Swingweight !

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by danielno, Mar 3, 2006.

  1. danielno

    danielno New User

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    14
    I still cant understand swingweight clearly....
    whats the basic difference between a 330SW frame and a 310SW??? Which one should be better?
    thanks!!
     
    #1
  2. Midlife crisis

    Midlife crisis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,577
    There is no "better" because that depends on you.

    The 310 swingweight frame will be easier to swing than the 330 swingweight frame. It's just a number that represents how apparently heavy a racquet feels when being swung, with higher numbers representing a racquet that takes more effort to swing.
     
    #2
  3. danielno

    danielno New User

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    14
    But which one gives more weight to the ball?

    And if theres no difference, whats the point of making frames with high SW?
     
    #3
  4. ssuHeartsRivald

    ssuHeartsRivald Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    295
    heavier racquet produce less power and take more effort to you to swing it.
    And that would fix, if your aim is acc.
     
    #4
  5. Gaines Hillix

    Gaines Hillix Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,240
    Swingweight is a measure of an object's resistance to change in its rotation. In the case of a tennis racquet, it's the amount of torque that must be applied to the handle of the racquet to get it to swing. A racquet with a high swingweight is going to be more difficult to swing. One with a low swingweight will be easier to swing. In general, a frame with a high swingweight is going to plow through the ball more easily and is going to generate a bit more power, but you can't look at this element of racquet construction by itself. Some light weight racquets have relatively high swing weights and they aren't going to stand up to pace as well as a heavier racquet with the same swingweight. Racquet balance also has an effect on swingweight. As a general rule, for a given racquet weight, a head-heavy racquet will have a larger swingweight than a head-light racquet of the same length and weight. A longer racquet of the same weight will generally have a higher swingweight. To answer your specific question, a frame with a 330 SW is going to be harder to swing than one with a 310 SW. The one with the lower SW is going to be more maneuverable. However, if the weight and length of the racquets is the same, the one with a 330 SW will be a little more powerful and handle a heavy ball a little better.
     
    #5
  6. rocket

    rocket Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,538
    This summary should be a sticky!!! Very concised! :cool:
     
    #6
  7. Kevo

    Kevo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,157
    It depends a lot on static weight as well. If the two frames are somewhat close in static weight then the 310 will be easier to play with. If the 330 happens to be a hammer type frame with most of it's weight towards the head of the frame, then it might actually be the easier of the two to play with. You probably wouldn't want to play with it though since it will most likely be hard on your wrist and arm.

    What you need is to find your range for both static weight and swing weight. So if you like the feel of an 11oz. frame, then try a few frames that are about that weight and see which one you can swing well for a couple of sets of tennis. Then you can look at that frames swing weight, and use the two weights to find some other suitable frames for demo. In the end you'll need to find something that feels right to you. These numbers are totally up to personal preference.
     
    #7
  8. danielno

    danielno New User

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    14

    thanks man!
     
    #8
  9. danielno

    danielno New User

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    14

    thanks man!
     
    #9
  10. J D

    J D Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    182
    Sorry, but there some things in here that are slightly inaccurate that could lead to some misconceptions
    Correct.

    Not to get it to swing, just to get it to rotate.

    Not always true. A 12 ounce frame with a slightly lower swing weight will still take more effort to swing than a 10 ounce frame with a slightly higher swing weight.

    Once again, not necessarily true. A 12 ounce frame with a 310 swingweight will take as much effort to swing as a 10 ounce frame with a 330 swing weight. The 330 SW will require more effort from the wrist to generate racquet head speed while the 12 ounce frame will take more effort from the shoulder.

    Not necessarily true. Regardless of how it is defined by an equation, in real life, maneuverability is a combination of swingweight and weight.
     
    #10
  11. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    Gaines gave a very simple and accurate explanation of swingweight I feel. It's all you really need to know

    The higher the swingweight, the harder it is to swing. The lower the swingweight, the easier it is to swing...that's the very purpose of the swingweight measurement..end

    Find out the most swingweight you can swing fast for as long as your sessions last when you are playing someone at least as good as you are, and buying a new racquet and using it to the best of your ability becomes much easier. Dont buy anything with more swingweight than you can realistically swing fast as it's much easier to add weight than take it away
     
    #11
  12. J D

    J D Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    182
    NBM, you are so on the money most of time. I do not understand why you keep trying to oversimplify a very complex technical issue. I could bring out a bunch of physics formulas but I won't at this point. If you keep insisting I'm wrong, though, I will have to.

    In simple language, swingweight measures the amount of torque needed to rotate a frame around in a CIRCLE from its HANDLE (and when does this happen in tennis other than at wrist pronation on the serve?). Thus, swingweight measures the amount of force required by the WRIST to accelerate the head. It does NOT measure the amount of force (energy) needed to swing the whole frame from the shoulder. So far, there is no measurement for this.

    How hard a frame is to swing is a combination of its weight and swingweight. Swingweight alone isn't enough of an indicator because the weight in the handle isn't measured since the center of the handle is the point of rotation while measuring swingweight. However, the shoulder has to swing that extra weight in the handle (which is generally where all of the extra 2 ounces between a 10 ounce and 12 ounce frame is located). This is why a 12 ounce frame with a lighter swing weight can be harder to swing than a 10 ounce frame with a heavier swingweight.

    Why am I making a big deal out of this? First, because I don't want anyone misled. Second, because people with shoulder problems should know that frame weight is just as important as (and sometimes more important than) swingweight in determining how much stress a frame will place on the shoulder joint.
     
    #12
  13. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    I dont think I am over simplifying JD, I think I am keeping things appropriately simple. For the purpose of playing tennis, I dont think this has to be any more complex than what Gaines has said. I almost never suggest hammer weighted frames, so as long as people avoid those and know how much swingweight they can handle, I think they're good to go.
     
    #13
  14. Keifers

    Keifers Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,119
    While I appreciate and admire Gaines' masterful summary description of swingweight, I think J D is adding an important level of detail here, which, as he says, should be considered by players concerned about shoulder injuries -- and, imo, even those concerned about the effects of playing a long match with a heavy racquet.

    All tennis swings involve 2 elements: a movement of the racquet as a whole and a rotation of the racquet about the handle. Swingweight is a measure of the how hard it is to perform the second element only. (More accurately, sw is the rotational inertia of the racquet about the racquet handle.)

    The effort required to wield a racquet effectively -- during one stroke or in the course of a match -- is indicated by a combination of its weight and swingweight. Similarly, the maneuverability of a racquet is a function of its weight and its swingweight.
     
    #14
  15. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    I think the topic of this thread is what is swingweight..Midlife told the guy all he needed to know and Gaines backed it up with a bit more info...plenty good enough..now people are surely confused once again, as this thread is now convuluted IMO..and around and around we go
    Swingweight already considers static weight. All static weight tells you is how hard the racquet is to pick up ..not very useful unto itself,,swingweight is however, since it incorporates a number of elements including static weight
    Typically I dont even know how much my frames weigh. I could care less. It's about how they swing and I've got a good feel for what the swingweight is and what my target swngweight might be...could guess at the static weight i suppose. Also companies who are good at tweaking their layups can really change how a racquet swings, and often it belies whatever the static weight and balance is.
    Somehow I think we're about to get yet another physics lesson....
     
    #15
  16. Midlife crisis

    Midlife crisis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,577
    Greg Raven described how swingweight is measured. He said, paraphrasing, that the handle is gripped and swung through a radius of about 10 cm. I don't recall exactly (and can't find that post right now) whether or not the head of the racquet moves in a greater arc than the handle, but the impression I got was that both the handle and the head move through the same arc.

    So, in referring to what J D wrote about this only happening on the serve, that is not totally correct either unless you are just looking at the part from the wrist upward - there is a large translational movement in getting the racquet handle from the mid-back up to overhead, and there is a large angular movement getting the handle from behind the body to in front of the body.

    And, in referring to the simplified examples that I started, that's also not technically correct because there is again a large translational component in any groundstroke like swing, and because on certain shots like volleys, there can be little, no, or negative rotation of the head in relation to the handle.

    I still think that the simplified explanation is going to be the most understandable and applicable to most tennis players, as long as it's also said that swingweight should be used in conjunction with static weight.
     
    #16
  17. Keifers

    Keifers Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,119
    In response to NBM's post #13, I don't understand what is so confusing about having two levels of complexity. Gaines' summary is a very good one -- for people who only want a cursory level of understanding. For those who want (or need) to know more (including those concerned about arm/shoulder safety), saying "How hard a frame is to swing is a combination of its weight and swingweight" is surely not giving too much information, is it?
     
    #17
  18. Keifers

    Keifers Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,119
    On a Babolat RDC, swingweight is measured with the racquet rotating about a point 10cm from the bottom of the butt cap. That point is fixed; it does not move. So sw really is a measure of rotational inertia only -- no translational component.

    Very much agree.
     
    #18
  19. J D

    J D Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    182
    NBM, perhaps you should get a science lesson if you are going to keep declaring that the earth is half-flat. Enough people on this board that understand the physics involved keep telling you (and others) what swingweight does and doesn't measure, yet you keep insisting otherwise. If people are confused, they should be, because it is more complicated than swingweight. However, it is not so complicated that most can't understand it with a little effort, including yourself. I wish you would take the time to read and think about what people like Keifers and myself are saying.

    Swingweight does not consider the entire static weight of the racquet proportionally to the effort of a full tennis swing, so weight must also be factored in. Unfortunately, there is not a formula that will work for everyone since physiology and playing styles differ. However, once again, weight is just as important as swing weight to how a frame swings and plays.

    Midlife, I'm guessing you have never seen an RDC. When measuring swingweight, the frame is not swung, it is rotated in such a fashion that it would go in a complete 360 degree circle around a point 10 cm above the bottom of the handle. Once again, the only thing that ever happens consistently on the tennis court that even remotely resembles this motion is the point where the arm stops moving forward and the wrist pronates during the service motion. In the case of the serve, the frame is actually rotating around wrist, which is just about even with the bottom of the frame. Still, it's about the only motion at all similar to the SW measurement that a player makes with his frame on the court except for maybe a reflex shot using just the wrist.

    So, in reality, swingweight is not an accurate measure of anything other than the end motion of the serve. Still, it does give a better general indication as to weight distribution than just balance alone and so is still useful. It's just not the complete picture of the effort to swing a frame or anything close (although it is a pretty good indicator for how "whippy" a frame is).

    Guys, I understand the desire for meaningful numbers and simplicity. You just are not going to find these with swingweight, though. To say otherwise is incorrect and misleading.
     
    #19
  20. J D

    J D Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    182
    Keifers, I see you were writing some of the same things I was at the same time.

    Excellent point.
     
    #20
  21. Keifers

    Keifers Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,119
    Yes, I think we're on the same track, J D. I'm not sure, though, that I can agree with you when you say, "swingweight is not an accurate measure of anything other than the end motion of the serve."

    In my mind, there are many occasions when the racquet is rotated about the wrist (almost always in conjunction with moving the racquet translationally). One example would be the wrist snap motion when we hit many forehands and backhands, especially when trying to impart topspin to the ball using some of the modern grips. Another example would be the rotation we do to get the racquet into position to meet an incoming volley. Another would be slapping at a shot that's almost out of reach. And a fourth would be the stab volleys you mentioned.

    Swingweight is a spec I always look at because I want to get an idea of how easy it will be to do the above things. And I look at static weight. And I look at balance. They're all important, imo, and I know the range that I prefer for each.
     
    #21
  22. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    danielo allow me to see if i can answer your question. the heavier racquet would give you more weighty shots provided you can swing the racquet fast enough to generate power.
    if you would swing the 330sw frame as fast as you swing the 310sw frame you would generate a heavier ball with the 330. There are some other considerations of course like stiffness, and I'm not going to try and cover every eventuality.
     
    #22
  23. Midlife crisis

    Midlife crisis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,577
    I have never seen this machine but as unclear as my explanation was, my understanding is correct. The racquet is swung through an arc in a fixed manner so that the head does not rotate a greater angular amount than the handle, and the machine measures this, either by measuring how much power is required to perform the rotation in a certain time, or by timing how long a certain amount of power takes to rotate the racquet through a fixed angular range.

    I was swinging a racquet earlier and realized that swingweight has very little to do with the top portion of the serve. Swingweight at that point is immaterial because there is no muscular effort going into rotating the racquet. The rotation is initiated during the translational acceleration of the racquet upwards from its lowest point behind the back. The elbow leads the hand, and the racquet is accelerated upwards handle first. At the top of the swing, the handle is constrained by being held with the hand, and the ligaments and muscles that were under tension during the upstroke help to further initiate the rotational compoent. However, it is really the the translational momentum of the racquet head creates the rotation due to the handle being constrained by being held. I think there's very little possibility someone can add rotational momentum to the racquet at this point because muscle fibers just contract that fast and especially so in such a biomechanically and geometrically poor position as the wrist and forearm are in at that time. Swingweight will only affect how hard it is to maintain a grip on the racquet at the top of the swing and how difficult it is to slow down the racquet head after the impact.
     
    #23
  24. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    You guys want to make this really simple and keep phsyics and all that jazz out of it? Me too. So go play an actual tennis match for two hours with a lightweight and head-heavy racket with a swingweight of say, 325. Then go play for a couple of hours with a 12+ plus headlight stick with the same swingweight. You'll find out pretty quick that it ain't "all about swingweight". When my grandmother has a a higher "swingweight ceiling" than Roger Federer, there is something wrong here.

    Wait, you say we're not talking about Hammer-style rackets when we say "it's all about swingweight"? We aren't talking about the O3 Pink? We aren't talking about the O3 Silver? Well, why not?... These head-heavy rackets are hardly isolated exceptions that I'm mentioning just to "bust" somebody. They are popular rackets, and of the 220 or so rackets sold by TW at the moment, about 1/3 of them are head-heavy.

    In light of this, I think it's just plain reckless for anyone to keep making statements like it's "all about swingweight" and "the swingweight is all you really need to know". I think you are right on the money about many other matters, NBMJ. But I think you need to rexamine your stubborn insistence on making blanket statements on swingweight that range from misleading to obviously false.
     
    #24
  25. EliteNinja

    EliteNinja Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    610
    When a person "swings" a racquet, there are two components of inertia.

    1) Rotational inertia. The racquet rotating around an axis (head swinging around the handle)

    2) Linear inertia. The WHOLE racquet moving forward.

    Swingweight is the SECOND MOMENT OF INERTIA and is directly related to rotational inertia AND ROTATIONAL INERTIA ONLY.

    Static weight contributes to the momentum of the whole system moving forward not counting rotation.

    If you know physics, you will understand.
    If you don't, it's hard to explain with my sucky explanation skills.
     
    #25
  26. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    This thread is funny.....some experts come in to school us on swingweight and cant even agree on what what it measures and how it is measured....:O
    This thread was good thru # 6 or so and then turned into whack I think. I think now you guys need to speak in terms of 'serve swingweight', 'rally swingweight', and 'volley swingweight'..that will really help simplify matters. ;O
     
    #26
  27. Keifers

    Keifers Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,119
    EliteNinja,

    So "head swinging around the handle"... Does that mean that if weight, say 2 oz., is added to the handle, right at the axis of rotation (the fixed point about which the rotation/swing happens), swingweight will not increase?

    Thanks.
     
    #27
  28. EliteNinja

    EliteNinja Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    610
    Yes.
     
    #28
  29. tennisplayer

    tennisplayer Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    374
    Some very good points have been made in this thread. I have a real life example that you all might find very interesting.

    I have used two fairly heavy racquets in the past - a Prince Precision Equipe Standard MP, and a Yonex RD Power 10 Long MP.

    The PE's specs are: weight 12.6 oz, SW 335, 10 points HL, very stiff

    The RD 10's specs are: weight 12.7 oz, SW 350+, 4 points HL, very stiff

    The PE was sweet on volleys, was very comfortable, had reasonable power, would plough through the ball, and was very maneuverable. Control was excellent.

    The RD 10 was a bit of a behemoth, took a bit more effort than the PE to maneuver so volleying was harder. It was very comfortable, and would also plough through the ball. It was much more powerful than the PE - especially on serves. Control was poorer than the PE, though. Lugging the RD-10 around was more of an effort, and if I weren't pumping iron I wouldn't have been able to handle it.

    This, I feel, is a perfect example that illustrates the role played by the different racquet parameters.

    I believe the static mass contributed to overall comfort, even though both racquets were on the stiff side. The PE, being very head light, was easier to handle and maneuver, and had greater control than the RD-10. The HL balance also contributed to a feeling of comfort and did not tire the arm. The RD-10, with its higher SW, had a lot more power.

    I have tried lighter racquets (less than 11 oz) with high SW, and yes they did have power, but to me it seemed they were lacking in comfort (I developed arm problems) and control - but a more skilled, stronger person than me might have felt differently. Ironically, after so many years of playing, I can sympathize with the point of view that it takes greater skill and fitness to use a light, stiff, head heavy racquet compared with what it takes to use your garden variety player's racquet!

    I can feel NBM is going to flame me now, but that's okay, I still respect him for his contributions! :)
     
    #29
  30. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    <snip>
    Author-Allen St. John
    One-of-the-best articles we have come across explaining the concept of "swing weight".

    When can an 11-ounce racquet feel lighter than a 10-ounce racquet? When you swing it.

    Welcome to the world of "swing weight," one of the least understood parameters of racquet performance. Swing weight refers to how heavy or light the racquet feels when it's in motion. "It's a measure of a frame's maneuverability," says David Bone, executive director of the U.S. Racquet Stringers Association. "And it's the number one thing that people feel when they're swinging a racquet."

    Swing weight is the combination of the racquet's length, stationary weight, and balance point. Together, these factors determine if a racquet feels light or heavy when it's in motion. High stationary weight, head-heavy balance, and a length longer than 27 inches all increase swing weight.

    The most accurate measure of swing weight is determined by a machine like the Babolat Racquet Diagnostic Center (RDC) (we use a Babolat RDC Machine). After clamping the butt of the racquet handle to vise, you push the frame and let it swing, pendulum-style. In seconds, the machine spits out a number-expressed in kilograms times centimeters squared-that indicates how much energy it took to move the frame through the arc. Based on scale of 000 to 999, most racquets fall between 280 (more maneuverable) and 380 (less maneuverable).

    For example, the 27-inch-long, three-quarter-inch head-light Volkl Quantum 10 Tour tips the scales at 11.5 ounces but has significantly lower swing weight, 313, than the 10-ounce Wilson Hyper Hammer 5.9 oversize, which is a half inch longer, and almost an inch head heavy, and has a swing weight of 338.

    You may be thinking, How can I tell a racquet's swing weight when it's not listed on the frame? Many pro and specialty ships have the RDC machine and can provide your racquet's swing weight. Also, beginning this month, TENNIS will include the swing weight of every racquet it reviews.

    According to Bone, you should use a racquet that has the heaviest swing weight you can handle without it feeling unwieldy. "In almost every way, a racquet with a high swing weight is better," he says. "It's more powerful, transmits less shock, and twists less on impact."

    Finding an optimum swing weight is not only about how strong you are, but also about what style you play. Someone looking for more power from the baseline and on the serve should try a racquet with a substantial swing weight; those seeking easier maneuverability for net play should opt for a frame with a lighter swing weight.
    <end snip>
     
    #30
  31. Keifers

    Keifers Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,119
    Many thanks. Good to get that clarified.

    So an 11 oz. racquet with a measured sw of 315 can have 2 ozs. of lead tape added to the handle at a point 10 cm from the bottom of the handle -- and its sw will still measure 315. Similarly, instead of 2 ozs., you could add 16 ozs. at that same spot, and you would end up with a 27 oz. racquet with a measured sw of 315. (Try swinging that for 3 sets!)

    I'm not trying to be facetious here -- I'm pointing out that that is the definition of swingweight.


    To the Original Poster, danielno, you might be interested in taking a look at a web site by the name of r a c q u e t r e s e a r c h . c o m. There's a ton of very useful information there about racquet parameters and design.
     
    #31
  32. EliteNinja

    EliteNinja Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    610
    There's only one value called swingweight for a single racquet. Swingweight is just another word for the Second Moment of Inertia and the units that are given at the TW site is in kgxcm^2.

    I believe that it is useful to describe qualitatively what the swingweight feels like for different strokes like for volleying, groundstrokes, serving etc. But you can't really put a number to volley swingweight, serve swingweight, etc. because there's no definition to those physically in an actual number with units.
     
    #32
  33. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    Yes, that's right. You could add an infinite amount of mass on a single axis of rotation and the SW would not be increased at all about that single particular axis.

    Now of course for a tennis racquet, if you were to add mass on the axis of rotation about the handle, you would still feel an increase in mass. That's because generally, multiple axes come into play when swinging a racquet -- i.e. A.O.R. about the :legs, hip, shoulder, elbow, etc. You wouldn't feel the increase in mass about the axis along the handle where the weight was added, but you would feel it about the other axes.

    Good day now. 8)
     
    #33
  34. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    I was joking
     
    #34
  35. Keifers

    Keifers Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,119
    I think that was sarcasm, wasn't it?
     
    #35
  36. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    whatever you say......nit pick away, but this just doesn't look good on you
     
    #36
  37. EliteNinja

    EliteNinja Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    610
    I knew he was joking.
    I ALSO KNEW people would miss the sarcasm/tone.
     
    #37
  38. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    "When can an 11-ounce racquet feel lighter than a 10-ounce racquet? When you swing it."

    And when does an 11 ounce racket feel HEAVIER than a 10 ounce racket? When you stop swinging it in the pro shop and and actually go play tennis with it for a few sets.

    "Also, beginning this month, TENNIS will include the swing weight of every racquet it reviews."

    If it was such an important spec, they probably would have been listing it from the start...

    "In almost every way, a racquet with a high swing weight is better," he says. "It's more powerful, transmits less shock, and twists less on impact."

    Phew. For a second there, I was worried that my Hammer might not be such a great racket. Turns out its relatively high swingweight means it's fine...

    "Welcome to the world of "swing weight," one of the least understood parameters of racquet performance".

    You can say that again. if an otherwise intelligent 5.5 teaching pro struggles with it, we can conclude that trying to determine its relative importance or lack thereof in real world situations can be tricky for some folks.
     
    #38
  39. Keifers

    Keifers Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,119
    So you agree it was sarcasm. That's good.
     
    #39
  40. rocket

    rocket Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,538
    I think the original poster asked which delivers more power, a low or high swingweight. It has been determined that all other things being equal, a higher swingweight is more powerful, but is probably more taxing on the body after a while. At the end of the day, one has to demo the racquet to find out if that racquet is right for the player, as specs are just... well, specs. Playing with the racquet can tell a whole different story, the Wilson Tour 90 is a fine example of that (sw 326, but so hard to get around the ball for many). :D
     
    #40
  41. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    I think you are very annoying
     
    #41
  42. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    So to summarize, I take a minute to try and help confused people by pasting an article regarded as one of the best about swingweight which was creeated by an authority, and which pretty precisley matches what I have been sayng, which tells you what you need to know, and I get to endure crap like this from one of the very people i am trying to help....this is very revealing of the true nature of this person
     
    #42
  43. oldguysrule

    oldguysrule Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Messages:
    706
    Location:
    Texas
    There were a couple of wrong assumptions posted in response to the article. When the article states that a higher SW will be "more powerful, transmit less shock, and twist less", it is assuming you are comparing to another racquet with the same static weight. An 11oz racquet with a SW of 325 will have those advantages over an 11oz racquet with a SW of 305. However, a 10oz racquet with SW of 325 will not necessarily be better than a 12 oz racquet with a SW of 305.

    In order to compare different specs, you have to keep the other specs constant.

    Also, when various posters suggest that SW is a key element for comparison, they are assuming that the racquets you are comparing are similar in terms of other key specs.

    SW can be as complicated or as simple as you want it to be. For me, it is simple. How heavy does my racquet feel when I am playing my usual level of competition? If a light racquet feels the same as a heavier racquet, I will prefer the heavier racquet because it will be more powerful, transmit less shock, and be more stable. That seems pretty simple to me and I don't even have to know the actual weight and SW.
     
    #43
  44. Kevo

    Kevo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,157
    Wow, that article was crap. According to Allen St. John I should immediately go get rid of my RDX and get a Hammer. There isn't a Hammer made I couldn't swing all day long, and that's the only way I'd ever be able to handle a 342 swingweight. The Hyper Hammer 6.3 has a 342 at only 9.9 ounces. The PK Ki 5 PSE has a 345 swingweight at 12.9 ounces. The Hammer is 8 pts head heavy and the PK is 9 pts. headlight. I'm quite certain after trying out my coach's hammer (he is about 60 I think and has some back troubles so he likes a light frame) that I could swing it all day long without tiring. I took a second look at it after I picked it up to make sure it was actually a racquet. It felt like a feather. I doubt I could swing the PK for 3 sets without experiencing some fatigue. I played 4 hours Saturday with my RDX 500 which is 12oz. and 8pts headlight and I was a bit tired. I had to concentrate to keep the swing going properly in the last hour.
     
    #44
  45. oldguysrule

    oldguysrule Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Messages:
    706
    Location:
    Texas
    The article in no way suggested that a Hammer would be better than an RDX. You have to keep things in context. I will admit, the article did not mention the static weight, but my guess is that the authours assumed the audience would have a modicum of tennis knowledge and realize that the assumption is you are comparing racquets of a similar static weight.

    The concepts in the article are completely valid if you read in the logical assumptions. (or maybe not so logical, it seems)

    If you are playing 3.5 level and above, you do not want to be playing with a heady heavy racquet. Please, in all other discussions of the relative attributes of static weight and SW, can we leave out the discussions of hammer style racquets. My elbow is hurting just thinking about it.
     
    #45
  46. J D

    J D Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    182
    The fact that you could say this shows you have no grasp on the basics of physics or swingweight. Just because swingweight is "the number one thing that people feel when they're swinging a racquet" doesn't mean that it is the most important aspect of how a frame behaves when swung. Even if it is the most significant factor of how a frame plays, it is only one of at least four (depending on how detailed you really want to get about a swing and energy transfer, etc...). It is still less than 50% of an accurate representation of the effort required to swing a frame for comparison purposes.

    So, you're going to claim that any two frames of the same swingweight will swing exacltly the same? So, the DNX 10 swings exactly like the Boris Becker since there are just a couple of points (insignificant) difference in their swing weight? Or an n-Six One 95 swings just like an n code N4? If not, then you are yourself saying that there are other important factors besides swingweight.

    Hopefully, from these two examples alone, most people will see just how far off base your arguements are.
     
    #46
  47. TennisAsAlways

    TennisAsAlways Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,174
    In some instances -- like what I am witnessing going on in this thread -- I don't even bother elaborating swing weight. Sometimes trying to explain things to others is like talking to a wall. Just an FYI. ;)


    Good day now. 8)
     
    #47
  48. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    -I suggest you go out and try and swing a 342 swingweight hammer all day long and then come back after actually having done this and give us an honest report rather than declare peoples' opinions crap first..after you ice down and take a few IB's of course.
    -I suggest that your 60yo coach may not have a 342 SW Hammer..he may have something lke a 290-295 sw hammer
    -the diff of 50 sw points is enormous, but you seem to think all hammer frames are the same
     
    #48
  49. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    Oldguys I think the article does mention static weight once when it mentions it as a component of swingweight...it's figured into the equaton. and that's one of the beauties of swingweight...that you dont have to speak of static weight provided you take hammer stuff out of the equation, and i never recommend those anyway
     
    #49
  50. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    Now you are really trying to state things which I never said....all i said is that frames of equal swingweight will take the same amount of energy to swing <end>
    of course they arent going to feel alike when you swing them...i never said that...racquets all feel and swing differently based upon all kinds of dynamics..i thought we were discussing swingweight as a means to choosing the right racquet..silly me
    The article states swingweight is the most important, the person publishing thearticle states it is the most impt element, and i agree.
    I've used swingweight as the guide to get people into the right gear for years and it has worked out really well and also helped people solve injury problems along with getting them to use better tecnique..swingweight is what people notice first and the most ...as people with knowledge agree.
    You experts are just confusing the matter and cant even agree on what swingweight actually measures and how it is measured....to me, that disqualifies much of what you say...and then you try and disprove people by taking what they say out of context or twisting words about, and quite typically next to come are the insults..so insult away..wouldnt be surprising
     
    #50

Share This Page