High or low swingweight against heavy hitters?

Federer seems to be strong enough to swing his 367g racket as though it is a 300g racket. But what about us average rec tennis people?
about 6 or 8 years ago ITF article said a minimum performance spec for a rec player 4HL or more, 320SW or more and I don't remember the static weight but I think it was near 11 oz. Personally, I think 320 SW is the minimum to play good tennis even at rec player ball speeds. I'll probably get grief for saying that but that's my view.

I also think rec players could hit with anything from 320SW to 380SW depending on size, skill, style but I think the sweet spot for rec level is around 320 to 350 SW. 320-330sw is light, 330-340 is medium and 340 and above is heavy seems like a practical approach.
 
High swingweight is all good and solid but how do you get spin on the ball with pace and keep it in the court? That requires quite a bit of racket head speed which is not easy with heavy rackets.
I have seen similar posts here many times through the years. I buy light rackets and lead up. When I get them they are around 310-315SW and after customization they tend to be in the 332-338SW range. I can honestly say I don't notice any difference in RHS and it doesn't feel difficult to maneuver. I guess if I went up to say 345-355SW I might begin to feel some sluggishness but 335SW is pretty stable for me and spin and power are good at that level.
 
Around 320-330 grams dead weight and recoil weight 155 or higher.

My current frame is the Babolat Pure Strike PO7 16x19. I've had elbow issues in the past and I can tell you this is one of the most solid feeling and comfortable frames I've ever had. One wouldn't think so with a stiffness spec of 67. No issues against big hitters. Highest level I hit against is my pro who for a short time was a dounles touring pro. He let's loose once in a while when I'm hitting well and no issues. My string setup is Monogut ZX pro mains with Thunder Blast crosses.

Sent from my LGUS997 using Tapatalk
I've noticed that your Babolat PS (PO7) 16x19 received a very high Comfort Score of 88 in its TW review. Yeah, we can pretty much ignore the RA stiffness ratings. A few other recent Babolat frames have gotten decent Comfort scores from TW as well. But many have not. The Pure Strike VS Tour received a low Comfort Score of 67. Possibly typical of a lot of many Bab frames in the past.

https://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/PS16/PS16Review.html
https://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/PSVST/PSVSTReview.html
.
 
High swingweight is all good and solid but how do you get spin on the ball with pace and keep it in the court? That requires quite a bit of racket head speed which is not easy with heavy rackets.
I don't swing like a moron and the racquet head speed is the same. I'm not going to sugar coat it, there is very little actual racquet head speed loss you'll see going from like 330 to 350. There are angular velocity control differences that are significant, but with good weight distribution that is a non issue.

In actual scientific testing they saw a noticeable drop in racquet head speed when increasing swing weight 20% using a double pendulum and rod. That is literally going from 320 to 384 sw. If you're having a huge drop in racquet head speed you're using bad mechanics. No sense in pretending there's another cause.

However if you're talking about how fast you can effectively swing because you're struggling to control the racquet, that is a different conversation. One that is worth having. But that singular approach is non reflective of many players across the skill spectrum I've worked with, both locally and internationally (online). It's a complex system and inherently that causes many nuances to get overlooked.

The song against what I'm advocating, used to be "the racquet doesn't matter, all about the player" funny how that changes. The sooner you attack the issues in your mechanics the sooner you will improve with consistency and less likely to cause injury long term.
 
Last edited:
I have seen similar posts here many times through the years. I buy light rackets and lead up. When I get them they are around 310-315SW and after customization they tend to be in the 332-338SW range. I can honestly say I don't notice any difference in RHS and it doesn't feel difficult to maneuver. I guess if I went up to say 345-355SW I might begin to feel some sluggishness but 335SW is pretty stable for me and spin and power are good at that level.
I would give it a shot.
Like I said in the post above, 20% increase in sw is where they started noticing an appreciable drop in RHS. That's 320 to 384 sw. 335 vs 350 is a change less than 5%. 345 might be a good one to try. It does affect the ability you have to torque the racquet forward or backward with the wrist which is integral to controlling the racquet face timing (creating max spin for example, or adding extra forward speed for extra power on flat shots), but you can reliably and effectively attenuate that behavior by adjusting the static weight and balance in relation to the swing weight. On the forum you'd call it mgr/i tuning or I'd call it angular velocity tuning. I'm behind on videos again, but life has been exponentially busier than I anticipated. I'll try to create a series of videos and even a written step by step guide to do this long term.
 
about 6 or 8 years ago ITF article said a minimum performance spec for a rec player 4HL or more, 320SW or more and I don't remember the static weight but I think it was near 11 oz. Personally, I think 320 SW is the minimum to play good tennis even at rec player ball speeds. I'll probably get grief for saying that but that's my view.

I also think rec players could hit with anything from 320SW to 380SW depending on size, skill, style but I think the sweet spot for rec level is around 320 to 350 SW. 320-330sw is light, 330-340 is medium and 340 and above is heavy seems like a practical approach.
I think the swing weight "sweet spot" is that range if there isn't an understanding how to appropriately adjust the static weight and balance for the player. But realistically I think the sweet spot is 340<380 (I hesitate to use the number 380 but if you think of it as something in the 370's that makes a lot more sense). Those higher inertia's are much harder again to attenuate with the wrist if they come around at a rate that isn't good for the player's intended mechanics. That doesn't mean they're actually hard to use. It just means the racquet isn't overall weighted correctly. There's no one correct racquet weight out there, or correct balance point, as every player is so different in every single measurable area. Of course I'm sure some person will try to argue that it's the SW is the root cause of problems. But that's a drastic oversimplification, and usually result of poor analysis/understanding of multivariate systems.

I could go on and on about the benefits of more swing weight. But most people won't ever come to terms with them because they're caught up in some keyboard ego battle. So it's not surprising that the more advanced discussion of weight distribution never got past infancy. Frankly the online community is very lucky traverlerjam made the posts he did.
 
The heaviest weight and swingweight that you can comfortably swing for as long as you need to, as often as you need to, without compromising your strokes or results, against the the biggest, heaviest hitters you face.

....

For you? Optimize for who you are and what you do. But use the general guideline in the first sentence.
Nope I would not say that.

That approaches the racquet in a way that these variables are all mutually exclusive. But in reality (both on court, and demonstrated in scientific experiments), each variable has an effect on the other. From both swinging dynamics to rebound dynamics. This is an oversimplification. And I'm going to tell you, this approach will fail you. You can play tennis this way, but if you want to use a racquet that won't limit your ability to improve long term as a tennis player, it fails.

The natural rebuttal is that some things are too complex. But in reality they aren't. Finding the correct setup, is very simple really. Just most players haven't a clue how to approach things. With the correct approach, a properly playing racquet is quite achievable, and realistically wouldn't take much time at all to create. Certainly much much less time than most players on this board invest finding a "perfect string" that will result in a .0005% change in their game, and certainly a fraction of that string cost.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand rec people talking about SW over 340-350. Head PT630 should be one of the most stable rackets ever made and its SW is about 325 strung! Who are these guys that feel this racket is ‘flimsy’? Who are they playing against?!
 
And you can hit a topspin serve??
I have customized my Wilson RFA (Red 2014 model) to 360 SW; 400 grams static weight; 13-15 points headlight. I can serve topspin, 1 handed backhand with topspin and topspin forehand too. What RanchDressing and Travlerajm have written in this forum are valuable to me. I challenged myself to their ideas and I benefited at the end.
 
I've played with the KPS88, and a modified Solinco Pro 10. I currently play with the Volkl PB10 mid...not a light racquet but not super high swingweight either. For the heavier swingweight racquets, I couldn't move the racquet through the air quick enough to slice effectively, especially on high bouncing balls. So it's not just a matter of whether you can handle the weight (which most adults should be able to easily, if I as a smaller sized guy can), as much as being honest about the effect of swingweight on different types of strokes.

Also playing a lot against a really hard hitter, I've found that the much lighter, Prince Exo3 Tour 100 keeps me in rallies more than any of the heavier racquets once he blasts the ball. Even if I'm beaten, I can flick the ball up in the air and at least force my opponent to hit one more shot, if not reset the point. However, I like playing with slightly more heavier racquets, and I'm not playing for money anyway. So vanity and personal preference on enjoyment wins out.
 
I don’t understand rec people talking about SW over 340-350. Head PT630 should be one of the most stable rackets ever made and its SW is about 325 strung! Who are these guys that feel this racket is ‘flimsy’? Who are they playing against?!
Woodies were 380sw.

340 vs 325 is a difference in swing weight of 4.42%.

The simple matter of the fact is, with anywhere decent mechanics, that 4.42% increase is not going to hurt racquet head speed anything. And the increase in spin and power is going to be more than worth it.

And I've played against several guys who hit groundies and serves where my 325sw racquet felt like a ping pong paddle. I couldn't get any control or depth on their shots. But going to 350 made me able to actually handle their weight of shot.

I've had tons of players who believed increasing SW would hurt them, come back months later tell me they love it and are never going back. If you're struggling it's your technique. You're more capable of using a few extra grams at the tip than you think.
 
Going from 325 to 350 is adding 25sw points. A whopping 7.5g at the tip. Think about that. Think about how much 7.5g really is. 7.1% increase in swing weight. Meaning when you swing 325sw you're swinging 92.85% of the swing weight of that 350sw. The way some people on here describe it make it sound like you're doubling or tripling your effort. No you're adding 7.1% more SW. But the power potential compared between the two... is not even comparable.

That's really important to think about when you put into terms how "heavy" these things really are. As written in the phys and tech of tennis, the swing speed is mostly grooved, and dependent on the mechanics of the player more so than anything else. A light racquet can be easier to accelerate so you can get away with whipping your arm or wrist, not having proper mechanics. But if that's how you get your RHS, you're also playing with fire long term (injury risks).

As Elcer said, it's a good place to challenge yourself, because once you learn and get past it, the benefits are un-paralleled. In the real world, on paper, in physics, at the top of the game to the bottom of the game.
 
Woodies were 380sw.

340 vs 325 is a difference in swing weight of 4.42%.

The simple matter of the fact is, with anywhere decent mechanics, that 4.42% increase is not going to hurt racquet head speed anything. And the increase in spin and power is going to be more than worth it.

And I've played against several guys who hit groundies and serves where my 325sw racquet felt like a ping pong paddle. I couldn't get any control or depth on their shots. But going to 350 made me able to actually handle their weight of shot.

I've had tons of players who believed increasing SW would hurt them, come back months later tell me they love it and are never going back. If you're struggling it's your technique. You're more capable of using a few extra grams at the tip than you think.
I believe that WTA players hit much faster than most male rec players although quite a few delusional TT folks will disagree. Now I’m asking you. What percentage of those women do you think use rackets with swing weights higher than 320-330??
 
Going from 325 to 350 is adding 25sw points. A whopping 7.5g at the tip. Think about that. Think about how much 7.5g really is. 7.1% increase in swing weight. Meaning when you swing 325sw you're swinging 92.85% of the swing weight of that 350sw. The way some people on here describe it make it sound like you're doubling or tripling your effort. No you're adding 7.1% more SW. But the power potential compared between the two... is not even comparable.

That's really important to think about when you put into terms how "heavy" these things really are. As written in the phys and tech of tennis, the swing speed is mostly grooved, and dependent on the mechanics of the player more so than anything else. A light racquet can be easier to accelerate so you can get away with whipping your arm or wrist, not having proper mechanics. But if that's how you get your RHS, you're also playing with fire long term (injury risks).

As Elcer said, it's a good place to challenge yourself, because once you learn and get past it, the benefits are un-paralleled. In the real world, on paper, in physics, at the top of the game to the bottom of the game.
Yes. I haven’t checked the math, but I’ll bet if you do the effective mass calculation, the % increase in effective mass for a given mass addition at the tip is significantly greater than the % increase in swingweight about the butt end.
 
Yes. I haven’t checked the math, but I’ll bet if you do the effective mass calculation, the % increase in effective mass for a given mass addition at the tip is significantly greater than the % increase in swingweight about the butt end.
Strange logic as if there’s no limit! Then add 3 gram at a time many times without feeling it’s never too heavy. In the end 3g each time will always be a tiny percentage!:p
 
Ok I’ll build it up slowly to 450g.
I’m at 384g, 31.85cm balance, and 365 sw. Ive drifted up and down from this over the last 10 years, but this feels about optimum for me.

If I go too much heavier than this, the limiting factor is that I start to labor on my serve unless I have time to practice my serve a lot to keep up my arm strength.

If I go much lighter than this, I start to lose the really nice mass and stability behind the ball that gives me an advantage for blocked returns, depth control, and changing direction of the rally.
 
I’m at 384g, 31.85cm balance, and 365 sw. Ive drifted up and down from this over the last 10 years, but this feels about optimum for me.

If I go too much heavier than this, the limiting factor is that I start to labor on my serve unless I have time to practice my serve a lot to keep up my arm strength.

If I go much lighter than this, I start to lose the really nice mass and stability behind the ball that gives me an advantage for blocked returns, depth control, and changing direction of the rally.
I struggle on the serve with swingweight above 330, static over 340g. Not so much on groundstrokes.
 
I believe that WTA players hit much faster than most male rec players although quite a few delusional TT folks will disagree. Now I’m asking you. What percentage of those women do you think use rackets with swing weights higher than 320-330??
I haven't met a single coach who said adding weight esp of the likes being spoken of here was a must. It may or may not be a good idea depending on your technique and style but weight of shot is more a function of timing and RHS end of the day.
 
I struggle on the serve with swingweight above 330, static over 340g. Not so much on groundstrokes.
I think it depends on what strengths your game is based on. If you rely on using your serve as a weapon, then you can’t go too heavy. If your game is based on strong defense, control and consistency, and you are just using the serve to start the point anyway, a heavier racquet might improve your competitive results.
 
I haven't met a single coach who said adding weight esp of the likes being spoken of here was a must. It may or may not be a good idea depending on your technique and style but weight of shot is more a function of timing and RHS end of the day.
Weight of shot is not the main advantage of a heavier racquet. The main advantage is a better ability to counter heavy incoming shots.
 
Weight of shot is not the main advantage of a heavier racquet. The main advantage is a better ability to counter heavy incoming shots.
Again this is a problem I would rather address by fixing footwork and reaction time so I get in a good position to tackle heavy balls at any earlier opportunity. I am not saying there is no benefit to a heavy racquet but that some people present it as a panacea or that those who use light racquets are doing something wrong and that's not true either.
 
Again this is a problem I would rather address by fixing footwork and reaction time so I get in a good position to tackle heavy balls at any earlier opportunity. I am not saying there is no benefit to a heavy racquet but that some people present it as a panacea or that those who use light racquets are doing something wrong and that's not true either.
Agreed. If Federer with his pro vision, reaction, skills, conditioning...etc. feels a 365 sw is the highest weight for him to play comfortably against other pros, most rec players should not need anything more than a 330 or 340 sw, given that their own skills and conditioning are not as good and given that their opponents will never hit heavier shots than those that Federer will continuously face.

If you like the feel of playing with a stick that has more swing weight than that, that's fine. Not buying the argument that it is absolutely needed.
 
Yes. I haven’t checked the math, but I’ll bet if you do the effective mass calculation, the % increase in effective mass for a given mass addition at the tip is significantly greater than the % increase in swingweight about the butt end.
100% that's why the power addition is disproportionate to the mass added. Especially considering how light stock frames are in the upper hoop
 
It should be viewed in the perspective that the ball weighs 58 grams. So if you add 10 grams in the hoop, you increase the momentum of the racket head relative to the ball by (10/58) x 100 = 17%.
 
It should be viewed in the perspective that the ball weighs 58 grams. So if you add 10 grams in the hoop, you increase the momentum of the racket head relative to the ball by (10/58) x 100 = 17%.
This can be increasing important on off center hits, creating more "forgiveness" which I find is critical against heavy fast hitters because I am rushed, running and my "technique breaks down.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
I like the weight on returns and volleys but that’s not enough benefit for me. I especially don’t want any compromises on the serve which is my best shot.
What exactly happens to your serve with a heavier racket?

For me, my serve improves with more weight up to around 380. However, topspin groundies and maneuverability at net suffer at that high weight.

I try to find a sweetspot between serves/returns/slice BH (for me, all better with heavy racket) and topspin groundies/maneuverability at net (for me, better with lighter racket).

For me ~350 is the SW sweetspot...
 
What exactly happens to your serve with a heavier racket?

For me, my serve improves with more weight up to around 380. However, topspin groundies and maneuverability at net suffer at that high weight.

I try to find a sweetspot between serves/returns/slice BH (for me, all better with heavy racket) and topspin groundies/maneuverability at net (for me, better with lighter racket).

For me ~350 is the SW sweetspot...
What happens to your groundies happens to my serve. Maybe no need to discuss this any more as it’s quite a subjective issue.
 
I haven't met a single coach who said adding weight esp of the likes being spoken of here was a must. It may or may not be a good idea depending on your technique and style but weight of shot is more a function of timing and RHS end of the day.
I haven't met anyone who was a successful professional player using under 340 sw.
 
What happens to your groundies happens to my serve. Maybe no need to discuss this any more as it’s quite a subjective issue.
It's not a subjective issue. It's simple physics.

And if you're struggling on the serve you can simply choke up on the racquet a small amount for the serve. That reduces the effective swing weight you're swinging. It's a super simple work around that works like a charm.
 
I haven't met anyone who was a successful professional player using under 340 sw.
Jason Jung, when he was posting here, said he played with a stock PD. Don't know if he still does or if you would like to sneer at him based off his ranking. As said above, plenty of WTA players don't weight up their racquets. All of which is completely irrelevant considering we are rec players here and I have seen recs hit the cover off the ball with stock PDs /APDs what have you. And no, they weren't swinging like morons missing every other ball. On the contrary, they were keeping up long rallies with insane power because they were also fit and athletic enough to be able to.
 
Jason Jung, when he was posting here, said he played with a stock PD. Don't know if he still does or if you would like to sneer at him based off his ranking. As said above, plenty of WTA players don't weight up their racquets. All of which is completely irrelevant considering we are rec players here and I have seen recs hit the cover off the ball with stock PDs /APDs what have you. And no, they weren't swinging like morons missing every other ball. On the contrary, they were keeping up long rallies with insane power because they were also fit and athletic enough to be able to.
My point was to show how absolutely futile anecdotal claims are. But that's a nuance you clearly can't pick up on.
And you completely leave out, more than 75% of rallies are under 3 shots. Even fed v novak at cincy last year, 5/7 rallies were 3 shots or less. Having long rallies is only useful for, well having long rallies when you're "playing" tennis with a friend.

Should I start by explaining "stock" is incredibly vague? As in there is so much variation in frames that a "stock frame could be 10, to 20 sw points above or below the average? Jason Jung, I would imagine had his racquets matched one way or another. To each other, or hand selected to be the same. The point is just because they're stock, doesn't mean you rule out the possibility of a "high" swing weight. Are they stock if they had lead added to all achieve the same spec? If they all have different end specs, then what spec was he really using? Do you see how even that claim you make, in the real world has very little substance?

Should I talk about andre dome? peaked 500 started using 343sw when he was young? Or maybe Alex Slabinsky atp 250 peak (vids of him hitting against fed)? Somewhere north of 350sw? Should I talk about the players who either beat or were competitive to andre dome? I mean I looked at their racquets personally. Like someone who was able to take a set off him, and keep it relatively competitive, used 348sw? Or like Andy Gurst who prefers racquets in the 320's who also lost, but wasn't able to consistently hold serve or take a game off andre? Or maybe someone who was in one of my highschool classes, who beat him (I could go get his racquet, he's on the same courts I like to play at)? Talk about how the physics of the racquet's mass effected his play and his strategy of essentially net barraging andre and actually pulling it off? Or should I talk about the 370sw Simon uses to play against alex slabinsky? Or should I just skip that and talk about the improvements in rankings players I've worked with have achieved by increasing sw?


I scoff at people who argue against science and physics, with weak anecdotal arguments. And can't even actually explain why (for example) a light racquet can work. I can explain it. Why don't you? Why in physics could a player become successful with a light racquet? I have very good answers to these questions. I've yet to see one person correctly answer this, let alone explain that in some counter arguement.

I spent years trying to make a light racquet work because of what I read on this board. Thinking high swing weight was bad. I went into trying high swing weights as a complete skeptic.

Again, your weak singular example... well simply put; An exception to the rule proves the rule.


The point is, for players on this board and thousands on the internet, is that higher swing weight hits the ball harder. And that it's not that hard to use. And that it's entirely something achievable by AVERAGE recreational players. I could go on and on about putting racquets in the hands of really new or "not good" players. They didn't immediately go from 2.5 to 3.5, but they saw immediate improvement, and long term growth. Rather than what people have incorrectly been re-enforcing for years; that a heavier racquet is too hard to use and will make you worse. Or I could just point you to the comments section of my videos and see how many people had positive experiences with them.

Or maybe I should add, that any player who's on these boards is NOT an average player? That if you're spending time outside of playing, on the internet looking up and or posting about equipment, you fall outside the spectrum of the average player? Or that if you're willing to spend hours posting on the internet about whatever in relation to tennis, you're exactly the kind of player who would benefit from hearing more about SW, along side ways to actually implement it in your game?

It's amazing what cognitive biases are present on here. It really does crack me up.
 
Last edited:
My point was to show how absolutely futile anecdotal claims are. But that's a nuance you clearly can't pick up on.
And you completely leave out, more than 75% of rallies are under 3 shots. Even fed v novak at cincy last year, 5/7 rallies were 3 shots or less. Having long rallies is only useful for, well having long rallies when you're "playing" tennis with a friend.

Should I start by explaining "stock" is incredibly vague? As in there is so much variation in frames that a "stock frame could be 10, to 20 sw points above or below the average? Jason Jung, I would imagine had his racquets matched one way or another. To each other, or hand selected to be the same. The point is just because they're stock, doesn't mean you rule out the possibility of a "high" swing weight. Are they stock if they had lead added to all achieve the same spec? If they all have different end specs, then what spec was he really using? Do you see how even that claim you make, in the real world has very little substance?

Should I talk about andre dome? peaked 500 started using 343sw when he was young? Or maybe Alex Slabinsky atp 250 peak (vids of him hitting against fed)? Somewhere north of 350sw? Should I talk about the players who either beat or were competitive to andre dome? I mean I looked at their racquets personally. Like someone who was able to take a set off him, and keep it relatively competitive, used 348sw? Or like Andy Gurst who prefers racquets in the 320's who also lost, but wasn't able to consistently hold serve or take a game off andre? Or maybe someone who was in one of my highschool classes, who beat him (I could go get his racquet, he's on the same courts I like to play at)? Talk about how the physics of the racquet's mass effected his play and his strategy of essentially net barraging andre and actually pulling it off? Or should I talk about the 370sw Simon uses to play against alex slabinsky? Or should I just skip that and talk about the improvements in rankings players I've worked with have achieved by increasing sw?


I scoff at people who argue against science and physics, with weak anecdotal arguments. And can't even actually explain why (for example) a light racquet can work. I can explain it. Why don't you? Why in physics could a player become successful with a light racquet? I have very good answers to these questions. I've yet to see one person correctly answer this, let alone explain that in some counter arguement.

I spent years trying to make a light racquet work because of what I read on this board. Thinking high swing weight was bad. I went into trying high swing weights as a complete skeptic.

Again, your weak singular example... well simply put; An exception to the rule proves the rule.


The point is, for players on this board and thousands on the internet, is that higher swing weight hits the ball harder. And that it's not that hard to use. And that it's entirely something achievable by AVERAGE recreational players. I could go on and on about putting racquets in the hands of really new or "not good" players. They didn't immediately go from 2.5 to 3.5, but they saw immediate improvement, and long term growth. Rather than what people have incorrectly been re-enforcing for years; that a heavier racquet is too hard to use and will make you worse. Or I could just point you to the comments section of my videos and see how many people had positive experiences with them.

Or maybe I should add, that any player who's on these boards is NOT an average player? That if you're spending time outside of playing, on the internet looking up and or posting about equipment, you fall outside the spectrum of the average player? Or that if you're willing to spend hours posting on the internet about whatever in relation to tennis, you're exactly the kind of player who would benefit from hearing more about SW, along side ways to actually implement it in your game?

It's amazing what cognitive biases are present on here. It really does crack me up.
Can you give me some examples of SW from WTA players? That is if you’re not one of those who believe a 4.5-5.0 male player would easily destroy top 100 women players!
 
WTA #1 Osaka really lays on the lead tape at 3 and 9! (and who knows if there's more under the bumper)

That's a lot of added twistweight in addition to SW...

There are probably even more but I feel like there might also be quite a few others who use lowish SW. And if there’s, it would be enough proof that it’s a subjective thing as opposed to being absolute “physics “ like the above poster thinks.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
There are probably even more but I feel like there might also be quite a few others who use lowish SW. And if there’s, it would be enough proof that it’s a subjective thing as opposed to being absolute “physics “ like the above poster thinks.
IMO heavy rackets definitely subjective with pros and cons, like so many other things in tennis like 1HBH vs. 2HBH, platform vs. pinstep serve, etc...

After all, tennis players range from ~5'4" Henin to ~7' Opelka and everything in between :)
 
I did some analysis a decade ago on both ATP and WTA swingweight. For both groups, there was a strong correlation between better career high ranking and higher swingweight.
 
Spin is fun to create. Spin is beautiful. Spin is consistency. Spin is the name of the game.
I can hit more spin with higher swingweight. When I take a stock racquet and add a little bit of mass to the hoop, the ball response gets flatter. But if I keep adding more mass, eventually the ball response starts to get spinnier again. At very high swingweights, I can generate a lot more spin.
 
I can hit more spin with higher swingweight. When I take a stock racquet and add a little bit of mass to the hoop, the ball response gets flatter. But if I keep adding more mass, eventually the ball response starts to get spinnier again. At very high swingweights, I can generate a lot more spin.
I know nothing any more!
 
This discussion here for me personally is funny.

You should use the racquet weight/SW that suits you most and also not too heavy for you so you feel pain after your hitting sessions.

Alot of people are always so obsessed with what pro level players have and do, and assume they need to do the same to maximize their potential.

But those pro level players have excellent footwork so they always get in good positions instead of ending up arming alot of balls, and their fitness and strenght levels are insane and way above average rec players.. AND YET theres still ALOT of elbow, shoulder, wrist etc... injuries when you look at the statistics of WTA/ATP tour.

If your a rec player your footwork is not nearly as good and ul end up jammed and late alot and end up arming and stressing ur arm ALOT, the heavier the racquet the more stress... you MIGHT get a serious injury... or... if your lucky you might not, but you will feel it sometimes in ur shoulder or elbow or whatever.. and after years and years and years it might take a toll and you might start getting issues like tennis elbow etc..

Also, a 310SW racquet is adequate for any rec level play from beginner level to 5.0 level, there are plenty of players with such racquets on all these levels, some even lower.

There are alot of ATP pro players with 320-345 SW, and they are up against 130-140mph serves sometimes, and handle them, so how can you seriously say that 310SW racquet is not good enough for up to 5.0 rec level?

Look at some SW from ATP pros:

Dimitrov 345 SW
Federer 344 SW
Kyrgios 323 SW
Khachanov 341 SW
Thiem 339 SW
Chung 335 SW
Sock 332 SW

Even Djokovic who had 370 SW before apparently has around 350 SW now after his elbow injuries.

And here on TTW forum apparently you need 380 SW to handle 4.0 serves lol

Now im not saying you shouldn't try and test high SW and if it works for you and you can serve and play for 2-3 hours without any fatigue or muscle pain then go for it, im just saying that some people here are wrong when they say you need 350 SW racquet to handle heavy 4.0 serves lol.
 
I also have to wonder about the relationship between swing weight and your arm length. All these pros with really high swing weights also usually have really long arms. The racket is ultimately a double pendulum lever and the longer the lever the greater leverage exerted at the tip by the ball. Do shorter armed people require less SW at the equivalent RHS due to torque? I'm not a big dude, 5'9" with average to short arms. I play with an 11.5 ounce racket(6 pts HL) with really low SW, like stock 305-10. I have no problem generating pace(avg topspin forehand is 58 mph) and until the serves get above 100, no issues with plow through on return. My racket is very flexible though, at <60.
 
Good prep can mean accelerating slower instead of instantaneously. Required for high sw racquets? When you impact ball off center heavy racquet can be less jarring. Just a trade off.
I have a 13 oz, 80 ra, 350 sw racquet that wins every collision and causes no arm pain, no vibration and I can serve my fastest with it. I generally use my 12.3 oz 64ra, 328 sw which I can accelerate faster, wouldn't say I get more spin but a little less tiring.
Using a 310 sw racquet against a strong 4.5 in a hitting session of constant 80mph shots in painful after a while, hard on the elbow shock. During a match no big deal, but training no thankyou
 
Top