Pro Swingweight List

Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by travlerajm, Dec 24, 2006.

  1. PurePrestige

    PurePrestige Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    516
    Dearest ShcMad, 7.5g at 12 might be too much for you to handle sir. you already hit so flat I am afraid of what this will do to your game.
    Then again, i've been wrong before. Oh wait, no I haven't.

    Travler, question for my flatspinning friend here. How much lead would u say is good at 12oclock. To bring a Liquidmetal Prestige Midplus up to SW2, he does have a leather grip installed so that might change things. But SW2 for the Midplus would be a good thing for him to know, as he just had it restrung with some nice Kirschbaum.
     
    #51
  2. AJK1

    AJK1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,219
    After reading Greg Raven's comments (which incidentally are based on fact and to me much more genuine) i would repeat my earlier suggestion that these so called figures are too high.
     
    #52
  3. grizzly4life

    grizzly4life Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,057
    sorry again for bumping old threads, but how do you get a swing weight of 370 for nadal from jura's specs?....

    Player grip size weight(unstrung) balance(unstrung) Lengthcm String brand String type diameter Tension
    Gaudio, Gaston (ARG ) 4 363 30.8 68.7 KIRSCHBAUM SUPER SMASH 1.30 27/27
    Nadal, Rafael (ESP ) 2 321 32.2 68.5
    BABOLAT TOUR DURALAST 1.35 25/24
    Agassi, Andre (USA ) 343 32 68.5
    LUXILON BB ALU POWER 1.25 27/27
    Moya, Carlos (ESP ) 3 307 36.6 68.5
    LUXILON ORIGINAL 1.30 28/28

    321 weight... 6.5 points HL.... how does that get to 370 swingweight?

    enjoy this issue... just looking for some intellectual honesty... if it's "it's widely known that nadal puts XXXX lead tape on after he has it strung", then i think we need that stated, and takes away some of the scientific rigour...
     
    #53
  4. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,438

    First of all, Jura's specs are unstrung. I estimate Nadal's strung specs at
    3.5 pts HL and 338g.

    Next, I plug it into the formula that approximates the moment of inertia about the handle end of the frame: I = (3/2)MR^2.

    Then I use the parallel axis theorem to translate to the swingweight about the 10cm axis. This gives SW = 369. I also apply some correction factors, since the formula tends to overpredict for more HH pros and underpredict for more HL pros, but since Nadal is not near the extremes, my correction factors don't change the swingweight for Nadal. It still comes out at 369. The numbers in the list are rounded to the nearest 5 kg-cm^2.

    The fact that it is widely known that Nadal puts ~15g under the bumper and ~5g in the butt is consistent with this swingweight estimate, and considering that we know his starting frame, it also means that we know the approximate center of mass of the lead under his bumper. Because of this, I can say that the estimate for Nadal has a tighter confidence interval than the estimates for most of the pros on the list.

    I should also note that I believe that the players that I have listed with swingweights higher than 380 are still probably overpredicted. I think that it is possible that all of these players (like Moya and Kiefer) are in the 370 to 380 range, but with more depolarized setups than most pros. The problem is that I don't have any actual stringweight measurements for those players to use as reference points for adjusting the correction factor.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2007
    #54
  5. PurePrestige

    PurePrestige Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    516
    JacksonVile,
    For Safin's racquet the SW posted as 15 pts higher was strung. So stock PC600 at 335+15 makes his SW about 350 strung rather than unstrung.

    Travler, at a SW of 350 with a racquet weighing about 353g or so. Does this fall into SW2 or what SW would Safin be playing at? Max power level?

    Also if we're to draw a correlary of Safin and Federer using similar static weight racquets and Safin's SW for his flat strokes being at 350, wouldn't it be logical to assume Federer's SW is lower, even much lower like 330 compared to Safin?
     
    #55
  6. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    I have come to a realization that the majority of all-courters are playing in the ~350SW range.

    I did not know that Safin was in that range also, this assures me that I am correct.

    Further more with my latest tests I found this to be true on all smaller head frames.

    For the larger head frames we are seeing more weight and a higher tension.


    I am backing off the 370SW and am going with the ~350 range, I found this best for modern all-courter, the 13.5oz was simply too much and I refuse to go any further than 13.oz.

    As a result I am very very happy now, I enjoy the best of all worlds now.


    If I was a S&V or a doubles specialist I would certainly go with a 370+SW.

    If I was a pure basliner I would go with a large headed racket SW~360(max power range) and keep it as light as possbile.


    Also wanted to say thankyou for the information
     
    #56
  7. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,438

    Actually, since Safin's unstrung SW is 335, that puts his strung SW in the low 360s, which is above his max-power zone. I still think Fed's is higher than that. Fed seems to have a very stable frame, and there is a significant advantage in stability in going from 350 to 370. And in pro tennis, increased stability = increased control, and increased control = better performance. Beyond 370 SW, I think there are diminishing returns, as maneuverability starts to become an issue. That's why I believe that the majority of the top 50 players have swingweight in the 365-375 (SW2) range. My analysis suggests that there are many pros in the max-power zone (SW 355-360), but they have crappier rankings on average. The highly ranked players who are not in the 365-375 range are mostly in the 340-350 (counterweighted SW1) range.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2007
    #57
  8. No, the poster was Michael Ludwig...

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=518634#post518634

    ...and the larger mistake you made was trusting the words of someone that calculates sw with a spreadsheet over those of someone that has first-hand knowledge and uses a machine to calculate sw of the actual frames in question.

    At time of posting, the weird sw strung 323 Prestige was not on the market at that time, the last Prestige frames at TW were closer to sw strung 333 units.

    Also, not sure if it was just a typo, but you were comparing Safin's unstrung sw to the strung sw of a future retail frame. When comparing apples to apples, ~333 + ~15 = ~348. That is strung, without overgrip or pads, for those frames that were put onto the RDC (while unstrung) at that time. Anyway, Safin's (or any pro's) strung specs are pretty meaningless, as they will only show the effect that different strings have on specs in the small magnitude that they do.

    Also, the same strings will effect different frames with different specs differently for different diferences between strung and unstrung. Strung specs are useless and give even more variance to a sw that is already calculated on paper.

    There's nothing to be debated when information gathered from someone with first-hand knowledge can be correctly comprehended.

    Well, we have one correct past sw in this thread.
     
    #58
  9. ShcMad

    ShcMad Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,540
    Location:
    Northern Virginia

    I copied and pasted the quote into a notepad file, but didn't remember the author of it.
    I didn't know that the PC600 that TW carries now are crap. Therefore, I was going with their posted swingweight of 323 instead of the 'real' swingweight of the PC600 (333).

    Anyways, you clarified some stuff, so thank you.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2007
    #59
  10. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,438
    Thomas Martinez has posted Safin's unstrung sw of 335, and string usually adds 25-30.
     
    #60
  11. ShcMad

    ShcMad Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,540
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Yeah, I read another post by you at the 'Safin's setup playtest thread' where you said that Tomas' specs of Safin's racquet where: 336g, 335sw, and 31.2cm balance. But, didn't you say on that thread that you were estimating that the stringbed would weigh about 17g (not 25-30)?
     
    #61
  12. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,438
    17g = 30 kg-cm^2 = 30 SW units.
     
    #62
  13. ShcMad

    ShcMad Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,540
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    I thought you were talking about 25-30 grams. Sorry.
     
    #63
  14. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    Have you tried to get a k90 ect with Roger's setup to a SW of 360+ with only 12.1oz?

    I did not have any problems with these frames at 350. And I have my TNT-90 with Rogers exact setup string string savers ect at 355SW and it is great.

    The low swing weights were better as they were more manuverable, my percentages actually increase, the balls are indeed heavier with the 370 (same stup, and racket).

    The other AC like Pim Pim Gonzo ect are at 350. Also when Roger plays against (I believe the name is benjamin bjorkman, the boubles player) you can see that his shots are heavier and do indeed upset Roger.

    Why would Roger have a SW that is out of Max power but still have a string stup that is as well out of the max power range?

    When I put the Yonex up to 12.8oz and SW 350 and the PC Plust SW 350 13.oz they playd just as well as my SW 370 TNT-90.

    IMO a racket 13.5oz and SW370 is just not going to be as good on the basline, S&V, yes but not the basline

    The only SW370 basliners you are going to see are rackets below 13.oz.

    I play all-court more on the basline side 1hbh top spin player w/ slice. All my shots are just as strong with exception to net, other wise I have no weak point and use either side to end points even my slice. I use full stokes on every movement except net.

    IMHO the 13+oz rackets play better with this style in a 350+SW range on small headed rackets, that is all I play with except the PCPlus that I have tried and liked a lot.

    I really expected the PC plus to turn into a rocket launcher at a SW357 but the thing is, it got even spinnier that it was before.

    I will keep testing as I very much believe in your intelect, kowledge, and science, but I am starting to think that a SW of 365-370 is not the answer for every racket and playing style.

    Heck Roddick and Blake are in that range and you see how high they have to string in order to keep control, at that SW my LMIXL was way way too powerful with NXT.

    I will up the SW again and see what happens.
     
    #64
  15. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,438
    I'm not arguing with you, just disagreeing. I appreciate hearing your input. We are both just speculating, and it's fun IMO.

    I believe Roger's static weight is roughly 13.0 oz. And I don't think that it's as HL as everyone thinks it is. Of course I don't know for sure what swingweight Roger uses - I'm just speculating like the rest of us - but I really do believe that 365-370 is my best estimate for his swingweight. Isn't Roger's frame stiffer than the frames you are experimenting on? On my NXG, when I went Luxilon at 52 lbs, my SW2 went up to 380. And then when it loosened up, it went up again to 385, which was great for stability, but a little clunky and a load on my shoulder. I haven't tried the n90 or k90, but I found SW2 on the n6.195 at 365 with no counterweight. It would have been much higher with counterweighting.

    I also believe that Sampras used the setup that Greg Raven owns (SW 367) until 1998, and I think that helped him be a dominant player even from the baseline, as very few players were customizing back then. And I also believe that Sampras used a 14-oz., 388 SW setup for the last few years of his career. I believe his clunkier setup was one of the reasons that his baseline game deteriorated, but his volleys improved in those last few years. And I think his heavy setup was partly responsible for his pathetic showings in the 2000 and 2001 USO finals, since his shoulder couldn't serve with it the day after a 5-set semi. Taylor Dent is apparently using a 401 SW, and he is probably the best volleyer of any current player.
     
    #65
  16. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    I did not mean and disrespect at all, I am not decided at all. I understand all the ideas that you have shared with us and apreciate more than you can ever know.

    When I talk with you it is with a full open mind for sure, I know that you have a much better understanding than I do.

    All of my ideas and information are coming from my experiements.

    I have been trying more HH ie instead of 10pt 8pt and it has helped the forehand a lot and as I get better it effects my back hand less.

    But for best backhand effect the more HL seems to be superior.

    The weight of string savers, power pads, slightly havier string, and over grip add up fast.

    It does not leave much room for adding weight to the racket and end up at 13.0oz, I am just trying to get all the numbers to agree LOL

    That is when I saw what PIM PIM, Gonzo and ect where doing, they are all 1hbh players with style much like Roger, there abilities ie racket seem just as good perhaps a bit lower.

    I used the K90 but only for a bit, I will try to get one of those and go to work on it. I was looking to trade a TNT-90 for a K90.

    The TNT-90 is ~13oz SW ~355 balance 9ptHL strung with tonic 51lbs 16g mains and 48bs IQ 17g crosses, string savers on 3 rows. I am still testing and not sure if it was the new stringing or what but when it was at 350SW it seemed a bit too powerful ie not enough weight in the head. After at 5 it felt perfect, I will keep testing.

    The other TNT-90 is at 13.5oz 10ptHL SW 370+ legend 55lbs 17g string savers all over top half on every other row on just one side. Good racket just not as manuverable, does not feel as good on the forehand.

    This racket hits the second haviest ball out of any racket I have ever used the only one better is the SW 380 10ptHL LMP mid


    The thing is that between the two rackets I get the same ball type effect, but the other is lighter and the ball is not quite as heavy.

    The PS90 I have at 13.5oz SW ~373 does not give me enough spin at all and I don't like that racket, had it at 6ptHL and it was a much better racket with a SW of ~365

    The Tnt-90's are ~88sqin and pure graphite.

    What is the highest you can go with a 90sqin racket on the SW1 with staying out of the max power zone relative to headlightness?

    I am just thinking that since 1bhb players prefer a more headlight racket that a below max power 9-10ptHL racket would be best 12.8-13oz racket, so that you are also able to keep static weight down.

    While those with the 2hbh would want to be above the max power zone as they have more head heavy frames that would be to powerful in SW1 so at SW2 they are not to powerful while being more head heavy and staying more light, thuse you see the 2hbhers with a lower static weight. Also the higher SW makes up for the lower static weight as the higher static weight increase the heaviness on the ball.

    Seems the players with the 98+sqin frames are in the max power zone for a racket that size and thus string much higher.

    I fully understand a high static weight and SW make for a superior serve and volley with 95sqin or lower rackets.

    With the modern S&V we are seeing them use larger heads so that they can keep the static weight down, and the larger head allows them to maintian a serve dominance and the lower static weight allows them to play the basline more as it is much more necissary with the slower courts allowing people to hit much harder as they have more time to setup and put into the shot from the basline.
     
    #66
  17. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,438

    One thing to keep in mind is that counterweighting in the butt only reduces power level when you are below the max-power zone. Near SW2, adding weight to the butt increases power and drags down the serve. I don't really think that there is much difference between 1hb and forehand as far as racquet performance at the pro level. At the pro level, a 1hb player has an advantage because he can tune his racquet to the same power level on both sides, while the 2hb player will always have a fh that is slightly higher powered than his bh.
     
    #67
  18. ShcMad

    ShcMad Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,540
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Hey travlr, I have had a similar situation to jackson's in the past year. Back then I used racquets with very little to no additional weight added to the stock frames. Most of them were 8-11pts. headlight stock. A couple months ago, I brought my frames to around ~365sw/~360g/~6pts headlight without counterweighing, and I find much easier to get directional control on the forehand side than before.

    I used to and I still have a pretty nice 1-handed backhand, but nowadays I'm learning the 2-hbh, and I find I like the racquet to be around 6-7 pts. headlight whileas with the 1-hbh, I used to like it around 9-10pts. headlight. The problem was that with such a headlight racquet, my forehands had no control.

    At first, I started learning the 2-hbh partly because it felt less cumbersome to have 2 hands on the racquet when your frame is 6pts. headlight rather than 9pts. My forehand is still not a major weapon in my game, however, before all this happened, it was an erratic and undependable shot. Nowadays, I can tell you that it's a consistent one.

    My question is...do you think my current frame is good for 2-hbhs? I'm liking it so far on every shot, but I wanted to know your opinion, and also clarify a little what jackson tried to say.
     
    #68
  19. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,438

    It doesn't sound like you are having a problem.

    The balance is not important for groundstrokes. It's the power level that matters for groundstrokes- it just happens that the power level is tied to the balance. The power level is determined by the combination of the effective mass and swingspeed. Taking a stock frame and adding lead to make the balance less HL will slow the swingspeed and increase effective mass. When you are below that max-power point, the lead affects the effective mass more than it affects the swingspeed. Beyond the max-power point, adding lead affects the swingspeed more than it affects the effective mass.

    The serve is different. For a given swingweight, your serve will be better with longer balance. So if you are beyond swingweight 360, there is no reason to coutnerweight in the butt and make your racquet more HL. If you want to counterweight a racquet with swingweight over 360, it's much more efficient to counterweight at the top of the handle, since it will not lower your serve power.
     
    #69
  20. FitzRoy

    FitzRoy Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,415
    This is an interesting post. Is this essentially the essence of the Sampras setup listed on Greg Raven's site (383 grams, ~367 SW, 12.63" balance)? The added lead at 3 and 9, and then counterweighting at the top of the handle? It would make sense mathematically; if he were counterweighting lower, one would expect the balance to be shorter than it is.

    I think the frames of Blake, Sampras, and Gaudio are interesting to compare, because they have very similar static weight, but somewhat different balance points. Gaudio's balance comes out to about 12.5" (estimated from jura's unstrung data), which suggests that his counterweighting is further toward the butt than Sampras' (especially considering his SW is higher by a fair margin). Blake's balance is even lower; something like 12.2" or 12.3", if I recall. What would you say the difference in playing characteristics would be between these? In the case of Blake, I wonder if he may have altered his counterweighting (if it is, as you say, more efficient to counterweight at the top of the handle when above 360 SW) sometime since jura obtained those specs in 2005; this would then coincide with his great increase in ranking since that time.
     
    #70
  21. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,438
    On groundstrokes, the shorter balance will be a little less stable and more spinny.

    The shorter balance gives slightly better depth control on volleys due to higher recoil, while the longer balance give slightly better directional accuracy due to increased moment. But with 13.5 oz. racquets, these differences are small.

    The real difference is on the serve. Longer balance is more powerful because more momentum is transferred to the ball. I also find that longer balance is more accurate for serving, but it's harder to logically justify why. It just is.

    I think Blake's weak 2nd serve could be improved if he adjusted his specs. But since his specs are grooved well for his groundies, I doubt he'll mess with it. I also believe that Blake was using a racquet before his layoff that was over an ounce lighter than his current racquet.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2007
    #71
  22. PurePrestige

    PurePrestige Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    516
    Trav, I just have a question for Fed's setup and final SW.

    For example taking the stock K90 with accurate balance and weight, its 14g lighter than some specs stating 368g and 31.2 balance pt.
    If adding 14g even splitting it up 7g at 12 and 7 in the butt the SW only comes up to 360 while preserving the balance.

    I don't think the starting frame is any lighter than the K90 or N90 because he started from a stock PS85 so his static weight was probably already set, unless they change the layup to get a higher SW at that static weight and balance.

    In other words how would you create a similar racquet using a midsize frame without it feeling clunky from concentrated weight at 12. I'm really interested in a Fed setup to see if i can hit a decent 1hander with my midsizes.
     
    #72
  23. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827


    He is predicting that Roger's racket is not that head light, I predict that Roger is like the other all-courters and has a SW below or close to max power.
     
    #73
  24. saram

    saram Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    5,371
    I would not say it is b.s. Blake's 'old' racket, the Dunlop M-Fil 200 has a swingweight of 337. He also has about 6" of lead on each side of the frame at the 3 and 9 o'clock position. Strung with Luxilon Big Banger Alu, like he uses as well as the lead--it puts the weight of his stick around the mentioned weight above. Hewitt and Roddick in the past both had at least 6" of tape on their sticks in the same positions as Blake and their 'stock' sticks in the consumer market are at a minimumm of 12oz.

    In a link that has been posted on here numerous times about PJ's and what not, Hewitt was quoted as saying that to compete on the pro tour--players needed to have rediculously heavy sticks to maintain stability and pace. A stick in the sub 330 weight catagory is not going to be stable enough to return a 140mph kick serve with accuracy and pace. (the last statement is just my personal opinion).
     
    #74
  25. grizzly4life

    grizzly4life Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,057
    one thing i think needs clarification....

    travelrajm sp? is right in adding the string weight and effect as that's what the racquet is actually playing as.

    HOWEVER, when we compare racquets and how they play etc, i think people usually refer to weight, balance, swingweight as unstrung.... so these shocking numbers should be that shocking. you take a 350g racquet, string and add a little bit of lead tape, aren't you pretty much there in terms of SW > 360

    so i don't think people are that far apart... problem is that the convention is talking unstrung
     
    #75
  26. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,438
    For a reference point, 90% of stock racquets on the market have a strung swingweight between 320-330 strung (285-300 unstrung).
     
    #76
  27. tenis

    tenis Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    848
    Travlerjam, you must be flying somewere again.....
     
    #77
  28. Greg Raven

    Greg Raven Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Apple Valley, CA
    Hmm. I just looked at the specs of 221 currently-available racquets. The minimum swingweight was 250, and the maximum was 360. Ninety percent of 221 would be around 199. Yet, I found that only 57 -- or around 26 percent -- have a swingweight from 320 to 330 inclusive.
     
    #78
  29. DoubleHanded&LovinIt

    DoubleHanded&LovinIt Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,007
    Greg,

    Didn't you also find that Nadal's strung racquet measured in at a swingweight of 355 and not 370 as travlerajm claims?

    Thanks in advance for clarifying.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2007
    #79
  30. AJK1

    AJK1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,219
    Yeah, don't believe the hype, Travlerajm is way wrong with these SW, and most other things.
     
    #80
  31. jaykay

    jaykay Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    992
    Yes. See http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html

    Wonder how travelrajm made up the 370 number for Nadal's APD?
     
    #81
  32. PurePrestige

    PurePrestige Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    516
    I don't think travler was that far off really... I mean he tried a tough thing making conversions that are...well...impossible. Trying to calculate ending SW from various frames which have innumerable factors aside from static weight and balance.
    He did his best, it's just not possible to calculate accurately in any way the SW of frames that are unstrung.

    I think all we got here, is that we are back to square one. Pro's use racquets with a little bit of weight to cope with the heavy shots on the pro tour.

    Oh well, the more specs we get, the more work travler can do. I think it was a good effort by him, just an incredibly hard task.
    It's hard to calculate specs for these racquets as they are different from alot of the OS racquets that he was experimenting on.
    So obviously the SW2 concept just needs to be tinkered with, with a larger variety of racquets to become more accurate.
     
    #82
  33. AJK1

    AJK1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,219
    Yeah, right.
     
    #83
  34. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,650
    First off, there is not that much range (like 300 to 3000) on SWs so anybody can say anything and can claim they were in the range. Actually, 355 vs 370 is a huge difference specially with all the SW2 claims.

    Secondly, if a problem is impossible to solve accurately, how can you put up formulas for it ?!!! Specially when they don't match reality as in this case. At most, you can say - pros use higher SW than us and leave it at that.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2007
    #84
  35. FitzRoy

    FitzRoy Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,415
    My post in another thread, reproduced here due to relevance:


    Before you guys jump all over travlerajm's case, consider that he was calculating his estimate of Nadal's SW from the specs on jura's list from the 2005 French Open. At that time, Nadal's racquet, unstrung, was this:

    Nadal, Rafael (ESP ) 2 321 32.2 68.5
    BABOLAT TOUR DURALAST 1.35 25/24

    Note that it's 321 grams unstrung. Now, many people account for 15 grams when adding strings, but we know for sure that Duralast weighs more than that, probably more than 20 grams. Nadal's dampener weighs probably 2 or more grams. If you add those to the unstrung 321, you come up with 343; Greg's info here says 332.

    So either Nadal's specs have changed since 2005, to the tune of ~11 grams less weight (which would also result in a change in SW), or jura's info is wrong. Either of these facts could account for travlerajm's estimate being off. I would suggest that posters here consider all of the available information before jumping to immediate conclusions based on the number 355.
     
    #85
  36. PurePrestige

    PurePrestige Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    516
    Sureshs- thats all i'm saying too, we're back at square one. Pro's use 'some' weight more than stock, leave it at that, I don't think there is a formula that show a correlation between pro player SW and ranking necessarily though, there may be in some form or another.

    Fitzroy-Maybe the tune of 11grams difference is a difference from Clay to Hard court. Now i'm not saying that the difference is really 11grams, but 11 grams isnt even that much. Like Jura said, some are with overgrips and some without etc. etc. So we can't even really calculate final swingweight +/- 5 grams. So I think as long as we have a general weight, i.e. his racquet is a couple grams heavier thats all there really is to know.
     
    #86

Share This Page