JMac: BOTH Nadal and Federer are using LIGHT racquets???

[Marius_Hancu]

It's 6-5 for Nadal in the 3rd set of the Wimbledon final and JMac says something like this on NBC:

------
Both Nadal and Federer are using light racquets, which allow them to generate lots of topspin.
------

OK, I understand that for Nadal (even if 320g unstrung isn't that light), but for Federer?

Creating false impressions. Now everybody will go out and buy those 8-9oz racquets. Stupid on his part.

 

[vkartikv]

I heard that too. I think it was in reference to the older wooden racquets that felt like clubs compared to todays frames. A lot of players still do modify their frames to 14-15 oz. so I don't know what he was talking about - may be he needs to visit this forum...

 

[jackcrawford]

Referring to ten years ago when Courier and Sampras used 14 oz. Fed's 12.6 is much lighter than that, Nadal's 11.5 even more so. Looking at Nadal's guns, not unreasonable for an amateur with an average build to use a 10 oz. stick.

 

[tlm]

Nadals racquet is fairly light,feds is headlight but still weighs over 12 ounces.I have played both stock versions+feds is definitely not light.

I know some guys use racquets over 13 ounces,but 14-15 are you serious?

 

[travlerajm]

Nadal's stick is 1/2 oz lighter than the average pro. And Fed plays with a much lighter than average SW, which also translates to more spin. So in a way, Mac was correct. Both players have their racquets set up to maximize spin, but they accomplish their max spin setups in different ways.

 

[tlm]

What is a lighter than average sw?I would not consider the stock version of feds racquet lighter than average.

 

[MasterTS]

If Nadal uses a sub 12oz stick.. considering his strength and stamina..

An average joe should be using an 11oz tweener at most..

I see so many players using heavy heavy racquets that they can't even yeild the true potential.. might as well grab a PD+ and swing away.

 

[tlm]

Theres some truth to that masterts,there is a lot of ego about how heavy of a racquet people use.

 

[chip]

What is the average weight of the raquet for the (male) pro??

 

[BaseLineBash]

It's 6-5 for Nadal in the 3rd set of the Wimbledon final and JMac says something like this on NBC:

------
Both Nadal and Federer are using light racquets, which allow them to generate lots of topspin.
------

OK, I understand that for Nadal (even if 320g unstrung isn't that light), but for Federer?

Creating false impressions. Now everybody will go out and buy those 8-9oz racquets. Stupid on his part.

It's understandable for Nadal to be using a slightly lighter racquet than average because of his style of play, but JMac is way off on Fed unless he is talking era-wise. There is just no way most ATP players can use significantly sub-12oz. racquets with all the power and pace in todays game, without serious arm injuries and problems.

 

[travlerajm]

What is a lighter than average sw?I would not consider the stock version of feds racquet lighter than average.

Average SW for a male pro is about 350 kg-cm^2. The average static weight is about 12.5 oz. (13.0 oz for doubles specialists). Fed's SW is 330, so it swings much lighter than average.

 

[Roger_federer]

how does swingweight compare to racquet weight? What is swingweight exactly?

 

[florida88]

Swing weight is how heavy racquet feels when strung. A high swing weight results in low maneuverability, but generally more groundstroke power. Racquet weight=power?

 

[MasterTS]

how does swingweight compare to racquet weight? What is swingweight exactly?

measures how difficult it will take to swing the racquet based on the balance.

Just because a racquet weights more doesn't mean it'll be harder to swing!

 

[newnuse]

Keep in mind Mac used a wooden racket and a dunlop Max 200G. So yes, Fed's and Nadal's racket would be light for Mac.

For the regular guy, those would on the heavy side.

 

[Jonny S&V]

Nadal's got some awesome wrist and grip strength to be able to handle that light of a racquet. Yay!!! 50 posts!!! Leave my green days for a true blue user name.

 

[armand]

At the pro level it would seem to me that lighter racquets are actually harder to use because you have less stability and a smaller sweetspot and when those heavy+fast shots are coming your way, you better hit the sweetspot or else your shot ain't gonna go where it's supposed to.

Still, Nadal's racquet is light perhaps for a players racquet, but it's still heavier than average I think.

 

[tlm]

That is true adely,you cant be off much with a light stick against heavy shots.

 

[travlerajm]

At the pro level it would seem to me that lighter racquets are actually harder to use because you have less stability and a smaller sweetspot and when those heavy+fast shots are coming your way, you better hit the sweetspot or else your shot ain't gonna go where it's supposed to.

Still, Nadal's racquet is light perhaps for a players racquet, but it's still heavier than average I think.

Nadal's racquet is more stable than the average ATP pro racquet because it has higher recoil weight (roughly 180 kg-cm^2). The recoil weight is the momentum of inertia about the balance point. By adding lots of lead under the bumper, as well as some counterweighting in the handle, he makes his racquet extremely stable, even though the static weight is still low by pro standards.

 

[jackson vile]

Nadal's racquet is more stable than the average ATP pro racquet because it has higher recoil weight (roughly 180 kg-cm^2). The recoil weight is the momentum of inertia about the balance point. By adding lots of lead under the bumper, as well as some counterweighting in the handle, he makes his racquet extremely stable, even though the static weight is still low by pro standards.

Do you have more posts on this, also why did Roger add lead to the throat of the Tour 90?

 

[katastrof]

It's 6-5 for Nadal in the 3rd set of the Wimbledon final and JMac says something like this on NBC:

------
Both Nadal and Federer are using light racquets, which allow them to generate lots of topspin.
------

OK, I understand that for Nadal (even if 320g unstrung isn't that light), but for Federer?

Creating false impressions. Now everybody will go out and buy those 8-9oz racquets. Stupid on his part.

If I hear 1 more word from Connors or Mac about racquets... well, I can't do much about it, but it's getting on my nerves big time. Especially Connors, he does it about 256 times during a five set match... on every possible occasion.

- What a great forehand, don't you think Jim?
- Well, you know, with the racquets they use today ...

IIIRRRGGH !@#@&%!!

 

[travlerajm]

Do you have more posts on this, also why did Roger add lead to the throat of the Tour 90?

I started a thread on the "underrated spec" of recoil weight, which shows how to calculate it for your racquet. We know Nadal's actual weight and balance from Jura's thread. And we know that Nadal puts approximately 15g under the bumper and 5g at the butt. From these we can determine that the center of mass of the bumper lead is at about 24" from the butt. This means that we can estimate his SW and recoil weight.

His swingweight is about 365 kg-cm^2, while the average ATP pro is roughly at about 350.

The average ATP pro has a recoil weight in the 170s, but all serve-and-volleyers are around 180 because they need more stability. Interestingly, Fed's recoil weight is extremely low for a pro, in the low 160s. It means that Fed's technique needs to be much better than Nadal's for him to volley with the same accuracy, since Fed's racquet is not that stable for volleys.

Another interesting fact is that Federer has a very low twistweight compared to most pros (because he has hardly any weight in the head). This means that his racquet would be worse at countering heavy spin than a racquet like Sampras' which has tons of weight at 3 and 9.

Adding weight to the throat of a racquet adds power without adding too much swingweight.

 

[jackson vile]

I started a thread on the "underrated spec" of recoil weight, which shows how to calculate it for your racquet. We know Nadal's actual weight and balance from Jura's thread. And we know that Nadal puts approximately 15g under the bumper and 5g at the butt. From these we can determine that the center of mass of the bumper lead is at about 24" from the butt. This means that we can estimate his SW and recoil weight.

His swingweight is about 365 kg-cm^2, while the average ATP pro is roughly at about 350.

The average ATP pro has a recoil weight in the 170s, but all serve-and-volleyers are around 180 because they need more stability. Interestingly, Fed's recoil weight is extremely low for a pro, in the low 160s. It means that Fed's technique needs to be much better than Nadal's for him to volley with the same accuracy, since Fed's racquet is not that stable for volleys.

Another interesting fact is that Federer has a very low twistweight compared to most pros (because he has hardly any weight in the head). This means that his racquet would be worse at countering heavy spin than a racquet like Sampras' which has tons of weight at 3 and 9.

Adding weight to the throat of a racquet adds power without adding too much swingweight.

So why does he do that? Would his game be better with a different setup that is being used, or does he know something we don't?

 

[travlerajm]

So why does he do that? Would his game be better with a different setup that is being used, or does he know something we don't?

I assume you're asking about Fed.

In my opinion, Federer is a freak of nature. I posted a thread a while back with data that showed that for ATP top-100 players, there is a direct correlation between swingweight and career high ranking - i.e., the higher the swingweight, the better the pro's ranking. Federer seems to be the lone exception to the rule.

There are obvious advantages to playing with higher swingweight, so the trend is not surprising. Higher SW gives you more power on serves, and more control on the rest of your shots when playing against heavy pace or spin because the ratio of your racquet's momentum to the incoming ball's momentum is higher. High swingweight also allows you to hit a heavier ball (the Nadal and Sampras forehands are nasty due to extremely high SW).

The real puzzler is how Federer is able to dominate with what appears on the surface to be a disadvantageous setup compared to his rivals. His racquet isn't that different from what many club players use. And believe me, when you try to trade groundstrokes with someone using a pro-style heavy SW, it's easy to feel overpowered if you don't use a high SW yourself. I think the answer is that Fed's game is well-designed for taking advantage of the best features of the "almost stock" PS 6.0 frame. His low SW allows him to whip the racquet around to hit cross-court dipper winners when it seems like he won't be able to even reach the ball. And his setup gives him pinpoint accuracy. He'll never be able to serve-and-volley like Sampras or return like Blake or Agassi (all players with heavier more stable racquets), but so what? He's dominant anyway. The biggest disadvantage of his setup that might be his racquet's tragic flaw is that his racquet is ill-eqipped for dealing with heavy spin (his main rival's chief weapon).

 

[jackson vile]

Great points, he does get all his points from ground strokes with other point here and there from other parts of the game.

His forehand looks strange to me when I watch it especially his fade away forehand, everything else makes sense to me.

I understand how to do the dipers all though I could use some hints to get it as sharp as him, but perhaps that is when he uses the fade away so that there is less forward momentum.

I'm just wondering is it a freak of nature or is his style of play on to something, fruther more Nadals style breaks everyone down even with the high SW ect.

It is because his high percentage rate (thank you spin), balls jumping sides, forward, but most dangerously up.

There is nothing harder than hitting a ball that does not not much forward momentum but a lot of up momentum.

You can't plow into it the same and usually results in a weak reaturn.

My wifes brother lived in Italy for 2 years and played on the clay the whole time. When I went hitting with him it was like nothing else i have ever encouterd.

Takeing the ball on the rise was one weapon, "James Blakeing it" was another, ect, and almost no 1hbh

So I can only imagine just how bad it would be with Nadal.

PS any tips for a LMprestige MP with low string tensions?:mrgreen:

 

[katastrof]

The real puzzler is how Federer is able to dominate with what appears on the surface to be a disadvantageous setup compared to his rivals. His racquet isn't that different from what many club players use. And believe me, when you try to trade groundstrokes with someone using a pro-style heavy SW, it's easy to feel overpowered if you don't use a high SW yourself. I think the answer is that Fed's game is well-designed for taking advantage of the best features of the "almost stock" PS 6.0 frame. His low SW allows him to whip the racquet around to hit cross-court dipper winners when it seems like he won't be able to even reach the ball. And his setup gives him pinpoint accuracy. He'll never be able to serve-and-volley like Sampras or return like Blake or Agassi (all players with heavier more stable racquets), but so what? He's dominant anyway. The biggest disadvantage of his setup that might be his racquet's tragic flaw is that his racquet is ill-eqipped for dealing with heavy spin (his main rival's chief weapon).

travler... I believe there is good insight in your recent analysis of racquet specs. But, I also think you have the tendancy to take it a few steps too far... you cannot explain a player's game by the frame he's swinging, or present that as the dominant reason for why he plays the way he does. Of course, you can try to "fit" things to agree your own point of view, which is what you do, now and before. To say that Roddick volleys bad because of his racquet's twistweight, or Federer won't be able to S&V because his racquet does not allow it... come on. It's ridiculous, to say the least.

"...if you look for the number 216, you'll find it everywhere" Pi.

Also, since this issue is getting more pronounced every day, I am reluctant to take it as some "possibly useful" information anymore. I should ask: what is the source behind all this? If you come up with these by looking at data yourself, then who are you?

The reason for this post is, that I think, for me and many others, you're starting to sound like you suffer from an extreme case of "racquet delusion". An overagitated case of the person who blames his string setup for not being able to hit topspin, instead of just trying to learn how to do it.

I am not trying to be offensive. When you make these claims being so sure of yourself, and also, claim to be so scientific when you're not, you'll be asked to explain yourself.

 

[jackson vile]

travler... I believe there is good insight in your recent analysis of racquet specs. But, I also think you have the tendancy to take it a few steps too far... you cannot explain a player's game by the frame he's swinging, or present that as the dominant reason for why he plays the way he does. Of course, you can try to "fit" things to agree your own point of view, which is what you do, now and before. To say that Roddick volleys bad because of his racquet's twistweight, or Federer won't be able to S&V because his racquet does not allow it... come on. It's ridiculous, to say the least.

"...if you look for the number 216, you'll find it everywhere" Pi.

Also, since this issue is getting more pronounced every day, I am reluctant to take it as some "possibly useful" information anymore. I should ask: what is the source behind all this? If you come up with these by looking at data yourself, then who are you?

The reason for this post is, that I think, for me and many others, you're starting to sound like you suffer from an extreme case of "racquet delusion". An overagitated case of the person who blames his string setup for not being able to hit topspin, instead of just trying to learn how to do it.

I am not trying to be offensive. When you make these claims being so sure of yourself, and also, claim to be so scientific when you're not, you'll be asked to explain yourself.

I don't mean to start a war here but you are wrong in saying that.

Yes a racket will dictate what you can and can not do, to say anthing else shows a great lack of experience and observation.

He did not say it was not possible rather it was not optimal for this or that to be a winning possibility.

Some rackets you just can't do the same stuff, if they did not have those different palying characteristics then everyone would use pretty much the same racket.


But we find out that they use what works for the specific task and that is what he has proven.


He has facts and evidence to his conclusion.

 

[travlerajm]

travler... I believe there is good insight in your recent analysis of racquet specs. But, I also think you have the tendancy to take it a few steps too far... you cannot explain a player's game by the frame he's swinging, or present that as the dominant reason for why he plays the way he does. Of course, you can try to "fit" things to agree your own point of view, which is what you do, now and before. To say that Roddick volleys bad because of his racquet's twistweight, or Federer won't be able to S&V because his racquet does not allow it... come on. It's ridiculous, to say the least.

"...if you look for the number 216, you'll find it everywhere" Pi.

Also, since this issue is getting more pronounced every day, I am reluctant to take it as some "possibly useful" information anymore. I should ask: what is the source behind all this? If you come up with these by looking at data yourself, then who are you?

The reason for this post is, that I think, for me and many others, you're starting to sound like you suffer from an extreme case of "racquet delusion". An overagitated case of the person who blames his string setup for not being able to hit topspin, instead of just trying to learn how to do it.

I am not trying to be offensive. When you make these claims being so sure of yourself, and also, claim to be so scientific when you're not, you'll be asked to explain yourself.

I looked over the excerpt of mine that you quoted... and I didn't see anything I wrote that either isn't qualified as opinion or can't be easily proven as fact. I was just trying to explain some of the advantages and disadvantages of Fed's setup relative to the setups of other pros.

I think a lot of people discount the effect a racquet has on your ability to volley with control because most people have never actually used what I would consider a stable volley racquet. IMO, a good threshold for volley stability is a minimum recoil weight of 177 kg-cm^2. This is based on testing a wide range of setups with various recoil weights. If I play with a recoil weight in the low 170s, I can volley at the 4.5-5.0 level. But if I use a frame with a recoil weight of 180 with high tension, I can volley at the high 5.5 level. The reason my volleys improve by almost 2 levels is that I no longer need to move the racquet - I can just stick it into place and let the ball hit it like a wall. Every current ATP doubles specialist and serve-and-volleyer whose specs I have examined uses a recoil weight of about 180. Rafter and Sampras had almost opposite setups in some ways, but they both had recoil weight of about 180.

Most stock racquets have a recoil weight in the 150s. I'm not saying that you can't volley with a stock racquet, but I am saying that it's a lot harder than if you use a frame set up like Sampras's. I don't think there's anything controversial about that statement. Do you?

 

[katastrof]

I think a lot of people discount the effect a racquet has on your ability to volley with control because most people have never actually used what I would consider a stable volley racquet.

I can believe that. I also buy your comment about recoil weight and volleying ease. But let's get the argument straight, when you find it "puzzling" that Fed dominates with his current setup, or say that his racquet gives him his "pinpoint accuracy", or that he'll never SV as good as Pete because the latter has the more volley-friendly setup... you go to the other extreme, and sound like you think the racquet setup is the main tour-de-force behind this guy's play. If you've said, for example, that it would be easier for him with a different setup, but he still manages due to his talent, I would have no reason to argue anything.

If I play with a recoil weight in the low 170s, I can volley at the 4.5-5.0 level. But if I use a frame with a recoil weight of 180 with high tension, I can volley at the high 5.5 level. The reason my volleys improve by almost 2 levels is that I no longer need to move the racquet - I can just stick it into place and let the ball hit it like a wall.

Two levels? Are you serious? I am not even gonna get into how you can accurately measure your volley level like that. But these levels represent GIANT gaps, far as I know. So, let me ask you this: can you make a similar statement about your forehand as well? I mean do you think it varies two levels as you adjust your swingweight, say, from 310 to 350? The reason I am asking is that the volley is a relatively simpler motion than the forehand, so racquet stability may play a larger role in V than the FH. My point is, while you might be right that many discount the effect of the setup, you may just as well be overestimating it. If the setup made even ONE level difference, the tennis world would rightly be far more racquet-crazed than it is now. I just don't see it.

Most stock racquets have a recoil weight in the 150s. I'm not saying that you can't volley with a stock racquet, but I am saying that it's a lot harder than if you use a frame set up like Sampras's. I don't think there's anything controversial about that statement. Do you?

I don't. Although, the ball would be flying by me before I get that 14oz to the ball, but that's just me

One last thing... the reason I accused you of being not so scientific is the issue about the correlation between swingweight and career high ranking. You seem to read too much "causality" out of this "correlation". A simple point, but a simple point that is too often overlooked. Just give it a thought.

Happy volleying.
katastrof

 

[brucie]

- What a great forehand, don't you think Jim?
- Well, you know, with the racquets they use today ...
IIIRRRGGH !@#@&%!!

Just because the games passed by him isnt it!

Why wont he accept equiptment and the game has changed.
I mena obviously we'll never stay with wood etc.

 

[phat]

In my opinion, Federer is a freak of nature. I posted a thread a while back with data that showed that for ATP top-100 players, there is a direct correlation between swingweight and career high ranking - i.e., the higher the swingweight, the better the pro's ranking. Federer seems to be the lone exception to the rule.

This is historical data, so the data is only the representatiation of history..... Since the racquets in the 90s (no pros were using it widebodies then) or before are lower in power/weight ratio than today's, and the controlling aspect of the game right now is coming from the poly strings. So the game has changed.

 

[travlerajm]

In my opinion, Federer is a freak of nature. I posted a thread a while back with data that showed that for ATP top-100 players, there is a direct correlation between swingweight and career high ranking - i.e., the higher the swingweight, the better the pro's ranking. Federer seems to be the lone exception to the rule.

This is historical data, so the data is only the representatiation of history..... Since the racquets in the 90s (no pros were using it widebodies then) or before are lower in power/weight ratio than today's, and the controlling aspect of the game right now is coming from the poly strings. So the game has changed.

The correlation is not based on what I would call historical data. It is current. It is based on the 2005 French Open pro specs posted in Jura's thread. Even though I didn't have exact SW, I do know MR^2, which gives me a good estimate for the relative SWs. When I plotted MR^2 of all the top-100 pros vs career high ranking, there was an obvious trend, where ranking improves with increased SW. The curve appeared to be shaped like a parabola, with the peak of the curve roughly in the Sampras SW range (even though Sampras' specs weren't included in the dataset). If you don't trust my data, I invite you to do it yourself.

 

[travlerajm]

If you've said, for example, that it would be easier for him with a different setup, but he still manages due to his talent, I would have no reason to argue anything.

I would think the "he still manages due to his talent" part goes without saying.

Two levels? Are you serious? I am not even gonna get into how you can accurately measure your volley level like that. But these levels represent GIANT gaps, far as I know. So, let me ask you this: can you make a similar statement about your forehand as well? I mean do you think it varies two levels as you adjust your swingweight, say, from 310 to 350? The reason I am asking is that the volley is a relatively simpler motion than the forehand, so racquet stability may play a larger role in V than the FH. My point is, while you might be right that many discount the effect of the setup, you may just as well be overestimating it. If the setup made even ONE level difference, the tennis world would rightly be far more racquet-crazed than it is now. I just don't see it.

Yes. I stand by my statement. And I'd even go as far as to say that EVERY player at any level can improve his/her volley by at least 1 level by switching to a racquet with 180 recoil weight. Until you try volleying with a recoil weight of 180, you'll still be a skeptic.

I don't. Although, the ball would be flying by me before I get that 14oz to the ball, but that's just me

My racquet weighs only 12.25 oz and has a hefty recoil weight of 180 kg-cm^2. I feel secure with my guarantee that you would find my racquet much superior than your own for volleys, and you wouldn't have too much problem jabbing it toward the ball.

One last thing... the reason I accused you of being not so scientific is the issue about the correlation between swingweight and career high ranking. You seem to read too much "causality" out of this "correlation". A simple point, but a simple point that is too often overlooked. Just give it a thought.

If you have a better theory about why higher swingweight correlates with better ranking, then spill it. This is what we come here to discuss, right?

 

[katastrof]

Yes. I stand by my statement. And I'd even go as far as to say that EVERY player at any level can improve his/her volley by at least 1 level by switching to a racquet with 180 recoil weight. Until you try volleying with a recoil weight of 180, you'll still be a skeptic.

That DNX10 MID has a stock recoil weight of 188. Maybe I can say more if I hit with one of these in the following month or so.It just calculated my current recoil wgt to be 163.5, &the highest I adjusted was 171. So, I can't argue further on this. I will try to see it myself.

My racquet weighs only 12.25 oz and has a hefty recoil weight of 180 kg-cm^2. I feel secure with my guarantee that you would find my racquet much superior than your own for volleys, and you wouldn't have too much problem jabbing it toward the ball.

I was referring to Sampras' setup when I mentioned the 14oz. Mine is at 12.2. I tried your "pro setup" for a small period, my forehand was better but nowhere near one point difference, I would think, compared to the current. Also, my shoulder cannot handle the 345+ SW when serving, so, that one's left out.

If you have a better theory about why higher swingweight correlates with better ranking, then spill it. This is what we come here to discuss, right?

I don't at the moment, and I can't have an explanation w/out seing the data. But, there are a variety of explanations one can find behind this correlation. If you share your data set with me, I can run a few regressions while trying to control for some other variables, and build something from there.

 

[travlerajm]

I don't at the moment, and I can't have an explanation w/out seing the data. But, there are a variety of explanations one can find behind this correlation. If you share your data set with me, I can run a few regressions while trying to control for some other variables, and build something from there.

It sounds like you still are incredulous of this statitistic. I assure you that the trend is valid. The question is why is there a trend?

I think that there are some obvious reasons why, and I've listed some of them. I'm not sure which parts exactly you disagree with.

Which variables do you suggest I try to control?

 

[travlerajm]

That DNX10 MID has a stock recoil weight of 188. Maybe I can say more if I hit with one of these in the following month or so.It just calculated my current recoil wgt to be 163.5, &the highest I adjusted was 171. So, I can't argue further on this. I will try to see it myself.

The DNX10 mid is an interesting case. I haven't demoed it. But it's specs indicate that there is a large weight concentration in the butt. This increases the recoil weight substantially, but it also decreases the hitting weight (aka rebound power or effective mass).

Decreasing the hitting weight destabilizes your volleys. So adding weight to the butt is not an efficient way to add stability to your racquet.

If you want to increases your recoil weight without increasing SW and without decreasing hitting weight, I suggest better way: add lead to the top of your handle. This will add a lot of stability without adding much SW, but it will also add a lot of power (which means that you will likely feel that your strings are too loose to keep groundies in the court). The important thing is that the center of mass of the added weight needs to be above the axis of rotation (more than 4-5 cm from the butt). Because volley stability is affected by recoil weight, SW, and hitting weight, it's difficult to predict where exactly on the handle will give you your optimum results.

Be aware that spin potential will decrease whenever you add weight on the handle above the axis of rotation, while spin potential will increase if you add it to the butt (I would expect the DNX10 mid to be very spin friendly based on the specs).

 

[toddrobert38]

If he thinks that's light...

Nadal's Babolat is considered fairly light, but the NCose is one of the heqaviest racquets in production. I can't see how that's considered light.

 

[katastrof]

It sounds like you still are incredulous of this statitistic. I assure you that the trend is valid. The question is why is there a trend?

I think that there are some obvious reasons why, and I've listed some of them. I'm not sure which parts exactly you disagree with.

Which variables do you suggest I try to control?

I may crank up on this sometime later, when I have more free time, but off the top of my head, I would try the following myself:

Control for player type. For starters, I'd include dummies for S&V, All-court, Baseliner player types. If, for example, one type of player is more likely to succeed on tour, and they have optimized equipment in a certain way, you could be picking up the "type-SW" correlation part of your "rank-SW" correlation. This could be important because "higher SW breeds success" doesn't mean the same as "being type X player breeds success". For a type Y player, the opposite relation, no relation, or a non-linear relation, between rank & SW may hold, for example.

Control for 1HBH/2HBH, for similar seasons.

I'd like to have data for lots of other variables (which may not be available for all players, hence problematic), such as the "Avg serve speed", "1st serve %", "average spin on groundstrokes (RPM)", to name a few. The point is to crack down to the source of the observed correlation, explain more of it in terms of groundstrokes, & then relate it to SW. I reallize some of these variables, even if we have data, would bring endogeneity problems, and may not be worth considering.

Finally, (althougn I know this is a boring suggestion), taking "career high ranking" as a proxy for success sound disputable. Of course, we would find no perfect proxy for success, but I would try using the (Career Win/Career Loss) ratio, just to see what I get.

 

[katastrof]

The DNX10 mid is an interesting case. I haven't demoed it. But it's specs indicate that there is a large weight concentration in the butt. This increases the recoil weight substantially, but it also decreases the hitting weight (aka rebound power or effective mass).

Decreasing the hitting weight destabilizes your volleys. So adding weight to the butt is not an efficient way to add stability to your racquet.

If you want to increases your recoil weight without increasing SW and without decreasing hitting weight, I suggest better way: add lead to the top of your handle. This will add a lot of stability without adding much SW, but it will also add a lot of power (which means that you will likely feel that your strings are too loose to keep groundies in the court). The important thing is that the center of mass of the added weight needs to be above the axis of rotation (more than 4-5 cm from the butt). Because volley stability is affected by recoil weight, SW, and hitting weight, it's difficult to predict where exactly on the handle will give you your optimum results.

Be aware that spin potential will decrease whenever you add weight on the handle above the axis of rotation, while spin potential will increase if you add it to the butt (I would expect the DNX10 mid to be very spin friendly based on the specs).

Well, you sound like you spent a lot of time on customization. Thanks for the suggestions.

 

[travlerajm]

I may crank up on this sometime later, when I have more free time, but off the top of my head, I would try the following myself:

Control for player type. For starters, I'd include dummies for S&V, All-court, Baseliner player types. If, for example, one type of player is more likely to succeed on tour, and they have optimized equipment in a certain way, you could be picking up the "type-SW" correlation part of your "rank-SW" correlation. This could be important because "higher SW breeds success" doesn't mean the same as "being type X player breeds success". For a type Y player, the opposite relation, no relation, or a non-linear relation, between rank & SW may hold, for example.

Control for 1HBH/2HBH, for similar seasons.

I'd like to have data for lots of other variables (which may not be available for all players, hence problematic), such as the "Avg serve speed", "1st serve %", "average spin on groundstrokes (RPM)", to name a few. The point is to crack down to the source of the observed correlation, explain more of it in terms of groundstrokes, & then relate it to SW. I reallize some of these variables, even if we have data, would bring endogeneity problems, and may not be worth considering.

Finally, (althougn I know this is a boring suggestion), taking "career high ranking" as a proxy for success sound disputable. Of course, we would find no perfect proxy for success, but I would try using the (Career Win/Career Loss) ratio, just to see what I get.

Maybe sometime when I have some spare time, I tackle this. Maybe a place to start would be dividing players by separating out the clay-courters from the fast-courters? BTW, I did find that the SW-vs-ranking trend becomes cleaner when I remove the doubles specialists from the list, since the doubles specialists tend to play with higher swingweights, but their singles rankings tend to be lower than other players with comparable SW.

 

[Soundog]

Why Federer is the exception with a light racket.

1) Fed doesn't need to volley : The federer game isn't structured around volleying. He really doesn't come into the net that much. Certainly not as much as Rafter or Mirnyi and rarely off a serve, so volleying is not the most important part of his game. The Federer game is structured around setting up a point with angles. He really only comes in when he's got an easy volley - when the ball is high over the net and or when the opponent is out of position.

His real strength is his passing shots created by ability to spin the ball - which is easier with a head light balance. The excessive topspin he generates allows him to pass anyone from almost anywhere on the court by getting angles that are impossible with heavier rackets. This stops opponents coming into the net and puts them under pressure when they do. Have you noticed that Fed often returns the ball short and low to bring players into the net where he can pass them ? He rarely goes for outright winners with his returns of serve.

Having taken out an opponents volleying game, he is then able to dictate play from the back of the court by getting players way out of court with heavily spun angle shots that land near the service line. The opponent has to run at top speed to get to these shots which often have an unpredictable and vicious kick. If the opponent is way out of position, reaching for an awkward shot at full run and doesn't quite get it back deep enough while leaving the court exposed - the point is over on the next shot.

2) Court speeds suit his type of game : Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the Australian Open have changed the speed of their courts over the last few years. Mark Woodforde played in the Wimbledon veterans doubles recently and in commentating afterwards, stated how much slower the centre court is now compared to how it was a few years ago. Apparently the ball sits up much more which is part of the reason why Nadal managed to get to the final. It gives a baseliner a much getter crack at a passing shot and I think Fed would find it harder to win against a true serve / vollyer if the grass courts were faster and slicker with a lower and less predictable bounce. Similarly, if Roland Garros courts were put back to the Vilas / Wilander days when 90 shot rallies were not uncommon, Fed would find it much harder to get to the final against a player like Muster because it's hard to slam 90 shots on a dead slow court with a light racket. Personally I think the changing of court speeds is a big part of the reason why we don't see many serve volleyers now, given current racket and string technology.

3) The downsides of Fed's setup is that he doesn't control Nadal's heavy spin too well on his backhand side. A lot of shots go long because as Travlerajm noted, the head light balance makes it harder to control the heavy spin and that seems to be a big factor in Nadal's head to head record. They play pretty similar games ironically.

 

[Duzza]

Umm how is Fed's racquet light? Its above average of the Pro's.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Umm how is Fed's racquet light? Its above average of the Pro's.

Of course, it's a heavy racquet by today's standards.

This has been presented here by Greg Raven, who has one of Federer's racquets.

make a search on his postings.

This is what Greg Raven replied to me:

------------
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=84946

I think I did post the specs somewhere here, but in essense, the Federer racquet that we have is virtually the same specs as the retail version. As I've said elsewhere, the two main differences were the shorter pallet, and the different spacing of the crosses. Weight, balance, flex, and swingweight were each within a point or two of the retail version with the same grip size.
__________________
Greg Raven, MRT
Vista, CA
-----------

Also, check this page by Greg:

Roger Federer's Wilson nSix-One Tour 90
http://homepage.mac.com/gregraven/tennis/PhotoAlbum10.html

 

[Soundog]

Umm how is Fed's racquet light? Its above average of the Pro's.

The girl pros maybe. Certainly not the men. At 357g, Fed's racket compared to the rackets of 20 - 30 years ago that McEnroe used is light. I still have my wood ( Dunlop Maxply McEnro ) rackets and they weigh 380 grams dead weight - 378.4 g to be precise. The racket I used most as a kid was a conventional metal slazenger that weighed 393 g, and I had one metal Slazenger XLT25 that weighed 415 g. I also had a Wilson T2000 for a while which Jimmy Connors used and that weighed around 385 g.

In today's terms Fed's racket is still a relatively light racket given that most pro's customise their rackets and actually use non standard rackets that are much heavier than the stock retail rackets. Phillipoussis used a Head prestige classic with a ton of lead in it that weighed around 400g. I've held Lleyton Hewitt's racket in my hand and my guess is that it weighs around 380 - 385g. Even my own stock standard Super RD Tour' 90's weigh 372 and my Super RD Tour 95's weigh 390g. A couple of years ago, Tennis warehouse was selling some frames prepared for Jimmy Arias. From memory, they were 390 g.

I gather you must be pretty young.....

 

[jackson vile]

1) Fed doesn't need to volley : The federer game isn't structured around volleying. He really doesn't come into the net that much. Certainly not as much as Rafter or Mirnyi and rarely off a serve, so volleying is not the most important part of his game. The Federer game is structured around setting up a point with angles. He really only comes in when he's got an easy volley - when the ball is high over the net and or when the opponent is out of position.

His real strength is his passing shots created by ability to spin the ball - which is easier with a head light balance. The excessive topspin he generates allows him to pass anyone from almost anywhere on the court by getting angles that are impossible with heavier rackets. This stops opponents coming into the net and puts them under pressure when they do. Have you noticed that Fed often returns the ball short and low to bring players into the net where he can pass them ? He rarely goes for outright winners with his returns of serve.

Having taken out an opponents volleying game, he is then able to dictate play from the back of the court by getting players way out of court with heavily spun angle shots that land near the service line. The opponent has to run at top speed to get to these shots which often have an unpredictable and vicious kick. If the opponent is way out of position, reaching for an awkward shot at full run and doesn't quite get it back deep enough while leaving the court exposed - the point is over on the next shot.

2) Court speeds suit his type of game : Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the Australian Open have changed the speed of their courts over the last few years. Mark Woodforde played in the Wimbledon veterans doubles recently and in commentating afterwards, stated how much slower the centre court is now compared to how it was a few years ago. Apparently the ball sits up much more which is part of the reason why Nadal managed to get to the final. It gives a baseliner a much getter crack at a passing shot and I think Fed would find it harder to win against a true serve / vollyer if the grass courts were faster and slicker with a lower and less predictable bounce. Similarly, if Roland Garros courts were put back to the Vilas / Wilander days when 90 shot rallies were not uncommon, Fed would find it much harder to get to the final against a player like Muster because it's hard to slam 90 shots on a dead slow court with a light racket. Personally I think the changing of court speeds is a big part of the reason why we don't see many serve volleyers now, given current racket and string technology.

3) The downsides of Fed's setup is that he doesn't control Nadal's heavy spin too well on his backhand side. A lot of shots go long because as Travlerajm noted, the head light balance makes it harder to control the heavy spin and that seems to be a big factor in Nadal's head to head record. They play pretty similar games ironically.

Really liked you anylization, thanks

I notice that a lot of the time Roger does indeed draw force the opponent into mid court, and always uses angles, ending the point rather quick usually.

So he is made to beat S&V, very interesting

 

[Ripper]

Jmac, try hitting a 100 mph ball with an "off the shelf" APD. Then, come back and explain yourself better. Thanks.

 

[Duzza]

The girl pros maybe. Certainly not the men. At 357g, Fed's racket compared to the rackets of 20 - 30 years ago that McEnroe used is light. I still have my wood ( Dunlop Maxply McEnro ) rackets and they weigh 380 grams dead weight - 378.4 g to be precise. The racket I used most as a kid was a conventional metal slazenger that weighed 393 g, and I had one metal Slazenger XLT25 that weighed 415 g. I also had a Wilson T2000 for a while which Jimmy Connors used and that weighed around 385 g.



I gather you must be pretty young.....

So Johnnie Mac was saying that Fed's racquet is light compared to his era? Because its above average now and i thought he was saying it was light like Nadals.

 

[jackson vile]

So Johnnie Mac was saying that Fed's racquet is light compared to his era? Because its above average now and i thought he was saying it was light like Nadals.

Nadals has lower than average static weight, Roger has way way lower than average SW.

 

[Duzza]

Gotcha
________