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.