What Is The Advantage of A Low Swingweight
- Thread starter (K)evin
- Start date
OliverSimon
Hall of Fame
racquet speed. Federer a long wristy swing and Murray a very compact swing
markwillplay
Hall of Fame
pretty heavy to swing for 5 sets amigo. I use a k90 with about the same specs and play great with it for a while...hot day, 3rd set and I am in trouble. I am no Fed of course but in pretty good shape and strong. Stick still takes a lot out of me and has me thinking that it is too much for me. It amazes me how he does not seem to drop off in 5 sets. The guy is in unbelievable tennis shape. Looks like he has plenty of plow.
onehandbh
G.O.A.T.
It depends, friendo. To some, the k90 may be too heavy
and others it feels light and they lead it up.
The low power, small sweet spot and relatively heavy
weight usually make racquets like the K90 a poor choice
for most players under 4.0 or so. Why? b/c they tend
to have less efficient strokes. If you are strong like
you say, then you're probably muscling the ball too
much. Try relaxing more and using your core rotation and
legs to drive the shot.
chief wiggum
New User
There is no advantage to a low sw, meaning 320 or below.
ronalditop
Hall of Fame
You have to remember that most pro players racquets with high SW are not very heavy, around 330-350 aprox. And the pros racquets with a relatively low SW are heavier.
it is low compared to the other professional's rackets, they are mostly above federer's...
Polaris
Hall of Fame
True. I had a similar experience with a demo version of the nCode 90. I was hitting my one-handed backhand really well and also volleying nicely. I played really well (better than with my usual racket, the PK Redondo MP), but after 50 minutes, I was winded and felt the after-effects for the whole day afterwards.
Yes, kind of. Plowthrough is a combination of hitting weight (which is pretty much proportional to swingweight) and racquet speed. So, as noted by a poster above, if you can swing a lower-swingweight stick faster you might actually have more plowthrough than with a higher-swingweight stick. But, only on those shots where you take a full swing. One returns and volleys a higher-swingweight stick will have more plow.
One thing to note when comparing guys like Murray and Djoker to Fed is that both of them grip the racquet higher up on the handle. Take a look at their forehands - Murray and Djoker both hold the handle in a more traditional manner, with the buttcap slightly below their hand.
But Fed (and Rafa) both hold the handle at the very bottom, so their pinkies are only just on the handle (Fed chokes up for volleys and overheads, but that's about it).
Where you hold the racquet on the handle effects the "effective" swingweight. If you choke down on the handle by 1/2" this adds about 25 units to the swingweight, in terms of how difficult it is to swing. It appears to me that Fed holds about that much lower on the forehand than does Djokovic, so if you compare them, Fed swings at ~350+25=375 and Djoker swings at 371 (according to Greg Raven).
(However, although this means it's roughly as difficult for Fed to swing his paintjob as it is for Djoker to swing his paintjob, it also means that Djoker's racquet has a higher hittingweight and is thus inherently more powerful and stable. However, because Fed has made his stick effectively longer, he will have a higher swing speed at the same impact location, this will give him a bit more speed and spin. In terms of speed it will be a wash, with Djoker's more powerful racquet equalizing Fed's faster racquet. But Fed's faster racquet will give him a bit more spin (but only a bit).)
Note: Fed's estimated swingweight comes from Greg Raven's site plus an estiamtion of how much lead P1 puts under his bumper.
Personally, I'm now using a lower swingweight than I could use, and this is because for some shots, forehand and serve in particular, the amount of spin I can hit while still maintaining ball speed is limited by a higher swingweight. I love high swingweight on returns, volleys and slice backhands. But if I go too high my forehand loses pace and/or spin (I have to chose which one I want) and my kicker loses kick.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
A few years ago I compared the specs of 1hb pros vs 2hb pros of the 80+ players on Jura's 2005 FO list.
The 1hb players were using heavier frames - about 8g heavier on average, and the difference was statistically significant. MR^2 was about the same between the two groups though.
Matchball
Semi-Pro
Interesting. I can confirm this, since my low SW Babolat PST Ltd. feels a lot more stable in terms of returning a heavy ball. It's the relatively higher weight that helps...
Surprising that balance wasn't more headlight for OHBH group.
Still haven't had a chance to try SW2. Will report my results at the opposite end of the spectrum when I've got a chance.
aimr75
Hall of Fame
feds forehand is compact
Polaris
Hall of Fame
What ??!!!!!
Dreamer
Professional
Why would that be surprising? I would think that you would want a Head Heavy racquet for 1hander. The head leads the stroke and is more stable when heavier at the head. You don't have the same ability to absorb force as you do with 2 hands.
Are you confusing head-heavy balance with high swingweight? The two things are not directly related.
Sure, higher swingweight definitely helps with OHBH as it increases plowthrough and stability through the ball, as you've said. But swingweight is only one aspect of stability. Another aspect is recoil weight, which is the swingweight about the balance point. If your racquet has a high recoil weight the impact with the ball on the strings does not translate into a strong impact of the handle on the hand. You can imagine how a high recoil weight would improve stability on a OHBH. On a two-hander, since you've got two hands on the handle, you don't need high recoil weight so much.
Recoil weight is highly dependent on balance. If I have two frames (A&B):
A = 360grams, 33cm balance, 340 SW
B = 360grams, 31.5cm, 340 SW
The more headlight, B, has recoil weight of 174
The less headlight, A, has recoil weight of 150
Notice also that these two racquets, which do exist in the world, have the same swingweight, but one is more headlight than the other. Balance and swingweight are relatively independent of each other and depend on mass distribution. A head-heavy racquet does not always have a high swingweight and a head-light racquet does not always have a lower swingweight, although that is the general trend. It all depends on where mass is concentrated in a frame.
Nextman916
Professional
maneuverability.
OHBH
Semi-Pro
You want to use the highest swingweight you are comfortable with. Trying to hit high bouncing shots the backhand with 300-310 SW is just going to make that shot even more difficult as you won't have the plow through to drive back those heavy balls.
If you are having trouble getting the racket around in time on the backhand I suggest increasing static weight and making your racket more headlight. Swingweight will increase slighty but the headlight balance will around you to get it around better. I keep my racket 13.3oz and 10pts HL; the backhand is my better wing and I can drive balls that are over my head because I let the racket and its heft do the work.
tkoziol
Rookie
Low swingweight is typically more maneuverable and will get more spin. However, you don't want an ultra lightweight racquet either because you can get pushed around. Its best to keep increasing swingweight until you notice a negative difference (drop in spin, arms hurts, feel sluggish, etc). Everyone is different and size/strength do not matter!!!! Safin had a SW around 340ish!
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
During Really fast quick exchange at NET in doubles. like Bryan brothers do at net.
For serves or groundstrokes where I can set my feet, I would probably get the most power, spin, and control with a racket that weighed over a pound (16oz+). However, on all those shots - and there are quite a few - where I'm not completely settled, where a quick movement of the racket is required (volleys, half-volleys), or any shot I have to reach or adjust to like a serve return, the weight becomes a negative at some point.
You need to balance the plusses and the minuses. It really isn't that hard because if you are reasonably close, your game will adjust a bit to your racket.
You need to balance the plusses and the minuses. It really isn't that hard because if you are reasonably close, your game will adjust a bit to your racket.
Stay in the 320-340 SW range is my advice. My wife is in her 50's, 5'4", and 120 lbs and she uses 330 SW. A collegiate athlete should have no problem using something in the 320-340 SW range.
I also know several 4.5 women who play SW around 320.
Also, increase static weigth and HL balance can make a 330 SW "feel" quicker to me. Maybe it is an illusion but 330 sw at 3 pts HL feels slower than 330 sw at 6 HL.
Last edited:
This is very interesting. I've noticed the same thing when modding frames that start below 320 SW. Invariably I end up liking them once I get to 320+ and then it's just a matter of how far I want to push SW versus static weight and balance.
I'm a strong believer that physique and frame need to be in sync but the ball doesn't care who we are. When it impacts our frame at a given speed and spin rate it would seem that the frame needs to be of some minimal mass/SW/plow to maintain accuracy.
Obviously this depends on the ball speeds seen at a given level of play routinely and in my experience from 3.0 to 4.0 a SW of 320-340 seems to do the job just fine. Below that and some of the heavy serves hit by strong male players might be more difficult to return. More importantly starting at 320 it just seems that frames acquire a certain minimum stability against shots commonly seen at these levels, thus improving accuracy and consistency. Above 340 or so and lack of experience timing strokes against fast paced shots is more difficult even if the extra plow helps.
I read an old article by French Tennis Federation that said the minimum specs for arm health and performance was 320SW or more, 4HL or more, and medium to low flex. I think 320SW minimum is pretty reasonable and anyone can handle that with a little practice. Personally, I find 330SW is my minimum. Lower than that does not feel quite as good.
I agree with you, the physics of the game demand a certain level of mass even at intermediate levels.
GoudX
Professional
Heavy racquets with low swingweights are very good on serve, where you can exploit the low swingweight to swing as fast as you can, without having to worry about stability away from the centre. That's why the classic serving racquets are all low swingweight and heavy, like the prestige mid or the 6.0 85.
On groundstrokes higher swingweight is better as you need something that doesn't get pushed around by opponents shots and a racquet with more power on the same speed swing is useful on defensive shots.
On groundstrokes higher swingweight is better as you need something that doesn't get pushed around by opponents shots and a racquet with more power on the same speed swing is useful on defensive shots.
JRstriker12
Hall of Fame
Head heavy rackets tend to have a higher swing weight making, not ideal if you are hitting a one-handed backhand.
Thus why most one-handers use head light rackets with a higher static weight and a slightly lower swing weight.
Fintft
G.O.A.T.
What other people are saying!
Myself I'm happy to have upgraded from a WILSON K Factor KSix-One 95 (SW 360, 6 PHL) to the newer models, the latest being WILSON Six.One 95 BLX (SW 327, 9-10PHL) according to **************. Same weight.
Power Player
Bionic Poster
My sticks are currently 12 ounces and a little under 320 in Sw. I get tons of control and tons of head speed. A lot of old school sticks were designed this way. Low SW, high static weight.
I really like it a lot. The racquet has never once been pushed around at all and it hits a really ncie heavy ball for swinging so light.
Look at verdasco hit with his 315 SW..its all user preference.
I really like it a lot. The racquet has never once been pushed around at all and it hits a really ncie heavy ball for swinging so light.
Look at verdasco hit with his 315 SW..its all user preference.
I'm going to try one of my frames closer to your specs PP. Sounds interesting and probably even more appropriate for me as I don't face nearly as much pace as you do on routine basis (I'm pretty sure you're more experienced/higher level than I am).
Power Player
Bionic Poster
The thing is that it works against heavy hitters since it is stable, but it also works incredible against softer hitters or no pace guys.
It is a classic weight - tons of guys played with these specs back in the day and still do. The Prestige Midplus and newer 6.1 95 are good examples of tour specs based on classic weighting. Still works incredible in the modern game. In fact the newer APD has gone in this direction.
It is a classic weight - tons of guys played with these specs back in the day and still do. The Prestige Midplus and newer 6.1 95 are good examples of tour specs based on classic weighting. Still works incredible in the modern game. In fact the newer APD has gone in this direction.
Tried one of the frames today against my wife at 340g/12oz and SW~320. Balance must have been 10 HL easily, didn't measure it.
She's one of those no pace players of which you speak but is very consistent and very tricky. She plays a lot of mixed doubles and knows how to exploit one's pace for her own gain.
It played so well that even when she made an error on my side of the net I'd yell, "Play it!" to continue the rally. I could do that 2-3 times and still win the point.
Your setup was far more comfortable than mine and combined lower power with great stability which I really enjoy. When she served out wide with pace and I had to stretch the frame was still stable enough for a no-swing, deep block back return.
Serves were easier too. I still had power but definitely less stress on the ole body. A slowly accelerating uncoiling of the core was more than sufficient to generate lots of pace.
Only downsides were slices and volleys. My timing was off and I framed a few slices. But when I connected I was still able to generate my infamous 90-degree breaks. Probably just need to get used to the new feel. On volleys I kept hitting a bit long. Need to adjust head angle with new setup. Not quite as solid as my standard setup on volleys but not a show-stopper either.
One handed backhands were much easier with your setup. I was very pleasantly surprised.
This might be a keeper. I'll know more Monday night practicing with my male friends. One has been playing since age 8 and has amazing strokes (his excess middle-aged weight gain is the only thing keeping him back so he sticks to doubles). Others have been playing nearly as long as he has and have serves easily 90+Mph according to one of the iPhone serve apps. I measured mine using conservative settings at 80-86Mph at 75% success rate and they serve much harder than I do, if a little less consistently and accurately.
This reminded me of the PSLGT but with more pop and pace on serve.
Thanks for the suggestion, I truly appreciate it.
Last edited:
for me i have found a 299sw donnay yellow/silver light 99 squin strung at a low, bouncy 50lbs tension does well-er than other rackets i have used to counter the high-bouncy to the backhand...a firm flat pop sends it back deep and low, if not all that fast. it has bought me time to recover.
Lukhas
Legend
What are your sticks already? And with what kind of mod?
