Is swing weight sometimes misleading?

[Marcus2137]

I'm new on these forums, but I've been playing tennis for about 12 years now. After a 3-4 year break after a move, I've finally gotten back into tennis and I've been playing 4-5 times a week for about 7-8 months now. I can never get enough court time I've never been rated, but I guess I would be a strong 4.0 or possibly even a 4.5 level player.

I thought I understood swing weight vs. static weight. But recent experiences have confused me somewhat.

I feel like sometimes the swing weight (both reported and confirmed by myself with the hanging-swinging test) some times doesn't make sense.

Here is my example:
I have 3 racquets currently.

1. My 11 year old racquet is a Head i.S6 MidPlus
2. I have a Head IG Speed 300
3. and a Head Youtek Prestige Pro (trying to decide which to keep).

According to TW the swing weights for these racquets are (which are close enough to my swing weight tests also):
i.s6= 311
IG 300= 308
YTPP= 320

I do find the IG 300 to be a LITTLE easier to swing than the Prestige Pro, but the difference isn't as big as I would have assumed it would be.

The thing that is confusing me is that my old i.s6 is so easy to swing. I can literally just adjust or snap my wrist a little in the middle of a swing and add/subtract spin. In no way does the swing weight of the IG 300 feel anywhere close to the i.s6. Or in another scenario, if I'm already in the middle of a swing and the ball skips off a line and stays much lower than expected, I find it very easy to snap my wrist a little in the middle of the swing with the i.s6, but I struggle much more making that sudden adjustment with the other racquets, despite their swing weights being close to, or lower than, the i.s6.

Why? Simply because of the large difference in static weight? I guess I'm just not sure what good swing weight does when the racquet that has the lowest feels much heavier to swing than than another with a higher swing weight.


PART B:
On a side note, after 10 years of playing with my trusty i.s6, I'm having a difficult time adjusting to the heavier racquets. I've been pushing myself to use the Prestige Pro for a while (3 months), and I absolutely love the feel of the Prestige, but I just can't play as hard as I still can with my old lightweight 'tweener' i.s6. The only thing I can to better with the Prestige Pro is serve. I can't find the head speed and spin I'm used to and I've had to really back off of all my hits with the Prestige or else I blast balls past the baseline.

My Prestige broke a string last night, so I played a set with my old I.s6, that I haven't picked up in about 2-3 months, and honestly I played much better and harder than I have since trying heavier racquets. I've spent months forcing myself to get used to the Prestige Pro, change my swing and my timing to accommodate the heavier racquet, and I love the feel of it, but maybe I'm just not ready for a racquet of that class. As soon as I pick up the i.s6 again, I feel like I can just pound and whip the ball as hard as I want to, and I surprised myself with the spin and speed that I was getting on the ball, and was surprised at shots that suddenly stayed in. I also was able to be more creative, like I remembered being in the past, spinning a certain way to pull the ball out wide or curve it into the body to move my opponent around; choosing between low slices that barely bounce at all or higher ones that shoot off to the side when they bounce; etc. I just felt like suddenly I found every shot to be more effective and faster again.

I'm not weak physically and the Prestige definitely isn't too heavy for me, but I'm just really questioning whether I should stick with it or not, maybe it doesn't suit my playing style (although I love BH slices with a thin beam frame like the Prestige!). I'll be trying a thinning string and different tension when I restring it tomorrow, so maybe I just need to dial it in better.

Maybe someone else can tell me about taking the jump from a lighter racquet to a heavier 'players-type' stick and tell me about your experience.

Thanks

Marcus

Long-time search function user, short-time post submitter.

 

[Fuji]

It's the balance I would imagine! If I recall correctly, the i.s6 is Head Heavy, while the other two are Head Light! Head Heavy rackets are much easier to "flick" around for some free power and easy spin access.

Don't be concerned if the Prestige isn't for you either! I'm not a believer in, "everyone can play with every frame. It's just a racket and it doesn't matter." If after playing with a frame for about a month, and it's not working for me, I ditch the thing! It's not worth making your game suffer if after a while of playing, your just not getting results that you want. I've gone through about 15 frames, the past 8 months, and I've finally settled down on two. Yup, two frames. One for doubles and one for singles!

Plus, static weight has a LOT to do with it. If your not used to using a heavier weight, it's going to seem sluggish regardless of Swing Weight. For example, I have a 14.0oz Prostaff Classic 6.1, with a swing weight of 410, and I had to get used in increments! First I went to 13.0oz, then 13.2oz, then 13.4oz, etc!

There's a lot in getting used to a new frame, and there are a lot of things that contribute to finding your perfect match!

-Fuji

 

[NLBwell]

People groove their strokes to the racket they are used to. Though the swingweight is not that far off, the rackets are very different in weight, stiffness, and stringbed. Strength has little to do with it. If they are used to it, small girls can play fine with a heavier racket and many strong men play best with a very light racket. The Prestige Pro is not made for whipping the racket around at the last second, the i.S6 is very good for that. Play what is best for you (as long as the stiffness of the i.S6 doesn't hurt your arm).

 

[fuzz nation]

Swing weights have become more popular lately and while I appreciate what that number is trying to represent, I've absolutely found swing weights to be misleading. I no longer pay attention to them because I don't find that they tell me anything about a racquet without some other information.

The three spec's I use to get an idea of a racquet's potential swing behavior and performance are the static weight, balance, and flex rating. I've had no luck with lighter frames (too unstable), so I want my gear to weigh at least 12.5 oz., but I also need a decent degree of maneuverability. That's where I need significant HL balance in the area of 10 pts. The flex rating helps to predict the comfort and control I may find in a racquet - I prefer frames in the low 60's.

Considering that two frames can have identical swing weights, yet one may be heavier and head-light while the other is lighter with a head-heavy balance, I essentially get no information from that spec. These two hypothetical frames will be substantially different in action on the courts and if I look at my three favorite numbers, I'll know that at a glance.

 

[Marcus2137]

It's the balance I would imagine! If I recall correctly, the i.s6 is Head Heavy, while the other two are Head Light! Head Heavy rackets are much easier to "flick" around for some free power and easy spin access.

Don't be concerned if the Prestige isn't for you either! I'm not a believer in, "everyone can play with every frame.

Plus, static weight has a LOT to do with it. If your not used to using a heavier weight, it's going to seem sluggish regardless of Swing Weight. For example, I have a 14.0oz Prostaff Classic 6.1, with a swing weight of 410, and I had to get used in increments! First I went to 13.0oz, then 13.2oz, then 13.4oz, etc!

There's a lot in getting used to a new frame, and there are a lot of things that contribute to finding your perfect match!

-Fuji

Thanks so much for the reply. About going up in increments, that's kind of what I've ended up doing as well. Because I found the Prestige on craigslist for a good deal, I first jumped from the 271g i.s6, straight to the Prestige and had a lot of problems handling it. I was late on all my swings and had a hard time pickup up balls around my feet.

So I got the IG300 as a middle weight racquet and instantly found some of my pace and spin again. But after using the IG300 for a month or so, I picked up the Prestige and suddenly found I could hit with it just fine.

People groove their strokes to the racket they are used to. Though the swingweight is not that far off, the rackets are very different in weight, stiffness, and stringbed. Strength has little to do with it. If they are used to it, small girls can play fine with a heavier racket and many strong men play best with a very light racket. The Prestige Pro is not made for whipping the racket around at the last second, the i.S6 is very good for that. Play what is best for you (as long as the stiffness of the i.S6 doesn't hurt your arm).

Thanks for your thoughts. I've decided that swing weight can't be looked at independently, but has to be considered together with the static weight to be of any use.

About the stiffness, here's the weird thing. I'm realizing I really like stiff racquets and the IG300 is the first flexy racquet I've owned (flex rating around 60 vs. 77 for the i.s6). But within a few times of hitting with the IG300, I felt my elbow was a little tender and stiff. Then I went back to the Prestige Pro (stiffness 66) for the last few months and my elbow was fine. After breaking a string, I played once with my IG300 and immediately my elbow was a little stiff after. The IG300 and Prestige Pro have the same string set up. And now, I've been playing with my i.s6 the last few days since the Prestige doesn't have strings yet, and my elbow feels great.

Since I can feel the IG300 flexing when hitting, I actually feel like the racquet rebounding after flexing might be causing my slight elbow discomfort. I've started feeling like 1. I don't like the feel of the racquet flexing, and 2. it might be causing my elbow pain; so I might be sticking to stiffer racquets from now on.

Swing weights have become more popular lately and while I appreciate what that number is trying to represent, I've absolutely found swing weights to be misleading. I no longer pay attention to them because I don't find that they tell me anything about a racquet without some other information.

The three spec's I use to get an idea of a racquet's potential swing behavior and performance are the static weight, balance, and flex rating. I've had no luck with lighter frames (too unstable), so I want my gear to weigh at least 12.5 oz., but I also need a decent degree of maneuverability. That's where I need significant HL balance in the area of 10 pts. The flex rating helps to predict the comfort and control I may find in a racquet - I prefer frames in the low 60's.

Considering that two frames can have identical swing weights, yet one may be heavier and head-light while the other is lighter with a head-heavy balance, I essentially get no information from that spec. These two hypothetical frames will be substantially different in action on the courts and if I look at my three favorite numbers, I'll know that at a glance.

Thanks for this. This is a good way to explain what I've started seeing as well. Swing weights seem a little arbitrary, or at least can not be looked at independently.

Here is a good example from my racquests:

the swing weight of my racquets are:

i.s6 311
IG300 308
YTPP 320

But I also measured how much the head of each racquet weighs. The head of the IG300 is only 3-4 grams LESS than the YTPP (which explains why I don't feel a big difference between them), and the head of the IG300 is about 20 grams MORE than the i.s6, even though it's supposed to have a lower swing weight than the i.s6. I'm not sure how a racquet with a head that weighs 20 grams more could end up with a lower swing weight.

I LOVE the solid feel of the prestige, and I do feel the stability of having more weight. But I also miss the unbelievable whippiness and spin of the lighter i.s6, so I'm thinking of trying to compromise. I'm going to find a lighter string (the strings I had on the IG300 and PP were about 20 grams), and it's about time for a new cap grommet, so I'm going to first experiment by trimming the old one a little and see if I can lighten the head a little. 330-340 grams and 9-10pt head light might be a perfect compromise.

Maybe a more useful number, instead of swing weight, would just be to tell what the balance and then the actual weight of the handle vs head. For example, my IG300 is 3 grams lighter in the head than my YTPP, but it is 11 grams lighter in the handle than the YTPP. That's why they feel pretty close when swinging them, but the IG300 feels lighter when just holding them. A fixed weight of how heavy the head is would probably tell us more than swing weight does.

 

[corners]

There's good reason why good retailers like TW give all three specs (static weight, balance and swingweight).

With those three numbers you can accurately predict what the racquet will do to the ball upon impact. Without swingweight, you can't do it at all, because swingweight is nearly proportional to hittingweight. Without balance and static weight you can't do it really accurately.

Even with these three specs it's much harder to predict how a racquet will swing. Swingweight is moment of inertia. Moment=torque, so you can also say torque of inertia. Since we almost always swing racquets in arcs, you need to know the swingweight to know how much torque must be applied to get the racquet moving in a swing. So swingweight is absolutely critical to predict how a racquet will swing.

The effects of static weight and balance are harder to figure out. Some people think that static weight is really important, others don't. Some people say head-heavy racquets are easier to swing, some people say that head-light racquets are easier to swing. Some people just don't know, but they know what swings right for them.

Check out this poll to see how widely opinions vary:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=13019


Questions like yours have been asked for years, and will be asked for years more. Most people answer them with the demo process, where they find what swings nice and hits nice and then stop asking questions.


If your Head has significantly lower static weight than the other two frames, that would explain the head-heavy balance. If you have two frames with relatively equal swingweights and then remove mass from the handle of one of them you end up with two racquets with pretty much the same swingweight, but one of them will now be lighter and less head-light (because you took mass out of the handle). I would suspect that it's the lack of mass that gives you the quick feeling, not the head-heavy balance, but I could be wrong.

Personally, I agree with the poster Travlerajm, who has a nice theory (search: "mgr/i") for predicting how a racquet will swing. I think swingweight is most important in terms of how quickly you can swing the racquet with max effort. Weight and balance primarily influence the timing of the swing - how slowly or quickly the head "comes around" in relation to the hand and handle.

Here's a nice article on the effects of handle weight and balance on how a racquet swings and maneuvers:

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/articles/2006/04/racquet_handle_weighting_and_m.html

 

[fuzz nation]

Mornin' y'all... happy hurricane 'n all that.

So Marcus, what's your technique for weighing the head of your racquet? I've noodled around with my postal scale and weighed a few of my racquets at the top of the hoop just out of curiosity. I wanted to see how that "tip weight" corresponded to what I perceived to be the plow through in my frames. It seemed to be revealing enough, but it wasn't the most scientific process in the world - sounds like you tried a similar experiment.

As far as your Prestige goes, what's the racquet's balance? From your description, you sound like you want to get it into a more head-light layout since you're missing a degree of maneuverability or "whippiness". While you probably won't quite match the handling of a really light frame, you might get a lot better maneuverability while retaining that stability that you like by putting some lead tape under your grip (or your overgrip).

Even though adding weight to the handle will make the racquet heavier and also theoretically increase its swing weight, I've found that this can make my racquet much easier to "get around" through the ball. Also, since you wouldn't be shaving the cap grommet or anything, you wouldn't be diminishing your Prestige's stability.

 

[pyrokid]

Try the aero pro drive. Might be a nice compromise.

 

[Marcus2137]

Mornin' y'all... happy hurricane 'n all that.

So Marcus, what's your technique for weighing the head of your racquet? I've noodled around with my postal scale and weighed a few of my racquets at the top of the hoop just out of curiosity. I wanted to see how that "tip weight" corresponded to what I perceived to be the plow through in my frames. It seemed to be revealing enough, but it wasn't the most scientific process in the world - sounds like you tried a similar experiment.

As far as your Prestige goes, what's the racquet's balance? From your description, you sound like you want to get it into a more head-light layout since you're missing a degree of maneuverability or "whippiness". While you probably won't quite match the handling of a really light frame, you might get a lot better maneuverability while retaining that stability that you like by putting some lead tape under your grip (or your overgrip).

Even though adding weight to the handle will make the racquet heavier and also theoretically increase its swing weight, I've found that this can make my racquet much easier to "get around" through the ball. Also, since you wouldn't be shaving the cap grommet or anything, you wouldn't be diminishing your Prestige's stability.

1. I have a small digital kitchen scale that I'm using. I've measured the head weight 2 ways. First I just put the tip of the head on the center of the scale and had the end of the handle resting on something the exact same height as the head (so not sloped up or down). I've also tried to just support the handle about where the middle of my grip would be (which is only a few inches up from the end up the, so it only changes a little)

The only issue is that obviously the YTPP has so much more weight in the handle than the other racquets that if I measure where I grip the racquet, the tip of the handle on the other side of the support from the scale is actually pulling down (therefore pulling the head up).

Results are appox:

Supported from very end of handle:
YTPP head is 3-4 grams heavier than IG300; I.s6 is about 20grams less than both.

Supported from where I grip, the YTPP and IG300 are almost the same, only about 1 gram or so different (my scale is sensitive to 1g); I.s6 is still about 19-20 grams less because they're basically no mass in the end of it's handle to change the reading.

2. I've been playing with lead weight for a while. I actually really like the feel with about 4 grams added at 3&9 or even 2&10, and a little weight in handle to compensate; but my reaction is just too slow.

Part of the problem is that I have 2 guys that are close to my level and we can punch back and forth and get good pace and rhythm going; with those partners, this setup feel really good and the stability and plow-through is great. HOWEVER, I'm also teaching 4 other friends to play tennis and so there is usually no pace at all and their shots end up being very unpredictable because they end up shanking and mis-hitting. Playing with them with the lead on is too sluggish because I'm always trying to pick up from my feet that they hit past the baseline, to keep them in play, and stuff like that.

I got new strings last night and went with a thinner gauge than I usually do (not only did I have thicker guage, but I was using Luxilon Polys, known for being heavy), so I ended up shaving 5 grams from the head just by using a lighter gauge, and lighter material string. I also added 10 grams to the handle (which I tried in the past and liked). I played today and it seemed like a good balance between weight/stability VS. maneuverability/headspeed.

The way I have it set up right now, the racquet weighs about 347g, and is 9.5-10pt HL. Without the weight in the handle, it's now about 337g (with the new strings) and about 7.5-8pt HL. I'll keep trying the current set up, but it definitely seemed like a step in the right direction for me. I was very happy to keep most of the stability and solidness of the Prestige, but also find a little more whippyness and headspeed (Despite going 1.5 guages thinner, I also upped the tension a lot, where I usually like it, and it seemed to help my control/spin considerably too).

 

[Marcus2137]

Try the aero pro drive. Might be a nice compromise.

Thanks. When I'm back in the states long enough, I'll definitely get a few more demo racquets and see how they feel. I'd probably try an aero and a Extreme MP and see if those fit my game a little more. I love the Prestige feel but I know it actually isn't the perfect racquet for my game, but I just hope it's good enough to work because I love playing with it. Prestige deserves more of a Federer/Kuerten swing, and I definitely have more of an Agassi, Nadal, Tsonga swing. I know they don't all swing the same, but what I mean is that the latter 3 have shorter back swings and accelerate more/punch through their stroke, compared to the first two who have longer backswings and build their speed smoother/more gradually. So when I can, I'll demo some other racquets and see if something else really clicks better with my game. In the meantime though, I love the feel of the Prestige Pro, and I have no problem changing it up a little in order to tailor it to my game.

 

[Marcus2137]

Here is a good example of how it seems like swingweight sometimes doesn't make sense to me (specs straight from TW):

ProKennex Ki 5X:
Strung Weight: 11.7oz / 332g
Balance: 9pts Head Light
Swingweight: 330

Head Youtek Prestige MidPlus:
Strung Weight: 11.9oz / 337.36g
Balance: 7 pts HL
Swingweight: 318

Head Youtek Prestige Pro (my racquet):
Strung Weight: 11.8oz / 334.52g
Balance: 6 pts HL
Swingweight: 320


HOW can the ProKennex be the lightest of the three, AND have the most head-light balance by at least 2pt, BUT still have the HEAVIEST swingweight of the three by at least 10g???

So, in this example, the specs don't even make sense to me unless there is some other variable that needs to be included.

And also, in my personal example, I have a racquet with a 311 swingweight and a racquet with a 308 swingweight, and the 311 racquet is Much much lighter and easier to swing.

So I'm still a little confused about how swingweight is practical and useful information. I feel like the static weight and balance can tell you more accurately about how the racquet will swing (although that information has to be interpreted for each situation, i.e. light racquet that is HH might still be easier to swing than heavy racquet that is HL, like in my situation) than the swingweight does, so what good is swingweight?

 

[Marcus2137]

Sorry, the ProKennex about is the Ionic Ki 5x, I left out the Ionic part of the name on accident.

 

[corners]

HOW can the ProKennex be the lightest of the three, AND have the most head-light balance by at least 2pt, BUT still have the HEAVIEST swingweight of the three by at least 10g???

So, in this example, the specs don't even make sense to me unless there is some other variable that needs to be included.

It's just weight distribution. The Pro Kennex has quite a bit of mass in the head (thus the high swingweight) and in the handle (thus the head-light balance). The other two have relatively more mass in the throat and less in the head (thus, the lower swingweights and longer balances). If you start playing around with lead tape you'll understand this pretty quick, as you then become your own racquet designer.

Take a couple grams out of the head of the PK and put it in the throat. Then take a few more grams out of the butt and put it at the top of the handle and you have the weight distribution of the other two.

On these boards the PK would be described as "polarized" - the mass is concentrated in the head and handle - towards the poles. The other two are less polarized. The term for that around here is "depolarized". Both are relative terms.

BTW, to get your head around these things it's helpful to think of balance in terms of centimeters from the butt, rather than in points from the center (6 HL, etc.).

 

[Power Player]

Thanks. When I'm back in the states long enough, I'll definitely get a few more demo racquets and see how they feel. I'd probably try an aero and a Extreme MP and see if those fit my game a little more. I love the Prestige feel but I know it actually isn't the perfect racquet for my game, but I just hope it's good enough to work because I love playing with it. Prestige deserves more of a Federer/Kuerten swing, and I definitely have more of an Agassi, Nadal, Tsonga swing. I know they don't all swing the same, but what I mean is that the latter 3 have shorter back swings and accelerate more/punch through their stroke, compared to the first two who have longer backswings and build their speed smoother/more gradually. So when I can, I'll demo some other racquets and see if something else really clicks better with my game. In the meantime though, I love the feel of the Prestige Pro, and I have no problem changing it up a little in order to tailor it to my game.

Long swings can be rewarded with lower swingweights.

Shorter swings can benefit from higher SWs. No real rules, as I have a longer swing, but still prefer a higher SW.

From what you have said, I think the aero pro may provide more for you. It is light, but swings nice and full with a higher SW. It will boil down to if you prefer to hit with heavier topspin and bother player's backhands with high kicking balls vs lower trajectory balls that have less kick to them (prestige).

 

[stoneage]

Since you usually are moving the racquet in circular motion the swingweight is the best measure to describe how "heavy" the racquet is (if you were to pick only one measure).

However, I think that the definition that most people use where the swingweight is measured around a point 10 cm up the handle is unfortunate. You never rotate around this point while playing, but rather (in "worst case") around the wrist (10 cm outside the handle) or elbow (30 cm outside), or even further out. Defining swingweight as the moment of inertia around a point say 25 cm outside the handle would give a different and more realistic relation between racquets. It would thus be a better "main parameter".

/Sten

______________________________________
racquetTune, swingTool and netHeight, tennis apps for the iPhone.

 

[Marcus2137]

It's just weight distribution. The Pro Kennex has quite a bit of mass in the head (thus the high swingweight) and in the handle (thus the head-light balance). The other two have relatively more mass in the throat and less in the head (thus, the lower swingweights and longer balances). If you start playing around with lead tape you'll understand this pretty quick, as you then become your own racquet designer.

Take a couple grams out of the head of the PK and put it in the throat. Then take a few more grams out of the butt and put it at the top of the handle and you have the weight distribution of the other two.

On these boards the PK would be described as "polarized" - the mass is concentrated in the head and handle - towards the poles. The other two are less polarized. The term for that around here is "depolarized". Both are relative terms.

BTW, to get your head around these things it's helpful to think of balance in terms of centimeters from the butt, rather than in points from the center (6 HL, etc.).

Yep, weight distribution definitely must play a part. I've been experimenting some with lead weights and polarizing my Prestige the last few weeks and I have found what I think is a very nice set up for myself.

I only mention ho many Points HH/HL my racquet is because someone was asking. I of course am measuring from the butt and then just converting. Right now, the way it is set up, my Prestige balances at about 31.3mm, and feel very nice. I got to play today, and besides rolling my ankle at the end (ouch), I was very very happy with the racquet with the new balance and weight.

It still doesn't make sense to me that the Head Speed IG300 has a SW of 308 and my I.S6 SW is 311. The I.S6 weighs 60grams less than the IG300, and despite being more head heavy, the I.S6 head still weighs 20grams less than the IG300 head. Seems to me that, with weight differences that great, no amount of weight distribution differences can make the I.S6 actually swing heavier than the IG300. And that is exactly what I feel when I use both to play. The difference in the SW (the I.S6 being SO SO MUCH lighter to swing), is so different that I can not believe that the IG300 actually has a lighter SW, or even anywhere close to the I.S6.

 

[corners]

Marcus, I propose that your procedure for "weighing the head" is faulty.

 

[Marcus2137]

Marcus, I propose that your procedure for "weighing the head" is faulty.

Is there a better way? I've experimented with a couple different ways but no matter what I do, my I.S6's head is around 20grams lighter than my IG300's head even though they have very close swingweights. I'd love a better way if you know one. Thanks.

 

[TonyB]

To the OP: I'm not sure what you "don't get". You seem to want to ignore the swingweight value for some reason. As I said in another thread: the swingweight, balance point, and static weight basically tell you all you need to know about heft and swingability of the frame.

You keep saying that "you don't understand" how the lighter frame can "swing heavier", but we keep telling you that it's because of the weight distribution in the frame. Period.

Comparing swingweights for every frame that I have tried, and I mean EVERY FRAME, has shown me that higher swingweights swing "heavier" and lower swingweights swing "easier." There are no exceptions. Take a frame and add 20 grams of lead tape right at the balance point. Swing it. Then remove that weight and add 10 grams at the top of the frame and 10 grams at the butt of the handle. Swing it again. I guarantee you 100% that the 2nd configuration will swing heavier than the first, even though the balance point and static weight are identical (within reason -- the balance point may shift a hair). But the swingweight is higher. It's all about WHERE the weight is distributed.

As "corners" said, your head/handle weighing process is inaccurate. There is no "better way". Just use the values of SW and balance that already exist and they won't steer you wrong.

 

[fuzz nation]

Is there a better way? I've experimented with a couple different ways but no matter what I do, my I.S6's head is around 20grams lighter than my IG300's head even though they have very close swingweights. I'd love a better way if you know one. Thanks.

I think that weighing the head is only an informal method for quantifying the "plow-through" of a racquet. Regardless of its static weight and balance, the actual mass of the head is the most significant factor contributing to its stability through contact. We routinely talk about plow-through and stability in our gear, but there's no number we can assign to that performance aspect aside from this measurement.

Keep in mind that I don't pay attention to swing weights - that's just me.

 

[Marcus2137]

To the OP: I'm not sure what you "don't get". You seem to want to ignore the swingweight value for some reason. As I said in another thread: the swingweight, balance point, and static weight basically tell you all you need to know about heft and swingability of the frame.

You keep saying that "you don't understand" how the lighter frame can "swing heavier", but we keep telling you that it's because of the weight distribution in the frame. Period.

Comparing swingweights for every frame that I have tried, and I mean EVERY FRAME, has shown me that higher swingweights swing "heavier" and lower swingweights swing "easier." There are no exceptions.

Actually, I don't mean this to be rude TonyB, but I don't think you've actually read what I've been typing.

I never said that I don't understand how a lighter frame can swing heavier. That isn't difficult in theory and I'm perfectly clear about that.

You said, "EVERY FRAME, has shown me that higher swingweights swing "heavier" and lower swingweights swing "easier." There are no exceptions." And this is exactly what I'm disagreeing with.

To be clear, what I said is that I have 1. Light frame and 1. Heavy frame. My lighter frame SAYS it has a higher swing weight than the heavy frame (which I understand is possible to be true), but IT DOES NOT.

This is my experience:
1. I.S6, Much lighter Static, higher SW NUMBER, but MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH lighter when you actually swing it.

VS.

2. Speed IG 300, 70g heavier static, LOWER SW NUMBER, but swings MUCH heavier than #1

You say there is no exception, but what I'm saying is that here is the exception right here, these are 2 racquets that I have in my hand and the way they swing does not come CLOSE to the way the SW NUMBER says they will swing.

I can't say that swingweight is always wrong (Hence I titled the thread "Is swing weight sometimes misleading"), but in the case of these racquets, it absolutely does not accurately predict how these racquets will swing.

 

[Marcus2137]

I think that weighing the head is only an informal method for quantifying the "plow-through" of a racquet. Regardless of its static weight and balance, the actual mass of the head is the most significant factor contributing to its stability through contact. We routinely talk about plow-through and stability in our gear, but there's no number we can assign to that performance aspect aside from this measurement.

Keep in mind that I don't pay attention to swing weights - that's just me.

For sure my method is very informal and just to satisfy my curiosity. However, I do find that my perception on how easy my three racquets are to swing almost exactly aligns with the results of their head weights. IG300 and YT Prestige Pro feel about the same and their head weights are almost exaclty the same (despite their SW being pretty different). The I.S6 is infinitely lighter to swing, has a much lighter head weight in my measurements from the others, even though it technically is supposed to have a higher SW than the IG300.

I have also noticed that despite having a higher static weight and SW than my Prestige Pro, my friends YT Prestige Mid is feels slightly easier to swing than my Pro does. The only thing on paper that shows the Mid might feel slightly easier to swing is that it has a more HL balance, everything else says it should swing heavier than my Prestige Pro, but it doesn't feel like it to me. I wonder if I measured the head weight of his Prestige Mid, what I would come up with, and if it would correspond closer to the feeling I have when swinging it than the Static and SW do.

I'm not ready to through out SW, but I definitely not going to pay as much attention to it, as you said. I do think that static weight and balance might give a clearer picture, though harder to interpret. Ultimately, I think you just have to hit balls with each racquet to know how it swings.

 

[TonyB]

1. I.S6, Much lighter Static, higher SW NUMBER, but MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH lighter when you actually swing it.

VS.

2. Speed IG 300, 70g heavier static, LOWER SW NUMBER, but swings MUCH heavier than #1

Sigh. Dude, the difference in TW's posted AVERAGE swingweights between these two frames is *3* points!!! For all intents and purposes, that's NO difference. Plus, it's definitely possible that your particular frames are +/-10 SW points different than TW's posted values. Or more. You have to measure them to find out exactly. TW only posts the average SW of some certain number of frames (maybe 10). They're not all equal.

On top of that, a difference in static weight of 70 grams is HUGE. That's 2 AND A HALF OUNCES extra weight! Of course it's going to swing heavier.

When I said there were "no exceptions", I was referring to frames that were otherwise equal or at least very similar in weight and balance, but different in swingweight. I wasn't talking about two frames that differed by 20-30% in weight.

Geez.

 

[beeveewee]

I think SW can be misleading. The Wilson BLX Blade 98 is a great example. It has a hefty swingweight but it doesn't feel too bad because ultimately it is still a lighter racquet.

 

[beeveewee]

...Likewise, a few racquets I tried seemed to play heavier than their weight and swingweight. The Organix 10 295g is an example.

 

[stoneage]

I think SW can be misleading. The Wilson BLX Blade 98 is a great example. It has a hefty swingweight but it doesn't feel too bad because ultimately it is still a lighter racquet.

Swingweight is not missleading a long as you are aware of what it is measuring. Swingweight is Moment of Inertia, which is the fundamental parameter describing how an object reacts to a rotational force (moment). Swingweight plays the same role in rotation as mass in linear motion. The weight tells you how heavy the racquet feels when you move (swing) it without rotation. The swingweight tells you how heavy it feels when you whip it around your wrist. Since most normal tennis swings are something in between you need both values.

So one racquet might be "heavier" than another for one type of swing, but not for another.

/Sten
______________________________________
racquetTune, swingTool and netHeight, tennis apps for the iPhone.

 

[cellofaan]

Swingweight is not missleading a long as you are aware of what it is measuring. Swingweight is Moment of Inertia, which is the fundamental parameter describing how an object reacts to a rotational force (moment). Swingweight plays the same role in rotation as mass in linear motion. The weight tells you how heavy the racquet feels when you move (swing) it without rotation. The swingweight tells you how heavy it feels when you whip it around your wrist. Since most normal tennis swings are something in between you need both values.

So one racquet might be "heavier" than another for one type of swing, but not for another.

/Sten

qft



Also, 'weighing the head' has little to do with actually weighing the head. What you're doing is measuring the support reactions when the frame is supported at the tip and butt. You could also just get the static weight and balance, and calculate them.