magic of light racquets?

[PrinceMoron]

Thats called a heavy racket isnt it? lol

If I was after a light racket to then add 110g, I think I'd just buy a heavy racket and not waste my time and money on a $35 roll of lead tape.

$35 on a roll of tape is a whole lot cheaper than buying a heavy racquet, then buying a lighter one. If in doubt, buy light and add lead.

Taking the bumper guard off a K88 won't make much of a difference. Could always go down the gym I guess, but memberships are expensive.

 

[spectastic]

lazy feet gets me more than anything else. But I prefer heavier rackets because you can afford to have a slower and more controlled swing, whereas lighter rackets require you to swing a little faster at the sacrifice of precision and stability. This is especially true if you want to hit heavy balls.

 

[robbo1970]

$35 on a roll of tape is a whole lot cheaper than buying a heavy racquet, then buying a lighter one. If in doubt, buy light and add lead.

Taking the bumper guard off a K88 won't make much of a difference. Could always go down the gym I guess, but memberships are expensive.

Yes indeed, and its getting the time to get to the gym between work and family life...I'd end up having no time to play tennis and that would be a disaster!!!

My point was more about getting a racket close enough to the players perfect weight so only a small, cheaper amount of lead is required. Heavier rackets don't always cost more than lighter ones.

I am going to try out some different heavier rackets. My thought is that if I can get a racket of reasonable heft, but one that is quite headlight, I would gain stability and a reduction in effort to obtain depth and power, but retain racket head manouvrability at the net and in defence.

In other words, trying to get the best of both worlds.

 

[spaceman_spiff]

The magic of light rackets is that they allow people to get away with bad technique and/or footwork without getting tired.

For example, the other day I was talking to a guy whose frame weighs practically nothing, and a buddy suggested that he should use my frame, which is pretty beefy. After swinging my frame around a bit, the guy said it wouldn't work for him. He said "I think I can do this (pulls his arm way back with no shoulder turn and swings it forward) faster with my racket than with yours." Of course, someone who arms the ball so much just won't be able to do that with a frame that has any significant amount of mass to it without getting tired pretty quickly or sacrificing a huge amount of swing speed.

So, such people end up with two options: either learn to turn their shoulders and move their feet properly or use a light frame that lets them get away with bad technique and/or footwork.

 

[robbo1970]

I need to find the racket that works effectively when I get my feet and swing right, but also still works if I get it slightly wrong (which I admit does happen a fair bit)

There is a guy I sometimes play who has very good technique. He always seems to have his feet right and he really swings well, but I know for a fact that he uses a 290g strung racket. I think he is just someone who could play well with a frying pan.

Yet I sometimes see guys playing who have really light rackets and awful technique whereby every shot is ballooned up in the air, but they are a nightmare to play against because they get everything back.....just every shot is a moon ball, so as far as technique is concerned, its an ugly game to watch.

Is a racket that is about 315g strung and about 6pts head light going to be a bad set up? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I am learning stuff from you guys all the time.

 

[smirker]

I've had the opposite experience. The heavier I go, the better I play.

With lighter frames I had difficulty with accuracy and consistency. Using heavier frames with smaller heads and dense string beds I can hit with far greater precision. This has been especially true when facing heavy shots which tend to bounce light frames around.

I believe folks can be a bit self delusional the other way around. I see lots of middle aged guys on our courts use large, light frames strung with full poly and trying to hit every shot the same way: Nadal style with massive top spin.

A large, light frame can certainly do that but that type of hitting demands excellent timing that's obviously beyond the reach of most weekend warriors. Thus the frequent shanks from those balding, graying Nadal wannabes.

I was seduced by the Cult of Top Spin but have learned that we low-mid level rec players need a well rounded game. Sure, rip a hard top spin winner off a floater. It's fun and easy and can impress an opponent. But don't be afraid to hit more modest yet easier flat shots deep and hard which are higher percentage shots. For a well rounded rec game heavier frames seem like a real advantage.

very insightful post. I concur completely. Lots of players come to our club (grass courts) and try to play a hard court game (loopy topspin). We play S&V,low slice and driven shots (on the BH side at least) and more often than not we win, sometimes against technically better players. I really struggle to play consistently with anything less than 12oz, perhaps it is a condition of growing up with a heavy graphite stick or just that I find it more effective.

I have several 110z stock racquets but I always end up leading them up, despite trying to like them in stock form.

 

[JackB1]

how much lead tape is "too much". If you add over a certain amount, does it chance the characteristics too much away from stock? I don't think I would ever personally add more than 20 g's total.

 

[bluetrain4]

I think the conclusion to be drawn is that the "magic" comes from an optimum weight/swingweight racquet, whether that be lighter or heavier than a player's current frame with which they are unsatisifed.

 

[Power Player]

The less I tended to arm the ball, the heavier I needed my racquet so the timing wasn't off. I have found 340 grams to be the magic area for me. Still kind of light compared to the classic 12.5-13 oz weight.

 

[LeeD]

Still comes down to how well you play your matches, sets, games, and points.
Hitting by itself is meaningless.

 

[PrinceMoron]

Frequent shanks from those balding, graying Nadal wannabes.

Knew Nadal was balding , but graying too? Shame in one so young.

 

[TennisCJC]

It's not magic, it's simply that you can pull off more tricky shots with the lighter stick.

If I have time to set up and I'm not tired, I can hit a much cleaner heavier ball with a 13oz 370 swingweight racquet. Check back in the 3rd set and see how I'm doing. And obviously, heavy racquets are much better at handling big serves and heavy spin and pace, but most of us don't face enough of that consistently to warrant using a 13oz+ frame.

When it comes to scambling defensive shots, little slice drop dinks, lobs, etc...everything is easier as you go lighter.

My racquets (NXG OS) actually weigh close to 13 oz's out of the box strung with an overgrip and dampener, but they are so head light that they actually feel and play lighter than an even balanced racquet that is an ounce lighter.

My view is exact opposite but I am viewing "light" as under 330 gram SWING WEIGHT.

I find defensive squash shots, blocking fast serves, stab volleys, aggressive punch volleys and defensive loop groundstrokes when under pressure much easier with higher SW. Notice how TW reviewers very frequently say "I needed more weight to handle heavy serves". I think heft helps greatly with all the "small" shots. I also think heft helps with the big shots as you can get plenty of power from a smooth stroke with heft from the racket.

I notice you mention 13 oz. I view that as a heavy racket, you could achieve heft with a much lower weight. Federer and Nadal both have SW in the 350-360 range and both of their rackets weigh less than 13 oz. I don't think I would want a racket with a static weight that high (13+) personally.

I try to stay in the 11.5 - 12.5 oz range for static weight with SW ~335. I may try a little higher SW soon.

 

[Larrysümmers]

was playing with the Npro open? last night. i was really feeling like feliciano lopez out there. the lighter racket just gives me more options and is more comfortable and suited to my game.
i was able to hit my high looping shots, and i was able to flatten it out with ease. reminded me a lot of the APD

 

[BlueB]

It always amazes me that anything lighter then a classic player's frame gets called a "light racquet" on these forums...
To me, heavy frames are over 340 g and/or SW, light would be below 310 g/SW, while all the rest is the middle weight... And that golden middle probably should be where the most of the recreatinal players are at their best.

 

[BreakPoint]

It always amazes me that anything lighter then a classic player's frame gets called a "light racquet" on these forums...
To me, heavy frames are over 340 g and/or SW, light would be below 310 g/SW, while all the rest is the middle weight... And that golden middle probably should be where the most of the recreatinal players are at their best.

Well, wood racquets used to have a sticker on them that designated them as "Light", "Medium", or "Heavy".

"Light" was at least 13 oz. (~370g) strung.
"Medium" was around 14 oz. (~400g) strung.
"Heavy" was around 15 oz. (~430g) and up strung.

 

[BlueB]

Well, wood racquets used to have a sticker on them that designated them as "Light", "Medium", or "Heavy".

"Light" was at least 13 oz. (~370g) strung.
"Medium" was around 14 oz. (~400g) strung.
"Heavy" was around 15 oz. (~430g) and up strung.

Different era, different tech, different weight classification. I grew up playing with woodies, thanks God I don't have to do it anymore
One thing is quite interesting - there is also the 30g classification bracket, that I also suggested for today's racquets...

 

[dman72]

My view is exact opposite but I am viewing "light" as under 330 gram SWING WEIGHT.

I find defensive squash shots, blocking fast serves, stab volleys, aggressive punch volleys and defensive loop groundstrokes when under pressure much easier with higher SW. Notice how TW reviewers very frequently say "I needed more weight to handle heavy serves". I think heft helps greatly with all the "small" shots. I also think heft helps with the big shots as you can get plenty of power from a smooth stroke with heft from the racket.

I notice you mention 13 oz. I view that as a heavy racket, you could achieve heft with a much lower weight. Federer and Nadal both have SW in the 350-360 range and both of their rackets weigh less than 13 oz. I don't think I would want a racket with a static weight that high (13+) personally.

I try to stay in the 11.5 - 12.5 oz range for static weight with SW ~335. I may try a little higher SW soon.

My NXG with overgrip and dampner approaches 13oz, but being that it's 10 pts headlight (by TW's specs) it feels much lighter. SW is abound 330, I believe.

I've done some experimenting with lighter racquets, with near even balance and high swingweights, and they definitely feel more cumbersome, especially over the long haul.

I don't feel heft helps at all with slice and dice and blocking back moderate to slow groundstrokes. Against someone who is blasting the ball, that's a different story.