How can you tell your racquet is unstable?
- Thread starter flargosa
- Start date
Probably the quickest way is to demo a bunch of racquets in various weights. The heavy ones will be stable by virtue of their mass, some of the intermediate-weight racquets (11 ounces) will feel stable, some won't. A few lighter ones will, most won't.
But there are tradeoffs and you might find you're willing to give up a little stability for more racquet-head speed and spin, or feel, or whatever. Stability means different things to different people too. In terms of physics there are three swingweights that determine stability:
1. Swingweight as measured by an RDC machine at an axis 10cm from the butt. This is a measure of how difficult it is to swing the racquet in an arc, like on groundstrokes and serves. It is also a measure of how much mass is in the head of the racquet, so it also tells you how difficult it is for the ball to bully the racquet. When people are talking about plowthrough this is the spec they are invoking.
This is the most important spec and can be increased by adding lead anywhere in the head. Lead added closer to the tip has a greater effect.
2. Twistweight. this is the swingweight around the longitudinal (a line from the butt to the tip up the middle of the frame) axis. This tells you how difficult it is for the ball to twist the racquet around that axis. More weight in the head generally leads to higher twistweight, but how far that weight is from the axis is more important. Therefore, racquets with wide heads (midplus and oversize) will have higher twistweight at a given weight. Twistweight also determines how much speed your shots will have if you hit left and right of the center of the strings. Low twistweight means those shots will be much slower than if you had hit the sweetspot, high twistweight will give you a couple extra mphs on those shots. Lighter racquets like Pure Drives are "powerful" largely because they have high twistweight. Even though the head doesn't have huge amounts of mass (and therefore the swingweight is not really high), the wide head and high twistweight gives a very consistent response off the stringbed. So most of your shots will be fast, or "powerful", even if you miss the sweetspot often.
You can increase this by adding lead on the perimeter, the further away the better, so 3&9 o'clock is the favored location for improving this spec.
3. Recoil weight. The swingweight around the balance point. This tells you how much the racquet will recoil when struck by the ball. High swingweight and headlight balance will mean high recoil weight. People with one-handed backhands appreciate racquets with high recoil weight because it gives a feeling of stability to the shot. With one hand, you don't want the handle recoiling (pulling out of or pushing into your hand). You want the racquet to be rock solid even with only one hand on the handle, and high recoil weight gives you that.
Adding mass at 12 o'clock and in the butt improves recoil weight very quickly. However, a lot of high level players use racquets with rather low recoil weights so I'm not sure how important this one is.
Racquet stiffness also has something to do with this. Sometimes a player will say that a flexible stick is unstable, even if the three swingweights above are all high.
But, if you hit the ball in the sweetspot all racquets are stable, so that's the most important thing to focus on. Also, the faster you swing the less important the inherent stability of your racquet is. Conversely, the faster the shots you face are, the more important it is. Most people don't pay much attention to this stuff until they are playing higher-level opponents who hit hard.
But there are tradeoffs and you might find you're willing to give up a little stability for more racquet-head speed and spin, or feel, or whatever. Stability means different things to different people too. In terms of physics there are three swingweights that determine stability:
1. Swingweight as measured by an RDC machine at an axis 10cm from the butt. This is a measure of how difficult it is to swing the racquet in an arc, like on groundstrokes and serves. It is also a measure of how much mass is in the head of the racquet, so it also tells you how difficult it is for the ball to bully the racquet. When people are talking about plowthrough this is the spec they are invoking.
This is the most important spec and can be increased by adding lead anywhere in the head. Lead added closer to the tip has a greater effect.
2. Twistweight. this is the swingweight around the longitudinal (a line from the butt to the tip up the middle of the frame) axis. This tells you how difficult it is for the ball to twist the racquet around that axis. More weight in the head generally leads to higher twistweight, but how far that weight is from the axis is more important. Therefore, racquets with wide heads (midplus and oversize) will have higher twistweight at a given weight. Twistweight also determines how much speed your shots will have if you hit left and right of the center of the strings. Low twistweight means those shots will be much slower than if you had hit the sweetspot, high twistweight will give you a couple extra mphs on those shots. Lighter racquets like Pure Drives are "powerful" largely because they have high twistweight. Even though the head doesn't have huge amounts of mass (and therefore the swingweight is not really high), the wide head and high twistweight gives a very consistent response off the stringbed. So most of your shots will be fast, or "powerful", even if you miss the sweetspot often.
You can increase this by adding lead on the perimeter, the further away the better, so 3&9 o'clock is the favored location for improving this spec.
3. Recoil weight. The swingweight around the balance point. This tells you how much the racquet will recoil when struck by the ball. High swingweight and headlight balance will mean high recoil weight. People with one-handed backhands appreciate racquets with high recoil weight because it gives a feeling of stability to the shot. With one hand, you don't want the handle recoiling (pulling out of or pushing into your hand). You want the racquet to be rock solid even with only one hand on the handle, and high recoil weight gives you that.
Adding mass at 12 o'clock and in the butt improves recoil weight very quickly. However, a lot of high level players use racquets with rather low recoil weights so I'm not sure how important this one is.
Racquet stiffness also has something to do with this. Sometimes a player will say that a flexible stick is unstable, even if the three swingweights above are all high.
But, if you hit the ball in the sweetspot all racquets are stable, so that's the most important thing to focus on. Also, the faster you swing the less important the inherent stability of your racquet is. Conversely, the faster the shots you face are, the more important it is. Most people don't pay much attention to this stuff until they are playing higher-level opponents who hit hard.
klementine
Hall of Fame
I think, more often than not, people refer to a racquet as unstable when it comes to netplay/volleying.
Reaction time at net is cut short (especially when the competition is better), so finding the sweetspot is not always easy.
Other than that, I've never hit a racquet from the base line and thought it was unstable.
Reaction time at net is cut short (especially when the competition is better), so finding the sweetspot is not always easy.
Other than that, I've never hit a racquet from the base line and thought it was unstable.
Captain Tezuka
Rookie
Yes that maybe true and due to an off centre hit the frame rotates around the long axis from butt to head and it feels unstable due to this recoil it may also be due to the racquet being not as stiff or too light i.e the weight is somewhere in the 8oz-10oz category.
-Tezuka
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I disagree with this. When the ball hits the sweetspot, it stretches the stringbed in the normal direction. And if the incoming ball has a lot of spin, the ball applies a torque to the stretched stringbed that twists the racquet about its longitudinal axis. If the racquet is light, it will twist a lot more than a heavy racquet. The torque is a product of the moment arm (distance the ball stretches the stringbed in normal direction) x the force (lateral force due to spin). The harder the impact, the greater the moment arm of the torque. And the greater the rpm of the incoming ball, the greater the force component of the torque.
This torque effect has nothing to do with off-center hits, but everything to do with stability. In my opinion, it is the most important reason to use a heavy racquet. When rallying against heavy incoming balls, a heavy racquet makes it much easier to control the launch angle of routine groundstrokes. Of course, the effect is even more important on returns (which account for 1/2 of all shots in singles) and volleys.
You can minimize this torque effect by using a stiffer stringbed. Conversely, a soft (and thus powerful) stringbed will accedntuate the torse effect and make a racquet feel less stable. This is the reason I keep coming back to stiff string setups; while I like soft and powerful stringbeds for serving, I really like the extra control that comes with high stringbed stiffness.
Last edited:
Chyeaah
Professional
All balls hit in the sweetspot are stable as long as you know how to hit. Racquet headspeed is your answer for all DECENT racquets that are 300g+.
Last edited:
hi. personally i would ignore comments like that. some comments have merit and others do not.
modern tennnis racquets are not unstable. the common inaccurate comment is that their racquet gets 'pushed around' - becomes unstable -when they play a 'heavy hitter'. the accurate comment should be that the person isnt good enough to flush hit the ball w. sufficient batspeed and technique when they play a 'hard hitter' ie; someone who is better than they.
also many people seem to grab a lighter racquet and swing it at the same speed as their usual heavier racquet. that doesnt work. then they often declare a perfectly fine racquet as unstable and crap because of their inability to use the racquet well. you need to take advantage of the opportunity to swing faster..batspeed is your friend..it creates spin, which creates control
often adding lead to a racquet makes the racquet 'more unstable' and not more stable. if the racquet is already as heavy as the player can handle or too heavy for them, and they add lead, it decreases their batspeed to the point where they cant swing it fast enough reliably hitting the sweetzone.
i used to say this over and over again. use the heaviest racquet you can swing fast enough for however long your sessions last when playing someone at least as good as you.
mojo
spaceman_spiff
Hall of Fame
Given that the average player has less-than-ideal footwork and less-than-ideal technique, how can you say that swing speed is their friend?
The only way to consistently create high swing speeds with correct timing is to have stellar footwork and technique. From what I've seen, the faster most people try to swing, the more mistakes they make (even when the ball goes in, it often lands short because of mis-hits and timing issues, leading to an easy shot for the opponent). Hence, the reason that pushers (with smooth, steady swings) beat hitters (with fast, whippy swings) so often at the lower levels.
Also, what about volleys? A frame with a 300 SW and tiny power zone isn't going to pack much punch on volleys, even if you hit the sweet spot every time. So most people compensate by swinging rather than blocking (which leads to inconsistent volleys). And what about returning serve. Is a high swing speed really what you want when the ball is coming in at you that fast, or would it be better to drive through it smoothly with a stable frame?
Wouldn't it be better for most people to use frames with big power zones and tons of stability (i.e., high swingweight, though not necessarily a high static weight) so that they can get the power they're looking for with slow, smooth swings rather than fast, whippy swings? Or are you saying that sub-4.5 players have the ability to consistently create high swing speeds but not low swing speeds?
Last edited:
user92626
G.O.A.T.
Dude, take out a badmington racket and play tennis, you'll see how unstable it is. Even Federer with his skills wouldn't be able to hit a couple average shot with it.
TaihtDuhShaat
Semi-Pro
10 characters
Last edited:
Magic of tennis
Semi-Pro
lol. good one. That tells you all you want to know.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
To me, it means one of two things: (1) the racquet feels like it's getting pushed around by heavy shots from your opponent, or (2) the racquet feels like it's twisting in your hand from the slightest off center hit, or both.
Adding lead tape to the 9-3 O'Clock position on the head will fix the twisting instability. That's why many Wilson racquets have built in perimeter weighting at 9-3. Adding lead tape closer to the top of the head, which increases swingweight, and counterbalancing with led tape on the handle (under the grip), will give it more mass against heavy balls. I have an old Slazenger with built in added weight at 8, 12 and 4 O'Clock. It's the most stable racquet I've ever used, even more stable than my old Wilson Kramers, Dunlop Forts and Davis Classics.
Last edited:
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
I agree, with one friendly amendment. If a lighter racquet doesn't "fit" you; i.e. it doesn't agree with your game or feel right, then yeah, you can experience what is fairly termed stability problems.
But, if you find a frame that fits your game, like I have found with the EXO 3 Tour Team, then you do indeed have the best of both worlds.
Also, there are too many posts about heavier is better and you can't play against a big ball. The majority of WTA players aren't using uber heavy sticks. Davydenko's specs were on here and he plays with a 311 gram frame. There are plenty of world class pros who also use lighter frames.
I played tonight in our indoor league against a guy I regularly play against. He starts out hitting buck twenty + serves with his Wilson 6.1. But tonight, we played a full 3rd set. He didn't win his serve from the middle of the second set on. I didn't lose mine. Now, I don't hit as fast as he does, but my balls have a lot more direction and work on them. And, I can maintain that level for 3 sets. He's 10 years younger than me, over 6 feet tall, and lean. But he wore out before I did. I also find, to his repeated chagrin, returning a hard serve isn't that tough if it has no work on it.
spaceman_spiff
Hall of Fame
Quick question for you. If a 6' tall guy is worn out at the end of a tennis match, do you think it's because of the 12-oz racket in his hands or the 160 pounds or more of body weight he's moving around the court?
Just because someone is lean, it doesn't mean his fitness is as good as it needs to be for tennis. Even with quite muscular guys you can find their legs often aren't nearly as strong as they should be. So when it comes time for a match, the constant movement around the court wears them out. And once they're fatigued (especially in the legs), regardless of their choice of frame, their game is going to suffer, and the serves are first to go.
When I was in highschool, I played loads of guys who were bigger than me and used lighter frames. But, my fitness was miles better because of the torture my soccer coaches put me through. So, despite the fact that I was a smaller guy using a heavier frame, I could serve better and hit better groundstrokes by the end of the 2nd set and throughout the 3rd (and the subsequent doubles match afterwards).
kaiser
Semi-Pro
I also have great difficulty believing that just swinging a racket that's maybe half an ounce or an ounce heavier is going to have a significant effect on one's fitness as a match progresses. My guess would be that this perception is mostly in the mind: he or she is swinging a heavier racket and is getting tired in a match, therefore it must be the weight of the racket...:-?
As Spaceman correctly points out the amount of energy involved in moving your whole body around the court is much, much higher, probably orders of magnitude so. Most posters here appear to compare just the weight of two rackets, say one is 11 and the other 12 ounces, so the difference in energy spent swinging those rackets would seem to be in the order of 8-9%. If this were indeed the case, that might have a significant effect during a match. They appear to forget, however, that in order to swing your racket, you first need to swing your arm and, if you swing properly, rotate your whole torso, etc. Only your arm weighs probably 2-3 kg... So you need to compare swinging 3+ kg plus 11 oz racket with 3+ kg plus 12 oz racket. That's a difference of less than 1 percent, is that really going to wear you out?
With Spaceman I would say that the amount of running you do in a match makes much more difference to your fitness levels than what racket you swing.
Whether you dictate aggressively from the baseline or defend from way behind the baseline will make a huge difference in your fitness at the end of a long match! Perhaps Rabbit just wore his younger, fitter opponent out with his wiley court-play...
As Spaceman correctly points out the amount of energy involved in moving your whole body around the court is much, much higher, probably orders of magnitude so. Most posters here appear to compare just the weight of two rackets, say one is 11 and the other 12 ounces, so the difference in energy spent swinging those rackets would seem to be in the order of 8-9%. If this were indeed the case, that might have a significant effect during a match. They appear to forget, however, that in order to swing your racket, you first need to swing your arm and, if you swing properly, rotate your whole torso, etc. Only your arm weighs probably 2-3 kg... So you need to compare swinging 3+ kg plus 11 oz racket with 3+ kg plus 12 oz racket. That's a difference of less than 1 percent, is that really going to wear you out?
With Spaceman I would say that the amount of running you do in a match makes much more difference to your fitness levels than what racket you swing.
Whether you dictate aggressively from the baseline or defend from way behind the baseline will make a huge difference in your fitness at the end of a long match! Perhaps Rabbit just wore his younger, fitter opponent out with his wiley court-play...
I also have great difficulty believing that just swinging a racket that's maybe half an ounce or an ounce heavier is going to have a significant effect on one's fitness as a match progresses. My guess would be that this perception is mostly in the mind: he or she is swinging a heavier racket and is getting tired in a match, therefore it must be the weight of the racket...:-?
As Spaceman correctly points out the amount of energy involved in moving your whole body around the court is much, much higher, probably orders of magnitude so. Most posters here appear to compare just the weight of two rackets, say one is 11 and the other 12 ounces, so the difference in energy spent swinging those rackets would seem to be in the order of 8-9%. If this were indeed the case, that might have a significant effect during a match. They appear to forget, however, that in order to swing your racket, you first need to swing your arm and, if you swing properly, rotate your whole torso, etc. Only your arm weighs probably 2-3 kg... So you need to compare swinging 3+ kg plus 11 oz racket with 3+ kg plus 12 oz racket. That's a difference of less than 1 percent, is that really going to wear you out?
With Spaceman I would say that the amount of running you do in a match makes much more difference to your fitness levels than what racket you swing.
Whether you dictate aggressively from the baseline or defend from way behind the baseline will make a huge difference in your fitness at the end of a long match! Perhaps Rabbit just wore his younger, fitter opponent out with his wiley court-play...
It just doesnt work that way in the real world. Increases in racquet weight do not directly correlate to the same % increase in physical exertion. I dont know the scientific reasons for this, but think it has something to do with how your muscles and lungs use up oxygen and electrolytes during physical exertion when swinging a racquet <and running of course>. a small increase in racquetweight can often have really adverse affects on your endurance. actually more like small increases in swingweight to properly state. I;m not speaking of your arm endurance. If someones arms get tired during play, that is most likely due to poor technique or some sort of injury....i;m talking about when your legs and wind go in the heat of play. Obviously basic physical conditioning is a huge factor. This all of course assumes the player swings a racquet with some sort of reasonable batspeed.
spaceman_spiff
Hall of Fame
Yes, it does.
I was hitting with a guy a few weeks ago who would be a strong 4.5 in the DC area (where I lived and played a few years ago). Normally, he uses an unmodified Pure Drive, so we're talking 11 oz or so and ~325 SW, but he broke his last set of strings while we were warming up. So, the only option was to play with one of my modified Radicals (11.8 oz and 332 SW in stock form, then I throw on 30g on the head (15 at 3 and 9 and 15 at 12) and slap on a leather grip; so it's ~13.5 oz and God knows what SW).
Now, this guy is quick, fit, and has pretty decent technique. So despite the timing issues he had with my frame, we played two full sets without any noticeable drop in play on his end. Obviously, his timing would have been better with the frame he's more accustomed to. But, despite an increase of over 2 oz and who knows how much more swingweight, as well as the fact that he was on the defensive more than usual because the timing issues prevented more aggressive shots, there wasn't any significant increase in fatigue compared to when he uses his normal frame.
I was hitting with a guy a few weeks ago who would be a strong 4.5 in the DC area (where I lived and played a few years ago). Normally, he uses an unmodified Pure Drive, so we're talking 11 oz or so and ~325 SW, but he broke his last set of strings while we were warming up. So, the only option was to play with one of my modified Radicals (11.8 oz and 332 SW in stock form, then I throw on 30g on the head (15 at 3 and 9 and 15 at 12) and slap on a leather grip; so it's ~13.5 oz and God knows what SW).
Now, this guy is quick, fit, and has pretty decent technique. So despite the timing issues he had with my frame, we played two full sets without any noticeable drop in play on his end. Obviously, his timing would have been better with the frame he's more accustomed to. But, despite an increase of over 2 oz and who knows how much more swingweight, as well as the fact that he was on the defensive more than usual because the timing issues prevented more aggressive shots, there wasn't any significant increase in fatigue compared to when he uses his normal frame.
Last edited:
kaiser
Semi-Pro
Ha ha ha, great joke! In the REAL world 30g of extra racket weight magically messes up "how your muscles and lungs use up oxygen and electrolytes during physical exertion", and you're not speaking of arm endurance! I guess I must have missed something in my physiology classes...
The plot gets thicker and thicker...
kaiser
Semi-Pro
That's not at all what I'm trying to say here. I'm NOT saying everyone should play with heavier rackets. If a lighter racket feels right for you and suits your game, go for it!
What I'm questioning, and others with me, is the blanket assertion that a heavier frame is a primary cause of weariness in a long match. There are many other, much stronger factors that affect your fitness levels in the course of a match. Some of these were discussed above. Moreover, every match is different: different conditions, opponents, your serve may be on or off, and you yourself are not the same person from day to day. But many posters here automatically assume that if they wear down in a long match, they SHOULD consider going for a lighter racket. Similarly, if you get older, you SHOULD think of going lighter. I think that makes no sense...
I mean, to test statistically whether the weight of the racket really makes a significant difference on how quickly you wear down, you'd have to conduct many repeated experiments with different weighted rackets under carefully controlled conditions with objectively measured parameters!
As to the racket manufacturers, they are in the business of selling rackets. As long as people continue to believe that lighter rackets are always easier to play with, they will keep churning them out. Even if they have to make them uber-stiff to still allow you to get some pace on your shots...
What I'm questioning, and others with me, is the blanket assertion that a heavier frame is a primary cause of weariness in a long match. There are many other, much stronger factors that affect your fitness levels in the course of a match. Some of these were discussed above. Moreover, every match is different: different conditions, opponents, your serve may be on or off, and you yourself are not the same person from day to day. But many posters here automatically assume that if they wear down in a long match, they SHOULD consider going for a lighter racket. Similarly, if you get older, you SHOULD think of going lighter. I think that makes no sense...
I mean, to test statistically whether the weight of the racket really makes a significant difference on how quickly you wear down, you'd have to conduct many repeated experiments with different weighted rackets under carefully controlled conditions with objectively measured parameters!
As to the racket manufacturers, they are in the business of selling rackets. As long as people continue to believe that lighter rackets are always easier to play with, they will keep churning them out. Even if they have to make them uber-stiff to still allow you to get some pace on your shots...
Chyeaah
Professional
I beg to differ. Vs me and ill make you run around the court. Unless the frame is WAY TOO heavy for you to handle. A heavier frame wouldn't be the primary cause of weariness
Last edited:
spaceman_spiff
Hall of Fame
No, manufacturers got it all right from their perspective. They made rackets less powerful and convinced people that they were, in fact, more powerful. Even better, though, is that they convinced people that the thing that makes them less powerful (i.e., lower weight and swingweight) is actually what makes them supposedly more powerful. Thus, they created a self-propogating cycle that leads people to buy more and more frames.
Average Joe buys a frame that is supposedly more powerful than his last one because it's easier to swing. At first, the lower weight deceives him into thinking he really is hitting the ball harder (fractionally faster swing speed and more shock felt at impact), even though he isn't. After he's used the frame for quite a while and grows accustomed to it, he notices he's still getting tired and wishes he'd get more power on his shots. So, he buys an even lighter frame, which deceives him into thinking he's hitting the ball harder, even though he isn't, and so on and so forth.
It's pure genius.
Last edited:
spaceman_spiff
Hall of Fame
FYI, when I first got into tennis, all the old guys were using Wilson Profiles.
Here are the specs for the Profile 2.7 OS:
Head Size: 110 sq. in. / 710 sq. cm.
Length: 27.00 inches / 68.58 cm
Strung Weight: 13.20 oz / 374 g
Balance: 6pts HL
Swing Weight: 356
Yes, old guys with no foot speed, swing speed, or endurance were using 13+ oz frames with 350+ swing weight.
Here are the specs for the Profile 2.7 OS:
Head Size: 110 sq. in. / 710 sq. cm.
Length: 27.00 inches / 68.58 cm
Strung Weight: 13.20 oz / 374 g
Balance: 6pts HL
Swing Weight: 356
Yes, old guys with no foot speed, swing speed, or endurance were using 13+ oz frames with 350+ swing weight.
Last edited:
Chyeaah
Professional
kaiser
Semi-Pro
But that's what I'm saying: a heavier frame is NOT the primary cause of weariness. The amount of running you do is a much bigger factor! So I think we are in full agreement here.
For the rest, I'd love to have a hit with you, preferably on a grass court Down Under, but I think we are some 25,000 km apart...
Used to live in Perth, really miss playing on the grass there: serve & volley, chip & charge, me 6'5.5"... :twisted:
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Personally, I find that I am fresher with the EXO3 in every sense of the word after 2 hours on court than I was with the C10. Why? Does and ounce or even two make that big a difference? Well, it does in one respect which has been overlooked.
It's been my experience that the higher the level, the better the timing. The better the timing, the less adjustment one has to make with their muscles in their swing; i.e. the more natural or 'sweet' your swing is. If someone continually muscles a ball, they are expending more energy than those who can rely on timing. I find that my timing is better with the EXO3 and my swing is more natural. Take it for what you will. But, the fact remains that if you don't have great timing, and you're blasting the ball, the adjustments you have to make are going to wear you out quicker than if you played with something more geared to your game.
And truthfully, and I appreciate the comment made earlier, but it was doubles. There is no way, no matter how crafty I am, that I'm going to wear another 4.5 out playing three sets. Truth be told, my partner and I were the oldest two on the court, and his partner was youngest. BTW, both teams were made up of a 4.5 and a 4.0.
The fellow in question has a number of issues with his game and outlook on the game, I'll be honest. He can serve at over 120 MPH, his second serves aren't far off that. But, he has no plan "B", he has no 2nd gear off the ground, at net, anywhere on the court. He murderizes everything he hits. Combine that with his belief that he cannot play with a) anything less than a 6.1 and b) that he cannot even use the 16X18 and must use the 18X20, and you've got someone who has pretty much convinced himself he's ready for the pro tour. This, despite being continually handed his ass by a true 5.0 playing with a Dunlop 300G, and at least the other night two old farts. Note that the two old farts were playing with a Prince EXO3 Tour Team (me) and a Babolat Aero Pro Lite GT.
I've said it more than once around here, lots of folks on these boards seems convinced that the only way to go with with a 12.5 ounce and heavier frame. They opine that you need it to battle against a 'heavy' ball. That just isn't true. Again, there are plenty of world class pros using sub 12 ounce racquets.
The whole heavy racquet thing has become more a status symbol or way to brow beat those perceived as lesser players. It just doesn't hold water.
It's been my experience that the higher the level, the better the timing. The better the timing, the less adjustment one has to make with their muscles in their swing; i.e. the more natural or 'sweet' your swing is. If someone continually muscles a ball, they are expending more energy than those who can rely on timing. I find that my timing is better with the EXO3 and my swing is more natural. Take it for what you will. But, the fact remains that if you don't have great timing, and you're blasting the ball, the adjustments you have to make are going to wear you out quicker than if you played with something more geared to your game.
And truthfully, and I appreciate the comment made earlier, but it was doubles. There is no way, no matter how crafty I am, that I'm going to wear another 4.5 out playing three sets. Truth be told, my partner and I were the oldest two on the court, and his partner was youngest. BTW, both teams were made up of a 4.5 and a 4.0.
The fellow in question has a number of issues with his game and outlook on the game, I'll be honest. He can serve at over 120 MPH, his second serves aren't far off that. But, he has no plan "B", he has no 2nd gear off the ground, at net, anywhere on the court. He murderizes everything he hits. Combine that with his belief that he cannot play with a) anything less than a 6.1 and b) that he cannot even use the 16X18 and must use the 18X20, and you've got someone who has pretty much convinced himself he's ready for the pro tour. This, despite being continually handed his ass by a true 5.0 playing with a Dunlop 300G, and at least the other night two old farts. Note that the two old farts were playing with a Prince EXO3 Tour Team (me) and a Babolat Aero Pro Lite GT.
I've said it more than once around here, lots of folks on these boards seems convinced that the only way to go with with a 12.5 ounce and heavier frame. They opine that you need it to battle against a 'heavy' ball. That just isn't true. Again, there are plenty of world class pros using sub 12 ounce racquets.
The whole heavy racquet thing has become more a status symbol or way to brow beat those perceived as lesser players. It just doesn't hold water.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
The best answer to the OP is this, IMHO. There probably isn't a problem with your racquet. As I tried to say earlier, and just didn't do a good job, the problem lies elsewhere. It would seem that the racquet is just not a good fit for your game. I remember posting on here about a lighter Yonex and a Volkl that I didn't care for. I used the term 'pushed around'.
But the reality is, I played 5.0 tennis for 5 years or so with a Hammer 5.0 which weighs 10 ounces or so. I'm playing pretty high level 4.5 tennis with a frame that weighs 11 ounces. The answer is not absolute. The only real solution is to demo, demo, demo. I've gotten lucky a few times and found frames that were perfect for me at a particular time in my playing life. Now is one of them.
But the reality is, I played 5.0 tennis for 5 years or so with a Hammer 5.0 which weighs 10 ounces or so. I'm playing pretty high level 4.5 tennis with a frame that weighs 11 ounces. The answer is not absolute. The only real solution is to demo, demo, demo. I've gotten lucky a few times and found frames that were perfect for me at a particular time in my playing life. Now is one of them.
TaihtDuhShaat
Semi-Pro
The worst part is that the consumer is left with light and powerless racquets that they are convinced are powerful as Spiff explained, and the pros have evolved into using the heavy SW's of the past with lighter frames and longer balances, giving them less control of the heavy racquet head than the past, morphing the game into the baseline style it is today; not because of poly strings or the ability to hit better returns than in the past.
This is the real reason they slowed the courts down; to help out new players who can't hit with the control of the past because their racquet heads lag behind their hand so much through the swing. So they slowed it down to give players more time to set up.
The reason you didn't see long baseline exchanges in the past is because the player's could step in and hit the lower percentage up the line shot and force the issue to avoid giving up court positioning. Their racquets had high weight, SW and recoil weight, and didn't lag behind their hand, so they could confidently change direction on anything.
This is the real reason they slowed the courts down; to help out new players who can't hit with the control of the past because their racquet heads lag behind their hand so much through the swing. So they slowed it down to give players more time to set up.
The reason you didn't see long baseline exchanges in the past is because the player's could step in and hit the lower percentage up the line shot and force the issue to avoid giving up court positioning. Their racquets had high weight, SW and recoil weight, and didn't lag behind their hand, so they could confidently change direction on anything.
Last edited:
TaihtDuhShaat
Semi-Pro
To address the issue of using a 12.5 oz frame as a fashion statement, or "I must use what is used on the ATP mentality":
A 12.5 oz racquet with a 330-350 SW is still weak, hard to control, and tiring to swing!
But a 13.5 oz racquet with a 365 SW, and balanced to swing with the hand is powerful, easy to control all shots, and easy to swing!
The player doesn't have to swing nearly as fast to create the same pace and spin, and the shots are dramatically heavier!
A 12.5 oz racquet with a 330-350 SW is still weak, hard to control, and tiring to swing!
But a 13.5 oz racquet with a 365 SW, and balanced to swing with the hand is powerful, easy to control all shots, and easy to swing!
The player doesn't have to swing nearly as fast to create the same pace and spin, and the shots are dramatically heavier!
Last edited:
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Gee, you must have watched a different Australian Open than I did.
ChicagoJack
Hall of Fame
My Two Cents, For What It's Worth:
1. There will always be a trade off of sorts between higher SW and faster swing speed. There is no free lunch.
2. While the benefits of high(er) sw are clear (after all, tennis is a collision sport) higher mass leads to slower swings.
3. There is however, a "golden zone" that varies from player to player and from racquet to racquet. That happy place somewhere in the middle where the stability and swingspeed trade-off suits the individual player and his game. To insist that what works for you, must work for everybody else, is just crazy talk.
NBMJ : Good to have you back. I took a five year sabbatical, came back recently and thought you were long gone.
- Jack
1. There will always be a trade off of sorts between higher SW and faster swing speed. There is no free lunch.
2. While the benefits of high(er) sw are clear (after all, tennis is a collision sport) higher mass leads to slower swings.
3. There is however, a "golden zone" that varies from player to player and from racquet to racquet. That happy place somewhere in the middle where the stability and swingspeed trade-off suits the individual player and his game. To insist that what works for you, must work for everybody else, is just crazy talk.
NBMJ : Good to have you back. I took a five year sabbatical, came back recently and thought you were long gone.
- Jack
Last edited:
evening jack,
i didnt take a complete leave of absence but rarely participate here. my profile indicates the # of 'contributions' i;ve made in the last while...not very many, and for good reasons. so i;m really not back. it's good to hear from you. hope this finds you well. Mojo
ps. i agree w. what you say. a good playtester can take themselves out of the equation and can make most any racquet work, and can accurately relay what kind of player can best use a particular racquet...altho high swingweight racquets rarely work very well with todays ballspeeds for extended periods unless playing aunt mary or some dubs..or you are a touring pro....different saddles for different butts and all that abba dabba.
Last edited:
kaiser
Semi-Pro
Now this is does make some sense to me: if you play with a racket whose SW, balance and static weight don't match your swing and playing style, that will affect your timing. And I can see that if your timing is off, you will need to muscle the ball more and that will affect your stamina.
However, in terms of racket weight this works both ways: For some, including you, a lighter racket matches your swing better and thus improves your timing. For others, myself included, a heavier racket matches my swing better and improves my timing. This is especially noticable on my SH backhand: I just uncoil on it and my racket does all the work, it takes no effort whatsoever on my part.
And where you perceive a heavy racket 'maffia' brow beating supposed 'lesser' players because the play light, I also perceive a light racket 'maffia' brow beating perceived tour 'wannabees' because they insist on playing heavy regardless of their age...
As to your statement on top players playing with sub 12 oz rackets, I think in this discussion it is very important to distinguish between the total or 'static weight' of a racket and it's 'effective hitting weight' (= mass in the head) which is proportional to its swingweight. I don't know of any tour players hitting with a swingweight less than 350-360, whereas play with much higher swingweights. Apparently, at that level you simply need that kind of mass in the head to counter the impulse of the incoming ball (Impulse = Mass * Speed).
At lower levels with lower ball speeds, therefore, you would need proportionally less mass in the head and thus lower swingweights. But at any level, players that have fast arms and thus can generate high swingspeeds without loosing control, over their swing, should be able to use rackets with less mass in the head and thus lower swingweight (Nadal: used to have SW=355, apparently now more to match the pace of Djoker...). On the other hand, if you don't have a naturally fast arm and thus can't swing your racket that fast, you would need a racket with a higher swingweight. So it would all depend on your personal physiology, body mechanics AND preference.
If you have found your right swingweight, then, the total static weight of the racket would simply depend on what balance you prefer. If you like a head-heavy racket, its total static mass can be less, if you prefer a headlight racket, overall it will be heavier.
I think that summarizes the issue quite nicely.
Last edited:
Steve Huff
G.O.A.T.
I just read, and copy and pasted the article in the pro's gear section, that Nadal's racket's SW is up this year to 316. A few years back, Agassi mentioned Nadal's racket. He half-jokingly said he wouldn't be able to hit a ball over the net with a racket as light as Nadal's.
