Myth or Reality? Federer plays with a low swingweight

Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by travlerajm, Oct 11, 2006.

  1. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    It sounds like you overestimated your SW2 swingweight.

    For figuring out your swingweight when adding near the tip, you can use this chart:
    1g at 26.5" ~ = 3.3 sw.
    26" = 3.1
    25.5" = 3.0
    25" = 2.9
    24.5" = 2.7
    23.5" = 2.5
    23" = 2.3
    22.5" = 2.2
    22" = 2.1
    21.5" = 2.0
    21" = 1.9
    20.5" = 1.8

    For getting your SW2 setup to serve really well, I recommend using a balance point R = 44.6/sqrt(M) + 0.3, with M in ounces, and R in inches from butt.

    Do you know Gasquet's exact specs?
     
  2. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,828

    Oh ok so I am about 370+ then, Have you done the math for Rogers racket? I will try with one of my rackets to bring out the 370sw with the 31.2 balance, I have the other two setups.

    I have seen the specs posted, that he uses the racket stock, with dampner, ect total weight comes out to 12.2oz.

    It is hear on the boards I will look for it.

    I'm just trying to figure some things out I have not really concluded fully anything about Roger's true setup yet just some possibilities, just so it is clear, I don't want you to think your ideas and discusion is fall on deaf ears.
     
  3. Greg Raven

    Greg Raven Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Apple Valley, CA
    Accident. I use a bunch of computers, and my main ones have my login information. I must have been away from TTW for awhile, used one of my other computers, and forgetting that I already had an account, created a new one. Therefore, two.
     
  4. Lakoste

    Lakoste Professional

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    844
    Are you THE Greg Raven, the one who wrote this?
    If you are, my cousin would love to meet you:D
     
  5. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    If your frame is similar in stiffness to Roger's, this should be a nice experiment to narrow in on Roger's swingweight.

    If the setup ends up feeling overpowered, then it means that you need to polarize the added weight more (increase swingweight). If it feels underpowered, then you would need to depolarize (decrease swingweight).

    As long as you remember to take the racquet back high on the backswing, you should be able to hit Roger's "slingshot" forehand with this setup.
     
  6. wksoh

    wksoh Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    398
    Tour 90 ... I miss that racquet a lot
     
  7. westy

    westy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    496
    Location:
    devon UK
    does anyone know what federers stiffness is?
     
  8. PurePrestige

    PurePrestige Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    516
    I dunno about all of this. Based upon ART ART's specs at 368 and 31.2 balance, I don't understand how the SW can be 370.
    Though I understand if you used maybe an Asian Tour 90 which starts out lighter and polarize weight distributions at 12 and buttcap then you might be able to achieve maximum polarization.

    However I don't really know if it all works out that way, in terms of final swingweight at least.
    Maybe then you could get a 31.2 368g 370's SW racquet that would be amazing for spin and control and maneuverability, which is now Federer's secret weapon that Wilson hides from all other players? Which is why no one is allowed to give away any of Rogelio's racquets? Which is why no one has a clue how to stop him dominating?

    OR

    Maybe we are really overthinking this whole dealio?
    I mean for example. Take the recently reduced K Factor for example.
    354g stock compared to ART ART's 368 weight. Balance being nearly equal lets average it out.

    368 - 354 = 14g

    Let's further break this down. ART ART said strung, p-pads, grip, elasto cross string savers.
    Wilson Pro Overgrip 4.5g (9.5g left)
    Power Pads no clue on weight <1g
    More weight than TW calculates with Poly crosses ~1-2g? (6.5g left?)

    So we have him at about 360g now or so right?

    Well perhaps no pro plays stock so we'll add some weight.

    Exhibit A? http://www.goroger.net/image/slam/wimbledon98-02/wimby020625r128-03.jpg
    Looks to me like 2-3g at 3&9 and 2-3g @ 10&2

    Exhibit B?
    http://www.goroger.net/image/masters/hamburg02/hamburg020519final08.jpg
    Couple of grams in the throat? 3g?

    So assuming 2g at 3/9 and 3g 10/2 and 3g throat? For a total of 8g.
    Whats our total weight now? 368g
    WHAT!!!!!!!!!!

    Anyway thats my 2 cents for now.
    What do you all think.
     
  9. PurePrestige

    PurePrestige Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    516
    Oh and to hazard a guess at SW with those lead amounts and placements and static weight and balance, I calc'd his SW at 350. if anyone's interested?
     
  10. TheSnowMan

    TheSnowMan Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    448
    Location:
    Fremont, CA
    Those links don't work. Also, ART ART's balance measurement was 30.2 and not 31.2. He probably starts out with the stock racket recorded by Greg Raven and customizes it.

    What I got using a spread sheet is
    4 grams under the bumper
    10 grams in the butt.

    The problem is that the swingweight is only 345 and the sgrp is only 1.22. The balance turns out to be perfectly matching the pro style balance and the weight is 374 grams.
     
  11. tennis_hand

    tennis_hand Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,427
    Why not we go back to the original topic about Fed's racket?
    So Tony says it is a PS85 except with a 90 inch head, everything else being a PS85.

    and some other dudes posted that he is using a N61Tour. but from the photos on the internet, it can't be a modified N61Tour, because the string spacing is obviously different around the PWS. if he modifies it so much, even the string spacing, then u can't call it a N61Tour any more, even modified.

    I somehow feels PS85 with a 90head is much closer to the truth.
     
  12. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,335
    Ask Mirka. ;) LOL


    But seriously, I think the only way to know for sure is to get hold of one of his actual racquets and put it on a RDC machine.
     
  13. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,335
    Which is what the K90 essentially is. You see, ART ART and Tony Roche were not lying after all. I've always beleived ART ART and the K90 proves what he said.
     
  14. mileslong

    mileslong Professional

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,396
    Location:
    newport beach, california
    i was going to say not much since mirkas gained all that weight...
     
  15. PurePrestige

    PurePrestige Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    516
    I dunno I just read what ART ART wrote: "Weight: 368grams, Balance: 31,2cm, Strung at 23/21 Kilos, acording to this friend of mine that work there. Sorry but don't ask me his name or function there."

    Also as far as the pics go, they worked when I linked them I thought. Otherwise how do you imbed pics so I can add it in.
     
  16. tennis_hand

    tennis_hand Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,427
    i doubt PS85 and the retail K90 are the same thing. probably the "K90" he is using is the same as PS85.
     
  17. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    I suspect PurePrestige's musing may not be that far off.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Roger's frame is indeed a K90, modified to SW2 with lead under the bumper.

    A 6g overgrip plus 8g spread out under the bumper guard would bring his specs to about 368g, 8 pts HL, and ~360 SW. With a string tension at 48 lbs that would temper the power, this setup is highly plausible.
     
  18. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,335
    No, that's not what Tony Roche said, and not what ART ART reported that he said. He said that Federer's racquet is essentially the same racquet he has always used but with a larger head, and that's what the retail K90 is supposed to be.

    Yes, I believe for the first time since he switched away from the PS 6.0 85, Federer is actually using the retail version of a racquet with the K90 (of course, customized to his liking), since it's basically the same racquet he's used since 2002 when he first switched from the PS 6.0 85. First his "K90" had a HPS 6.0 95 Tour paintjob, then the PS Tour 90 paintjob, then the nSix-One Tour paintjob, and now the retail K90 paintjob, but underneath it was essentailly a retail K90 all along.
     
  19. ericsson

    ericsson Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,679
    Location:
    Land of beer and chocolate
    Agree with BP here, we can speculate as much if we want but we dont know for sure, so if someone has one, put it on a RDC ;-)
     
  20. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,828
    But you have to also account for power pads and poly and gut which weighs more.

    You end up with a SW in the max power range and his balance has to be ~31cm no 32cm.

    Thus you get a static around 13.1oz
     
  21. emerckx53

    emerckx53 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    523
    Someones trying to justify SW2........I know one thing...he spends more time hitting balls then discussing a his equipment-
     
  22. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    I wrote that post before I had coined the term SW2.
     
  23. mctennis

    mctennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,409
    "ditto"....WHY do we worry about pros equipment when we would never be able to use it to play.
     
  24. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    In case you haven't figured it out, the stock racquets that you buy in the stores are awfully difficult to play well with. Pro's racquets, on the other hand, are a pleasure to hit with because they are finely tuned for maximum control.

    You might as well say that we shouldn't worry about getting a Lamborghini because we would never be able to drive it anyway.
     
  25. johncauthen

    johncauthen Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    583
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    I wish I could take that statement and put it in neon lights. Why do you think the industry allows this to happen? I think you'll say because the better racquets are hard to set up. The industry can't provide better racquets than they are providing.

    Okay, what if tennis shops like TW provided hand-tuned racquets in plastic bags just like the pros pull out, for all of us for about $70 more. Since what you say is true, I think there is a huge market for it. I think people are willing to pay $70 more in order to have a racquet that is easier to use.
     
  26. tennisplayer

    tennisplayer Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    374
    I believe both you and TAJM are on the right track with respect to producing good racquets. But "good" is a relative kind of thing. The kind of racquets you are talking about would be appreciated and put to good use by high level players - the ones that have the right stroke techniques, and those that are on a quest to improve - like me. :)

    For the vast majority that stroll into Big 5 or Walmart to buy a racquet, do you think this type of fine tuning really makes a difference? Not only that, with their flawed grips and techniques, they might actually hurt themselves using heavy racquets. I mean, if someone who uses a waiter's grip tried to serve with a 13.5 ounce racquet, and flicks their wrist because they read it was good in some magazine, they could do serious damage to themselves. I think this is why stores are flooded with ultra-light racquets unsuitable for serious players.

    But far from being discouraged, folks like you should see this as an opportunity to make an impact. I know you are trying and success has been elusive, but hey, at least there is an opportunity!
     
  27. tennis_hand

    tennis_hand Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,427
    pros rackets are for themselves. different people prefer different style. Pros rackets may not suit you just as any other dude's rackets may not suit you.

    The comparison between the rackets and Lambos are not correct.
    any experienced driver can drive a lambo. but not all tennis players can play with a pros racket. you carry a racket on the court, but u don't lift a lambo while you walk on the road.

    and since the manufacturers have the control of what rackets to make, why do you think they deliberately want to make difficult rackets to play with?
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2007
  28. PurePrestige

    PurePrestige Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    516
    I mean the analogy deserves some credence.
    I mean in the regard that a Lambo is fast and has superior handling, I mean if you're going to be making highspeed maneuvers in a car, or taking up racing. You would want a racing car thats capable of highspeed maneuvers and has proper construction for handling all things you would encounter. But if you'res buying a lamborghini to drive to work, its ridiculous.

    Same goes for experienced tennis players, i mean people that go out and slap around with continental grips and granny slicers and all of that don't need well tuned racquets. But if you are playing on 4.0+ level you benefit from a better tuned racquet. In fact you need a better, heavier, higher SW, etc. etc. whatever to cope with the types of players you'll encounter, or the pace of shot you want to hit.

    I mean the analogy works, highspeed maneuvers are gonna be viable in a high grade car, whereas a cheap car is gonna flip or spin out.
    In a low grade racquet, if you're returning pro speed serves and groundstrokes, you need something capable of controlling the incoming pace and directing it back. If not you are going to get pushed around all day.

    I know you all have gone out onto the court with your racquet, and you know you can play better than you are. You just can't seem to get the right amount of power and control, so we become tech heads or make compromises with our style of play.
    I know everyone has the experience where they can smack a fast ball with a lighter racquet but its returned so easily because it has no weight, or been unable to get penetration with a lower powered racquet regardless of how fast you swing it. The fact is, racquets CAN play better, you CAN hit the shots you think/know you can hit in your mind.
    Pro's add weight in some way, shape, or form for that reason exactly. They want the edge in competition, to control their opponents shots and dictate play while also maintaining consistency.
     
  29. johncauthen

    johncauthen Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    583
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    I used to super fine tune the heads of the racquets so the top of the head felt exactly the same as the shoulders. I think that was something Warren Bosworth did, but if you scraped it on the court you lost the feel, so he came up with the idea to only use the racquet for nine games, which is about how long it stayed right.

    Once I was watching Courier in person. He scraped his racquet hard on the court and didn't change racquets. I said to the friend beside me, "This match is over, Courier will start making mistakes." He did, and lost that set. I guess he finally changed racquets because he won the match.

    When Sampras came along there was a whole new concept, a large amount of weight at the top of the handle. All you had to do was make sure the top of the head felt heavier than the stringbridge. The weight in the handle, not the shoulders counterbalanced the top of the head. You could scrape it all day long and not lose the feel.

    Having a perfectly balanced head (the shoulders and the top of the head) make the racquet easy to use. If the shoulders are heavier, there is a lag. You have to wait for the lag. Since manufacturers don't use the heavy weight at the top of the handle, which makes the head feel alright as long as the top of the head is heavier; and they don't fine tune the head but always make the shoulders heavier, stock racquets are clumsy and hard to use.

    It used to be impossible to provide players with well set up racquets. Good club players just got used to the lag. That ability became the hallmark of a good player. The Hammer racquets with weight at the top of the handle made it less necessary to wait for the lag, so it seemed to some that tennis had lost its mystery.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2007
  30. grizzly4life

    grizzly4life Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,057
    sorry to bump up an old thread.... but that's what i don't understand about all these newer SW threads.... i think pro's do play heavy racquets, but it strikes me the balance is very HL and NOT balanced (see the pro racket thread that's around or one i started with the balance calculated).. the SW2 phenomenon seems based on adding weight to top of head and often to the handle. but that will only keep it very HL if you put alot more on handle. adding equal weight will reduce HL (i think) ... the focus of SW2 seems to me to put more on the tip of the head thereby making racquet balanced or even HH

    my experience with SW2 with heavy racquet balanced or HH, feels great hitting in practice but in game situations those balls start going very long very soon. not good for pressure tennis or even putting away short balls.

    anyhow, appreciated all the info in the thread.
     
  31. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    If you are at SW2 with a heavy (over 12-oz.) racquet, it's not possible to be balanced or HH. It would always be HL.
     
  32. morten

    morten Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,311
    True, low swingweight.
     
  33. rst

    rst Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    254
    Location:
    northern nv
    instead of myth or reality try true or false. myth were messed attempts to explain phenomena that knowledge couldnt. fiding out a swingwieght has nothing to do with myth.
     
  34. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ART ART
    Just got it from the official stringing/measurement official machines here in Paris:
    Weight 374grams, balance: 31,3cm
    Strung with Wilson Gut mains @ 22kg(Average); AluPower crosses @ 20Kg(Average).
    Someone from Wilson or Fed's team, I don't know, was here this morning to strung 16 rackets, in a range from 20kilos to 25kilos mains. The crosses ware always 2 kilos below.
    All rackets with Wilson overgrip, and elasto-crosses and oil protection in the strings.
    I can't see if the leather grip was Wilson leather or other.
    By the way... Tony was here with the other guy, and I must say that he his a great great guy. Very nice with all of us, and very positive.
    In a conversation with us, he told us that many pros, and coaches consult this forum and post many things here.
    About the nCode of Roger, when I ask him about the composition of the rackett, he told me:" ... this his a copy of the legendary ProStaff 85 but with a larger head size, nothing else, because Roger plays with that racket since he was 15 or 16 years old, but because of clay courts 4 or 5 years ago, Roger have asked Wilson to make the same racket but with a bigger head size."
    But the other fellow that was with him, didn't like the conversation, so I must assume that this other guy was from Wilson or so.
    Nothing else or nothing more than this.
    (So that is about 13.1oz ,blance around 12pt HL)

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ART ART
    I don't know for sure, because the gut and the alu power came in Red/black plastic bags labeled "Wilson Prime" with 6 meters long each, with no reference about the guage, but I suppose 1.30mm for the gut and the alu is the regular 1.25mm, I suppose that was alu power, all other workers here say it is.
    Notice this is the second time that I check Roger rackets, last time his rackets ware slightly with less weight, around 365 to 369 if I recall. But that time I didn't check them on the measurement machine, just saw it labelled in Roger's Wilson bags.
    Let me say to you that swinging with this racket, is very easy since is very headlight despite the weight. The grip was labeled on the but cap nº3 and that seems correct.



    Another great old thread, and finding more very interesting specs for Federer's old rackets, brilliant info. from Art Art!
    __________________
     
  35. RJYU

    RJYU Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    142
    There are so many things in this post that are incorrect that I don't even know where to begin.
     
  36. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Start anywhere you like :).
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2013
  37. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Thank you for the clarification.
     
  38. RJYU

    RJYU Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    142
    A quick rundown. I questioned the story of Art Art when he posted this originally. He declined to respond. I stated that Rog had his usual total of 12 sticks at Roland Garros. At all times they were either with him or with us for maintenance. So, if these other 16 racquets even existed, which I'm not sure, they were never used by him.

    It's widely known that Roger always drops tension on the cross string by 1.5 kilos, not 2 kilos as stated in the story. Also, Roger has used ALU Rough in the crosses since at least 2004, and not regular ALU Power as stated in the story. He doesn't use any type of "oil protection" on his strings. He doesn't use packs of Wilson Prime, we/he carry reels of ALU Power Rough and sets of Wilson gut.

    If theses 16 racquets existed, then all I can think of is that they were racquets used for promotional purposes. Does that mean they weren't made up to Roger's specs? Not at all. I didn't see them, so I can't say.
     
  39. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Ron, is Federer's SW still a secret, or can you divulge?
     
  40. RJYU

    RJYU Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    142
    Sorry, we don't release any of our clients' racquet specs. Just company policy. Not that they are secrets, it's just not for us to release.
     
  41. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    I don't know if you've seen, but i have manually measured the swingweight of one of Federer's rackets at 350. And there was about 3g of lead under the bumper.
     
  42. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    As usual, it is superb to see you posting info about Federer's rackets here, thanks very much Ron. I know everyone here appreciates anything you can post here about Roger's rackets:)
     
  43. ART ART

    ART ART Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Messages:
    644
    ... the same way that I can't tell you the name of the "guy" that took the rackets in that time! ... friendship policy !
     
  44. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    How about the other apparent, ehm...inconsistencies in your story?
     
  45. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    Ron, Timbo just posted the swingweight - 350 - from a 2009 frame that appears to be a racquet that Mr. Federer played with. Would you be able to say whether this measurement is near the mark, within 5 units?
     
  46. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    I think you have got the answer to that one.
     
  47. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    Yeah, I guess so.
     
  48. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,346
    Once again, many thanks to RJYU for shining some light on this topic.

    I have said many times in other threads that the majority of people who claim to be in possession of an actual Federer frame are either misled or, frankly, making stuff up for whatever reason - notoriety, gloating etc. On closer scrutiny most claims of possession of a Federer frame are nothing but malarkey.

    The specs of his actual frame are well documented in another thread where a number of his actual frames have been photographed, weighed and discussed by some very sharp-eyed people.

    While Ron may not discuss the specifics of his clients I don't think it'd be too hard to work out the swing-weight of the frames with the weight (364gm) and balance point (32.1-32.2cm) which were already confirmed in the other thread. This should be enough to get a ballpark figure.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2013
  49. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    It's impossible to work out the swingweight using weight and balance alone. Using those two specs, along with what we know about the retail version of the K90, a range of anywhere from 335 to 370 is possible.
     
  50. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,346
    Maybe not exactly but it should be entirely possible to work out the swingweight to within a pretty close range using only the numbers we know.
    Certainly a much narrower range than the 335 to 370 you mention.
     

Share This Page