going to feel alike when you swing them...i never said that...racquets all feel and swing differently based upon all kinds of dynamics..i thought we were discussing swingweight as a means to choosing the right racquet..silly me
The article states swingweight is the most important, the person publishing thearticle states it is the most impt element, and i agree.
I've used swingweight as the guide to get people into the right gear for years and it has worked out really well and also helped people solve injury problems along with getting them to use better tecnique..swingweight is what people notice first and the most ...as people with knowledge agree.
You experts are just confusing the matter and cant even agree on what swingweight actually measures and how it is measured....to me, that disqualifies much of what you say...and then you try and disprove people by taking what they say out of context or twisting words about, and quite typically next to come are the insults..so insult away..wouldnt be surprising

oldguysrule
03-06-2006, 09:09 AM
People are arguing extremes again. The more technical some of you get, the more extreme the examples become. Some of you are very technical and want to look at every conceivable measurable item on a racquet. Some of you like to pick up a racquet and play tennis. Us non-techies may wonder why some racquets feel heavier when we are actually playing with them than they did when we just picked them up. A way to compare this is the SW.

For me, SW is a combination of static weight, balance, and weight distribution throughout the frame. I know that I want my SW to be in a range of 315 to 325. I like relatively heavier, headlight racquets. Currently, 340grams and 10pts HL. I can lower the weight with the same balance and the SW will go down. I can raise the balance with the same weight and the SW will go up. (all other things being equal). If I drop to 320grams and 7pts HL, the SW may be similar and thus the racquet FEELS similar when I am playing. Or I may go to 360 grams and 12pts HL. These racquets may all feel similar because the SW is around the same.

HOWEVER, please don't assume that I think a 290gram, 8pts HH, racquet with a similar SW will feel the same. It won't and nobody is saying that it will. But if you are staying in the same family of racquets SW is a good way to compare how a racquet will feel when you are actually playing tennis...which is what most of us are concerned about.

heycal
03-06-2006, 09:13 AM
So to summarize, I take a minute to try and help confused people by pasting an article regarded as one of the best about swingweight which was creeated by an authority, and which pretty precisley matches what I have been sayng, which tells you what you need to know, and I get to endure crap like this from one of the very people i am trying to help....this is very revealing of the true nature of this person

Why don't we agree to help each other? You provide advice on the many areas you understand well, and me and the others will try and help you understand the things you don't... I believe you have had problems with your achilles tendon, NBMJ. But your real achilles heel is swingweight.

Several different posters have shown you why you are wrong in several different ways, using both complex scientific explanations and simple logic based on actual playing conditions with actual rackets, yet you persist in repeatedly making misleading statements like "it's all about swingweight" or "swingweight is all you need to know."

You are a like a Shakespearean character, NBMJ. Wise, knowledgeable, helpful, but fatally flawed at the same time, stubbornly refusing to change course even in the face of disaster. Instead you seek martyrdom and see conspiracies everywhere, and I love your paranoid rantings about things like "vultures" who are "piling on" and attacking you "while your back is turned".

All this being said, and for all the reasons above, you are one of my favorite "characters" at Talk Tennis -- which it is helpful to remember is just a place for tennis junkies to congregate and is hardly dealing with matters of life or death -- so keep those posts coming.;)

AAAA
03-06-2006, 09:17 AM
Now you are really trying to state things which I never said....all i said is that frames of equal swingweight will take the same amount of energy to swing


What is the position of the racquet (and arm) at the start of a swing for a serve, a forehand and a backhand?

oldguysrule
03-06-2006, 09:21 AM
Oldguys I think the article does mention static weight once when it mentions it as a component of swingweight...it's figured into the equaton. and that's one of the beauties of swingweight...that you dont have to speak of static weight provided you take hammer stuff out of the equation, and i never recommend those anyway

Yes it does...I was trying to figure out why people had a problem with the article. The dispute centered on an example involving widely disparate static weights and so my point was supposed to be that if you change SW in a comparison you have to keep the static weight the same for the comparison to be valid.

Oh well, the article makes sense to me. SW as a tool makes sense to me. As I said earlier, just thinking about hammer style racquets makes my elbow hurt.

lucky leprechaun
03-06-2006, 09:30 AM
I don't take much stock in swingweight. Just use common sense, if the racquet looks big, wide, and bulky in the head it will be much harder to swing than a racquet that looks small in the head.

NoBadMojo
03-06-2006, 09:33 AM
I agree Oldguys..this techno babble is way over the top since the 'experts' posting here cant even agree. that illustrates they really arent experts as since they are speaking techno speak, that out rules that which is subjective and abstract.
I'll stick to my simple way...it's sted me well all these years and has helped a bunch of people. I'll let the experts fight about what swingweight is and how it is measured and how impt it is or how impt it isnt...the info from the article was solid and all people really need to know in my estimation...

TennisAsAlways
03-06-2006, 09:33 AM
-- which it is helpful to remember is just a place for tennis junkies to congregate and is hardly dealing with matters of life or death -- so keep those posts coming. Hey, heycal (just had to say that), are you a tennis junkie?

TennisAsAlways
03-06-2006, 09:37 AM
I don't take much stock in swingweight. Just use common sense, if the racquet looks big, wide, and bulky in the head it will be much harder to swing than a racquet that looks small in the head.I'm not going to get all technical on you (don't have the energy right now) :), plus you may already know this: "looks can be very deceiving."

Good day now. 8)

TennisAsAlways
03-06-2006, 09:40 AM
I agree Oldguys..this techno babble is way over the top since the 'experts' posting here cant even agree. that illustrates they really arent experts as since they are speaking techno speak, that out rules that which is subjective and abstract.
I'll stick to my simple way...it's sted me well all these years and has helped a bunch of people. I'll let the experts fight about what swingweight is and how it is measured and how impt it is or how impt it isnt...the info from the article was solid and all people really need to know in my estimation...We have experts in the house? Professor who and who? LMAO :p

Good day now. 8)

vin
03-06-2006, 09:50 AM
You guys want to make this really simple and keep phsyics and all that jazz out of it? Me too. So go play an actual tennis match for two hours with a lightweight and head-heavy racket with a swingweight of say, 325. Then go play for a couple of hours with a 12+ plus headlight stick with the same swingweight. You'll find out pretty quick that it ain't "all about swingweight". When my grandmother has a a higher "swingweight ceiling" than Roger Federer, there is something wrong here.



I've experienced this as well.

I've played two sets with my T10 Gen 2 (12 oz, 315 SW) and switched to the Wilson Tour 95 (11.5 oz, 325 SW) for the third set. At this point, I was sufficiently tired and the Tour 95 was noticably easier to swing. I switched back to the Gen 2 again and it felt VERY cumbersome in comparison.

My wife has two LM Instincts (11 oz, 330 SW) and I plan to borrow one to see how well I swing it late in a match. I've hit with it before, and although I don't like the pull it creates for me, I do just fine with it.

I've proven to myself that my racket selection needs to consider both swingweight and static weight. Regardless of what each stat means and who is right, this experience holds up for me time and time again and it seems to for others as well. It may be anecdotal and vary from person to person, but I still find it to be helpful information.

heycal
03-06-2006, 10:36 AM
I agree Oldguys..this techno babble is way over the top since the 'experts' posting here cant even agree. that illustrates they really arent experts as since they are speaking techno speak..

First of all, the problem is not so much with the article but the conclusions you draw from it. Secondly, not of all us are speaking "techno-speak", and certainly not me. I can't follow that techy stuff at all -- nor do I need to. Vin's preceeding post and my own previously mentioned examples show very simply and non-technically why SW isn't as important as you think it is.

Ironically, I personally actually wish it was all about swingweight... If this were so, my ability to play with my Hammer 6.3 with its 333 SW for several hours without fatigue or shoulder pain would mean I can handle SW's of at least 333, and therefore I would have a wider range of rackets to choose from when I get a new one, and should have no problems swinging the POG or other 12+ oz. rackets for a couple of hours as long as the SW's the same or less than my Wilson Hammer --

Wait, we're not allowed to include Hammer rackets in this discussion because... because... because why? Because we don't like them or we don't recommend them? Problem is, they still exist and are very popular as are dozens of other lightweight, head-heavy and high swingweight frames. So what good is using SW as a general starting point if one has to exclude a 1/3 of the rackets on the market?

Also, this "swingweight is the first thing you notice" stuff is just silly. Even if true, so what? I mean, what's the first thing you notice about a car? It's color. So figure out what color car you like and whatever you buy will be fine!

oldguysrule
03-06-2006, 10:47 AM
I've experienced this as well.

I've played two sets with my T10 Gen 2 (12 oz, 315 SW) and switched to the Wilson Tour 95 (11.5 oz, 325 SW) for the third set. At this point, I was sufficiently tired and the Tour 95 was noticably easier to swing. I switched back to the Gen 2 again and it felt VERY cumbersome in comparison.

My wife has two LM Instincts (11 oz, 330 SW) and I plan to borrow one to see how well I swing it late in a match. I've hit with it before, and although I don't like the pull it creates for me, I do just fine with it.

I've proven to myself that my racket selection needs to consider both swingweight and static weight. Regardless of what each stat means and who is right, this experience holds up for me time and time again and it seems to for others as well. It may be anecdotal and vary from person to person, but I still find it to be helpful information.

Vin,
I seem to recall in the back of my mind that you once posted that you have compact strokes. Maybe (just theorizing here) a person with compact strokes is more sensitive to a static weight difference than a swing weight difference. Since the head of your racquet moves a shorter distance than the head of a racquet swung with longer strokes, you don't feel the weight in the head as much as you feel the weight in general. (just guessing, don't know for sure) For me, I definitely notice the SW difference in the example above and would feel that the Gen II swung easier. Though not a huge difference. I will admit though, I have not tried your experiment in a third set situation like that. But then, I don't usually feel that my racquet is too heavy either...static or SW.

IF, that analysis is viable, (a big if) then my next thought would be that most of the posters on here probably tend toward more long swing styles and if so, then most posters would be impacted by, and rely on SW, when determining how a racquet "feels." (without disregarding the other specs since SW takes into account static weight and balance and we (should) all agree that HH racquets are not good for the long term health of your playing career.)

Kevo
03-06-2006, 10:52 AM
-I suggest you go out and try and swing a 342 swingweight hammer all day long and then come back after actually having done this and give us an honest report rather than declare peoples' opinions crap first..after you ice down and take a few IB's of course.
-I suggest that your 60yo coach may not have a 342 SW Hammer..

I haven't tried swinging one all day, but I did try out my coaches and it is the Hyper Hammer 6.3 which are the specs I quoted. It's possible that his particular frame is not quite the same as the spec on TW's site I quoted, but it is the same model.

Here is another less drastic example. One of the guys on our team was given a Wilson n5 110. I've strung that racquet for him a couple of times now, and played with it for about 20 minutes once while he hit with my frame. I always like to try out new frames. This guy is in pretty good shape and is in his mid 30s plays 4.0. He didn't like my frame at all. He said it was too heavy and felt sluggish. I can't interpret that scientifically, but I'm pretty sure what he meant was that it was much harder to swing. Now the RDX is 318 and his Wilson is 312, so there is less swing weight in the Wilson, but not by much. The most noticeable difference is that the static weight is almost 2oz. different. My suggestion is that the static weight in this case was the bigger issue, not the swing weight. If you look at the n4, you can see that the n4 has a 330 swing weight, but is still only 9.7oz. Which frame do you think my team mate would prefer, the RDX or the n4? Would he find the n4 much more sluggish even than the RDX? I seriously doubt it.

Kevo
03-06-2006, 10:59 AM
Vin,
I seem to recall in the back of my mind that you once posted that you have compact strokes. Maybe (just theorizing here) a person with compact strokes is more sensitive to a static weight difference than a swing weight difference.

The problem is swing weight doesn't relate directly to any stroke. If you ever see an RDC measure swing weight then you will know that there is probably no one who swings a racquet that way. That's why this discussion is so silly. To hit a ball like an RDC measures swing weight you'd practically have to lock your arm in one motionless position out to your side and then rotate only your wrist to hit the ball.

NoBadMojo
03-06-2006, 11:02 AM
I've experienced this as well.

I've played two sets with my T10 Gen 2 (12 oz, 315 SW) and switched to the Wilson Tour 95 (11.5 oz, 325 SW) for the third set. At this point, I was sufficiently tired and the Tour 95 was noticably easier to swing. I switched back to the Gen 2 again and it felt VERY cumbersome in comparison.

My wife has two LM Instincts (11 oz, 330 SW) and I plan to borrow one to see how well I swing it late in a match. I've hit with it before, and although I don't like the pull it creates for me, I do just fine with it.

I've proven to myself that my racket selection needs to consider both swingweight and static weight. Regardless of what each stat means and who is right, this experience holds up for me time and time again and it seems to for others as well. It may be anecdotal and vary from person to person, but I still find it to be helpful information.

Hey Vin..have you considered that this data is only as good as the racquets you tried were on spec? I know for a fact that earlier Gen2's were of heavier swingweight than the manstream current production model and that Wilson specs are notoriously all over the map.
I've consistently found that lighter swingweight frames are easier to swing than those of heavier swingweight and vice versa..that doesnt mean there arent anomolies or exceptions at times..that's true of everything.
I dont think you can either confrm or deny anything which is a general truth from a single personal experience

vin
03-06-2006, 11:03 AM
oldguysrule,

I agree. I think that because of my compact backswing of my forehand, I'm using my shoulder to hold the racket up in place more so than I'm looping it.

My legs and trunk are clearly stronger than my shoulder, and I have no problem rotating (swingweight) a heavy racket, but holding the thing up and moving it into position (static weight) is a different story.

Someone previously mentioned shoulder strength being a limiting factor for static weight and I agree. The two most notable areas a heavier racket will cause problems for me is forehands and serves, both of which involve using the shoulder to hold the arm and racket up. And to be complete, I use a compact backswing on my serve as well. Heavier rackets don't give me as much trouble with my one handed backhand, which I think is consistent with this idea.

gregraven
03-06-2006, 11:05 AM
[...] When measuring swingweight, the frame is not swung, it is rotated in such a fashion that it would go in a complete 360 degree circle around a point 10 cm above the bottom of the handle. Once again, the only thing that ever happens consistently on the tennis court that even remotely resembles this motion is the point where the arm stops moving forward and the wrist pronates during the service motion. [...]

I think it creates confusion to attempt to castigate others for using "swing" and "rotate" interchangeably. It's true that we have to be careful with our terminology, but "swing" can be defined as "to move or cause to move in alternate directions or in either direction on an axis." "Rotate" is defined as "to cause to move around an axis or in a circle." If you want to get picky, the tennis racquet rarely if ever rotates; it virtually always swings.

Also, I think you are missing another important instance where the racquet attempts to rotate around the axis 10 cm up from the butt cap, and that is during reaction to impact with the ball, when the racquet attempts to move "backwards" (relative to the direction of the swing), pivoting about a point near the knuckle of the first finger, which is about 10 cm up from the butt cap.

oldguysrule
03-06-2006, 11:08 AM
I haven't tried swinging one all day, but I did try out my coaches and it is the Hyper Hammer 6.3 which are the specs I quoted. It's possible that his particular frame is not quite the same as the spec on TW's site I quoted, but it is the same model.

Here is another less drastic example. One of the guys on our team was given a Wilson n5 110. I've strung that racquet for him a couple of times now, and played with it for about 20 minutes once while he hit with my frame. I always like to try out new frames. This guy is in pretty good shape and is in his mid 30s plays 4.0. He didn't like my frame at all. He said it was too heavy and felt sluggish. I can't interpret that scientifically, but I'm pretty sure what he meant was that it was much harder to swing. Now the RDX is 318 and his Wilson is 312, so there is less swing weight in the Wilson, but not by much. The most noticeable difference is that the static weight is almost 2oz. different. My suggestion is that the static weight in this case was the bigger issue, not the swing weight. If you look at the n4, you can see that the n4 has a 330 swing weight, but is still only 9.7oz. Which frame do you think my team mate would prefer, the RDX or the n4? Would he find the n4 much more sluggish even than the RDX? I seriously doubt it.

Please see my theory above as expressed to Vin and tell me if you think it makes sense.

I still think we have to quit comparing a frame that is 8pts HL with one that is 7pts HH. They are designed for two very different types of games. They feel different and are meant to be used with different kinds of swings.

Also, NBMJ has stated repeatedly that he does not recommend HH racquets. With that in mind SW becomes a viable tool in differentiating racquets that have similar weight and balance points.

For example, the n5 and the n4. Similar weight, similar balance, different SW. The n4 will FEEL heavier when he plays even though it is the same weight. Same with 6.0 95 and n6.1 95. Same weight, same balance. The n6.1 95 though is sluggish to me because of it's higher SW.

oldguysrule
03-06-2006, 11:28 AM
The problem is swing weight doesn't relate directly to any stroke. If you ever see an RDC measure swing weight then you will know that there is probably no one who swings a racquet that way. That's why this discussion is so silly. To hit a ball like an RDC measures swing weight you'd practically have to lock your arm in one motionless position out to your side and then rotate only your wrist to hit the ball.

That is true. But it still gives us a measurement that can be used in comparing racquets. They are all measured the same way. So we can use the number in a relative way. That is partly why I think you can't compare the SW numbers between two racquets that are polar opposites in balance. Also, why I think two players with different swing styles will experience differences in SW differently. But, in general, we all know that a racquet with a higher SW will swing heavier than a racquet with a lower SW, other things being equal. And (other things being equal) a higher SW will be more powerful, transmit less shock, and be more stable. (Please don't bring a hammer style racquet into this discussion)

vin
03-06-2006, 11:31 AM
Mojo, you have certainly have a vaild point. The swingweight of my Gen 2 was measured by a RDC and is close to spec but the Wilson was not measured.

However, it's more than just one experience that led me to believe this (I've hit with lots of rackets the past few months), but I'll continue to do a little more "experimenting". I'm curious to see what happens with the LM Instinct. I will use the USRSA manual method to measure it's swingweight to make sure it has a notably higher swingweight than the Gen 2.

I also think oldguysrule brought up a point very much worth consideration. Static weight can have more or less of an impact on based on swing type. Add to that physical strength and stamina and a few other variables I'm probably leaving out and I think the only real conclusion that can be made is different people will have different sensitivities to racket specs. But in general, I don't think it hurts for people to give some attention to static weight in addition to swingweight. I can't imagine that being overwhelming for most people.

Another possible consideration is playing level. I have a feeling that advanced 4.5+ players probably have much better timing and positioning and might not run into the same problems with high static weight that lesser players typically would.

Just some thoughts ...

heycal
03-06-2006, 11:43 AM
(Please don't bring a hammer style racquet into this discussion)

That's kind of silly. Why don't we ban references to head-light rackets instead? If Hammer style rackets didn't exist, maybe then we could ignore them.

oldguysrule
03-06-2006, 11:48 AM
First of all, the problem is not so much with the article but the conclusions you draw from it. Secondly, not of all us are speaking "techno-speak", and certainly not me. I can't follow that techy stuff at all -- nor do I need to. Vin's preceeding post and my own previously mentioned examples show very simply and non-technically why SW isn't as important as you think it is.

Ironically, I personally actually wish it was all about swingweight... If this were so, my ability to play with my Hammer 6.3 with its 333 SW for several hours without fatigue or shoulder pain would mean I can handle SW's of at least 333, and therefore I would have a wider range of rackets to choose from when I get a new one, and should have no problems swinging the POG or other 12+ oz. rackets for a couple of hours as long as the SW's the same or less than my Wilson Hammer --

Wait, we're not allowed to include Hammer rackets in this discussion because... because... because why? Because we don't like them or we don't recommend them? Problem is, they still exist and are very popular as are dozens of other lightweight, head-heavy and high swingweight frames. So what good is using SW as a general starting point if one has to exclude a 1/3 of the rackets on the market?

Also, this "swingweight is the first thing you notice" stuff is just silly. Even if true, so what? I mean, what's the first thing you notice about a car? It's color. So figure out what color car you like and whatever you buy will be fine!

because....because, they are designed for beginners, with short, compact swings that need help getting the ball over the net because they only play occasionally for fun. (some advanced players may use them, but this is what they are designed for) If you are playing somewhat competitively, with longer strokes, on a more frequent basis, they will destroy your tendons. So yes, for purposes of what to recommend to a 3.5+ player looking to improve his game and enjoy playing tennis for the rest of his life, we should exclude 1/3 of the racquets on the market.

heycal
03-06-2006, 11:50 AM
Also, NBMJ has stated repeatedly that he does not recommend HH racquets. With that in mind SW becomes a viable tool in differentiating racquets that have similar weight and balance points.



Fine and dandy -- when rackets have similar weight and balance points, then you look at swingweight. No problem with that. But do see how far that statement is from statements like "it's all about swingweight" and "Swingweight is all you really need to know"?

rocket
03-06-2006, 11:54 AM
I agree. I think that because of my compact backswing of my forehand, I'm using my shoulder to hold the racket up in place more so than I'm looping it.

Vin, have you demoed the Maxply? Johnny Mac has a short take-back himself, and this stick was conceived to his specs...

NoBadMojo
03-06-2006, 12:01 PM
swingweight still does work even with hammer weighted frames....it's just it gets addled because sometimes light static weighted hammer balanced frames can have very high swingweights....and be very hard to swing because of their high swingweight..people seem to think that just because a frame has low static weight that is must be easy to swing...that's very wrong..they could be hard to swing..they could be ez to swing...depending upon the swingweight. hammer weighted frames can be very dangerous..and some of them are very hard to swing and as such not only can give you TE, GE, Wrist, but also RC. I avoid recommending them other than the Head Protector

oldguysrule
03-06-2006, 12:05 PM
Fine and dandy -- when rackets have similar weight and balance points, then you look at swingweight. No problem with that. But do see how far that statement is from statements like "it's all about swingweight" and "Swingweight is all you really need to know"?

Yes I can...In fact, in a roundabout way, maybe that's what Wilson was thinking when they created the hammer style racquet. Same swingweight, lighter package, deliver the same blow to the ball, easier to swing. ???. Yikes...kind of scary.

Anyway, I don't mean to be speaking for NBMJ, but I think the SW number is most relevant when comparing racquets of similar (not necessarily the same) specs. And since SW takes into account several different specs, it becomes a good starting point in his discussions regarding racquet suitability. Can we all live with that?

heycal
03-06-2006, 12:05 PM
So yes, for purposes of what to recommend to a 3.5+ player looking to improve his game and enjoy playing tennis for the rest of his life, we should exclude 1/3 of the racquets on the market.

That's pretty much my point. Using swingweight as a guide does NOT exclude these rackets, get it? If our aim is to rid the world of Hammer style rackets, we should recommend people first look at balance, or static weight, or maybe something else -- but not at swingweight.

So I'm afraid we absolutely can not agree to look at SW as a good starting point.

oldguysrule
03-06-2006, 12:34 PM
That's pretty much my point. Using swingweight as a guide does NOT exclude these rackets, get it? If our aim is to rid the world of Hammer style rackets, we should recommend people first look at balance, or static weight, or maybe something else -- but not at swingweight.

So I'm afraid we absolutely can not agree to look at SW as a good starting point.

Yeah, from that standpoint, I "get it".

Maybe there isn't one "good starting point". We all come at the decision making process from different starting points, different directions, different styles, and with different objectives. Makes me realize I am probably indulging my tennis obsession a little too...obsessively.

heycal
03-06-2006, 12:48 PM
Makes me realize I am probably indulging my tennis obsession a little too...obsessively.

Join the club. I think I need to re-evaluate my life if I'm spending this much time fighting about "swingweight"...

Keifers
03-06-2006, 12:52 PM
So much of the discussion here has been generated by the Rule of Thumb: "Swingweight is all you really need to know [don't worry about static weight because it's factored into swingweight]."

While well-intended, it turns out that this ROT comes with caveats, such as "Hammer racquets are excluded." And it's not borne out in the real-life experiences of people such as Kevo, vin, and others. So it's not a truly useful ROT. So why bother to wrangle over it?

Surely saying "How hard a frame is to swing is a combination of its weight and swingweight" is not being too complicated or giving too much information, is it? Both parameters are important -- whether you talk about both or you talk about only one and tacitly acknowledge the other with your (expressed or unexpressed) caveats.

heycal
03-06-2006, 03:07 PM
So much of the discussion here has been generated by the Rule of Thumb: "Swingweight is all you really need to know [don't worry about static weight because it's factored into swingweight]."

While well-intended, it turns out that this ROT comes with caveats, such as "Hammer racquets are excluded." And it's not borne out in the real-life experiences of people such as Kevo, vin, and others. So it's not a truly useful ROT. So why bother to wrangle over it?

Surely saying "How hard a frame is to swing is a combination of its weight and swingweight" is not being too complicated or giving too much information, is it? Both parameters are important -- whether you talk about both or you talk about only one and tacitly acknowledge the other with your (expressed or unexpressed) caveats.

Well said, Keifers. Perhaps this will be the last word on the matter and we can close this debate.

Until the exact same issue pops up in another thread tomorrow, that is...

Keifers
03-06-2006, 03:14 PM
Thanks, heycal. I appreciated your persistence in asserting the importance of static weight.

See you next time!...

NoBadMojo
03-06-2006, 04:47 PM
Well said, Keifers. Perhaps this will be the last word on the matter and we can close this debate.

Until the exact same issue pops up in another thread tomorrow, that is...

Indeed...good to close this 'debate' down because as I keep saying, the topic was sufficiently covered by Post #6.

lucky leprechaun
03-06-2006, 05:16 PM
If I had to buy a racquet "blind" these would be the order in which I would insist in knowing.

(1) beam profile (22mm, 22-24-25 profile etc)
(2) head size
(3) static weight
(4) length

I'd bet lots of people would more agree with this than swingweight because the same swingweight would probably include infinite combinations of above factors, and frankly no one could play equally well with infinite combinations of above factors. Swingweight is too general to give you anything. You have to go down a level.

heycal
03-06-2006, 05:44 PM
swingweight still does work even with hammer weighted frames....it's just it gets addled because sometimes light static weighted hammer balanced frames can have very high swingweights....and be very hard to swing because of their high swingweight..people seem to think that just because a frame has low static weight that is must be easy to swing...that's very wrong..they could be hard to swing..they could be ez to swing...depending upon the swingweight. hammer weighted frames can be very dangerous..and some of them are very hard to swing and as such not only can give you TE, GE, Wrist, but also RC. I avoid recommending them other than the Head Protector

Somehow I missed this particular post and didn't notice it until now... Anyway, are you saying high swingweight can cause TE/GE? Because your friend Mr. Bone seems to imply the opposite:

"According to Bone, you should use a racquet that has the heaviest swing weight you can handle without it feeling unwieldy. "In almost every way, a racquet with a high swing weight is better," he says. "It's more powerful, transmits less shock, and twists less on impact."

So as a TE sufferer, it appears I want a ton o' swingweight if I can handle it, correct? (Though NOT from a head-heavy stick, lest anyone think I'm suggesting Hammer's are good for ya.)

NoBadMojo
03-06-2006, 05:59 PM
heycal you will pls excuse me if i dont participate in discussions with you anymore. Bone isnt saying you should buy more swingweight than you can handle, he is saying you should buy as much as you can COMFORTABLY handle..that could be 290SW for one and 330 for another for example...i suggest that too, and indeed, too much swingweight can be as bad as not enough for myriad of reasons. too much seems to mess with shoulders and soft tissue like muscles, but can also give you TE,GE,Wrist, RC, etc.
I think you are just doing this and not even reading things properly just to get people going and to be difficult..you'll excuse me pls if i no longer wish to play...i believe in people buying the right swingweight for their skillset. There are plenty of 'experts' in here who cant agree on swingweight who can help you. see ya

heycal
03-06-2006, 06:22 PM
heycal you will pls excuse me if i dont participate in discussions with you anymore. Bone isnt saying you should buy more swingweight than you can handle, he is saying you should buy as much as you can COMFORTABLY handle..that could be 290SW for one and 330 for another for example...i suggest that too, and indeed, too much swingweight can be as bad as not enough for myriad of reasons. too much seems to mess with shoulders and soft tissue like muscles, but can also give you TE,GE,Wrist, RC, etc.
I think you are just doing this and not even reading things properly just to get people going and to be difficult..you'll excuse me pls if i no longer wish to play...i believe in people buying the right swingweight for their skillset. There are plenty of 'experts' in here who cant agree on swingweight who can help you. see ya

When it comes to TE issues, I am not trying to be difficult and take this stuff VERY seriously. I think Bone's words on this were quite clear and I interpretated them quite clearly: He is saying use the most swingweight you can handle because it transmits less shock and twists less on impact, which presumably is good for TE. But you are saying that too much swingweight can cause TE. If this is so, I'd like to hear some arguments that support that position or reasons why this is so. Remember, we are talking about the elbow here, not the shoulder, which seems to be affected by different things, so if there is some point that too much weight -- static or swing -- becomes detrimental to the elbow, I'd like to know what that point is or how one is supposed to go about determining it.

It's funny how you accuse others of twisting your words and not reading things properly, because I think you don't read your OWN words very carefully and you misinterpret the things YOU say. No one twists your words or misquotes you more than you do yourself.

vin
03-07-2006, 04:34 AM
But you are saying that too much swingweight can cause TE. If this is so, I'd like to hear some arguments that support that position or reasons why this is so.

Too much swingweight can cause you to swing late, and swinging late can be a cause of TE.

rocket
03-07-2006, 05:38 AM
Joint & muscle straints can be cause by sudden & violent shifts of weight, whether it's your own weight, the racquet weight, etc. I badly pulled my left calf muscle once trying to catch a serve to my forehand. I guess I put tremendous pressure on the left leg to push up fast & the calf just snapped.

Boris Becker snapped his wrist at Wimbledon & ended his match right there, if I remember correctly.

oldguysrule
03-07-2006, 06:36 AM
heycal,
The statement "what you can handle" is subjective. Last summer I added 24 grams of lead to the hoop of my racquet. I liked the way it hit and didn't feel like I couldn't handle it. However, I developed tennis elbow. Took the lead off...quit playing single for a few months, and it is almost back to normal. Since the added weight, and thus added swingweight, was the only change I made, that is my guess as to what caused it. Probably if I had done it in smaller increments over a period of time, it would not have caused a problem. Live and learn.

Interestingly enough, you can cause the same problems from a sudden decrease in weight or SW as well. Moderation in all things is better I guess...

J D
03-07-2006, 08:54 AM
swingweight still does work even with hammer weighted frames....it's just it gets addled because sometimes light static weighted hammer balanced frames can have very high swingweights....and be very hard to swing because of their high swingweight.NBM, as others have been trying to tell you (from science AND their own playing experiences), a 10 ounce frame with a higher swingweight can still be easier to swing than a 12 ounce frame with a lower swingweight.

people seem to think that just because a frame has low static weight that is must be easy to swing...that's very wrong..they could be hard to swing..they could be ez to swing...depending upon the swingweight. hammer weighted frames can be very dangerous..and some of them are very hard to swing and as such not only can give you TE, GE, Wrist, but also RC. I avoid recommending them other than the Head Protector
NBM, all I can say is, wow. You're claiming now that high swingweight causes TE, GE, and RC problems? We had better alert the medical community and all the other racquet experts on the subject because they have been saying the exact opposite for years.

For the record, high swingweight and high stiffness can hurt wrists. High static weight can hurt shoulders and exacerbate certain wrist problems. Bad form, overuse, low swingweight, low weight, bad dampening, and/or high stiffness are the main causes of TE and GE. A frame that is way too light or too heavy for a player in either static weight or swingweight can cause bad form.

NBM, you're really scaring me now. I thought you knew some of this stuff.

TennisAsAlways
03-07-2006, 09:31 AM
I am scared for you, for being scared of him. :D

NoBadMojo
03-07-2006, 09:46 AM
JD you will excuse me if I add you to the list of the very annoying. You were busted in this thread because you dont know swingweight and other 'experts' disagreed with you about your knowledge of swingweight and rather than you addressing that you choose to write this crap about me. you just dont get it..check your own package 'expert'. I'm tired of you and your insults.
Of course high swingweight can cause TE, GE and RC problems..if you cant understand that, you dont know bupkis. More swngweight than a person can handle can cause these problems...how daft are you to not get that?
I took everyone off of my ignore list some while ago..it's time to dust it off and I am happy to stick JD and heycal on there..it's a useful tool...much like swingweight.

TennisAsAlways
03-07-2006, 10:10 AM
..it's a useful tool...much like swingweight.

:D Yes, I agree that SW is a useful tool.

J D
03-07-2006, 12:09 PM
NBM, I'm sorry if the sarcasm offended you. I wasn't really trying to get you mad, just underscore my point. Sadly, I have lost a great deal of respect for you. I guess very annoying = anyone that doesn't always agree with you.

You can put me on your ignore list, but I will still correct you (or anyone else) that is dispensing incorrect information about the physics or physiology of tennis. If you read my post carefully (something you seem unwilling to do), you would see that I did say that too high of a swingweight can be a cause of wrist problems as well as contributing (indirectly) to TE and GE. Not to the shoulder, however.

If you understood all the physics and physiology involved or you had ever had any serious shoulder problems, you would realize that what stresses the shoulder the most is the initial movement of the frame forward. At this stage, the whole frame is pretty much moving at the same speed, so by far the most significant number to the stress caused by a frame to the shoulder is MASS, not swingweight.

I think most people can judge for themselves who is right wrong in this thread just by using a little common sense. If they can't, then God bless them anyway.

heycal
03-07-2006, 12:38 PM
you would see that I did say that too high of a swingweight can be a cause of wrist problems as well as contributing (indirectly) to TE and GE. Not to the shoulder, however.


Am I reading you right here? You're saying that high SW does contribute indirectly to TE/GE? Or, like Vin said as well, you are saying that if too much weight -- static or swing -- causes bad form or swinging late, the bad form could cause the TE/GE.

This seems plausible. Yet how are we supposed to reconcile that with the competing notion that more mass equals better elbow protection? Tricky stuff... TE/GE is a riddle no one has truly figured out for sure.

The shoulder? Much simpler. It is indeed mass one needs to worry about most, not SW.

vin
03-07-2006, 12:55 PM
too high of a swingweight can be a cause of wrist problems as well as contributing (indirectly) to TE and GE. Not to the shoulder, however.


I think you're neglecting shoulder pull.

From racqetresearch.com ...

"Shoulder Pull is the force (in the metric unit of Newtons, a Newton being about a quarter of a pound) exerted by the shoulder muscles in opposing the centrifugal force acting on the racquet as it moves around the shoulder in the swing resulting from the player's Work (see formula for Shoulder Pull (http://www.racquetresearch.com/formulas.htm), see derivation of formula for Shoulder Pull (http://www.racquetresearch.com/shoulder.htm)). This opposing force is called a "centripetal" force because it acts toward the axis of rotation (here the shoulder socket); Shoulder Pull is equal and opposite to the centrifugal force while the racquet is getting up to speed for the impact, and reaches its maximum the instant before impact, which is where we measure it. After impact, this centripetal force continues, but the offsetting centrifugal force is reduced because the racquet has slowed down. The excess centripetal force becomes a radial compressive force known as Shoulder Crunch. The formula for centripetal force is Mv2/R (where M is racquet mass in kilograms, v is the linear velocity of the mass center, in meters/second, and R is the distance, in meters, from the racquet mass center to the axis of rotation, here the shoulder). Note that, in rotation, the mass center linear velocity (v) decreases as the balance gets more head-light, so head-light balance can mean low Shoulder Pull, even if the racquet is heavy. The variable v is squared in the formula for centripetal force, so a light racquet having a head-heavy balance may still have a large Shoulder Pull, despite its light weight, due to its distant mass center and consequent high mass center velocity in rotation. That's bad. See the Shoulder Pull Rankings (http://www.racquetresearch.com/2002/Criteria%20Rankings/shoulder_pull.htm) for the 2002 survey of 167 racquets."

heycal
03-07-2006, 01:09 PM
Wait a minute -- Vin, your mention of racquet Research brings up an interesting point. What was the best rated racket for everything from "shoulder pull" to "shock" and "elbow crunch" and so on on that website? What was the king of all rackets?

The tailweighted Hammer. Swingweight? 390...

All chaos has broken loose!

TennisAsAlways
03-07-2006, 01:33 PM
Wait a minute -- Vin, your mention of racquet Research brings up an interesting point. What was the best rated racket for everything from "shoulder pull" to "shock" and "elbow crunch" and so on on that website? What was the king of all rackets?

The tailweighted Hammer. Swingweight? 390...

All chaos has broken loose!Note the word "tailweighted". Not just any Hammer, but a "tailweighted" Hammer.

Good day now. 8)

heycal
03-07-2006, 02:34 PM
Note the word "tailweighted". Not just any Hammer, but a "tailweighted" Hammer.

Good day now. 8)

Um, okay. But since I wrote it, I don't think I will have a problem noting it... I'm curious: how old are you, Tennisasalways?

TennisAsAlways
03-07-2006, 02:43 PM
Um, okay. But since I wrote it, I don't think I will have a problem noting it... I'm curious: how old are you, Tennisasalways?I was only putting emphasis on the fact that the Hammer did not have a HH balance. It had a very low moment force as well. Although the static weight and swing weight on that modified frame may be a bit high, the low moment force helps contribute to it's maneuverability.

About your question, let me first ask you: How old do you think I am? Also, why do you ask?

Midlife crisis
03-07-2006, 03:03 PM
Am I reading you right here? You're saying that high SW does contribute indirectly to TE/GE? Or, like Vin said as well, you are saying that if too much weight -- static or swing -- causes bad form or swinging late, the bad form could cause the TE/GE.

This seems plausible. Yet how are we supposed to reconcile that with the competing notion that more mass equals better elbow protection? Tricky stuff... TE/GE is a riddle no one has truly figured out for sure.

The shoulder? Much simpler. It is indeed mass one needs to worry about most, not SW.

For any kind of swing where the elbow is put into a biomechanically bad position, like a serve where the elbow leads the hand, a heavier weight can cause the hand to lag even further behind the elbow, and then the elbow undergoes a larger force to accelerate the racquet upwards. These both can contribute heavily to GE.

When people say that heavier racquets are good for TE/GE, they're usually talking about the isolated impact event and not the entirety of the swing, which also includes deceleration and the problems that can occur there.

As far as the shoulder, a racquet with too much swingweight can also cause problems. For instance, at the top of the serve the shoulder joint is in a position where the arm bone is pulling in a direction that separates it from the shoulder. Too much weight and too much repetition and the ligaments that hold everything together can become damaged or inflamed.

Probably like the Goldilocks tale, not too heavy, not too light, but just right.

heycal
03-07-2006, 04:16 PM
About your question, let me first ask you: How old do you think I am?

17?

MIDLIFE:

I have concluded after reading all these posts and other stuff on this subject that no matter what racket you use, and regardless of its weight, balance, swingweight, stiffness, etc. -- IT WILL CAUSE YOU INJURY OF ONE SORT OR ANOTHER. We are all doomed...

NBMJ:

You're going to put me on your ignore list? Fine. Then I'm going to put you on my buddy list!

Can someone explain to me exactly what this "ignore" list stuff is, and is it as really as silly and pointless a function as I'm thinking it is?

Also, can someone please tell me how to quote more than one person or snippet of text when I reply to a posting? I'm jealous of you guys who know how to do this, because I can only figure out how to quote one block of text per reply. Thanks.

TennisAsAlways
03-07-2006, 05:05 PM
17?LMAO, A 17 Year old with all the knowledge that I have? What makes you think I'm that young? Let's just say I'm a young adult, at least old enough to be able to rent a car (USA).

Go through my other posts. You'll see all the tips I have contributed to this board. Just by reading my writing style, you'll see that I'm no teen (Maybe a very smart gifted teen could write like me.). Ninety percent of my posts are advice to others. Nine percent is just goofing around (ok maybe 40% is goofing around). Only 1% of them are asking for advice. Teens do nothing but goof around, have a majority of posts that are very brief, only give advice once in a while (and if so, they're very simple tips and or suggestions that have already been mentioned by someone else in one way or another), resort to insulting others when they can't hold a debate etc.. I am not like them; only it is that I can loosen up and have fun like they seem to do.

I have insightful contributions and occasionally I joke around (I am easy going in reality). In my tips and advice posts (the majority of my posts), people frequently praise me for helping them (Am I cocky for saying that? No because it's true.). I enjoy helping people, since I have a lot to give.

In the case with your thread, the "Lead Tape For Dummies" one, and this thread, by a different OP, I just happen to not really be "into it" or interested and so that is why I am not and wasn't being too serious. For instance, this swing weight thread is nothing new to me. You see these types of threads pop up every week, maybe even twice a week. I already know so much about the physics of SW, much more than has been described here thus far. I have already contributed some things to this particualar thread, but what was going on was that things got a bit ugly between some folks. I could pitch in and try to sort things out between some of those people (you are among those people I speak of, by the way.), but like I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, "Sometimes explaining things would be like talking to a wall!," -- in this case, swingweight. If this was "my" thread, then maybe I would have been interested enough to take the initiative and sort things out and or carry on the swing weight debate(s).

As far as your thread, "Lead Tape For Dummies," I tried to pitch in. Things weren't really interesting and so I was just like, "whatever!" I then came back and gave you thorough advice (so did many others) and you were giving the "impression" that you weren't very appreciative of our contributions. It "seemed" as if you were just thinking to yourself, "Blah blah blah.....techy jargon. I don't care about those posts. Too complicated for me to comprehend. Blah blah blah." Yes I am aware that you did thank everyone. It's just that you made it "seem" as if people were just posting just for the sake of posting. We were taking our time to try to assist you! So from there on, I got bored and didn't take things seriously (Which is something more people need to do!)

Maybe it's my joking around a lot that makes you think I'm young? Maybe it's the amount of emoticons and animations that I post that makes me appear to be a young'n (Fun people are usually looked at as young; in my case, I am perceived to be very young. :D)? It doesn't matter. Just like when I buy booze and get carded, it's a good feeling to know that someone else thinks you're young (Except if you are someone who just turned 21 who's full of themself! You know how young'ns hate it when other people think they are younger. It's the thing whereas kids want to grow up faster and we adults want to slow down our aging.) I'd take being younger over being older any day! Thank you.

And how old are you? I'm assuming you are a close to middle-aged women (no offense if you're really a guy. Also, no offense to women).

Good day now. 8)

vin
03-08-2006, 04:41 AM
Also, can someone please tell me how to quote more than one person or snippet of text when I reply to a posting? I'm jealous of you guys who know how to do this, because I can only figure out how to quote one block of text per reply. Thanks.

Hit the quote button, copy the quoted text, go back to the thread, hit the quote button on another post, paste the previous quoted text, and edit away. You can keep doing this for as many posts as you like.

If you just want to break up pieces of one quote, you have to insert some additional [q.u.o.t.e=username] and [/q.u.o.t.e] tags, without the periods of course. I put the periods there so that the message board doesn't parse the tags.

vin
03-08-2006, 04:47 AM
See ....


About your question, let me first ask you: How old do you think I am? Also, why do you ask?

I'd say he's 12. :mrgreen: (just kidding)


Probably like the Goldilocks tale, not too heavy, not too light, but just right.

I prefer heavy porridge. :)


Good day now. 8)

heycal
03-08-2006, 08:57 AM
See ....



I'd say he's 12. :mrgreen: (just kidding)



I prefer heavy porridge. :)

Nice use of the multiple quoting feature. Show off! (Thanks for the tips on this feature.)

heycal
03-08-2006, 09:10 AM
duplicate post. Sorry.

heycal
03-08-2006, 09:12 AM
LMAO, A 17 Year old with all the knowledge that I have? What makes you think I'm that young? Let's just say I'm a young adult, at least old enough to be able to rent a car (USA).

Go through my other posts. You'll see all the tips I have contrubuted to this board. Just by reading my writing style, you'll see that I'm no teen (Maybe a very smart gifted teen could write like me.). Ninety percent of my posts are advice to others. Nine percent is just goofing around (ok maybe 40% is goofing around). Only 1% of them are asking for advice. Teens do nothing but goof around, have a majority of posts that are very brief, only give advice once in a while (and if so, they're very simple tips and or suggestions that have already been mentioned by someone else in one way or another), resort to insulting others when they can't hold a debate etc.. I am not like them; only it is that I can loosen up and have fun like they seem to do.

I have insightful contributions and occasionally I joke around (I am easy going in reality). In my tips and advice posts (the majority of my posts), people frequently praise me for helping them (Am I cocky for saying that? No becasue it's true.). I enjoy helping people, since I have a lot to give.

In the case in with your thread, the "Lead Tape For Dummies" one, and this thread, by a different OP, I just happen to not really be "into it" or interested and so that is why I am not and wasn't being too serious. For instance, this swing weight thread is nothing new to me. You see these types of threads pop up every week, maybe even twice a week. I already know so much about the physics of SW, much more than has been described here thus far. I have already contributed some things to this particualar thread, but what was going on was that things got a bit ugly between some folks. I could pitch in and try to sort things out between some of those people (you are among those people I speak of, by the way.), but like I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, "Sometimes explaining things would be like talking to a wall!," -- in this case, swingweight. If this was "my" thread, then maybe I would have been interested enough to take the initiative and sort things out and or carry on the swing weight debate(s).

As far as your thread, "Lead Tape For Dummies," I tried to pitch in. Things weren't really interesting and so I was just like, "whatever!" I then came back and gave you thorough advice (so did many others) and you were giving the "impression" that you weren't very appreciative of our contributions. It "seemed" as if you were just thinking to yourself, "Blah blah blah.....techy jargon. I don't care about those posts. Too complicated for me to comprehend. Blah blah blah." Yes I am aware that you did thank everyone. It's just that you made it "seem" as if people were just posting just for the sake of posting. We were taking our time to try to assist you! So I got bored and didn't take things serious.

Maybe it's my joking around a lot that makes you think I'm young? Maybe it's the amount of emoticons and animations that I post that makes me appear to be a young'n (Fun people are usually looked at as young; in my case, I am perceived to be very young. :D)? It doesn't matter. Just like when I buy booze and get carded, it's a good feeling to know that someone else thinks you're young (Except if you are someone who just turned 21 who's full of themself! You know how young'ns hate it when other people think they are younger. It's the thing whereas kids want to grow up faster and we adults want to slow down our aging.) I'd take being younger over being older any day! Thank you.

And how old are you? I'm assuming you are a close to middle-aged women (no offense if you're really a guy. Also, no offense to women).

Good day now. 8)

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

Speaking of which, if you truly thought I was a middle aged woman, why did you refer to me as a guy in the "Lead Tape for Dummies" thread? Get your story straight, kid.;)

As for your age, I'm sticking with my original guess, and mine is 43. As for the content of "Lead Tape for Dummies", I was quite appreciate of the folks -- like yourself -- who tried to help, but occasionally grew exasperated with the many who couldn't grasp the simple questions I was asking or strayed far afield from the topic in their postings (kind of like I'm doing now here.) When I ask something like "I'm not too handy, so can I just put some lead tape on the top of my handle and go out and play with it?" I'm obviously not looking to take an on-line course on advanced racket customization. I'm just asking if I can add some lead tape to my handle.... The great fault of many us, and I'm definitely included in this group, is not focusing on the specific questions asked. We try and help, but often lose sight of the forest for the trees.

TennisAsAlways
03-08-2006, 09:43 AM
A guy who is not even handy enough to unwrap and rewrap a grip? That's why I assume that you are a women, and I'm sticky with it, maam. ;)

Another clue that makes me think you are a women is that you use a Hammer (:D). You also use an OS frame. Women, kids (girls especially), old people, or people without correct textbook strokes (basically pushers, junkballers etc.) tend to use OSes, head heavy frames, or game improvement racquets (flyswatters according to us purists). Now am I saying that guys don't use Hammers? No. Serious guys don't though, and if they did, they would be smart enough to have it customized.

Whatever.... so you think I'm seventeen? I sense hostility which was why you stated that. Okay maam. Whatever you say. Either way I was right that you are old, maam.

rocket
03-08-2006, 10:04 AM
A guy who is not even handy enough to unwrap an rewrap a grip? That's why I assume that you are a women, and I'm sticky with it, maam. ;) Whatever, I'm seventeen? I sense hostility which was why you stated that. Okay maam. Whatever you say. Either way I was right that you are old, maam.

Nothing wrong with being young dude! In tennis, youth is a great advantage: you run faster, hit the ball harder, & can log many more hours on the court than some of us. :cool:

TennisAsAlways
03-08-2006, 10:19 AM
Nothing wrong with being young dude! In tennis, youth is a great advantage: you run faster, hit the ball harder, & can log many more hours on the court than some of us. :cool:Yeah I know there's nothing wrong with being young. As a matter of fact, I'd love to be seventeen again. I was very optimistic and adventurous at that age. Lots of energy, no doubt about that.

The truth is that I am not that young, as I had already previously stated. The problem (not really a problem but more like something that heycal is trying to instigate) is that heycal is saying that he's sticky with his original assumption, saying that he thinks I'm seventeen, only saying that to try to make me mad.

Why is he doing that? I don't know. I did not initiate any trouble to begin with. People can be very odd at times for whatever reason. :rolleyes: (Now he's going to continue thinking I am a teen since adults don't use the rolleyes emoticon or any sort of emoticon! LMAO <----- [Whoops! :shock: Adults don't say "laughing my *** off" either. They just say "lol" or something as such!])




Good day now.

heycal
03-08-2006, 11:37 AM
Yeah I know there's nothing wrong with being young. As a matter of fact, I'd love to be seventeen again. I was very optimistic and adventurous at that age. Lots of energy, no doubt about that.

The truth is that I am not that young, as I had already previously stated. The problem (not really a problem but more like something that heycal is trying to instigate) is that heycal is saying that he's sticky with his original assumption, saying that he thinks I'm seventeen, only saying that to try to make me mad.

Why is he doing that? I don't know. I did not initiate any trouble to begin with. People can be very odd at times for whatever reason. :rolleyes: (Now he's going to continue thinking I am a teen since adults don't use the rolleyes emoticon or any sort of emoticon! LMAO <----- [Whoops! :shock: Adults don't say "laughing my *** off" either. They just say "lol" or something as such!])




Good day now.

Relax, son... 17 or 25 is pretty much the same thing to this old gal. Why so excitable, anyway?

FYI - The reason I use a Hammer is because when I started playing tennis regularly last summer after not playing any tennis at all for many many years (I was never a serious player to begin with), I picked up the only racket that was lying around the house, which happened to be a Hammer. If it had happened to be a PS 85 -- or a 20 dollar aluminum job from Walmart with a 135" head -- that's what I would be using. 'Twas fate alone that put that racket in my hands.

TennisAsAlways
03-08-2006, 01:47 PM
I'm terribly sorry about the Hammer story.

Good day now. 8)