Which Racquet Weight?

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by eric, Jan 11, 2005.

  1. eric

    eric New User

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    65
    Would you use a heavy, +12 oz stick that prevents habits (e.g. whippy strokes for spin), but in the long-term could benefit your technique, possibly with added strength? Or a mid-weight racquet that is more all round playable currently...and switch to a heavier racquet when it is 100% suitable?

    Thanks in advance for the hopefully interesting discussion,

    Eric
     
    #1
  2. rich s

    rich s Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,539
    Location:
    ATL
    I would use the heaviest racquet I can play a 3 set match with without fatiguing my arm.
     
    #2
  3. devilish_duke

    devilish_duke Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    468
    I've been able to whip heavy 12+ oz racquets around so that's not much of a question for me, but my personal preference is to go for something in the long run. I believe in proper technique rather than learning, un-learning, and then re-learning.
     
    #3
  4. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    Well, I did learn to play using a wood racquet that was well over 12 ounces and came away with pretty good technique. Of course, if you dont have any alternatives you just accept it and play.

    When people say they need a light racquet because their arm gets too tired I think there are two flaws in their logic. Firstly, with a heavier racquet you dont need to swing as hard to generate pace as you do with a light one. I find the heavier frames dont require me to whip the hell out of them to get speed on my shots. So, I get the same results with less effort and it keeps my technique solid which, against good players, is what you need to fall back on. Secondly, if you only use a light frame then you'll never build up the strength for a heavier one.

    That is, of course, only my opinion and Id be curious to know what others think.
     
    #4
  5. el_mago

    el_mago Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    401
    If I was able to control it and was suited to it. I would stick with the mid-weight until I was 100% suited to the heavier one. I'm using a fairly light weighing stick right now, the Prince NXG OS.
     
    #5
  6. thomas martinez

    thomas martinez Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,135
    Location:
    New York
    You know, you can develop whippy strokes with a heavy frame as well. It's all of course down to technique. I've long used heavy frames, and especially on my forehand, even though it is with a semi-western grip, I whip it about and get big topspin off of it. In the end in this case, it's down to technique than anything else. at a tennis centre I work at, our head pro doesn't care about weight of a frame, but more so head size, he feels the smaller mid heads allow a beginner to develop better hand eye coordination. He's had several players start off with frames weighing only about 270 grammes strung, yet their technique because he instilled it in them, is fine, no worries.
     
    #6
  7. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,331
    Thomas, your frames are heavy after customization or just lead sleds?
     
    #7
  8. CocoTheMonkey

    CocoTheMonkey New User

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    72
    But the thing is that when you try heavier racquets, swings come effortless.
    I started with i.Radical OS, then PureDrive Std, and now nSix-One 95. And I think that my swing now is faster, and I have more power.
     
    #8
  9. iloveradical

    iloveradical New User

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    34
    Don't forget the swing weight!!! IMO, static weight doesn't have much meaning without simultaneously considering swing weight together. In terms of weight, weak 3.0 players can handle 6.0 95 (346g /SW 318g) without big difficulty, but they are much more likely to have difficulty with nSix-One (346g/SW 330g).
     
    #9
  10. mela

    mela New User

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    for Iloveradical

    I agree with Iloveradical.
    My pro staff is 310gr undustrung, balance 30,5 undustrung and Swingweight 300 strung.
    I would want to change it.
    I would want to take a Head Liquidmetal Radical MP.
    It would go well?
    Thanks
     
    #10
  11. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    Thomas,

    if the pro at your tennis centre recommends the smaller mid-heads for a beginner as a means of developing hand-eye co-ordination what does he think about larger than mid heads for those who aren't beginners? Does he even think there's much point in them? Now that I have to choose a new racquet and there's such a variety of headsizes out there I find that one of the most confusing choices. Am I missing out on something by not using an oversize or am I giving something away by using one?
     
    #11
  12. Mies

    Mies Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    273
    I've been playing tennis since I was 8/9 years old (I'll be 26 in april) and had weekly trainings at a tennis school (and league matches) up and untill I was 17, so it's fair to assume that I have a reasonably proper technique. Untill this point, I had always played with heavy frames (old Major and Wilson frames for instance, weighing well over 350 grams.).

    Then I quit for 2 years and started again and bought a new lightweight, 102 sq inch, long bodied paddle. I didn't go back to the tennis school though (untill this winter season). At the end of this summer season I found myself having unconsiously adapted my forehand to some extremely whippy, more-than-western gripped horror of a technique, which ( I believe) was my remedy for a racket which didn't suit my playing style. I have long, fast agressive strokes. That in combination with my too light racket made me generate huge amounts of racket speed with a stiff, rather powerfull racket. I couldn't keep my groundstrokes in play unless I applied more than healthy amounts of spin: resulting in my abominable forehand with very little margin for error.

    Since then I took my old Major frame out of the closet and besides that I have been demoing frames in the weight caterogy I used as a junior. I also went back to the tennis school and I adapted my stroke to a semi western forehand. I find that I have no trouble wielding heavier frames and I can let the weight of the frame do some of the work for me, so I can focus more on the swingpath than on generating head speed. I now have my old stroke back and the degree of comfort and control have increased tremendously.

    I thought this might serve as an example of it being possible to screw up your technique in order to be able to play with a racket that doesn't really suit your playing style. Of course it also didn't help that I was not being supervised by a trainer and thus had noone correcting me while developing my faulty stroke technique.

    Of course, it all comes down to what you prefer playing with, but I do suggest keeping a trainer at your side till your technique has fully developed (if that is ever possible :)...). Then again, if the whippy strokes serve you well, why change em?

    Again, I have written a big piece of proza .........so I'll leave it at that.

    Regards
     
    #12
  13. Gaines Hillix

    Gaines Hillix Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,240
    If I was young and just starting to play, but was fully developed physically I would try to move up to a heavier frame asap. But, IMO not everyone can play effectively with a heavy racquet. I've tried all kinds of racquets from 8-13 ozs. and for me the ones in the 11-11.5 oz range suite my style and skill level best. I can play with a PS 6.0 95 which is 12.2 ozs on a very good day, but that's the exception. I did finally settle on a MP headsize on all of my racquets.
     
    #13
  14. b.

    b. Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    I agree with thomas martinez on size. Although I can not learn tennis twice to compare, I can say this: whatever was my "rating" at the moment, I never had any problems with headsize, racquet stabillity or related stuff. With strokes in general - I had to modify them, but (almost) never had to concentrate on just hiting the ball correctly. That helps.

    If nothing else - it expanded my choice of usable racquets toward small heads.
     
    #14
  15. ferrari_827

    ferrari_827 Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,181
    I learned tennis with a very heavy racket, PS6.0 85, so it was all downhill from there. I do find that rackets which are too light or headlight cause strokes to become too whippy.

    And there is a difference between static weight and *swingweight*. For example, PS6.0 85 and 95 are relatively easy to swing compared to Yonex MP Tour 1 and SRD Tour even though the weights are close to each other.

    I also find that Yonex rackets in general, because of the head shape, require good mechanics on serve, while Wilson/Head rackets are easier to serve with. But the *other* good qualities of Yonex more than make up for this.
     
    #15
  16. Serve-And-Volley

    Serve-And-Volley Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    208
    It doesn't matter to me I already have a good loopy semi-western style so a heavier racquet or a midweight racquet suits me. I used the Volkl Catapult 10 because feel, but at one peiord I used a Wilson N-6-1 90 and was comfortable with that also. I like heavier racquets though because I don't like my stroke to get weak or short in any match, so yes I do like a heavy racquet.
     
    #16
  17. iloveradical

    iloveradical New User

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    34
    To mela

    I think so. When I judge the weight, my rule of thumb is to calculate the average of static weight and swing weight. Your previous racquet's average will be about 320g strung. LM radical MP's average is about 322g strung (=318g+325g/2). They're almost same!
     
    #17

Share This Page