Any high level players using low static, high SW?

[aaron_h27]

Hello everyone, I'm a 4.5-5.0 player and I recently got into racket customization, I've been modding my DR 98's for about 5-6 months now, and i realized that...

-I like higher SW than stock rackets (i've gotten up to 335-340 with no issues)
-I don't like high twistweight (higher than 14.5 or so) if the twisweight is high i have to lower the SW
-I don't like high static weight (higher than 12 oz) same as above

Both of those two things make a racket less maneuverable for me. I'm 5'6 and I weigh 140 lbs, one handed backhand. For all my life i was under the impression high static, low stiffness, HL stick is a superior set-up, especially for one handed backhand & net play. I then remembered Henin which is very similar in height, build and gamestyle to me used a light static, Head heavy, stiff and extended frame. I know we shouldn't compare ourselves to professionals, but i am more similar to Henin than I am to someone like Djokovic or Nadal.

I say all this to say I'm going to try out some lower static, high SW set-ups. Right now i am currently testing the Wilson Blade 98L

Specs:
1 pt HL Strung
297g Strung
310 SW
16x19
67 stiffness rating

I got it as a demo, according to TW the average spec SW is about 310, i added 6g of lead at noon to bump the SW to around ~330 or so, like my DR 98's I'll test it out this week and report back.

Any high level players using low static, high SW frames?

 

[aaron_h27]

Also my string of choice is full natural gut, im thinking i could probably use a stiffer frame since I'm not using poly.

However the Blade 98L demo has NXT 1.30 in it.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Also my string of choice is full natural gut, im thinking i could probably use a stiffer frame since I'm not using poly.

Isn't poly the whole reason for a stiff frame?

High powered frame matched to a low power string is the modern setup. The old-timer setup was full gut with heavy flexible low powered frames. Not seen much outside the clubs these days.

My specs start with a SW of 330. Then I look at comfort. Once you start with a flexible frame and 330 SW, you need to add some static weight to avoid the wet noodle effect. Then once you add weight, you need a HL balance to maintain maneuverability.

So that's why i end up with 11.5-12 oz frames unstrung with 330 SW, flex in the 55-62 range and 7-9 point HL balance. I think it would be hard for me to drop the static weight, maintain the flex and keep the SW up at 330. Are there any 10 oz, 60 RA frames with a SW of 330?

 

[aaron_h27]

Isn't poly the whole reason for a stiff frame?

High powered frame matched to a low power string is the modern setup. The old-timer setup was full gut with heavy flexible low powered frames. Not seen much outside the clubs these days.

My specs start with a SW of 330. Then I look at comfort. Once you start with a flexible frame and 330 SW, you need to add some static weight to avoid the wet noodle effect. Then once you add weight, you need a HL balance to maintain maneuverability.

So that's why i end up with 11.5-12 oz frames unstrung with 330 SW, flex in the 55-62 range and 7-9 point HL balance. I think it would be hard for me to drop the static weight, maintain the flex and keep the SW up at 330. Are there any 10 oz, 60 RA frames with a SW of 330?

Hey thanks for responding,

I don't know if you remember but i hated the 93p after trying it once, couldn't figure out why it didn't work for me, same thing with the RF 97 although i played with that for 6 months before realizing it didn't work for my game. I've come to the realization I don't like frames over 12 oz. even at 9 points HL it just wasn't maneuverable for me. My DR 98 is 11.4 oz but once i start leading it up to get to my preferred SW & MGR/I it gets too hefty.

Anyways back to your post

When you say old-timer, how far back are we talking? If we are talking the Late 90s-Early 2000s most players who used full natural gut used pretty stiff frames.

Sampras & Fed used a pro staff 85, Fed eventually switching to the 90 and going to gut/poly. But those frames are 66 RA, do you consider 66 RA flexy?

Venus, Serena & Henin also used full natural gut, using very stiff frames. Henin's racket had a 75 RA. Venus & Serena 68 RA

Tommy Haas & Grosjean also used full gut, ill see if i can find the RA of their frames

So no i don't exactly think stiff frames are made for poly, stiff frames are made for those with low static weight & some just prefer the feel of it.

There are some frames like Ezone DR 98 lite that has a 62 RA, 285 g unstrung and 315 SW, with a few grams at noon you can get it up to 330.

Also one thing I noticed about comfort, the more you raise the SW, the more comfort goes up. When modding my DR 98's I noticed that when I had all my lead at noon, the racket was much more comfortable than when I had it at the throat & on the sides.

which leads me to conclude once you et past a certain SW (335 or so) it doesn't matter what the RA is as the heft of the racket absorbs the impact.

 

[aaron_h27]

Went out and played today. I actually added 8g at noon to the Wilson Blade cause it still felt a bit light which made it 305g strung & roughly 338-340 SW. For a comparison my DR 98's are 335g strung 340 SW. That's a 30 gram difference!!

Played some really good tennis, not going to lie.

-Serve was on par with the DR 98 set-up. I felt like second serves were easier to keep my RHS speed up cause of the light static weight, but plenty of power & aces like with my DR 98.
-RETURN OF SERVE! muuuuuuch better than with my DR 98, now i normally block back serves because i feel like i have to, but with the lighter racket I was able to take swings at the returns. I must have hit about 5-6 return winners. Blocking returns I sent a few long, but I don't need to block them back anymore!
-Launch angle was lower than with the DR 98 set-up, which is surprising. When i add lead at noon on my DR 98's it seems like all I can do is hit spin but that wasn't the case with the Wilson Blade. I could hit flat or topspin when needed. Not sure if this is because the balance is more Head Heavy or because the racket is stiffer, but i liked the lower launch angle.
-Defense was much easier, I felt like i could get to balls quicker. I don't know if it sounds crazy or what, but the racket wasn't slowing me down as much. Footwork felt like it improved
-Approach shots were much easier to dip inside the court, normally I have a tendency to hit the ball long when coming forward due to me not getting enough RHS
-1HBH felt great even though it was a head heavy set up, the racket is light enough to be maneuverable
-Easier to take balls on the rise!! Loved it.

The only thing I didn't like was blocking back returns it felt like i couldn't control it as much and not as much stability on volleys.

Now i know there is such a thing as a honeymoon phase, so im going to try it out the next couple days and keep you guys posted.

The crazy thing is I feel like I could bump up the SW even more, i don't feel like im at my limit yet. With my DR 98's they are approaching 12 oz and i cannot handle any more weight.

Maybe SW is more important than Static Weight, Balance and RA? Keep in mind I am a short guy 5'6 with a one hand backhand. All court counter-punching style

 

[aaron_h27]

Triple post, yeah im rambling a bit.

Regarding the one hand backhand I think a variety of set-ups can work and you don't necessarily need heavy static & HL balance, but for me I feel like the headsize must be smaller than 98. The smaller the better of course. That's one thing I'm noticing over my years of testing rackets

 

[hurworld]

Interesting. With that much lead added to 12, how many points HH is the 98L now?

Just a suggestion. If you have iPhone, it's worthwhile getting the SwingTool app to measure swing weight.

 

[aaron_h27]

Interesting. With that much lead added to 12, how many points HH is the 98L now?

Just a suggestion. If you have iPhone, it's worthwhile getting the SwingTool app to measure swing weight.

Probably 4 pts HH. Will look into that, thanks