why do pros use a low power racquet?

I have just been reading about this as far as picking a new racquet.
Control or Player’s Racquets are designed for players who provide their own power and prefer a racquet that offers more control.
I'm guessing this means that the player can hit the ball hard and fast enough without needing a racquet that helps you hit harder and faster.

does this mean that Andy roddick would be able to serve faster than 150mph if he had a power racquet?
if so, why wouldn't he?

150mph out is useless so they have to find a medium between power/control and they have plenty of power so control rackets are popular with them.

Roddick does have a racquet designed for power, light, stiff, 100sqin, 16x19, extended length, and he has served over 150mph.

even though they may have plenty of power and may prefer a controll racquet, just think what they could do with a racquet designed with power in mind.
so why would they use a racquet with anything less than maximum power?

Paul B 40-15 said:

I have just been reading about this as far as picking a new racquet.
Control or Player’s Racquets are designed for players who provide their own power and prefer a racquet that offers more control.
I'm guessing this means that the player can hit the ball hard and fast enough without needing a racquet that helps you hit harder and faster.

does this mean that Andy roddick would be able to serve faster than 150mph if he had a power racquet?
if so, why wouldn't he?

Click to expand...

They use mostly low power racquets because they don't need the extra pop that stiff racquets give, they generate the power by themselves.

Paul B 40-15 said:

even though they may have plenty of power and may prefer a controll racquet, just think what they could do with a racquet designed with power in mind.
so why would they use a racquet with anything less than maximum power?

Click to expand...

Trolling?:-?

Paul B 40-15 said:

even though they may have plenty of power and may prefer a controll racquet, just think what they could do with a racquet designed with power in mind.
so why would they use a racquet with anything less than maximum power?

Click to expand...

Because the goal of the sport of tennis is not to hit the ball as far nor as hard as you can but to keep the ball inside the 4 lines. To do that, you need to have control of the ball.

Also, in many cases, a shot hit soft and slow will bother your opponent more than a shot hit hard with power.

not at all, honest.
even though they can generate the power by themselves and they don't need the extra pop that stiff racquets give, surely they would be able to hit harder and faster with a racquet designed with power in mind, so why don't they use them.

Paul B 40-15 said:

not at all, honest.
even though they can generate the power by themselves and they don't need the extra pop that stiff racquets give, surely they would be able to hit harder and faster with a racquet designed with power in mind, so why don't they use them.

Click to expand...

Ya but stiff racquets don't have much control and that is really what they are looking for.

Paul B 40-15 said:

not at all, honest.
even though they can generate the power by themselves and they don't need the extra pop that stiff racquets give, surely they would be able to hit harder and faster with a racquet designed with power in mind, so why don't they use them.

Click to expand...

How many times do you want to have the question answered so that you can then ignore the answer? Too much power without control will lose you a lot more matches than too little power. Pros can't afford to lose matches. Being able to hit the back fence at a hundred miles an hour is useless when you need to place the ball in the corner of the court to win the point. This is the same reason most 4.5's don't play with an oversize tweener racquet with gut strung at low tension. Power without control is useless to any skilled player.

Paul B 40-15 said:

not at all, honest.
even though they can generate the power by themselves and they don't need the extra pop that stiff racquets give, surely they would be able to hit harder and faster with a racquet designed with power in mind, so why don't they use them.

Click to expand...

Ok, i'll bite. At higher levels Tennis is often as much about absorbing the opponents power as generating one's own. A stiff, powerful racquet can be a huge liability when returning a big serve or making a low volley off a well struck groundstroke. A heavier, 'softer' frame will usually have more stability and 'plow through' to help the player control the shot.

A top player, or even a decent rec player, generates their own power with correct technique. A 'player's frame' will often be quite heavy and that mass helps a good player to generate power on serve and elsewhere. I know I hit a heavier ball with my Dunlop 200s than I do with my son's Volkl 4s, despite the Volkls being much more 'powerful'.

I hope this helps.

the weight of there rackets gives them more power than a stiff twiner could. It also gives control. In order to be able to use the mass of a racket to generate power you have to have decent strokes. Hit with control oriented frames and find out why most players enjoy them yourselves. While you may not believe it, there is a reason why they don't use light, stiff, oversize, widebody frames. While an occasional pro's racket may have one or two of these traits, rarely if ever all of them.

thebeast73 said:

the weight of there rackets gives them more power than a stiff twiner could. It also gives control. In order to be able to use the mass of a racket to generate power you have to have decent strokes. Hit with control oriented frames and find out why most players enjoy them yourselves. While you may not believe it, there is a reason why they don't use light, stiff, oversize, widebody frames. While an occasional pro's racket may have one or two of these traits, rarely if ever all of them.

Click to expand...

IMO this is the best answer.

Also http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/trajectory_compare.cgi
as you see power racket don't actualy offer much more pace.

Edit: just checked link and it didn't show what I wanted but change one to an oversize power frame and see what I meant. It was supposed to be a blx 90 and a babolat y112

Actually, many pros do use very powerful racquets. The power comes from racquet design itself (stiff/powerful Babolat's and the likes) and huge swingweight. Nadal/Roddick's sticks are much more powerful than most retail racquets.

Shangri La said:

Actually, many pros do use very powerful racquets. The power comes from racquet design itself (stiff/powerful Babolat's and the likes) and huge swingweight. Nadal/Roddick's sticks are much more powerful than most retail racquets.

Click to expand...

Tsonga also...

The reason that many players find power rackets to be more powerful is that they really can't hit yet and just block the ball instead of swining hard , so only the headsize and stiffness really matter because the ball catapults off the strings and the frame barely giving maximum energy return allowing the ball to be powered by the strings and racket, not the player.

Lots of players have been migrating to power frames lately because with the power being supplied to them, they can just brush up on the ball and spin the ball like crazy.

Pros do not use low power racket. they use less flexible, but very heavy ones.

The super stiff, light, and OS racket are the "powerful" ones you have in mind? Sounds like you are not an experienced player.

Power comes from mass and acceleration, stiffness is secondary because it depends on the speed of the ball coming in. Just like a ball would bounce higher on a harder surface, but the ball needs to be dropped from a reasonable height to demonstrate that effect.

And above all these the string bed is also a factor. Pros use fresh and powerful string set ups. Not the $5 pre strung stuff you've seen.

Yeah.. a properly weighted and balanced player's racquet is definitely more powerful than the tweeners. I can understand maybe wanting some free pace on slower swinged shots.. but i feel more comfortable swinging freely and still generating enough pace to at least put an opponent on defense.. and i'm a lowly 3.5.

Mass distribution more than anything else generates power.. and especially if you've got a heavy frame with high sw. Even racquets with a buttery soft feel will be powerhouses with the right setup.. I hit more unreturnable serves with my 85" Wilson Sting than I do with my 98" 'tweener' radical mp, and more consistently powerful putaway shots.

30 years ago, they came out with the idea of a smoothbore, hyperspeed rod penetrator sabot round that could punch holes in anything that can move by itself.
The Russians were innovating the "bigger is better" theory, using 120mm smoothbore cannons in their later model T-72's.
American's, as usual, like to one up the competition!
But they came out with a 100 mm cannon on the original M-1Abrams.
However, in the ever increasing search for MORE POWER, MORE RANGE, they initially tried using the 130mm smoothbore hyperV disintergrating sabot rounds. This DID NOT WORK! The loader couldn't handle the 65lbs ammo, the tank's recoiled threw off the electronics, night and thermal sights, and the crew was getting pummelled by the recoil, flame, concussion, noise....
So they went back to the 120 round, same as the RUSSIANS!...
More power doesn't always help.

Cup8489 said:

Yeah.. a properly weighted and balanced player's racquet is definitely more powerful than the tweeners. I can understand maybe wanting some free pace on slower swinged shots.. but i feel more comfortable swinging freely and still generating enough pace to at least put an opponent on defense.. and i'm a lowly 3.5.

Mass distribution more than anything else generates power.. and especially if you've got a heavy frame with high sw. Even racquets with a buttery soft feel will be powerhouses with the right setup.. I hit more unreturnable serves with my 85" Wilson Sting than I do with my 98" 'tweener' radical mp, and more consistently powerful putaway shots.

Click to expand...

how does this explain the pros stringing at lower tensions? like federer hes using a "players" racket but he is stringing at, as i recall 40s- low 50s.
and nadal is with his "tweener" racket strung at 55, which is not considered high by any means. and both their rackets are highly polarized as well

Pros use powerful racquets with high swing weights. I am not sure what some of you guys are watching.

Roddicks stick is pretty light...345 grams, and it is a power frame.His swingweight is modded to be higher for even more power.

Nadal is kind of good and his frame is 333 grams and powerful.

It's more about how you swing than anything.

Soderlings racquet is super powered at a swing weight near 400.

Power Player said:

Pros use powerful racquets with high swing weights. I am not sure what some of you guys are watching.

Roddicks stick is pretty light...345 grams, and it is a power frame.His swingweight is modded to be higher for even more power.

Nadal is kind of good and his frame is 333 grams and powerful.

It's more about how you swing than anything.

Soderlings racquet is super powered at a swing weight near 400.

Click to expand...

Most pros use low powered, high weight racquets with high swingweights. The power comes from the weight.

Most recreational players use high powered, low weight racquets with low swingweights. The power comes from the stiffness.

To generate power from a low powered, heavy racquet, you need to use proper technique and a full swing.

To generate power from a high powered, light racquet, all you need to do is block the ball or use short compact jabs at the ball.

I believe the OP is referring to power that comes from the stiff construction of the frame rather than from the weight of the frame because the weight cannot generate power unless you can swing it sufficiently fast.

CycloneSh0t said:

how does this explain the pros stringing at lower tensions? like federer hes using a "players" racket but he is stringing at, as i recall 40s- low 50s.
and nadal is with his "tweener" racket strung at 55, which is not considered high by any means. and both their rackets are highly polarized as well

Click to expand...

And dont forget these tensions in 350+ swingweight racquets play a lot more 'trampoline' than in stock frames. Just another example pros dont mind high-powered setup at all.

I find that many modern, even slim-beamed players' racquets give a lot of power just from blocking the ball, which is why they are good at defense, so you need proper technique to keep the ball in and not just to generate power.

STROKE IT DONT POKE IT

once you do that you'll learn why you want to play with a heavy, headlight, solid frame

Shangri La said:

Actually, many pros do use very powerful racquets. The power comes from racquet design itself (stiff/powerful Babolat's and the likes) and huge swingweight. Nadal/Roddick's sticks are much more powerful than most retail racquets.

Click to expand...

But then they often mitigate that power with a full poly string bed (eg Nadal).

LeeD said:

30 years ago, they came out with the idea of a smoothbore, hyperspeed rod penetrator sabot round that could punch holes in anything that can move by itself.
The Russians were innovating the "bigger is better" theory, using 120mm smoothbore cannons in their later model T-72's.
American's, as usual, like to one up the competition!
But they came out with a 100 mm cannon on the original M-1Abrams.
However, in the ever increasing search for MORE POWER, MORE RANGE, they initially tried using the 130mm smoothbore hyperV disintergrating sabot rounds. This DID NOT WORK! The loader couldn't handle the 65lbs ammo, the tank's recoiled threw off the electronics, night and thermal sights, and the crew was getting pummelled by the recoil, flame, concussion, noise....
So they went back to the 120 round, same as the RUSSIANS!...
More power doesn't always help.

Click to expand...

This is way off topic but the Americans had a 105 for many years then moved to a German made 120mm gun. The Russians used a 100mm and then 125mm gun. The American M1 Abrams started with a 105 then moved to the German 120. The 105 is still used on the American Stryker MGS (a light armored eight wheeled vehicle with turret mounted 105).

The Russians guns fire both standrd rounds and can launch ATGMs to match the long range accuracy of the American fire control systems.

And it's the Russian who have been pressing the big gun approach. The end of the cold war killed that research.

FWIW the German 120mm gun fires APDS depleted uranium rounds. They're fin stabilized rather than spin stabilized since rifling limits a gun's muzzle velocity and these guns kill tanks with kinetic energy.

Would you look at that, LeeD remembered things from his past incorrectly.

whomad15 said:

STROKE IT DONT POKE IT

once you do that you'll learn why you want to play with a heavy, headlight, solid frame

Click to expand...

^^^ this!

I think you also get more of a 1:1 feel with lower powered, heavier setups. Tap a ball with a noob rocket launcher and it flies. Tap a all with a heavy low powered setup and it goes where you want it to.

thebeast73 said:

the weight of there rackets gives them more power than a stiff twiner could. It also gives control. In order to be able to use the mass of a racket to generate power you have to have decent strokes. Hit with control oriented frames and find out why most players enjoy them yourselves. While you may not believe it, there is a reason why they don't use light, stiff, oversize, widebody frames. While an occasional pro's racket may have one or two of these traits, rarely if ever all of them.

Click to expand...

Agreed. If you look at the power ratings of the pros frames, for example Federer's, you'll find that the power potential is much higher than the lighter, tweener and beginner frames. As stated above, it takes a faster swing speed to fully utilize that power. Also, that faster swing speed will impart more spin to the ball, bringing it down into the court, giving your opponent more trouble.
But the pros are only a tiny part of the tennis industry. The vast majority of players, understandably, aren't amazing athletes and the goal of the industry is to get as many people playing and enjoying the game.
The same thing has happened in golf. Most pros use thin blades for irons, because of the control and recreational players go for distance, because their swing speeds are too slow and erratic.

CycloneSh0t said:

how does this explain the pros stringing at lower tensions? like federer hes using a "players" racket but he is stringing at, as i recall 40s- low 50s.
and nadal is with his "tweener" racket strung at 55, which is not considered high by any means. and both their rackets are highly polarized as well

Click to expand...

Pro's use Fresh strings and have such racquet speed that the looseness of the stringbed is used mainly to help generate the spin to bring a ball back down into the court.

Plus, 55 for nadal's frame is probably more like 57-58 for us, since they have world class stringers using electronics as opposed to what many of us use. Verdasco has been known to use mid 30's tension on his frame with full poly, to impart more spin..

Cup8489 said:

Yeah.. a properly weighted and balanced player's racquet is definitely more powerful than the tweeners. I can understand maybe wanting some free pace on slower swinged shots.. but i feel more comfortable swinging freely and still generating enough pace to at least put an opponent on defense.. and i'm a lowly 3.5.

Mass distribution more than anything else generates power.. and especially if you've got a heavy frame with high sw. Even racquets with a buttery soft feel will be powerhouses with the right setup.. I hit more unreturnable serves with my 85" Wilson Sting than I do with my 98" 'tweener' radical mp, and more consistently powerful putaway shots.

Click to expand...

Agree, properly weighted and balanced players rackets can provide powerful frame for pros but it also allows control. Most pro frames are fairly flexible too. FORCE = MASS * ACCELERATION and you cannot get around this rule of nature. Force is power and pop. MASS best correlates to a rackets swingweight and ACCELERATION is your swing speed. 90% of ATP pros have SW between 350-390, and 90% WTA pros have SW between 330-375. Retail rackets are going too low on SW, and you need at least 320 to play 3.5 tennis in my not so humble opinion. I am a bit stubborn about this as very low SW might be good for beginners and children but it can not stand up to a moderately hard hit ball.

Light, stiff racket with lower swing weights make it difficult to control ball for even upper intermediate and advance players. I don't think you rad MP is a tweener. Weight it up to SW ~335 and keep the balance around 4 pts HL and you will have a weapon of mass destruction with a good feel due to the soft flex and solid composition. The stock SW is a bit low but that can easily be fixed.

If you look at the top four Head pros, you'll see that they use flexible but very heavy racquets. If you want to try an experiment, get a flexible frame like the PK Redondo or Head Radical, lead it up so that the swingweight is 370 or greater and go out for a hit. Don't be surprised if you whiff a few balls because it's so hard to swing it with your regular timing.

There are pros and juniors that use light and low-swingweight frames so there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Paul B 40-15 said:

even though they may have plenty of power and may prefer a controll racquet, just think what they could do with a racquet designed with power in mind.
so why would they use a racquet with anything less than maximum power?

Click to expand...

keeping the ball between the lines plus pinpoint precision.

thankyou for all your replies.
for those who have asked, this is not a troll.
I just found a website offering advice on new racquet choice and had a question I wanted answering.

thanks to all who did.

movdqa said:

If you look at the top four Head pros, you'll see that they use flexible but very heavy racquets. If you want to try an experiment, get a flexible frame like the PK Redondo or Head Radical, lead it up so that the swingweight is 370 or greater and go out for a hit. Don't be surprised if you whiff a few balls because it's so hard to swing it with your regular timing.

There are pros and juniors that use light and low-swingweight frames so there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Click to expand...

It would be very difficult to get a serve in the 110-120+ range if the racket is too light. the swing will need to be at mach 1!

I have a few Pro Stocks with relatively low swingweights - I'd estimate in the 320 - 330 area. They supposedly came from European ATP pros. I picked up a pair of frames at 365 grams and I find that these are much more to my liking.

movdqa said:

I have a few Pro Stocks with relatively low swingweights - I'd estimate in the 320 - 330 area. They supposedly came from European ATP pros. I picked up a pair of frames at 365 grams and I find that these are much more to my liking.

Click to expand...

I dont think 330 sw is the racket specs the OP was referring to. He was probably talking about retail "game improvement" frames that are supposed to be "more powerful".

I was responding to this:

[90% of ATP pros have SW between 350-390, and 90% WTA pros have SW between 330-375]

If you look at the samples at Greg Raven's site, you find that more than a few ATP pros are below SW 350.

Power varies with sw so high sw racquets are high power racquets.

movdqa said:

I was responding to this:

[90% of ATP pros have SW between 350-390, and 90% WTA pros have SW between 330-375]

If you look at the samples at Greg Raven's site, you find that more than a few ATP pros are below SW 350.

Click to expand...

SW by itself isn't much because a lot of ppl like very HL rackets. They are still swinging a heavy stick. You can have a retail OS stick with 320 SW because they are 3pt HH. However the overall mass is low because the OS stick is easily under 10.5OZ. A 12pt HL stick may have a weight of 12+ oz, yet the sw is not showing it at all. Which stick is more powerful? I am gonna bet on the heavier stick.

> SW by itself isn't much because a lot of ppl like very HL rackets. They
> are still swinging a heavy stick. You can have a retail OS stick with
> 320 SW because they are 3pt HH. However the overall mass is low
> because the OS stick is easily under 10.5OZ. A 12pt HL stick may
> have a weight of 12+ oz, yet the sw is not showing it at all. Which
> stick is more powerful? I am gonna bet on the heavier stick.

You'd lose that bet.

17 ounce frame with no power. The frame is a Dunlop Revelation Tour Pro with silicone and nails. Swingweight about 310.




K90, KPS88, Pro Kennex Ki5 PSE, Pure Drive Roddick, etc. all hit a heavier ball.

Watch YouTube videos of Nadal practicing. He plays with an 11.7 - 11.8 ounce frame with a 355 swingweight. Federer plays with a much heavier frame with a similar swingweight. Both of these guys hit pretty hard.

movdqa said:

> SW by itself isn't much because a lot of ppl like very HL rackets. They
> are still swinging a heavy stick. You can have a retail OS stick with
> 320 SW because they are 3pt HH. However the overall mass is low
> because the OS stick is easily under 10.5OZ. A 12pt HL stick may
> have a weight of 12+ oz, yet the sw is not showing it at all. Which
> stick is more powerful? I am gonna bet on the heavier stick.

You'd lose that bet.

17 ounce frame with no power. The frame is a Dunlop Revelation Tour Pro with silicone and nails. Swingweight about 310.

K90, KPS88, Pro Kennex Ki5 PSE, Pure Drive Roddick, etc. all hit a heavier ball.

Watch YouTube videos of Nadal practicing. He plays with an 11.7 - 11.8 ounce frame with a 355 swingweight. Federer plays with a much heavier frame with a similar swingweight. Both of these guys hit pretty hard.

Click to expand...

Your post is kind of contradicting.
I agree the K90 (fed spec) and K88 are powerful rackets. But they are not Stiff and "game improvement" "powerful" sticks the OP suggests. So what's the point? I have been saying this all along.

Well what is the balance of your racket after stuffing a bunch of nails at the handle? It is unplayable and unrealistic! If you spec it down to 9pt HL or so and keep it at 13oz-14oz then we are talking.

And don't quote small % of pros who play with so called "light weight" "light SW", "OS" tweener frames. There are ppl like that out there... but they are never the majority of the pros, are they? And more importantly are they even on the top 20? top 10?

My point is, since my previous posts, pro sticks are much more powerful. They are not low power sticks compared to the retail tweeners, because:

-they are heavier
-they use fresh and powerful string set ups
-players have the proper technique to use them well
-rocket launchers don't count because they can't keep the ball in at those speed
-it's power+control, not just one thing

Of course if you dink every ball until you are purely relying on the power from the other side, a stiffer trampoline will show some difference.

It's just the law of physics, where mass and acceleration wins.

> Your post is kind of contradicting.

Not in the least. You posted an argument and I merely refuted it.

> I agree the K90 (fed spec) and K88 are powerful rackets. But they are
> not Stiff and "game improvement" "powerful" sticks the OP suggests. So
> what's the point? I have been saying this all along.

You said that static weight is a bigger factor than swingweight. I
strongly disagree with that. I think that you can read some of the TW
tutorials and find that too.

> Well what is the balance of your racket after stuffing a bunch of
> nails at the handle? It is unplayable and unrealistic! If you spec it
> down to 9pt HL or so and keep it at 13oz-14oz then we are talking.

It was something like 23-25 points headlight.

Basically something that would prevent arm problems due to shock and
vibration and that could deal with very heavy balls with no problems.

> And don't quote small % of pros who play with so called "light
> weight" "light SW", "OS" tweener frames. There are ppl like that out
> there... but they are never the majority of the pros, are they? And
> more importantly are they even on the top 20? top 10?

Strawman.

I didn't say that they are a majority. Only that the number is likely
more than 10%. I did not say that the top ten have low-swingweight
racquets. On the contrary, I have one of Berdych's frames and I
calculated the swingweight at around 390 (I'm taking it to a shop with
an RDC machine to get it measured in a few weeks). Djokovich's and
Soderling are known to have high static weight and swingweight racquets.
Federer and Nadal have high swingweight racquets. Murray used to have an
insanely high swingweight but one of his frames is for sale and the
advertised static weight and swingweight imply a much lower swingweight
today. I don't have the specs of the rest of the top ten players handy.

> My point is, since my previous posts, pro sticks are much more
> powerful. They are not low power sticks compared to the retail
> tweeners, because:

> -they are heavier
> -they use fresh and powerful string set ups
> -players have the proper technique to use them well
> -rocket launchers don't count because they can't keep the ball in at those speed
> -it's power+control, not just one thing

Some of the pros use low-powered sticks. I have a number of pro stock
frames and some of them are low-powered and some have a lot of power.
Some have low static weights and some have high static weights. Take
a look at the racquets used by the Williams sisters. They are low in
static weight but monstrous in swingweight.

> Of course if you dink every ball until you are purely relying on the
> power from the other side, a stiffer trampoline will show some
> difference.

Ever watch Berdych play? He hits with a lot of power, mostly flat shots,
with relatively short swings. Hit with his racquet for one minute (if you
can swing it) and you'll understand why he hits the way he does.

> It's just the law of physics, where mass and acceleration wins.

What's the name of that law? Have you taken a university course in
physics?

Do you think that biomechanics plays no part?

Maybe I'm mising something, but doesn't Nadal play with a bab apdgt or a cortex....aren't these a bit on the stiff side?

I think that he plays with the old APD. The APD is stiff but I believe that he has a polarized setup that may result in a more flexible (dynamic as opposed to static) frame.

I play with the gt's, and they are stiff, but I don't find them powerful. I have to string mine in the high 40's to low 50's to get them cranked up, and I do take a good swing at the ball (or so I'm told).

Perhaps with the large amount of weight added to these, they become a little less stiff...?

Mind you, if I don't have good form when stroking the ball, everything is into the fence....I like these, cause they force me to hit with better form than a very forgiving racquet

jmo

Your post is kind of contradicting.

Not in the least. You posted an argument and I merely refuted it.

> I agree the K90 (fed spec) and K88 are powerful rackets. But they are
> not Stiff and "game improvement" "powerful" sticks the OP suggests. So
> what's the point? I have been saying this all along.

You said that static weight is a bigger factor than swingweight. I
strongly disagree with that. I think that you can read some of the TW
tutorials and find that too.
No I never said that. Both have something to do with power. Again and again you ignore what the thread is about. I am saying a retail frame with similar sw doesn't mean much because a pro frame with that kind of sw usually have higher static weight. More powerful in that sense.




> And don't quote small % of pros who play with so called "light
> weight" "light SW", "OS" tweener frames. There are ppl like that out
> there... but they are never the majority of the pros, are they? And
> more importantly are they even on the top 20? top 10?

Strawman.

I didn't say that they are a majority. Only that the number is likely
more than 10%. I did not say that the top ten have low-swingweight
racquets. On the contrary, I have one of Berdych's frames and I
calculated the swingweight at around 390 (I'm taking it to a shop with
an RDC machine to get it measured in a few weeks). Djokovich's and
Soderling are known to have high static weight and swingweight racquets.
Federer and Nadal have high swingweight racquets. Murray used to have an
insanely high swingweight but one of his frames is for sale and the
advertised static weight and swingweight imply a much lower swingweight
today. I don't have the specs of the rest of the top ten players handy.

All of the top successful pro use heavy frames compare to retail. Stick to the subject - retail tweener vs pro frames.

> My point is, since my previous posts, pro sticks are much more
> powerful. They are not low power sticks compared to the retail
> tweeners, because:

> -they are heavier
> -they use fresh and powerful string set ups
> -players have the proper technique to use them well
> -rocket launchers don't count because they can't keep the ball in at those speed
> -it's power+control, not just one thing

Some of the pros use low-powered sticks. I have a number of pro stock
frames and some of them are low-powered and some have a lot of power.
Some have low static weights and some have high static weights. Take
a look at the racquets used by the Williams sisters. They are low in
static weight but monstrous in swingweight.

Oh yeah? how does it happen? Yes, they put WEIGHT on the head to increase SW. So the static weight is higher than the retail frames, no?

> Of course if you dink every ball until you are purely relying on the
> power from the other side, a stiffer trampoline will show some
> difference.

Ever watch Berdych play? He hits with a lot of power, mostly flat shots,
with relatively short swings. Hit with his racquet for one minute (if you
can swing it) and you'll understand why he hits the way he does.

Did u even read what I wrote?? Did Berdych ever dink the ball like a 2.0? No. He has a very powerful swing.

> It's just the law of physics, where mass and acceleration wins.

What's the name of that law? Have you taken a university course in
physics?

If you don't even know what it is what is the point? Obviously you are no PhD in physics either.

Do you think that biomechanics plays no part?

Then you are switching the topic to the players, pulling the topic further and further off course.

I'm done with this conversation. I am talking about apples and you keep answering about oranges.