Head light balance is so overrated

DonDiego

DonDiego

Hall of Fame
Don't you think?

Where does that come from anyway, the fact that a racquet would be sooo great if it has a HL balance of 7-8 pts or more?

When you have (relatively) low static weight and (relatively) high swingweight, you get the best of both worlds: maneuverability + plowthrough. I mean, why do you think every racquet from beginner to intermediate to a few "player's racquet" are made this way? (not too heavy, but even or 3-4 pts HL balance)

In my opinion, this HL balance fetischism is another thing that you only find here on TT. Along with super heavy, small-headed and 58 RA rating sticks.
 
OP you have some rather impulsive poasts. I think in your haste to make another thread, you assumed that your preference applies to everyone else in the world.

I happen to prefer 3-4 pts hl myself but I wouldn't consider HL balance to be overrated. That's just an odd way of looking at it.
 
If you are incorporating the so called "ATP modern forehand" as your standard strokes a head light balance is optimal. This forehand would in basic terms be when the tip of the racquet is in front and above the wrist and then flips backward at initiation of the forward pull of the handle. Now when you try this technique with a head heavy racquet it just doesn't work properly. Anyone you see that uses a so called granny stick that are light and head heavy. They all just bunt the ball around.
 
OP is right, to some extent at least. I started with about 4 HL and slowly moved towards 5-6. I can play up to 7 but don't like anything more. I feel I drag unnecessary weight.
Coincidentally, today I played with a different spes today, a 2 HL racquet, but much heavier SW then I normally do. I had huge power on my groundies, while frame didn't feel too heavy. This kind of setup might have the advantage for baseline bashing game! However, for net play, it's kind of nice having lighter SW for maneuverability, and some weight in the handle, i.e. more HL balance...

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 
daniel2015 said:
With HH or EB there is no maneuverability at all . One handers feel weird and volleys get out of control. And when you must play "touch" shots near the net, the ball flyes too much and goes anywhere.

HL clearly rules IMO
Click to expand...
+1 to this. Can't speak for people who use a two-hander, but 7 points head light is so much easier for hitting a one-hander than 4 points head light. Hitting with something closer to even balance feel like I'm swinging a plank of wood. It just doesn't move through the stroke in a natural way.
 
Well, generally the lighter and shorter the racquet the more even it needs to be for it to have any sought of guts. The really heavy stuff tends to be more headlight so you can swing it. I would say that the 7 points headlight scenario is considered to be optimum for your elbow and shoulder if the racquet is in the 12 ounce region in current terms. Most of the 13 ounce racquets from the 80's were up to 12 points headlight.
You also have to factor in individual preferences.
 
Look, my racquet is 10 points headlight strung with a 58 ra flex and a 95" head size. I feel that heavier racquets absorb pace and generate a tad bit more "oomph" on the ball if you know what I mean. However, like other posters have said, it's all a matter of preference.
 
Only women and feeble men should use a HH racquet without being ashamed of themselves.

If a racquet doesn't balance at where my pinky knuckle goes I feel emasculated.
 
Ahhh... Trolling. Or.. Well. Could it be so that every player is different and craves different gear? Find your own sweet spot, is it HH, get on with it but that does not mean the other majority that use HL racquets must be wrong in doing so. Obviously it must feel good for them. I suggest that OP gets out in the real world and have a look now and then. It's a wonderful varied marvellous world out there. :-)
 
There's very good reason why doubles players usually use very headlight rackets, while just as high or even higher swingweights as singles players. Headlight works much better for volleys, half-volleys, touch shots.
 
Attila_the_gorilla said:
There's very good reason why doubles players usually use very headlight rackets, while just as high or even higher swingweights as singles players. Headlight works much better for volleys, half-volleys, touch shots.
Click to expand...
This and that's the whole story really... hence the HL balance is somewhat overrated in these baseliner heavy times though.
 
DonDiego said:
Don't you think?

Where does that come from anyway, the fact that a racquet would be sooo great if it has a HL balance of 7-8 pts or more?

When you have (relatively) low static weight and (relatively) high swingweight, you get the best of both worlds: maneuverability + plowthrough. I mean, why do you think every racquet from beginner to intermediate to a few "player's racquet" are made this way? (not too heavy, but even or 3-4 pts HL balance)

In my opinion, this HL balance fetischism is another thing that you only find here on TT. Along with super heavy, small-headed and 58 RA rating sticks.
Click to expand...

Right. Just make a racquet that is lighter, and zero balance, and call it even.
O Wait - Babolat has it.
 
Kalin said:
Only women and feeble men should use a HH racquet without being ashamed of themselves.

If a racquet doesn't balance at where my pinky knuckle goes I feel emasculated.
Click to expand...
Buy a HH racquet and Tailweight it. To your personal preference.
 
since ive been through most of the tw catalogue specs it seems that they can be categorised into "players", most often 6-10 pts hl. "tweeners" 3-5 pts hl and "game improvement" racquets at even or even HH balance. like so many have said in the past, find your own "sweet spot" regarding specs. i started out with 9 pt hl but settled with 5-6 pt hl balance. if i went under 5 my game suffered a bit on certain shots. use whatever you want. it has to fit you, not someone elses bruised ego.
 
DonDiego said:
Don't you think?

Where does that come from anyway, the fact that a racquet would be sooo great if it has a HL balance of 7-8 pts or more?

When you have (relatively) low static weight and (relatively) high swingweight, you get the best of both worlds: maneuverability + plowthrough. I mean, why do you think every racquet from beginner to intermediate to a few "player's racquet" are made this way? (not too heavy, but even or 3-4 pts HL balance)

In my opinion, this HL balance fetischism is another thing that you only find here on TT. Along with super heavy, small-headed and 58 RA rating sticks.
Click to expand...

You got bored ... so you threw a match on the flame. Been there :)

Edit: gas on the flame ... match on the flame doesn't do anything :)

Had my new racquet (3HL) on a balance board, and a rubberband (small one) was dropped on stringbed. Sucker started to rotate ... we (tennis players) are a sensitive lot. :)

This is the racquet I want:
- a 11oz hl racquet for fh, that turns into a 13oz hh racquet on 2hbh
- a 9oz hl racquet for 1hbh drop shot ... about 11oz hl for 1hbh slice
- 9oz hl to get racquet into posotion for volley, which changes to 12oz hh on the volley
- 11oz hl to start serve, but 13oz hh at impact

Haven't found it yet.

I think we may often get fooled by how a racquet feels when we pick it up vs how we actually play with it. Seriously ... if you just grab a racquet, hl wins every time.
 
Last edited:
Hey, I just have a sense that, on this board at least, some people think that turning a decent typical racquet into a 7-8 pts balance with leather grip, lead, etc. will somehow turn the racquet into a so much better version of it. And somehow they believe subconsciously that will earn some kind of respect from the "wises" from the TT community.

But the worst is when they do that, thinking it will make the racquet more maneuverable...

I am well aware that this is just my opinion, based on hunches, and nothing scientific. But still, I'm pretty confident that's what's going on here.

Super head light racquets are heading the same direction as 95-inch heads and 18x20 patterns in my opinion.
 
DonDiego said:
I am well aware that this is just my opinion, based on hunches, and nothing scientific. But still, I'm pretty confident that's what's going on here.

Super head light racquets are heading the same direction as 95-inch heads and 18x20 patterns in my opinion.
Click to expand...


2014:

AO: 95
FO: 100
W: 95 18x20
USO: 95


2015:

AO: 95 18x20
FO: 95
W: 95 18x20
USO: 95 18x20


2016:

AO: 95 18x20
FO: 95 18x20
W: 95
USO: 95
 
gino said:
2014:

AO: 95
FO: 100
W: 95 18x20
USO: 95


2015:

AO: 95 18x20
FO: 95
W: 95 18x20
USO: 95 18x20


2016:

AO: 95 18x20
FO: 95 18x20
W: 95
USO: 95
Click to expand...

Nice work, too bad it's irrelevant.

I'm talking about racquet companies that will slowly stop manufacturing these, and the public that will buy fewer and fewer of these sticks.
 
DonDiego said:
Nice work, too bad it's irrelevant.

I'm talking about racquet companies that will slowly stop manufacturing these, and the public that will buy fewer and fewer of these sticks.
Click to expand...

How is that irrelevant? The players that are winning majors are picking 95's
 
I get what the OP is saying. If you look at the first post he states that most beginners and intermediate racquets are even or minimally HL (some are also HH). If I look in the shops here that is what I see - cheap racquets for the masses that have a hit once in a blue moon and have slow compact strokes. This racquet suits that type of game.

However, I think most players that play more competitively and regularly prefer the headlight racquets. I do not feel HL racquets will be a thing of the past but I do think that most recreational players choose the cheaper even/HH racquets.

I prefer 300g/310g and 4HL personally.
 
Most of the public pick racquets that are advertised as being able to add spin , power ,speed and control with no effort or input from the player.

Most serious or pro players know it takes much effort and dedication to achieve these things . But this group of people probably only account for 5% or less of the sales market!
 
One thing I will say is that HH racquets will swing perfectly fine if you're actually hitting with a loose swing (assuming the racquet isn't too heavy).

HL racquets are easier for those who tend to arm their groundstrokes.

I still do think the best racquets for most would be to get a heavy, very HL racquet and lead it up at 12 a little. I've got such a setup on my PS90 and PS95S.
 
It's possible to see the debate here as rather less polarised (forgive the pun) than it may at first appear. Why? For a racquet to be effective it requires to pass a certain mass threshold in the head. Taking the strings as a given (and accepting that's a whole debate on its own) it is the mass in the hoop that hits the ball. Thereafter how HH or HL the racquet is depends on how much mass there is elsewhere, and that depends on the playing, weight and "feel" preferences of the individual player. Hence for those seeking a lower static weight, mass is removed first from the handle and throat. So a "lite" racquet will tend to be even balance (EB) or HH because the manufacturers keep weight in the head and sacrifice it elsewhere. If you see a very light racquet with a HL balance then be worried.

Of course one must accept that there is then scope to have even more mass in the head in stock form, or for lead to be added. Players doing that prefer even more mass through the hit. Why not? If you can handle it more power to your elbow I say. If the same player prefers a certain balance then they may counter-weight in the handle/throat to achieve their balance preferences.

None of these approaches is in any way wrong. It is to be expected that when posters here are asked to express a view on what might work for another they will suggest what works for them. That reflects their own experience. I would hope that the great majority of those would also accept that what works for them may not work for others, but that's not a reason to hold off suggesting another at least try. The problem, if there is one, arises when posters are insistent on the "one best way". Whereas there are some starting rules - and i think having a certain threshold weight in the head is one of them - there are few if any universal truths in racquet weighting and mass distribution that all must follow. If there were all racquets would be the same weight and balance (I say this rhetorically, as on further analysis that statement is also an over-generalisation).

Nice thread though. Sometimes it's good to set up a straw man to get the debating juices flowing. :-)
 
Ronaldo said:
Buy a HH racquet and Tailweight it. To your personal preference.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've done this many a time. Keep a stock of small 1-pound kettlebells just for that purpose.

But seriously, yes... this is what many people do. Wilson had some awesome HH sticks in the Hammer series before. And I've seen quite a few high-level people play very well with them even stock. Did I say people? I meant girly men... sorry.
 
DonDiego said:
Hey, I just have a sense that, on this board at least, some people think that turning a decent typical racquet into a 7-8 pts balance with leather grip, lead, etc. will somehow turn the racquet into a so much better version of it. And somehow they believe subconsciously that will earn some kind of respect from the "wises" from the TT community.

But the worst is when they do that, thinking it will make the racquet more maneuverable...

I am well aware that this is just my opinion, based on hunches, and nothing scientific. But still, I'm pretty confident that's what's going on here.

Super head light racquets are heading the same direction as 95-inch heads and 18x20 patterns in my opinion.
Click to expand...

DD, many of us of certain age grew up with flexy HL sticks and find it difficult to adjust to racquets that aren't at least 7-8 points HL. I've tried HH sticks; one of my favourite racquets is the fantastic Wilson Hammer Ultra. It's 14 points HH, I think :) Great SW... beautiful hit. But after 2 sets with it I'm always tired since my swing, as inconsistent as it is, is tuned to HL sticks.

I have a lot of old racquets ranging from extremely HL to almost EB and I once made a quick recap of which ones I play best with. Turned out it was the 12 pt HL ones. So, in my case at least, it is not a pose; it's a fact. I volley a lot and it is so much easier to stick a volley with a HL stick.

As for leather, same thing. When I started playing the only game in town was bare leather and blisters. The only overgrips available were those towel monstrosities that look like diapers for pigmys; no way I'd ever have one of these things close to me (unless, of course, I insult the wrong frog and it turns me into a pygmy with the runs; then I'm on). Later on some OGs appeared and we started using them. So many of us are used to the hard feel of leather and find some of the new grips too spongy. I have no problem playing with Gamma Hi-Tec, for example, which is very firm.

As for flexy sticks; they're so much arm-frendlier. I love stiff racquets but one has to be careful with them.

Now you've inspired me to take the Hammer Ultra for a spin. I'll make sure noone's watching.
 
Kalin said:
Oh, I've done this many a time. Keep a stock of small 1-pound kettlebells just for that purpose.

But seriously, yes... this is what many people do. Wilson had some awesome HH sticks in the Hammer series before. And I've seen quite a few high-level people play very well with them even stock. Did I say people? I meant girly men... sorry.
Click to expand...
Adding 3+ oz below the handle of a racquet is pretty Radical. But to create a better racquet...........................try it.

Should Your Racquet Be Head-Heavy or Head-Light?

Head-light is better, no question. A head-light racquet (balance point closer to the hand than the midpoint of the racquet's length), has significantly lower Moment, resultant forces from impact (Torque and Impulse Reaction), Shock, Work, Shoulder Pull, Shoulder Crunch, Wrist Crunch, and Elbow Crunch. And it can have high mass (M) and high swingweight (I), but low Moment, with a handle end counterweight. That's good, remember.



In the formulas, the key variable is r (the mass center radius, or the distance from the axis of rotation to the balance point). Head-light balance means that r is small. When r is small, r2will be tiny, and the key coefficient in the formulas, Mr2/I (which, as astute students will note, is equal to r / q because q= I / Mr) in the formulas for Torque and Shock, will be small, which is good. The linear velocity of the mass center is critical, and when the mass center is close to the hand (small r), its linear velocity (v) in rotation will be smaller than when it is distant. A distant mass center goes much faster in rotation -- remember the carousel at the playground? So head-light is the smart choice. Head-light (low r) with a high sweet spot (high q) is the really smart choice for reducing the risk of tennis elbow. That means a racquet with a large handle end weight (~5 ounces). This handle end weight customization produces significant improvement: check this.


An important additional benefit of head-light balance is that Moment is less, so the racquet is easier to position for volleys and returns, and is not so heavy to hold up all afternoon. Moreover, with a low Moment, the Torsion from impact will be small, so the racquet will be easy on the elbow. Head-heavy racquets, on the other hand, increase the risk of tennis elbow because of their high Moment and high Torque (therefore high Torsion), their high Elbow Crunch, and their high Shock.
 
Kalin said:
Oh, I've done this many a time. Keep a stock of small 1-pound kettlebells just for that purpose.

But seriously, yes... this is what many people do. Wilson had some awesome HH sticks in the Hammer series before. And I've seen quite a few high-level people play very well with them even stock. Did I say people? I meant girly men... sorry.
Click to expand...
Adding 3+ oz below the handle of a racquet is pretty Radical. But to create a better racquet...........................try it.

Should Your Racquet Be Head-Heavy or Head-Light?

Head-light is better, no question. A head-light racquet (balance point closer to the hand than the midpoint of the racquet's length), has significantly lower Moment, resultant forces from impact (Torque and Impulse Reaction), Shock, Work, Shoulder Pull, Shoulder Crunch, Wrist Crunch, and Elbow Crunch. And it can have high mass (M) and high swingweight (I), but low Moment, with a handle end counterweight. That's good, remember.



In the formulas, the key variable is r (the mass center radius, or the distance from the axis of rotation to the balance point). Head-light balance means that r is small. When r is small, r2will be tiny, and the key coefficient in the formulas, Mr2/I (which, as astute students will note, is equal to r / q because q= I / Mr) in the formulas for Torque and Shock, will be small, which is good. The linear velocity of the mass center is critical, and when the mass center is close to the hand (small r), its linear velocity (v) in rotation will be smaller than when it is distant. A distant mass center goes much faster in rotation -- remember the carousel at the playground? So head-light is the smart choice. Head-light (low r) with a high sweet spot (high q) is the really smart choice for reducing the risk of tennis elbow. That means a racquet with a large handle end weight (~5 ounces). This handle end weight customization produces significant improvement: check this.


An important additional benefit of head-light balance is that Moment is less, so the racquet is easier to position for volleys and returns, and is not so heavy to hold up all afternoon. Moreover, with a low Moment, the Torsion from impact will be small, so the racquet will be easy on the elbow. Head-heavy racquets, on the other hand, increase the risk of tennis elbow because of their high Moment and high Torque (therefore high Torsion), their high Elbow Crunch, and their high Shock.
 
Ronaldo said:
Adding 3+ oz below the handle of a racquet is pretty Radical. But to create a better racquet...........................try it.

Should Your Racquet Be Head-Heavy or Head-Light?

Head-light is better, no question. A head-light racquet (balance point closer to the hand than the midpoint of the racquet's length), has significantly lower Moment, resultant forces from impact (Torque and Impulse Reaction), Shock, Work, Shoulder Pull, Shoulder Crunch, Wrist Crunch, and Elbow Crunch. And it can have high mass (M) and high swingweight (I), but low Moment, with a handle end counterweight. That's good, remember.



In the formulas, the key variable is r (the mass center radius, or the distance from the axis of rotation to the balance point). Head-light balance means that r is small. When r is small, r2will be tiny, and the key coefficient in the formulas, Mr2/I (which, as astute students will note, is equal to r / q because q= I / Mr) in the formulas for Torque and Shock, will be small, which is good. The linear velocity of the mass center is critical, and when the mass center is close to the hand (small r), its linear velocity (v) in rotation will be smaller than when it is distant. A distant mass center goes much faster in rotation -- remember the carousel at the playground? So head-light is the smart choice. Head-light (low r) with a high sweet spot (high q) is the really smart choice for reducing the risk of tennis elbow. That means a racquet with a large handle end weight (~5 ounces). This handle end weight customization produces significant improvement: check this.


An important additional benefit of head-light balance is that Moment is less, so the racquet is easier to position for volleys and returns, and is not so heavy to hold up all afternoon. Moreover, with a low Moment, the Torsion from impact will be small, so the racquet will be easy on the elbow. Head-heavy racquets, on the other hand, increase the risk of tennis elbow because of their high Moment and high Torque (therefore high Torsion), their high Elbow Crunch, and their high Shock.
Click to expand...

You're not Wilmot McCutchen, are you? :)
 
Ronaldo said:
Not today......................................he did post BITD. And these are his ideas
Click to expand...

Yes, and they're very sound. Of course, a racquet set up to his recommendations may not suit everybody. But it will be undoubtedly a very arm-friendly stick with the potential to crush balls in the right hands.

There's also the issue of the player's physical make-up. I've never been the best of players but I've always been plenty strong so a heavier, HL racquet has helped me. A player with better timing can arguably achieve the same, or even better results, with a lighter, more EB stick.
 
Ronaldo said:
Adding 3+ oz below the handle of a racquet is pretty Radical. But to create a better racquet...........................try it.

Should Your Racquet Be Head-Heavy or Head-Light?

Head-light is better, no question. A head-light racquet (balance point closer to the hand than the midpoint of the racquet's length), has significantly lower Moment, resultant forces from impact (Torque and Impulse Reaction), Shock, Work, Shoulder Pull, Shoulder Crunch, Wrist Crunch, and Elbow Crunch. And it can have high mass (M) and high swingweight (I), but low Moment, with a handle end counterweight. That's good, remember.



In the formulas, the key variable is r (the mass center radius, or the distance from the axis of rotation to the balance point). Head-light balance means that r is small. When r is small, r2will be tiny, and the key coefficient in the formulas, Mr2/I (which, as astute students will note, is equal to r / q because q= I / Mr) in the formulas for Torque and Shock, will be small, which is good. The linear velocity of the mass center is critical, and when the mass center is close to the hand (small r), its linear velocity (v) in rotation will be smaller than when it is distant. A distant mass center goes much faster in rotation -- remember the carousel at the playground? So head-light is the smart choice. Head-light (low r) with a high sweet spot (high q) is the really smart choice for reducing the risk of tennis elbow. That means a racquet with a large handle end weight (~5 ounces). This handle end weight customization produces significant improvement: check this.


An important additional benefit of head-light balance is that Moment is less, so the racquet is easier to position for volleys and returns, and is not so heavy to hold up all afternoon. Moreover, with a low Moment, the Torsion from impact will be small, so the racquet will be easy on the elbow. Head-heavy racquets, on the other hand, increase the risk of tennis elbow because of their high Moment and high Torque (therefore high Torsion), their high Elbow Crunch, and their high Shock.
Click to expand...

skip the poly and you can skip the math :)
 
crazyups said:
I believe the majority of ATP pros are about 3 points HL but they are in much better shape than the 7+ HL players on this forum.
Click to expand...

there was a spreadsheet on here a few years ago with 43 pro's unstrung specs. after adjusting for strings the average was about 7HL for ATP pro's strung frames. Granted, the data is about 4 or 5 years old but I don't think tennis has changed that much in last 4 or 5 years. Keep in mind that vast majority of pros are playing customized frames.
 
^ From what I remember, it was floating somewhere between 4 and 7....

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 
Zoolander said:
Aaah, but WE will know, wont we, "girly man"?!
Click to expand...

I'll PJ it as a SRD-Tour 90. Mine balances at 30 cm [emoji41]

Plus, what's wrong with being a bit girly? Didn't you watch young GOAT rock the skirt the other day? Andy was impressed if a bit intimidated... he's always a bit scared around skirts.
 
For what it's worth, I'm not opposing HL to HH here, and maybe I should have been clearer: what is overrated in my view is modding your raquet to make it 7-8 pts HL or more. I'm not saying 3-4 HL is overrated and everyone should play HH. I myself play at 3-4 HL.

What I'm saying is it's all part of the "players' sticks" mentality, along with 95-head or less and heavy frames, and these specs are all slowly going away, if you care to open you eyes and look at what's on the shelves or at TW. And this is happening DESPITE the fact that the "big 5" are still playing with these...

But hey, keep knocking yourselves out! :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JackB1
Why are most "tweeners" more evenly balanced?
Replies
16
Views
2K
0d1n
0d1n
Hot Sauce
Balance (Head Light/Heavy)
Replies
8
Views
3K
Bubba
Bubba
Chris De Tone
Opinions on "head light" racquets...
Replies
14
Views
2K
Teo829
T
Borat
Need Help From the resident customization experts......
Replies
4
Views
725
Steve Huff
S
Lavs
ProKennex BA93 or Dunlop Bio200?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Agent Orynge
Agent Orynge
Back
Top