Pro Swing Weight?

Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by sammyboy, May 29, 2010.

  1. sammyboy

    sammyboy New User

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    94
    So the rule of thumb is use as high as a SW as you possibly can. So most pro's use very high sw in teh like 370 or so...but which pro's use very low swingweights like 325ish...
     
    #1
  2. Mr_Shiver

    Mr_Shiver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    Hell
    Doesn't Tabasco use a stick with a low SW?
     
    #2
  3. seacard

    seacard Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    I'm guessing many, if not most, women players have a fairly low swingweight, especially those using <11oz sticks. Of course, that is part of the reason they would get destroyed by most players on these boards.
     
    #3
  4. pyrokid

    pyrokid Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,768
    I laughed, even though I do use a high swingweight and you just took a potshot at my religion.
     
    #4
  5. seacard

    seacard Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Eh, it was sort of a joke at my own expense as well. It's just funny how many people here care about Federer's, Nadal's, and Murray's racquet, but nobody ever asks "what does Carolina Zeballos or Peangthan Pliphuech" use, even though those women players, ranked at #991 in the world, probably play a much more similar game (albeit much better) to the members of this board than anybody on the ATP tour.

    (p.s.: I have no idea who those two are, have never seen them play, and for all I know they use a leaded up KPS88 or BLX90).
     
    #5
  6. Larrysümmers

    Larrysümmers Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,995
    Location:
    1313 Mockingbird Lane.
    holy crap! Do you really have a SW of 385? You are going to be the next Jo11y if you keep it up.
     
    #6
  7. crosscourt

    crosscourt Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,280
    The women tend to use lighter rackets but still keep the swingweights relatvely high. So mid-350s are not uncommon.

    cc
     
    #7
  8. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    the idea that pros use very high swingweights that is haunting this forum is ridiculous. There's already enough info about pro specs on jura's list, greg raven's website, etc. Some players do use very high swingweights (Soderling, Murray) but this has definitely hindered their all-court game (when was the last time you saw murray volley?)

    What's funny is that Federer, Nadal and Safin can win 25 grand slams in 10 years with sub-350 SWs but people on these forums need SWs in the 400s to feel that their serves are effective and they don't lack "stability".
     
    #8
  9. baseline_monster

    baseline_monster Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,142
    I bet you 80% of pro players have no idea about swing weights. They pick a weight and balance that is right, they do not go, umm, nice racket but I was a swing weight of 387 or nothing
     
    #9
  10. jedi clampett

    jedi clampett New User

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    60
    Agreed... definately a 'go heavier' mentality here.
     
    #10
  11. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    I agree. In addition, you can't like receive 100000 sticks from Babolat and tell you stringer "I want all of these to have SWs of 359.62 kgxcm2", I bet the SW on their sticks varies a good 5-10 pts at least
     
    #11
  12. pyrokid

    pyrokid Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,768
    Nope, not anymore, I toned it down some.
    No idea what it is now, but it's significantly lighter (330-350?) and all around my game is much better.
    There are times when I miss the weight, but the vast majority of my shots are better without it.
     
    #12
  13. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    There was a time when I bought the SW2 BS and I was up there at about 380. It's good but definitely hinders my all-round game, especially the volleys and I'd be out of strength in 1 hour. Then I dropped the SW to about 350 and it's much better now, I can really move around the court easier and can keep going for 3-4 hours before getting very tired.
     
    #13
  14. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    From the way he hits, it seems Berdych has a pretty high swingweight, does anyone know?
     
    #14
  15. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    Yeah Berdych's shots seem pretty Soderlingy to me. I wonder why TT never got to the Roddick and Hewitt specs, or Murray's new specs
     
    #15
  16. pyrokid

    pyrokid Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,768
    Lugging it around was never a problem, it was making the tiny adjustments with my wrist so I could hit the sweet spot dead on. It was too heavy to do that quickly so I didn't hit the sweetspot nearly as much as I do now, and my defense is so much better.

    Honestly, if there's someone out there who's big enough to actually play better with a stick like that, they would probably be pretty crazy.
     
    #16
  17. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    Safin's about as strong as it gets and he carries around a 347-swingweight stick
     
    #17
  18. Matt H.

    Matt H. Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,279
    I would agree on some level that a pro has a higher SW than the typical rec player.

    however, like everything in life there comes a point of diminishing return. Groundstrokes and serves are flying around a good 20-25mph higher than normal players, so timing is needed too.
     
    #18
  19. baseline_monster

    baseline_monster Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,142
    So true, there gear reflects the level they play at. Just like a lot of golf players using blade irons instead of cavity backed, like top level skiers using shorter skies etc. If you can bring the professional standard swing, weight, power and fitness then you will get the best out of those real heavy rackets with that SW, if you dont have that, your just hearting yourself.
     
    #19
  20. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    Their gear isn't that demanding at all really. the question is finding the right balance of heaviness, manueverability, stability, etc.
     
    #20
  21. baseline_monster

    baseline_monster Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,142
    What most of the time ='s a racket over 330g with a high SW, something you need to have sound technique to get the most from.
     
    #21
  22. TennisCJC

    TennisCJC Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,361
    Pro's may not know their swing weight but most ATP and WTA pros have a SW 335+. Google pro racket specs and find the BNP Paribas/Indian Wells specs to see. WTA players using lighter (10.5 - 11.5) rackets have less HL balances and higher SW. Fed is in the 335-240 range and Nadal is around 350. Loads of doubles players are in the 350-380 range. Look at TW power zones and compare low SW to high SW rackets and you will see the higher SW rackets have a bigger sweetspot. The Fed 90 SQ inch racket actually has a much bigger sweetspot than stock 98 and 100 SQ inch rackets. SW adds stability, power, and increase the sweetspot size. Venus and Serena have very light static weights but high SWs due to move even or HH balance. They need the higher SW to handle the pace coming at them and to deliver the pace back.
     
    #22
  23. TennisCJC

    TennisCJC Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,361
    Correction to above: Fed is 335 to 340 SW range with static weight around 360G
     
    #23
  24. baseline_monster

    baseline_monster Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,142
    So true, the pace and more importantly the heaviness of a ball coming from a top player needs to be meet with a strong stroke and timing and a solid frame helps.
     
    #24
  25. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    That's a good point man. You don't see any mid users with super high SWs except maybe Sampras but for him everything is super high. Also, smaller headsizes are more stable so you can go lighter and still not be pushed around too much. On the other hand, most babolat and head guys play midplus and 100" racquets, so they need the higher SW for stability and can trade a little timing for it. Safin and Fed can't sacrifice maneuverability though because they need to be in place for every shot, hence a lower SW
     
    #25
  26. 0d1n

    0d1n Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    Cluj-Napoca, Romania
    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=338069
     
    #26
  27. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,994
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    Nadal's SW is 355.

    But the reality is that for rec players, even up to college level, you can do a lot of hard hitting with a SW between 330-350.
     
    #27
  28. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    You can do a lot of hard hitting with the same SW in the top 100.
     
    #28
  29. xFullCourtTenniSx

    xFullCourtTenniSx Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,960
    Actually, it depends. It's VERY difficult to perfectly match all the specs of numerous rackets, if it's even possible to begin with.

    What can be done, however, is two of the top 3 specs can be perfectly matched (balance, static weight, or swingweight), and the other will vary slightly, but not by much. Some people like to keep weight and swingweight the same, some like balance and weight the same, some like balance and swingweight the same. It varies from player to player.

    And players play with what they feel most comfortable with and what they like the results from. Not everybody uses insane SW rackets. Usually though, guys that seem to want to pound the F*** out of the ball use high swingweights and static masses.
     
    #29
  30. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    Yeah, good point - you can keep 2 out of the 3 main specs the same and the rest will be pretty close.




    I am curious to know Del Potro's specs. Are they similar to the other HEAD hard-hitters' specs or are they more like Fed's specs.
     
    #30
  31. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,416
    I recall someone posted Del Potro's measured SW: 362.

    A swingweight in the 360s is easy to "get around" as long as you tune the weight and balance so that the racquet swings fast enough to match your swing. You can do that by making sure MgR/I equals about 21.0 (or slightly lower if you use western grip or if you are really tall), where M is racquet mass in kg, g is 980.5cm/s^2, R is balance in cm, and I is the MOI about the butt end (I = SW + 20MR - 100M). (I notice that your MgR/I in your signature is 21.0. If you want to bump up your swingweight, you'd need to counterbalance with more mass near top of handle to maintain the same MgR/I value.)

    BTW, I believe all of Greg Raven's specs are legitimate with the exception of Federer's (which appear to be minus lead tape). ART ART has posted Fed's covertly-acquired specs several times, with SW usually around 353.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
    #31
  32. Chapter 24

    Chapter 24 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    I find this very interesting and would like to investigate this myself.

    When you say "about" 21.0 and "slightly lower if you use a western grip or if you are really tall" are you able to specify how close to 21.0 you are referring to (like 0.1- 0.3 or so above/below 21.0 or perhaps more ???)
     
    #32
  33. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    Yeah, I'm pretty tall - slightly over 1.95m

    I believe the reason for the difference in Greg Raven's specs and the ones you posted could be due to the fact that

    a) Fed takes a few grams off on grass and hardcourts
    b) Maybe he only matches weight and balance, and the SW varies

    I'm curious to know how you got to the conclusion that MgR/I should equal 21? It's interesting because my current setup (which equals about 20.9) really does play tremendous.

    Using HDtennis' specs I got 21.3 for Fed
    Do you have the MgR/I numbers for any other pros?
     
    #33
  34. kkm

    kkm Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    649
    Taking a wild guess, based on the P1 pics posted/linked here in the past, which show a good amount of lead tape on Federer's racquets, his racquets may not be more than 4 pts HL. In any case, could be fairly close to even balance, unless (something we wouldn't be able to see) P1 put silicone and possibly other stuff into the handles of his racquets to take them back to the stock 8-9 pts HL balance. And given where the lead tape is (various lengths at the tips of his racquets under the bumper guards), it would add to the swingweight with just a nominal increase in overall mass.

    Nadal's racquets too, with a SW quite a bit higher than that of the stock model, a racquet with a stock balance of maybe 5 pts HL could be close to even balance after lead is added at 12 o'clock unless, again, silicone and maybe other stuff are put into the handles.
     
    #34
  35. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271

    Nope, P1 doesn't counterbalance for Roger in any way. I believe that all K-series racquets are foam filled already. And based on the pics, that's not more than 5-6g on his sticks. For me, each gram at 12 increases the SW by 3 points and changes the balance by 0.1cm, but the overgrip brings the balance down by 0.25 cm, so this counterbalances for the half of the weight fed puts at 12
     
    #35
  36. kkm

    kkm Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    649
    That's correct that there's foam in the handles of stock K 6.1 racquets, but it weighs next next to nothing.
    I customized 3 stock K 6.1 tour 90 racquets for a guy, surprisingly all started at the same mass and balance. He had me scrape out the foam from inside the handle, add a Babolat VS overgrip, put 8" of 3M 1/4" lead tape at 12 o'clock (2 4" strips on each side of the grommet holes), 4" each at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock (2 2" strips on each side of the grommet holes at 10 and at 2). 16" of 3M 1/4" lead tape and a Babolat VS overgrip later, strung with Babolat VS Team 1.25 in the mains at 48 and Signum Pro Poly Plasma 1.18 in the crosses at 45, the racquet weighed in at 12.6 oz, ~4.5 pts HL.
    As I said, though, my guess about Federer's balance is a wild guess...
     
    #36
  37. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,416
    The formula is based on the idea that a groundstroke is a high-to-low-to-high motion that can be modeled like a double pendulum, with the outer pendulum pivoting from the wrist.

    The formula for the frequency of a pendulum is proportional to sqrt(MgR/I). It's not necessary to take the sqrt because only relative values matter here.

    I came to the conclusion first that 21.0 is best for my own strokes. Whatever the optimum value is for a given player and a given racquet and give grip type, performance will noticeably suffer with an adjustment 0.1 in either direction. 21.0 is only a guidelinea and starting point for tuning, as the optimum will also change a bit if you use a substantially different SW or mass.

    After discovering this concept for my own strokes, I calculated MgR/I for every pro racquet in Greg Raven's collection. It turns out that pro's with MgR/I in the range 20.5-21.0 have significantly better career high rankings than pro's with 20.0-20.5 or higher than 21.0. And players with values lower than 20.0 had even worse rankings (roughly equal N in each of the 4 groups). So even though the sample size was only about 30 players, I think the correlation is real.

    Again, I'm confident Federer is not swinging specs with MgR/I of 21.3!
    Sampras: 21.0
    Agassi: 21.0
    Fed?
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
    #37
  38. rromeo

    rromeo New User

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    84
    Just wondering if there is anything comparable to this for estimating the best balance/swingweight/staticwt for maximum serving power and how to best test the changes w/o a radar gun???
     
    #38
  39. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271

    Hmmm. I used Federer's low SW specs (338 kgxcm^2) but if we assume his target SW is about 350, I believe the number will come closer to 21.1

    I calculated Safin's MgR/I with Greg Raven's specs and it came out 18.5 but I believe if we use the unstrung specs by Thomas Martinez where the static weight is also about 353g but the SW is about 355-360 I'll get different results.

    PS: using Safin's unstrung specs and converting them to strung I get around 20.11
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
    #39
  40. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,416
    To optimize serve speed, I think the easiest way is to notice how high on the fence your ball hits on the fence.

    I've found that the priority order of the most important properties for optimizing serve speed are:
    1) SW
    2) Length
    3) Balance.
    4) Mass.
    They all depend on each other.

    Let's assume we are using a midplus headsize (headsize is not that important for serve speed). But the larger your head, the longer your frame will need to be to have equaivalent serving properties. So a 27.5"-long 100sqin frame will have equivalent serving length to a 27"-long 85sqin frame.

    SW: For a standard length midplus, I've found the optimum SW for max serve speed is about 360. The optimum SW goes up if you add length. So for 27.5' midplus, the optimum is about 375. For a 28" mp, it's more like 390. When you test, make sure you give your arm long enough to adjust to any added weight, or else you might not notice the benefit.

    Length: Longer is better, but only if you increase your SW to stay close to the optimum SW for that length. If you want to remain at low swingweight, you are unlikely to notice any advantage from going to an extended frame.

    I recommend trying serves with the butt flare tucked into your palm and your pinky hanging over the end. This will effectively add 3/4" length and approx. 20 SW units. If your serve gets bigger when you do this, then your serve could benefit from extending the handle of your frame.

    Balance: The most important thing about balance is that the power potential (ACOR) is optimized for a given SW and mass. The formula for power potential is ACOR = (Ic*COR - mb^2 - Ic/M)/(mb^2 + Ic/M + Ic).

    Ic = recoil weight = SW - M(R - 10)^2
    SW = swingweight about 10cm axis
    M = racquet mass
    R = distance from butt to balance in cm
    COR = coefficient of restitution = ~0.85
    m = mass of ball = 0.057kg
    b = distance from impact point to balance point

    Mass: Mass is less important as long as the above 3 items are optimized. However, I have found that lighter is a little better. Unfortunately, if you go too light, you need to have a riduculously HH racquet to have ACOR optimized. Even if you are at 12 oz., and the other 3 items are optimized for your serve (this would mean you are playing with Roddick's specs), you would find that the racquet is not balanced very well for groundstrokes, and not HL enough for volleys. So I prefer to keep my serve monster frames at 13 oz or more.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
    #40
  41. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,416
    You might want to recheck your calculations - the Safin racquet in Greg Raven's collection (347 SW, 32cm, 353g) comes in at MgR/I = 20.6 (which I believe to be optimum for someone 6'4" tall with his grip).

    And again, I believe ART ART's posts of Fed's specs from two separate tournaments (353 for Wimbledon '09 and 354 for another - I don't recall which). I can't recall the balance he posted, but I do remember that his MgR/I came out in the 20.9 range.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
    #41
  42. Pioneer

    Pioneer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    Sh*t, when calculating for Safin I added 100M instead of subtracting it. Sorry
     
    #42
  43. Chapter 24

    Chapter 24 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Very Intrigued

    I took my back-up racquet off the shelf yesterday and using the MgR/I formula and the Customization and Reverse Engineering Tool from The tennis Warehouse University, I leaded up the unit so as to achieve a value of MgR/I = 20.997

    I was able to do this while achieving something in the Swing Weight and Total Weight ranges that I had already determined as acceptable for me.

    I was really pleased (and pleasantly surprised) with the result.

    Before I'm convinced, I want to do more investigation on my main racquet which, to my disappointment is much less ideal for leading up because the SW and Total Weights are both high on it in the un-modified state. The only way for me to get up around 20.85 to 20.90ish from what I can figure out will be to add all my weight in the throat area. That is, to approach this desired MgR/I value while not exceeding my comfort SW range.

    If this second modification/playing test is also successful I will report back.
     
    #43
  44. PED

    PED Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,339
    Just curious, but what is your racquet? I was guessing that maybe it was a Wilson as there are not that many sticks with both a high SW and a high static as well. My son uses the blx 95 16X18 and its hefty stats are similar to what you mentioned above. For me, I don't like to go above 350g static.

    I'll be curious as to how the throat weight works. In my experience, it changed the feel a bit and I never cared for that.

    There don't seem to be that many pro sticks with weight in the throat that I've seen, it generally seems to be on the hoop or the handle. Def let us know how it goes.
     
    #44
  45. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,994
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    I agree. I actually worded it the way I did because it seems that some rec players on here like to try and use the same high 355+ Sweights as some pros. In my experience, unless you play 4 hours or so a day with that SW (like a pro would), it is not worth going that high. My ideal SW is 335 because I only play 2-5 times a week. I came down from 350, which I simply did not need.

    Just my experience, but you are correct, you can hit a very heavy ball with a SW in the 330-350s, and still handle whatever comes back at you...even at a top 100 level.
     
    #45
  46. Chapter 24

    Chapter 24 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    The racquet that seems problematic where I figure I need to lead up the throat to get near 21.0 is the Bab APDGT

    Of course if I was willing to go into SW's above 340 the number of options for where and how much lead open up.

    I agree about the throat being unusual...part of the reason for the test of the magic 21.0 value. Jamming a bunch of lead onto the throat of the racquet flies in the face of most of what I have read on this board about the how's and why's and do's and don't of racquet customizing.
     
    #46
  47. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,416
    Some rules of thumb:

    Adding lead to throat area will tend to increase the dynamic stiffness of the frame. At 7", it will only stiffen the frame a little. At 8.5", a bit more. And at 9+", it start to max out the stiffness of your frame if you need to add a substantial amount of lead.

    Increasing stiffness has pluses and minuses. It will gererally reduce the spin potential, but increase the power and directional accuracy.

    However, the location of lead that you add to the hoop to increase SW will determine the location of the counterweight needed to reach the same mass and balance.

    That is, if you add lead at 12, you will likely need to counter somewhere in the throat with several times that amount to restore the same MgR/I value. But if you add weight at 3 and 9, the counterweight will be less mass, and it will be needed to be placed much lower in the handle where it won't affect the stiffness at all. I like to use this effect to "tune" the dynamic stiffness of my frame. If it feels too stiff, I drop the hoop mass location a little lower - I usually start at 10 and 2.

    Also, I think you'll find that your SW and static wt tolerances goes up a lot if you use the MgR/I rule to tune your frame. And if you have a 2hb, I recommend using mg(R - 10)/SW = 22.6 to tune it also (same formula, different pivot axis). Both the forehand constrant (MgR/I = 21.0) and the 2hb constraint can be met simultaneously for any SW. Example: 365 SW, 32cm, 13.5oz.

    Lastly, I always find that fine tuning is a good idea to find just the right balance (Your magic value for your swing may not be exactly 21.0). To do this, I recommend having a few grams of your counterweight wrapped in a way that you can adjust its location quickly to tune your balance against the wall (or against a patient hitting partner).
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2010
    #47
  48. Chapter 24

    Chapter 24 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Thanks for the additional tips/ideas ! I still don't think one can go to the hoop on this racquet, the APDGT even at the 3 and 9 positions unless I lower my MgR/I target to closer to the midish 20 values or drastically increase my SW tolerance. As I wrote above, I had great results with my other racquet at 20.97..so i have no reason (yet) to want to move below this.

    I experience/experienced some pain in my wrist for serving and overheads only (which hasn't completely gone away about a month later) when I was going SW = 350-355 so for now I'm trying to stay SW = 325-340. The APDGT is SW=331 off the shelf so it creates some challenges.
     
    #48
  49. Chapter 24

    Chapter 24 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    A Little Question

    Maybe for travlerajm who has an awesome amount of tennis knowledge ! (Thanks again for your posts if I have failed to thank you sufficiently up to this point):

    I know that you there is a good chance you aren't medically qualified to provide an answer to this question (then again, I could be wrong about that too !!) but just from a tennis/physics point of view, would my wrist problem when serving/overheading that I referred to above be caused/aggravated by total weight or swingweight or perhaps both.

    If this helps it hurts the area in the joint specifically on top of my wrist when I push on the front of my finger tips and try to bend my hand backwards towards the top of my forearm. When I serve/overhead I feel this exact same strain.
     
    #49
  50. PED

    PED Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,339
    I'll follow your results with interest as I just switched over the apdgt plus. I'm keeping my static weight down a bit to my usual to compensate the the xl length. I've got 8 on the handle and another 5g at the tip after 2 weeks of experimenting...so far so good.

    The stock SW of the apd+ is 339 so I've got even less room to tinker on that front than you with the std length.

    It appears when going to the GT, Bab also moved the balance point from 5pts hl to 4pts on the GT.

    Great stick; I used to use the std length one 3 years ago but I like having more mass on it than the stock specs.
     
    #50

Share This Page