If you can handle a heavier racquet, is there any benefit to a lighter frame?

[HunterST]

I've always believed the old saying that a player should use the heaviest racquet they can handle.

I use the RF97 Auto, and have a little lead tape at 2 and 10. I don't ever feel like it's too heavy, but I have noticed that I have by far the heaviest set up of anyone I play with. Most people are using something along the lines of a stock blade or pure strike/drive/aero, etc.

I wonder sometimes if I'm using somewhat old/obsolete mindset and should use a lighter frame. I guess the pros use quite heavy frames, but I've even heard that some of the younger guys are going to lighter racquets with less head light balance.

 

[tennis347]

I believe that there’s a limit on how heavy of frame to be using. The main concern would be if it’s causing any pain or injuries over the long term. There are a lot of advantages such as better feel, plow through, better stability to handle pace, easier power assuming you have the strength to generate sufficient racquet head speed and for overall arm health. The disadvantages are loss of racquet head speed, less maneuverable, can cause fatigue in long matches.

A lot of depends on your playing level as well conditioning and physical strength. Generally speaking players over the 4.0 level and above will benefit from a racquet with a swing weight over 325. For me, my sweet spot is about 11.7-11.8 ounces with a 330 swing weight. Anything above that would be too much racquet for me to play with over 1 1/2-2 hours of singles. Assuming you have no injury concerns and like your set up, I would not be concerned that your other partners are playing with lighter racquets. I have always played with a heavier frame and if I had to play with say a low 11 ounce racquet with sub 320 swing weight, my game would suffer as well as arm comfort. Just my two cents for a 51 year old 4.5 player that has been playing for almost 30 years.

 

[Crocodile]

I think there is nothing wrong with using a heavy frame, especially when playing at a very high level where you need the mass to counter the weight of shot you are being subjected to.
Don't forget that most retail frames available to the public are marketed towards children and teenagers which is the manufacturers main target area and where the sales are.
It is true however that techniques have changed which benefit from lighter set ups but not to the extent that you will see top players using a 300g frame with a 310sw.
In the end everyone should use what works best for their game and their bodies.
I had a discussion recently about this topic and there was this guy in his 40's who wanted to change his old school game and heavy equipment to a more modern game and lighter stiffer equipment. The result was that he sustained injuries to his lower back, elbow and wrist. While I'm not suggesting that this would be status quo, it's worth considering. Many pros are reluctant to change something if it's working well.

 

[tata]

One can certainly use a lighter frame with a more polarised set up to play beefier. Depending on the people you hit with you can try go the lightest without getting pushed around.

 

[MajesticMoose]

Heavier frames trump everything. The benefits are endless. Not sure how one can argue a lighter racquet being better if one can easily swing a 12.5+ oz frame.

 

[joohan]

Another factor is weight distribution and how it compliments ones playing style. Rafa most certainly could swing a much heavier frame, it just wouldn’t help him play better. His style is better suited to lighter, more head heavy setups rather than traditional players specs.

 

[TagUrIt]

“If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!” LOL Very cliche, but true. If your experiencing arm/elbow pain then by all means lighten the weight, but if not why change anything. If you’re playing well with what you have, sometimes the latest and greatest isn’t always the best way to go.

 

[fuzz nation]

Heavier frames trump everything. The benefits are endless. Not sure how one can argue a lighter racquet being better if one can easily swing a 12.5+ oz frame.

Agree. I've tried and tried again to get along with lighter rigs - I coach high school teams and all the kids use what I consider to be no more than middle-weights. I just can't make them work for me.

I try not to be a snob about it because I was using really heavy wood racquets as a kid. That's my personal normal. Some young sluggers these days play huge games with rigs that seem like fly swatters to me, but it's fine if it's fine for them. Every here and there I'll see a strong kid who is working too hard trying to hang with strong opponents and in a few of those cases, the switch to a heavier racquet was a big help.

I've also loaned my racquets to kids as young as eleven (boys and girls) and they did fine with them for an hour or more. Absolute beginners have enjoyed them, too. Maybe they haven't played long enough for a certain weight of racquet to become what's normal for them. Mostly I look to encourage folks to avoid making assumptions about heavier frames until they try them.

 

[Notirouswithag]

It depends on level and style of swing

I cant use anything heavier than a 11.3oz racquet because my strokes and serve are all super fast and whippy through the ball.

Ive tried heavier(rf97) and my entire game gets thrown off with such a heavy frame by having to dial dial back my timing it messes up my strokes and forces me to sit there and hit a full deep swing through the ball

 

[Boubi]

Light racquets ? No way except for recreational tennis.
Only possible exception: a light racquet with a head heavy balance

 

[HunterST]

@TagUrIt @Notirouswithag @tennis347 @joohan
Great replies everyone! A few things I should add.

I am a groundstroke/baseline player with pretty modern strokes. If I was more of an all court or serve and volley type guy, I wouldn’t wonder so much. I guess it’s the old school racquet with my more modern game that makes me wonder.

I have had some elbow pain recently, but I played many hours with the racquet before it emerged, so I don’t really think it was the cause.

So what would be your take on a heavy, headlight racquet for a baseline player?

 

[Boubi]

C10 pro, 93p or sv98+

 

[Dartagnan64]

If you are a pure baseliner (uggh), then probably just stick with a Pure Aero with some blue tack in the handle and a little lead at 3 & 9.

I love my 93P but I play a lot of doubles so net play and touch is important. If you don’t need touch, then just get a tweener and add lead as needed to beef it up a bit.

Of course if your arm has issues then heavier, flexible players frames may be in your future.

 

[joohan]

@TagUrIt @Notirouswithag @tennis347 @joohan
Great replies everyone! A few things I should add.

I am a groundstroke/baseline player with pretty modern strokes. If I was more of an all court or serve and volley type guy, I wouldn’t wonder so much. I guess it’s the old school racquet with my more modern game that makes me wonder.

I have had some elbow pain recently, but I played many hours with the racquet before it emerged, so I don’t really think it was the cause.

So what would be your take on a heavy, headlight racquet for a baseline player?

If you’re after the cause of the pain, you’ll have to detect what changed/changes (string, tension, weather conditions, your stroke path when you tire, etc...). If you’re after benefits of heavier, head light setup vs lighter one, you’ll have to identify what is it that’s missing, what you’re after.

I believe there is such a thing as a “holy grail”, although I don’t necessarily think it’s a particular frame (might be, of course). I think it’s a sweetspot of specs that, in combination with your swing and playing style does three things in some particular (ideally consciously chosen) concoction of virtues:

A: enhances your weapons(or at least does not hold you back)
B: minimizes your weaknesses(or at least does not highlight them)
C: protects your health(or at least does not make it worse)

In the end, it’s about defining what you’re after and finding a right setup (even through heavy customization).

 

[Harry_Wild]

 

[Notirouswithag]

@TagUrIt @Notirouswithag @tennis347 @joohan
Great replies everyone! A few things I should add.

I am a groundstroke/baseline player with pretty modern strokes. If I was more of an all court or serve and volley type guy, I wouldn’t wonder so much. I guess it’s the old school racquet with my more modern game that makes me wonder.

I have had some elbow pain recently, but I played many hours with the racquet before it emerged, so I don’t really think it was the cause.

So what would be your take on a heavy, headlight racquet for a baseline player?

It possibly could be, if its not related to technique my money is either racquet or strings,

what string setup are you currently using and what tension?

 

[aaron_h27]

I think a heavier racket helps you get more efficient strokes, and prevents tennis elbow. I use a DR 98 but I've got my eye on a 93P

 

[Moveforwardalways]

It all depends. For all levels of rec tennis, even at 4.5, quality stock frames are perfectly fine. You just don’t need a weighted frame at any of these levels. That’s not to say you can’t prefer it or use it, but it’s just not necessary. Even at 4.5, the balls coming at you are just not heavy enough to require additional weight to handle. The majority of 4.5 men that I play with use stock frames with no additional weight. When you hear people say that high level players need the additional weight for stability when hitting heavy balls, they are talking about real actual high level players. Quality college players, futures, etc. Not good 4.0s or 4.5s. The 4.0 and 4.5 players that can actually (as in not just in their mind) generate the racquet head speed to take advantage of a 12+ oz frame are rare, as in probably not you (whoever you may be), and those players either will soon or already should be playing 5.0+.

 

[dr. godmode]

I've seen a few reports of Rafa and Thiem using lighter racquets (compared to their rivals), so one benefit could be spin as the lighter weight allows for easier racquet acceleration. I also think using an extra length frame can compensate for the weight.

 

[Notirouswithag]

Most of the 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 guys i hit with all use standard frames with no lead in them and are a mix between Babolat Pure Aero/Pure Drive, Dunlop/Srixon or a Wilson Pro Staff 97 here and there.

I myself use the previous gen Yonex SV VCore 98 stock and not weighted up

 

[Guy Jones]

I use stock Dunlop Bio 200 tours and M Fil 200s, but also have Bio 100s that I either play stock or a few grams at 10 & 2 and Bio 300 tours with 8 grams split at 10 & 2. I find under 12 oz is a bit light to play against bigger hitters, against slower hitting players I find I have plenty of time to wind up with a heavier racquet and get lots of RHS.

So, in short, I don't see a positive with lighter frames (maybe for doubles) when you can comfortably handle extra weight.

 

[tennis347]

@TagUrIt @Notirouswithag @tennis347 @joohan
Great replies everyone! A few things I should add.

I am a groundstroke/baseline player with pretty modern strokes. If I was more of an all court or serve and volley type guy, I wouldn’t wonder so much. I guess it’s the old school racquet with my more modern game that makes me wonder.

I have had some elbow pain recently, but I played many hours with the racquet before it emerged, so I don’t really think it was the cause.

So what would be your take on a heavy, headlight racquet for a baseline player?

I think that a heavier headlight racquet for a baseline player would be the way to go for shoulder and elbow health. The question is what kind of weight and balance are you talking about?

 

[grhcan99]

Is it possible to have these?

1. 11.5 oz, 7 HL, 325 SW
2. 12.2 oz, 7 HL, 325 SW

Which is the better racquet in terms of performance, arm health, etc.

 

[PMF]

Is it possible to have these?

1. 11.5 oz, 7 HL, 325 SW
2. 12.2 oz, 7 HL, 325 SW

Which is the better racquet in terms of performance, arm health, etc.

Assuming both racquets are the same length, and have the same exact technology, the 12.2 oz frame should be more arm friendly?

 

[grhcan99]

Assuming both racquets are the same length, and have the same exact technology, the 12.2 oz frame should be more arm friendly?

Yes assuming same length but don't care about similar technology.

 

[J011yroger]

Lighter racquets are great if you can swing them fast, but if your swing is slow you are better off with a heavier frame. When you switch to a lighter racquet you gain more maneuverability on fast volleys and off balance shots but you have to understand that you have to swing faster on the rest of your shots which will throw off your serve timing and make you wait longer on your groundies.

J

 

[TheOtherBecker]

I’ve been wondering about this a bit myself, and enjoying reading all the comments. I just started playing again the last year or so, and I’ve had no trouble swinging a 12.5 oz or heavier frame, but as I’m trying to learn a more modern forehand, I just started experimenting with lighter frames to see if it would help me get greater racquet head speed, specifically an effective lag and snap ATP style forehand. I’m getting closer, but maybe less mass would help get there.

Seems to me the rule should be, “Swing the heaviest racquet you can hit comfortably for your session, which still gives you the RHS your swing style requires.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shroud]

I've always believed the old saying that a player should use the heaviest racquet they can handle.

I use the RF97 Auto, and have a little lead tape at 2 and 10. I don't ever feel like it's too heavy, but I have noticed that I have by far the heaviest set up of anyone I play with. Most people are using something along the lines of a stock blade or pure strike/drive/aero, etc.

I wonder sometimes if I'm using somewhat old/obsolete mindset and should use a lighter frame. I guess the pros use quite heavy frames, but I've even heard that some of the younger guys are going to lighter racquets with less head light balance.

We should play so you don't feel like everyone is playing with a lighter stick...

Anyhow I have gone down from 422g and am now playing with 350g. Recently I was hitting with a 295g stick with low low tensions. Everytime I go lighter I seem to always end up putting weight on....

So my two cents is that you really arent missing much.

 

[fuzz nation]

I’ve been wondering about this a bit myself, and enjoying reading all the comments. I just started playing again the last year or so, and I’ve had no trouble swinging a 12.5 oz or heavier frame, but as I’m trying to learn a more modern forehand, I just started experimenting with lighter frames to see if it would help me get greater racquet head speed, specifically an effective lag and snap ATP style forehand. I’m getting closer, but maybe less mass would help get there.

Seems to me the rule should be, “Swing the heaviest racquet you can hit comfortably for your session, which still gives you the RHS your swing style requires.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm a fan of heavier racquets and my current favorites are 98" Volkls tuned up to 12.6-12.8 oz. with about 10 pts. HL balance. I was an old-school serve and volleyer learning to play on grass courts with wooden racquets as a kid and I've slowly but slowly evolved into more of an all court player now that I'm 52. While my game has trended in a bit of a modern direction, I still have some skills that are more rooted in an earlier era.

That being said, my attitude has changed concerning heavy racquets. I crave enough beef in my own frames so that they're inherently stable and predictable through the ball for me, especially around the net. But I've played a couple of different racquets in the past that had a lot of extra heft (over 13 oz.) and I eventually realized that too much extra weight could be trouble. It pretty much gave me too much power all the time and not enough touch on my shots when I wanted it.

So now I only need my racquet to be just heavy enough to be comfortably stable in every phase of my game. Instead of playing with the heaviest racquet I can comfortably use for let's say a couple of hours, I now like to play a racquet that's as light as it can be while still feeling good and stable when I hit with it. That lets me crank on my ground strokes and pop my volleys with enough zip when I want to, but it also gives me more control over my throttle for touch, accuracy, and off-speed shots, too.

 

[TagUrIt]

So what would be your take on a heavy, headlight racquet for a baseline player?

I use the Wilson Ultra 100 CV and I feel like I can do anything I want on the court with that racquet. It’s got enough weight, power and it feels really balanced. I think everyone has to use the racquet that suits their game. If you’re a baseliner maybe that RF is the one true love. I would argue that the game of tennis is so dynamic you need to be a little more versatile because a good opponent will quickly realize that’s your style of play and do the opposite. Good thing about going with a Blade, Ultra, Burn (yeah I’m Wilson biased lol ) is you can always add weight to it, if you start off heavy not many options after that. Not a fan of lead tape btw, I would use tungsten.

 

[fuzz nation]

@TagUrIt @Notirouswithag @tennis347 @joohan
Great replies everyone! A few things I should add.

I am a groundstroke/baseline player with pretty modern strokes. If I was more of an all court or serve and volley type guy, I wouldn’t wonder so much. I guess it’s the old school racquet with my more modern game that makes me wonder.

I have had some elbow pain recently, but I played many hours with the racquet before it emerged, so I don’t really think it was the cause.

So what would be your take on a heavy, headlight racquet for a baseline player?

I think that if the RF 97 is what's normal for you, then you'd probably be smart to stay with it.

Yes, lots of players now are using gear that's lighter and also less head-light and some of these players have really strong games. That can give me a little of the "grass is greener" syndrome thinking that I should get in line and use something less hefty.

I cured my curiosity bug by doing the "buy it to try it" thing. I picked up a pair of used Blade 98 16x19's last spring and also got myself a PS 97 near the end of the summer of '17. I couldn't tune or string the PS 97 into a workable layout for me and I actually hurt myself a little bit using the Blades this past fall.

It's generally too easy for me to overswing with a lighter racquet in an effort to generate the power I get from my average swings with my heavier frames. I've talked with a few players over recent years who have done the same thing. That doesn't mean that the lighter racquets are bad - they're not. They just don't fit the game that I play.

The only thing I can confidently say about the heavier options is that their inherent stability is a big plus up at the net. I think that if a heavy frame has a decent degree of HL balance, it can maneuver just fine and it can also volley more effectively than a lighter alternative.

The RF 97 reminded me of my old 6.1 Classics when I tried it a few times. If you're having some troubles with your baseline control, you could consider sampling some softer alternatives with similar heft and balance. It was a huge help for me when I wanted to get more consistent around the baseline.

 

[PMChambers]

Cross & Lindsey, write with ball sports the impacting tool should be 6x heavier than the ball. This is obviously a generalisation but puts a racquet in the 340g range.
Given this is a singular sentence extracted from a chapter it's quite generalised. There are benefits going heavier but there negatived increase greater than the benefits as this is signifigantly increased.
I like 360g range, but I'm heavy set {not fat big bones}

 

[LoanStar]

I believe that there’s a limit on how heavy of frame to be using. The main concern would be if it’s causing any pain or injuries over the long term. There are a lot of advantages such as better feel, plow through, better stability to handle pace, easier power assuming you have the strength to generate sufficient racquet head speed and for overall arm health. The disadvantages are loss of racquet head speed, less maneuverable, can cause fatigue in long matches.

A lot of depends on your playing level as well conditioning and physical strength. Generally speaking players over the 4.0 level and above will benefit from a racquet with a swing weight over 325. For me, my sweet spot is about 11.7-11.8 ounces with a 330 swing weight. Anything above that would be too much racquet for me to play with over 1 1/2-2 hours of singles. Assuming you have no injury concerns and like your set up, I would not be concerned that your other partners are playing with lighter racquets. I have always played with a heavier frame and if I had to play with say a low 11 ounce racquet with sub 320 swing weight, my game would suffer as well as arm comfort. Just my two cents for a 51 year old 4.5 player that has been playing for almost 30 years.

What racquet and string set-up do you play with?

 

[tennis347]

What racquet and string set-up do you play with?

I play with the Pro-Kennex 7G with Gosen OG Sheep Micro 16 in the low to mid 50’s.

 

[2nd Serve Ace]

Ok there is definitely a trade-off between frame stiffness and necessary swingweight.

And by that I mean that a 67 RA frame with a SW of 325 will usually hit with a similar power to a frame that is 58 RA with a SW of 340, for overall playability. (The 58 ra frame will certainly have to be higher W stock and more HL balance)

The two areas of divergence will be Serve and Net. As in the stiffer, lighter frame will feel more innately powerful on serve, but that the flexier, heavier frame will feel more solid at the net.

Groundstrokes and serve returns will feel like a wash, basically.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Is it possible to have these?

1. 11.5 oz, 7 HL, 325 SW
2. 12.2 oz, 7 HL, 325 SW

Which is the better racquet in terms of performance, arm health, etc.

Assuming both racquets are the same length, and have the same exact technology, the 12.2 oz frame should be more arm friendly?

Actually, the lighter one is better if you go by the idea that more recoil weight is better for your arm. The only reason for this is because they have the same swingweight and balance. And regardless of which inertia value you believe arm health is linked to (at least with regards to impact, higher inertia is better for your arm and is likely the spec that matters the most, like how swingweight has a linear correlation to power), the lighter racket is either equal or better than the heavy racket. And it's most certainly possible to have two rackets with those specs. One has weight more distributed towards the end (leading to the higher recoil weight and higher swingweight per gram) while the other has more weight towards the balance point.

The benefits of a lighter racket off the top of my head are:
1) Higher recoil weight for the same swingweight and balance,
2) Easier (more room) to customize,
3) Less weight to carry in your bag (if you're carrying multiple rackets, it can add up),
4) Easier to accelerate when pulled linearly from the buttcap (prior to any rotational movement of the racket), and
5) They're going to be around for a lot longer.

In the end, what matters is what is most comfortable to work with. And to that end, stiffness and string pattern will come into play before static weight will. With regards to inertia, Federer went from 355 kg*cm*cm to 340. Nadal at some point went up. And McEnroe never changed.

 

[PrinceMoron]

I have some Volkl PB10 weighted to 397g and they swing fast

RF97A felt clunky to me and sold mine on

I like something that swings like a PS85

Enjoyed DR98+ but they were a little laggy with IHB

Picked up a few Prince Classics, the alu with green throat, and they were like lead, just unplayable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PrinceMoron]

Heavy always wins in the end

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[grhcan99]

Actually, the lighter one is better if you go by the idea that more recoil weight is better for your arm. The only reason for this is because they have the same swingweight and balance. And regardless of which inertia value you believe arm health is linked to (at least with regards to impact, higher inertia is better for your arm and is likely the spec that matters the most, like how swingweight has a linear correlation to power), the lighter racket is either equal or better than the heavy racket. And it's most certainly possible to have two rackets with those specs. One has weight more distributed towards the end (leading to the higher recoil weight and higher swingweight per gram) while the other has more weight towards the balance point.

The benefits of a lighter racket off the top of my head are:
1) Higher recoil weight for the same swingweight and balance,
2) Easier (more room) to customize,
3) Less weight to carry in your bag (if you're carrying multiple rackets, it can add up),
4) Easier to accelerate when pulled linearly from the buttcap (prior to any rotational movement of the racket), and
5) They're going to be around for a lot longer.

In the end, what matters is what is most comfortable to work with. And to that end, stiffness and string pattern will come into play before static weight will. With regards to inertia, Federer went from 355 kg*cm*cm to 340. Nadal at some point went up. And McEnroe never changed.

Thanks. I guess I should be looking more into recoil weight (RW) as against just focusing on swingweight (SW)? Found this formula from another thread
RW = SW - mass of racquet (g) * (balance point (cm) - 10.16 cm)^2. Is this still correct?

 

[Irvin]

RW = SW - mass of racquet (g) * (balance point (cm) - 10.16 cm)^2. Is this still correct?

Never was right RW = SW - (mass*(balance-10)*(balance-10)) mass is in Kg and balance in cm.

EDIT: For example if you weight and SW is 325 and balance is 32 cm then RW = 325 - (.325*22*22) = 167.7

 

[RanchDressing]

I've always believed the old saying that a player should use the heaviest racquet they can handle.

I use the RF97 Auto, and have a little lead tape at 2 and 10. I don't ever feel like it's too heavy, but I have noticed that I have by far the heaviest set up of anyone I play with. Most people are using something along the lines of a stock blade or pure strike/drive/aero, etc.

I wonder sometimes if I'm using somewhat old/obsolete mindset and should use a lighter frame. I guess the pros use quite heavy frames, but I've even heard that some of the younger guys are going to lighter racquets with less head light balance.

Generally, increasing swing weight (assuming you have good mechanics), doesn't result in much reduction in swing speed. The differences are generally negligible

Most players have a grooved swing speed, so lowering the weight of the racquet does not necessarily mean that the swing speed will increase, not that it is desirable to do so

page 116 Phys and Tech of Tennis

Now where the mass should be is far more complex. There is no exact answer to this. But only educated guessing and testing will find something that helps you play the way you want to play.

Thanks. I guess I should be looking more into recoil weight (RW) as against just focusing on swingweight (SW)? Found this formula from another thread
RW = SW - mass of racquet (g) * (balance point (cm) - 10.16 cm)^2. Is this still correct?

Yes this is correct. RW effects stability, "comfort" and maneuverability. I'll be re-doing the recoil weight video a lot of people enjoyed... I accidentally deleted it. But I will redo it better, to reflect a better tuning guide. Should be uploaded by the end of January.


Until then, just focus on swing weight first (more specifically where and how much mass you add to the hoop), and add weight to the handle afterwards to increase overall stability. A low Recoil Weight can make a high swing weight frame feel fast, and an excessively high recoil weight in some cases can make a low swing weight feel slow. Things can get more complex than that when it comes to swinging the racquet, but that is a very strong and useful way to approach setting up a racquet.

 

[Searah]

i really enjoy a OS 272g racket.. super consistent. good spin.. i can flatten it out to get super fast shots.. yet all my shots always get returned fairly easy with this racket..

i feel like despite the ball being super fast.. the ball is just not "heavy". not sure what to do my other racket with a more topspin game instead of speed applies so much more pressure.

 

[tata]

i really enjoy a OS 272g racket.. super consistent. good spin.. i can flatten it out to get super fast shots.. yet all my shots always get returned fairly easy with this racket..

i feel like despite the ball being super fast.. the ball is just not "heavy". not sure what to do my other racket with a more topspin game instead of speed applies so much more pressure.

Sounds like needs more swingweight. You won't force many errors off balls with pace and no weight. Easy stab and block to return.

 

[Irvin]

The heavier your racket is to in stock form the harder it may be to add mass to customize the frame. The lighter your racket is (within reason) the more room you have for customization.

 

[fuzz nation]

Is it possible to have these?

1. 11.5 oz, 7 HL, 325 SW
2. 12.2 oz, 7 HL, 325 SW

Which is the better racquet in terms of performance, arm health, etc.

After my first jug of coffee, I'm wondering whether one of these hypothetical frames would be a little bit freakish in terms of its weight distribution. If they had both the same balance and the same swing-weight while also having such different static weights, one of them would have to be pretty peculiar I think.

With their static weight differing by about three quarters of an ounce and the balances both measuring 7 pts. HL, I'd expect the 11.5 oz. racquet to have lower swing-weight than the 12.2 oz. frame. But if they had those different static weights along with the same swing weight of 325, I'd expect the 11.5 oz. racquet to be significantly less HL in balance than the 12.2 oz. rig.

The variables get interesting when one frame has some extra weight in the throat area (concentrated more toward the middle) while another has some extra weight out toward one or both ends in a more polarized layout. That's all fine, but I don't worry about it too much with my own frames. I basically want enough heft for my racquet to feel stable through the ball along with enough HL balance to give me a comfortable degree of maneuvering and swing behavior. The numbers don't need to be specific to work for me, but I have a general picture of what I prefer as far as the combo of static weight, balance, and flex in a racquet I might use.

Either racquet that you offered above could potentially be great, both in terms of performance and arm health. I think it's tricky to predict performance because different players have their own best fit with a certain layout. I'm no fan of racquets weighing 11 oz. or less, but I've seen a lot of young phenoms who use frames like those and they work great for them.

I also think that "square one" in terms of arm health is about the strings and not the racquet. A frame with lots of flex can be a lot tougher on an arm when it's strung with a full bed of stiff poly. But even a stiff and not-too-hefty racquet like a Pure Drive can be quite comfortable for many players if it's strung with at least moderately soft string.

 

[grhcan99]

Never was right RW = SW - (mass*(balance-10)*(balance-10)) mass is in Kg and balance in cm.

EDIT: For example if you weight and SW is 325 and balance is 32 cm then RW = 325 - (.325*22*22) = 167.7

My C10 Pro weighs .357 kg, has SW of 336 and balance of 31.5 cm. Using the formula I get

336-(.357*(31.5-10.16)^2) = Recoil weight of 173.42

Is this an ideal recoil weight

After my first jug of coffee, I'm wondering whether one of these hypothetical frames would be a little bit freakish in terms of its weight distribution. If they had both the same balance and the same swing-weight while also having such different static weights, one of them would have to be pretty peculiar I think.

With their static weight differing by about three quarters of an ounce and the balances both measuring 7 pts. HL, I'd expect the 11.5 oz. racquet to have lower swing-weight than the 12.2 oz. frame. But if they had those different static weights along with the same swing weight of 325, I'd expect the 11.5 oz. racquet to be significantly less HL in balance than the 12.2 oz. rig.

The variables get interesting when one frame has some extra weight in the throat area (concentrated more toward the middle) while another has some extra weight out toward one or both ends in a more polarized layout. That's all fine, but I don't worry about it too much with my own frames. I basically want enough heft for my racquet to feel stable through the ball along with enough HL balance to give me a comfortable degree of maneuvering and swing behavior. The numbers don't need to be specific to work for me, but I have a general picture of what I prefer as far as the combo of static weight, balance, and flex in a racquet I might use.

Either racquet that you offered above could potentially be great, both in terms of performance and arm health. I think it's tricky to predict performance because different players have their own best fit with a certain layout. I'm no fan of racquets weighing 11 oz. or less, but I've seen a lot of young phenoms who use frames like those and they work great for them.

I also think that "square one" in terms of arm health is about the strings and not the racquet. A frame with lots of flex can be a lot tougher on an arm when it's strung with a full bed of stiff poly. But even a stiff and not-too-hefty racquet like a Pure Drive can be quite comfortable for many players if it's strung with at least moderately soft string.

I guess a more realistic set up would be 11.5 oz, SW 325 but more head heavy balance right? I like my C10 Pro for it's plowthrough and capacity to absorb shock but sometimes I feel like I'm just a tad slow on faster balls. I was wondering if I can bring the C10's plow and comfort to a lighter racquet that'll allow me to increase my swing speed? Is that even possible?

 

[Irvin]

My C10 Pro weighs .357 kg, has SW of 336 and balance of 31.5 cm. Using the formula I get

336-(.357*(31.5-10.16)^2) = Recoil weight of 173.42

The SW axis is 10 cm not 4” or 10.16 cm
336-(21.5*21.5*.357) = ~171 there is no one ideal RW for everyone.

EDIT: You MgR/I is 21.0 supposedly that is just about ideal.

 

[grhcan99]

The SW axis is 10 cm not 4” or 10.16 cm
336-(21.5*21.5*.357) = ~171 there is no one ideal RW for everyone.

Thanks for the correction @Irvin. I'm not familiar with Recoil Weight so don't know what 171 exactly means. I do know that my C10 is just perfect for its plow and impact absorption qualities but my swing speed seems a tad slow at faster balls sometimes and wondering if a lighter racquet with similar plow and shock absorption qualities is even a possibility.

 

[Irvin]

Thanks for the correction @Irvin. I'm not familiar with Recoil Weight so don't know what 171 exactly means. I do know that my C10 is just perfect for its plow and impact absorption qualities but my swing speed seems a tad slow at faster balls sometimes and wondering if a lighter racquet with similar plow and shock absorption qualities is even a possibility.

Yes

Recoil Weight is the inertia at the center of mass. If you want you convert the inertia to another point it is the mass times the distance squared plus the RW. So if you want the inertia at 10 cm 21.5 cm from COM it is (.357*21.5*21.5) + 171 = 336

If you want the inertia at the butt cap it is (.357*31.5*31.5) + 171 = 525

 

[Irvin]

@grhcan99 think of your RW as a weight at the COM. That weight has an inertia 171 Kgcm^2 which means you must apply 171 Kgcm^2 force to rotate that racket around its COM. The farther down the racket you move you hand the farther you will be from that weight and the harder it is to rotate. But once it gets going it does not want to stop so it plows through the ball. It plows through the ball because of your racket’s high inertia. It is also slow because of it high inertia.