Goffin racket

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
@RanchDressing, fair enough. I am open to any possibility as there is a lot of misinformation out there, to be sure. I believe its completely possible that there are pros in the 320SW range and 330SW range. There were guys in the early 2000's such as Krajicek, Schalken, and Kafelnikov. Why is it so hard to imagine there being guys in that range today?

It's also 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.
I know a few players that are like that; that dont know a thing. They just add weight. They make sure the strips are the same length and the frames feel the same or just have them matched from the get go and modify down the road. Totally aware that's how most of the 1000 are. But, a lot of them have professionals they work with too. Andre dome was a top college athelete and is now on tour. He worked a lot with Paul R @ TW. No offense to andre, but i wouldnt be surprised if he didnt know all the little technical names of weight placement. Nor should he. That's not his job.

But it doesn't change the fact that higher level players are quite sensitive to equipment. Research has shown that. Even rec players can be quite sensitive.


I don't think that it's impossible. But it is very unlikely. I'd be the first one to admit I was wrong, if there was some kind of concrete evidence. But there isn't. And because of that we have to look at this objectively and err with the information and standards we do know. It just isn't very likely. As long as people are aware that this is the case, they can choose to believe otherwise. We already have one likely stringer saying verdasco uses a 35x sw. That to me is enough especially considering the batch that info came with (verdasco not being singled out).

I get why people want to believe he uses a low sw, its relatable, but from what little ive seen of the pro frames, playing people better than me, hearing from people in the industry, my own experiences working with others to modify their frames, it's highly improbable.
 

Ihatetennis

Hall of Fame
I was at the uso watching goffin and fed practice, he swings that thing fast, I honestly could believe he's playing with a stock blade.

The blade is one of the few racquets in retail that has a near perfect balance for tennis without having to add any lead, very stable frame. Lots of women use it as well
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame
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.
You are incorrect I'll try with pictures this time maybe that helps you grasp some concepts:


of course there are small margins of error with above calculations but nadal specs were correct at that point of time
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
You are incorrect I'll try with pictures this time maybe that helps you grasp some concepts:


of course there are small margins of error with above calculations but nadal specs were correct at that point of time

I think you're really lost mate. A full set of rpm blast 15l weighs 24 grams. You don't use the full length of that in the frame. Beyond that, you never put in weight at 21 inches for stringing. Its rare to see more than 32 swingweight points added for a racquet. Especially a 16x19. I say that from data that came from a racquet customizer who does it professionally, daily for many customers. He had a table. A 16x19 100 square inch is not going to have a 24 gram set of poly. That's insane. The final specs which have been confirmed a few times over the years by different sources for nadal are 355-7, ~335g, ~33.5cm with range on the mass and balance of max .4 cm and 4grams (likely due to dampener).

It's the same guy who measured the rafa frame at tennis warehouse in the first place.
 
Last edited:

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
When adding string the range is typically 28-32 units of additional SW. For example my racquets were matched at 280SW and when strung with luxilon alu power it came to 309. If I were to guess I would say with a multi it will probably come to about 328 and maybe poly about 329 in your racquet. I know that sounds a lot lower than Tw's specs but it is wilson. Welcome to the world of horrible wilson quality control. If they were able to even match them at 300 you must have gotten some from a light batch of racquets.
From another thread. Time and time again a set of volkl cyclone 16 weighs 25g (that's before stringing, the full 40 feet. Nobody uses that full length unless you are oversized). When i string it up in my frame, time and time again (over 3-4 months, more than 14 string jobs of just cyclone) on the rdc i got 31 swingweight points. A full set of cyclone is heavier than a full set of 15l rpm blast (25 vs 24 grams). They're the same length of 40 feet. You can't put in a lighter string and get a higher swingweight. It just doesnt work like that. I've tried that on apd's as well. Same kinds of numbers.

Have you ever had access to an RDC or equivalent? And measured on it frequently?

Hell I've had my sticks set to a 316 unstrung. I always got 347. There really isnt that much more string on a 100 square inch to a 95. Its less than 8 inches usually.
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame
I think you're really lost mate. A full set of rpm blast 15l weighs 24 grams. You don't use the full length of that in the frame. Beyond that, you never put in weight at 21 inches for stringing. Its rare to see more than 32 swingweight points added for a racquet. Especially a 16x19. I say that from data that came from a racquet customizer who does it professionally, daily for many customers. He had a table. A 16x19 100 square inch is not going to have a 24 gram set of poly. That's insane. The final specs which have been confirmed a few times over the years by different sources for nadal are 355-7, ~335g, ~33.5cm with range on the mass and balance of max .4 cm and 4grams (likely due to dampener).

It's the same guy who measured the rafa frame at tennis warehouse in the first place.



To quote one of the posters here:
"I forgot more about this than you will ever know"

Nadal specs varied over the years for example in 2005 Nadal use to use following specs 321 32.2 68.5.

2007: 332g, 33.5cm, 355 SW
2009: 335g, 33.3cm, 350 SW
2011 Aussie Open:
336g strung static weight
33 cm balance
344 SW

Specs you are quoting are measured without Babolat dampener which is 4 grams...
I included dampener in my illustration above to save time but you simply cannot be educated so I leave it at that and in the interest of this topic...



 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame


To quote one of the posters here:
"I forgot more about this than you will ever know"

Nadal specs varied over the years for example in 2005 Nadal use to use following specs 321 32.2 68.5.

2007: 332g, 33.5cm, 355 SW
2009: 335g, 33.3cm, 350 SW
2011 Aussie Open:
336g strung static weight
33 cm balance
344 SW

Specs you are quoting are measured without Babolat dampener which is 4 grams...
I included dampener in my illustration above to save time but you simply cannot be educated so I leave it at that and in the interest of this topic...




You're hilarious. You put in at 22" 24grams, and got a resultant 361 swingweight, in your attempt to defend that 316 unstrung spec. I explained why that was wrong and in true troll fashion you sidestep that blatant mistake completely and strawman something else in. I'm well aware that there are different specs he's used. I've seen and held his 2011 frame. That frame had a 357sw. It was autographed and had the rafa logo on the paintjob. I even spoke to the babolat rep who brought it in about it. Daniel I think his name was. Blue eyes with a beard. Came in to talk about the new play racquets before they came out.

The TT ignore list grows longer. The fact you think you actually understand what you've been arguing is hilarious, but the nature of your posts are a total joke.

What's even dumber, is that picture you used, is saved as (and I quote) "AO10 - APD NADAL [10]" Clearly NOT the 2011 frame that I've been refering too this entire time. But hey, I mean you're doing a good job of trolling. Right click and select save as take a look for yourself.

Beyond that, that picture came from FABFED's thread (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/old-pics-of-roger-rafas-equipment.340181/ that was posted in 2010.). It's not your photo, and you obviously are trying to play along.
 
Last edited:

dgoran

Hall of Fame
Omg!!! I am the troll!!! you went out of your way and searched my past posts in order to find something you thought was a mistake while we were discussing goffin and now I am the troll here...
I think my only mistake here is that I am trying to help you understand something you clearly have no clue about
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Omg!!! I am the troll!!! you went out of your way and searched my past posts in order to find something you thought was a mistake while we were discussing goffin and now I am the troll here...
I think my only mistake here is that I am trying to help you understand something you clearly have no clue about
5 seconds on google image search isnt very hard. Maybe for you it is?

I was trying to demonstrate the lack of consistency you "know it alls" have. Posting up incorrect information and spreading it like the gospel. You came in trying to show me something with no direction or points in your posts. Like a chicken with its head chopped off spewing out blood all over the place making a mess.

You obviously are confused by the very things you're posting about, seeing as you can't even keep years straight, use the wrong numbers for calculations, can't correctly compute for the data you try to support, don't have any personal experience even with the stuff you're trying to talk about. Then you think you actually understand what you're talking about.... when in reality your relationship to the information at hand, or application of skills is just like any other backyard hack who's spent too many years on talk tennis.

Come back once you passed your MRT cert, buy an rdc, or have any kind of professional level training working with racquets.

People read your nonsense and are going to want to belive it. You've changed the strung specs of a 316 frame what like 3 times? At first it was 360 then it was 344 before that it was like 350? Like I said before, the 2011 rafa frame was measured by a well known professional and had a 357 sw. Unstrung, no matter how you turn it 316 is completely wrong. Unless the dampener is above the top cross, there is no way a 316, 16x19 100 square inch can be strung up to have 357 swingweight, period. The gauge of string, string pattern and head size determine the weight of the string in the string bed. Considering heavier polyester strings on an apd (volkl cyclone 16 black) give only a 31-33 (some machines read higher due to calibration, in this case im referring to differences seen on the same machine as the rafa speced out frame), rpm blast 1.35 cannot have a higher than 31 swingweight addition as it is lighter per 40ft than volkl cyclone. So, strung spec minus 357-31=326 sw unstrung. Thats a full 10 point difference than this guy has been trying to claim wildly and pointlessly. Thats a full 3 grams at 12 o'clock and is a very noticeable difference.

Now the reason why I've gone to GREAT LENGTH to explain this, is there are people just like dgoran who read some number somewhere, or likely just come up with it in their head, and spread it around like wildfire. This stuff happens with all the pro's. With all kinds of equipment. It's sad because then it makes someone who has credible information, uncredible. But, when multiple sources confirm roughly the same information, you can start to assume it is true. The only problem is when multiple people start to believe the same bad information, and run around posting it, again like the gospel.

Which is why I wanted to make it clear there is a lot of information out there that is wrong. If you actually understood what I mean, then you are free to make your own call about equipment. Just because someone has thousands of posts on TT doesn't mean they have a clue. I know a few guys on here who have many many posts and not only are they great guys, but awesome players who know a lot more about the pro tour than most. And there are equally people with stratospheric numbers of posts who are literally not in reality.
 
Last edited:

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
So with that last bit said, you really don't have to listen to what I've said about rafa frames. I wouldn't make those claims if I wasn't completely sure. However most of the claims I make in general are based off data and calculations. Not bogus math that says 316+31=344/350/357/360, because "my ego says you're wr000nnnggG". Stop. Think. Math.

Oh and beyond that, don't believe what rafa and toni release to the public. Just don't. Reasons: apd paintjob, hurricane/duralast lies, swingweight adjustment lies, likely doping/injury lies, "grip change" lie (for the uso serving, which in reality was an almost complete serve overhaul, not a 1/4" continental grip adjustment), etc etc etc. Their track record for honesty about the workings of rafas game are not even close to decent. To be fair though, if I were on his team, I'd be quite secretive aswell. Or any top tier player.
 
Last edited:

Power Player

Talk Tennis Guru
RD you are way out of line and over the top with your posts. I know Dgoran and played with him and your assumptions are incorrect. Furthermore, nothing he has said is nonsense. In fact over the time posted on this forum, he is rarely wrong about pro specs or setups and has just as much knowledge on the topic as you do.

Meanwhile you are putting way too much stock into specs and taking it very personal when another knowledgable poster provides clear insight into setups. You seem to think you know more than everyone else about this topic. It's cringey to read you telling posters here that their info is bad and they are hacks when the main person coming off as a know it all here is yourself. If your resume is as good as Drakulies I am sure you would have no problem being as transparent as him about your qualifications.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
RD you are way out of line and over the top with your posts. I know Dgoran and played with him and your assumptions are incorrect. Furthermore, nothing he has said is nonsense. In fact over the time posted on this forum, he is rarely wrong about pro specs or setups and has just as much knowledge on the topic as you do.

Meanwhile you are putting way too much stock into specs and taking it very personal when another knowledgable poster provides clear insight into setups. You seem to think you know more than everyone else about this topic. It's cringey to read you telling posters here that their info is bad and they are hacks when the main person coming off as a know it all here is yourself. If your resume is as good as Drakulies I am sure you would have no problem being as transparent as him about your qualifications.
What he posted makes mathematically no sense. The claims he made mathematically make no sense. When i call them out he sidesteps it completely.

I take great irritation when people continue to attack, and cannot admit they are incorrect. If you prove somehow that I was incorrect then I'm the first to admit I'm incorrect.

I worked at tennis warehouse, and learned a lot from paul reed. Who is the one who speced out rafas stick. Checked it out myself and spoke to play testers who used it. I didn't have the chance to play with it myself. I have spent a lot of my time customizing frames, and learning while working there. Now have moved on to providing services independantly for players in the area as a hobby style job. Mainly because most go to paul for their work in this area, and I can't blame them. His track record is very good, and with tennis warehouse standing behind him, any mistake can be more than handled well for the customer. I was lucky to have all the resources working there, and I like to think i took full advantage of them. The information from the tw staff is nearly infinite. There are people there who know nearly everything about well anything. Any player, their equipment, why p1 customizes a certain way, what certain players like. Because at one time or another, theyve had their hands on well everything. This is only part of the big reason why, even though i havent been an employee of theirs and in no way represent them, they are so good and why i support that business.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
The perspective people in the industry have is radically different than even what is trickled down, information wise. That's basically it. I don't think it is appropriate to be more specific about what tw staff has access to information/experience wise, but being surrounded by 40 mrt's, being taught by the best in the business, seeing what you can see working there, learning first hand from the best, does change your perspective, radically.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
You are incorrect I'll try with pictures this time maybe that helps you grasp some concepts:


of course there are small margins of error with above calculations but nadal specs were correct at that point of time

Like this post for example

I clearly said a full set of 15l rpm is 24 grams. I have a few sets of it. I put it on my scale. 24 grams.

Then he goes and puts 24 grams into the 22" postion of the frame. When has a 16x19 100 frame used a full 40 feet of string? This is such a basic error, on several levels, that it's completely rediculous to use as a foundation. Its commonly accepted that strings add 28-31 swingweight points depending on the frame and the string. That number can be even less if it's a thin syngut. Or a little higher for some of the thickest natgut. Im not exactly sure what 4g 15g is on a normal frame, but id imagine it would be 32,33 or maybe even 34 sw points.

Based off the again i specify 2011 frame that was speced out by a very good mrt, the 316 unstrung 2011 stat is inherintly wrong.

I used this as an example of people posting on here with poor information, to demonstrate the idea that a lot of what comes through here can be basically just made up/rumor, yet can still get accepted as fact. That being said, good luck harassing TW for their specs on rafas stick. I know that fed is in the low 350's as well, or at least was on his 90. Maybe they know what his 97 is now but i digress.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Beyond that I come here to try to bring proper information and understanding of racquets/equipment. Because in my experience as a player, and helping other players, understanding unlocks a whole different view. I have a background in engineering, and as a result know a fair amount of physics as well. In physics, if you make a mistake it is painfully difficult. It is hard to get through. You get painfully reminded when there is an error, whether that is conceptually, or computationally. An error leads to wrong information.

Now this isn't calculating critical mass, or rocket science. But there are concrete, and accepted mathematical models for almost all the phenominon that tennis players experience in their racquets. Non of it is magic or impossible to grasp. Some of this lack of understanding stems from the manufacturers and their marketing. I want people to have access to the information to understand what's going on. There are classes, seminars even for learning how to modify frames. I've taken one 6 hour course. They go over everything. It cost, a lot! Yet the information presented is really not all that mindblowing, or difficult or even complex. It's actually readily available. But most people don't talk about it directly. Some people have an understanding. Trust me there are plenty of professionals out there who know enough of it. I'd like to bridge that gap. Give power to the people who want it. And part of that process is helping people be aware of the miss information and lies. Tennis warehouse is surprisingly quite transparent. They provide much more information than others about racquets and strings. They provide all the basic information and tools you'd ever need. So the only information that is really missing are some of the more advanced topics.
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame
I am sorry but you are either too self absorbed to see this or simply mentally challenged...I have been here since 2004 and have never had issues with any posters here but you are clearly too thick...

In interest of time I quickly calculated TWU values for you to show you that we are roughly talking about the same thing and that 312 reported value of Nadal racquet amounts to the same value that you saw for SW...

as I said before 24 grams included dampener but you are one of those people that tries to FIND mistakes to try to discredit people so be it.

Bottom line is Goffin is using blade and that was confirmed by few people that know him and that string his racquet so I'm not sure why are you pushing your agenda
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
I am sorry but you are either too self absorbed to see this or simply mentally challenged...I have been here since 2004 and have never had issues with any posters here but you are clearly too thick...

In interest of time I quickly calculated TWU values for you to show you that we are roughly talking about the same thing and that 312 reported value of Nadal racquet amounts to the same value that you saw for SW...

as I said before 24 grams included dampener but you are one of those people that tries to FIND mistakes to try to discredit people so be it.

Bottom line is Goffin is using blade and that was confirmed by few people that know him and that string his racquet so I'm not sure why are you pushing your agenda

First of all I said im not surprised goffin uses a retail based racquet. Layup and mould make far less difference than a lot of people act out.

But again, the calculation is fundamentally incorrect. I see why you think I am thick. The 24 grams if it includes damper in standard placement is completely un representative. Since when do you put your damper 22" up on the frame? Above the middle of the stringbed? That's completely not legal, and I've never seen anyone do that. So first you need to seperate the weights. Most dampeners are between 2-3 grams for the button or two string style. A few of the larger square ones weigh more, and a lot actually weigh less. I've never measured a babolat O dampener to weigh more than 2.5ish grams. BUT for the sake of being completely concise, I will use your value of 4. To CORRECTLY calculate this weight, you have to put it in the correct location (or length) of the frame. Which is roughly 16". Putting it at 22" literally multiply the swing weight added by swingweight 3 times. Do you use your damper in the middle of the frame? I've never seen rafa do this. But that's basically what you input in the calculator.

Which brings me to my next point. 22" is too high. 20" is a better approximation, but it still reads slightly high. I've taken 19-20 gram string beds out consistently get 309 sw unstrung and 340 strung. For my racquet, 20grams of stringbed gets me 31 swingweight points. Interestingly enough, so does 21 gram stringbeds. The calculator will read a 21 gram stringbed higher than a 20 gram by two swingweight points, which is outside the 1 swingweight point margin of error. Why? Because the weight point we use for length is only an approximation. The calculator is intended to work with linear mass distributions, and that each mass is centered about that length. The stringbed, although quite symmetrical, and has many weight distributions, has crosses that don't span the same width, and mains that don't all have the same length. So the actual center of mass (of the strings) is a bit different than where we would expect it to be (around that 20.2" inch mark for some frames, some a bit higher but usually on a 27 inch frame its about 20"). Now for 3/9 because we are working with a lead strips that are much simpler to know exactly the center of mass, we can use 20" or 20.2 or 22 or whatever. But for stringbed we have to be careful, because with the amount of weight in a stringbed (20 grams) at that height the difference between 22" and 19.5 is about 8 swingweight points on a machine. Well outside what we can consider machine margin of error.

Look, I'm sorry if you took offense to my statements. But the way you input the weights in the calculator are incorrect. Therefore the data you received is also incorrect. In 2011 the swingweight rafa had was roughly 357. It could be one or two above or below easily, just from machine differences. A 316 unstrung spec is not close to that. I've seen Paul Reed's chart for swingweight increase by string. I definitely did NOT look through all of it, and only saw a few numbers that I cared about. I later recorded the numbers that mattered to me to help me figure out what I've posted above. I've never seen a 16x19 with a standard gauge go above 31 swingweight points. Considering rpm 15l is not heavier than other poly's I doubt it would yield more than that. Either way, no string is going to add 40 swingweight points in an aeropro drive. Not even all VS natural gut 15l, which is one of the heaviest strings you can buy.

The 316 spec might have been what he used 2009 from what greg raven has posted, but it is definitely not 2011. Which makes me say, why would someone specifically claim that's what he used if he didn't? I do remember reading that rafa and toni said they made changes, and they bumped up his sw by adding x grams somewhere. Again. Rafa and toni aren't totally honest about the inner workings of his game, and at the level he competes, they truely shouldn't be.

If you think I'm wrong, then please by all means get your racquet measured on an RDC. Take a picture of the sw. Cut out the string, and have the racquet measured on the same RDC. Then just weigh the strings you've cut out. You can easily work backwards from there with the calculator to figure out where the middle of the weight distribution is. Again the calculator needs proper inputs to give accurate outputs.

The reason why I said you don't know what you're talking about, isn't because your post count, or that I have an agenda against you. But because those errors you made while calculating go against common sense. And that anyone who's actually worked with racquets and real life calculations/real life RDC, will know, that you can't put the weight of the dampener at 22", the weight of the string that high, and can't get realistically get 46 swingweight points out of strings and a dampener (at least not in standard above the neck dampener placement). Like immediately that would set off a red flag in an mrt with any kind of modification experience.

With the weight placed correctly, you get a 351 swingweight. Maybe 352 if the machine reads high. But again I've never seen a bab hollow O dampener weigh more than like 2.5 grams (think about it for a second, they're tiny and have a hole straight through the middle). So by my calculations it would at most come out to be 350. It would even be rounding up from 349 with the dampener. Strung, 347.3.
 
Last edited:

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
But I probably wouldn't have been so much more aggressive about what you did wrong, if you hadn't knee jerked with internet memes and calling me an idiot. I probably would have been entirely respectful. Instead you post someone else's pictures, of the wrong pj/year, with more incorrect information, in an attempt to save face of your completely incorrect use of the twu calculator.
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame
You know what's funny I actually did separate dampener and strings on twu initially but thought it would be too complex to explain so I simplified my screenshot for sake of speed and simplicity
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
You know what's funny I actually did separate dampener and strings on twu initially but thought it would be too complex to explain so I simplified my screenshot for sake of speed and simplicity
Well that causes a lot of problems lmao. That makes a pretty big difference in final readout. 360 is hugely different than 350, we all know that.

From what I've seen 19.5" is a better approximation for the middle point to use for the string weight. I'm fairly sure it's because of the extra length on the mains below the bottom cross compared to the length of the mains above the top cross. Otherwise the calculator doesn't feed the same RDC results.

Looks like nobody needed to get uptight at all, and we were on the same page the whole time then.
 

unclenimrod

Rookie
The good thing about this thread is how important it is to all of us to get this right. Because I'll be darned if I don't figure out that I can play like verdasco and Goffin with my stock ps85.
 

Zoid

Professional
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.
Wrong wrong wrong. A lower swing weight can be off set with lower tension. Jack Sock's racquets have a swing weight of 313-320. He does fine with power.

From what I know a lot of younger players are using low swing weights - Alex Deminaur pretty much felt like a stock tecnifibre. So light. Kyrgios reportedly uses a bone stock Xi 98 with a leather. many pros use stock aero and pure drives.

You don't have to have a high swing weight, you can serve big and hit big with other set ups, I agree it helps with returns and stability.
 

galapagos

Semi-Pro
the guy is top 10 and still his specs are mystery ;p Ever wondered whats written there at the white area of his stick? ;p



Also notice that he is holding a bit higher his grip while volleying. Possible evidence of much higher SW than estimated here ("stock blade") ? :)
 

jmacdaununder2

Hall of Fame
Just wondering now if Goffin is using a longbody? Just wondering re both hands fitting on the grip on two hander, and choking up on one hander.
 

Arti

Professional
the guy is top 10 and still his specs are mystery ;p Ever wondered whats written there at the white area of his stick? ;p



Also notice that he is holding a bit higher his grip while volleying. Possible evidence of much higher SW than estimated here ("stock blade") ? :)
Well Stock Blade meaning the stock layup and mold, weight is entirely custom.
 

Doubles

Legend
the guy is top 10 and still his specs are mystery ;p Ever wondered whats written there at the white area of his stick? ;p



Also notice that he is holding a bit higher his grip while volleying. Possible evidence of much higher SW than estimated here ("stock blade") ? :)
I'm no pro, but I also have a tendency to choke up a bit on volleys, sometimes even on returns, too. While I certainly wouldn't rule out him playing something heavier than stock, chocking up isn't necessarily a guarantee that his racquet is absurdly heavy.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Good question. It looks to me like a 104, but not sure what kind of pro stock it is.
definitely not 104. head is smaller than that. more like 98 that one. I think it is the new blade 98. probably set to his own specs and weight. it is mostly Green..... very flashy....lol
 

galapagos

Semi-Pro
I'm no pro, but I also have a tendency to choke up a bit on volleys, sometimes even on returns, too. While I certainly wouldn't rule out him playing something heavier than stock, chocking up isn't necessarily a guarantee that his racquet is absurdly heavy.
ofc everything is possible, i was implying bigger SW not bigger weight. I think choking up "technique" is to compensate lower maneuverability of the racquet. There are 2 most important aspects on volley: how far you can reach and how fast you can reach. Choking up is choosing speed . Obviously you also gain more stability which may be a factor as well. There is a reason why Djokovic is avoiding net play. Imo its because he is playing with a hammer and cant be that much succesfull there ;p Goffin is smaller so he actually might appreciate bigger range but it means nothing without the speed. If he cant provide enough speed with traditional grip my assumption is that the SW is pretty high.
 

haqq777

Legend
When did Wilson reverse the colors on the Blade? Is this the next model?
It's a special edition paintjob. Don't remember if it's a limited run or not.
TW Staff commented on it in a few other threads. They are limited edition paintjobs only selling for specific time frame. Copy pasting here:

There will be new updates from Tecnifibre launching as well as LTd edition cosmetics for the Wilson Burn, Blade and Pro Staff 85 in the upcoming months. There will also be special edition cosmetics for French Open and Wimbledon from Babolat. The Prince Phantom will be launching later in the summer. We will also have a couple Pacific racquets launching as well.

Thanks,
Brittany, TW
Blade 98 18x20 Countervail
Blade 98L

Thanks,
Brittany, TW
The reversed paint job Wilson racquets are currently set to release on May 15th for pre-sale, June 1st in stock. And yes, they will be TFight LTDs in two different string patterns.

Thanks,
Brittany, TW
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbm
Top