Swingweight means nothing??

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by Dunlopkid, Nov 21, 2006.

  1. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    :confused: First off, could someone please explain once more how swingweight is calculated. Secondly, what does it really tell you. My coach told me last night that quote, "swingweight means nothing. It's the actual weight you should be concerned about." Clear me up on this swingweight business.
     
    #1
  2. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    actually the actual weight (static weight) is the last thing people usually notice when actually playing tennis. most people notice swingweight and balance far more whilst playing than static weight. obviously if you pick up a racquet and dont swing it, then actual weight (pick up weight/static weight) is noticed more. i like to think the swingweight is far more important since everyone i know who plays tennis, SWINGS the racquet during play to some level of competency or incompetency, rather than just standing there holding it ;)

    you can have a 10oz racquet that is harder to swing than a 12 oz racquet

    swingweight is measured in a RDC machine. the racquet is mounted in the machine and mechanically SWUNG. based upon how easy/how hard the racquet is to swing, a value is assigned based upon a formula residing in the chip of the machine.
     
    #2
  3. BounceHitBounceHit

    BounceHitBounceHit Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,952
    Location:
    In the moment.

    I respectfully disagree with your coach. SW is probably THE single most important stat to know about a frame, and knowing your ideal SW range is critical to finding the right frame. Static weights don't tell you nearly as much about how the frame will 'feel' in live play.

    The best approach is to demo a bunch of frames w/ a broad variety of SW's, and then narrow your range down according to what 'feels' and plays best for you.

    CC
     
    #3
  4. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    That's actually what I thought, guys. What he was saying didn't completely make sense to me. I might have misunderstood him or something.
     
    #4
  5. bcsax123

    bcsax123 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    699
    Well your coach is partially right because it would not be right to use something inder maybe 10.5 oz strung, or something more than 13.5 oz strung (Even if it is super HL)

    But SW seems to be the factor you need to look for with racquets. A too low of a swingweight would make it so you may need to adjust your swing to play with it, and the sameting applies to high SW. Once you find the right SW, you generally get more power because your swing isn't slowed by a high SW, and more control because of less chance of over hitting with a lower SW.
     
    #5
  6. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    Your coach is overstating the point, but he's mostly right.

    Swingweight is misunderstood by many as a measure of a racket's manuverability. It is, in fact, a measure of how a racket behaves in one very specific movement - which happens to not correspond to any particular tennis shot. It sacrafices repeatability and consistency in the method of measurement for real-world relevance.

    Don't believe me? Consider how swingweight ratings completely disregard a racket's mass. You'll find plenty of lightweight, high swingweight frames here at TW that have high ratings for manuverability (check out the Head LM 5 review). You'll also find heavy, low swingweight frames. I guarantee that if you took an example of either and compared them side-by-side, you'd see for yourself that swingweight is not accurate or useful in real-world situations.

    In my opinion, that makes it worse than useless, because it's only sometimes useful, and can steer alot of people wrong. That's why your coach tells you to ignore it - and I agree with him.
     
    #6
  7. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    Thanks, ohplease. Yeah, he was probably overstating because I thought swingweight was so important. He was probably trying to get the idea drilled in my head.
     
    #7
  8. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2006
    #8
  9. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    [​IMG]

    Know what this guy's doing? He's measuring a racket's swingweight. Does that look like a swing to you? This is how you'd do it at home, absent an RDC machine.

    Yes, a Babolat RDC machine will derive the same value as the sticks and stopwatch, with something that roughly approximates a tennis stroke - but in reality that tennis stroke would be no more effective than what this fellow is doing.

    Raise your hand if you think the sticks and stopwatch dance is how you evaluate a frame. Now raise your hand if you actually TRY THE RACKET OUT ON COURT. Wow - swingweight is so important that almost no one does the first test, yet everyone does the second.
     
    #9
  10. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    No worries, people overstate things all the time. The difference is that sometimes people do it to make a point (like your pro) while others do it because they're genuinely ignorant.
     
    #10
  11. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    Thanks for your input, ohplease and NBMJ. However, can you both agree on this: suppose I had two rackets, for example the m-fil 200 and the FXP Prestige. They both weigh almost exactly the same weight. The swingweight on the prestige is lower. In theory, would it take less work to generate racket head speed with the prestige?
     
    #11
  12. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    You could make that assumption, but you know what happens when you assume.

    Consider the Wilson Tour 90/nCode 90. It's got a swingweight around 325. Now go try it out compared to other rackets with very similar mass/swingweight. You'll notice a dramatic difference in manuverability - that racket is SLOW - much slower than even some 28 inch longbodies with swingweights approaching 340, 350.

    Again, swingweight and manuverability are not the same. Swingweight might be the best measure we have, but that doesn't mean it's any good.
     
    #12
  13. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    you didnt even really address what i said other than to agree with it and put up some picture which isnt how swingweight is actually measured. most people would agree that swingweight is measured in a specific machine designed for that purpose (amongst others)...following your logic, i could easily say that when someone picks up a racquet they dont just hold it there <static weight>..they SWING it in an effort to determine what the SWINGWEIGHT might be.

    i'm not saying people shouldnt demo..they would be foolish not to..what i am saying is that if you know what SWINGWEIGHT would suit you the best, you've made your selection process so much easier. using me as an example, my optimum swingweight range is 315-320. i could play with pretty much any static weight and balance within that range provided it wasnt balanced too head heavily. by doing this. i've really narrowed down the selection process and made finding a really good racquet for my game pretty easy
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2006
    #13
  14. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    I think I understand, ohplease. And I've always been a big proponent of demoing first. This just confirms that even more.
     
    #14
  15. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    yet another revealing post by you..ya know..i hope TW is reading this because they could save a whole heck of a lot of money and time by not bothering to measure swingweight, since you say that swingweight measurement is worse than no measurement at all..maybe the USRSA will read this as well, and the manufacturers...you could correct the entire tennis industry with your wisdom..this must be a conspiracy designed to steer people wrong..you're truly amazing how you know something that all these people and company's dont, and you're not hesitant to deem them ignorant either! nice
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2006
    #15
  16. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    from here: http://www.usrsa.com/store/learningcenter/lc_swingweight.html

    "How do you measure swingweight?

    ...The easiest method to measure swingweight is with a commercial machine such as those made by Babolat, Pacific, or Alpha...

    If you do not have such a device, you can use the pendulum method, as described in our on-line swingweight calculator."

    Pendulum method? What's that look like? Oh, wait - I already showed what the pendulum method looks like. Same numbers as the RDC machines - just as divorced from the realities of racket manuverability.
     
    #16
  17. KFwinds

    KFwinds Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,318
    Having owned and played with both of these racquets I can tell you that it takes a LOT less work to swing the Prestige (mid OR mp) than it does the M-Fil 200.
     
    #17
  18. Thor

    Thor Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    Valhala
    i have a question
    i played with the aeropro drive,which i felt swings really light.i read here on tennis warehouse that it has a 324 swingweight,is that possible???
    i mean,ive played with racquets that have lower swingweights which felt far easier to swing(and they were also 5-7 HL).this seems to be the case for all babolats though
     
    #18
  19. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,066
    SW is also quoted in the USRSA racquet finder. Are those guys so stupid as to measure and record this for every known model and put it in their database if it means nothing?
     
    #19
  20. vkartikv

    vkartikv Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,282
    Location:
    The Gym
    SW is just a reference index - it is measured on a machine on one frame. It is not the average SW of say 10 or 20 frames, all from the same batch and stock. So when you consider a company like wilson, their SW means little to me. Their quality control is so poor that I have three prostaff mids, all of the same mold and origin that differ in SW by 12 pts. Are 332 and 344 worlds apart? Ask your coach that question. BTW, static weight means very little to me too. Unless you know where the mass is concentrated and the composition of the frame, the static weight is meaningless.
     
    #20
  21. skraggle

    skraggle Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,436
    This is true, as my only issue with the M-Fil 200 (my favorite sticks hands down)is the high swingweight. I've owned both prestiges, and they definitely swing easier.

    But the payoffs are worth it. The plowthrough on the M-Fil makes up for the high SW and then some...
     
    #21
  22. SteveI

    SteveI Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,353
    DunlopKID...

    Is this a setup?? All you have to is mention the word "swingweight" and the fires begin to burn. Label your post "swingweight means nothing" and you might as well just burn down the TW boards. Anything to do with swingweight seems to get the juices flowing. BTW.. you might want to consider looking for the new coach. Anyone that thinks (with all due respect) "swingweight means nothing" seems not to know that much about tennis or coaching. It might be IMHO the most important spec when looking for a frame to suit your playing style and level. Most of the really sharp folks (players) on the board know their SW range. Just my 2 cents.

    Regards,
    Steve
     
    #22
  23. anirut

    anirut Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Krungthep (Bangkok), Siam (Thailand)
    Swingweight is VERY important, especially when YOUR strokes are already well grooved.

    If your strokes are still erratic, SW may not mean much.
     
    #23
  24. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    Well, actually I knew people would look at my thread if I titled it "Swingweight means nothing." So yeah, it was sort of a ploy.:p Also, my coach plays professionally and is probably better than 98% if not more of the people on this board.:p
     
    #24
  25. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    Anirut,

    My strokes are pretty much grooved. It seemed like he was almost saying the opposite of you.
     
    #25
  26. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    Let's say NBMJ is right - swingweight and manuverability are the same. Well, then - TW's manuverability ratings in their reviews should roughly follow the trend in swingweight, right? Let's take a narrow sample - rackets with swingweights around 326 +/- 3, regardless of weight:

    tw manuverability|weight|swingweight|racket
    63|12.4|326|nCode 90
    67|12.6|329|pro staff 6.0 85
    70|10.0|326|hyper hammer 5.3 mp
    73|12.2|326|nxg graphite mp
    73|11.4|327|warrior mp
    75|11.9|328|nxg graphite os
    76|11.8|325|ki5
    78|12.0|324|fxp rad tour
    78|11.1|327|shark mp
    80|11.3|324|aeropro drive
    80|11.2|325|lm radical mp
    80|11.6|327|o3 tour mp
    87|9.50|323|lm5

    Let's see, swingweight: +/- 3 units.

    Playtest derived manuverability ratings: +/- 12 units

    Do the numbers even trend in the same direction? No, correlation coefficient: -0.59

    If there's a manuverability difference detected on court - why isn't that reflected in the All Holy Swingweight rating, as well?

    Wait, it gets better - what if we just look at high swingweight rackets?

    71|11.7|340|pure drive roddick plus
    73|12.0|340|aeropro control
    74|9.90|337|bandit os
    74|12.2|335|Tfight 325
    76|11.3|335|aeropro drive plus
    78|10.7|335|liquidmetal 4
    78|12.1|335|Core1 No. 6

    All with SIGNIFICANTLY higher swingweights than the previous range, all tested to be more manuverable than two wilson sticks with lower singweights, with both heavy and light static masses.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2006
    #26
  27. anirut

    anirut Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Krungthep (Bangkok), Siam (Thailand)
    Well, I'm not saying your strokes aren't grooved. My bad for using second person terms here.

    I should've said "one's" instead of "your". Hope you know what I mean.

    I should think certain SW range is suitable for certain swing style. Otherwise I wouldn't have to SW-adjust my rackets to suite my long-time grooved strokes. Of course, racket weight and balance also come into play here.

    It's more or less a personal thing.
     
    #27
  28. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    Anirut,

    I know you weren't saying my strokes weren't grooved. Thanks for the input and I know what you are/were saying regarding the SW.
     
    #28
  29. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,472
    Great post, ohplease! :D

    Hard to argue with concrete numbers and statistical analysis.

    I think anyone (like myself) that has played with a large number and variety of different racquets knows that swingweight does not equal maneuverability in actual tennis play.
     
    #29
  30. SteveI

    SteveI Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,353
    Hi,

    BTW.. being a great player does not always equal being a good coach... it does in many cases but not in all cases. You would also be amazed just how little some good players know about equipement and the finer points of the selection of proper gear.
    Better for you to know all you can...

    regards,
    Steve
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2006
    #30
  31. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    SteveI,

    I can believe that. I do know that he happens to be a very good coach as well. How much he knows about equipment, I can honestly say I don't know.
     
    #31
  32. Amone

    Amone Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Location:
    Detroit Area, MI
    False. It's not just "Some Reference Number." It's a very specific physics principle, called 'Moment of Interia,' [in this case, around the 10 cm axis] and has a proper unit, which is kg/cm^2. It's measured most accurately by dissecting the frame into 68 1 centimeter long (and 1 half centimeter long) segments, and measuring each one in kilograms, then multiplying that weight by the distance in centimeters it is from the 10 cm point, squared. It's not random at all. It's a reference-- no, not reference: Measurement-- of the amount of torque required to spin it around an axis 10 centimeters up the handle. However, because it's a very specific number, with very specific effects on the racquet, we can make machines to measure the frame without dissecting it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2006
    #32
  33. rocket

    rocket Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,538
    So true, a super-light racquet can boast a high SW yet is easier to get into position for a hit than a heavier, lower SW stick. Otherwise, why bother making light racquets with a high SW if we believe that a high SW limits maneuvrability & tires the arm more easily?
     
    #33
  34. rocket

    rocket Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,538
    Not to confuse with a 12+oz racquet with a high SW. That beast needs a strong arm & good stamina to handle it.
     
    #34
  35. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    Hence the fact I need to switch!
     
    #35
  36. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    good explanation, and no rebuttals by our "experts" <not surprising>
     
    #36
  37. Amone

    Amone Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Location:
    Detroit Area, MI
    Amazing what a physics class in high school with teach with a little ingenuity.
     
    #37
  38. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    True, it's VERY specific. The number changes if you grip it further up the handle, at the throat, etc. It changes where you're doing the rotation.

    In fact, the number also changes when you do something like, oh I don't know, hit a forehand, or a backhand, or a serve, or a volley. There's NOT ONE stroke in tennis that involves rotating a racket longitudinally 10 cm up from the end of the handle, exclusively. Insert ANY OTHER motion at the elbow, the shoulder, the torso, the hip - ANYWHERE - and you'll perceive a difference in how much effort it takes to get a racket moving, even with frames of the same measured swingweight.

    That's also why you can measure swingweight by timing the pendulum motion by mounting a racket with a cross on sticks near the tip. That's just as useless with regard to real, live, actual tennis as the procedure you've just described - and that's why humans perceive racket manuverability in a way that is almost completely independent of swingweight.
     
    #38
  39. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    Funny, you don't seem to be explaining why TW playtesters come up with manuverability numbers so different from swingweights.

    That's not surprising, at all.
     
    #39
  40. skraggle

    skraggle Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,436
    I'll be interested to hear if you can do that. I tried to break away from the M-Fil 200 but just couldn't do it. Instead, I've totally ramped up my strength/fitness routine...
     
    #40
  41. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    i've previously addressed that..you'll excuse me if i dont wish to continue this with you.
     
    #41
  42. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    I've been wondering the same thing. I've tried many other rackets, but none feel as good as the m-fil. Skraggles, what other rackets did you try when you were "trying to break away?"
     
    #42
  43. eunjam

    eunjam Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    322
    name him please.

    i am very curious who your professional coach is.
     
    #43
  44. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    *******10 char
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2010
    #44
  45. Amone

    Amone Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Location:
    Detroit Area, MI
    Firstly, I wasn't arguing that perhaps it's irrelevant-- I highly doubt it is, because you could just as easily (okay, with difficulty) measure and synthesize a number for swingweight based on a tennis stroke-- the problem is, it's pointless. You'd need a seperate measurement for every person, a seperate measurement for every stroke, not only between forehand and backhand, but between my forehand and yours. Because I rotate the racquet differently for my stroke than you do for yours, and because my arm is probably shorter than yours (I have somewhat short arms) our 'forehandweights' would be so vastly different with the same frame, it's pointless to try to get it more tennis specific. On the other hand, based on your arm measurements and your swing style, the swingweight is a ratio. Are there other factors? Yes. There are. Things like (to a small extent) beam width, or (to a larger one) mass, or even something as random as arm strenght-- I, because I frequently lead my racquets up to 13+ oz, wouldn't have much problem with a racquet of different mass, but my friend who uses a Pure Drive couldn't handle my DNX10 for five minutes.

    So the short version of that is that you're right. It's not the only factor. But just because it's not the only factor, doesn't mean it's not one. Don't throw away information.
     
    #45
  46. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    You have some very impressive analysis, Amone, for just being 16!
     
    #46
  47. Amone

    Amone Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Location:
    Detroit Area, MI
    Yeah, well. You folks watch television. I do physics equations. It's a depressing existance. But I like it.
     
    #47
  48. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    I actually don't watch that much tv. On the other hand, you're right, I don't sit around doing physics equations!
     
    #48
  49. Rafa's best friend

    Rafa's best friend Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,342
    Swingweight determines everything and static weight means nothing. Physics 101
     
    #49
  50. Zuras

    Zuras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    515
    Swing weight is poor indicator of a racquets manueverability versus power.

    Generally, a "head heavy" racquet will result in more powerful strokes but it will not be as easy to direct shots/spins. "Head heaviness" directly correlates to swing weight.
     
    #50

Share This Page