Great Jack Kramer says lighter racquet so more power

Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by boramiNYC, May 1, 2012.

  1. SystemicAnomaly

    SystemicAnomaly G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    10,942
    Location:
    Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
    ^ Give it up gameboy. The Jack Kramer statement is very misleading. A lot of players will fail to get the promised power from a lighter racquet and may damage their shoulder/arm trying to generate that faster swing. Fast swings with a racquet with a low weight or SW will produce shock & vibrations that will cause problems in the long run.
    .
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  2. gameboy

    gameboy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,620
    OK, I think I see where you are getting confused.

    You are putting the emphasis in the wrong place. Just because he says "maximum effort" does not mean that this ONLY applies at maximum effort. The same is true from zero effort to 100% effort. If you swing with the exact same effort, you will swing the lighter racquet faster than the heavier racquet.

    He only states the "maximum effort" because that is the only way you can test it in trials. Humans are not machines. We cannot swing at 50% on command. When I tell you to swing at 50% effort, your swing speed on 100 swings at that effort are going to be wildly different. But you will produce much more consistent swing speed if you trying your maximum effort.

    The above statement really means this:

    When swinging with the EXACT SAME effort, swing speed (V) was found to decrease as swing-weight (Io) increased

    And because speed is a bigger factor than mass when it comes to energy (E=MC^2) increasing racquet speed is the best way to increase the ball speed - GIVEN THE SAME EXACT EFFORT.

    I hope that clears it up...
     
  3. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,771
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    gameboy you say a lot of things in this thread that make you look like you have never played tennis before.
     
  4. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,848
    Location:
    San Diego
    in addition to appearing not to play tennis gameboy also uses flawed logic and wrong equations.
    e=mc^2 is not the correct equation to be used. f=ma is unless you swing fast enough to split atoms.
     
  5. gameboy

    gameboy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,620
    I used E=mc^2 because it shows the importance of speed in measuring force (i.e. power) and many people are familiar with it.

    If you lack any understanding of physics, saying "do you play tennis" is about as good as you can do I guess...
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  6. skiracer55

    skiracer55 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,005
    Yes, indeed....

    ...as I already said in post #83....
     
  7. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,848
    Location:
    San Diego
    You've just proven you know nothing about physics besides how to copy and paste incorrect equations from a website. Force is not the same as power. Power is defined as the measurement of how quickly work can be done.

    e=mc2 is only applicable for hi speed systems. not for swinging racquets at a measly 50mph. It puzzles me how in your attempt to prove 'force' you decided to use the special relativity equation for energy then linking it with power somehow instead of using the equation for force itself which is F=MA.

    Quit while you're behind.
     
  8. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,771
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    There is no understanding of physics required to play tennis and learn about racquets.

    That is the funniest part. Real world experience will win out everytime. Simply playing a lot of tennis with differently weighted racquets shows you exactly why there are benefits to heavier racquets as long as you can still swing them quickly.
     
  9. skiracer55

    skiracer55 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,005
    Uh huh...

    ...Okay, so should I buy a lighter or a heavier racket? Do the pros use heavier or lighter rackets? Why? Is a "lighter" Wilson racket better than a "lighter" Head racket? How about a "lighter" Wilson racket versus a "heavier" Head racket? I really don't know all the answers, and you obviously do, and I need to order a racket from TW that will automagically make me a better player? What's the answer?

    Waiting, with Bated Breath, in Colorado...
     
  10. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,848
    Location:
    San Diego
    Good question. I suggest you go with a 9oz pro kennex if you can find one. It's pretty light and you'll get a lot of power.
    Good luck and thanks.
     
  11. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    Well, according to E=MC^2, converting that 9oz racquet into energy would produce energy equal to the explosion of 5.5 megatons of TNT. That is a lot of power!

    Of course, if you converted a 12.6 ounce Pro Staff to energy, it would produce 7.6 megatons of energy. And that's without adding any lead tape.

    So I think we have our answer. E=MC^2 says that heavier racquets are more powerful, by a couple of megatons.
     
  12. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,848
    Location:
    San Diego
    :) haha. good point. i didn't even think of it that way. you're right. e=mc2 says that heavy racquets are more powerful. it's settled then.
     
  13. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    35,712
    Wrong again.
    You guys reason the same velocity. But it's not a constant. The user determines it.
     
  14. theblueark

    theblueark New User

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    In addition to a ridiculous reference to E=MC^2, you now want to redefine what a well respected physicists, who yourself quoted, meant? Have you emailed him to ask if that's what he meant?

    I thought you were physics minded when you started posting formulas, but now all I see is a person trying to look clever posting some formulas then refusing to back them up.

    I notice you do not have interest in your own formula anymore when I showed you the ball moves slower after impact on a lighter racquet not in motion.

    It was your own formula!
     
  15. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,848
    Location:
    San Diego
    The last time i checked the speed of light is constant. You can't just plug any speed you want into the e=mc2 equation to prove your point lol. it's pretty funny actually. :)
     
  16. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,797
    Gamey may not have the right equations, but it is a fact that, over time, pros have migrated to lighter frames even as the speeds and spins and physical fitness have increased.

    How do we explain this? Don Budge is supposed to have used a 15 oz frame, Sampras a leaded PS 85 at 14 oz, Fed is at 12.8, and now Nadal is at 12.

    It must be because topspin requires higher swing speed from low to up (against gravity), which is easier achieved with a lighter frame, and because material stiffness and head size have increased (wood has an RA of 40, a PD is close to 70, old frames were 65 sq inch, todays are at 100) to compensate for the loss of any power due to mass.

    The tradeoff point has certainly shifted over the years.

    But I think the weight will not fall below 12 oz in the ATP, and about 11.6 oz in the WTA.
     
  17. boramiNYC

    boramiNYC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,337
    The style of game has changed a lot. Much higher swing speed in general is necessary in todays game for better control (spin) and consistency from the groundies. If the pro's used 2oz heavier racquet their performance would decrease dramatically from their current level compared to other players using lighter frames. S&Ver might not be affected too much but those are extinct species.

    The way the pros fine tune their equipment, we can be assured they have found their optimum weight for swing speed, power, spin, maneuverability, etc.
     
  18. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    35,712
    For pros, they have found their optimum weight and balance.
    Are you as strong and fit as the pros? Do you hit like the pros? Does your opponent's hit like the pros?
    For me, it's NEGATIVE for all the above. So it stands to reason, I have no business using the same racket as Federer or Tsonga, Monfils or Joker.
     
  19. OTMPut

    OTMPut Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,287
    Will this statement be true if the flex of the frames in comparison is 20? 30? 100?

    My borg pro has a flex of 26. And it supposedly was a stiff frame.

    Do you think a racket with a weight of 150gm and 20 flex is more powerful than a racquet with a weight of 390 gm and 20 flex?

    Are there any studies on this?
     
  20. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,398
    Isn't there a rule or law of diminishing returns that gameboy needs to recognize?
     
  21. theblueark

    theblueark New User

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    I don't know why suresh you keep replying to my posts. I don't care to discuss with you much because you do the same thing gameboy does. You make broad, generic statements then when I ask you to quantify them, you ignore my posts.

    I don't mean to hijack this thread, but suresh, in the other thread you have not replied when I asked you the specifics of your "take the racquet back early" statement.

    1. When should we take the racquet back before the ball bounce?
    Don't tell me all the time, because you later said of course we shouldn't take it back too early on easy balls, and that you don't either.

    2.Do you agree that it is observed that most pros take the ball back after the the bounce most of the time?

    You can answer me in the other thread


    Gameboy, pray tell, do you agree with these 3 statements:
    1. Lighter racquets are more powerful when swinging at maximum effort.
    2. Heavier/lighter racquets are sometimes (this is when you pull out your equations and check the racquet head speed to mass ratio) more powerful when not swinging at maximum effort.
    3. Heavier racquets are more powerful on strokes with low racquet head speeds.

    Because I believe nobody is arguing with you if you agree with these. What people are disagreeing with is your assumption that people swing with maximum effort for every single stroke in tennis (meaning you're ignoring points 2 and 3).
     
  22. tennisfreak3

    tennisfreak3 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    52
    I've been thinking about it. I think it's fairly simple. There is a maximum of velocity you can produce with your arm. We are not like a car...

    m1(easily changeable)*v1(you hit a maximum at some point)=m2*v2

    What about the pros, do they have a light racquet?
     
  23. SystemicAnomaly

    SystemicAnomaly G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    10,942
    Location:
    Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
    ^ No, most male pros do not use light racquets. However their racquets tend to be be inherently low powered for others reasons. The head size is usually smaller and the frame is typically very flexible. Both of these factors tend to make the racquet lower powered. Many also use racquets with a dense string pattern. This also results in less power. Male pros usually get their power from their long, very fast swings.
     
  24. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,797
    I did not keep replying to your posts, so I don't know what you are talking about. If you don't care to discuss whatever, why are you still making such posts like this asking me to respond?

    The issue of the bounce has been discussed many, many times. Go back and read all those posts and links. There are cases where early take back is done, depending on the player, the ball, and the anticipation skills. Plenty of discussion and specific examples in that thread over the last year. In many other cases, it is done after the bounce.

    You can take it back early if 1. you can anticipate well 2 you want to hit hard with maximum time for the stroke 3. you think that the offensive stroke cannot be hit as effectively if the racket is taken back only after the bounce and then brought forward 4. As a timing aid like the Williams sisters who will actually sometimes double pump the racket 5. to move towards the ball if you think it is easier to execute the forward stroke on a distant ball if the racket is already back by the time you reach it
     
  25. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,498
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    Exactly.

    For example, if a pitcher can throw a baseball 100 mph, would he be able to throw a golf ball 200 mph? No. His arm just can't move that fast. Even throwing a golf ball 105 mph would be a stretch for a 100-mph pitcher, despite the fact that it's less than half the mass of a baseball. And that's just a 5% increase in speed.

    So the question is, just how big of a factor is the weight/swingweight of a tennis racket in comparison to the other factors when it comes to overall swing speed? If someone switched to a frame that is 5% less powerful (IG Rad MP compared to BB11 Special Edition
    http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi...tion:98|RCVOLKL|&racquetC=none&racquetD=none), would the decrease in swingweight lead to a >5% increase in swing speed without any other changes? Or, would the increase in swing speed be smaller (e.g., 1-2%), meaning the player will have to use more effort or different swing mechanics to make up the difference?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2012
  26. theblueark

    theblueark New User

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    You quoted my posts and made a response a couple of times. Out of courtesy I feel myself obliged to reply but have been trying not to.

    Your statements above are why. You like to make a statement like "You should take the racquet back early". This is a broad, blanketing statement people use to infer "You should do this all the time". When others argue with you that most of the time your statement is not true, you say well, "you should take it back early sometimes/there are cases when/you can take it back early if"

    Then a couple of weeks later you pop up saying how "take the racquet back early" is good advice, again, without quantifying, again. Just like any other troll looking for people to react to your broad, vague statement, again. My posts were in reponse to gameboy and i'd like to think i was having somewhat of a conversation with him. So please, I'd like it if you don't quote my posts when I'm responding to someone else and reply like i'd be interested in what you had to say or like you're having a conversation with me.
     
  27. tennisfreak3

    tennisfreak3 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    52
    Very good question. I'm not a pro but it's mass*speed.

    A 20% reduction of speed or a 20% of mass is equal at the end because of the multiplication:

    Ex: 10 oz * 50km/h=500
    Reduction of 20% of the mass:
    8 oz * 50hm/h= 400
    Reduction of 20% of the speed:
    10 oz * 40 km/h=400

    400=400

    The factor of elasticity(bounce of the ball on the racket) is not into the equation, only for energy. Also, the factor of elasticity is related to the string tension, rigidity of the frame, the strengh of the wrist/or the overall of the body at the moment of impact and the length of the sword(very important because of the momentum).

    OK, I'm now a tennis geek...

    Whatever, just do what feels right on the court.
     
  28. tennisfreak3

    tennisfreak3 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    52
    And for the other factors, it's too much complicated...
     
  29. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    The effort means the force (F). We can define the kinetic energy of the racquet as

    F*S

    where S is the racquet path during the swing and S is obviously constant. So, racquet kinetic energy (E) is

    E = F*S = 0.5*Mracquet*(Vracquet)^2 and

    Vracquet = sqrt(2F*S/Mracquet)

    When swinging with the EXACT SAME EFFORT (F=const) and S=constant, in order to increase Vracquet we have to decrease racquet mass, because there is only one variable – Mracquet (see last equation).

    We must also remember that the mass of racket should be much greater than the mass of the ball.

    Everything looks so simple if we treat a human body like machine, but I think this is wrong idea.

    This is my hunch about discussed matter.

    Obviously, our muscles cannot produce big and constant force (F) without proper resistance. For instance, we can push very hard huge tree, but cannot push the same way small seedling.

    Our body has a very clever defense mechanism, which does not allow us to produce very large acceleration/force, or else we would destroy ourselves.

    Our muscles just cannot apply the same effort (F) to heavy and light racquets. That’s why simple physics is not able to explain everything about tennis strokes.

    So, to boost racquet speed we have to deceive our body sensors somehow. For example, when we use polarized racquet, it feels weightier and our puzzled muscles can create bigger force.

    Btw, there should be different optimal parameters of the racquet weight and polarization for each individual.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  30. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    35,712
    BTW, THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENT OPTIMAL PARAMETERS OF THE RACKET WEIGHT AND POLARIZATION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL.

    As in NOT THE SAME!
     
  31. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    I’m old russian pensioner. Too old to learn English properly and absolutely don’t understand street slang, or whatever you like to use. So, what means, “As in NOT THE SAME!”? Even Google cannot help!!! :(
     
  32. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    35,712
    NOT THE SAME....
    Men and women, not the same.
    All animals are not the same.
    All tennis players are NOT THE SAME.
    All tennis courts, not the same.
    All tennis rackets, NOT THE SAME.
    It's rocket science for sure, but my 1.5 years of college helped me understand from whence I speaketh....
     
  33. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    In my experience, rocket science (at least the rocket electronics) is much easier than tennis science. :shock:
     
  34. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,797
    I don't have any obligation to provide details to people who cannot understand things the first time. If you think a statement is very broad, good. I don't need to explain it you further.

    You don't get to choose how people quote you or respond to you. Please feel free to leave the forum if you don't like it. I will quote and reply to any post here if I want to. You can put me on ignore, but don't try to tell me what to do. People here are not obliged to behave according to your likes and dislikes.
     
  35. theblueark

    theblueark New User

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Well you looked like a sad lonely old troll butting your head into our conversation and spouting outrageous slogans with nobody appreciating it. Since you wanna go "lalala I can say whatever I want lalala" I guess you're right, I can't stop you and you're free to continue spouting your empty one liners.
     
  36. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    35,712
    Toly, that's because rocket science IS science.
    Tennis is part science, part human frailties, part art.
     
  37. OTMPut

    OTMPut Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,287
    Good points.

    For the people who assume that lighter racquet => higher swing speed, can you try swinging just your bare arm (racquet mass = 0) and see if you can swing faster than when you have a racquet in your hand?
     
  38. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,498
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    That's my point. People often ignore the other factors and speak as if an increase in swing speed will be proportional to a decrease in racket mass/swingweight. But, the mass/swingweight of the racket isn't the only factor limiting swing speed; it's not even the biggest factor. Hence, my example of the pitcher throwing a golf ball.

    Assuming a player has good technique, the biggest factors limiting swing speed are the ability to turn the body and move the arm (regardless of what's attached), especially on two-handed backhands due to the limited range of motion when both hands are used to swing such a short object with such a short motion (in comparison to golf and baseball swings, which use a much longer motion and different contact points that allow looser wrist motion to swing much longer objects). So, an increase in swing speed won't be proportional to a decrease in mass/swingweight. It might not even be all that significant.

    I'd like to see some data that shows that people really do swing significantly faster with significantly lower swingweights without using more energy (i.e., not compensating by using more effort to reach the speeds necessary to hit the desired shots).
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  39. boramiNYC

    boramiNYC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,337
    The ability to self generate the swing speed is the technique, I believe. Why don't you try a 10lb dumbbell and tell me how fast you can swing that compared to your racquet or your bare arm. If you can't swing just as fast with your bare arm, you have problem with your technique.
     
  40. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    35,712
    WAAAAAAAAY too much emphasis on power, not nearly enough emphasis on placement. Power, like DelPo and Soderling, can only carry you so far.
    Placement, Federer, DJ, Nadal, Murray, also works.
     
  41. boramiNYC

    boramiNYC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,337
    But, a lot of control and placement depends on a consistent high swing speed..
     
  42. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,771
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    Ill fix that for you.
     
  43. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    35,712
    McEnroe, Connors, and Everts had low swing speeds, great consistency and control, placement.
     
  44. boramiNYC

    boramiNYC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,337
    Way different style of game played throughout the whole field. If they had been born and playing current time, I bet they would be swinging a lot faster using a lot more spin to match the field.
     
  45. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    35,712
    I'd love to agree with you, but Everts faced Navritilova, Mandlikova, Goolagong, and a host of other big hitters with spin, and did OK.
    Connors and McEnroe had to face Kriek, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Brugera, Kuerten, Vilas, Borg, and a few others who hit some topspin.
    There is more than one way to skin a cat.
     
  46. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,771
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    People make it out like nobody hit hard in the 80s and 90s..its hilarious. I played some top level guys in the 90s as a junior in florida and watched pros live, and they hammered the ball as hard as any rec player would hope to hit now.
     
  47. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    35,712
    And some guys from the '60's and '70's also hit hard, even compared to today.
    ColinDibley, VictorAmaya, JohanKriek (and he was about 5'8" tall) hit as hard as anyone in tennis ever.
     
  48. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,797
    They had a great game developed for the wood era.
     
  49. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    35,712
    So did TomOkker, the guys I mentioned, and a host of other players with fast swing speeds, hit heavy topspin shots, and pioneered the modern game.
    A player swings the way he swings. Practice it enough, it gets good. Practice more, combined with obsession, it gets better.
    Some players play with fast swing speeds.
    Some players play with slow swing speeds.
    Only recently, in this age, fast seems to be taking over.
     
  50. OTMPut

    OTMPut Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,287
    So it follows that racquet weight has no influence on swing speed.
    (which i agree).
     

Share This Page