Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by BERDI4, Sep 13, 2006.
Unstrung, I guess it's between 11 and 8 pts light. Or do they use more head heavy?
many pros actually use head heavy frame. i believe i read in smash magazine that agassi and roddick use ever so slightly head heavy frame, i think it was something like a point or 2 max but im not 100% sure. but ya, it would definitely make sense that most of the tour would use racquets with a fairly head light balance-very head light balance and in between
The average balance for top-100 ATP pros is about 12.6", or about 7 pts HL for a 27-inch long frame. Pros with heavier racquets use slightly more HL balance. If you use the equation R = 44.6/sqrt(M), with R = balance in inches, M = weight in ounces, then about 80% of the pros have balances that fall within +/- 2 pts of the curve for that equation. And about 95% fall within +/- 4 pts of the curve. Also, if you plot career high ranking versus the number of pts above the curve, there is a trend where the longer the balance, the better the ranking.
When you say "longer balance", do you mean more towards even like 12.8 in to 13 in? Just looking for clarification, thank you.
I am intrigued by your last statement travlerajm. Because the balance is longer also when the raquet is lighter as you can see when you plot the points balance vs. weight and where you can draw regression lines as you state with the equation R = 44.6/sqrt(M). I would intuitivily think that better players use somewhat heavier frames. So their balance point would from that perspective alone be expected to be shorter. It would be interesting to see whether - given the weight they use - the balance point for better players is longer than average for their weight group of shorter. That would also compensate for different setup styles like heavy/Sampras- and light/Nadal like.
They are just putting more lead in the head in order to gain more force on the serve, better serve = more points won with less effort and at more important time. Further more this setup IMO increase serve return stability and volley stability.
The equation R = 44.6/sqrt(M) is a regression line of constant MR^2 that fits the data nicely when you plot R vs M. In other words, this curve gives you a way to compare balance points that are normalized for static weight.
I didn't have swingweight data, but it can be shown that MR^2 roughly correlates with swingweight. So the data are telling us that pros with higher swingweight tend to have better rankings.
The correlation still exists when I divide the players into weight group categories like you suggest. Regardless of weight category, the players with longer (less HL) balance points have better rankings.
Also, I found no significant correlation between static weight and ranking.
For more detailed info on this stat, see this:
A little off topic, but what is the heaviest and lightest frame used by a pro?
Why have you set up your racquet at 12 pts HL for 374gm?
Isn't that a 'shorter' balance than the equation suggests.
I have set up my two racquets incrementaly until I have got to 360SW on each.
One is a
redondo at 367gm and 360SW 12.6 balance.
N6.1.95 at 355gm and 360 SW 12.6balance.
The problem is that if I try to get them to the equtions balance, I have to remove lead from the hoop (reduces SW, and feel from the larger sweetspot) or add lots of lead to the handle, which is the obvious choice.
So Which is more important.....
Total weight really high with perfect balance, or
lower weight with 'longer than ideal balance?
PS aclimatisation to new customised frames is less than I thought. Advantages aren't so immediately apparent to me, but they sort of creap up on you as you get the feel for the new setup. Thanks, I am enjoying the input you are having on my sport from accross the globe.
I can't answer this one definitively. But my latest experiment matching the Safin setup resulted in a racquet with performance that (after some fine-tuning) far surpasses any of my previous setups.
The final specs: 365sw, 12.45oz., 12.68" balance. These specs are IMO worth trying to duplicate.
travlerajm, I'm confused. You wrote in your previous posts (I think) that a majority of pro players use a head heavy balance? Which setup do you think is the most beneficial for a hard hitting all-court type? (Please explain in layman's terms)
I did not say that most pros use a HH balance. I said that pros use balances that are more HH than typical stock racquets. In other words, less HL, but still HL.
By far the best setup I have found is roughly the same setup used by many top pros.
Again, this has a weight of 12.45 oz, balance of 12.68" and SW of 365.
I misunderstood, thanks for the clarification! That balance of 12.68 means it's roughly 12 pts headlight? How did you calculate your SW and balance?
My balance is 8.5 pts HL (equivalent to 6.5 pts HL on a standard 27" frame).
SW is estimated by starting with the initial stock swingweight spec, than carefully adding the SW contribution of each gram added. For each gram (each square inch of lead), the added swingweight is m*(r - 10)^2., where m is the weight of the mass in kg (0.001) and r is the center of mass of that gram in cm from butt along the longitudinal axis.
The balance is simply measured by balancing with a yardstick.
13.5 for a 27" racquet?
The center of mass of each added gram, measured separately for each gram of lead (not the center of mass of the frame).
most pros are using close to even balance or slightly head heavy...but not HL...
This is false. With the exception of Moya, all top-100 pros use HL frames.
Separate names with a comma.