magic of light racquets?

[shogun90]

Watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
made me realize how easy Roger was swinging in warmups but was generating plenty of pace for us mere mortals. I tried the BLXPS90 on serves and was generating a good amount of pace when I was swinging nice and easy. I will see how it works on groundstrokes, I just have to remind myself to swing nice and easy and not try to over hit which I tend to do with lighter racquets.

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by ollinger

Lot's of threads here lately about people discovering how much better they can play with lighter racquets than what they've been using. Psychologically, we tend to live in a fantasy world (witness the OP's screenname "macrocool" for example) and think we're much better players than we really are, so try to play with heavier more "serious" racquets. I just went from about 11.6 strung to 11.3 strung and my game has picked up enormously.

Hi Ollinger,

Yeah cool, I catch yer drift. But I invite you to consider the possibility that some people actually play better with heavy frames, and aren't posing at all. Most people have a swing speed and timing that is pretty grooved. I grew up playing with heavy racquets, and so I naturally have a long, fluid, slowish stoke. My grip has changed a bit, my stance has opened up, but I still have that same timing. If you want to hit with pace you have a few limited options. You can swing faster, or you can swing the same speed with a heavier racquet. Some folks do better swinging faster, some folks (at any skill level) do better swinging slower with a racquet that packs more of a wallop.

My racquet suits me well. I can swing easy and controlled, well under my top swingspeed on a normal rally ball, but when I see an opportunity to open up, and to hit the kind of ball that puts my opponent into scramble mode, it's nice to swing something with some meat on its bones. I don't really dig the frames that require me to swing fast just to keep a normal rally ball going when the point is just getting started. I start loosing my form, shanking my backhand and it's actually more tiring for me late in the 3rd set. No biggie really, its just personal preference.

Jack

[Hi I'm Ray]

^^ That's a good point about some ppl playing better with heavier rackets. Some ppl have a slower swing which work well with the weight of a heavier racket in supplying power, plow, stability, spin, etc. A slower swing is also easier to control IMO. A lighter frame might fit someone with faster swing speeds better.

Originally Posted by macrocool

So, I casually picked up some lighter racquets to swing with (which my friend was demoing). There were a couple of ig speeds and the ig radical s. They were all so magically effortless and powerfully easy to hit with. It's not the lighter weight (I have no trouble hitting with the heaviest of racquets). The racquetbed has this spring like quality which sends the ball faster without sending it longer. I've tried some so called powerful racquets like the ig radical MP, but it doesn't have the same quality - in this case the power sends the ball longer and maybe slightly more speed.

The problem is that these lighter racquets cannot seem to serve, cannot volley or return heavy serves. Is this a simple fix with lead tape (may be this is what the pros are doing these days)?

Not all tweeners are the same. Some swing heavier than others, feel better or worse on groundstrokes, volleys, serves, etc. Perhaps you are blocking back serve returns, punching volleys, and have a slower serve swing - swing weight and mass helps with all of this.

I agree that tweeners give me more power without a lack of control, except I find it easier to drop shot and hit volleys below the net with a lower powered frame. I always think its funny how there are college and tournament players using high powered tweeners and yet we have ppl on these boards saying tweeners have no control. "A Wilson 90 is the only way I can control the ball." Lol.

Originally Posted by shogun90

Watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
made me realize how easy Roger was swinging in warmups but was generating plenty of pace for us mere mortals. I tried the BLXPS90 on serves and was generating a good amount of pace when I was swinging nice and easy. I will see how it works on groundstrokes, I just have to remind myself to swing nice and easy and not try to over hit which I tend to do with lighter racquets.

Yeah but Roger's a freakshow, goat, #1 in the world at 30yrs old, etc., not a good comparison for the rest of us mortals.

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by macrocool

So, I casually picked up some lighter racquets to swing with (which my friend was demoing). There were a couple of ig speeds and the ig radical s. They were all so magically effortless and powerfully easy to hit with. It's not the lighter weight (I have no trouble hitting with the heaviest of racquets). The racquetbed has this spring like quality which sends the ball faster without sending it longer. I've tried some so called powerful racquets like the ig radical MP, but it doesn't have the same quality - in this case the power sends the ball longer and maybe slightly more speed.

The problem is that these lighter racquets cannot seem to serve, cannot volley or return heavy serves. Is this a simple fix with lead tape (may be this is what the pros are doing these days)?

The pro women use these light rackets and they serve, volley and return heavy serves all the time. A lot of them are cranking out serves upwards of 115mph. Perhaps you're not using the rackets properly.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

The pro women use these light rackets and they serve, volley and return heavy serves all the time. A lot of them are cranking out serves upwards of 115mph. Perhaps you're not using the rackets properly.

The pro women also lead up their racquets to have very high swingweights.

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

The pro women also lead up their racquets to have very high swingweights.

No they don't. By far, they don't.

[Winners or Errors]

What are people calling "light?" Does it mean anything below 12 oz, or is the threshhold weight higher?

I tend to play best with racquets in the upper 11 oz range. The question about getting pushed around is, as another poster said earlier in this thread, really dependent on the competition you face.

I don't play 5.0. I play 4.5. The only time I felt pushed around in the last three seasons of league play was when I played a 5.0-5.5 sandbagger. That was truly eye-opening.

Also, are we making no allowance for technology? Are people certain that layups and materials have little or no impact whatsoever on how a racquet performs at a given weight?

[TimothyO]

Originally Posted by Winners or Errors

What are people calling "light?" Does it mean anything below 12 oz, or is the threshhold weight higher?

I tend to play best with racquets in the upper 11 oz range. The question about getting pushed around is, as another poster said earlier in this thread, really dependent on the competition you face.

I don't play 5.0. I play 4.5. The only time I felt pushed around in the last three seasons of league play was when I played a 5.0-5.5 sandbagger. That was truly eye-opening.

Also, are we making no allowance for technology? Are people certain that layups and materials have little or no impact whatsoever on how a racquet performs at a given weight?

Winners raises the issue of technology which is central to the thread.

New materials allowed racquets which could be lighter and still strong enough to strike the ball. Wood racquets of these dimensions would snap.

But that tech didn't change the basic physics of ball mass x velocity versus racquet head mass x velocity. Thus the light, head heavy frames were born which is an attempt to allow lighter frames built with modern materials to compete with the force of incoming balls by concentrating mass in the business end of the racquet.

Unfortuantely for our elbows, and game, the lighter frame doesn't protect against shock as well and lacks the mass in the throat and handle to resist recoiling. So even HH but lightweight frames can get knocked about.

Tonight I had to return serves from a friend who serves very, very hard. It was wonderful having extra weight to meet his serves whether blocking back or taking a full swing. I never felt like I missed a shot because the frame twisted in my hand or got pushed back off target by the ball.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

No they don't. By far, they don't.

Um..yes, they do. Just like the Williams sisters use swingweights over 350 as mentioned above.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=317438

The women are not that far behind in swingweights. Greg Raven also measured a bunch of male and female pro's racquets' swingweights a few years ago and the highest SW, man or woman, was Jelena Dokic's with a swingweight of 383!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=251209

[DeShaun]

I have never played a match with a light racket, and so, I do not know that a lighter racket would improve my results, but I can say that against certain fleet-footed dink-senders I have played, and against certain other people who lacked full strokes but who were quite skilled at a kind of pushing, that by my simply adding weight to my frame's hoop one day, I was suddenly able to start crushing these same people decisively who until then had been beating me thoroughly. And there's no way my skills improved overnight; making the racket heavier immediately improved my results against certain pushers.

[robbo1970]

I have found the same when I went heavier with the Exo3 graph 93. Some players who naturally hit the ball harder than me were pushing me around, whereas even just playing block returns with the heavier racket, I was getting that much more stability that my returns were then pushing them back into the court and causing them problems. It quickly turned defence into attack.

But I must admit I do switch to a racket around 310g sometimes if I'm playing someone who goes for placement rather than brute force with their shots. In those matches I don't need the weight to keep me stable and I do benefit from a racket that I can move about a bit quicker.

I do sometimes think that if I could increase the overall weight of the 310g racket to about 320g, I would have a nice balance between stability and manouvrability. I think thats the key really. Just for someone to find that racket that suits their style and has that right combination of mass and speed for them.

[JackB1]

This is an ongoing debate that goes around and around on these forums.. There is no "right answer" for everyone...just general guidelines. It all depends in how fast you like to swing and how physically strong you are and how hard and fast your opponents are hitting. Heavy or light BOTH have their share of Pros and Cons. Each individual must experiment and see what works best for them at their level.

[sureshs]

This issue has a resolution. It was told to me by a coach over this weekend (he used to be on the tour). He mainly coaches advanced juniors. His philosophy is that juniors should use lighter rackets till he is convinced that their strokes are fully executed. He does not recommend changing frames or strings constantly even though he is sponsored in the business. He said that unless a junior gets to the point where he has the correct technique and is executing a full swing, only after that should additional weight be considered to maximize the impact on the opponents. He believes that till that point, a heavier frame will impede learning.

As far as adults go, my opinion is that those who began tennis later in life are not going to go beyond a certain level, and most will languish at 4.5 or below. They are never going to have full proper swings with good bio-mechanics, regardless of what they learn with. They might as well just play with what they are comfortable with.

[robbo1970]

Originally Posted by sureshs

As far as adults go, my opinion is that those who began tennis later in life are not going to go beyond a certain level, and most will languish at 4.5 or below. They are never going to have full proper swings with good bio-mechanics, regardless of what they learn with. They might as well just play with what they are comfortable with.

Thats me.

I do always have this dilemma though. Against both light and heavy hitters I feel I hit a more solid, penetrating shot with my 12oz racket with the most ease.

But the lighter 11oz is obviously much easier to manouvre when having to stretch for defensive shots or volley exchanges or the ocassional flying smash.

If I could make my 11oz racket a little more stable against heavy hitters it would be as close as I could get to spot on. Maybe changing the synthetic grip to a heavier leather one would do that???????

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by robbo1970

Thats me.

I do always have this dilemma though. Against both light and heavy hitters I feel I hit a more solid, penetrating shot with my 12oz racket with the most ease.

But the lighter 11oz is obviously much easier to manouvre when having to stretch for defensive shots or volley exchanges or the ocassional flying smash.

If I could make my 11oz racket a little more stable against heavy hitters it would be as close as I could get to spot on. Maybe changing the synthetic grip to a heavier leather one would do that???????

Sounds like you need more weight in the head than the handle, no?

[corners]

Originally Posted by robbo1970

If I could make my 11oz racket a little more stable against heavy hitters it would be as close as I could get to spot on. Maybe changing the synthetic grip to a heavier leather one would do that???????

No. Weight in the handle doesn't help with stability that much. Try the other end.

[Jakesteroni]

Adding some lead to 3 and 9 this will not cause a high change in swingweight, but will help in stability and plow. Nadal plays with under 11 oz, but with a high swingweight to compensate to keep his racket with a low weight the lead is applied at top hoop.

What you can do to a heavy racket is increase its weight but decrease its swingweight. If you're having trouble completing the racket head following through increase the swingweight a little and adjust as appropiate until it feels good to you.

I've followed the following keys when I mess around with weight. Based on my liking

1. If you increase swingweight, increase tension.
2. If the racket is light, decrease tension
3. If you have a high weight racket, decrease swingweight to get racket head speed.
4. If the racket is light, increase swingweight to get better plow through and stability.

These are based on my style and trials so it may not work for you but worth a try.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by corners

No. Weight in the handle doesn't help with stability that much. Try the other end.

Well, yes, adding weight to the hoop does help with stability but adding weight to handle does as well since it helps to absorb shock and vibration which makes the handle feel more stable in your hand. But adding weight to the handle won't give you as much power as adding weight to the hoop will.

[Metalica]

Pretty much agree with everything Breakpoint said here. I personally much prefer heavy racquets. I find that generating RHS with them is not as difficult as some say, in some case it even helps to add weight to the head.

While more weight helps with tennis elbow, I'd say it's easier to injure yourself with a heavy racquet so I would advice those with developing technique to not swing too violently (especially on the serve). Building up arm strength always helps.

[TennisCJC]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

No they don't. By far, they don't.

Yes, they do: last number in row is swing weight but it doesn't line up with headings, or see http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racq...ance-open.html

I counted 13 WTA players with SW over 330 grams. 5 over 340. Williams sisters, Ivanovic, and Huntachova are also pretty high in SW.

New stock rackets are going down in swing weight with lots of them under 310 g which sucks for performance.


Player Racquet Weight Balance Swgwt
Bartoli, Marion Prince 330 354 393
Bartoli, Marion Prince 332 352.5 394
Cibulkova, Dominika Dunlop 314 332 320
Davis, Lauren Wilson 322 330 335
Doi, Misaki Srixon 334 320 332
Erakovic, Marina Wilson 336 320 355
Fujiwara, Rika Yonex 328 333
Hantuchova, Daniela Prince 346 321 351
Larcher de Brito, Michelle Head 342 321 345
Mattek-Sands, Bethanie Donnay 342 325 348
Mirza, Sania Wilson 318 327.5 325
Radwanska, Urszula Babolat 324 325 315
Raymond Lisa Prince 350 310 337
Raymond, Lisa Prince 352 310 338
Scheepers, Chanelle Babolat 335 320 323
Stevens, Sloan Head 340 316 330
Wickmayer, Yanina Babolat 306 310 ???