Looking for a racket that hits deep

gino

Hall of Fame
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.
If you want to discredit and try invalidate what I've achieved, be my guest. That doesnt take away the fact that I have worked hard for what I've achieved and is way more than most of the members of this forum will achieve. If you don't my confident approach. Tough ****. College players are not "a dime a dozen" in California and in fact, only 4% of USTA juniors make it to the USTA level (NCAA Institute). And about .05% of juniors coach at the collegiate level. If you envy fuels your conviction, then go ahead and judge me. I am proud of what I've accomplished. More than you.
 

gino

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
I sure am not "tennis jesus,: that distinction is reserved for ATP players. But I know my sport. You have not contributed on piece of actual technical/physical/mental advice. You really are trying to steer clear of that. So do you.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
If you want to discredit and try invalidate what I've achieved, be my guest. That doesnt take away the fact that I have worked hard for what I've achieved and is way more than most of the members of this forum will achieve. If you don't my confident approach. Tough ****. College players are not "a dime a dozen" in California and in fact, only 4% of USTA juniors make it to the USTA level (NCAA Institute). And about .05% of juniors coach at the collegiate level. If you envy fuels your conviction, then go ahead and judge me. I am proud of what I've accomplished.
You won't even make it to the ATP tour, and even if you reach some kind of professional level, one could make more money working at mcdonalds.

Good players in California are a dime a dozen. They migrate here all over the world. Every decent university has good players that can hit the ball "hard".

Not everyone who plays in college goes onto the team, because some people go to college FOR COLLEGE and get degrees in engineering or actual majors.

I'm least of all envious of you. So yet again you're imagining things.

If you're proud of yourself that's great. If you were so amazing at tennis you'd be on tour right now. So don't even start
 

Fed Kennedy

Legend
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
I get that, but how do you set it up...I am not facing 130 mph serves
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
I sure am not "tennis jesus,: that distinction is reserved for ATP players. But I know my sport. You have not contributed on piece of actual technical/physical/mental advice. You really are trying to steer clear of that. So do you.
Lmao. You're a salty little boy aren't you
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
I get that, but how do you set it up...I am not facing 130 mph serves
Max out your swing weight, but instead of putting weight at 12 o'clock, put it at 3/9. Novak uses the highest twist weight out of everyone and uses that to help his returns/defense big time. Then add weight in the handle to suit your needs for comfort. Aim for a 12+oz racquet and you'll end up with something pretty good. If you want serious number evaluation shoot me a pm and we can exchange some emails and figure it out from there.
 

gino

Hall of Fame
You won't even make it to the ATP tour, and even if you reach some kind of professional level, one could make more money working at mcdonalds.

Good players in California are a dime a dozen. They migrate here all over the world. Every decent university has good players that can hit the ball "hard".

Not everyone who plays in college goes onto the team, because some people go to college FOR COLLEGE and get degrees in engineering or actual majors.

I'm least of all envious of you. So yet again you're imagining things.

If you're proud of yourself that's great. If you were so amazing at tennis you'd be on tour right now. So don't even start
I have a career in finance. I accomplished my tennis-specific goals (being an NCAA coach and player) and have bigger aspirations in my field. IF you didn't play for you college team, you simply weren't good enough. I went to college for college and will continue to pursue a career in finance. Best of luck in whatever you pursue. I am very proud of myself. I am not even close to tour-level talent. I am realistic and understand the basic limitations of my game.You seem to think with a high enough SW you could defend like Novak, that's absolute insanity. Physics are the laws of our planet and universe, but hard work and talent make the player.
 

ChicagoJack

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

All good stuff, and we are on the same page :)

Just want to clarify my meaning there. Diminishing returns is present at maximum RHS. On a serve, for example, you are swinging just about as fast as you can. You can add weight, which will increase your ACOR ie "raw racquet power", but swing speed will drop.

We all know, Newton expressed relationship centuries ago, with F=MA. (Force = Mass times Acceleration) This elegant equation is present every time we pick up a cup of coffee, swing a baseball bat, launch a rocket into outer space or swing a racquet, and is incredibly revealing if you study it closely. Notice that if the mass of the racquet is doubled, the force required to achieve the same acceleration is doubled. Said another way, if the mass is doubled, and the force remains constant, acceleration will be halved.

I'm just a dumb jock. The dumb jock in me translates that last interpretation into tennis terms something like this: If I switch to a racquet that is twice as heavy, and the force available to swing that racquet remains constant, (because I still have the same muscles) then my maximum swing speed will be cut in half. So ... on a serve you can swing a heavier racquet with more rebound power, but your max swing speed will be reduced proportionately. Or, you can swing a lighter, less powerful frame faster, but the racquet has less rebound power in it.

Even if some of our readers don't trust math very much, it's easy to see there is a trade-off here. Want to argue it's not as easy-peazy as F=MA?. Fine by me, because there are lots of other factors at play. However, if you are wondering why serve speeds didn't increase dramatically when we made the jump from heavy wood racquets, to lighter carbon frames in the 80's, F=MA can actually explain a big chunk of that mystery. Again, science isn't at odds with the court. It just explains what we already know.

Ground strokes, however are another story. On groundies, players are not swinging as fast as they can on every stroke. You might unleash your most fierce FH when your guy is rushing the net and you need to nail one at his feet. But swinging as fast as you can on every FH and BH is just going to produce a whole lot of unforced errors. We are "dialing it down" intentionally so to speak to maintain consistency.

Nutshell : So, the amount of additional ball velocity you will get by adding mass varies, depending upon your "energy reserves" you have available. If you are dialing it down quite a bit to maintain consistency, but you are super fit, adding lead is going to help you quite a bit. If the racquet already feels heavy, adding weight isn't going to help much.

More details here, strings, tension, spin, twistweight etc ...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/bigger-serve.485123/#post-7947263

-J
 
Last edited:

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Hi RanchDressing,

All good stuff, and we are on the same page :)

Just want to clarify my meaning there. Diminishing returns is present at maximum RHS. On a serve, for example, you are swinging just about as fast as you can. You can add weight, which will increase your ACOR ie "raw racquet power, but swing speed will drop.

We all know, Newton expressed relationship centuries ago, with F=MA. (Force = Mass times Acceleration) This elegant equation is present every time we pick up a cup of coffee, swing a baseball bat, launch a rocket into outer space or swing a racquet, and is incredibly revealing if you study it closely. Notice that if the mass of the racquet is doubled, the force required to achieve the same acceleration is doubled. Said another way, if the mass is doubled, and the force remains constant, acceleration will be halved.

I'm just a dumb jock. The dumb jock in me translates that last interpretation into tennis terms something like this: If I switch to a racquet that is twice as heavy, and the force available to swing that racquet remains constant, (because I still have the same muscles) then my maximum swing speed will be cut in half. So ... on a serve you can swing a heavier racquet with more rebound power, but your max swing speed will be reduced proportionately. Or, you can swing a lighter, less powerful frame faster, but the racquet has less rebound power in it. It's close to a wash at the end of the day, and that correlates with all the data we have on pro serve speeds for the past couple of decades. F=MA isn't the whole story of course, but it's a good start.

Ground strokes, however are another story. On groundies, players are not swinging as fast as they can on every stroke. You might unleash your most fierce FH when your guy is rushing the net and you need to nail one at his feet. But swinging as fast as you can on every FH and BH is just going to produce a whole lot of unforced errors. We are "dialing it down" intentionally so to speak to maintain consistency. So the amount of additional ball velocity you will get by adding mass varies, depending upon your "energy reserves" you have available. If you are dialing it down quite a bit to maintain consistency, but you are super fit, adding lead is going to help you quite a bit. If the racquet already feels heavy, adding weight isn't going to help much.

More details here, strings, tension, spin, twistweight etc ...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/bigger-serve.485123/#post-7947263

At the end of the day, there's no swingweight or balance. Just a golden zone that works best for you. Even among pro players, swingweights vary wildly. Examples below:

SW 418 ... Andy Murray (Early Career)
SW 405 ... Carlos Moya (2001)
SW 400 ... Taylor Dent (2004)
SW 394 ... Marion Bartoli
SW 381 ... Gasquet
SW 357 ... Nadal
SW 340 ... Andre Agassi
SW 333 ... Chardy (2009)
SW 323 ... Schiavone (2009
SW 313 ... Kafelnikov

Grab Bag Of Legacy Specs:
http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs/grab_bag.html

2009 BNP Paribas Open Stringer's Log:
http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs/2009bnp_paribas_open.html

-J
I'm well aware of greg raven's numbers, as well as a few others ;)

But we're on the same page, nothing I said is new to you etc etc

I very very recently got feds new specs or at least one of the new specs on the rf97a and it was interesting. I also heard murray went back up. Cool to see the pros tinker too. Except they actually have stuff riding on the line!
 

gino

Hall of Fame
Yeah, because Aerospace Engineering at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo gives you so much time to play tennis every day. Lmao dude you have such a narrow view of the world. There's something that you'll understand: name dropping. I'm also fairly good with making other things that drop from the sky too.

Every time you seem calmed down you come running back crying. Get over yourself, you're just a human being like everyone else, no better no worse.
That's understandable, but need to make your criticisms hostile. Aerospace is admirable and I appreciate when you give me some more clarity on your situation. I don't see it as flaunting. I am learning more about you. No need for hostile retaliation. You have to come to terms with the fact you picked a school with a great team, so therefore you weren't good enough to play at that level. Hell, I don't know if I could have played at Poly, but that doesn't mean you should belittle others. Back to my original point. Tennis is a game that is founded in hard work, development of stroke mechanics, and physical fitness. SW and racquet tech are important though
 
Last edited:

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
That's pretty beastly. Aerospace is admirable and I appreciate when you give me some more clarity on your situation. I don't see it as flaunting. I am learning more about you. No need for hostile retaliation. You have to come to terms with the fact you picked a school with a great team, so therefore you weren't good enough to play at that level. Hell, I don't know if I could have played at Poly, but that doesn't mean you should belittle others. Back to my original point. Tennis is a game that is founded in hard work, development of stroke mechanics, and physical fitness. SW and racquet tech are important though
I think we can give it a rest. I'm not going to change your feelings on it and you're not going to change mine. We were both trying to make our points heard and we did that. The rest is up to whoever is here to read it all (mercy on their soul).

Either way get the best coaching you can, and the best racquet setup you can. Simple enough right?
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Ranch what is your take on the physics of grip size?
Pretty simple. Smaller (relationally to your hand) grips give a greater force couple in the wrist (from phys and tech of tennis). Even fed has said he uses his grip size (small for his hand) to get a bit more spin. Nadal 4 1/4" (really is, seent it wit mah eyes), same reason.
That will hurt manuverability however what I've found. The twist weigh of the racquet changes the resistance to twisting on impact, and during racquet face angle changes. So for a volley player for example, that would hurt. You're using a smaller pulley, to rotate the racquet pretty straight forward.
Take novak, he's at 4 3/8 + 2 OG. Much bigger than nadal. But he has a much much much higher twist weight.

So if you were looking for a lot of spin it makes sense on a lot of levels to go with smaller grip size, and low twist weight. If you wanted a really forgiving stable racquet, a slightly bigger one can be help full (less drawbacks on the weight, but that racquet setup can fit someone who has a less spin oriented stroke style)

It's personal preference ultimately. But those are the phenomenon I've seen. The one thing to stay away from is a really small grip size and a high twist weight. That's the only thing I would say is going to be rough to use.
 

ChicagoJack

Hall of Fame
At the end of the day, there's no magic swingweight or balance, so not much to argue about either! There is just a golden zone that works best for you. Even among pro players, swingweights vary wildly. Crazy examples below:

SW 418 ... Andy Murray (Early Career)
SW 405 ... Carlos Moya (2001)
SW 400 ... Taylor Dent (2004)
SW 394 ... Marion Bartoli
SW 381 ... Gasquet
SW 377 ... Nalbandian
SW 371 ... Djokovic
SW 357 ... Nadal
SW 353 ... P. Rafter
SW 340 ... Andre Agassi
SW 333 ... Chardy (2009)
SW 328 ... Kusnetsova
SW 323 ... Schiavone (2009
SW 318 ... Haynes
SW 315 ... Rodinova
SW 313 ... Kafelnikov

Grab Bag Of Legacy Specs:
http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs/grab_bag.html

2009 BNP Paribas Open Stringer's Log:
http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs/2009bnp_paribas_open.html

-J
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Ranch what is your take on why pros no longer use OS racquets?
Well aside from the POG, were they all that popular? I really can't recall. I was very young. So aside from following agassi religiously, I can't remember too many guys over 100

If you look at novaks frame, he has the stability more than what most stock oversized frames had. So he gets that "forgiveness" (to an extent), but has the control of the 95. With smaller heads (like the midplus) you get more control, but still more power/spin/bigger usable string bed size than the mids. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw everyone go to bigger heads if more stiffer strings became popular, but with this trend of softer and softer poly's I imagine most of the future ATP/WTA players are learning on sub 100 frames to help balance the power out. Only conjecture though.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Like when you put in context that kevlar was very popular, oversized frames make sense. The longer the string length, the softer the stringbed effectively becomes. Also why you'd see a lot of 90's with natural gut. Kind of a balancing act between power and control.
 

KaiserW

Hall of Fame
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.
What is your racquet?
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
What is your racquet?
I have two.
Two vcore 97 "310", 363 sw, 389g, 32.X (balance escapes me at the moment), RPM Team 16 black @ 28kg full bed. I had three, but I literally left one on the court because I was distracted flying a drone.
The other is a chinese prostaff 97 replica, dialed into fed's specs the hard way for my youtube channel, but I'm trying to transition to this one full time. Was ~355 sw, 32.2cm bal, 364 tonic mains, rpm team crosses at 26.5/25.5gk. Specs changed because someone sent me Fed's updated stats and I'm giving it a whirl. My intent is to review it and all that jazz. Plays real nice. SW is right about where I like it anyway (might lower it a tad to low 350's), but otherwise its right up my alley (I shift between 350-360 often, 340's seem a bit light now, and 360's sometimes on faster courts feels a little much). Those sw specs are in 27" config, and the balance/mass is at the 27.1" config (racquets a tad long, .4 cm to be exact, if you choke up just that extra bit, it makes it effectively the same)

My favorite (which I basically replicated the swinging feel of with the 97) is my dunlop max ply. 380sw, some ridiculous balance point, 14+oz. Just a beastly stick. Amazing what modern strokes and a woodie do together.

What do you own?
 
Last edited:

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Papa hit's with heavy topspin, and unless he clear's the net by 4 feet, meaning 7' high as the ball clear's the net, it's going short. He doesn't have the swing speed of a 19 year old 4.5 level player.
His current racket is the Prince 100 Green thing, sorta light, but not too light for 4.0.
With so much topspin, it's easy to lower the targeting and hit short, but safe, meaning it goes IN, but can be attacked.
That's why I don't like the "100" ball challenge. It encourages safe hitting, which is not aggressive hitting needed for match play.
He's sort of a paradox. Really quick, great reactions, great volleys and overheads, but tends to sit back and counter punch.
 

KaiserW

Hall of Fame
I have two.
Two vcore 97 "310", 363 sw, 389g, 32.X (balance escapes me at the moment), RPM Team 16 black @ 28kg full bed. I had three, but I literally left one on the court because I was distracted flying a drone.
The other is a chinese prostaff 97 replica, dialed into fed's specs the hard way for my youtube channel, but I'm trying to transition to this one full time. Was ~355 sw, 32.2cm bal, 364 tonic mains, rpm team crosses at 26.5/25.5gk. Specs changed because someone sent me Fed's updated stats and I'm giving it a whirl. My intent is to review it and all that jazz. Plays real nice. SW is right about where I like it anyway (might lower it a tad to low 350's), but otherwise its right up my alley (I shift between 350-360 often, 340's seem a bit light now, and 360's sometimes on faster courts feels a little much). Those sw specs are in 27" config, and the balance/mass is at the 27.1" config (racquets a tad long, .4 cm to be exact, if you choke up just that extra bit, it makes it effectively the same)

My favorite (which I basically replicated the swinging feel of with the 97) is my dunlop max ply. 380sw, some ridiculous balance point, 14+oz. Just a beastly stick. Amazing what modern strokes and a woodie do together.

What do you own?
I am using the RF97. Recently I have thought about going a little lighter though but everytime I play with my RF I say to myself I can't see myself switching. Just so solid and stable with good swingweight. As you mentioned in one of your posts this is most beneficial in return of serve. I find this to be absolutely true, my return of serve has always been a strength of mine but since switching to the RF it is evem better.

The one thing I notice with a higher swingweight racquet is I need to commit fully to each groundstroke. If I lazily half swing ball will go into the net. With a lighter racquet I can get away with it. It is worth the trade-off at least for now. I just hit a heavier deeper ball with the RF than anything else I have tried. So for now I will stick with it even though in a long match I do start to tire some. I guess the answer is work ony conditioning not go lighter.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
I am using the RF97. Recently I have thought about going a little lighter though but everytime I play with my RF I say to myself I can't see myself switching. Just so solid and stable with good swingweight. As you mentioned in one of your posts this is most beneficial in return of serve. I find this to be absolutely true, my return of serve has always been a strength of mine but since switching to the RF it is evem better.

The one thing I notice with a higher swingweight racquet is I need to commit fully to each groundstroke. If I lazily half swing ball will go into the net. With a lighter racquet I can get away with it. It is worth the trade-off at least for now. I just hit a heavier deeper ball with the RF than anything else I have tried. So for now I will stick with it even though in a long match I do start to tire some. I guess the answer is work ony conditioning not go lighter.
If you can derive more of you power from your hips, and strengthen those, you can create more power, longer.

Monster walks are good, and so are body weight exercises for hip flexor muscles. Also core obviously. If you go on youtube and look up somax hip trainer for tennis, you can see a great video showing how the hips can help add power. You can also re-create that 300$ machine with some resistance bands if you tie one end to something sturdy and pin (with your hand) the other end around the front corner your hips make. You can also do tossing a medicine ball emphasizing your hip rotation, but that requires either another person, or a little trampoline thingy to bounce it back to you.

Hip strengthening added power to my shots, and helped a lot when I moved up in swing weight. And learning that somax motion while exercising your hip, really helps get you rotating your body for your RHS
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
I am using the RF97. Recently I have thought about going a little lighter though but everytime I play with my RF I say to myself I can't see myself switching. Just so solid and stable with good swingweight. As you mentioned in one of your posts this is most beneficial in return of serve. I find this to be absolutely true, my return of serve has always been a strength of mine but since switching to the RF it is evem better.

The one thing I notice with a higher swingweight racquet is I need to commit fully to each groundstroke. If I lazily half swing ball will go into the net. With a lighter racquet I can get away with it. It is worth the trade-off at least for now. I just hit a heavier deeper ball with the RF than anything else I have tried. So for now I will stick with it even though in a long match I do start to tire some. I guess the answer is work ony conditioning not go lighter.
But yeah that twist weight especially on the rf97a is going to be real nice on returns, a bit of extra forgiveness and like you said extra swing weight really helps. It almost makes it feel like you're flicking a ping pong ball sometimes
 

KaiserW

Hall of Fame
If you can derive more of you power from your hips, and strengthen those, you can create more power, longer.

Monster walks are good, and so are body weight exercises for hip flexor muscles. Also core obviously. If you go on youtube and look up somax hip trainer for tennis, you can see a great video showing how the hips can help add power. You can also re-create that 300$ machine with some resistance bands if you tie one end to something sturdy and pin (with your hand) the other end around the front corner your hips make. You can also do tossing a medicine ball emphasizing your hip rotation, but that requires either another person, or a little trampoline thingy to bounce it back to you.

Hip strengthening added power to my shots, and helped a lot when I moved up in swing weight. And learning that somax motion while exercising your hip, really helps get you rotating your body for your RHS
Cool I will check out. Never really thought about hip strengthening.
 

KaiserW

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.. :)
What strings do you use? I have found that since switching to gut/poly my ball is heavier and deeper. Might be worth trying.
 

Power Player

Talk Tennis Guru
The one thing I notice with a higher swingweight racquet is I need to commit fully to each groundstroke. If I lazily half swing ball will go into the net. With a lighter racquet I can get away with it. It is worth the trade-off at least for now. I just hit a heavier deeper ball with the RF than anything else I have tried. So for now I will stick with it even though in a long match I do start to tire some. I guess the answer is work ony conditioning not go lighter.
Yeah, there is no exact science to what will work for 99% of players. That is part of the madness and fun of the sport. Logging a lot of court time and seeing what you win with under pressure is a big help. My main frame is an Angell 95 and it's 342/330/6 pts hl. I keep coming back to these specs because they just work for my game. It's easy to hit a heavy ball and handle incoming pace. Is it as solid as a frame that swings at 350? Nah. It's not at that level, but more important than any frame is making sure you are making contact out in front. If you can't make contact out in front with the bigger SW, then it won't benefit you much.

I have a Yonex XI 98 that I leaded up a long time ago and then never really messed with it. It's a killer frame, but in stock form, the SW was crazy light and I had to swing way too hard to get anything on the ball. Now the specs are 355 grams, 353 SW, balance of 4 pts. I was playing league tennis so I just went with what I knew and forgot about it in my closet. But I don't play competitive in the summers here so I'll take it out for a ride and compare it to the Angell in terms of spec.

The main benefit for high SW to me, would not be as much about handling huge pace, even though that is always nice. The main thing is to save energy each swing. It sounds counterintuitive to use a heavy frame to save energy, but if you can swing a bit slower and more in control, while maintaining the same pace and spin, your consistency and energy should be higher. I have rather high RHS and generate a lot of spin, but it's common for me to swing too hard too often with light frames.

Whatever weight helps you keep your foot on the gas without making errors is the way to go. It just takes a lot of court time and experimentation to figure it out. And at the end of the day, if your footwork sucks, and you are not in position for each shot, it won't matter that much.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
What strings do you use? I have found that since switching to gut/poly my ball is heavier and deeper. Might be worth trying.
I have tonic and rpm team in the chinese stick. I used to use only hybrids like that a while ago. I'm trying it again, hoping for the lower swing weight with the more open patter + gut to get me a little bit more power. Some public courts are just so washed out and others have much more grip on the ball. I like a bit less SW on the faster courts, just gives me a bit more margin if I get in a sticky situation. Don't get me wrong I love the 380's, I just feel like half the time I'm swinging slowly to make sure I don't over hit, and I feel like at 350 or so I could be swinging pretty much near max RHS. Pretty sure I get more pace and spin with the 350 range. Who knows I might go back even to that oddly useful 347 number again.
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
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?
If you stand on the edge of the Grand Canyon you can hit deep with any racket and the ball will go where no man wants to land.
 

gino

Hall of Fame
At the end of the day, there's no magic swingweight or balance, so not much to argue about either! There is just a golden zone that works best for you. Even among pro players, swingweights vary wildly. Crazy examples below:

SW 418 ... Andy Murray (Early Career)
SW 405 ... Carlos Moya (2001)
SW 400 ... Taylor Dent (2004)
SW 394 ... Marion Bartoli
SW 381 ... Gasquet
SW 377 ... Nalbandian
SW 371 ... Djokovic
SW 357 ... Nadal
SW 353 ... P. Rafter
SW 340 ... Andre Agassi
SW 333 ... Chardy (2009)
SW 328 ... Kusnetsova
SW 323 ... Schiavone (2009
SW 318 ... Haynes
SW 315 ... Rodinova
SW 313 ... Kafelnikov

Grab Bag Of Legacy Specs:
http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs/grab_bag.html

2009 BNP Paribas Open Stringer's Log:
http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs/2009bnp_paribas_open.html

-J
@ChicagoJack

This is a huge point I was trying to articulate. So much of the "science" behind SW, twistweight, and static weight is subjective and relative. Once you're over a certain hump, so to speak, you have the freedom to be who you want to be. There's no magic remedy or solution. Simply it's dependent on your playing style, strength, and preferences. So who am I do diagnose a perfect setup for @Papa Mango ? That's not fair. What's fair is giving him some solid technical advice he can use. I know he can use. Give it three weeks and if you apply some of those principles consistently. You won't drop the ball short. Transfer that weight!

Yeah, there is no exact science to what will work for 99% of players. That is part of the madness and fun of the sport. Logging a lot of court time and seeing what you win with under pressure is a big help. My main frame is an Angell 95 and it's 342/330/6 pts hl. I keep coming back to these specs because they just work for my game. It's easy to hit a heavy ball and handle incoming pace. Is it as solid as a frame that swings at 350? Nah. It's not at that level, but more important than any frame is making sure you are making contact out in front. If you can't make contact out in front with the bigger SW, then it won't benefit you much.


I have a Yonex XI 98 that I leaded up a long time ago and then never really messed with it. It's a killer frame, but in stock form, the SW was crazy light and I had to swing way too hard to get anything on the ball. Now the specs are 355 grams, 353 SW, balance of 4 pts. I was playing league tennis so I just went with what I knew and forgot about it in my closet. But I don't play competitive in the summers here so I'll take it out for a ride and compare it to the Angell in terms of spec.

The main benefit for high SW to me, would not be as much about handling huge pace, even though that is always nice. The main thing is to save energy each swing. It sounds counterintuitive to use a heavy frame to save energy, but if you can swing a bit slower and more in control, while maintaining the same pace and spin, your consistency and energy should be higher. I have rather high RHS and generate a lot of spin, but it's common for me to swing too hard too often with light frames.

Whatever weight helps you keep your foot on the gas without making errors is the way to go. It just takes a lot of court time and experimentation to figure it out. And at the end of the day, if your footwork sucks, and you are not in position for each shot, it won't matter that much.
Totallly agree with your assertions here. SW has benefits that are relative to your own ability to jack up that SW. If you bump it from 315-330, are you going to see an astronomical improvement in your game? Probably not. The potency of your shot? Absolutely. You need to hit the practice court and get repetition's on your groundstrokes, serves, volleys, etc to put yourself in a position to grow as a player.

For example, our #1 player at CU this past season played with a stock PureAero. SW of ~325. Our #2 player played with a heavily customized Pure Drive (2014) with a SW of ~370. There is so little between these guys as players, you would think the #2 with a SW of 350 would crush him and hit the ball much bigger and deeper based on science?

...But it's all mental. They battle and our #1 player consistently hits deeper and with more spin, solely because of his technical and physical advantages. A 45 point SW differential should benefit the #2 massively, but it doesn't. His technical ability on the backhand limits his depth, so that's the main culprit of hitting the ball shallow. Technical and kinetic deficiencies. @Power Player
 
Last edited:

gino

Hall of Fame
I think we can give it a rest. I'm not going to change your feelings on it and you're not going to change mine. We were both trying to make our points heard and we did that. The rest is up to whoever is here to read it all (mercy on their soul).

Either way get the best coaching you can, and the best racquet setup you can. Simple enough right?
Amen to that. I think we have to realize it's a marriage of the two. But truthfully we cannot even begin to claimthat SW/racket tech and technical ability are reasonably close in their weight of importance. You seem to believe that as well, but my stubborn mentality threw your narrative into a whole spiral of conviction. I agree, if you can go high SW, high static weight, twistweight, etc. DO IT. Some people like @Papa Mango need to beef up other aspects of their game to consistently place the ball with depth, accuracy, and power. Then go back to the racket science and fine tune from there..
 

gino

Hall of Fame
If you can derive more of you power from your hips, and strengthen those, you can create more power, longer.

Monster walks are good, and so are body weight exercises for hip flexor muscles. Also core obviously. If you go on youtube and look up somax hip trainer for tennis, you can see a great video showing how the hips can help add power. You can also re-create that 300$ machine with some resistance bands if you tie one end to something sturdy and pin (with your hand) the other end around the front corner your hips make. You can also do tossing a medicine ball emphasizing your hip rotation, but that requires either another person, or a little trampoline thingy to bounce it back to you.

Hip strengthening added power to my shots, and helped a lot when I moved up in swing weight. And learning that somax motion while exercising your hip, really helps get you rotating your body for your RHS
Some awesome tips here. Good to see some advice on physical fitness. Could also be of use to @Papa Mango
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Papa has a full time job, wife, two kids, and barely hit's twice a week at night with Shroud.
Wait until YOU get a wife, full time job, two kids, and see how much tennis training YOU do.
 

Power Player

Talk Tennis Guru
I do more crossfit and lifting now than playing tennis, due to the heat and time constraints. Funny thing is my tennis game improved a lot.
 

gino

Hall of Fame
Papa has a full time job, wife, two kids, and barely hit's twice a week at night with Shroud.
Wait until YOU get a wife, full time job, two kids, and see how much tennis training YOU do.
Fair enough. Although, I know some investment bankers that clock 60-70 hours in office weekly, but still find time to get out and hit everyday. I think it's all a matter of priorities. Family and work are often much more important that striking a fuzzy yellow ball with a graphite stick.
 

movdqa

Talk Tennis Guru
Papa has a full time job, wife, two kids, and barely hit's twice a week at night with Shroud.
Wait until YOU get a wife, full time job, two kids, and see how much tennis training YOU do.
You don't have full-time jobs these days. You have companies that want you to work 50-80 hours a week while paying you for 40.

I'm taking care of an injured relative in her 90s right now. Talk about a lot of stress.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
I do more crossfit and lifting now than playing tennis, due to the heat and time constraints. Funny thing is my tennis game improved a lot.
Some old tennis pro once said, if we can get our conditioning and fitness to improve, our overall game would improve more than than the time loss from not actually playing. We all know how to hit the ball, we just often don't arrive in hitting position.
 

Power Player

Talk Tennis Guru
Some old tennis pro once said, if we can get our conditioning and fitness to improve, our overall game would improve more than than the time loss from not actually playing. We all know how to hit the ball, we just often don't arrive in hitting position.
Yep, that is it.

I hit with an All America NCAA girl recently. She uses stock Bab APD with full poly and hits with real nice spin. Pretty heavy ball. When it came to rallying I could hit bigger than her and push her back, but her fitness level is so good. She gets every thing back and keeps it deep into the corners. She plays 4 hours a day and is essentially living and breathing tennis. There really is no substitute for that.
 

KaiserW

Hall of Fame
Yep, that is it.

I hit with an All America NCAA girl recently. She uses stock Bab APD with full poly and hits with real nice spin. Pretty heavy ball. When it came to rallying I could hit bigger than her and push her back, but her fitness level is so good. She gets every thing back and keeps it deep into the corners. She plays 4 hours a day and is essentially living and breathing tennis. There really is no substitute for that.
No doubt when I was playing everyday when I was younger my fitness level was great. Now it is still good but nowhere as good as it was.

I am going to try to improve this aspect. Fitness is especially important when playing someone better than you, no opportunity to take points off if you want to win.
 

Anton

Legend
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?
RF97 - Deep, heavy, easy*
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Cool I will check out. Never really thought about hip strengthening.
It's really good for helping power with more open stances.

The biggest change technique wise you should make to your stroke is basically abbreviating your stroke to the core elements. Like shortening your take back (tons of videos about that) especially making sure you don't reach behind your body. Higher inertia simply means more resistance to acceleration, not at all a limit on the max velocity (acceleration and velocity get thrown around together too easily). The only limit in max rhs is based off how much force you can create with your body (because you essentially bypass the SW with the lag back wrist).

So the more abbreviated take back is super helpful, and so is a more open stance. With a more open stance, you can't turn the same way with a neutral stance. A neutral stance is easy to generate RHS because you naturally want to step through the stroke. Where as an open stance can be difficult if you aren't using your hips to power up the rotation. When getting your hips activated, it really helps in linking the foot/leg/knee then core then shoulders in the stroke, but hips are probably the least used group in rec players. That's why you'll see a lot of atp pros doing hip exercises.

I got lucky and worked with people who trained those muscle groups for me and it really helped. I need to go back and do everything over because of my long break off hitting, but none the less it really works. Basically takes the arm out of the equation (in terms of producing RHS) which is great; because most tennis players don't have bro meat head issue of smaller legs than arms! lol. The more work your legs can do the better really.

There's some saying the spanish had thats like you play tennis with your legs or something rather
 

Shroud

G.O.A.T.
At the end of the day, there's no magic swingweight or balance, so not much to argue about either! There is just a golden zone that works best for you. Even among pro players, swingweights vary wildly. Crazy examples below:

SW 418 ... Andy Murray (Early Career)
SW 405 ... Carlos Moya (2001)
SW 400 ... Taylor Dent (2004)
SW 394 ... Marion Bartoli
SW 381 ... Gasquet
SW 377 ... Nalbandian
SW 371 ... Djokovic
SW 357 ... Nadal
SW 353 ... P. Rafter
SW 340 ... Andre Agassi
SW 333 ... Chardy (2009)
SW 328 ... Kusnetsova
SW 323 ... Schiavone (2009
SW 318 ... Haynes
SW 315 ... Rodinova
SW 313 ... Kafelnikov

Grab Bag Of Legacy Specs:
http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs/grab_bag.html

2009 BNP Paribas Open Stringer's Log:
http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs/2009bnp_paribas_open.html

-J
cracks me up every time I see that Bartoli had a higher SW than most of the guys on TT....
 

Power Player

Talk Tennis Guru
I logged two hours with the 355 gram 350 SW yonex tonight. The weather was extremely humid, and the string bed (kirschbaum red) was very old and mercifully broke by the end of the session.

It's been a long while since I used this frame, so it will take more sessions than one, but here are my initial findings :

- You need to have the technique. I have been playing tennis since I was a kid and recently took lessons with a player who was in the top 500. I don't play nearly as much now, but I still play 4.5 USTA leagues once or twice a year. Anyway, I am not the best player in the world but I know how to use my core to hit the ball and keep my arms loose. That is super key with SW this high. You have to be committed to moving your feet, turning your shoulders quickly and getting in position to hit the ball. This is also why a player who does these things can succeed in tennis with an array of different specs.

- High SW benefits a compact stroke. My 2 handed backhand is pretty abbreviated and my forehand is not far behind. It is extremely easy to hit the ball deep without using much energy if you have that style of stroke. By that I mean, you just need to know how to throw your hip into the shot to generate the pace.

- You have to trust the frame. If you are used to lighter frames it is easy to overswing at times. For example, shots that pull you wide where you need to go for a big one can be hit a lot more relaxed with the heavier frame. Overswinging without applying heavy spin will result in a long ball or an off line shot.

- Your serve needs to be on point. I had not served in weeks and it was not any easier with the heavier frame for a while. I was able to settle in and hit some heavy twists to get me out of a jam and hold serve.

I have plenty of time to mess around and see how this goes. It is extremely rare for me to try a high SW frame and not like it initially. The way the frame pancakes the ball and feels so solid is always a better sensation than a light, vibrating racquet. I will need to restring the frame, play more guys and see if I can lock in with it and play more consistently. It's not magic or a game changer though. You will need to be dialed in and committed to working hard or the extra weight will just make it even more difficult.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Bartoli used 2 hands on every groundie, so double the power and control.
Her serve was nothing to speak of, one handed.
Kimiko Date uses a heavier racket, weight and SW.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
I"m stuck around 12 oz's and 325 SW's, as everything is a compromise, between groundies, serve, volleys, quick reaction shots, and 5th set of the day.
When I was a kid, I could use a 12.4 oz racket with 344 SW, but that was 6 year's ago.
 
Top