Would you take a higher swing weight, over a higher static weight for the modern ATP FH?

Fintft · Mar 25, 2017

Would you take a higher swing weight, over a higher static weight for the modern ATP FH?

I've learned from a poster I respect here, that at times, a higher swing weight makes it easier to throw the racquet at the ball and as such I've switched from the first racquet bellow to the second (so did my younger, more advanced buddy, the club intermediate champion whom I rate around 4.5-5 with full natural strokes).

What I'm getting is the concept of generating effortless power, also due to higher racquet head speed with no tension neither in your arm nor in your grip (via a higher swing weight racket, that gets "thrown at the ball" or "pulled" according to other coaches).

BTW, I invite all of you to compare the following two racquets if you get a chance and let me know what you think please:

1. Wilson BLX 6.1 95

Weight 12.3 ounces 349 grams
Balance Point 12.31 inches 31cm 10pts Head Light
Swing Weight 325

2. Wilson Pro Staff 97s

Weight 11.5 oz 326 gm
Balance Point 13.5 in 34 cm Even Balance/or 3 pts Head Light
Swing Weight 336

The only downsize I found with the lighter racquet being ocassionally harder to deal/jarring with harder incoming balls when hit off center (law of elastic impact in physics); Although the lower static mass is compensate by the higher racquet head speed.

Imho this concept of "throwing the racquet at the ball with a relaxed grip and arm", followed by "hitting through the ball" (before coming over it/finishing strong accross), should suffice (i.e no need for the stupid 2000+ thread about holding/absorbing the ball, unless that is a helped by equipment such as full bed natural gut that does pocketing on its own), what do you think?

Thanks in advance

SinjinCooper · Mar 25, 2017

Find something you like the feel of. Stick with it. Use your whole body, as much as possible, in the execution of your strokes. Do this, and all the numbers become trivia (apart from the value of knowing what they are, so you can keep your racquets the same and save yourself the hassle of having to acclimate anew).

If you want an actual opinion on which is objectively "better," stick to the racquet forum, where they believe they can buy their way to better strokes. Over here, we deal in what the human body can do.

My racquets are over 13 oz, and I have no idea what the swingweight is, but I assume it's comparable to a Hyundai sedan. They don't quiz you on it when they hand you the trophies.

Fintft · Mar 25, 2017

SinjinCooper said:
Find something you like the feel of. Stick with it. Use your whole body, as much as possible, in the execution of your strokes. Do this, and all the numbers become trivia (apart from the value of knowing what they are, so you can keep your racquets the same and save yourself the hassle of having to acclimate anew).

If you want an actual opinion on which is objectively "better," stick to the racquet forum, where they believe they can buy their way to better strokes. Over here, we deal in what the human body can do.

My racquets are over 13 oz, and I have no idea what the swingweight is, but I assume it's comparable to a Hyundai sedan. They don't quiz you on it when they hand you the trophies.

Hi SC,

I found something I liked for many years, but it was a close call between higher static weight and higher swing weight and recently I went for the later due to:

a) Easier to prepare/swing when pressed
b) Easier to generate higher racquet speed (using the whole body ideally/kinetic chain).

The only downsize being the occasional difficulty of dealing with hard balls.

WisconsinPlayer · Mar 25, 2017

Id choose the Pro staff because if you ever want to change the balance or SW you can without the racquet becoming too heavy

GuyClinch · Mar 25, 2017

Probably should ask this question in racquets. But both would be okay I think for most players.

Are you willing to add weight to your racquet? I think both of those racquets are still in the light enough to add weight range. So for the first one you could add some weight to the tip and add to swing weight without making it too heavy overall. (Still well under 13oz).

For the second racquet you could add some weight to the handle to boost the overall static weight without effecting the swing weight much. Though honestly if it was my racquet I'd add weight to the tip as well. 336 is okay as a swing weight but still lower then I like. Most pros are rocking 360 swing weight at least.. Not saying that you have to go that high..

Anyway in my mind - big problem with amateurs is that they are in general playing with swing weights that are way too low and racquets that are too light. This idea that people would get tired if their racquet weighed 13oz instead of 11.5oz is really suspect IMHO. But YMMV.

Curiosity · Mar 25, 2017

I can play with racquets with a static weight anywhere between 11.6 and 12.6 ounces. What I cannot adjust to is a change in the degree of head-light balance. It has to be between 9 and 11 points light to feel right. Like the 6.1's mentioned above, mine were always quite head light. I currently use up-weighted PS97's and RF97's, with slightly different static weights but nearly identical head-light balance. I've used heavy racquets for 20 years or more to avoid elbow and shoulder problems. Now I just like what I'm used to....

Fintft · Mar 25, 2017

Curiosity said:
I can play with racquets with a static weight anywhere between 11.6 and 12.6 ounces. What I cannot adjust to is a change in the degree of head-light balance. It has to be between 9 and 11 points light to feel right. Like the 6.1's mentioned above, mine were always quite head light. I currently use up-weighted PS97's and RF97's, with slightly different static weights but nearly identical head-light balance. I've used heavy racquets for 20 years or more to avoid elbow and shoulder problems. Now I just like what I'm used to....

But you see, my former love, the BLX 6.1 went more head light over the last 4 years and at the time I thought that was ok, until it wasn't anymore so I went for more SW in a 97s...

Fintft · Mar 25, 2017

GuyClinch said:
Probably should ask this question in racquets. But both would be okay I think for most players.

Are you willing to add weight to your racquet? I think both of those racquets are still in the light enough to add weight range. So for the first one you could add some weight to the tip and add to swing weight without making it too heavy overall. (Still well under 13oz).

For the second racquet you could add some weight to the handle to boost the overall static weight without effecting the swing weight much. Though honestly if it was my racquet I'd add weight to the tip as well. 336 is okay as a swing weight but still lower then I like. Most pros are rocking 360 swing weight at least.. Not saying that you have to go that high..

Anyway in my mind - big problem with amateurs is that they are in general playing with swing weights that are way too low and racquets that are too light. This idea that people would get tired if their racquet weighed 13oz instead of 11.5oz is really suspect IMHO. But YMMV.

Never added weight, so no really.

But you sound like a pro, congrats!

And what you said in your last line, happened to me as my former love, the BLX 6.1 went more head light over the last 4 years and at the time I thought that was ok, until it wasn't anymore so I went for more SW in a 97s...

Your last sentence, why are you surprised that amateurs can't swing heavy racquets?

After all, can YOU swing Murray's racquet?

Curiosity · Mar 25, 2017

Fintft said:
But you see, my former love, the BLX 6.1 went more head light over the last 4 years and at the time I thought that was ok, until it wasn't anymore so I went for more SW in a 97s...

You and I have the same reaction to racquet weight. You simply like a different balance, but you probably can play slightly lighter or heavier, so long as the racquet has the same degree of head light balance, or lack of same. I think it is natural. The balance interacts with your stroke technique. Heavier or lighter isn't the thing, even H or L swing weight. It is a balance change that is an unpleasant or unacceptable variation. No?

GuyClinch · Mar 25, 2017

Never added weight, so no really.

But you sound like a pro, congrats!

And what you said in your last line, happened to me as my former love, the BLX 6.1 went more head light over the last 4 years and at the time I thought that was ok, until it wasn't anymore so I went for more SW in a 97s...

Your last sentence, why are you surprised that amateurs can't swing heavy racquets?

After all, can YOU swing Murray's racquet?

I never claimed they couldn't swing them. I said they are not swinging them.

And I think they should be swinging heavier racquets - Murray's might be too heavy. I hear his swing weight is over 400.

Rule of thumb is to add as much swingweight (slowly) till you get the point where it becomes uncomfortable - difficult to use. So if you want an answer to your question - both would work well for most players - not just 'pros'.

Pete

Fintft · Mar 25, 2017

Curiosity said:
You and I have the same reaction to racquet weight. You simply like a different balance, but you probably can play slightly lighter or heavier, so long as the racquet has the same degree of head light balance, or lack of same. I think it is natural. The balance interacts with your stroke technique. Heavier or lighter isn't the thing, even H or L swing weight. It is a balance change that is an unpleasant or unacceptable variation. No?

Not really, b/c I just went from a head light racquet to an even one.

But I did prefer head light racquets until recently.

Fintft · Mar 25, 2017

GuyClinch said:
I never claimed they couldn't swing them. I said they are not swinging them.

And I think they should be swinging heavier racquets - Murray's might be too heavy. I hear his swing weight is over 400.

Rule of thumb is to add as much swingweight (slowly) till you get the point where it becomes uncomfortable - difficult to use. So if you want an answer to your question - both would work well for most players - not just 'pros'.

Pete

I see and I agree with your point (many club players, up to say 3.5-4.0 are not swinging fast enough and especially not the heavier racquets).

But you see, what if one (and I'm speaking for myself here) realize that they are either slowing down in their swings or they never swung properly to start with?

That's what made me change my racquet and I got to swing faster (again, maybe?).
Funny thing is that for about a week I could also swing faster with my previous model, but (as my more advanced friend warned), I forgot again (with my previous, heavier but less swing weight racquet). So now I'm using only my second racket, lighter but with higher swing weight.

GuyClinch · Mar 26, 2017

But you see, what if one (and I'm speaking for myself here) realize that they are either slowing down in their swings or they never swung properly to start with?

If slower swing is your only criteria - then yes the lightest racquet possible is the fastest. However for rec players a slightly slower swing in return for more consistent power and smoother technique seems to pay off. The huge payoff for me is comfort. We are only talking about half an ounce of weight here - in my case.. Not talking about swinging a baseball bat out there.

Fintft · Apr 6, 2017

GuyClinch said:
If slower swing is your only criteria - then yes the lightest racquet possible is the fastest. However for rec players a slightly slower swing in return for more consistent power and smoother technique seems to pay off. The huge payoff for me is comfort. We are only talking about half an ounce of weight here - in my case.. Not talking about swinging a baseball bat out there.

I agree with your generalization for recreational players!

As per case it's about an ounce difference in weight and I can tell.

movdqa · Apr 6, 2017

I'd go with higher swingweight over static weight, as long as it didn't cause arm problems. I think that feel will suffer with this approach - but what do you want? Better feel or winning matches?

GuyClinch · Apr 6, 2017

I'd go with higher swingweight over static weight, as long as it didn't cause arm problems. I think that feel will suffer with this approach - but what do you want? Better feel or winning matches?

Yeah. Swing Weight is thought to be more important then static weight anyway. Its more noticeable. If you had two racquets that had the exact same static weight and one had higher swing weight then the other - you could tell the difference fairly easily. But if they had the exact same swing weight and one had say a half ounce more static weight - it wouldn't be quite as obvious - especially when you got to playing..

movdqa · Apr 6, 2017

GuyClinch said:
Yeah. Swing Weight is thought to be more important then static weight anyway. Its more noticeable. If you had two racquets that had the exact same static weight and one had higher swing weight then the other - you could tell the difference fairly easily. But if they had the exact same swing weight and one had say a half ounce more static weight - it wouldn't be quite as obvious - especially when you got to playing..

ATP Pros usually use swingweights in the 350-400 range but you have Nadal with a fairly low static weight even though his swingweight is in the 360s I think. Berdych's frame is around 12.7 ounces but the SW is probably at least in the 390s but that would be a higher swingweight/static weight than Federer. So swingweight does seem to be more important at the ATP level.

1HBH-DownTheLine · Apr 7, 2017

swingweight for sure!

Crocodile · Apr 8, 2017

I like higher static weight but I think it's a personal decision. I like traditionally weighted headlight frames that allow me to feel and swing the racquet with precision. Don't like polarised or overtly high swingweights for my game.

1HBH-DownTheLine · Apr 10, 2017

you can have a heavier 12oz frame but still have a lower SW to it which I don't find super beneficial. The sticks that are 12.5oz and 330+ SW are great for the plow.

LocNetMonster · Apr 30, 2017

SinjinCooper said:
My racquets are over 13 oz, and I have no idea what the swingweight is, but I assume it's comparable to a Hyundai sedan. They don't quiz you on it when they hand you the trophies.

Last summer I thought going to a lighter racquet in the 9.5oz category from 11.3 would solve my inconsistency. No dice. Then, after reading a couple of posts on this forum I experimented playing with heavier racquets. When I got the right balance and weight my UEs dropped considerably. Now at 13.5oz,12pts HL (no idea what actually SW is) on all but one of my racquets, I'm no longer getting bageled/breadsticked by folks above me on our ladder. I'm not winning all of them, but I playing much more competitively.

P.S. For the record, serving with stick at 16oz in the third of a five set match of is pretty much feels like swinging a Hyundai sedan over your head on serves

LocNetMonster · Apr 30, 2017

duplicate msg

Fintft · Apr 30, 2017

LocNetMonster said:
Last summer I thought going to a lighter racquet in the 9.5oz category from 11.3 would solve my inconsistency. No dice. Then, after reading a couple of posts on this forum I experimented playing with heavier racquets. When I got the right balance and weight my UEs dropped considerably. Now at 13.5oz,12pts HL (no idea what actually SW is) on all but one of my racquets, I'm no longer getting bageled/breadsticked by folks above me on our ladder. I'm not winning all of them, but I playing much more competitively.

P.S. For the record, serving with stick at 16oz in the third of a five set match of is pretty much feels like swinging a Hyundai sedan over your head on serves

Yeah 9.5 oz seems pretty light (myself I went from 12.3 to 11.5oz but with higher SW).

Attila_the_gorilla · Apr 30, 2017

High swingweight is a must. Static depends on whether you want to hit flatter or with more spin. Shorter balance (more headlight) is more suited to flat hitting. Also easier to volley with. But longer balance (more head heavy) is better for topspin, as the racket head naturally drops below the ball during the swing.

LocNetMonster · May 6, 2017

Attila_the_gorilla said:
Shorter balance (more headlight) is more suited to flat hitting. Also easier to volley with. But longer balance (more head heavy) is better for topspin, as the racket head naturally drops below the ball during the swing.

Interesting. I hit a flatter ball with HH sticks and get way more top spin and slice out HL racquets, which is why I went that route.

Attila_the_gorilla · May 7, 2017

LocNetMonster said:
Interesting. I hit a flatter ball with HH sticks and get way more top spin and slice out HL racquets, which is why I went that route.

Maybe you went that way cos there is a popular misconception out there. It is wrong. Longer balance is naturally more suited to topspin, and shorter balance is naturally more suited to flatter hitting.

LocNetMonster · May 7, 2017

Attila_the_gorilla said:
Maybe you went that way cos there is a popular misconception out there. It is wrong. Longer balance is naturally more suited to topspin, and shorter balance is naturally more suited to flatter hitting.

That is neither my personal experience or what I observe from players I know who use HH racquets. I am willing to bet stroke mechanics and swing path plays a larger roll in the flight path level and/or RPMs than racquet balance.

Attila_the_gorilla · May 7, 2017

LocNetMonster said:
That is neither my personal experience or what I observe from players I know who use HH racquets. I am willing to bet stroke mechanics and swing path plays a larger roll in the flight path level and/or RPMs than racquet balance.

The point is that a shorter balance facilitates a flatter swingpath, whereas a more head heavy frame does the opposite. Similar to how a shorter balance is more suited to high volleys, because the racket head is easier to keep up. The exact same principle applies with flat hitting. The racket head doesn't tip below the ball so much.
Obviously you can compensate for the racket's inherent features.

Dragy · May 7, 2017

Attila_the_gorilla said:
But longer balance (more head heavy) is better for topspin, as the racket head naturally drops below the ball during the swing.

Disagree. It's the upward speed that increases topspin. HH would, comparatively, lag behind the handle more and not whip forward as fast as HL. Meanwhile, getting below the ball is achieved mostly by conscious/ingrained arm path, not the racquet balance.
In practice, any racquet with reasonable balance (say 12 HL to EB) and decent SW will be good enough to play topspin groundies, with not that large difference in spin potential. It's more a matter of personal preference and feel. Get decent SW, get the balance that feels right, then work on your mechanics to get the shape you like for the ball trajectory.

Attila_the_gorilla · May 7, 2017

I hate it when people waste my time.

One of the most successful flat hitters in recent times:

Hewitt played with a very short balance, around 8.5 points headlight. That is no coincidence. That balance means that the racket head doesn't tend to drop below his arm during the lag phase. This facilitates a more horizontal swingpath, which was a real weapon for him on quicker courts.

He would not be able to achieve this horizontal swingpath with Rafa's racket, which is much more head heavy and naturally drops below the arm during the lag phase. As a result, Rafa needs to swing upwards to make contact, which is exactly what he likes to do, cos his game is built on topspin.

A more extreme example would be Carlos Moya, who played with a notoriously head heavy racket. Something like 6 pts HH, very long balance. He was one of the first of a generation of heavy topspin hitting Spanish clay courters. It's no coincidence that that's the kind of setup clay courters still like to use, though not to such extreme. High swingweight, lowish static and relatively long balance.

Dragy · May 7, 2017

Attila_the_gorilla said:
I hate it when people waste my time.

One of the most successful flat hitters in recent times:

Hewitt played with a very short balance, around 8.5 points headlight. That is no coincidence. That balance means that the racket head doesn't tend to drop below his arm during the lag phase. This facilitates a more horizontal swingpath, which was a real weapon for him on quicker courts.

He would not be able to achieve this horizontal swingpath with Rafa's racket, which is much more head heavy and naturally drops below the arm during the lag phase. As a result, Rafa needs to swing upwards to make contact, which is exactly what he likes to do, cos his game is built on topspin.

A more extreme example would be Carlos Moya, who played with a notoriously head heavy racket. Something like 6 pts HH, very long balance. He was one of the first of a generation of heavy topspin hitting Spanish clay courters. It's no coincidence that that's the kind of setup clay courters still like to use, though not to such extreme. High swingweight, lowish static and relatively long balance.

Federer is kown for 2nd highest RPM on tour playing with high static, HL balanced stick. That is no coincidence.

movdqa · May 7, 2017

Dragy said:
Federer is kown for 2nd highest RPM on tour playing with high static, HL balanced stick. That is no coincidence.

I don't think that the balance is as HL as they used to be. I see more racquets coming in around 5-6 points HL instead of 9-12. The RF97 stock is very headlight but you add the amount of lead tape from 10-2 that Federer does and take off some of the lead from the handle (so that it isn't 13+ ounces) and I think that you have something similar to what a lot of other tour players are using for balance.

Attila_the_gorilla · May 7, 2017

Yeag, those very HL rackets are for the old school flat hitters of the previous era like Hewitt, Sjeng Schalken and the traditional doubles players. Nowadays every singles player uses longer balances. Nobody hits flat. Though of course everything is relative.

And clearly, if you're very good, you can compensate for certain lacking features of your racket. Federer did that for years in his prime when he was winning most of his slams with inferior equipment.

Fintft · May 7, 2017

Attila_the_gorilla said:
High swingweight is a must. Static depends on whether you want to hit flatter or with more spin. Shorter balance (more headlight) is more suited to flat hitting. Also easier to volley with. But longer balance (more head heavy) is better for topspin, as the racket head naturally drops below the ball during the swing.

Interesting pov thanks!

And here I was thinking that the two friends that I've played Sunday and Monday (which were hitting too flat and both had lighter SW and HL racquets as opposed to my only 6 points HL. Rafa's seems to be 4 points HL) didn't have much topspin b/c of poor movement and lack of technique; but maybe what you said factors in as well.

Shroud · May 7, 2017

GuyClinch said:
Probably should ask this question in racquets. But both would be okay I think for most players.

Are you willing to add weight to your racquet? I think both of those racquets are still in the light enough to add weight range. So for the first one you could add some weight to the tip and add to swing weight without making it too heavy overall. (Still well under 13oz).

For the second racquet you could add some weight to the handle to boost the overall static weight without effecting the swing weight much. Though honestly if it was my racquet I'd add weight to the tip as well. 336 is okay as a swing weight but still lower then I like. Most pros are rocking 360 swing weight at least.. Not saying that you have to go that high..

Anyway in my mind - big problem with amateurs is that they are in general playing with swing weights that are way too low and racquets that are too light. This idea that people would get tired if their racquet weighed 13oz instead of 11.5oz is really suspect IMHO. But YMMV.

Yep. I dont see why grown men would get tired using a 13oz racquet.

Fintft · May 7, 2017

Shroud said:
Yep. I dont see why grown men would get tired using a 13oz racquet.

Well, they/us:

Might not be swinging it fast enough and instead just pushing the ball
Not be able to easy maneuver it, when pressed by harder incoming balls.

Shroud · May 7, 2017

Fintft said:
Well, they/us:

Might not be swinging it fast enough and instead just pushing the ball

Not be able to easy maneuver it, when pressed by harder incoming balls.

Yeah thats what i cant understand. Like how can you not swing fast enough? And how is it not easy to maneuver?

And fwiw if you have a heavier stick you dont have to swing as fast to get pace and spin. Imho this is the disconnect. Guys are swinging light sticks and they have to swing fast and the thought of doing that with a heavier stick tires them out. They miss the "let the racquet do the work" part. Not their fault really if they never experience the difference

Shroud · May 7, 2017

Fintft said:
Interesting pov thanks!

And here I was thinking that the two friends that I've played Sunday and Monday (which were hitting too flat and both had lighter SW and HL racquets as opposed to my only 6 points HL. Rafa's seems to be 4 points HL) didn't have much topspin b/c of poor movement and lack of technique; but maybe what you said factors in as well.

Seriously? You are behaving this way on TT?? Reported for considering and applying other points of view!

Dragy · May 7, 2017

movdqa said:
I don't think that the balance is as HL as they used to be. I see more racquets coming in around 5-6 points HL instead of 9-12. The RF97 stock is very headlight but you add the amount of lead tape from 10-2 that Federer does and take off some of the lead from the handle (so that it isn't 13+ ounces) and I think that you have something similar to what a lot of other tour players are using for balance.

If you by chance looked into my previous post, I made a point that balance difference within reasonable range doesn't have crucial affect on ability to hit modern high-RPM + high-pace forehand. Also, I wrote somewhere below, a racquet never plays alone without the hand holding it. Even if we pick the sole most isolated case - Federer-like forehand with hinge point at wrist - there's still a hand on the handle, which weights in 300-500g range for a man. Can be over the whole stick weight! Go to http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/customizationReverse.php and play with adding 350g at 2-3 inch for some EB setup or 10pts HL setup - and check the result for difference. For other strokes, like 1/2h BH, or less wrist-whippy FHs, it's even less informative to judge by balance point. Static weight and SW together are more significant data.
Now, what is important for playability is weight aroud the contact point, in the hoop - which usually is displayed by SW figure. You need your SW to be high enough to deal with the pace and heaviness your opposition gives you, and to produce your own power. Then some find beneficial to use lighter static weight sticks, for various reasons, which brings you to less HL setups.

Basically, given decent SW, one would use balance that feels right for his/her game. Both Fed HL stick and Nadal "not-that-HL" are ok for producing huge RPM.

movdqa · May 7, 2017

Dragy said:
If you by chance looked into my previous post, I made a point that balance difference within reasonable range doesn't have crucial affect on ability to hit modern high-RPM + high-pace forehand. Also, I wrote somewhere below, a racquet never plays alone without the hand holding it. Even if we pick the sole most isolated case - Federer-like forehand with hinge point at wrist - there's still a hand on the handle, which weights in 300-500g range for a man. Can be over the whole stick weight! Go to http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/customizationReverse.php and play with adding 350g at 2-3 inch for some EB setup or 10pts HL setup - and check the result for difference. For other strokes, like 1/2h BH, or less wrist-whippy FHs, it's even less informative to judge by balance point. Static weight and SW together are more significant data.
Now, what is important for playability is weight aroud the contact point, in the hoop - which usually is displayed by SW figure. You need your SW to be high enough to deal with the pace and heaviness your opposition gives you, and to produce your own power. Then some find beneficial to use lighter static weight sticks, for various reasons, which brings you to less HL setups.

Basically, given decent SW, one would use balance that feels right for his/her game. Both Fed HL stick and Nadal "not-that-HL" are ok for producing huge RPM.

I've played with some pretty heavy, head-light racquets up to 17+ ounces:

And some pretty light racquets too.

The problem with high static weight is the load on the inner elbow on the serve. That's likely why you don't have people playing with 20 ounce frames, even if the swingweight is 320.

My frames are 6 points HL I think. They are part of a set of Pro Stocks from a Dutch player where Head made the wrong frames by accident. They are heavy and high swingweight.

Shroud · May 7, 2017

movdqa said:
I've played with some pretty heavy, head-light racquets up to 17+ ounces:

And some pretty light racquets too.

The problem with high static weight is the load on the inner elbow on the serve. That's likely why you don't have people playing with 20 ounce frames, even if the swingweight is 320.

My frames are 6 points HL I think. They are part of a set of Pro Stocks from a Dutch player where Head made the wrong frames by accident. They are heavy and high swingweight.

Yep. Now that i am in the 13-14oz range the elbow is much better. I think its the deaccelertion that is problematic for the elbow

Dragy · May 7, 2017

movdqa said:
I've played with some pretty heavy, head-light racquets up to 17+ ounces:

And some pretty light racquets too.

The problem with high static weight is the load on the inner elbow on the serve. That's likely why you don't have people playing with 20 ounce frames, even if the swingweight is 320.

My frames are 6 points HL I think. They are part of a set of Pro Stocks from a Dutch player where Head made the wrong frames by accident. They are heavy and high swingweight.

Yes, that's your (and possibly many others') reason to not play 17 or 20 oz sticks. That's why sticks actually used by good players, and wide range of players, and which get manufactured, all belong to a reasonable range of specs.

Generally accepted term of swingweight applies to 4" hinge point, but (and was discussed here on tt several times) many more swings (or at least parts of swings) are executed with hinge points, or tension points (elbow) which are farther from the contact point. If you calculate such SW(2) from around elbow, all the mass in the handle will contribute. Moreover, for parts like serve racquet pull from drop or forehand pull from lag, the stick is lined up with the impulse direction, and whole mass contributes with the same R^2. The commonly accepted SW, however, provides good reference for the mass around the hoop, and therefore power potential and (together with twistweight) stability.

There's a point for everyone where higher static weight becomes a problem. There's an optimal SW for someone's game. There's a good compromise, a range of good setups. Balance point may be an outcome and a marker for other sticks pickup, but a solely valueable figure? Don't think so.

movdqa · May 7, 2017

Dragy said:
Yes, that's your (and possibly many others') reason to not play 17 or 20 oz sticks. That's why sticks actually used by good players, and wide range of players, and which get manufactured, all belong to a reasonable range of specs.

Generally accepted term of swingweight applies to 4" hinge point, but (and was discussed here on tt several times) many more swings (or at least parts of swings) are executed with hinge points, or tension points (elbow) which are farther from the contact point. If you calculate such SW(2) from around elbow, all the mass in the handle will contribute. Moreover, for parts like serve racquet pull from drop or forehand pull from lag, the stick is lined up with the impulse direction, and whole mass contributes with the same R^2. The commonly accepted SW, however, provides good reference for the mass around the hoop, and therefore power potential and (together with twistweight) stability.

There's a point for everyone where higher static weight becomes a problem. There's an optimal SW for someone's game. There's a good compromise, a range of good setups. Balance point may be an outcome and a marker for other sticks pickup, but a solely valueable figure? Don't think so.

It's useful with the other stuff.

I just note that there's less headlight balance with pros these days than in the past.

Fintft · May 7, 2017

Shroud said:
Yeah thats what i cant understand. Like how can you not swing fast enough? And how is it not easy to maneuver?

And fwiw if you have a heavier stick you dont have to swing as fast to get pace and spin. Imho this is the disconnect. Guys are swinging light sticks and they have to swing fast and the thought of doing that with a heavier stick tires them out. They miss the "let the racquet do the work" part. Not their fault really if they never experience the difference

While I agree with later pov, I'm not so sure about the former: even with a heavier stick I need to swing fast enough... Even if "I let the racquet do the work" (e.g. hitting through the ball).

About not being easier to maneuver, how about:
a) At the net?
b) On the take back from the baseline?

2HBH-DTL · May 8, 2017

i'll take higher swingweight every single time.

Shroud · May 8, 2017

Fintft said:
While I agree with later pov, I'm not so sure about the former: even with a heavier stick I need to swing fast enough... Even if "I let the racquet do the work" (e.g. hitting through the ball).

About not being easier to maneuver, how about:
a) At the net?
b) On the take back from the baseline?

Well it depends on the strokes. If you arm the ball its harder with a heavier racquet. But if you are using the core and loading right even a heavy racquet can move fast enough.

A- Joker has a high sw and he never goes to the net so you may be right.
B- if i understand what you mean it should be a unit turn for take back it would be a terribly heavy racquet that could noticeably affect a unit turn

Chadillac · May 9, 2017

It all comes down to your prep, without that, nothing else matters.

I like a head heavy (hammer balanced) 12oz frame. So the best of both.

They should of shut down the 6.1 line after the ncode, the blx is terrible. It all started with the K, a stiffer feel that took away to purpose of the racket, they feel like hard plastic now

Fintft · May 9, 2017

Shroud said:
B- if i understand what you mean it should be a unit turn for take back it would be a terribly heavy racquet that could noticeably affect a unit turn

I also heard this one from the strongest player in my town (challenger level, 20 year old): how in matches, he just doesn't feel like he can use the heavier racquets.

Shroud · May 9, 2017

Fintft said:
I also heard this one from the strongest player in my town (challenger level, 20 year old): how in matches, he just doesn't feel like he can use the heavier racquets.

I dont doubt it. Though why would any pro ever use more than 320 or 330 or 350. Yet they do and play 5 sets. Heck Murray was using a 400 sw racquet. Which imho is not going to stop any real player. But its mechanics too. Like i said you have to swing heavier sticks a bit differently and really its what we get used to. Somewhere there is a 20 year old playing fine with a heavier stick

Tennisanity · May 9, 2017

2HBH-DTL said:
i'll take higher swingweight every single time.

You would take 10 oz, 362 SW, 15 pts HH, over 12.6 oz, 335 SW, 9 pts HL????

Would you take a higher swing weight, over a higher static weight for the modern ATP FH?

Would you take a higher swing weight, over a higher static weight for the modern ATP FH?

Yes, the higher swing weight helps me throw the racket at the ball, generating effortless power

I prefer higher static weight (e.g. for stability and power).

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Legend

Professional

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

1HBH-DownTheLine

Guest

G.O.A.T.

1HBH-DownTheLine

Guest

Professional

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest

Professional

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest

Professional

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest

Legend

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

2HBH-DTL

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Chadillac

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Similar threads