Optimum Balance Data for ATP Pros III

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by travlerajm, Jul 23, 2011.

  1. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    After some further analysis of pro racquet specs data, here is a new very interesting (and very statistically significant) result showing that ATP Pros with racquet MgR/I value in the apparent optimum range (20.6-21.2) tend to have better rankings.

    [​IMG]
    Notes:
    1. This dataset is for all of the Top-50 players with mass, balance, and swingweight data posted on Greg Raven's web site - 33 players are included in the analysis.
    2. Only 2 players from Greg's site (Djokovic and Federer) were excluded from the analysis, due to large discrepancy between Greg Raven's data and TTW poster FabFed's apparently authentic measurements. If these players have swingweights within the the ranges of (352-366 for Djokovic) and (346-359 for Federer), they would be in the "optimized' group.
    3. To adjust for wrist band use, a 0.2 'correction factor' has been added to the MgR/I value for all players found to be wearing wrist bands during matches in their peak years (or when the measurement was taken). The correction factor is needed to account for the extra mass of approximately 20g acting about 5cm beyond the wrist axis of rotation.
    4. Kafelnikov's specs were assumed to be unstrung, and strung specs were estimated. Since he falls in the middle of the "optimized" group, error in the estimate of his stringbed weight will make no difference in the result of the analysis.
    5. g was assumed to be equal to 980.5 cm/s^2
    6. M = Racquet mass in kg
    7. R = Distance from balance point to butt end in cm
    8. I = Swingweight about butt end of racquet, converted from measured 10-cm axis swingweight (SW) using the parallel axis theorem, where I = SW + 20MR - 100M.

    Players included:

    <20.6 Group (n=14):
    Chardy Clement Nadal Dent Arazi Gasquet Benneteau Tarango Moya Gicquel Murray Gambill Soderling Karlovic

    20.6-21.2 ("Optimized" Group, n=12):
    Pioline Ivanisevic Agassi Sampras Rafter Kafelnikov Davydenko Melzer Stepanek Kuerten Nalbandian Safin

    >21.2 Group (n=7):
    Krajicek Schalken Cahill Rusedski Ilie Lee Mirnyi

    For 2 closely related threads, see:

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=387805

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=387620
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2013
    #1
  2. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    Data updated to include Soderling, Karlovic, and Mirnyi.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011
    #2
  3. TennisMaverick

    TennisMaverick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,293
    I commend your work, but since you have so many retired players on your list, before almost every player started using poly in their frames, how does the info relate to current technique and player physicality?
     
    #3
  4. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    I do not think the players of today are much different in physicality than the players of 10 years ago. Evolution takes longer than that.

    And I don't think that string type matter much.

    However, swingpath matters. For example, Nadal uses an steep uppercut forehand compared to most players. I suspect that this is why his forehand is so good with a racquet that has a low MgR/I value.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011
    #4
  5. Marcus

    Marcus Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    UK
    This is really interesting.....

    However..... What impact does wearing a wristband make ? I'm unsure of the reference made.

    Thanks
    Mark
     
    #5
  6. TennisMaverick

    TennisMaverick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,293
    The technique has radically changed from ITF through Futures to the Tour over the past two years, not mention the past five. The kids are training more like athletes, and the POV of coaches has changed. The game has become radically less traditional every year since around 2006. You're mistaking evolution in training and playing for that of the human being. With that being said, the average player's height and stature has also increased and that is evident at every event. There are few players under 6'. If you don't factor these changes, technique, training, strings, overall player size, and playing philosophy which has occurred during these past few years, with stringing data specifically from these players, then as solid as your research may or may not be, it isn't relevant to any players that I deal with. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trashing your insight, I'm just looking to use your material with guys who are playing now, so it would be immensely helpful to see what current top players are using.
     
    #6
  7. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    A wrist band slows down the natural speed of the pendulum sweep of the arm. This means that the speed of the pendulum sweep of the racquet about the wrist axis must be slower in order to compensate.

    The MgR/I value gives a measure of the natural speed of the pendulum sweep of the racquet.
    Thus, it is expected that players who wear wrist bands will have a lower optimum MgR/I value.
     
    #7
  8. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    I was joking about the evolution. Note that I added comment above before you posted regarding swingpath.

    But honestly, do you think that players like Safin, Rafter, Sampras, Kuerten, Ivanisevic, Pioline, and Kafelnikov do not have physical size or strokes relevant to today's players? With the exception of Rafter, they all have pretty good forehands to emulate. And all of these guys are 6' or taller. And I noted above that Djokovic and Federer will likely join the 'optimum' group when swingweight results become available.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011
    #8
  9. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,961
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    So strings don't matter but a wristband does?
     
    #9
  10. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    The weight of the stringbed matters to swing dynamics, and so does a wrist band. String type affects impact dynamics, but that's not that relavant to the topic at hand.

    Don't twist it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011
    #10
  11. TennisMaverick

    TennisMaverick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,293
    It is pretty obvious at any event that their technique is not relevant, and except for Rafter--Safin was just big--those guys are substantially less muscular.
     
    #11
  12. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    All 5 of the current top-5 are addressed here. And since Ferrer also looks like a safe bet to land in the 'optimized' group, that's the top 6.

    So of the top 6 current players, 3 of them appear to be in the 'optimized' group (Djokovic, Federer, and Ferrer). These 3 guys are pretty skinny. The other 3 guys who are not in that group (Murray, Nadal, and Soderling) are more muscular, so maybe you are on to something?
     
    #12
  13. topspin18

    topspin18 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    229
    i am so confused!
     
    #13
  14. ART ART

    ART ART Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Messages:
    644
    travlerajm: again nice to see you around here

    But I have a question for you:

    I have this setup(lead+silicone) in a Dunlop 300T:
    - 353 grams
    - 360 SW
    - 33 mm BP
    Wich give me:
    MgR/I = 20,49
    MR^2= 385

    like you can see, my MR^2= 385 this is an optimal value. BUT my MgR/I = 20,49 -much lower than optimal value.

    How about it?

    Best Regards
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2011
    #14
  15. larry10s

    larry10s Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    3,976
    my racquet is 354 grams balance 31.2 cm sw 333
    am i "optimal"???
     
    #15
  16. vsbabolat

    vsbabolat Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    8,846
    When I wear a wrist band I play completely different. Forget about when I have one one each wrist.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2011
    #16
  17. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    ART ART,
    It's my belief that the optimal MR^2 zone of ~385 arises due to circumstance, because those pros that have both high swingweight (>350) and optimized MgR/I value (~21.0) tend to have racquets with MR^2 of about 385.

    There are many pros with high swingweight but suboptimal MgR/I value. And there are many pros with optimized MgR/I value but low (suboptimal) swingweight. In both cases, the MR^2 value tends be less than 380.

    My opinion is that it is well worth it to tune your MgR/I value to your personal optimum for your body and your swing.

    You have already accomplished Step 1: getting accurate measurements for a starting point.

    Step 2 is to calculate how much weight should be placed on the handle to move the MgR/I value to ~21.0 (to get it close).

    Step 3 is to make the modification.

    Step 4 is to remeasure the specs and verify that you are close to 21.0.

    Caution: You're not done yet, as the most important step still remains!

    Step 5: Tuning the racquet on the court:

    I recommend that you grab some extra lead tape and find a wall or racquetball court. You cannot tune the MgR/I value by hitting balls that you drop -- you need the balls to be coming at you with decent velocity in order to tune the angular velocity of your stroke, so a wall is perfect for that.

    The key to tuning your forehand is to unlearn your developed habit of compensating for racquet misalignment at impact by applying force with the wrist. You need to learn how to swing the racquet fluidly with a completely relaxed wrist.

    A good analogy is when you go to the optometrist for the first time in your life to get glasses for near-sightedness. All of your life, you've been squinting in order to see the world. But when the optometrist is measuring the proper corrective power your eyes, it's important that you stop squinting for the first time in your life and let your eyes relax. Otherwise, you'll still need to squint even after you get your glasses or contacts.

    So the same applies to tuning the MgR/I value of your racquet. You can't tell whether your MgR/I value is tuned properly if your wrist is not fully relaxed.

    If your MgR/I value is slightly lower than your optimum, when you swing with a completely relaxed wrist, the racquethead will lag behind the hand at the moment of impact, causing you to naturally push your shots wide right (assuming you are righthanded). You need to resist the temptation to compensate by applying force from the wrist. It's kind of like when golfer has a slice swing and is less accurate because he has to always compensate for it.

    Conversely, if the MgR/I value is slightly above your optimum, then when you swing with a completely relaxed wrist, the racquethead will get ahead of the hand, and you will tend to pull your shots to the left. The temptation here might be to convert the extra angular velocity into more topspin, but again you need to resist.

    When your MgR/I value is perfectly tuned, you can simply fling your arm at the ball with a relaxed wrist, and the racquet will naturally stay perpendicular to your target all of the way through the hitting zone. This means that slight timing errors do not get punished. And you will notice that your targeting accuracy when hitting against the wall improves dramatically.

    When my MgR/I value is tuned, I can hit a ball within a 1x1 foot square target almost every time. But if my racquet is slightly off, I can't hit as accurately. Compensating for the mistuned angular velocity might allow me to consistently hit the ball within a 3x3-ft square target, but why settle for that? That difference in accuracy is often the difference between winning a match and losing.

    If MgR/I is too low, you can add a little more lead to the top of the handle. If it's too high, you can either remove some lead from that spot or add a dab to the tip. Don't settle for almost! Keep adjusting until you get that "in the zone" feeling.

    When you are tuning for the first time, you might find it helpful to keep going beyond where it feels good until it's obvious that you've gone too far. You need to learn the difference in feel between MgR/I too low and too high.

    Following all of these steps takes a lot of care and patience, but the end result is worth it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2011
    #17
  18. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,961
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    Ok, I am going to try this out because I have a light stick with a 330 SW. The balance is 9pts headlight. It seems optimal to at least try this whole thing out.

    I am very bad with math formulas..but I am thinking I can weight up the tip of the racquet at 12 with 18-22 grams of lead and the racquet would still weigh around 12.7 ounces (currently is 11.9). That should yield a very high swingweight...I really am not sure though. I am the worst at math, and simple stuff like this even throws me off until I completely get it.
     
    #18
  19. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    Power Player,

    A few things:
    1. I don't recommend skipping Step 1 (it's a really good idea to get an accurate measurement of your swingweight before you start).

    2. If your SW is 330, adding 18-22g at 12 would push your swingweight to ~400, requiring a static weight of 15 oz. to optimize MgR/I. I don't recommend this (it works sweet on volleys and groundstrokes, but serving with a racquet that heavy is tough).

    3. If you want to optimize MgR/I without adding any mass to the tip, it would take roughly 30g added just above the top of the handle (about 8 inches from the butt). For you're situation, this might be the easiest way to start before you head to the court to try to tune the frame. But again, I recommend taking a full set of measurements after modding if possible before you attempt.

    Best of luck!
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2011
    #19
  20. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,961
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    Wow..interesting.

    Well my goal was to bring the balance down to around 5 pts HL while bringing the SW up. So I figured lead at 12 would accomplish that. Taking into account that 18-22 grams of lead is way too much, I have decided upon 8 grams of lead at 12.

    That would bring me into the swing weight 2 category and also keep the racquet at a very reasonable weight.

    It would probably leave me at : 12.2, 354 SW, balance of 5 Pts.
     
    #20
  21. ART ART

    ART ART Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Messages:
    644
    travlerajm: thank's for all those ideas!

    I will try it, and then I will let you know the results.

    Cheers ;)
     
    #21
  22. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,961
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    TJam, I never really doubted the Swingweight2 theory. I mean the proof is right there in pro's racquet stats. Did I doubt that mere mortals could use sticks with that type of SW and hit consistently? Yes I did. Am I skeptical on the wristbands and odd stringing theories? Yes..but whatever. There is no doubt to me that this SW theory of yours is real.

    After 8 grams of lead at 12:

    Final specs:
    Lemgth : 27.5
    Static Weight : 12.2
    Balance :6 Pts HL
    Swingweight (guessing from TW data, will have real # from RDC tomorrow) : 360

    This setup seems rather similar to Andy Roddicks, if not almost exact.

    It was night 1, but it seemed easier to use. Much less energy to hit heavy balls. Reverse forehands that I had to hit in defensive positions went deeper. Timing was fine. I tested that by simply hitting for the middle of the court from both sides and was never late. To be quite honest, I lift a lot of weights and now am wondering if the high SW simply just made tennis easier for me. I may have been overswinging before..the racquet is easier to control and swing in a clean path. It was very rare for me to get too aggressive and lose control of the swingpath as I used to do.

    I really like this weight so far..it's not too heavy, but it puts an absolute beating on the ball compared to the stock weight. It felt incredibly soild in the upper hoop.

    You definitely need the right racquet to pull this off...I think mine was perfectly setup for it...regardless, I was honestly scared about an hour in that I was going to break a string and have to go back to my other unmodded stick. It simply takes less energy to hit a bigger ball.

    I think people put pros on a pedestal too much sometimes in terms of gear. Their gear many times makes tennis easier. The higher SW to me appears to do just that. We shall see, but my initial impressions have been incredibly favorable.
     
    #22
  23. TaihtDuhShaat

    TaihtDuhShaat Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    555
    I'm happy you took the time to try this out. This is exactly what I was hoping for in starting that Djokovic thread. I wanted to spark interest in experimenting with SW2 and MgR/I by using Djokovic's recent success as an example.

    The thing with SW2 is, it gets even better as time goes on. It forces the use of good mechanics on all shots, which is like having a personal tennis coach in the racquet.

    Also, your MR^2 (M=static weight in kg, (R= balance in cm)^2) is now ~377. If you want to hit an even heavier ball, try and bring the MR^2 up to ~385 by:

    1) Take a couple of strips from 12 and and add them to 10 and 2. Then add more lead to 12 until the depth of your shots feels like it does now
    2) Counter balance by adding lead at the top of the handle (~7" from buttcap) in 1g increments until the racquet comes around on forehands more easily. This will bring your MR^2 up without increasing the SW. The racquet will only be a few grams heavier, but it will hit an even heavier ball, and the added mass at 10/2 will open the sweetspot even more.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2011
    #23
  24. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,961
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    Well I well try and mess with it a little more, but to be honest I really like this setup.

    Another thing I notice is that the feel of the racquet has improved to feeling incredibly solid on impact. The wild thing is that it felt great before, but this is another level.

    My forehand feels like it is coming around perfectly right now..like the racquet is doing it for me..so I don't want to mess with it too much.

    I should say that I would also fall into the muscular range...so maybe this is why.
     
    #24
  25. TaihtDuhShaat

    TaihtDuhShaat Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    555
    Travlerajm,

    This is sort of on topic since it relates to MgR/I. I tweaked my weighting of my 26.9" 95" 65RA 18 x 20 to arrive close to your recommended specs of 380g, 31.75cm, 360sw.

    I ended up at 379g, 31.9cm, 374sw w/ an effective grip distance of 26.7" (366 effective sw).

    This feels very balanced and is timed very well with my W grip forehand since I added more hoop mass, and added mass from the butt to 7" until it felt tuned on a wall. The racquet has incredible bite, and really hits a heavy groundstroke that's embarrassingly overpowering.

    I found this 374sw by going to courts at 360sw and kept adding mass at 12 until my serve was heaviest; then measured the sw with the TWU pendulum method.

    My question is, why is the sw so high for my max. serve? I'm only 5'10 142 lbs. is it the choked up 26.7" grip with effective 366sw?

    Also, MgR/I =20.5, but feels very balanced on all shots. Is there any way to improve upon this given the W grip? If I adjust the SW in the calculation for 366 MgR/I=20.8, but that is kind of fudging one of the numbers without changing the others like effective balance, etc.

    thanks otherwise for the recommendation, since it has increased the stability, power, and spin immensely.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2011
    #25
  26. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    To calculate MgR/I when using an unusual grip position, you can try substituting the new effective R as well as the effective SW about the butt end. So your effective MgR/I would be about 20.6. Since you use a full western grip, it's quite possible that 20.6 would work best for you. As long as you know what value works best for YOU, you can then use the number again to get your specs close to your optimum on other racquets, and then the fine-tuning process will be easier next time.

    If you are really interested in knowing your MgR/I value, I recommend being extremely careful when measuring SW with TW pendulum method. When timing, use the top cross and keep the amplitude low (about an inch of swing in each direction or less). I like to time 30 or 40 swings at a time, and then repeat another 30 or 40 to make sure my timing was repeatable. If you do this, the method is very accurate - but if you try to time only 10 swings, it's tough to do better than +/- 4 swingweight units because there is systematic error from your reaction time.

    There is nothing wrong with an effective swingweight of 366. In fact, for me I find that to be roughly optimum power level for serving with a 95" standard length frame (as you found out for yourself). A general rule of thumb - as the center of the stringbed gets closer to your hand, the optimum SW for serving will get lower. As you go longer, the optimum SW for serving gets higher.



    Sounds like you're enjoying your frame - happy hitting!
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2011
    #26
  27. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    Glad to here your experimentation with higher swingweights has gotten off to an auspicious start!
     
    #27
  28. Serveand...

    Serveand... Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    36
    hey what about some specs for women?
     
    #28
  29. ben123

    ben123 Professional

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,172
    #29
  30. stules

    stules Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    249
    Hi Trav
    Informative read. Very practical as well. Thank you.

    A couple of things.............

    I find while experimenting, that using rubber bands just above the
    grip to be an easy way to adjust the swing speed while optimizing.
    after I have found the ideal, I weigh the pile of rubber bands, and then
    use that weight of silicon in that place internally in the frame.

    What are your thoughts on the compromise between the ideal MgR/I
    on:
    Forehand
    one hand backhand
    two hand backhand
    serve
    tall player (long arms)
    short player (short arms)

    I find that I need a lower value for my one hand back hand than my
    forehand. Serve, I haven't nailed the sweet spot.

    What are your thoughts?
     
    #30
  31. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415

    On the rubber band idea
    , I actually use that myself! The rubber bands that come at the top of the grip to secure the grip usually weigh about 2 grams.

    When I first get to the wall (in my case I use an indoor racquetball court)to tune a racquet that I have just built, the first adjustment make after hitting a few balls is try sliding that rubber band up into the throat or down onto the grip. For fine tuning, moving the rubber band around is a bit quicker and less messy than adding or substracting lead tape.

    If sliding the rubber band around doesn't lead to a perfectly tuned result, then I start messing with the lead tape. If the rubber band adjusting does lead to a tuned result, then I try to readjust the lead tape to re-create the same balance but with the rubber band back in its original spot.

    On MgR/I for forehand vs 1hb
    , I have found that racquets tuned for my forehand seem to feel pretty nice too for 1hb. But I need to add a disclaimer that I only use a 1hb for slices and volleys, but not for drives. My 2hb is my stronger side, much better than my forehand.

    Also, I have found that 1hbs seem to be easier in general with racquets having really high static weight (like the specs in my signature) - I think this is because a 1hb relies less on a pendulum motion from the wrist than a forehand, and seems to be a stroke that is more connected to the larger pendulum pivoting from the shoulder.

    On tuning MgR/I simultaneously for both forehand and 2hb, this is quite easy to do because racquet pivots about a different axis for a 2hb than it does for a forehand. For a forehand, the pivot point is where the wrist joint is (which is roughly even with the end of the racquet). But for a 2hb, the pivot point is the wrist joint of the top hand (which is roughly 10cm up along the handle). To tune for my 2hb, I replace R with R - 10cm, and substitute the SW about the 10cm axis (as typically measured) for I. Using this new MgR/I (let's call it MgR'/I'), I find my 2hb is best tuned when MgR'/I' = ~22.5. MgR/I for my forehand can still be tuned to about ~21.0 simultaneously, so no compromise is needed.

    On tuning a racquet for the serve, I recommend ignoring MgR/I. The most important number to keep track of on the serve is the swingweight. For every player-racquet combo, there will be an optimum swingweight that let's you serve fastest. The amount of mass on the handle will have relatively little effect on the speed of your serve. Also, the length of the racquet affects the optimum swingweight for the serve. A longer racquet will have a higher optimum swingweight than a shorter one. For me, I find that my optimum swingweight for serve is in the 360s for most regular size frames, but this number can vary depending on the length of the racquet I use. Since MgR/I can be tuned independently of the swingweight, there is no compromise necessary here either.

    I recommend experimenting with varied amount of lead added to the upper half of the hoop of your racquet while keeping track of the height of the bounce against the back fence to compare serve speed (a radar gun is not necessary in my opinion). When you find the right swingweight that lets you serve the heaviest (hits highest on the back fence after bouncing in the service box), then you can go back to your spreadsheet and find specs that will give you your tuned MgR/I value at your serve-optimized swingweight.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
    #31
  32. stules

    stules Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    249
    hi Trav
    Thanks for the indepth reply. Always interesting ideas to digest and experiment with.

    I am 6'1" tall, and want to build a racquet to optimum specs, by theory only.
    I am stuck on a few points.....

    Lets use a SW of 360 to get the most from the serve

    I like S&V so I choose a recoil weight of 180

    MgR/I of 20.8 is pretty close for me. Above this I can't tell the difference.

    MR^2 of 380 just because it is a statistical target.

    I end up with

    372 gm
    360 SW
    7.1 HL

    It is fairly depolarised.
    I will lead up one of my PT57A's to see how it goes. Seems to me, that I can't get away from a fairly hi static weight to achieve the other objectives. That is probably my personal mental hurdle of 360gm weight limit. I will reserve judgement until I try it.
     
    #32
  33. TheLambsheadrep

    TheLambsheadrep Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,113
    1st, what is the "swing weight 2 category/theory?"

    2nd, are the pro's stats favoring a high swing weight because with the swing used to apply heavy topspin (of the pros), more force is used brushing up on the ball instead of through the ball (more like on flat shots)? since the racket is traveling more vertically on contact, then it needs more mass behind it to impart more horizontal force...?
     
    #33
  34. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,961
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    Hey I got your email and figured I would update this thread.

    I really loved the SW2 thing for 1 week and then I played a match and got crushed. I realized I simply hit with a faster swing and raising the SW too high slows me down and my timing is messed up. Even trying to get used to it, I realized I use a lot of spin to control my shots and with a SW too high, I lost that control.

    I do stand by my observation that if you like to let the racquet do the work, this is a very nice setup.

    Pros favor a higher SW I think because they are absorbing a ton of pace and heavier SW gives it right back.

    It is very tough to use a high SW racquet on the club level unless you play a lot and have flatter strokes.

    Im a heavy spin player and once I start going over 340 I have to just make sure Im playing a lot of tennis.
     
    #34
  35. bc-05

    bc-05 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    648
    weird!! i was calculating both my mgr/i and mr^2 and ended up having results that weren't even close to the range..

    my current set up is:
    prestige classic 600 and leaded up in the hoop (from 9 to 12) 4 long strips.. and the same amount of lead on the handle..

    - weight: 404 grams
    - balance - 31.5cm
    - swingweight - from TW method (385)

    ive been using this kind of set up since i was in my teen years (16 yrs old).. what should i do to optimize my setting? thanks in advance tho
     
    #35
  36. TheLambsheadrep

    TheLambsheadrep Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,113
    but what is SW2, and then also, what is SW1 and any SW number?

    i see what you're saying about pro's and high SW, but when you say that a club player would prob have to have flatter strokes when having a SW over 350, is that bc a club player generally doesn't have the strength to still effectively brush up on the ball with a swing weight over 350?

    it's all kinda confusing bc I have flatter strokes and my SW is prob between 326 and 321. I made all my racquets 360 grams and 8-9 points hl this summer, thinking I could then whip the racquet up more with my semi-western stroke, increasing my top spin potential. I may try to calculate MR^2 and MgR/I with a more head heavy balance and same mass, bc i'm not having great success getting both of them optimized with the set up I have now. I do love playing doubles, and head light and heavy rackets do seem to be the best way to go, so i just don't know...
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2012
    #36
  37. Fuji

    Fuji Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,591
    Hey Trav, Could you mail me through my profile? I want to get something like this going, but I have no clue where to start and what to do!

    Thanks!

    -Fuji
     
    #37
  38. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    Probably best to post your specific questions here.

    To get started, I'd recommend buying:

    1. A digital scale that measures to 0-500g range in 0.1 gram increments, along with a 200g calibration weight to make sure it doesn't wander.

    2. A metal yardstick or meter stick.

    3. A reel or two of 1/4" lead tape.
     
    #38
  39. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,961
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    Lambs there is a huge head on sw2 just google it and it should pull up.

    The thing about all this stuff is that in order to use these racquets at a high level you need elite speed and tons of practice like the pros have. Most people set up late, don't prep on time and don't have the grooved strokes required to utilize racquets of this weight.

    I just literally hit next to a collegiate match going on next to me. I took a hard look and the guy who won was wielding an APDC and had massive strokes. He had to no lead anywhere on the racquet and had an awesome game with huge groundstrokes. Would he be able to utilize a heavier stick? Probably. Did it matter? Not at all.

    But have fun with it and see if it works. The first few days are pretty amazing. I just like a lot o spin and even Nadal and mighty fed seem to prefer a SW of around 345, which can do a lot of damage to the ball .
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2012
    #39
  40. Fuji

    Fuji Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,591
    I can for sure do that!

    Now lets say I take my testing stick (K90) strung with plain synthetic, and specs of 27 inch length, 355g, and 31cm / 9 points head light. I'm 6'0 tall.

    What would specs would be required to make this into an "optimal" racket for me? I know there is probably more to it then that, but I'm awfully confusing with all this stuff. (I'm horrible with math!)

    -Fuji
     
    #40
  41. floydcouncil

    floydcouncil Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Messages:
    691
    [​IMG]

    Added 5 of these to the very top cross. 3 on the left/right outermost main and 2 at my regular vibrator position.

    I'm hitting almost as good as Djoker!!!!!!!!!!!! I won 5 games off a future level player. (I'm a 3.5 BTW.)
     
    #41
  42. Fuji

    Fuji Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,591
    I honestly can't tell if you are joking or not :lol:

    -Fuji
     
    #42
  43. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    Are those the exact measurements of your racquet (and not just the specs from TW)?
     
    #43
  44. Fuji

    Fuji Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,591
    Those are the exact specs, (I had it matched to TW specs when I got it.)

    -Fuji
     
    #44
  45. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    Then your next step is to carefully and patiently measure the SW using the TW University Swingweight Calculator.

    When I do it, I set up a fullscreen online stopwatch on the computer.
    Some tips for accurate measurement:
    1. make sure the butt of the racquet is swinging no more than 1" in either direction from the reference mark on the floor.
    2. Start the timer with your count at zero (not one).
    3. Time 20 oscillations, and repeat 2-3 times or more until you can time well enough get the same time within 0.03 seconds every time. Then average the times and divide by 2.

    Also, even though you think you know your balance spec. I'd definitely advise measuring yourself to know within 0.05mm. Small errors in balance will throw off the swingweight calculation.
     
    #45
  46. TheLambsheadrep

    TheLambsheadrep Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,113
    I would really like to try to get my SW up to 350, and what I can do right now is take my 360 gram racquet and make it 5pts head light (from 9pts hl), getting MgR/I to be around 21 and MR^2 to be 385. if racquetTune is correct, the SW would be about 341. I have calculated MgR/I to be around 21 with a few other mass and balance values, but thats with plugging in 350 as SW so I just need to double check what the SW would be according to racquetTune.

    While this would be neat to do, to get a racquet close to pro specs, I think the closer-to-even balance and higher SW (is a 20-30 point increase in SW a "big" change) of this new set up would give me all that power back which I was trying to get rid of this summer. That's why I was a little confused with Power Players statement that "it is very tough to use a high SW racquet on the club level unless you play a lot and have flatter strokes." If high SW= high power, wouldn't someone who supplies more horizontal power (swinging through the ball, not brushing up) want to reduce power of the racquet? and like I said before, since i love playing doubles, i think this means a lot (quote from tom-selleck, data from jura):

    BRIAN MIKE 4 354 29.7 69.8 TECNIFIBRE NRG 2 1.24 23/24

    BRIAN BOB 5 354 29.8 69.8 LUX / TF ALU POWER / NRG 2 1.25/1.24 24/25

    WOODBRIDGE TODD 3 353 30.7 69.8 WILSON NATURAL 1.25 24/24

    NESTOR DAVID 5 375 29.5 69.3 BAB / LUX VS Team thermogut/alu powerBB 1.25 26/26

    all doubles specialists, all heavy, head-light racquets
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2012
    #46
  47. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,961
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    How is what I said confusing? It takes more effort to hit with spin and that is compounded by a heavier raquet. Spin is generated with racquet head speed and a low to high swing, which is why if your racquet is too heavy you can tire yourself out hitting with spin.

    Flatter hitting takes less racquet head speed since you are driving through the ball and letting "the racquet do the work".

    The only way to see is to slap lead on your stick and try it for yourself, but I am having trouble seeing how what I said doesn't make sense.
     
    #47
  48. TheLambsheadrep

    TheLambsheadrep Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,113
    the only mental block i have is that as far as I know, increasing SW increases power, regardless of if your hitting flat or with spin.

    I know that with the motion for heavy topspin, a heavier racket will make you tired faster, but it will also add depth to the strokes (since the swing path is more vertical, the more mass behind it will drive a shot farther back). Since a flat hitter generally does not need added depth on their strokes, I don't see the need for a SW over 350, especially if someone wants to decrease power. I mean, travlerajm's stats kinda show this imo because the top ranked pros had SW over 350, and the majority of top ranked pros have high topspin strokes. all of this is dependent on if high SW = high power.

    I may be over thinking all of this, but my main concern is that I want to decrease power, and if I alter a racquet to something that optimizes MgR/I and MR^2, I see that a high SW almost always comes with it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2012
    #48
  49. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,961
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    Rafa and Fed hit with the most spin on tour and have had their SWs in the 340s for a long time.

    So I am not sure what you are getting at.

    Just lead your stick up and go see. I mean it's going to be obvious . I am speaking from experience here. You are just thinking about it too much and are not using real world experience.

    You need racquet head speed to generate spin and depth. You do not need as much racquet head speed to hit flatter.

    If you are Djokovic, you are a god and can hit with a big SW and use bigtime spin.

    Good luck with that on the club level.
     
    #49
  50. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,415
    Power Player,
    You have missed the point of this thread. A primary reason for optimizing MgR/I is so that you don't have to apply any force from the wrist to keep your racquetface directed toward the target as you swing through the hitting zone.

    Since a racquet with perfectly tuned MgR/I value will naturally stay aimed toward your target through the hitting zone, your control will be much improved.

    Also, since you don't have to apply any force from the wrist, you can relax your wrist while you swing. This means that you will exert less energy and be less tired. In other words, optimized MgR/I (with proper tuning procedure) allows you to play with a much higher swingweight racquet without tiring out.
     
    #50

Share This Page