Pro Swingweight List

[travlerajm]

These pro swingweights have been calculated from Jura's list using a formula that takes into account mass, balance, head size, string tension, string gauge, string type, the typical weight distribution of players frames, and the typical locations for lead tape customization. The constants for the formula were calibrated using known measured player swingweights as reference points. So these figures are essentially just interpolation between know data points.

If any pro stringers can contribute additional known pro swingweight measurements, please contribute them in this thread, and I will take them into account to refine the formula to make the list more accurate.


The results have been rounded to the nearest 5 kg-cm^2.

moya 430
mantilla 395
patience 390
knowle 390
kiefer 390
benneteau 385
kuerten 385
ventura 380
koubek 380
soderling 380
robredo 380
agassi 380
ferrer 375
sluiter 375
sanguinetti 375
grosjean 375
ginepri 370
andreev 370
mathieu 370
nadal 370
sanchez 370
gaudio 370
canas 370
sargsian 370
wawrinka 370
saretta 365
serra 365
monaco 365
massu 365
karlovic 365
luczak 365
vliegen 360
bhupathi 360
saulnier 360
garcia-lopez 360
roger-vasselin 360
rusedski 360
martin 360
volandri 360
woodbridge 360
blake 360
burgsmuller 360
bjorkman 360
davydenko 355
mahut 355
carlsen 355
schuettler 355
squillari 355
haenel 355
mirnyi 355
nieminen 355
nestor 350
horna 350
acasuso 350
rochus,o 350
ancic 350
beck 350
johansson 350
devilder 350
tipsarevic 350
gonzalez 350
arthurs 345
llodra 345
malisse 345
wessels 345
djokovic 345
stepanek 345
tursunov 345
brian, b 345
spadea 345
tsonga 345
ullyett 345
di pasquale 340
clement 340
melzer 340
brian, m 340
srichaphan 340
zimonjic 340
black, w 335
behrend 335
schalken 325

[Feña14]

Nice idea!

Not sure how correct they are but if they are all good then yeh, that's some pretty useful info.

[travlerajm]

Originally Posted by Feña14

Nice idea!

Not sure how correct they are but if they are all good then yeh, that's some pretty useful info.

Except for the guys at the extremes with weird balances (like Schalken and Moya) most of these should be accurate to within 5 kg-cm^2.

Gaudio and Soderling probably have the frames that would "feel" heaviest because they have both very high static weight and high swingweight.

[sypl]

Coo, for a guy with a low swingweight, Srichaphan sure can put some mustard on the ball.

[Sagittar]

guys but where is federer , safin , roddick , hewitt , nalbandian , murray .............. ??
the list is great but anybody knows a tip about those rest ?

[ShcMad]

Originally Posted by Sagittar

guys but where is federer , safin , roddick , hewitt , nalbandian , murray .............. ??
the list is great but anybody knows a tip about those rest ?

I think Travlr concluded a while ago that Safin's swingweight was around 370.

[Sagittar]

Originally Posted by ShcMad

I think Travlr concluded a while ago that Safin's swingweight was around 370.

Thnx man ..

[AJK1]

I may be wrong, but they seem rather high.

[Nextman916]

I thought i heard somewhere the Moyo played with his PD almost stock?

[ShcMad]

Originally Posted by Nextman916

I thought i heard somewhere the Moyo played with his PD almost stock?

I think babolat makes a special pure drive for the moyo. I think it's got less static weight and such...

[Richie Rich]

Originally Posted by ShcMad

I think babolat makes a special pure drive for the moyo. I think it's got less static weight and such...

i remember people saying it was based on the babolat soft drive with tons of lead in the upper hoop. really head heavy but not too heavy static weight wise. kind of like a hammer set up.

[PurePrestige]

Travelr concluded Safin's SW is 370?
Didn't Thomas Martinez or someone say that his SW was actually only 15 pts higher than the stock Prestige Classic? As in like, 350? Hm?
Somebody's wrong here, and if Thom is the one customizing Safins frames and says it, I think I believe him?

[ShcMad]

Originally Posted by PurePrestige

Travelr concluded Safin's SW is 370?
Didn't Thomas Martinez or someone say that his SW was actually only 15 pts higher than the stock Prestige Classic? As in like, 350? Hm?
Somebody's wrong here, and if Thom is the one customizing Safins frames and says it, I think I believe him?

Dear PurePrestige, this is david aames's (I think that was his name, but I'm not sure) quote regarding Marat's racquet: "His frames start out lighter than a retail Prestige. However, with the addition of lead tape, a custom molded handle, etc, it ends up close to stock spec (330g/315mm), only with a swingweight 15 units higher than the average retail Prestige. Add strings, overgrip, and pads, and your right around 353g."

From what I can deduce is that Safin's unstrung swingweight is around 338 (323+15). But, I think Safin's strung swingweight is still to be debated.

Furthermore, I think I made a mistake in saying that travlr claimed that Safin's swingweight was 370. If you search for the thread, travlr said that he overestimated the swingweight, and that he estimates it to be around 360.

[Fedace]

These swingweight seem awfully high to me. How does anyone swing a racket with 340 swingweight, amateur's rackets are in 320-330 range for even the so called player's frames. Swingweight of 340 is heavier than most Wood rackets. Wouldn't their arms fall off or get injured and how do they volley with that kind of swingweight, it seems impossible.

[travlerajm]

Originally Posted by PurePrestige

Travelr concluded Safin's SW is 370?
Didn't Thomas Martinez or someone say that his SW was actually only 15 pts higher than the stock Prestige Classic? As in like, 350? Hm?
Somebody's wrong here, and if Thom is the one customizing Safins frames and says it, I think I believe him?

Thomas was the source of my info for Safin. Thomas gave me his unstrung swingweight of 335. That puts his strung swigweight at about 365.

[p0w3r]

Originally Posted by Fedace

These swingweight seem awfully high to me. How does anyone swing a racket with 340 swingweight, amateur's rackets are in 320-330 range for even the so called player's frames. Swingweight of 340 is heavier than most Wood rackets. Wouldn't their arms fall off or get injured and how do they volley with that kind of swingweight, it seems impossible.

they are pros. we are not.

[travlerajm]

Originally Posted by Fedace

These swingweight seem awfully high to me. How does anyone swing a racket with 340 swingweight, amateur's rackets are in 320-330 range for even the so called player's frames. Swingweight of 340 is heavier than most Wood rackets. Wouldn't their arms fall off or get injured and how do they volley with that kind of swingweight, it seems impossible.

No, their arms do not fall off. Just like Columbus didn't fall off the edge of the Earth. And volleying is much easier with high swingweights due to the added stability. And wood racquets typically had swingweights of about 450, so modern pros are using much lower swingweights than that.

A swingweight of 325 is not stable enough to handle the pace and spin of the modern pro game. Pros with swingweights lower than 345 tend to have poor rankings.

So pros need to add weight to the hoop. Some pros with swingweights in the 345-355 range can still use their own strength to generate racquet head speed, but they need to counterweight in the butt to control the power.
Pros with SW in this range tend to have decent rankings.

Above 350, the swingweight is too high to swing with a "recreational style" swing. But if you use a high backswing and let the potential energy of the racquet do the work (like almost every pro does), then power is easily generated. Above 350, almost all pros are at SW2.

Pros in the 355-365 range are in the max power zone. These pros either use very low-powered string tensions (like the doubles specialists) or combine high tension with flexible frames (like Blake). Otherwise, they would have too much power. But pros with SW in this over-powered range tend to have poor rankings.

Players in the 365-385 range are in the optimal range for control. Above 360, counterweighting in the butt no longer reduces power, but weight in the hoop now can be used to reduce power (which has the added benefit of further increased stability). The power level at mid tension is about the same as it would be at 325, but the racquet is much more stable, so that your shots are not dependent on the incoming pace or spin. So control is much higher. Also, it is much easier to generate pace on the serve, since the max-power SW for serves is about 370.
Pros with SW in this range tend to have the best rankings.

[ShcMad]

Originally Posted by Fedace

These swingweight seem awfully high to me. How does anyone swing a racket with 340 swingweight, amateur's rackets are in 320-330 range for even the so called player's frames. Swingweight of 340 is heavier than most Wood rackets. Wouldn't their arms fall off or get injured and how do they volley with that kind of swingweight, it seems impossible.

Personally, I can't play with a racquet with swingweight below 340 or static weight of below 345g. Maybe it's coz I grew up playing with heavy racquets. The plow through effect and the stability that heavier racquets provide are just some of the benefits that I find worthy of wielding a heavy frame. Heavy racquets just let you swing through the ball naturally without applying violent strokes or excessive force. My prestiges are currently around 360g, and I like them.

However, like other things in tennis, it's all a matter of preference.

[p3k]

no personal attacks and just my opinion but the numbers are too high... I held racquets of Beck and Hrbaty and I can assure you that they are 100% nowhere near 350, 325 rather...

[tennis playa]

All of the above is pure b.s. A top pro generates his/ her power from timing. ( if anyone remember johan kreik they'll know what i'm tyalking about) it really isn't anything more scientific than that. yes there will always be a lot conjecture about service speed, raw power etc but don't forget that these guys have been playing since single figures in age, they've been drilled mercilessly in stroke production weight transferrance etc. there's no big secret, there's no mystery. the pro's have gotten to their high levels through hard work and reps. no one was born with the ability to play tennis, yes they may have a certain degree of innate ability which had to be nutured and yes they were given the opportunity to learn the game and thats the extent of it, anything else is the result of coaching and hard work. ultra light rackets, 'set ups' strings don't make players don't make great players, talent plus hard work, and maybe toss in a little luck along the way, thats what makes a successful player.