Low Static Weight, High Swingweight

[BuildStrikeCosmos]

Hey Everyone, I know this has been touched on before but hopefully some of you are interested in further discussion of this setup and I will start with my experience/thoughts on it.

I've always advocated the opposite (high static, 9pt+ headlight, low swingweight) but in recent years I've started playing with a customised racquet that is polarised, has low static weight, high swingweight. The last time I read about this I saw things like 'low static weight requires head heavy balance to get high swingweight' but then it seems I can still keep my 6pt headlight with a polarised setup as the weight in the head increases the swingweight, yet the counterbalance in the buttcap helps maintain the balance. Good thing is, you dont need alot of lead to polarise which keeps the static weight close to stock (stock for mine was 300g) The advantages appears to be that with a high swingweight I can get the stability, power and the plow, yet the low static weight allows me to whip it with ease and not get too fatigued in a 3 set match with the great additional spin. My flat-ish game has become quite spinny allowing me to create good angles and my hitting partners have said my shots are heavier (short ones sit up unfortunately...I know that feel Rafa). Probably will stick with this for a while as it's really working well for my baseline game. I have noticed that I don't come to the net as often as I use to ever since I've switched to this.

Now try playing with high static weight, low swingweight racquets, I notice the ball doesn't quite jump up or explode off the court after it bounces and by that I mean it loses quite abit of pace after it bounces which might be due to the reduced spin. That's just my experience and I'm sure you all can still destroy the ball with that set up haha because this is tt forum ofcourse.

My friend picked up my racquet the other day and was like "wow it's so light." I told him to swing it and he was like "oh I see..." haha

So I've heard players like Verdasco and several Babolat players use this sort of set up. Not that you should copy the players but just saying. The Head Graphene racquets seem to follow this setup too.

What's your thoughts on it?

 

[FluidTennis]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

So in your experience static weight influences the ease at which you can whip the racquet around, more than swingweight does?

I don't have huge experience in these matters but I always thought that it was swingweight rather than static weight that influences the sense of ease when swinging. At least that's the sense that I get with my Blade 98 18x20 which has a swingweight around 330 and static weight around 331g. After a set I feel pretty tired and can't swing it so easily. I chalk that up to swingweight. But I could be missing something here.

 

[TennisCJC]

Moya, Nadal, Serena and Venus all play with relatively light rackets that have high SW. Generally, the balance is less than 4 HL to even a little HH.

Personally, I don't like to go below 4 HL so I stay in the 4 to 6 HL range. I also think SW is slightly more important than static weight. SW is a good measurement of how much oomph you are going to deliver to the ball impact. I certainly think you could try something in the 4 to 6 HL range with higher SW. For me, SW in the 330-338 range is good but I am opinionated and think no one should use SW less than 320 as the physics of the game demand that at a minimum. The ball coming toward you at 1st serve speed even at intermediate levels demands a certain amount of mass in the head of the frame to handle the incoming pace and spin.

 

[Power Player]

Verdasco used heavy static, low SW That may have changed, but his specs were like 365 static and 315 SW. But that was pretty unique for a pro.

Most pros use really high SWs, which are great but you need to play tennis a lot. I like 325-335 as it's a nice happy medium and 12 ounces static. I like my balance at around 5-6 pts HL. It really boils down to your personal timing and what works for you. The only way to figure it out is to play a lot of tennis. So I'd suggest logging a lot of hours with the higher SW before you make a firm decision there.

Everything you discovered is pretty much the same as what I found. There are pros and cons to both setup, but once I hit the median level of not too heavy, but not light, I found I was all set.

 

[cknobman]

My thoughts on low static weight and high swingweight......

good recipe for tennis elbow

 

[Irvin]

Hey Everyone, ... in recent years I've started playing with a customised racquet that is polarised, has low static weight, high swingweight. The last time I read about this I saw things like 'low static weight requires head heavy balance to get high swingweight' but then it seems I can still keep my 6pt headlight with a polarised setup as the weight in the head increases the swingweight, yet the counterbalance in the buttcap helps maintain the balance. Good thing is, you dont need alot of lead to polarise which keeps the static weight close to stock (stock for mine was 300g) The advantages appears to be that with a high swingweight I can get the stability, power and the plow, yet the low static weight allows me to whip it with ease and not get too fatigued in a 3 set match with the great additional spin. My flat-ish game has become quite spinny allowing me to create good angles and my hitting partners have said my shots are heavier ...

What's your thoughts on it?

Makes a lot a sense to me, and completely understandable. Now this will probably start an argument so I'm going to try to keep it simple. Inertia is the measure of a physical pendulum to remain unchanged (usually measured around the center of mass.) SW is the measure of Inertia around a different axis (usually 10 cm from the butt) and to convert the Inertia to SW the parallel axis theorem is used. SW = (BP-10)(BP-10) + I. If you want to find the SW from the butt it is = (BP)(BP) + I (where I is Inertia.)

So what really makes a big effect on SW is I and BP. On an evenly balanced racket adding weight to the extreme ends has the same effect in raising I, and adding weight at both extremes keeps the BP even. If you're just talking About an axis near the handle adding weight to the head raises I and raises the BP giving you the the highest SW and BP because of the greater difference between the SW axis and the BP.

 

[FluidTennis]

Makes a lot a sense to me, and completely understandable. Now this will probably start an argument so I'm going to try to keep it simple. Inertia is the measure of a physical pendulum to remain unchanged (usually measured around the center of mass.) SW is the measure of Inertia around a different axis (usually 10 cm from the butt) and to convert the Inertia to SW the parallel axis theorem is used. SW = (BP-10)(BP-10) + I. If you want to find the SW from the butt it is = (BP)(BP) + I (where I is Inertia.)

So what really makes a big effect on SW is I and BP. On an evenly balanced racket adding weight to the extreme ends has the same effect in raising I, and adding weight at both extremes keeps the BP even. If you're just talking About an axis near the handle adding weight to the head raises I and raises the BP giving you the the highest SW and BP because of the greater difference between the SW axis and the BP.

Irvin, thanks for setting that out. That helps a lot.

So if we have racquets A and B - A will be harder to swing, simply because of balance. (And are those specs even possible?)

A: Swingweight 330, static weight 331g, Balance 3 points headlight
B: Swingweight 330, static weight 331g, Balance 6 points headlight

 

[Joonas]

Two of my Prestige MPs are specd as follows, strung and overgripped.
Graphene MP: 350g, 32.3cm bal, 338SW
iPrestige MP: 350g, 31.4cm bal, 335 SW

Now which one is easier to move?
-No, not the iPrestige even if it is more headlight.

It is about weight distribution and obviously this particular iPrestige (as many other older platyers frames as well) has more weight concentrated in the middle than the new Prestige iteration.

 

[Irvin]

Irvin, thanks for setting that out. That helps a lot.

So if we have racquets A and B - A will be harder to swing, simply because of balance. (And are those specs even possible?)

A: Swingweight 330, static weight 331g, Balance 3 points headlight
B: Swingweight 330, static weight 331g, Balance 6 points headlight

Actually yes and no, a will be harder to swing because of the SW. Imagine try to swing a tennis racket around a 10 cm pivot point. The only way to do that is to keep the top knuckle of your hand stationary as you swing. Therefore the actual axis for SW is much lower or even off the racket at a point on you arm. If you calculated the distance from the axis to the balance point racket A is harder to swing, and has a higher SW, because of the greater distance from the pivot to balance point.

 

[Irvin]

Two of my Prestige MPs are specd as follows, strung and overgripped.
Graphene MP: 350g, 32.3cm bal, 338SW
iPrestige MP: 350g, 31.4cm bal, 335 SW

Now which one is easier to move?
-No, not the iPrestige even if it is more headlight.

It is about weight distribution and obviously this particular iPrestige (as many other older platyers frames as well) has more weight concentrated in the middle than the new Prestige iteration.

Easier to move? Depends on how the racket is moved. If you just pick it up so that all points on the racket move at the same speed (same direction) they're both the same. If the racket turn on an axis it depends where the axis is.

 

[Irvin]

@Joonas & @FluidTennis seems like neither of you are thinking about Twist Weight which has a big influence on inertia unless the direction of motion is always in path perpendicular to the stringbed.

 

[Joonas]

@Irvin the twistweight has lot to do with the feel of maneuverability, you are absolutely right about that.

Other than that feel of movement for a player is hard to return to certain axis or even double pendulum theories. It is actually "how the thing moves to me in my strokes ".
That's why we have seen these never ending arguments here wheter or not adding weight in certain location can improve maneuverability. According to physics is one thing and applied to each ones strokes is another. These things are not completely separate but at the end of the day it is you, your racket, the ball and your opponent.

 

[Irvin]

@Joonas IMO adding weight anywhere makes a racket less maneuverable. It takes energy to move the weight no matter where the weight is. Adding weight in the butt may make a racket feel lighter in your hand but it will not help you move the racket. Especially more often than not the weight anywhere on the racket is above the axis.

EDIT: But there are those (I'm one of them) who feels as though it is easier to maneuver a more HL racket even though the static weight may be heavier. It all depends on a fine line as to the strength of the player.

 

[BuildStrikeCosmos]

Oh yeah let me clarify before someone nukes me haha. When I said "(high static, 9pt+ headlight, low swingweight)" and "Now try playing with high static weight, low swingweight racquets, I notice the ball doesn't quite jump up or explode off the court after it bounces" I mean relative to the static weight. So an example would be using a 360 static weight racquet with 330 swingweight vs a 310 static weight with 330 swingweight. Same swingweight but the latter just seems to hit a ball with more oomph after it bounces; because of the increased spin? Maybe.

@FluidTennis I dont know all the sciences and the theories but from my experience a high static weight racquet with a high swingweight can be harder to swing and more tiring than a low static weight with a high swingweight racquet. E.g 310g static with 330g swingweight is more manoeuvrable and less tiring than 330g static with 330g swingweight. That's just my experience.

@Power Player yeah I think my swingweight is about 330. Use to like 9pt HL but that was because 6pt HL on a 360g racquet was tiring. About Verdasco, I remembered it incorrectly. Yeah I don't think he's using the low static, high swingweight set up as his swingweight was pretty low.

@cknobman haha yeah if it's HH balance. If you can maintain something like a 6pt HL balance, it should be ok. Indeed I did get golfer's elbow at one point using this set up but that was just because I was messing with my serve and it's gone now.

 

[Irvin]

...So an example would be using a 360 static weight racquet with 330 swingweight vs a 310 static weight with 330 swingweight. Same swingweight but the latter just seems to hit a ball with more oomph after it bounces; because of the increased spin? Maybe...

This is a good case for using a different pivot point rather than the standard 10 cm point. Clearly the higher static weight racket is not moving as fast through the ball making a good case for the racket being harder to swing. SW should be a measure of how hard a racket is to swing.

 

[sma1001]

Makes a lot a sense to me, and completely understandable. Now this will probably start an argument so I'm going to try to keep it simple. Inertia is the measure of a physical pendulum to remain unchanged (usually measured around the center of mass.) SW is the measure of Inertia around a different axis (usually 10 cm from the butt) and to convert the Inertia to SW the parallel axis theorem is used. SW = (BP-10)(BP-10) + I. If you want to find the SW from the butt it is = (BP)(BP) + I (where I is Inertia.)

Why is the axis point not the lower part of the handle where you hold the racquet? Does it not pivot around your wrist? What effect would htat make to SW calcs?

 

[Irvin]

Why is the axis point not the lower part of the handle where you hold the racquet? Does it not pivot around your wrist? What effect would htat make to SW calcs?

SW is very good in determining the weight distribution in a racket but very bad in determining how hard a racket is to swing. If the axis were a point in your wrist your wrist at some point must be motionless and the racket would rotate around it.

When developers were trying to figure out a way to test a racket and eliminate any outside forces they used a 10 cm point. Probably for many reasons, who knows. But the frame does not pivot on a 10 cm axis. If it were the middle of you wrist that would be at about 5 cm. I think it is some point beyond the racket boundaries. I think it depends a lot on your stroke and the physical stature of the player.

 

[sma1001]

SW is very good in determining the weight distribution in a racket but very bad in determining how hard a racket is to swing. If the axis were a point in your wrist your wrist at some point must be motionless and the racket would rotate around it.

When developers were trying to figure out a way to test a racket and eliminate any outside forces they used a 10 cm point. Probably for many reasons, who knows. But the frame does not pivot on a 10 cm axis. If it were the middle of you wrist that would be at about 5 cm. I think it is some point beyond the racket boundaries. I think it depends a lot on your stroke and the physical stature of the player.

Okay, thanks. I suppose i was wondering what effect on numbers that would have. But having thought about that, it's a red herring perhaps as the number is only useful as a comparative tool, not so as to produce an absolute number. Hey ho!