Goffin racket

#8
I don't doubt your info, its just hard to believe that a pro at his level would use a retail. The head looks bigger than a 98 to me. I need to go back and watch his match against Thiem.
 
#9
I don't doubt your info, its just hard to believe that a pro at his level would use a retail. The head looks bigger than a 98 to me. I need to go back and watch his match against Thiem.
That's the same thing my source told me.. He is also stringer for the Belgian DavisCup team, so the problem for Goffin of finding a good customiser is not the case..
 
Last edited:
#13
I tend to believe the info provided above. From up close it is a 98 indeed and it has the blade shape..short handle, etc (unlike some of the Blade players that have H19/22 pro stock).
 
#19
Are there Spin Effect strings? I know you're not talking about Luxilon Rough strings, because I disagree, they do help with spin.
Talking about those strings like the dunlop black widow with the 7 sided shape. It could be easier for some people to spin, but he studied this while using the same guy with the same hits and then different strings. Only thing he mentioned was that they break faster than average poly, but the amount of spin was the same.
 
#23
Stock blade 98. 18/20
I'll take this over other speculation. My question would be which version of the Blade though there hasn't been incredible changes to the line along the various PJ's. But this really flys in the face of the general impression members have that there stock racquets just don't cut it ... for CLUB tennis.
 
#32
If anyone believes Goffin hits those returns with a 330 swingweight, agains 120mph serves, you are on a different planet.

It could be un modified, but wilson could also give him higher sw spec frames. He's a top 50 pro, he isn't getting sticks from a retail shop.

Same with verdasco; the idea that anyone at that level is playing with a low swingweight is insane. I could believe maybe 340sw but thats even pushing it.

If you don't believe me, go play someone who's an itf or atp pro. You can not flat out spank back 110mph+ serves with a 330 swingweight, with any kind of consitency. Let alone 7.0+ level top 100 serves.
 
#33
If anyone believes Goffin hits those returns with a 330 swingweight, agains 120mph serves, you are on a different planet.

It could be un modified, but wilson could also give him higher sw spec frames. He's a top 50 pro, he isn't getting sticks from a retail shop.

Same with verdasco; the idea that anyone at that level is playing with a low swingweight is insane. I could believe maybe 340sw but thats even pushing it.

If you don't believe me, go play someone who's an itf or atp pro. You can not flat out spank back 110mph+ serves with a 330 swingweight, with any kind of consitency. Let alone 7.0+ level top 100 serves.
A coach at my club in Belgium serves 200+ km/h with a 280 gram frame with an unmodified SW, so it is possible..
 
#34
A coach at my club in Belgium serves 200+ km/h with a 280 gram frame with an unmodified SW, so it is possible..
Im talking about returning. Goffin has killed so many serves out there. And big returns always need big swingweights. Aggassi, Djokovic, Murray, even just really consistant returners use high swingweights like fed and nad. All of them had 350 or greater. Safin was 347, but courts were quicker 10 years ago so that upper 340-350 mark was more common. Davydenko was near 350 I believe as well. 330 is too low for someone in the top 50. Has nothing to do with technique, but physics plain and simple. My stock racquet is listed with an average sw of 325 yet two of my sticks come in at 338, 341 swingweight without lead, or even a damper (dampers can add 2-5 sw depending on their weight).
 
#35
Im talking about returning. Goffin has killed so many serves out there. And big returns always need big swingweights. Aggassi, Djokovic, Murray, even just really consistant returners use high swingweights like fed and nad. All of them had 350 or greater. Safin was 347, but courts were quicker 10 years ago so that upper 340-350 mark was more common. Davydenko was near 350 I believe as well. 330 is too low for someone in the top 50. Has nothing to do with technique, but physics plain and simple. My stock racquet is listed with an average sw of 325 yet two of my sticks come in at 338, 341 swingweight without lead, or even a damper (dampers can add 2-5 sw depending on their weight).
Then I share your thoughts :)
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame
#36
If you hit the sweet spot you can return any serve...
Im talking about returning. Goffin has killed so many serves out there. And big returns always need big swingweights. Aggassi, Djokovic, Murray, even just really consistant returners use high swingweights like fed and nad. All of them had 350 or greater. Safin was 347, but courts were quicker 10 years ago so that upper 340-350 mark was more common. Davydenko was near 350 I believe as well. 330 is too low for someone in the top 50. Has nothing to do with technique, but physics plain and simple. My stock racquet is listed with an average sw of 325 yet two of my sticks come in at 338, 341 swingweight without lead, or even a damper (dampers can add 2-5 sw depending on their weight).
With Wilson qc anything is possible but I think you are making a classic TW armchair baller mistake of extrapolating what you personally can do and what a pro that trains 8 hrs per day can do with any racquet
 
#37
If you hit the sweet spot you can return any serve...


With Wilson qc anything is possible but I think you are making a classic TW armchair baller mistake of extrapolating what you personally can do and what a pro that trains 8 hrs per day can do with any racquet

That's funny. Have you ever seriously played anyone who toured on the ITF or ATP circuit? Challengers, futures, satellites? Not a self proclaimed 6.0 or 5.0. An actual professional player? Their weight of shot is a lot. Especially on the serve. To hit balls like goffin does, off the return, you need a massive racquet.

The mechanics of the return are that way. Even with big cuts at the ball, you are going to struggle to hit through the ball with a 330 swingweight. How much time you spend on the court doesn't change the way physics works. ESPECIALLY on a guy of goffins size.

The pro's don't use high swingweights because other pros use high swingweights, they use high swingweights so they can actually hit through the ball.

So, other than make silly strawman claims and make personal attacks (a true TTer move), can you make any substantive claim to support your thoughts? I've yet to see any pro spec listed at 330 for a top 50 player, that would be a great place to start. And no Kafelnikov, and others who retired before 2005 don't count... Those courts played quite a bit quicker than they do now. Verdasco is the only other that is "reported" that he uses a low SW. It didn't come from Raven or another reputable source, just someone on TT who claims they know. Judging by how much lead I've seen on his stick, and again, simply collision physics, he doesn't have a 300sw.


Beyond that, even you in the past have gotten specs completely wrong:
"Yes it's slightly off

2011 specs at FO from ****
weight 312g.. balance 32.6.. swing weight 316 unstrung.. tension 56lbs..

2012 after adding weigh from Babolat itself after blow up in the media

314g
32.63
316"

Nadal's 2011 Frame was a 357 swingweight. I've seen it and held it. I know where it got measured on an RDC. TW had it for a short period. Had the "rafa" logo on it, the 4 1/4 grip, they threw a standard grip on it to make it playable, and then the overgrip.
 
Last edited:

dgoran

Hall of Fame
#38
That's funny. Have you ever seriously played anyone who toured on the ITF or ATP circuit? Challengers, futures, satellites? Not a self proclaimed 6.0 or 5.0. An actual professional player? Their weight of shot is a lot. Especially on the serve. To hit balls like goffin does, off the return, you need a massive racquet.

The mechanics of the return are that way. Even with big cuts at the ball, you are going to struggle to hit through the ball with a 330 swingweight. How much time you spend on the court doesn't change the way physics works. ESPECIALLY on a guy of goffins size.

The pro's don't use high swingweights because other pros use high swingweights, they use high swingweights so they can actually hit through the ball.

So, other than make silly strawman claims and make personal attacks (a true TTer move), can you make any substantive claim to support your thoughts? I've yet to see any pro spec listed at 330 for a top 50 player, that would be a great place to start. And no Kafelnikov, and others who retired before 2005 don't count... Those courts played quite a bit quicker than they do now. Verdasco is the only other that is "reported" that he uses a low SW. It didn't come from Raven or another reputable source, just someone on TT who claims they know. Judging by how much lead I've seen on his stick, and again, simply collision physics, he doesn't have a 300sw.


Beyond that, even you in the past have gotten specs completely wrong:
"Yes it's slightly off

2011 specs at FO from ****
weight 312g.. balance 32.6.. swing weight 316 unstrung.. tension 56lbs..

2012 after adding weigh from Babolat itself after blow up in the media

314g
32.63
316"

Nadal's 2011 Frame was a 357 swingweight. I've seen it and held it. I know where it got measured on an RDC. TW had it for a short period. Had the "rafa" logo on it, the 4 1/4 grip, they threw a standard grip on it to make it playable, and then the overgrip.
Regarding personal attack it was not intended to be personal at all just my friendly reminder for you not to fall in the same trap many here do...
Second
I am not sure if you are quoting my post that you dug up somewhere regarding Nadal specs but it just shows how much you don't know so please look up unstrung vs strung somewhere on this forum...

Third I have played ex pro on few occasions and each time I wish I had 9oz racquet not a heavier one that's for sure
 
#39
Regarding personal attack it was not intended to be personal at all just my friendly reminder for you not to fall in the same trap many here do...
Second
I am not sure if you are quoting my post that you dug up somewhere regarding Nadal specs but it just shows how much you don't know so please look up unstrung vs strung somewhere on this forum...

Third I have played ex pro on few occasions and each time I wish I had 9oz racquet not a heavier one that's for sure
1.35 (15l) RPM blast full set weighs about 24 grams. In an APD, you're not going to get more than 33 or 34 swingweight points out of that. 316+34=350. That's off by about 7 swingweight points, not including dampener (which i never found out if that stat from TW was with damp or not, raven found nadal to have 355, but that frame had more compression reportedly, I assume that Paul R. measured it without the damper, I would be surprised if he didn't). No poly out there in a 100sq 16x19 frame is going to get you 41 swingweight points. So, don't accuse me of not knowing what is going on, when mathematically speaking your case is lacking logic. Not even 4g S which weighs 26 grams for a full set (1.41) will get you that many swingweight points. In reality you'd probably only get 31 or 32 at MOST out of rpm blast 15l in an apd. My frame gets 31 sw out of a full set of 25g volkl cyclone and it's a 95 16x19.

Sounds like you were struggling to meet the ball on time. That's from technique. Going from a 327 against the same guy to a 350+, I went from fighting to stay in points, actually being able to produce winners off rally balls, and actually bringing more than half of return games to deuce. When you play those guys you need to "start swinging" as they hit the ball. I've since changed up my stroke to have a more compact take back to help me adapt to the higher swingweights and it's helped tremendously alongside dialing my preferred weight specs.

Anyway, please bring fourth some kind of evidence against what I've said beyond "you don't know what you're talking about" or "you're an armchair player". I'm not always right, and that's ok. But don't tell me what I know and don't know when the basis is unfounded.
 
Last edited:
#40
Interesting that folks can't even fathom the fact that Goffin actually uses a stock Blade...if any lead it's either hidden under the grip (lowering SW) or under the Bumper. I take part in the organization of 2(!) professional tournaments (futures and challenger). Pros, some of them, actually use stock frames and some have more than decent rankings. Pure control tours, tecnifibres, blades, 6.1's, yep, possible and indoor serves come in quite fast I'll tell you that!
 
#41
Interesting that folks can't even fathom the fact that Goffin actually uses a stock Blade...if any lead it's either hidden under the grip (lowering SW) or under the Bumper. I take part in the organization of 2(!) professional tournaments (futures and challenger). Pros, some of them, actually use stock frames and some have more than decent rankings. Pure control tours, tecnifibres, blades, 6.1's, yep, possible and indoor serves come in quite fast I'll tell you that!
Interesting that you think adding weight can lower swingweight. That's simply impossible. Adding weight to the handle increases swingweight, marginally, specifically between 4-8". Below that you increase swingweight more than in that range. It's inherently impossible to reduce swingweight by ADDING weight.

So far, you guys seem to be lacking some pretty fundamental information about swingweight. If you understood what recoil weight (a subset of swingweight) you'd understand just how preposterous a light and stock frame would be playing 6 hours a day 7 days a week at the pro level; you'd definitely have serious arm problems. It just wouldn't be possible. Even nadal with a 11.9oz frame has a recoil weight higher than almost every stock retail frame. I say almost, because I've yet to calculate one with a higher recoil weight, but it could be out there.
 
Last edited:
#42
Interesting that you think adding weight can lower swingweight. That's simply impossible. Adding weight to the handle increases swingweight, marginally, specifically between 4-8". Below that you increase swingweight more than in that range. It's inherently impossible to reduce swingweight by ADDING weight.

So far, you guys seem to be lacking some pretty fundamental information about swingweight. If you understood what recoil weight (a subset of swingweight) you'd understand just how preposterous a light and stock frame would be playing 6 hours a day 7 days a week at the pro level; you'd definitely have serious arm problems. It just wouldn't be possible. Even nadal with a 11.9oz frame has a recoil weight higher than almost every stock retail frame. I say almost, because I've yet to calculate one with a higher recoil weight, but it could be out there.
Sorry to butt into your argument... you're right that most pros use a higher SW racket. Especially the solid returners tend to go less headlight w/ higher SW. More stability against the heavy ball they have to return.
But you are wrong to assume everyone across the board follows the same mold. There are pros out there who use stock rackets, or rackets under 12oz and 330SW. Especially with the young up and comers you will see that a lot. You even threw out the name Verdasco. He's one of the more famous examples. Extremely low SW for a pro, according to multiple sources. And he hits a pretty heavy ball to say the least.
 
Last edited:
#43
Sorry to butt into your argument... you're right that most pros use a higher SW racket. Especially the solid returners tend to go less headlight w/ higher SW. More stability against the heavy ball they have to return.
But you are wrong to assume everyone across the board follows the same mold. There are pros out there who use stock rackets, or rackets under 12oz and 330SW. Especially with the young up and comers you will see that a lot. You even threw out the name Verdasco. He's one of the more famous examples. Extremely low SW for a pro, according to multiple sources. And he hits a pretty heavy ball to say the least.
He's the only other example from the last five years other than Goffin, which makes me believe that he doesn't in fact use a low swingweight. I've also seen on some of the other sites, people who were selling his own personal frames, claim the swingweights were in the 350's.

For example, the swingweight, balance, and weight claimed often by people refering to verdasco's biommimetic 300's is unstrung, no grip, or even buttcap: 324.5gm, bal 30.7cm 290 sw. The fact that these frames don't even have a grip or buttcap means there is more weight to be added to the frame. What is important to draw from that is that the frames are obviously in HAIRPIN form. Yes they START at those specs (~320sw strung) without ANYTHING on them aside from paint and grommets. Which means, a racquet technician MUST put his hands on it. Not a stringer! Someone who is capable of modifying the frame (both trained, in contact/hired by player, and has the appropriate/expensive equipment to do this accurately). We also KNOW he has lead on his frame, which will increase swingweight further. There are examples of his frames on even TT where he was coming in 296 SW in hairpin as well, so again, these racquets are MATCHED later, by adding weight to achieve a HIGHER target swingweight. If these frames were all supposed to be played at 320 swingweight exactly, then the ones above or below would be useless. If the frames were meant to be played at 330 exactly, they also would have issues, as it would be more difficult to match them. The reason for hairpins is you have more room to adjust. Sometimes you have to change your target number for swingweight, so you can get all the frames at the closest balance and static weight possible.

There are threads out there of people believing his swingweight is even below that 290 number, strung. It just goes to show how a little miscommunication can turn into a myth. There are clear cut pictures of these frames when they were being sold, with labels, with letter designation permanently afixed under clear coat to which frame of the set it is. It is blatantly obvious to any racquet technician with experience in modifying and matching frames that this is for matching purposes. Furthermore, there are several occasions where people have seen lead tape under the grommet. Discussion even on here has said this tape was to get the frame to 290 as the prostock frames are so so so so light. This simply isn't true. These frames came from manufacturer spec'ed out for professional use. They are then modified. Just like every other pro stock out there. Again, lead tape has the purpose of both increasing swingweight, and equally importantly matching all functional specs of a frame, especially swingweight. They would not ship out these frames with different specifications, if they had already added lead to achieve their FINAL target weights. (here's a TT post where the specs are 294 and 296, you can definitely feel the difference between a 290 and a 296, this would be un-acceptable for a pro. I'm sure others in the batch had similar variation http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...0-fernando-verdasco-pro-stock-or-fake.521988/)

I could tell verdasco doesn't use a 320 sw frame. He just doesn't. You're kidding yourself if you believe so, but the evidence is out there to prove this.





Based off Art Art's accuracy to Nadal's specs (both to greg raven and TW), and Federer, and the evidence that those frames stock have upwards of 320 swingweight and we know he has lead on the frame, 350 sounds entirely reasonable. I'm quite sure that he is using over 350 swingweight. If you want to believe otherwise, but the evidence out there logically points away from him using a very low swingweight. Go ahead and try to hit the ball 90 miles an hour with a 320 swingweight, with the incoming ball speed over 65mph. Go ahead. It will become very clear very quickly that this is practically impossible to do, especially with any kind consistency or control. Try it again with a 350 swing weight, the difference is un-believable.
Roger, swingweight is about ~350, not less.

Verdasco uses lead tape under the grommet, from 2 to 10.
Silicone in the handle, and a few lead tape, on the top of the grip.

350grams, ~33cm b.p., SW ~355, strung specs, this week!
A few specs available, please don't ask for details about how it was done...
All strung specs, with overgrip.

Verdasco - 352grams, ~32,5cm bal.point, SW ~353

Nadal - 345g , ~33,3cm , SW ~354

Soderling - 368g , ~32,3cm , SW ~367

Djokovic - 361g , ~32cm , SW ~358

Cilic - 365g , ~31,9cm , SW ~361

A.Murray - 362g , ~32,3cm , SW ~366

Tsonga - 354g , ~32,2cm , SW ~355

Del Potro - 361g , ~32,3cm , SW ~363

J.C.Ferrero - 353g , ~33cm , SW ~356

J. Isner - 360g , ~31,7cm , SW ~351

Davydenko - 351g , ~32,3cm , SW ~349

A.Roddick - 357g , ~32,3cm , SW ~356

M.Gicquel - 356g , ~32,1cm , SW ~353


I guess you will like this one:

Roger Federer - 364g , ~31,8 , SW ~354


These are allways with a little error margin, but not much.

If I can get the girls specs for this week, I will post it.

Enjoy it!
 
Last edited:
#45
Just to further elaborate, the specs given by art art give his frame a 174.8 recoil weight. Higher than any frame I know of on the market. This reduces the impact transferred from the frame into the arm wrist and shoulder.

Going with 325 weight 290 sw and 31cm balance, adding in 17.5 grams at 20" (for string), we get a spec of 319sw 343gm and 33.44 balance. This gives a recoil weight of 133. We all know the old APDC as one of the roughest racquets on the arm, which has a recoil weight of 154.7. That racquet would absolutely be horrible to hit with. As someone who suffered from arm problems from my first APDC and then again with a stock weight Graphene Pres Pro, the difference between even 160 and 170 is incredible. 170 and 184 even more so for recoil weight; I can use 4g S strung at 60lbs and be fine. So the difference between 175 and 133 is absolutely horrendous. That would seriously hurt your arm.

Now I know most people don't understand recoil weight, but do some searches about it. I've made some posts about recoil weight.
 
#46
I've talked to several players within top 1000 and many of them are using stock racquets.
Specifically I'm talking about guys in the top 50, in this case, fernando verdasco and goffin.

Some people say they have a stock frame, and have lead tape on there. Some people actually have stock stock frames, and have no idea what their swingweight is, and have no idea that frames have variation from the manufacturer. There can always be exceptions to the rule, but I'm so highly doubtful that is the case with these very rich, very famous tennis players, who make millions based off what they do on the court.
 
#47
@RanchDressing I read your entire response post. I know about the purpose of hairpin frames. But a hairpin usually has a SW well under 300. Which would allow FerVer to have his speced out and matched at 320 if he wanted to. I do agree that number is surprising, if true and high 350s makes more sense. But you act as if it isn't possible to hit or handle a pro ball with a lighter, lower SW stick. It's not the arrow it's the Indian my friend.

Again I understand the benefits of higher SW and recoil weight. It makes sense for a top player to be be in the higher range simply to counteract the heavy ball they face, and not destroy their arm. So most do that. I guess my point is that I wouldn't assume all pros are in the same boat. It's not as if every pro is in the 350,360 SW range and Ferver and Goffin are around 320. That wouldn't make any sense. But the reality is there are players in the high 330-340 range as well. There's some variation of specs out there in the top 50 for sure. And to my knowledge that's how it's been for a while. See Greg's site: http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs/grab_bag.html
 
#48
I saw him yesterday hitting with Fed..on LA ..head shape does appear to look different from a std. blade. He isn't as little as he appears on TV..he is pretty thick as well..looks rather strong..
 
#49
@RanchDressing I read your entire response post. I know about the purpose of hairpin frames. But a hairpin usually has a SW well under 300. Which would allow FerVer to have his speced out and matched at 320 if he wanted to. I do agree that number is surprising, if true and high 350s makes more sense. But you act as if it isn't possible to hit or handle a pro ball with a lighter, lower SW stick. It's not the arrow it's the Indian my friend.

Again I understand the benefits of higher SW and recoil weight. It makes sense for a top player to be be in the higher range simply to counteract the heavy ball they face, and not destroy their arm. So most do that. I guess my point is that I wouldn't assume all pros are in the same boat. It's not as if every pro is in the 350,360 SW range and Ferver and Goffin are around 320. That wouldn't make any sense. But the reality is there are players in the high 330-340 range as well. There's some variation of specs out there in the top 50 for sure. And to my knowledge that's how it's been for a while. See Greg's site: http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs/grab_bag.html
I'm well aware of greg raven's spec list. I referred to it earlier. High 330's and 340 is vastly different than the myth perpetuated of 320's and below for verdasco. There have been numerous occasions where people have come out and made claims about the specs of various pro frames. One such is the nadal specs I quoted above, at 316 unstrung, which would give him at most a 347 sw (likely 345-6 though due to weight of string). Yet several sources have come forward showing his specs at the claimed time being 355+ strung. At one point raven has his frame measured at 350 in 2009.

In general though, there are very few players in the last 5 years who don't use at least a 350 that we know of. And that makes sense. The courts support spin. Generally the guys who are winning use these higher swingweights (fed, nadal, stan, novak, murray, delpo, solderling, nalbandian, moya, haas, safin, andre etc etc). The lowest people on Greg's list are Krajicek, who retired in 2003 (that's 12 years ago. 12 years ago, very few guys were trying to hit with massive topspin compared to now, high swingweight helps tremendously with not just creating spin, but handling/plowing through it), Cahill which must be Darren, as Mike Cahill was in his 50's at the time and I don't think he has a presense on the tour like Darren does, and finally Schalken who retired in 2007, again someone who played their hay-day from the 90's into the early 2000's, so it doesn't surprise me that his spec is lower due to the lower use of spin (we don't know when his racquet was measured). Every other player on that list has a high swingweight (greater than 330). Most of the players who use a lot of spin, or have proven they can hit through a lot of spin have at least 350sw, and some are astronomical (moya etc).

So, does that mean that verdasco and goffin are part of that group? No, it doesn't. But it does mean that they are outliers for their skill group, if the proposed data is correct. But, there is no data on verdasco. Nobody who believes either of these guys has produced numbers. And the numbers that have been produced for match spec on verdasco say otherwise. The only supporters of him just say "they know". Now, every swingweight number posted out there should be taken with scrutiny, but when several sources with big names behind them post the same info over several years, you can generally start to accept that number. Yet, with an outlier, I would argue the burden of proof must be on someone who wants to argue against what is standard practice. The numbers thrown out that verdasco plays with a 280 strung, have obviously been blown out of the water. Yet no one is yet to show any actual numbers (sw+bal+static) of his match frames to say otherwise. Same with Goffin. We just have some rumors started by people not in the pro stringing industry, and one person on TT who claims to be in the industry or know someone who is. To me, that's not enough, alongside common sense. Especially considering just how decietfull this industry really is (I mean c'mon guys, do you really believe everything a professional will say at face value with all the paintjobs etc floating around?).

The common sense I'm referring to is that Verdasco specifically is no freak. He doesn't whip the racquet around tremendously faster than his contemporaries, as these low swingweights would imply. Same with Goffin. 330 isn't an astronomically low number, so it MIGHT be possible. But 320 is. Besides that, we know that there is great variation in stock frames. We don't know what the pros get. Hell, we have video of nishikori bold face lying to a small group of people about his new burn racquet and how much better it is than his old frame even though it's basically just a new cosmetic and some pws bumps. Even if Goffin is using the same mould as a retail (which I don't think is even remotely surprising), we have no idea what his swingweight comes out to be. In my own experience I own two frames that completely stock spec out 15 sw higher than they should at 340sw strung.

Beyond that, it would be insane to imagine someone of Goffin's level has un-matched frames, regardless the SW. It's safe to say at least some of his frames have lead on them. So, even if that's to match to "stock" spec's, those frames are not stock. Yet this detail is over-looked and not mentioned. Now I'm not saying this means the frame shouldn't be considered stock, but I'm just trying to show, that obviously the statement that he uses a stock frame is broadened and unspecific. That just because it is said he uses a stock frame (or any other pro for that matter), doesn't mean its match specification is that of the average frame you can pick up at a retail shop.

We can't assume that he uses XXX swingweight from that statement, because it literally means nothing other than reference to what layup/mould he uses. Even with same layup/mould I wouldn't be surprised to find that his frames come from a different factory than the retails. Where much more likely that statement means that the frame is stock mould/layup, and stock pallet.


Now, the biggest point I'm trying to make out of all of this, is that there is a mountain of evidence against this idea of low swing weights, for the current top level players. Yet, the strongest evidence in support of the low swingweight theories out there, is basically "I've spoken to this guy, and I've heard this, and this guy says this". Nobody has come forward with numbers, especially not from an established MRT or someone with any credibility to support these claims. Yet there is quite a bit of evidence of other players at or above their level/play style with statistically significant higher specifications. Neither Goffin nor Verdasco seem to be "special" in what they do. They don't have incredulous racquet head speed. Yet they hit the ball just as hard as everyone out there. Vedasco hits with crazy spin, yet the only other players who hit with that kind of spin are all using high swing weights. The match numbers proposed by ART ART (who was very close to accepted numbers for all players, other than novak), are also very close to other guys who hit with similar pace and spin (on the forehand). Doesn't that seem to make more sense, in a lot of different aspects than a wild random outlier?

It's not the arrow, its the indian, sure why not. But if everyone else is training similarly, everyone else is playing on a similar level, everyone else who is hitting the ball similarly is using a certain spec range, and there is evidence (or numbers) to support him fitting into the group, why are some people rejecting this information, and supplementing their own? Verdasco uses very very similar technique to others. It's not like he's got some gulbis freak form (who also by the way uses a 360swing weight, as measured by someone on this forum, on an rdc, I've seen/held/taken pictures of that frame as well, from a racquet that was smashed and handed out in the stands). He's got a textbook forehand, similar to roger's and rafa's (at least with take back/straight arm, compact motion, similar hip acceleration and similar stance) with massive spin.

To me, the low swingweight theories surrounding guys like verdasco is just a simple case of confirmation bias, and people believing what they want to believe. Until I hear from someone reputable (a sales rep in a private discussion-not to me as a consumer, an mrt who had the frame, see it myself on an RDC after it was used in a match), or read from a reputable poster, I'm simply not going to fall for that.
 
Last edited:
#50
@RanchDressing, fair enough. I am open to any possibility as there is a lot of misinformation out there. It's completely possible that claims of Verdasco and Goffin being that low in SW are false! But I question your assumption that they MUST be false. Those 2 guys ARE "special" as you put it! They are elite pros. You really think they couldn't compete with a slightly less stable racket with less plow? In my opinion that is ridiculous.

The more you are around elite players the more you realize, many of them are not gearheads and have absolutely no clue. Many use less than desirable setups. There were guys in the early 2000's such as Krajicek, Schalken, and Kafelnikov. They were not the norm. Why is it so hard to imagine there being guys in that spec range today, who also don't follow the norm?

Oh and also to be clear... I don't claim to know Goffin's spec or Verdaco's or anyone else. If any stringers want to chime in that would be excellent. I know we have some on the boards.
 
Last edited:
Top