Racquet with the lowest swingweight ever?

[spaceman_spiff]

Originally Posted by JohnB

Do you mean a racket with a very high twistweight/swingweight ratio? Am I correct?

That's ideal for this particular expirement, but it might be just as difficult to find. However, a fairly moderate swingweight/twistweight might work if the overall mass is low enough to allow Corners to get to the ideal setup without going over the limit in overall specs.

The main thing is to focus on the real goal, which is the final twistweight/hitting weight at 3&9 rather than a specific amount of lead tape.

[JohnB]

Originally Posted by spaceman_spiff

That's ideal for this particular expirement, but it might be just as difficult to find. However, a fairly moderate swingweight/twistweight might work if the overall mass is low enough to allow Corners to get to the ideal setup without going over the limit in overall specs.

The main thing is to focus on the real goal, which is the final twistweight/hitting weight at 3&9 rather than a specific amount of lead tape.

Pro Kennex Ionic Ki 30 might be a good option then.

[corners]

Originally Posted by spaceman_spiff

Are you sure you don't just need to readjust your math?

The TW Professor didn't add 100 g to a frame that weighed 0. It was 100 g plus whatever the hitting weight (effective mass at a particular point) of the particular racket used in the test. So, the magic number isn't 100 at 3&9; it's whatever the final total hitting weight of the racket was at 3&9 after the 100 g was added.

If you read the paper you'll see that 100 was grams added at 3&9 to an Exo3 Red 105. The addition of this amount of mass effectively reversed the spin gradient from high (toward the sky when striking a groundy) to low (toward the ground) in the stringbed. Stock, this racquet produced much more spin on low impacts than in the center of the strings, and much less spin on high impacts than in the center. We can assume that all stock racquets share this relationship. By adding 100 grams of mass at 3&9 high impacts became more spin-friendly than in the center and low impacts became less spin friendly than the center. So the relationship observed in the stock condition was reversed.

But reversing this relationship is not the goal. Equalizing the spin production so that the stringbed produces the same amount of spin on high, low and central impacts is the goal. Adding 100 grams does not achieve that goal. The TW Professor mused that, if the addition of mass at 3&9 effectively reverses the relationship in a linear way, there may be an amount of mass that one could add that would achieve this goal. Some simple calculations showed that adding about 60 grams of mass should do this, assuming there is such a linear relationship. For the sake of experiment, I'm willing to run with this assumption.

Instead of trying to find a frame with a SW of 260 so that you can add the 60 g that you have your mind set on, maybe you need to calculate the ideal hitting weight that you are trying to achieve at 3&9. Then, once you know your ideal hitting weight in that location, you can use the hitting weight numbers that the TW Professor has already compiled to find frames that can let you reach your goal with a different amount of added lead.

It would be tempting to assume that the greater hittingweight of added mass at 3&9 is responsible for the altered spin production seen in TWU's experiments with adding lots of mass. But it is not at all clear that hitting weight is the crucial factor here.

In the paper, six physical effects or phenomena were linked to the altered spin production seen at high and low impacts with and without added mass:

1. Short-side effect
2. Rotation effect
3. Friction effect
4. Bending effect
5. String movement effect
6. Weight effect

Increasing hittingweight will definitely have a big impact on numbers 5 and 6 on this list. But the relationship of hittingweight and effects 1-4 on the list is not at all clear.

On the other hand, increasing twistweight will almost certainly alter the rotation effect (#2 on the list) and short-side effects (#1), and the reversal in the spin-gradient from low to high seen in the experiment might be in large, or even most, part due to increasing twistweight by a huge amount because it is likely that these effects are those most amenable to modulation by the addition of mass. Adding those 100 grams to the Exo3 Red 105 pushed the twistweight to around 32.7. The greatest twistweight amongst racquets currently produced is about 21 (Wilson K4 OS), so we're definitely in uncharted territory here. Adding 60 grams at 3&9 to the Exo3 Red would bump the swingweight to around 24. So why not just add a couple grams at 3&9 to a K4 OS and call it a day?

It would be tempting to attribute the results described in the paper to measures that we are familiar with and understand well, like hittingweight and twistweight. But there are several more effects on the above list that are not often considered in conventional racquet customization work using relatively small amounts of mass. The bending effects documented in the paper, for example, are not something that people usually think about when adding a little lead to a racquet. Yes, I could use the the above twistweight number and calculate the hittingweight that would result from the addition of 60 grams at 3&9, and then attempt to target both those numbers. But would that achieve the goal?

Remember that the TWU experiments also included the addition of 100 grams of mass at 1&11. This would have increased the hittingweight much, much more than the addition of that mass at 3&9. So if we focus on a target hittingweight we would only need to add maybe 20 or 30 grams at 1&11 to hit that target. But, the addition of 100 grams at 1&11 did not produce the same effect on spin production at various impact locations as did mass at 3&9. Adding mass at 1&11 intensified the result observed in the stock condition - spin production was already greatest on low impacts and adding mass at 1&11 made this even more pronounced. This would suggest that increasing twistweight, not hittingweight, is most important to reverse the spin gradient observed in stock racquets.

And this is what the paper, at least hesitantly, concludes by noting that the short-side and rotation effects (numbers 1 & 2 on the list) are most responsible for the differences in spin production seen in high and low impacts. Increasing twistweight to around 24 could then, be a worthy goal. It's interesting to note that the short-side effect would be reduced using an oversize frame like the K4 112, because off-center impacts would be further from the frame than they would be in a midplus and even more so than with a mid. This suggests that, at a given twistweight, the difference in spin production for high and low impacts would be less with an oversize than with a midplus. A mid would be the worst. Also, since oversize frames naturally have greater twistweights, because any mass added or existing on the periphery of the frame is located further from the longitudinal axis, you'd have to add less mass to an oversize to achieve the goal of equalizing spin production across the stringbed. Conversely, you may have to add even more mass, perhaps much more, to achieve this goal with a mid. In fact, it could be that the K4 112 achieves the goal in stock form with it's twistweight of 22. But I'm not playing with that ugly thing!

Anyway, yes, it would be tempting to focus only increasing twistweight to a particular target, and in this case that target would be about 24. And in essence that's what I'm doing. What's the best location to add mass to increase twistweight the most while increasing hittingweight the least? At the frame's widest point - at 3&9. So I'm trying to find a frame with a very low swingweight so that I can add 60 grams at 3&9. The good news is that even a very light, low-swingweight frame like those kindly suggested so far have stock swingweights pretty close or only a little less than the Exo3 Red. Whew!

To those who have suggested that I should come down to earth and who have kindly pointed out that adding even modest amounts of mass at 3&9 changes the performance of a racquet: Thanks, you're right. But I'm not looking for performance enhancement; I'm looking to create the ultimate control racquet. LOL

The bummer, though, is that even if I do achieve the objective of making spin production uniform for all impacts across the racquet face from 3 to center to 9, I probably won't even know it. Times like these I wish I had a spin measurement rig in the basement.

[Fuji]

Originally Posted by corners

That's in the region I'm looking for but maybe a little bit high stock. Kinda like the obnoxious green in the old Tour 10 paint scheme, though

Haha darn! They also have it in an ungodly halloween scheme with identical specs!

-Fuji

[spaceman_spiff]

Originally Posted by corners

If you read the paper you'll see that 100 was grams added at 3&9 to an Exo3 Red 105.

Thanks for the follow-up. I didn't see the original paper, so I didn't know if the 100 g was a specific amount for a specific frame or just intentional overkill guaranteed to cause reversal in any racket (like saying a 5-lb brick will squash any grape).

The more I think about the problem, the more I suspect that what you're really looking for is a particular distribution of mass in terms of the ratio of mass in the upper, middle, and lower hoop. That is, if you have a frame with x% of the mass in the upper third of the hoop, y% in the middle third, and z% in the lower third, you'll get that consistent spin potential across the whole string bed regardless of the overall specs.

The difficult part is finding the exact values for x, y, and z, which will probably vary a bit frame by frame given differences in head shapes, flex patterns, and string spacing. If I were in your shoes, I'd start with the Exo3 Red and see if that 60 g really does give you the consistent spin potential that you're looking for (forget overall specs and personal preferences for the moment). You might find that that necessary modifications are more complicated and the results are difficult to verify.

But, if you do end up finding a way to verify the results and get what you're looking for, then you can start searching for other frames that will give you the overall specs you like after you've modified them to get that consistent string bed.

Basically, test the feasibility first on a well-known subject and then start looking for more ideal candidates later.

[morten]

10 grams at 3 and 9 increase swingweight by appx 25.

[corners]

Originally Posted by spaceman_spiff

Thanks for the follow-up. I didn't see the original paper, so I didn't know if the 100 g was a specific amount for a specific frame or just intentional overkill guaranteed to cause reversal in any racket (like saying a 5-lb brick will squash any grape).

The more I think about the problem, the more I suspect that what you're really looking for is a particular distribution of mass in terms of the ratio of mass in the upper, middle, and lower hoop. That is, if you have a frame with x% of the mass in the upper third of the hoop, y% in the middle third, and z% in the lower third, you'll get that consistent spin potential across the whole string bed regardless of the overall specs.

The difficult part is finding the exact values for x, y, and z, which will probably vary a bit frame by frame given differences in head shapes, flex patterns, and string spacing. If I were in your shoes, I'd start with the Exo3 Red and see if that 60 g really does give you the consistent spin potential that you're looking for (forget overall specs and personal preferences for the moment). You might find that that necessary modifications are more complicated and the results are difficult to verify.

But, if you do end up finding a way to verify the results and get what you're looking for, then you can start searching for other frames that will give you the overall specs you like after you've modified them to get that consistent string bed.

Basically, test the feasibility first on a well-known subject and then start looking for more ideal candidates later.

Thanks. But I think the issue here is not the distribution of mass from the top to the middle to the bottom of the stringbed. Trying to create a power gradient from top to bottom is a worthy goal because in theory it should be possible to setup a racquet so that a shot struck near the throat, a shot struck near the center and shot struck near the tip all rebound at the same speed. This would definitely improve control, because with stock racquets there is significant variation in shot speeds rebounding from different locations.

But I think it's pretty clear from the paper that two effects dominate the observed difference in spin generation between high (toward the sky) and low (toward the ground) impacts: the rotation effect and the short-side effect. If hittingweight, or the hittingweight gradient from throat to tip, were the critical factor, then the 100 grams added at 11&1 should have reversed this gradient, as 100 grams added to those locations would have bumped the swingweight by about 250 units. Adding 100 grams at 3&9 "only" increases swingweight by 200 units. But the relationship is reversed in terms of twistweight. Those grams at 3&9 increase the twistweight by about 12 units, while adding at 1&11 would only increase it by about 7 units. I think it's pretty clear that the reason why mass added at 3&9 worked to reverse the spin difference is because of the twistweight increase, which makes sense if you carefully read the descriptions of the rotation and short-side effects. Looking at the experimental results, it appears that adding mass at 11&1 would work too, but you'd have to add even more mass, like maybe 150 grams, which takes me far away from the secondary goal of keeping swingweight at a swingable level.

This is why I don't think it matters which frame I start with, as long as it has a twistweight of 11 or more, stock. Increasing swingweight, and thereby increasing hittingweight, should increase spin at all impact locations, but shouldn't change the observed spin gradient that much, if at all. So I'm not too concerned about the stock or final swingweight. (I might be wrong about this, however.)

In addition, the experiments in the paper provide a basis for further experimentation. It would have been best if the TW Professor had tried 60 grams and confirmed his hunch; but, his results with 100 grams certainly light the way towards trying 60 grams at home. Going in another direction entirely would, in my opinion, require a controlled spin testing rig like he has, which I haven't got. So I'll restrict my wild racquet ramblings to the path already slightly tamped down.

Unfortunately, all that mass concentrated at 3&9 will not equalize the throat to tip power gradient. But that's another problem, and one that Travlerjam has solved, I believe, by concentrating mass in the entire top half of the hoop, from 3 all the way round to 9. This is what Head has done too with their new Graphene Speed Pro, at least that's what their marketing says.

[JohnB]

This got me inspired.
I just did an experiment with a Pure Storm Ltd.
I put two weights of 45 grams at the sides of the head and moved both up and down until I was satisfied with a constant launchangle when the tennisballs were hit across the face from 3 to 9. The most ideal spot seemed to be at 4 and 8. I know I varied not only twistweight but also swingweight and balance, but during play I also varied grip position up and down regardless of the present swingweight and balance.
The interesting part is that I tried to hit with constant rackethead speed and all over the racketface from 3 to 9 and with the weights attached at 4 and 8, the launchangle, speed and depth were pretty constant, which makes me believe that the spinrate also had to be pretty much the same. Whether a 425 grams racket is really playable is another question

Really looking forward to your experience, Corners.

[corners]

Originally Posted by JohnB

This got me inspired.
I just did an experiment with a Pure Storm Ltd.
I put two weights of 45 grams at the sides of the head and moved both up and down until I was satisfied with a constant launchangle when the tennisballs were hit across the face from 3 to 9. The most ideal spot seemed to be at 4 and 8. I know I varied not only twistweight but also swingweight and balance, but during play I also varied grip position up and down regardless of the present swingweight and balance.
The interesting part is that I tried to hit with constant rackethead speed and all over the racketface from 3 to 9 and with the weights attached at 4 and 8, the launchangle, speed and depth were pretty constant, which makes me believe that the spinrate also had to be pretty much the same. Whether a 425 grams racket is really playable is another question

Really looking forward to your experience, Corners.

Awesome John. What did you use for an easily movable 45g lump?

I wonder if you found 4&8 to equalize spin the most because of the headshape of the PSL, which kind of has a Volkl headshape, wider at 4&8 than most other frames. The only negative with mass at 4&8 is that it will tend to make the frame more powerful in the lower hoop, where it is already most powerful in stock form. I have always favored mass at 10&2 or higher as this will tend to equalize the power gradient of the frame and provide more pop on serve (which I tend to hit nearer the tip), in particular. But the positive of 4&8 is that it will raise the swingweight by a lesser amount that at 3&9 or higher.

It might take me awhile to get my experiment going as I'm taking my time in choosing the right platform frame, of which I'd like to get two so that I can make on-court comparisons. But thanks for the encouragement.

[JohnB]

Originally Posted by corners

Awesome John. What did you use for an easily movable 45g lump?

I wonder if you found 4&8 to equalize spin the most because of the headshape of the PSL, which kind of has a Volkl headshape, wider at 4&8 than most other frames. The only negative with mass at 4&8 is that it will tend to make the frame more powerful in the lower hoop, where it is already most powerful in stock form. I have always favored mass at 10&2 or higher as this will tend to equalize the power gradient of the frame and provide more pop on serve (which I tend to hit nearer the tip), in particular. But the positive of 4&8 is that it will raise the swingweight by a lesser amount that at 3&9 or higher.

It might take me awhile to get my experiment going as I'm taking my time in choosing the right platform frame, of which I'd like to get two so that I can make on-court comparisons. But thanks for the encouragement.

I used two metal cycling cleats attached with strong, small width tape. So that the tape fits between the strings, around the frame. I moved both up and down by feel. I was worried if I put it to 10 and 2, the swingweight would be too high, but I might do that tomorrow, just to check whether it alters anything unexpected.

Could you, BTW, maybe explain to me what the reasoning is for wanting the upper part of head to be more powerful? I would say that in a normal groundstoke, the higher rackettipspeed would make up for that. Or is that also a matter of finding the right massgradiënt to even things out?

[corners]

Originally Posted by JohnB

I used two metal cycling cleats attached with strong, small width tape. So that the tape fits between the strings, around the frame. I moved both up and down by feel. I was worried if I put it to 10 and 2, the swingweight would be too high, but I might do that tomorrow, just to check whether it alters anything unexpected.

Nice McGyver action.

Could you, BTW, maybe explain to me what the reasoning is for wanting the upper part of head to be more powerful? I would say that in a normal groundstoke, the higher rackettipspeed would make up for that. Or is that also a matter of finding the right massgradiënt to even things out?

For high swingspeeds on rotational swings, yeah, the fact that the swingspeed is greatest at the tip and least at the throat ends up balancing out the fact that ACOR is greatest as the throat and least at the tip. Of course, spin is greatest near the tip because the racquet is moving fastest there, and least at the throat, so we might expect to find shots hit near the tip to land very short on topspin shots. But low ACOR (low hittingweight) also means a higher launch angle. So the shot hit near the tip will rebound at a higher angle and then the greater spin will bring it down to approximately the same depth on the court as the combination of greater ACOR, lower rebound angle, and less spin at the throat will.

But this is all most true for very high swingspeeds and low incoming ball speeds. So on serve you really don't lose much speed if you hit near the tip, if at all, and the extra spin is very welcome. But as the swingspeed slows down and the incoming ball speed increases, the low ACOR near the tip starts to penalize you. On a hard groundstroke, like 70mph shot speed, you might lose 2-4 mph if you hit 2 inches above the center with a traditionally weighted player's stick. And on a volley, where the incoming shot might be 70 mph or so, and your racquet is traveling only 15, things are worse. And made worse by the fact that volleys are relatively linear swings, so the tip isn't usually moving much faster than the throat, unlike with serves and rotational groundstrokes. So on a volley you might lose 5-7 mph on a shot struck near the tip compared to one struck in the center. Worse still, if we instead compare a volley struck 2" above center and one struck 2" below center we're looking at a possible difference of 15 MPH or so. And now the differences in launch angle and speed start to combine to produce shots landing several feet or more apart from each other on the court. So not only are you getting widely variable shot speeds at net but you're losing accuracy unless you can hit in the center of the strings each time, which you can't.

So this gradient business is mostly about volleys, but also could be important on groundstrokes if you're into equipment optimization or just generally geeking out on this stuff. And if you get the tip leaded up and ACOR improved up there you might be able to get a couple extra MPH on serve because most people tend to hit high in the hoop when serving. Stiff hoops also liven up the upper hoop, but doing it with mass is a more arm-friendly approach, (as long as your shoulder can handle the heft.) The poster Travlerajm introduced me to this topic, and if you're familiar with his experiments you'll know that he weights the hell out of the top of the hoop. He plays the net a lot so this probably really helps him achieve consistent power and accuracy up there. From that perspective it's pretty interesting. Sampras gained a lot by adding so much mass at 3&9, but I wonder if his volleys would have been even better had he put more mass higher in the hoop.

On the other hand, to my knowledge Edberg used a stock PS 85 without a bumper guard, which meant his swingweight was very low, with a steep ACOR dropoff near the tip. And he maybe had the best volleys of all time. So a strong case could definitely be made that we're here ridiculously overthinking this stuff.

All the "data" in the first couple paragraphs was generated with TWU's Shot Maker simulator. I've learned a lot from playing around with that thing.

[JohnB]

Thanks, Corners.

Today, I moved the weights to 10 and 2 and tried to be as precise as possible to achieve the same twistweight. No matter how I shifted the weights around 10 and 2, I could get a predictable launchangle. No comes the interesting part. When attached the weights to spots around 10 and 2 where the launchangle was least unpredictable, I added 12 grams total also at 10 and 2 (on top of the weights), the launchangle, speed and depth were constant again. This makes me believe that with higher swingweights, higher twistweights are needed to generate a constant spinrate across the face from 3 to 9.

Estimated final specs. 437grams, 39cm, sw.600+, so not very playable obviously.

[corners]

Originally Posted by JohnB

Thanks, Corners.

Today, I moved the weights to 10 and 2 and tried to be as precise as possible to achieve the same twistweight. No matter how I shifted the weights around 10 and 2, I could get a predictable launchangle. No comes the interesting part. When attached the weights to spots around 10 and 2 where the launchangle was least unpredictable, I added 12 grams total also at 10 and 2 (on top of the weights), the launchangle, speed and depth were constant again. This makes me believe that with higher swingweights, higher twistweights are needed to generate a constant spinrate across the face from 3 to 9.

Estimated final specs. 437grams, 39cm, sw.600+, so not very playable obviously.

Interesting findings John. Maybe there is some optimal ratio of swingweight/hittingweight and twistweight. But yeah, 600 swingweight won't work for play, but you might be onto something.

[JohnB]

Originally Posted by corners

Interesting findings John. Maybe there is some optimal ratio of swingweight/hittingweight and twistweight. But yeah, 600 swingweight won't work for play, but you might be onto something.

I was hoping you came up with a formula or something

Although the swingweight increase is enormous, the twistweight increase isn't that much higher, relatively speaking. So it might be that a certain twistweight is optimal for this purpose and that just a little finetuning is needed. If you want to combine this experiment with a proper power gradiënt towards to tip, you have to start with a very, very light frame.

[corners]

Originally Posted by JohnB

I was hoping you came up with a formula or something

i wish I was that clever.

Although the swingweight increase is enormous, the twistweight increase isn't that much higher, relatively speaking. So it might be that a certain twistweight is optimal for this purpose and that just a little finetuning is needed. If you want to combine this experiment with a proper power gradiënt towards to tip, you have to start with a very, very light frame.

An extraordinarily light frame. If we're looking at 60 grams to balance spin generation from side to side I think the only way to simultaneously liven the upper hoop would be with frame stiffness. With so much mass concentrated at 3&9 the frame would probably have to counterbanced at the buttcap with a massive wad of tungsten or spent uranium. All that buttweight should soften the frame enough so that a superstiff tip might not be uncomfortable. Or, someone could make a 100% graphene racquet that weighs 1 oz with 150 swingweight that could easily be leaded up with massive amounts from 4 all the way round to 8, creating the perfect stringbed. I'm calling a patent attorney

[tyu1314]

How to add 60 grams at 9&3? That is 120inch of .5gram,or 240 inch of.25 gram lead?? If you use the .5gram/inch, thats 30layers of lead

[spaceman_spiff]

Originally Posted by tyu1314

How to add 60 grams at 9&3? That is 120inch of .5gram,or 240 inch of.25 gram lead?? If you use the .5gram/inch, thats 30layers of lead

If you use 5" long strips on all four sides of the frame (both sides of the strings at 3 and 9), and if your frame is wide enough to fit the 1/2" wide tape on both sides of the strings, then it's 6 layers in each position.

It's a fairly sizable stack of lead, but it's still doable.

[corners]

Originally Posted by spaceman_spiff

If you use 5" long strips on all four sides of the frame (both sides of the strings at 3 and 9), and if your frame is wide enough to fit the 1/2" wide tape on both sides of the strings, then it's 6 layers in each position.

It's a fairly sizable stack of lead, but it's still doable.

I'm thinking of squirting something into the grommet holes. Travlerajm has done it with silicone but I don't think that will be dense enough for this project. Researching other materials.

[spaceman_spiff]

Originally Posted by corners

I'm thinking of squirting something into the grommet holes. Travlerajm has done it with silicone but I don't think that will be dense enough for this project. Researching other materials.

Maybe a combination of liquid and lead tape. Squirt the silicone and measure the mass gained. Then add the remaining mass with layers of lead tape.

[travlerajm]

I just found this thread. It’s an interesting topic.

I discovered 5-6 years ago an interesting phenomenon, and I confess that I still cannot fully explain the physics of it.

If you start with a stock racquet (doesn’t really matter what the starting specs are, it could be a light tweener, or it could be a players racquet, as long the swingweight is in the typical range), and then proceed to add mass gradually to the upper hoop, it will tend to become more powerful and less spin-friendly.

But as you continue to add mass, eventually you reach a “tipping point”, where further additions of mass start to have the opposite effect on spin and power level a groundstroke. Continued addition of mass beyond this tipping point result in a heavier, spinnier response from the stringbed (I had previously termed this zone beyond the tipping point as “SW2”).

I found it uncanny that the tipping point almost always occurs at a swingweight near 360 (but it can vary, depending on the starting specs of the frame). It seems to be at least in part a swingweight effect, because the “spin reversal” (that is, the increased spin with further mass increase) happens regardless of whether I place the extra lead at 3-&-9 or at 12. But I have also noticed that the heavy ball effect (seemingly effortless natural spin) is most pronounced when a significant fraction of the added mass is at 3 and 9.

I had presumed in the past that this “spin reversal” effect must be somehow related to the effects of ball flattening. But now I’m not so sure – I think ball flattening is part of the story, but these other effects discussed by TW professor (rotation effect, shortside effect, could also be contributing to this phenomenon).

The TW Professor’s experiment looked at what happens when you add 100g, which pushes you far past the tipping point, into the realm of very spin-friendly racquets. But I think the experiment is jumping over the more interesting question of what is happening in between. In my experience, it doesn’t take 100g addition to enjoy these heavy-spin effects – all it takes is pushing the swingweight of your racquet up to around 370 SW.

Doing the experiment on court (or even against a wall) is fun and easy to do. Just grab a roll of lead tape, and start adding a couple grams at a time, and observe the difference in ball response. When you finally get past the tipping point, and the ball starts to really dip after it leaves your stringbed, it is a strange sensation.

As for creating more consistent spin across the face from 3 to 9, I have never specifically tried to optimize that. However, I can tell you that whenever I try to play with a frame of stock swingweight (325 or so), I am never completely comfortable with the predictability of spin and launch angle. For me, the difference in control (with ‘control’ defined here as predictability of ball response) between 325 SW and swingweight in high 360s is night and day. Maybe part of the reason is that the high 360s swingweight range is where spin rate is nearly equalized across the face from 3 to 9?

Once you combine predictability of ball response (which for me comes with combining high enough swingweight and stiff enough stringbed) with the ability to control the racquetface through the contact point (which for me can be achieved by carefully tuning the MgR/I parameter), tennis becomes a lot easier.