Looking for a racket that hits deep

gino

Hall of Fame
I think he has better technique than I do at least on the FH. But you can see in this vid what he is talking about. We were going the the 100 ball rally challenge and just trying to be consistent but you can see how much shorter his balls are landing than mine (hes in the white)


What technique changes should he make?


A few things for your friend (guy in the white):

1. Shoulder/unit turn: He needs to make a more dramatic unit turn on the FH and BH side, which will enable hit to gain more angular momentum and thus hit a more powerful and potent ground stroke (high resultant angular velocity). If you take a close look at the footage, you'll see that his chest is open as he loads up on the backswing for closed stance forehands, a big no-no. Even on open stance groundies, he needs a unit turn to initiate a powerful stroke. He needs to really turn that upper body so that his non-dominant shoulder is pointing in the direction of court he wants to hit into. He does a better job of turning the shoulder on the BH, but the FH needs SERIOUS work and repetition. See Federer's shoulder turn on the open-stance forehand below:



2. Contact point: it's all over the place. Of course, the height of the ball will dictate where you initiate a backswing and find the contact point. He needs to come up with a consistent contact point. For the forehand that should be far enough away from his body that the hitting arm is relatively straight and consistently out in front of his body (FH) and for the 2HBH next to the hip and slightly out in front (BH). Two examples of proper contact points below (for your friend's eastern FH grip [fed/safin] and 2HBH con grip [novak]):





If you watch the footage over again, you'll see your pal is constantly crammed on the FH side and this results in a short ball. He isn't giving this stroke enough room to operate essentially. The farther the contact point away from the hip, the more you can put on that ball. The BH contact point is awfully inconsistent and far too often he strikes the ball beneath the height of his hip. He cannot let that ball drop too far if he wants to hit through it with significant RHS and potency. He has to find that contact point more often next to the hip and really come through the ball (think of knocking books off of shelf with you frame), that's also due to his inability to straighten the left arm and plow through the ball on the two hander. He needs to use that left arm to catch the ball in the same spot every time. Tell him to practice lefty forehands to help him really hone in on the proper 2HBH contact point...

3. WEIGHT TRANSFER: your pal's biggest issue, he really isn't transferring that weight into the court. Some of those forehands he steps forward, but his weight is not shifting. He needs to transfer the weight from the back to the front. He needs to move into or towards the ball to generate more weight behind that ball, despite if it's an open or closed stance shot, you need to create a linear path (vertically for closed stance/horizontal for open stance) towards the ball. That enables the shot/groundie to carry the weight of your body and thus travel harder and faster.

Notice how Novak shifts all of his weight from the back foot (frame 2) to front foot (frame 4) on the 2HBH. This demonstrates the proper use of the kinetic chain and allows us to see what truly creates a potent stroke. Correct mechanics, not lead tape and new weighting techniques.



Let me know how it goes. Hope I can help. PM with questions @Shroud
 
Last edited:
I agree with Gino. No doubt considerations of SW, RA are important. BUT they do not matter when the question pertains to hitting a deep ball. You can get depth with any racquet. Whether you LIKE playing with that racquet, that setup is another matter.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Google Gino Inzerillo: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gino+inzerillo

Also as a 17-year old, I was a hitting partner for Roddick, Sam Querrey, John Isner, and Radek Stephanek at the SAP Open. I was a ballkid for 5 years there and rewarded with the opportunity to be a hitting partner before I left for college. I have felt the weight of an elite ATP level ball. In fact a number one player in the world. Tread lightly my friend :)
Tread lightly? Lmao who do you think you are? Are you a TT god like your pal power player?

Andre Dome and several other top D1 atheletes however used 340sw, and many other ITF pro's are using 340-350 frames (I've spoken to the man who modified their frames for them). In fact I've used sever 100% stock frames that came into 340-350 range. There's a big difference between a 320 and a 340. In fact one of the few guys in the area who held a candle to andre dome (pre ATP tour) was my coach, using 350sw for years. He was one of the very few players to actually have any chance against him from the baseline, however dome was a better mover (age). Dome specifically had weight added at 10-2 to get to a 342~ sw.

Name dropping stupidity doesn't dismiss physics. The physics speak for themselves. The college videos you see of big forehands like the one you posted is some guy detonating flat as a board on the ball. I had my forehand clocked at 93 out in texas with a measly 328 sw six one 90 strung up at 60lbs, and I'm not nearly a "D1 player." It's not hard to hit the ball FAST, it's a low percentage shot regardless who's going for it (an all out detonation). The difference is the spin with the pace.

20-40 swing weight points does not yield a 2-3% increase in spin.

Take Andy Gurst. Great player. Awesome by my standards; a totally competent Opens level player. Averages 1000rpm but nearly 70mph, he uses the same stock racquets a lot of college guys do. Yet pro's like Fed hit 3000rpm and 75mph. Surely ALL TECHNIQUE right? Surely nothing to do with the racquet, federer just breaks the laws of human bio-mechanics and swings the speed of sound, right?

Why do some college guys (like dome) go on to play ATP? And others go on to teach at the country club? Because dome adapted to the game and went to higher SW. I know another Stanford college guy. Never hit with him but he was a grade above me in high school, I think he got a full ride, can't remember. He used stock frames and I watched him hit a few weeks ago. High net margin shots, stays in rallies and then jumps on the short ball. That's what you EXPECT at the college level. But he just simply doesn't have the weight of shot that the pros do.

Although I am wrong about the balls you've experienced the truth remains constant. Angular momentum is king. And that is simply defined as angular inertia (or SW) times angular velocity. Considering you have a minor loss in swing speed, compared to how much inertia you can add to the racquet, you can get more into the ball.

It isn't a coincidence that guys like Gulbis, Tursunov and the likes all use high swing weights. In fact, every good or near pro player I've heard of in this california area uses a higher than 330 swing weight. 330 is like the bare minimum. It's not totally dink land, but absolutely I've seen without fail the best players are using a higher swingweight. Don't even get started about the top pros. Then compare the RPM+MPH differences between the top ATP pros and college guys, and it starts to make sense where the swingweight fits in.

Congrats on hitting with the "elite" I'm sure you feel good about dropping names.
 
Last edited:

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Thanks for the video @Shroud .. you and I have spoken at length about customization techniques here on the boards and I know you understand that I have quite a few years of playing/coaching under my belt..
Notice how Novak shifts all of his weight from the back foot (frame 2) to front foot (frame 4) on the 2HBH. This demonstrates the proper use of the kinetic chain and allows us to see what truly creates a potent stroke. Correct mechanics, not lead tape and new weighting techniques.



Let me know how it goes. Hope I can help. PM with questions @Shroud

I agree with your sentiments towards fixing his mechanics but none the less, I thoroughly disagree with your thoughts that swing weight is purely mental. It's simply not.

I actually watched the video and looked at his form and he is absolutely all over the place. But your statements about swing weight are in my book 90% wrong. It's not going to fix someone swinging with their arm locked sideways onto the ball, not using hips, or core rotation or unit turn. Or having proper recovery or any host of things. But, it can absolutely make an improvement. More improvement than buying a new frame.

If you're a coach, then you know he isn't going to be able to make these changes instantly. More than likely, it will take months and months of practice. At which most point a lot of players fall off the band wagon.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
I'm reinforcing the fact that all of these equipment modifications are simply enabling the player to be more mentally confident while maybe beefing up the power or spin of a ball 2-3% with 20-30pt SW increase.
Disagree 100%
I don't believe a "heavier" frame equates to deeper or more consistent hitting if you can't generate enough RHS to get it through the air....
I can agree with that. No racquet can fix bad form. That's not something I'm trying to debate

Therefore, the true way to increase depth is through utilizing the proper element of the kinetic chain, maintaining consistent weight transfers, generating high Rh speed, and having solid timing/stroke mechanics. The equipment changes simply are the icing on the cake, so to speak. If there is a study published that is able to articulate your point, please share it with me.
A study published for what specifically? There are a lot of tests done for many things.

I have played in the quailes and pre-qualies of many ITF futures. I am very accustomed to what a pro player's ball feels like. I have coached and played at the NCAA level. My point here is that I have trained with many players that use stock frames and hold national NCAA rankings and ATP/ITF points. Tons of these guys use STOCK frames and hit an incredibly deep and consistent ball.
Stock frame means nothing. I've owned stock frames that were supposed to be 328 come in 342, 338 etc. I've seen 330's come in 350+. I've seen 320's come in 340 as well. And 315's in the 330's. Stock just means no weight added. Doesn't mean the swing weight isn't high. So that's generally a moot point. It could also mean they're much lower than they're supposed to be, but nothing too crazy.


Check out Logan Staggs (UCLA) or David Hsu (Stanford) on Youtube. Both are elite D1 players and former training/hitting partners. I grew up with these guys and they play frames bone stock, they most likely hit a heavier and more consistent ball then anyone on this forum (yes, sorry, TonLars and Jason, even you). No matter how much I modified my frames during our junior days I could never hit a heavier or more consistent ball then them, simply because they are better athletes, have better stroke mechanics/timing, generate higher RH speed, and transfer their weight better. Simple as that.
I've seen members from this forum who absolutely out hit those guys without a doubt, like my former coach. Spanks a 100mph winner with ease I've never seen on a public court anywhere else. Also can hit a 130 out wide flat on both sides.

That's great you can link to your buddy's youtube. But it did nothing to "impress" me or change my opinion.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Here are two basic info/links to explore.
First one angular momentum explained, seeing as you understand the mechanics of the stroke, you should look at the formulas to explain this stuff, the numbers involved aren't arbitrary and you can't just say 20sw points is 2-3% because that's just horse. What happens with the ball is absolutely about the transfer of momentum. Not racquet head speed. Momentum. Momentum involves racquet head speed, but it also involves inertia. In terms of angular momentum (a term you and so many other coaches love to use) this is really important to dictating spin. In fact there's a term out there called the "spin weight" of the racquet, and it's very very very strongly linked to the inertia of the frame. And that spin weight is more than just the ability to produce spin, but the ability to resist the balls rotational energy.
http://www.racquetresearch.com/angmom.htm

What happens with the ball is absolutely about the transfer of momentum. Not racquet head speed. Momentum. Momentum involves racquet head speed, but it also involves inertia. That's the same for ALL COLLISIONS in this universe. Not just balls and racquets, but cars, trains, planes, gum hitting the ground. Momentum is king in collisions. Materials outside of racquets gets pretty funky and you have some weird stuff happening, but momentum is absolutely king with tennis. I could run full speed into a line backer all day, and he's still going to lay me out 10/10 at even half the speed.
That racquetresearch site has plenty of info on it. Some of it is outdated, and some opinions I disagree with but a lot of it is very very good.

Next:
You'll see here, that the velocity of the racquet is NOT dependent solely on the intertia of the frame, and that there is a non linear relationship between inertia and swing speed. Combine that with the formulas given in the first link, you will easily recognize although there is a point of diminishing returns, the general consensus is that using the highest swing weight possible [I say effectively, I recommend players being able to use it for 3 hours, but as you know power and sustain ability to continue swinging fast a lot more to do with leg/hip/core strength than it does the weight of the racquet].
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/PUBLICATIONS/49. TennisDPend.pdf
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Furthermore it's funny you talk like the swing weight, recoil weight, and twist weight don't matter, yet both of your racquets in your signature have statistically significant higher than average specs for recoil weight, and twist weight. And even swing weight for that matter. With this crowd, a 330 is "high". 330 is enough to compete at a pretty good college level, that's not a doubt, but the cream of the crop pretty (as in the college players that don't go on to coach vs the ones that go on to ATP tour) consistently are using higher sw. And the only way you can learn to use one, is by using a higher SW.

A lot of college players do like the higher twist weights, because then they just swing away at the ball and not worry about finding the centerline of the frame. It's pretty common. But so are some racquets with lower twist weights. "If twist weight is so important for stability then why do people use lower twist weights?" Lower TW allows for more maneuverability, and with more spin oriented players allows for better racquet face angle manipulation. Furthermore, and more importantly, more spin oriented players have a greater RHS in an "angular" vertical path, yeilding a higher angular momentum. Guess what that does? It increases stability (see this neat as F nasa video where they demonstrate just how much stability is added by increasing angular momentum with CD players

)

Wow funny how all things start to come full circle when you understand some basic physics.

Momentum is king. Go ahead name drop and show some other "totally amazing mind blowing" college players. I've NEVER hit with a college player, or even seen one in real life! Wow they are so good! OMG WOW! You coach them! Wow everything you say must be right! Wow you hit with A-ROD when you were 17 and then went on to coach people! HELL YEAH
 
Last edited:

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
I just want to make one more point which might be the most important one in relation to this thread, and then I'll be done posting in this thread. You notice this kid getting pummeled? How he can't handle the pace? He has no direction on that slice, and it's not purely due to the lack of downward racquet head speed. It's floating into the middle of the court, (and it actually works, because this guy has to over hit to hit through him). When he goes for topspin, its just a scramble "slide up the back of the ball to keep it in" moon ball. I've been there, I've done that.

That is a prime example of not having enough racquet mass to punch through the ball. Sure if he was a 7.0 instead of a college player, he would be able to knife it low and deep regardless the racquet right!? Surely you almighty A-Rod hitting partner, Isner hitting partner, could blast that ball right back with almighty 200mph racquet head speed, right!?

~key side note, higher racquet head speed (like the kind needed to produce the momentum to over come ATP shots, and "big heavy forehands") increases difficulty of timing, thus decreasing margin of error. Higher swing weight allows lower racquet head speeds to be more effective, allowing better directional control. Not only because you have more mass to hit through the ball, but because it increases ball deformation. Increasing ball deformation decreases the impact of the angle of incidence, in other words the ball quite literally bounces off the racquet less, making your shot easier to re-direct~

The place where higher swing weight and consequently higher racquet stability blew my mind most, was on defense. How much easier it was to get the ball back deep, with simple low racquet head speed "punches" or flat, short abbreviated shots. Because, I've had 100mph forehands blown at me. In fact I actually got good at learning when to anticipate them against certain players. Feed a loopy ball to a big hitters forehand (especially someone who likes to flatten the ball out) and expect it down the line. Cheat over, then sprint as soon as you can see how they're lining up. With a high inertia racquet, the backhand crosscourt suddenly becomes a simple 2 handed ping pong like flick over the low part of the net and you get the ball deep. Nothing throws an opponent off like neutralizing or counter punching off one of their biggest shots. I would say the amount of skill needed to pull that shot off is not that great if the racquet is setup properly, most average joe club players could do it really. Court IQ and position is key, but the actual stroke has little to no needed special technique.

Ever seen novak scramble around 20 feet behind the baseline, barely flicking the ball back, but somehow just some magic way getting the ball back past the service line? Oh yeah no that has nothing to do with his swing weight or weight specs. That's all skill.

Tread carefully!!!

There's a lot of physics stuff that's been tested, published, and well accepted about swing weight that disagrees with the stuff you've said.

But there are about a million club coaches who would make the same mistake, so don't take it personally.
 
Last edited:
Shroud, he has a tendency to scoop up the ball on both wings. And the hitting arm kind of stays disconnected from the body. He needs to get body into the shot and hand in hand flatten the trajectory a bit (also make contact a little bit higher for net clearance).
 

Bogdan_TT

Professional
I think he has better technique than I do at least on the FH. But you can see in this vid what he is talking about. We were going the the 100 ball rally challenge and just trying to be consistent but you can see how much shorter his balls are landing than mine (hes in the white)


What technique changes should he make?
Ok, the ball is high enough. He should turn a tad more into the ball, with the shoulder pointing towards where he wants to hit the ball, and hit a bit more through the ball. The racquet should follow the ball on it's rebound trajectory. So far the racquet goes up while the ball goes forward. He's brushing it a tad too much.

Apart of that, nothing major at this level. One step at a time.
 

Bogdan_TT

Professional
Thanks for the video @Shroud .. you and I have spoken at length about customization techniques here on the boards and I know you understand that I have quite a few years of playing/coaching under my belt..

A few things for your friend (guy in the white):

1. Shoulder/unit turn: He needs to make a more dramatic unit turn on the FH and BH side, which will enable hit to gain more angular momentum and thus hit a more powerful and potent ground stroke (high resultant angular velocity). If you take a close look at the footage, you'll see that his chest is open as he loads up on the backswing for closed stance forehands, a big no-no. Even on open stance groundies, he needs a unit turn to initiate a powerful stroke. He needs to really turn that upper body so that his non-dominant shoulder is pointing in the direction of court he wants to hit into. He does a better job of turning the shoulder on the BH, but the FH needs SERIOUS work and repetition. See Federer's shoulder turn on the open-stance forehand below:



2. Contact point: it's all over the place. Of course, the height of the ball will dictate where you initiate a backswing and find the contact point. He needs to come up with a consistent contact point. For the forehand that should be far enough away from his body that the hitting arm is relatively straight and consistently out in front of his body (FH) and for the 2HBH next to the hip and slightly out in front (BH). Two examples of proper contact points below (for your friend's eastern FH grip [fed/safin] and 2HBH con grip [novak]):





If you watch the footage over again, you'll see your pal is constantly crammed on the FH side and this results in a short ball. He isn't giving this stroke enough room to operate essentially. The farther the contact point away from the hip, the more you can put on that ball. The BH contact point is awfully inconsistent and far too often he strikes the ball beneath the height of his hip. He cannot let that ball drop too far if he wants to hit through it with significant RHS and potency. He has to find that contact point more often next to the hip and really come through the ball (think of knocking books off of shelf with you frame), that's also due to his inability to straighten the left arm and plow through the ball on the two hander. He needs to use that left arm to catch the ball in the same spot every time. Tell him to practice lefty forehands to help him really hone in on the proper 2HBH contact point...

3. WEIGHT TRANSFER: your pal's biggest issue, he really isn't transferring that weight into the court. Some of those forehands he steps forward, but his weight is not shifting. He needs to transfer the weight from the back to the front. He needs to move into or towards the ball to generate more weight behind that ball, despite if it's an open or closed stance shot, you need to create a linear path (vertically for closed stance/horizontal for open stance) towards the ball. That enables the shot/groundie to carry the weight of your body and thus travel harder and faster.

Notice how Novak shifts all of his weight from the back foot (frame 2) to front foot (frame 4) on the 2HBH. This demonstrates the proper use of the kinetic chain and allows us to see what truly creates a potent stroke. Correct mechanics, not lead tape and new weighting techniques.



Let me know how it goes. Hope I can help. PM with questions @Shroud
Ok, this answer is miles better than mine. Seen it after I posted.
 

Bogdan_TT

Professional
Wow, people people. Why all the hate?

All of you are right. Technique is important. SW is important.

But, for his friend's sake, let him improve his technique first, and when the technique is better, then he can improve the equipment.

I'm pretty sure that if we give Novak a tweener, with 300SW, he's still gonna be in top 5.

So, Shroud's friend should improve his forehand first. Stop changing sticks. They will not help. BTW, at this stage, a higher SW stick now may do more harm than good, as it will improve lenght while keeping a flawed technique.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
My tennis partner was saying that his Textremes and his Angell werent hitting deep enough and wandered what racket he should get to get more "pop" and consistently hit into no man's land.

Which sticks should he look at?
would recommend Wilson Prostaff rackets. if you like heavy, RF97 or little lighter Prostaff 97
 
I'm pretty sure that if we give Novak a tweener, with 300SW, he's still gonna be in top 5.

So, Shroud's friend should improve his forehand first. Stop changing sticks. They will not help. BTW, at this stage, a higher SW stick now may do more harm than good, as it will improve lenght while keeping a flawed technique.
That he may not because the ATP is so competitive and such a drastic change of equipment won't help him. But it's hardly relevant to the discussion. I really do not know why people start citing the pros to justify their views. I agree with you that changing sticks nor tinkering with the set up doesn't really help. Yes, high SW may deliver more power but you are then also going to need more control to tame all that power. Besides, onto more practical considerations, Shroud already said his friend can't go up too much in weight. So if there has to be a solution sans adding weight or changing technique, then maybe drop string tension but that is also going to make it harder to control. No pain, no gain, at the end of the day. I agree completely, he is just brushing up too much on the ball. IMO a somewhat better problem to have than not being able to brush at all which results in the ball hitting the fence all day.
 

gino

Hall of Fame
Tread lightly? Lmao who do you think you are? Are you a TT god like your pal power player?

Andre Dome and several other top D1 atheletes however used 340sw, and many other ITF pro's are using 340-350 frames (I've spoken to the man who modified their frames for them). In fact I've used sever 100% stock frames that came into 340-350 range. There's a big difference between a 320 and a 340. In fact one of the few guys in the area who held a candle to andre dome (pre ATP tour) was my coach, using 350sw for years. He was one of the very few players to actually have any chance against him from the baseline, however dome was a better mover (age). Dome specifically had weight added at 10-2 to get to a 342~ sw.

Name dropping stupidity doesn't dismiss physics. The physics speak for themselves. The college videos you see of big forehands like the one you posted is some guy detonating flat as a board on the ball. I had my forehand clocked at 93 out in texas with a measly 328 sw six one 90 strung up at 60lbs, and I'm not nearly a "D1 player." It's not hard to hit the ball FAST, it's a low percentage shot regardless who's going for it (an all out detonation). The difference is the spin with the pace.

20-40 swing weight points does not yield a 2-3% increase in spin.

Take Andy Gurst. Great player. Awesome by my standards; a totally competent Opens level player. Averages 1000rpm but nearly 70mph, he uses the same stock racquets a lot of college guys do. Yet pro's like Fed hit 3000rpm and 75mph. Surely ALL TECHNIQUE right? Surely nothing to do with the racquet, federer just breaks the laws of human bio-mechanics and swings the speed of sound, right?

Why do some college guys (like dome) go on to play ATP? And others go on to teach at the country club? Because dome adapted to the game and went to higher SW. I know another Stanford college guy. Never hit with him but he was a grade above me in high school, I think he got a full ride, can't remember. He used stock frames and I watched him hit a few weeks ago. High net margin shots, stays in rallies and then jumps on the short ball. That's what you EXPECT at the college level. But he just simply doesn't have the weight of shot that the pros do.

Although I am wrong about the balls you've experienced the truth remains constant. Angular momentum is king. And that is simply defined as angular inertia (or SW) times angular velocity. Considering you have a minor loss in swing speed, compared to how much inertia you can add to the racquet, you can get more into the ball.

It isn't a coincidence that guys like Gulbis, Tursunov and the likes all use high swing weights. In fact, every good or near pro player I've heard of in this california area uses a higher than 330 swing weight. 330 is like the bare minimum. It's not totally dink land, but absolutely I've seen without fail the best players are using a higher swingweight. Don't even get started about the top pros. Then compare the RPM+MPH differences between the top ATP pros and college guys, and it starts to make sense where the swingweight fits in.

Congrats on hitting with the "elite" I'm sure you feel good about dropping names.
I think I am a great tennis player and coach. Something I've earned.

For reference, I have a great relationship with Paul Reed. TW master racquet tech. A great guy who understands the game and the technical aspects of racket modification better than anyone I've come across. Paul has shown me the rackets specs for frames he has customized for Andre and I understand the benefits of his setup. He has taught me a lot about racquet tech, but I must reinforce that nothing can instantly improve your game. Nothing that can instantly improve my game. You are a fool to believe that. And yes, Federer is a much more adept at generating RHS and resultant RPMs because he is the best player of all time. His wrist action on the FH side is rivaled by few. Watch tennis.

This post seems very emotionally charged lol. Notice that most of us "elite" players have no problem dropping names and actually talking about technical aspects of the game. It's what tennis is about. Funny enough, you havent said anything about who you are and the expert analysis you are dropping carries zero weight.

Hide behind your veil of physics, cause that's all you've got @RanchDressing .. If you remember, I mentioned numerous times that I believe in the validity of racquet modification. It will not fix @Shroud 's friend's issue. HIS TECHNICAL DEFICIENCIES ARE THE MAIN ISSUE.
 
Last edited:

gino

Hall of Fame
Furthermore it's funny you talk like the swing weight, recoil weight, and twist weight don't matter, yet both of your racquets in your signature have statistically significant higher than average specs for recoil weight, and twist weight. And even swing weight for that matter. With this crowd, a 330 is "high". 330 is enough to compete at a pretty good college level, that's not a doubt, but the cream of the crop pretty (as in the college players that don't go on to coach vs the ones that go on to ATP tour) consistently are using higher sw. And the only way you can learn to use one, is by using a higher SW.

A lot of college players do like the higher twist weights, because then they just swing away at the ball and not worry about finding the centerline of the frame. It's pretty common. But so are some racquets with lower twist weights. "If twist weight is so important for stability then why do people use lower twist weights?" Lower TW allows for more maneuverability, and with more spin oriented players allows for better racquet face angle manipulation. Furthermore, and more importantly, more spin oriented players have a greater RHS in an "angular" vertical path, yeilding a higher angular momentum. Guess what that does? It increases stability (see this neat as F nasa video where they demonstrate just how much stability is added by increasing angular momentum with CD players

)

Wow funny how all things start to come full circle when you understand some basic physics.

Momentum is king. Go ahead name drop and show some other "totally amazing mind blowing" college players. I've NEVER hit with a college player, or even seen one in real life! Wow they are so good! OMG WOW! You coach them! Wow everything you say must be right! Wow you hit with A-ROD when you were 17 and then went on to coach people! HELL YEAH
Someone sounds irked. Maybe you need to get back on the practice court or actually talk about a real way to help @Shroud 's buddy. Cause you havent once backed your claims of knowledge of the actual game of tennis with any aspects of stroke mechanics, footwork, kinetic chains, swing paths, timing, or even mental toughness for that matter. Your argumentative behavior is pretty comical
 
Last edited:

gino

Hall of Fame
Wow, people people. Why all the hate?

All of you are right. Technique is important. SW is important.

But, for his friend's sake, let him improve his technique first, and when the technique is better, then he can improve the equipment.

I'm pretty sure that if we give Novak a tweener, with 300SW, he's still gonna be in top 5.

So, Shroud's friend should improve his forehand first. Stop changing sticks. They will not help. BTW, at this stage, a higher SW stick now may do more harm than good, as it will improve lenght while keeping a flawed technique.
Amen, 10 physicists
 
Last edited:

sma1001

Hall of Fame
you can see in this vid what he is talking about. We were going the the 100 ball rally challenge and just trying to be consistent but you can see how much shorter his balls are landing than mine (hes in the white)
Consistency drills do this to a lot of players. They become conservative pushers. Stop doping that drill altogether, or replace it with a depth drill, so it has to be X number of shots beyond the service line (or some other line you create using a marker). Nothing else is needed, as it's largely in the mind.
 

gino

Hall of Fame
I just want to make one more point which might be the most important one in relation to this thread, and then I'll be done posting in this thread. You notice this kid getting pummeled? How he can't handle the pace? He has no direction on that slice, and it's not purely due to the lack of downward racquet head speed. It's floating into the middle of the court, (and it actually works, because this guy has to over hit to hit through him). When he goes for topspin, its just a scramble "slide up the back of the ball to keep it in" moon ball. I've been there, I've done that.

That is a prime example of not having enough racquet mass to punch through the ball. Sure if he was a 7.0 instead of a college player, he would be able to knife it low and deep regardless the racquet right!? Surely you almighty A-Rod hitting partner, Isner hitting partner, could blast that ball right back with almighty 200mph racquet head speed, right!?

~key side note, higher racquet head speed (like the kind needed to produce the momentum to over come ATP shots, and "big heavy forehands") increases difficulty of timing, thus decreasing margin of error. Higher swing weight allows lower racquet head speeds to be more effective, allowing better directional control. Not only because you have more mass to hit through the ball, but because it increases ball deformation. Increasing ball deformation decreases the impact of the angle of incidence, in other words the ball quite literally bounces off the racquet less, making your shot easier to re-direct~

The place where higher swing weight and consequently higher racquet stability blew my mind most, was on defense. How much easier it was to get the ball back deep, with simple low racquet head speed "punches" or flat, short abbreviated shots. Because, I've had 100mph forehands blown at me. In fact I actually got good at learning when to anticipate them against certain players. Feed a loopy ball to a big hitters forehand (especially someone who likes to flatten the ball out) and expect it down the line. Cheat over, then sprint as soon as you can see how they're lining up. With a high inertia racquet, the backhand crosscourt suddenly becomes a simple 2 handed ping pong like flick over the low part of the net and you get the ball deep. Nothing throws an opponent off like neutralizing or counter punching off one of their biggest shots. I would say the amount of skill needed to pull that shot off is not that great if the racquet is setup properly, most average joe club players could do it really. Court IQ and position is key, but the actual stroke has little to no needed special technique.

Ever seen novak scramble around 20 feet behind the baseline, barely flicking the ball back, but somehow just some magic way getting the ball back past the service line? Oh yeah no that has nothing to do with his swing weight or weight specs. That's all skill.

Tread carefully!!!

There's a lot of physics stuff that's been tested, published, and well accepted about swing weight that disagrees with the stuff you've said.

But there are about a million club coaches who would make the same mistake, so don't take it personally.
HAHAH you've been there? You couldn't win a game off of Logan in a set. Bash logan all you want. He just won the NorCal US Open Sectional qualifier: http://www.usta.com/US-Open/national_playoffs_results/

http://tennislink.usta.com/Tournaments/TournamentHome/Tournament.aspx?T=186094#&&s=7Draws3

WITH a stock frame. He crushed dozens of elite college and professional players. He can beat them without the advantages of racket customization. With a stock 2013 APD.
 

gino

Hall of Fame
all of you are missing the point- he asked for a racquet that hits deep, not technique change or messing around with specifications. I suggest this one- I know Muster isn't hitting that deep here, but it's deep enough:

o_O Trolling is a habit
 

Shroud

G.O.A.T.
Consistency drills do this to a lot of players. They become conservative pushers. Stop doping that drill altogether, or replace it with a depth drill, so it has to be X number of shots beyond the service line (or some other line you create using a marker). Nothing else is needed, as it's largely in the mind.
Lol. Thats the ONLY time we did that drill!! And the last!! I for one had the toughest time holding back.

I bet i couldnt repeat that performance!!! Good idea on the depth drill
 

Shroud

G.O.A.T.
would recommend Wilson Prostaff rackets. if you like heavy, RF97 or little lighter Prostaff 97
Thanks for suggesting a racket or 2. I had the same suggestions except for the RF97 as its too heavy. Prostaff is the ticket i think but he doesnt seem to dig
 

Shroud

G.O.A.T.
Recently i played with a friend who was a complete beginner. He had the $30 Roger Federer racket and we swapped. I couldnt hit passed the net let alone the service line. Yet using my racket he was clocking the ball.

Given time i would have changed my swing to accomodate, but there is something to be said for a high sw and technique
 

gino

Hall of Fame
Recently i played with a friend who was a complete beginner. He had the $30 Roger Federer racket and we swapped. I couldnt hit passed the net let alone the service line. Yet using my racket he was clocking the ball.

Given time i would have changed my swing to accomodate, but there is something to be said for a high sw and technique
Hm. Alright then, you asked for my advice and proceed to entirely ignore it? Fair enough. If he's looking for a quick fix tell him to buy a Babolat, string it with RPM at 40lbs, and apply about 30 grams of lead throughout the hoop. Should bring the SW up to 400 territory, so he won't even be able to generate spin. Terrific. That should do the trick. And tear his arm in half. High SW, static weight, twistweight, and all. Maybe he will stop dropping groundies in the service box, but he will be crushing the back fence.

@Shroud
 
Last edited:

Disgruntled Worker

Professional
Hm. Alright then, you asked for my advice and proceed to entirely ignore it? Fair enough. If he's looking for a quick fix tell him to buy a Babolat, string it with RPM at 40lbs, and apply about 30 grams of lead throughout the hoop. Should bring the SW up to 400 territory, so he won't even be able to generate spin. Terrific. That should do the trick. And tear his arm in half. High SW, static weight, twistweight, and all. Maybe he will stop dropping groundies in the service box, but he will be crushing the back fence.

@Shroud
That's Talk Tennis in a nutshell. We're ALL 6.0s until we actually step onto the court. Then we revert back to 3.0
 

gino

Hall of Fame
That's Talk Tennis in a nutshell. We're ALL 6.0s until we actually step onto the court. Then we revert back to 3.0
I just would appreciate some common courtesy. It took some time out of my day to find snapshots of the particular grips his buddy has. I actually watched the footage 2-3 times to try and help the freakin guy, but to no avail. Immediately looking for the quick fix. He has a whole myriad of problems and I only placed emphasis on 3 key issues i see.

News flash fellas: there is no holy grail, otherwise we would all have the same specs/frame/strings. It's all subjective BS at the end of the day. Yes, physics and the force equation dictates mass and acceleration will yield higher force. That doesn't mean you'll win matches because you have a heavy stick and resultant shot travels fast. Ever heard of Sam Groth? Dude plays with a fat Babolat and can rip serves/groundies, but he isn't in the top 10 is he?????? People are just fickle and scared to commit to real ways to develop their game.
 
Last edited:

ChicagoJack

Hall of Fame
Probably not. Its a dumb word but he is lazy and I think he wants to buy a new racket and have the ball go deeper with the same swing. IMHO its a fools errand because he doesnt want to go heavier or stiffer and doesnt want to lower tension. The only real thing left I think it pattern.
A more open pattern might might actually be worth a try, especially he doesn't want to do anything else. Given the same stroke, a more open pattern will create a higher trajectory over the net. Just few degrees higher, a few inches higher over the net, can translate into several feet of depth.

However, which Textreme does he have? There's 9 models and all but one (the Tour 100P) is 18x20. All the others are 16x19 or 16x18.

J
 
Last edited:

Shroud

G.O.A.T.
Hm. Alright then, you asked for my advice and proceed to entirely ignore it? Fair enough. If he's looking for a quick fix tell him to buy a Babolat, string it with RPM at 40lbs, and apply about 30 grams of lead throughout the hoop. Should bring the SW up to 400 territory, so he won't even be able to generate spin. Terrific. That should do the trick. And tear his arm in half. High SW, static weight, twistweight, and all. Maybe he will stop dropping groundies in the service box, but he will be crushing the back fence.

@Shroud
I am not ignoring your advice Gino. 1st off i have consistently worked on technique. And i have gone high in sw. I see them as both being crucial

My friend however doesnt want to add weight and not sure technque is on his list either.

All i was saying is that the racket can have an impact
 

KaiserW

Hall of Fame
He stands too straight up and more shoulder rotation would help. Bending those knees makes a huge difference.

I find when I get lazy my balls can get loopy. It takes a lot of discipline to consistently hit a good deep ball. But if you can do it no doubt it makes you a much tougher opponent. I love when I play someone that gives me short balls it opens up the court so much.

Anyway I would recommend a lesson with a pro for him. Not cheap but I have done it a few times and it really helps. Well worth the money imo.
 

ChicagoJack

Hall of Fame
Hi @gino, @RanchDressing

I’m hesitant to weigh in on your ongoing debate, because I’ve had super enjoyable conversations with both of you over the years! But I will just do my best to narrow this opinion divide, because you are each pointing to two sides of the same coin. There’s no disparity at all between the available science and what actually happens on the court, you just need to examine all the factors in isolation first, before attempting to string the pieces together.

1. Two Sides Of The Same Coin | Racquet Weight + Swingspeed.
Nobody here will argue the self evident fact, that the two single greatest contributors to ball velocity, are A - Raquet Head Speed, and B - Racquet Weight. ACOR … (Apparent Co-efficient Of Restitution) is a measure of rebound efficiency, a measure of how much efficiently the racquet will convert the incoming ball speed to rebound (outgoing ball speed) Ranch Dressing is 100% correct in stating that racquet weight is the single greatest predictor of a racquets ACOR or “Intrinsic Power”. In fact, there is nearly a direct 1 to 1 relationship btwn swingweight and inherrent racquet power in the center of the stringbed. You can see this correlation right here in the TWU racquet maps, http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/comparepower.cgi where rebound ball velocities of 300+ racquets were recorded. By the way, this TWU data was collected on raquets which were stationary, with the rebound ball speeds measured. The ITF conducted the same tests, but the other way around, with the racquets swinging, and the results were identical.

2. So … “Racquet Power” + Racquet Head Speed (ie. Player Talent) = Shot Speed. But exactly how much does RHS contribute to outgoing ball velocity? and how much does racquet weight contribute? RHS is, in most cases the larger factor, (this is where Gino is correct) however this is a sliding scale. The additional racquet weight is most beneficial when you are swinging slowly, as in a slice backhand or return, and understand that the RHS is practically zero on a volley. Weight REALLY matters on slow strokes. Ever wonder why doubles players play with heavier frames?

3. Racquet mass is a lesser factor when you are swinging as fast as you can, such as in a service motion. So Bunters, Hackers, and Pushers rejoice! Adding mass is a big deal for you, and not such a big deal for a D1 hot shot, and almost no benefit on serve speed.

Consider the following examples to clarify the above points:

- In controlled study with players of average abilities, ball velocity steadily increased as sw increased, while max serving speed stayed the same. That's because on groundies, players are usually not swinging as fast as they can on every stroke. Swinging as fast as you can, on every FH and BH is just going to produce a whole lot of unforced errors. So, we are "dialing it down" intentionally to maintain consistency. The upside is that adding a bit of mass to your frame, will boost ball speed but without altering your groove/timing. What that boils down to is the opportunity see a boost in power while maintaining the same timing that you are accustomed to. It's the old adage, play with the heaviest racquet you can swing comfortably, in its most basic sense.

- Quote “The biggest gains with regards to increasing power would come from increasing mass, while keeping racquet head speed constant. If you could do that, switching from a 250 gram racquet to a 400 grams racquet results in a 15% increase in ball speed on a 100 MPH serve. So you'd get a pretty big bump up to the vicinity of 115 MPH. Unfortunately, it's simply not possible to swing a 400g racquet as fast as a 250g racquet. It is a blunt reality that as mass increases, maximum RHS drops.”
—Lindsey, Cross, Brody, The Physics And Technology Of Tennis

- Quote "In order to serve a ball 100 mph, a player must swing the racquet at a relatively high speed. Most people would guess the racquet needs to be swung about 60 mph or so depending upon the power of the racquet. In fact, the tip of the racquet needs to be swung at about 100 mph, give or take a few mph, depending upon the weight and the weight distribution of the racquet. There is a surprising lesson in this result. That is, the power of the racquet, and the power of the strings has only a small effect on serve speed. The serve speed is just about the same as the tip, regardless of the strings or the racquet. A different string or different frame will change the serve speed by a few mph, but almost all of the power comes directly from the players arm."
-- Rod Cross, And Howard Brody, Chapter 20, Serving Speed, The Physics and Technology of Tennis.
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/The_...e-PHYSICS.html

Last thought. I've been hanging here 11 years. In all that time I have never heard anybody argue that equipment is more important than technique. Ranch Dressing certainly is not arguing that point. Yet gear head bashing is a cottage industry here in the equipment forums. Please understand that gear based replies to gear based questions here in the gear forums isn't inappropriate, it's just called staying on topic. :)

-J
 
Last edited:

Papa Mango

Semi-Pro
Ok.... this escalated quickly :confused:
I am the guy in white, and shame on you @Shroud as the comment about needing the holy grail was made in jest :cool:. I know A racket is not going to fix my issues.
Thanks to all (@gino ,@RanchDressing and all others) for the insights on both technique and equipment.

Technique -
Here is a better video for a look, appreciate all the comment/feedback. I am currently working on extension and hitting through the ball more but since I barely get time to hit once/twice a week, I am not ready to commit to lessons as it takes me a few more hitting sessions in quick succession to get anything through the thick skull/lazy muscles.
I am in the white hat.

Since this is the equipment section, my current racket is the Textreme 100P weighted up to 345gms 7pts HL.
I know I cannot go any higher than that through years of tweaking/testing so going up in weight/SW is a non starter.
I was fairly happy with similarly spec'd EXO3 tours but after 5 years they were getting a little worse for the wear hence the move to the Textremes. They are fairly open patterned for 18x20 but somehow I have not been able to get the height/depth dialed in with this racket. (Yes I know Indian not arrow!)
Shoulder/TE issues also restrict me to stiffer, but willing to try frames upto 64 RA. Just got a Yonex DR98 to demo over the next couple of weeks.
Any other suggestions are welcome.

p.s. it is a new toy thing.. :)
 
Recently i played with a friend who was a complete beginner. He had the $30 Roger Federer racket and we swapped. I couldnt hit passed the net let alone the service line. Yet using my racket he was clocking the ball.

Given time i would have changed my swing to accomodate
, but there is something to be said for a high sw and technique
This is the key. It just takes time to adjust, esp if you are going down in weight because the lighter racquet feels uncomfortable. But I started playing with a racquet similar at that $30 racquet you mentioned. Mine was called a Wilson Advantage, it's a retail racquet. It's the racquet I learnt tennis with and I was getting good depth in the last couple of months I used it (before moving up in weight). I wouldn't want to play with it today because it would require too much of an adjustment.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Hi @gino, @RanchDressing

(deleted to fit)
-J

I've read the Phys Tehc of Tennis, and done so, rather thoroughly. Maybe not some of the later sections of the book, but there are some interesting things to consider when we talk about high racquet head speed and weight addition.

To say that adding weight to the racquet on faster strokes has diminishing returns is, well honestly not totally wrong, but not entirely true.

In fact, I've begun research (thanks to @saleem) to investigate a bit more indepth about the vibration node location. And as many who have played with adjusting recoil weight (or just simply adding weight to both tips of the racquet) can attest, where you add weight changes the nodes of the racquet.

As we know, the most elite players in the world tend to have weight added under their bumper. It's one of the best locations for weight addition (imo for many reasons). Now as most people should recognize (most MRT's will immediately know this), this raises the node locations. By decreasing the distance from the node to the impact location, you always increase power. The other thing that happens as you hit closer to the tip, is you increase the actual impact speed of the racquet compared to lower on the frame. Although in most factory racquets, the energy return at the ~25" location is low, it goes up when you start getting into the higher swing weights, and goes up very noticeably (you don't need any special tools to notice the power bump). This means (and you can check this with the TWU shot creator) the location which gives you THE MOST SPIN, becomes more powerful.

So increasing swing weight goes beyond just increasing the angular inertia the racquet can transfer, it has a multi stage effect. Which is why fed etc can go bats*** with the RPMS. You get more energy return at the location that provides the most spin (which would result in a much slower ball at that point on a stock frame), and you have more inertia. It's a very very useful thing, and allowed me to I would estimate nearly double my spin out put compared to my old racquets.
If you look at the power maps from TWU you'll see that it isn't based solely on the stiffness of the frame, but all measures of the racquet, including the actual node locations, and weight distribution. They just use clever language to omit twist weight, swing weight and recoil weight.
Furthermore, most players as they develop actually hit in the various lengths of the frame for various effects. A lot of people aren't aware, but it's especially common with better players. This change makes striking close to the tip go from a low powered "bad choice" to a very effective choice, and when we talk about improving strokes, it's something that needs to be considered. Players (myself included) anecdotally/subconciously learn that going up there yields little power, and not much spin. And that's not a good thing.

The serve is a unique topic, because I've found with almost all players I work with, there becomes a point where certain swingweights become un-weildy and take more adjustment. Some players can jump right over in an hour, or less, some take a week or two, and some just hit a brick wall. That's all unique to the individual. That being said it's true that the swing weight boosts a lot less on the serve, and that you can serve big with a relatively "light" racquet. However, you still get more dwell time on the serve which means more power. Not a huge amount, but none the less more power on the serve. And again, the best servers in the world serve at the tip, where they have weight, and have a higher node location. So they do technically benefit from it. Just like the phys tech and tennis (I'm quite sure in one of the flex locations) explain you get a pretty sizable energy return boost with stiffer racquets on the serve, when serving from the tip. And that means a real world return on ball speed. Is it 50mph? No. But a free 3-4mph is, free. Throw in a powerful stringbed, with more dwell time, more inertia, higher node locations, and you will have a boost in your serve. Is it worth changing your setup all together for? Not for everyone, but considering you get boosts everywhere else, it's nice for sure.

We've already through and through established that at low velocities the higher SW is very important, and one place where it shines (in my experience above all), is the return of serve. Going from 320 to 350 gave me so much more command over big serves, especially kick serves, and those big flat ones out wide. It was a night and day difference especially with the increased stability.

But I digress. The importance of going to a higher swing weight is beyond just that it can help you handle pace, and create it. As a player I worked with a very good coach for many years. I stagnated (unfortunately). I hit a limit where my strokes were not getting any better. My pace cap was more than I needed, but my spin was limited. Spin was there, but unless I had a lot of pace to work with, it just was not enough. Then I changed to higher specs and the floodgates opened. I was able to do things on court I had been trying to do for so long. More importantly, I had to almost re-learn the sport. (with low sw) I could get away against big hitters with an overly long take back, and wasn't getting punished at all against regular players for taking the ball late. It helped bad habits linger, like relying on a heavy neutral stance on my forehand all the time. Which really put a damper on me learning better footwork/recovery techniques. You simply cannot separate the technique from the equipment and say one is more important than the other.

That's a big cornerstone why I've taken to such a blind crusade to push people to change their equipment. Not just because I improved, but because suddenly all these technique tips that I had learned from Pro's and all the money/time I spent on coaching, got unlocked with a FIVE MINUTE change. It opened up what I could do on the court, and changed the way I played. Suddenly I couldn't' get away with staying neutral on bigger heavier shots. I couldn't simply muscle the ball. If you want your players to get better, a higher weight racquet can be a great catalyst. Since then I've worked with highschool players, and when I want to break some of their habits (usually on elongated reaching behind the back take backs) I give them the maxply. They hit the ball in a shot or two then just struggle. Then sit them down and show them how to abbreviate the take back. It speaks a lot more loudly because then suddenly it's the only way the get to the ball on time, versus their 11 ounce thing.

The consensus has been repeated by many sources; use the highest swing weight you can. It makes for a great cornerstone to re-evaluate your game, and help you learn to play better. And I stand by that, and so far with my time online I've had more than just a few people be very thankful for the changes I encouraged them to make, and that it did change their game. Not all of them were sub 5.0 either.
 
Last edited:

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
I'm pretty sure that if we give Novak a tweener, with 300SW, he's still gonna be in top 5.
No novak would NOT be top 5 with 300sw. No way in hell. He could probably beat most people on here, but it wouldn't be through his weight of shot. Racquet effects technique used, and weight of shot primarily (what you can create+handle). But it won't make you run like you're in wet cement, and ruin your anticipation. He's a good enough mover he could absolutely make it work against probably most rec players. As for top 5, absolutely no way. Would have no power for returns, rotational energy+pace would plummet on the forehand and backhand. That would not work. You can't just drop 70+ swing weight points from a racquet and expect someone to play the same.
 

gino

Hall of Fame
Ok.... this escalated quickly :confused:
I am the guy in white, and shame on you @Shroud as the comment about needing the holy grail was made in jest :cool:. I know A racket is not going to fix my issues.
Thanks to all (@gino ,@RanchDressing and all others) for the insights on both technique and equipment.

Technique -
Here is a better video for a look, appreciate all the comment/feedback. I am currently working on extension and hitting through the ball more but since I barely get time to hit once/twice a week, I am not ready to commit to lessons as it takes me a few more hitting sessions in quick succession to get anything through the thick skull/lazy muscles.
I am in the white hat.

Since this is the equipment section, my current racket is the Textreme 100P weighted up to 345gms 7pts HL.
I know I cannot go any higher than that through years of tweaking/testing so going up in weight/SW is a non starter.
I was fairly happy with similarly spec'd EXO3 tours but after 5 years they were getting a little worse for the wear hence the move to the Textremes. They are fairly open patterned for 18x20 but somehow I have not been able to get the height/depth dialed in with this racket. (Yes I know Indian not arrow!)
Shoulder/TE issues also restrict me to stiffer, but willing to try frames upto 64 RA. Just got a Yonex DR98 to demo over the next couple of weeks.
Any other suggestions are welcome.

p.s. it is a new toy thing.. :)
Reference my previous post for all technical related advice. Best of luck
 

gino

Hall of Fame
Hi @gino, @RanchDressing

I’m hesitant to weigh in on your ongoing debate, because I’ve had super enjoyable conversations with both of you over the years! But I will just do my best to narrow this opinion divide, because you are each pointing to two sides of the same coin. There’s no disparity at all between the available science and what actually happens on the court, you just need to examine all the factors in isolation first, before attempting to string the pieces together.

1. Two Sides Of The Same Coin | Racquet Weight + Swingspeed.
Nobody here will argue the self evident fact, that the two single greatest contributors to ball velocity, are A - Raquet Head Speed, and B - Racquet Weight. ACOR … (Apparent Co-efficient Of Restitution) is a measure of rebound efficiency, a measure of how much efficiently the racquet will convert the incoming ball speed to rebound (outgoing ball speed) Ranch Dressing is 100% correct in stating that racquet weight is the single greatest predictor of a racquets ACOR or “Intrinsic Power”. In fact, there is nearly a direct 1 to 1 relationship btwn swingweight and inherrent racquet power in the center of the stringbed. You can see this correlation right here in the TWU racquet maps, http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/comparepower.cgi where rebound ball velocities of 300+ racquets were recorded. By the way, this TWU data was collected on raquets which were stationary, with the rebound ball speeds measured. The ITF conducted the same tests, but the other way around, with the racquets swinging, and the results were identical.

2. So … “Racquet Power” + Racquet Head Speed (ie. Player Talent) = Shot Speed. But exactly how much does RHS contribute to outgoing ball velocity? and how much does racquet weight contribute? RHS is, in most cases the larger factor, (this is where Gino is correct) however this is a sliding scale. The additional racquet weight is most beneficial when you are swinging slowly, as in a slice backhand or return, and understand that the RHS is practically zero on a volley. Weight REALLY matters on slow strokes. Ever wonder why doubles players play with heavier frames?

3. Racquet mass is a lesser factor when you are swinging as fast as you can, such as in a service motion. So Bunters, Hackers, and Pushers rejoice! Adding mass is a big deal for you, and not such a big deal for a D1 hot shot, and almost no benefit on serve speed.

Consider the following examples to clarify the above points:

- In controlled study with players of average abilities, ball velocity steadily increased as sw increased, while max serving speed stayed the same. That's because on groundies, players are usually not swinging as fast as they can on every stroke. Swinging as fast as you can, on every FH and BH is just going to produce a whole lot of unforced errors. So, we are "dialing it down" intentionally to maintain consistency. The upside is that adding a bit of mass to your frame, will boost ball speed but without altering your groove/timing. What that boils down to is the opportunity see a boost in power while maintaining the same timing that you are accustomed to. It's the old adage, play with the heaviest racquet you can swing comfortably, in its most basic sense.

- Quote “The biggest gains with regards to increasing power would come from increasing mass, while keeping racquet head speed constant. If you could do that, switching from a 250 gram racquet to a 400 grams racquet results in a 15% increase in ball speed on a 100 MPH serve. So you'd get a pretty big bump up to the vicinity of 115 MPH. Unfortunately, it's simply not possible to swing a 400g racquet as fast as a 250g racquet. It is a blunt reality that as mass increases, maximum RHS drops.”
—Lindsey, Cross, Brody, The Physics And Technology Of Tennis

- Quote "In order to serve a ball 100 mph, a player must swing the racquet at a relatively high speed. Most people would guess the racquet needs to be swung about 60 mph or so depending upon the power of the racquet. In fact, the tip of the racquet needs to be swung at about 100 mph, give or take a few mph, depending upon the weight and the weight distribution of the racquet. There is a surprising lesson in this result. That is, the power of the racquet, and the power of the strings has only a small effect on serve speed. The serve speed is just about the same as the tip, regardless of the strings or the racquet. A different string or different frame will change the serve speed by a few mph, but almost all of the power comes directly from the players arm."
-- Rod Cross, And Howard Brody, Chapter 20, Serving Speed, The Physics and Technology of Tennis.
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/The_...e-PHYSICS.html

Last thought. I've been hanging here 11 years. In all that time I have never heard anybody argue that equipment is more important than technique. Ranch Dressing certainly is not arguing that point. Yet gear head bashing is a cottage industry here in the equipment forums. Please understand that gear based replies to gear based questions here in the gear forums isn't inappropriate, it's just called staying on topic. :)

-J
@ChicagoJack really appreciate your honest and unbiased perspective. Some people like to make it personal, like @RanchDressing .. Most likely he is projecting his insecurity onto others by trying to validate his own claims and disprove the simple foundations of our sport. I reached out to him via personal message to try and bury the hatchet earlier today, to no avail. Some people are so self-absorbed. Anyways, great to hear from you and look forward to having some mutually beneficial conversations in the future. You're a class act and quite the gentlemen, @RanchDressing should take some notes on that front.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
@ChicagoJack really appreciate your honest and unbiased perspective. Some people like to make it personal, like @RanchDressing .. Most likely he is projecting his insecurity onto others by trying to validate his own claims and disprove the simple foundations of our sport. I reached out to him via personal message to try and barry the hatchet earlier today, to no avail. Some people are so self-absorbed. Anyways, great to hear from you and look forward to having some mutually beneficial conversations in the future. You're a class act and quite the gentlemen, @RanchDressing should take some notes on that front.
Actually I just got online, I have a lot of messages from people, not just on here but on email, reddit, youtube that I all try to respond. It's my birthday so I wasn't making it a priority. I figured replying to it 10 minutes after this thread wasn't a big deal.

But I just got irked by your narrative, because your claims were flat out wrong about what swing weight can do, and it sounded like a dick measurement to me when you suggested I google you and dropped a bunch of names. I was fine with pretending you didn't have some kind of complex and being like "hey man I don't care, I'm just doing my thing bashing this info into everyone until it sticks" but considering you jump at the opportunity to "be the bigger man", it seems like you're the one with the insecurity to me. Are you a fifteen year old girl or can you wait 10 minutes to respond?
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
That being said I wasn't going to be mad at you for responding that way because I told you I didn't think you had ever had a fast ball at you. So that was fair, but I think you just burned your chance at being cool with me.

Not like I care. This is a forum. Get over it. We can all go to sleep, ain't no boogie monsters out here snatching people up. We had a miscommunication on talk tennis. TALK TENNIS. That's pretty normal and isn't a big deal. My ego isn't hurt, yours shouldn't be. I say what I think no filter, if you don't like it, you are free to ignore me.
 

gino

Hall of Fame
Actually I just got online, I have a lot of messages from people, not just on here but on email, reddit, youtube that I all try to respond. It's my birthday so I wasn't making it a priority. I figured replying to it 10 minutes after this thread wasn't a big deal.

But I just got irked by your narrative, because your claims were flat out wrong about what swing weight can do, and it sounded like a dick measurement to me when you suggested I google you and dropped a bunch of names. I was fine with pretending you didn't have some kind of complex and being like "hey man I don't care, I'm just doing my thing bashing this info into everyone until it sticks" but considering you jump at the opportunity to "be the bigger man", it seems like you're the one with the insecurity to me. Are you a fifteen year old girl or can you wait 10 minutes to respond?
I never invalidated the effects of SW, sure I may have incorrectly approximated the actual physical effects, but that doesn't mean you need to drop the personal hammer and spit flame at my accomplishments. Which are way more most of anyone on this board will achieve in the sport of tennis. So, yes, coaching and playing at the NCAA level is "elite." No matter how sarcastic and personal you want to be.

And considering I sent you that message hours ago I figured you spend 10 mins to send a basic reply before you wrote a dissertation validating your theories. All good. You made a claim about my playing history and I invalidated it. I have had a lot of fast and heavy balls thrown my way. You googled me, you should know I'm 23 (not 15) and have a pretty solid resume to back my claims. No name-dropping or other concrete evidence needed, that seems to irritate you. I'll let my playing history speak for itself. I don't really care if I'm cool with you. Just respect me and the knowledge I've built. Because it's validated by the years of hard work and I don't need anyone's approval. Like I stated in my PM to you, let me provide some advice. No need to attempt to invalidate everything I say, that's way too reactive.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Which are way more most of anyone on this board will achieve in the sport of tennis.
I recognized this tone in your very first post, and that's exactly why you never will get my respect. I'm just barely older than you and I've seen my fair share of college tennis. College tennis players as you know are a dime a dozen, especially here in california. And even the best realistically amount to nothing. You immediately jumped to the measurement contest and that's why you got the response I gave you. I don't like that attitude and never will.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
As for invalidating what you've said, it's physics. PHYSICS. Physics.

If you want to be mr high and mighty better than everyone on the forum and you say stuff that's not on point, you're going to hear it from someone. In this case it was me. So deal with it pal. The rest of it are just opinions and that's useless. But when you start throwing claims up like you're the tennis jesus, and they're wrong, I'm not going to let it slide, not with "im better than everyone" attitude, or any other for that matter
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
I have more respect for the guys who don't try to show off what they've done. Because quite a few of them are on these boards. They're the last to tell you to google them. They carry that unbreakable lining of humility.

I'm not one of those humility guys when it comes to stuff that has caused me to suffer on the court, costed me a lot of money and frustration. And that's the truth about equipment. I take a zero tolerance policy on that because the truth needs to be injected into the spotlight. For too long has the BS flown as the truth and that's my number one goal when I go online. Sorry your ego got in the way.

On the flip side, I do anything I can to help people who want to know more or figure out their weight setup. I respond and treat every person who contacts me about equipment as if they paid me and I work with them on their setup as a friend.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
What is the prosumer version of like a novak style racquet
The closest racquet you can currently get new (I got this from someone who used this racquet to match an actual auction bought racquet, so I can't act like it's my own idea) is the MG Rad MP.

Dr 32342424 will say the flex is totally different, but, flex really only adds power outside the sweet spot (towards the tip), and mainly just changes the response. With the weight added to the racquet, and considering how soft the mg mp rad is, I don't think it's a complaint worthy difference. sub 100$ so that's always good
 
Top