High Swingweight Longevity?

[bobeeto]

With Novak and Rafa cleaning up most of the majors in the last few years…

The Question that many are wondering is - why don’t the young guys have more edge on these legends?

Obviously they are once in a lifetime players. But at their ages, with all the mileage on their bodies and the degrees of injury; how are they hanging in so well? What do the slam winners have in common??

My only topic of discussion I want to put forth is swingweight. From my point of view, the great mediator of fitness is swingweight. Besides Carlos’ grueling physical game, Novak, Rafa, and Medvedev have all used high SW rackets. Of course they still push their bodies to the limit, and most times over -
but somehow they keep the ball coming back with enough force to beat the younger players. Players who should be fitter, quicker, and more powerful.

Has the new Gen’s low SW philosophy created a higher physical threshold? Is this part of why they can’t consistently outhit the aging Djokodal?

 

[Fintft]

With Novak and Rafa cleaning up most of the majors in the last few years…

The Question that many are wondering is - why don’t the young guys have more edge on these legends?

Obviously they are once in a lifetime players. But at their ages, with all the mileage on their bodies and the degrees of injury; how are they hanging in so well? What do the slam winners have in common??

My only topic of discussion I want to put forth is swingweight. From my point of view, the great mediator of fitness is swingweight. Besides Carlos’ grueling physical game, Novak, Rafa, and Medvedev have all used high SW rackets. Of course they still push their bodies to the limit, and most times over -
but somehow they keep the ball coming back with enough force to beat the younger players. Players who should be fitter, quicker, and more powerful.

Has the new Gen’s low SW philosophy created a higher physical threshold? Is this part of why they can’t consistently outhit the aging Djokodal?

I don't think that those erratic FHs of Tsitsi were due to low swingweight.
BTW many of them are playing with a Blade Pro v8 that has high enough swingweight (I love it as well, way more than the RF97A).

Also if you watched the women, 3 of the 4 semifinalist were power players who weren't moving too well But in the final Sabalenka had 51 winners.

 

[HFK]

I don't think that those erratic FHs of Tsitsi were due to low swingweight.
BTW many of them are playing with a Blade Pro v8 that has high enough swingweight (I love it as well, way more than the RF97A).

Also if you watched the women, 3 of the 4 semifinalist were power players who weren't moving too well But in the final Sabalenka had 51 winners.

Nobody plays with Blade V8, what are you talking about?!

 

[bobeeto]

I don't think that those erratic FHs of Tsitsi were due to low swingweight.
BTW many of them are playing with a Blade Pro v8 that has high enough swingweight (I love it as well, way more than the RF97A).

Also if you watched the women, 3 of the 4 semifinalist were power players who weren't moving too well But in the final Sabalenka had 51 winners.

Not saying erratic forehands have anything to do with SW, but my question still stands -

can you get more for less over a 5 setter with a high swing weight and slower swing than a low swing weight and faster swing?

 

[Delouie9154]

I have a dumb question, is 340 SW and up considered high and anything under that low?

 

[Jonesy]

The vast majority of the tour plays with a high enough SW. The benefits of control and power are all well known. Perhaps the only visible exception really is Alcaraz.

 

[shinminsoo86]

I have a dumb question, is 340 SW and up considered high and anything under that low?

I had wilson blade v7 pro with 350 SW. which static weight was abt 318gr, only modification was wilson leather grip.

this is crazy high number for amateur players.

 

[socallefty]

I have a dumb question, is 340 SW and up considered high and anything under that low?

What is too high a SW would depend on physical strength which can also be a function of age, gender, height and fitness.

 

[Brando]

Per TWU Prof. Crawford Lindsey [go to 27:10 - 28:42], just as strings are defined by stiffness, a racquet is about its power potential, which is best measured in recoil (called ‘hitting weight’ here) and swingweight. You want the highest effective mass at the hitting location. “When a ball hits the racquet, it’s not using the entire mass of the racquet.” You want that mass as high as possible with total mass as low; why drag around useless weight? Per Lindsey on Power Potential (6:30 - 9:00), the highest effective swingweight is 340. Over that, mass begins to slow swing speed enough to drop ball speed. See figure 18b here to see it graphed: Effect of Customization on Swing & Ball Speed

I have no idea if this research has anything to do with @Zoid's point that top players are swinging closer to 340 SW these days, but it is an interesting coincidence...

 

[80s New Wave]

Not sure about longevity but I do feel like the heavier sw lends itself to more consistently, seems logical as in order to get the same effect with a lighter racquet you need to swing faster. A faster swing would mean that the ball is in the ideal (or at least acceptable) hitting zone for the racquet for a smaller moment of time than a heavier racquet swung more slowly. Therefore a lighter racquet requires more precise timing to hit it right and get the same effect.

Even as just a rec player I find it much easier to hit consistent ground strokes with something that is probably considered slightly heavier by todays standards (my normal sw is in the 335-340 range) - just my experience so ymmv of course.