Lower Swingweight=Faster Rqcquet Head Speed=More Spin?

[MoL]

My friend brought up this interesting point of view when she tried my Prestige Tour 600 which has been leaded up 8g at 2 and 10 o'clock, making the SW around 360. According to her opinion, all my shots have such low net clearance because there's not enough spin, which is due to the lack of racket head speed.

I have to admit that I feel a bit depressed at the moment since my swing is, in my opinion, long enough to generate racquet head speed and I can tell that the ball has spin because it will be long without it. The thing is, I can't explain the low trajectory myself. So is it true that low SW equals faster RHS and therefore more spin? I would appreciate it if you weight in.

 

[BagelMe]

I would say yes to this. I justput 6 grams of lead in the hoop of my tc97 and have lost some shape to the ball. However, i can still get a huge amount of spin..just have to be concious of how I want to hit the ball.

That said, more SW has given me so much more controlled power and my slices are "vicious" (according to my hitting partner)

 

[BlueB]

Long stroke doesn't necessarily mean fast RHS...
Low trajectory can be a function of dense string pattern but also of a more horizontal swing path. I'd start the search for higher trajectory by swinging more low to high (brush up). You might discover some extra spin in the process, too.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[West Coast Ace]

My friend brought up this interesting point of view when she tried my Prestige Tour 600 which has been leaded up 8g at 2 and 10 o'clock, making the SW around 360. According to her opinion, all my shots have such low net clearance because there's not enough spin, which is due to the lack of racket head speed.

I have to admit that I feel a bit depressed at the moment since my swing is, in my opinion, long enough to generate racquet head speed and I can tell that the ball has spin because it will be long without it. The thing is, I can't explain the low trajectory myself. So is it true that low SW equals faster RHS and therefore more spin? I would appreciate it if you weight in.

Hard (impossible) to tell without seeing video of your strokes.

Not sure how you (or friend) equate 'length' of swing and net clearance to spin. Spin is created by the 'angle of attack' of the racquet - and wrist/forearm action.

 

[wings56]

more mass in the head... means more potential force into the ball which would lead to more potential for spin. You have to have the strength and stroke to turn that potential into kinetics.

 

[BlueB]

...Prestige Tour 600 which has been leaded up 8g at 2 and 10 o'clock, making the SW around 360.

And, BTW, why do you need 360 SW? From what I remember the stock SW is about 330 - that should be just fine...

 

[LeeD]

Player's should use the most SW they can swing easily, quickly, and for a long time. For some, that's 360 SW. For other's, it might be 310 SW's. Remember, we are not all ATP or WTA players, and being less trained, in worse physical shape, possibly a few years older, and hitting against a slightly weaker ball, we might not need the same racket's at the pros need.
Racket's are cheap. Go out and spend 90 bucks on a MGRad Mid, that's 11 oz, 56 flex, 318 SW, hit with it, and see for yourself. Then add lead slowly and incrementally until you match your current racket. Somewhere along that path, you will find easy spin, good power, good feel, and long lasting.

 

[Shroud]

My friend brought up this interesting point of view when she tried my Prestige Tour 600 which has been leaded up 8g at 2 and 10 o'clock, making the SW around 360. According to her opinion, all my shots have such low net clearance because there's not enough spin, which is due to the lack of racket head speed.

I have to admit that I feel a bit depressed at the moment since my swing is, in my opinion, long enough to generate racquet head speed and I can tell that the ball has spin because it will be long without it. The thing is, I can't explain the low trajectory myself. So is it true that low SW equals faster RHS and therefore more spin? I would appreciate it if you weight in.

I have a hard time with this notion. I have a racket that I played with at 280g, which is super light. I hit pretty good spin and had to swing fast. However when I leaded it up to 337g and a 400+ sw I swear I got as much spin and more power and hit a heavier ball.

What really changed is the launch angle. Its less on the heavier racket and well high launch angles give the PERCEPTION of more spin, but I dont think they necessarily do give more spin....just slow the ball down.

This vid is with the light racket:

Here is the same racket but heavier:

 

[MoL]

And, BTW, why do you need 360 SW? From what I remember the stock SW is about 330 - that should be just fine...

I wish I could provide a more scientific answer, but sadly, that's just a spec I grew up with. My first racquet was a Wilson Aggressor Mid, a old heavy hammer my father used in his university age. Since then, for all the racquets I used, I leaded them up till I got the similar feel.

 

[MoL]

Hard (impossible) to tell without seeing video of your strokes.

Not sure how you (or friend) equate 'length' of swing and net clearance to spin. Spin is created by the 'angle of attack' of the racquet - and wrist/forearm action.

I agree. I use to use an old-fashioned eastern grip and hit rather flat shots. Things start to change when I entered university and realise that everyone is trying to overpower me. If I want to stand my ground, I will have to hit the ball even harder. I tried that tactic for a month and end up having a negative reputation of either hitting winner or unforced error, leaving no game for my peers. Nobody wants to play with any person like that, I presume.

So now I am just working on a stroke that has enough pace but also consistent, and the answer is obvious. I changed my grip to a western grip and tried to "brush" the ball. It's going to take a while to get used to. Maybe since my game has changed, I should tear of some of those lead tapes? I don't know.

 

[Aretium]

I find that a heavier racket forces you to focus on your form and timing. A lighter racket is not as powerful. The spin generated by a lighter racket will be weaker in pace and you won't penetrate the court that well.

 

[MoL]

I have a hard time with this notion. I have a racket that I played with at 280g, which is super light. I hit pretty good spin and had to swing fast. However when I leaded it up to 337g and a 400+ sw I swear I got as much spin and more power and hit a heavier ball.

What really changed is the launch angle. Its less on the heavier racket and well high launch angles give the PERCEPTION of more spin, but I dont think they necessarily do give more spin....just slow the ball down.

This vid is with the light racket:

Here is the same racket but heavier:

It's quite a noticeable difference, isn't it? By the way, nice backhand, Mr. Shroud.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

Use a swingweight that you can wield comfortably. Yours may just be too much for you. And of course you need a more spin oriented swing path if you use a high swingweight, because otherwise the ball may go long.

But in absolute numbers, spin is pretty much the same energy transfer as pace, just in a different plane. So if you're getting more pace with the same swingpath, then you must be getting more spin too. Even if your swing is slower.

 

[movdqa]

I play with a high-swingweight racquet and it's an incredibly powerful frame. So I can put more of my effort into generating spin and not really worry about the amount of pace I hit with. If I hit out with a flat ball with a normal stroke, the ball will go out. I can use a more abbreviated stroke of course.

When I first got these frames, I had trouble generating topspin with them, particularly on the backhand side. Then things got easier with time.

 

[movdqa]

It's quite a noticeable difference, isn't it? By the way, nice backhand, Mr. Shroud.

Yup. Video two - much more solid hits.

 

[sp1derman]

Yes, i wouod have to agree. Although, I would think you would want the heaviest racquet that you could generate the same rhs with as your light racquet. When imparting energy to the ball ke= 1/2mv2. RHS being more important than mass. This of course opens up a can of physics worms that have been debated in some detail on the boards.

 

[movdqa]

You have to factor in muscle development in with increasing swingweight. If you work on hitting topspin with a higher-SW racquet regularly, then the muscles used to generate topspin should get stronger assuming that you're not already doing the same thing in the gym.

 

[happycamperjack]

You have to understand that there are 2 main factors that make up spin: "brush friction" and "snapback". The brush friction is essentially what you get when you try to hit a pingpong ball with spin. A light racquet might give you more head speed, but it also might not have enough plow to create that friction and stability to control the spin when the ball is coming in at a higher momentum. As for snapback, depending on the string, but the racquet with higher stiffness and weight would tend to force this component more as the ball is crushed by the impact of the racquet and thus forcing the snapback. A light racquet might not be able to generate the same amount of snapback thus having less spin generated from it.

So does a lighter racquet give you more spin? Depends how heavy your opponent hit their ball and ho heavy you hit yours.

 

[Thamel90]

For myself, it's negligible. My ability to consistently swing a lower SW racquet compared to how I can swing my higher SW frames (Response 97 or PCG107) on the whole (similar string pattern/stringjob) is so close in terms of consistency & RHS that I'm better off playing the heavier frame. I definitely notice a higher/erratic launch angle from the lower SW frames.

 

[LeeD]

SW is a lot of personal preference, but there ARE tendencies.
Playing against hard hitters, deep hitter's, and/or heavy spin hitters, you could use some weight to counter the effects of the incoming ball.
Playing against weak pusher's, a light SW racket might do really well, giving spin and placement, enough to win without much effort.
But a racket needs to work against most perceived opponent's. Not neccessarily Rafa Nadal, but your peers.

 

[Shroud]

It's quite a noticeable difference, isn't it? By the way, nice backhand, Mr. Shroud.

Yes it is mr. MoL! You go on using that 360 sw racket!!! Its funny because I recall my bh being off that day and frustrating the crap out of me, but the vid doesnt show it, even the unedited one! So thank you!!!

 

[ChicagoJack]

Hi MOL,

Yes. And No.

1. Consider first, that you are not swinging fast as you can, on 80-90% of your shots. You / Me / We / Every Pro / Every Rec Player is intentionally "dialing it down" (whether you know it or not) to avoid shanks, mishits, and for sake of consistency. Sure, there are times when you ARE swinging as fast as you can.. 2nd serve kicker out wide, or you need to nail a dipping passing shot thru a tight space in a dubs match etc. But think of the reverse scenario, just to make the point clear. Adding weight to your existing frame increases ACOR, ie. raw racquet power, which means greater ball speed without disrupting your timing groove.

2. So yes, there is a limit to maximum swing speed and yes, max RHS is related to swingweight. But understand the context, (see point 1) which is that your hand-eye coordination may be the greater limiting factor here.

3. Imagine, that you've taken 200 lessons from a former ATP pro, on your quest to hit with more spin, and you now hit with more spin. Guess what? A ball that is very spinny, with plenty of loft over the net, can also lack pace, and depth, giving your opponent more time to set up his reply. To get that pace back, you can flatten out that shot, or add more mass to your frame. Doh! the endless cycle of all things interrelated

 

[robbo1970]

SW is a lot of personal preference, but there ARE tendencies.
Playing against hard hitters, deep hitter's, and/or heavy spin hitters, you could use some weight to counter the effects of the incoming ball.
Playing against weak pusher's, a light SW racket might do really well, giving spin and placement, enough to win without much effort.
But a racket needs to work against most perceived opponent's. Not neccessarily Rafa Nadal, but your peers.

IMO this is spot on.

It's getting the right balance between manoevrability and RHS and sufficient stability to compliment your natural swing.

Too low a swingweight and I can find my natural swing just moves the racquet too fast and there's a loss of control. Too high a swingweight and it's the opposite effect.

Having the weight is good for blocking, but you need the manoevrability to whip the racquet round quickly into the position you need, the grip you need and to get sufficient speed in the brush on the ball for spin.

But as Lee rightly says, it's a personal thing.

 

[pfrischmann]

I look at it as maximizing what you can do on your X (height) and Y (depth) axis. I can whip a sub 11 ounce racquet with a 310 SW around but it's harder to get depth and pace. It hit's a spinny ball but not a heavy ball. As the stick gets heavier and the SW goes up, I get more depth and less spin as the RHS slows down. It's like finding the right baseball bat for your kid. The heaviest bat you can consistently swing the fastest.

For me, that means a minimum of 2.5 hours of singles. It's amazing how much lighter my racquet has gotten since I've started playing more singles. When I was only playing doubles, the RF-97 was an option, almost..No way in singles. It's like an ounce+ too heavy.

 

[mawashi]

My friend brought up this interesting point of view when she tried my Prestige Tour 600 which has been leaded up 8g at 2 and 10 o'clock, making the SW around 360. According to her opinion, all my shots have such low net clearance because there's not enough spin, which is due to the lack of racket head speed.

I have to admit that I feel a bit depressed at the moment since my swing is, in my opinion, long enough to generate racquet head speed and I can tell that the ball has spin because it will be long without it. The thing is, I can't explain the low trajectory myself. So is it true that low SW equals faster RHS and therefore more spin? I would appreciate it if you weight in.

Lower Swingweight=Faster Rqcquet Head Speed=More Spin?

Yes and no if the point is just to get as fast a RHS as possible then yes however, if it's to get a heavier ball that's more effective against an opponent then simply a lower swingweight isn't the solution.

The truth is somewhere in between, you need enough SW so you can hit through the ball not just have to brush it up all the time, but light enough that you can generate enough RHS to produce a ball that skids or bounces up depending upon the way you shape the ball.

The PT600 is a classic stick and it's designed more for precision than the heavy kickers that come from babs, nothing to be concerned about IMO.

If you have a loose arm and can swing very fast, you can get a fairly light stick and still produce a heavy ball. If on the other hand you can't swing a racquet as fast as the younger kids, you're better off with a stick that has some mass behind it yet light enough that you aren't hampered by the high sw. My limit is around 350 provided the racquet is light enough <355g and hl >9 pts too.

 

[MoL]

Lower Swingweight=Faster Rqcquet Head Speed=More Spin?

Yes and no if the point is just to get as fast a RHS as possible then yes however, if it's to get a heavier ball that's more effective against an opponent then simply a lower swingweight isn't the solution.

The truth is somewhere in between, you need enough SW so you can hit through the ball not just have to brush it up all the time, but light enough that you can generate enough RHS to produce a ball that skids or bounces up depending upon the way you shape the ball.

The PT600 is a classic stick and it's designed more for precision than the heavy kickers that come from babs, nothing to be concerned about IMO.

If you have a loose arm and can swing very fast, you can get a fairly light stick and still produce a heavy ball. If on the other hand you can't swing a racquet as fast as the younger kids, you're better off with a stick that has some mass behind it yet light enough that you aren't hampered by the high sw. My limit is around 350 provided the racquet is light enough <355g and hl >9 pts too.

I don't want to disappoint you but I might be a "young kid" in your eyes because I am 20. My father gave me his PT600 when he thought that I was strong enough to swing it. I have to say that the flexible feel from this old racquet is just amazing.

Before PT, I have used a Wilson Aggressor Mid (till I was 17), Pro Staff 95S and Pro Staff 90. Those are all decent racquets, especially the 90, but they just don't have the magic of a Prestige.

To be fair, I don't mind having a low trajectory since it's easier to control the direction that way, but when I play with those who return every shot with varying angle, pace and spin, it hurts to realise the fact that I can't generate such trajectory. I think I might have to remove some lead tapes to gain RHS, but before that I will certainly try to improve my techniques first.

 

[Mareqnyc]

In my case heavier racquet - much heavier ball with more spin and court penetration no doubt about that.

 

[BlueB]

On a purely anecdotal base, a strong 4.5 player that I know, improved all aspects of his game when he switched from a Pro Staff (one of the old versions) to a light, even balanced 100. His spin and height of trajectory improved a lot, without loss of the pace. Serves now have way more "work" on them, his volleys are about the same or better.

Another 4.0 I play regularly, switched from Pro Staff to Yonex 98, medium weight spec. He also improved everything, except the backhand defensive deep slices.

 

[mawashi]

I don't want to disappoint you but I might be a "young kid" in your eyes because I am 20. My father gave me his PT600 when he thought that I was strong enough to swing it. I have to say that the flexible feel from this old racquet is just amazing.

Before PT, I have used a Wilson Aggressor Mid (till I was 17), Pro Staff 95S and Pro Staff 90. Those are all decent racquets, especially the 90, but they just don't have the magic of a Prestige.

To be fair, I don't mind having a low trajectory since it's easier to control the direction that way, but when I play with those who return every shot with varying angle, pace and spin, it hurts to realise the fact that I can't generate such trajectory. I think I might have to remove some lead tapes to gain RHS, but before that I will certainly try to improve my techniques first.

LOL yes you are young! It's ok to have a fairly low trajectory however, often when I'm pushed and need to hit a winner down the line or when I have to create sharp cross court angles that's when I get into trouble with sticks with low top spin.

I too love the prestiges and having tried more than a few tgk, pts and even the wilson pro stock h22, but after all is said and done, I've accepted the fact that some sticks like the PD, DR100 etc, those with better spin generation is better for my game.

 

[zalive]

Spin comes from technique, from RHS and from SW.
Therefore it's a complex question to answer.

Let's suppose that player keeps the same technique, only makes his swing faster by lowering SW. He will gain on spin with increasing RHS and lose on it by decreasing SW. What will be the end result? Who knows?

One thing to pay attention, if the power of the balls launched drops (which is not uncommon when you drop SW), you may get the perception that spin has increased, if it stays about the same, because of different ratio of spin to speed. If the ball flies slower it looks like it has more spin on it because it's effect on slower balls is bigger - that doesn't mean still the ball is spinnier any.

 

[zalive]

On a purely anecdotal base, a strong 4.5 player that I know, improved all aspects of his game when he switched from a Pro Staff (one of the old versions) to a light, even balanced 100.

The key is bigger racquet's head, as it produces more power and the sweet spot is more generous. The result is less errors, better average power (easier precision), easier and more forgiving for imparting spin...

In my case heavier racquet - much heavier ball with more spin and court penetration no doubt about that.

I'm curious Mareq, whats the end weight of your racquet you currently play with?

 

[Lance L]

I'm not sure about the physics of it, but I can tell you than you should be able to get plenty of spin.
My normal racquet is a 2nd gen Prestige Pro, and this year I've added weight at 12 to get it up to 12oz and 2.5 pts HL. It is an absolute beast, heavy and solid.
I've never hit more topspin in my life. What it feels like is the racquet head has so much mass, it transfers a ton of energy to the ball, and if I'm hitting with a topspin stroke you get tons of spin.

 

[shaneno]

My friend brought up this interesting point of view when she tried my Prestige Tour 600 which has been leaded up 8g at 2 and 10 o'clock, making the SW around 360. According to her opinion, all my shots have such low net clearance because there's not enough spin, which is due to the lack of racket head speed.

I have to admit that I feel a bit depressed at the moment since my swing is, in my opinion, long enough to generate racquet head speed and I can tell that the ball has spin because it will be long without it. The thing is, I can't explain the low trajectory myself. So is it true that low SW equals faster RHS and therefore more spin? I would appreciate it if you weight in.

no, i believe it's more SW = power/spin.... if i remember right? O>O

 

[pfrischmann]

....The heaviest racquet you can consistently swing the fastest. If you can swing a 300SW and a 400SW racquet at the same speed AND trajectory. The heavier SW will produce a much heavier ball. There is a point of diminishing return however. If you doubt this get a ball machine and a roll of lead tape. just keep adding 4" strips of lead at 12:00 and see what happens. It's actually a lot of fun.

 

[zalive]

The heaviest racquet you can consistently swing the fastest. If you can swing a 300SW and a 400SW racquet at the same speed AND trajectory.

I don't see why it is most important to swing fastest you can.
Spin and power do not come just from RHS. They come from SW too. I'm sure guys like Fed or Nole could swing faster consistently with lower SW. Because it's pure physics, high SW limits their RHS. Why do you think they still picked a higher SW?

 

[BlueB]

I don't see why it is most important to swing fastest you can.
Spin and power do not come just from RHS. They come from SW too. I'm sure guys like Fed or Nole could swing faster consistently with lower SW. Because it's pure physics, high SW limits their RHS. Why do you think they still picked a higher SW?

Cause they face very heavy ball from the opponents. They need to be able to block it eficiently too.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[LeeD]

If you just drop feed or hit against lower level player's (than yourself), a light SW racket can hit very spinny balls.
However, once you face a peer, or if the opponent happens to hit one deep hard ball, the light racket just can't power the ball back anymore, and you're hoping for a heavier racket for your next shot.

 

[sma1001]

I agree with lots of what is said on this thread. One thing however that i experience is this: on light racquets i can indeed produce more RHS. However, there comes a point when that is a problem, not a benefit. My rhythm goes because its too easy to simply swipe at the ball, and the form and shape of the shot goes too. So i prefer to have enough weight to slow my down a little, and encourage good form and shape of swing.

 

[pfrischmann]

I don't see why it is most important to swing fastest you can.
Spin and power do not come just from RHS. They come from SW too. I'm sure guys like Fed or Nole could swing faster consistently with lower SW. Because it's pure physics, high SW limits their RHS. Why do you think they still picked a higher SW?

You happened to pick two of the guys with the highest RHS on the tour. Yet they get there very different ways. Fed's racquet is like 12.5 ounces with a sw in the 330's ish. If I remember correctly, Rafa's is under 12 ounces with a 340 SW. These guys are beasts with incredible technique but different technique and very different racquets. They both have very high RHS.

It's a combination of speed ad swingweight. if you have a light stick, you will get tons of spin but it won't be a very heavy ball. If your SW is too high it will flatten out the ball. I think we are saying the same thing. This is pretty proven stuff.

 

[movdqa]

Fed and Rafa are both at least in the 350s for Swingweight. I think that Rafa bumped his to 360 a few years ago but that's from a post that I read here a few years ago.

 

[BlueB]

I think Rafa was in the 340s and bumped up towards 350s... But also talking from memory...

 

[movdqa]

I think Rafa was in the 340s and bumped up towards 350s... But also talking from memory...

From Kiteboard in 2011:

Nadal: mass: 334-336g, sw: 355g Djokovic mass: 360g, sw: 371g. 33 cm or 4.2 pts hl. for Nadal.

 

[pfrischmann]

I'm not sure I agree. There is a USRA site with one of rafa's actual sticks and it's not that high but I'm not sure what era the stick is from. However, it still proves the point that these guys are in insane shape. The fact that Rafa can swing a stick with a 350SW and still generate 84 mph of RHS is just rediculous.

 

[movdqa]

I'm not sure I agree. There is a USRA site with one of rafa's actual sticks and it's not that high but I'm not sure what era the stick is from. However, it still proves the point that these guys are in insane shape. The fact that Rafa can swing a stick with a 350SW and still generate 84 mph of RHS is just rediculous.

Do you have a link?

I saw a story a long time ago which indicated the amount of lead that Nadal uses at 12:00 and that would be consistent with SW in the 350s. If Fed's in the 360s, Djokovic is in the 370s, then I don't see it as unreasonable that Nadal would be in the general vicinity.

 

[pfrischmann]

Check here,
There are a few...If you trust that it's not all made up. Taylor Dent's racquet has a SW of 400!

 

[pfrischmann]

http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html

 

[movdqa]

Check here,
There are a few...If you trust that it's not all made up. Taylor Dent's racquet has a SW of 400!

Those numbers sound reasonable to my.

My current racquets have swingweights of 386. My previous frames are 390 (I use them as backups) and I have a pair that are higher. There are many others here using high-swingweight frames too.

 

[Shroud]

http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html

LOL. Bartoli is rocking a 393 SW and Ivanovic' s is 358....and some guys on this board complain when they get over 335.

For the physics minded here, is it easy to calculate the difference in RHS it would make say with a 335sw vs a 370sw? Assuming the static weight is the same if thats easier. Or is it more complex?

 

[Automatix]

LOL. Bartoli is rocking a 393 SW and Ivanovic' s is 358....and some guys on this board complain when they get over 335.

You know there are a trillion arguments for & against comparing yourself to a pro, even if your talking about a pro woman player.

Most people do not go through a tennis training regime even close to what WTA players go through.
Particular muscles are not trained, they are not as strong & elastic. Even if these girls don't look fit, even if you benchpress more than them, inside they are far better prepared to wield heavier racquets and more importantly, properly use the momentum of the racquet.

And a little joke... why go with Ivanovic & Baroli when Kimiko Date Krum uses a racquet with a swingweight similar to Marion and is older...

Play with what you want if it doesn't injure you.
But do not recommend your choices eagerly as if they are superior to others. Everyone is different.

 

[Readers]

Do you have a link?

I saw a story a long time ago which indicated the amount of lead that Nadal uses at 12:00 and that would be consistent with SW in the 350s. If Fed's in the 360s, Djokovic is in the 370s, then I don't see it as unreasonable that Nadal would be in the general vicinity.

I've read that RF's is around 335 SW.