@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.