Maneuvrability does not matter!

Tranqville

Tranqville

Hall of Fame
What most people mean when they say "maneuvrability" is the ability to take back the racquet quickly. But when we play solid tennis, we do early unit turn and take back the racquet with the whole body, so why is maneurability even discussed? To me, it looks more like a low-level player issue, with late rushed takeback and lots of arming of the racquet. Same for one-handed backhand, as discussed in a recent thread: people who want maneuvrability often have poor, wristy technique, arming the ball too much, not using the hips, body coil and shoulder stretch enough.

The only times when maneuvrability does matter is when we have to preprare quickly - on returns or reflex volleys. Even on returns, preparing with the body and not the arm solves the issue completely.

To me, maneuvrabily is about "editing" the swing path around the wrist (not "with" the wrist) to produce topspin, penetrating drive, or a rally ball. I believe the racquet recoil weight is critical for easy control here, not necessarily low swingweight or headlight balance. AS per @Brando system.

In summary - as a community, we got maneuvrability all wrong, and that needs to be fixed. Please stop demanding it. Maneuvrability does not matter!
 
Tranqville said:
What most people mean when they say "maneuvrability" is the ability to take back the racquet quickly. But when we play solid tennis, we do early unit turn and take back the racquet with the whole body, so why is maneurability even discussed? To me, it looks more like a low-level player issue, with late rushed takeback and lots of arming of the racquet. Same for one-handed backhand, as discussed in a recent thread: people who want maneuvrability often have poor, wristy technique, arming the ball too much, not using the hips, body coil and shoulder stretch enough.

The only times when maneuvrability does matter is when we have to preprare quickly - on returns or reflex volleys. Even on returns, preparing with the body and not the arm solves the issue completely.

To me, maneuvrabily is about "editing" the swing path around the wrist (not "with" the wrist) to produce topspin, penetrating drive, or a rally ball. I believe the racquet recoil weight is critical for easy control here, not necessarily low swingweight or headlight balance. AS per @Brando system.

In summary - as a community, we got maneuvrability all wrong, and that needs to be fixed. Please stop demanding it. Maneuvrability does not matter!
Click to expand...
Let me give you a 40 lb sledge hammer and then a Pure Drive.

Let me know which one is easier is easier to unit turn with.

The defense rests your honor
 
Soundbyte said:
Let me give you a 40 lb sledge hammer and then a Pure Drive.

Let me know which one is easier is easier to unit turn with.

The defense rests your honor
Click to expand...

This is a logical mistake of magnification. Average mass of an adult male player is 170 lbs. A typical difference of weight between a racquet considered maneuvrable by TTW community, say Vcore 98 (305g) and less maneuvrable (Blade Pro, 305g) is, give or take, 0 grams. Adding 0 grams to 170 lbs, would not make a unit turn that much different.
 
"Wittgenstein believed that language can be a source of confusion because of its inherent ambiguity, as well as its tendency to be used in different ways by different people. As a result, Wittgenstein argued that it is important to understand the limits of language and to recognize when a speaker's meaning may be unclear or misinterpreted. "

"Maneuvrability" is just such a term that creates much confusion in the community. Time to clarify it!
 
Tranqville said:
"Wittgenstein believed that language can be a source of confusion because of its inherent ambiguity, as well as its tendency to be used in different ways by different people. As a result, Wittgenstein argued that it is important to understand the limits of language and to recognize when a speaker's meaning may be unclear or misinterpreted. "

"Maneuvrability" is just such a term that creates much confusion in the community. Time to clarify it!
Click to expand...
Wittgenstein's whole philosophy would be totally different if he had ever played tennis.
 
Play better opponents who make you hurry your shots - see if maneuverability matters. Having good technique doesn’t preclude wanting a racquet you can swing quickly especially when playing defense. For vertical swings like serves and overheads, higher maneuverability definitely helps with serve speed. Also the more upward component for your ground stroke swing (or more modern the swing), maneuverability matters more - hence the trend of advanced players/pros playing with lighter racquets than in the past.

Everyone has a sweet zone of maneuverability with a defined upper ceiling. Mine might be 330-340 SW (strung with overgrip) balanced at least 5 points HL and for someone else it might be a different top end which is higher or lower. If maneuverability didn’t matter, everyone would play with 400+ SW racquets where the extra mass gives you plowthrough and stability.

I wonder if you believe this or just wanted to start a provocative thread.
 
Tend to agree except for serving. I struggle to get adequate pace and spin when SWs get high (say >360), or with a reasonable SW is combined with a big racket head (say SW 345 and head-size 100sqi+).

For most other shots, if all your practice is done with a log, you will get used to it in a few months.
 
socallefty said:
Having good technique doesn’t preclude wanting a racquet you can swing quickly especially when playing defense.
Click to expand...
We take quick balls by shortening the takeback, staying low to the ground with the feet througt the shot, and making a compact follow through. I'm not sure where's maneuvrability in all of this. If anything, racquets commonly considered less maneuvrable, with high stability, static weight, twistweight and swingweight, are better for these situations. On the tour, counterpunchers typically used heavier frames - Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, Agassi.
 
Last edited:
Grafil Injection said:
Tend to agree except for serving. I struggle to get adequate pace and spin when SWs get high (say >360), or with a reasonable SW is combined with a big racket head (say SW 345 and head-size 100sqi+).
Click to expand...
I dare say, serving has nothing to do with maneuvrability. We are not maneuvring anything to anywhere. We are hitting from a static position, 100% controlled shot. With serving and maximum velocity forehands, we benefit from maximium acceleration associated with lower swingweights and static weight. That's why attacking players, like Alcaraz, prefer lighter frames. That is why Roddick played with a 335g strung, 325 SW in the era where Moya (a counter-puncher) used his PD in 370 SW.
 
Look at his nonsense making its way to Wikipedia article on racquets: "The drawbacks are that heavier rackets have lower maneuverability (reducing reaction time)". Reaction time has nothing to do with the weight of a racquet!
 
Tranqville said:
This is a logical mistake of magnification. Average mass of an adult male player is 170 lbs. A typical difference of weight between a racquet considered maneuvrable by TTW community, say Vcore 98 (305g) and less maneuvrable (Blade Pro, 305g) is, give or take, 0 grams. Adding 0 grams to 170 lbs, would not make a unit turn that much different.
Click to expand...
That's because static weight is, I dare say, static.
Try comparing the swingweight of those two.
If you say swingweight is not connected to a feeling of maneuverability then we can't have a serious discussion.
 
Chairman3 said:
If you say swingweight is not connected to a feeling of maneuverability then we can't have a serious discussion.
Click to expand...
My point is that racquet preparation is done with a unit turn when we play proper tennis, unaffected by the swingweight. Swingweight matters - surprise, surprise - when we actually SWING the racquet.

When a beginner uses the arm to take the racquet back, creating a moment of intertia and having to fight it to stabilize the racquet - then yes, indeed, SW does affect the preparation. That's one of key reasons beginners like light frames.
 
Tranqville said:
I dare say, serving has nothing to do with maneuvrability. We are not maneuvring anything to anywhere. We are hitting from a static position, 100% controlled shot. With serving and maximum velocity forehands, we benefit from maximium acceleration associated with lower swingweights and static weight. That's why attacking players, like Alcaraz, prefer lighter frames. That is why Roddick played with a 335g strung, 325 SW in the era where Moya (a counter-puncher) used his PD in 370 SW.
Click to expand...

If moving the racket from a low point, to as high a point as possible as fast as possible, does not relate to your concept of manoeuvrability, then I think we have different definitions.
 
Grafil Injection said:
If moving the racket from a low point, to as high a point as possible as fast as possible, does not relate to your concept of manoeuvrability, then I think we have different definitions.
Click to expand...

verb: maneuver
1.
move skilfully or carefully.
"the truck was unable to maneuver comfortably in the narrow street"

There was a nice little video by Feel Tennis - "use the racquet as a weight, not as a tool". To me, maneuvrability assumes a mental framework where racquet is used as a tool, guided by hand, moved left and right easily and precisely. It does not assume rapid, powerful, and linear acceleration, rather, quite the opposite.
 
Tranqville said:
verb: maneuver
1.
move skilfully or carefully.
"the truck was unable to maneuver comfortably in the narrow street"

There was a nice little video by Feel Tennis - "use the racquet as a weight, not as a tool". To me, maneuvrability assumes a mental framework where racquet is used as a tool, guided by hand, moved left and right easily and precisely. It does not assume rapid, powerful, and linear acceleration, rather, quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Manoeuvrability generally relates to larger actions like the full tennis swing.

Manipulation would be the word for small precise (usually wrist) changes.
 
Tennis is about the second Newton's Law, F = ma. Reduce the mass, gain acceleration. But tennis is also guided by the third law of motion, which states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the loading phase of the swing, we apply the body mass and racquet mass to stretch muscles and tendons - so the racquet mass helps to load more!
 
Tranqville said:
This is a logical mistake of magnification. Average mass of an adult male player is 170 lbs. A typical difference of weight between a racquet considered maneuvrable by TTW community, say Vcore 98 (305g) and less maneuvrable (Blade Pro, 305g) is, give or take, 0 grams. Adding 0 grams to 170 lbs, would not make a unit turn that much different.
Click to expand...
My use of hyperbole was to make a point that everything has sometype of impact.

What is really being argued is the semantics of the term manueverability. For something like tennis where the term is highly subjective, much like "feel", you're never going to be able to simplify it.

But hey, this is what the Internet is for. Discussions that some may be extremely passionate about while perhaps just as many could not care at all.

Have at it guys!
 
Poster @The_Racketeer defined maneuvrability in an earlier posting: "For me, it's all about getting into position and prepping for the next shot. Someone feeds you forehand all day you aren't going to notice this factor much. It's in match situations when you have to return a blistering serve, adjust to a crazy spinning slice, react to a quick volley, and even crank that racquet back on the 1st half of the serve." to which another poster, @sma1001, responed: "Yes, that's how most if not all of us would see it." This is well aligned with how @socallefty defines it.
 
Soundbyte said:
What is really being argued is the semantics of the term manueverability.
Click to expand...

My point is not so much about semantics. It's more that the TTW use of the term is driven by recreational takeback style and is not applicable to technically sound, unit-turn driven preparation.
 
socallefty said:
Play better opponents who make you hurry your shots - see if maneuverability matters. Having good technique doesn’t preclude wanting a racquet you can swing quickly especially when playing defense. For vertical swings like serves and overheads, higher maneuverability definitely helps with serve speed. Also the more upward component for your ground stroke swing (or more modern the swing), maneuverability matters more - hence the trend of advanced players/pros playing with lighter racquets than in the past.

Everyone has a sweet zone of maneuverability with a defined upper ceiling. Mine might be 330-340 SW (strung with overgrip) balanced at least 5 points HL and for someone else it might be a different top end which is higher or lower. If maneuverability didn’t matter, everyone would play with 400+ SW racquets where the extra mass gives you plowthrough and stability.

I wonder if you believe this or just wanted to start a provocative thread.
Click to expand...
This is the reason people have been going down grip sizes as it makes it easier to hurry your shots I agree manoeuvrability matters
 
You have to perform that unit turn while holding the racket IN THE AIR. Then you have to swing it. If you tape the racket to your *** and do a jumping jack, a single gram won't matter. If you hit a forehand or a serve, it's different, isn't it?

The role of legs/unit turn/hips whatever in the tennis swing is majorly overemphasized. Weight, down to the gram, does matter. Maneuverability is a real thing. Add 2 grams to a golf club, see what happens to your swing.
 
Tranqville said:
What most people mean when they say "maneuvrability" is the ability to take back the racquet quickly. But when we play solid tennis, we do early unit turn and take back the racquet with the whole body, so why is maneurability even discussed? To me, it looks more like a low-level player issue, with late rushed takeback and lots of arming of the racquet. Same for one-handed backhand, as discussed in a recent thread: people who want maneuvrability often have poor, wristy technique, arming the ball too much, not using the hips, body coil and shoulder stretch enough.

The only times when maneuvrability does matter is when we have to preprare quickly - on returns or reflex volleys. Even on returns, preparing with the body and not the arm solves the issue completely.

To me, maneuvrabily is about "editing" the swing path around the wrist (not "with" the wrist) to produce topspin, penetrating drive, or a rally ball. I believe the racquet recoil weight is critical for easy control here, not necessarily low swingweight or headlight balance. AS per @Brando system.

In summary - as a community, we got maneuvrability all wrong, and that needs to be fixed. Please stop demanding it. Maneuvrability does not matter!
Click to expand...

The fact that Pro's racquets are trending lighter and lighter over the years tells you, you're wrong.
 
dr. godmode said:
I generally agree until you find yourself 2 hours into the match and have resorted to hacking to win.
Click to expand...
☝️this right here. As someone who is definitely not in the shape I used to be (or should be), 300-305 grams and 325-30 SW is the top end of my comfort level for static and swingweight. Days of swinging around a 6.1 are over for this guy.

I will say that take back really isn’t how maneuverability matters to me, it’s consistency in swing speed and reflexes over the course of a match.
 
i once read that "you should swing the heaviest setup you can over a period of time", so i am sticking with that.
able to properly move my legs and do unit turn is a nice bonus... lol
 
Tranqville said:
In summary - as a community, we got maneuvrability all wrong, and that needs to be fixed. Please stop demanding it. Maneuvrability does not matter!
Click to expand...
You are 100% correct. Maneuvrability doesn't matter, but maneuverability does matter. You've got maneuverability all wrong, and that needs to be fixed!
 
Tranqville said:
Look at his nonsense making its way to Wikipedia article on racquets: "The drawbacks are that heavier rackets have lower maneuverability (reducing reaction time)". Reaction time has nothing to do with the weight of a racquet!
Click to expand...
perhaps your narrow definition of maneuverability is what's not making sense. from the twu website:

"Swingweight is a measurement of a racquet's resistance to being rotated about an axis going through your hand. A low swingweight makes it easy for the player to swing the racquet (maneuverable). But it also makes it easy for the ball to move the racquet, resulting in loss of power."
 
If we are challenging TTW dogmas, I would question the following:

- Saying there are racquet specs suitable for particular shots like volleys, 1HBHs, slices, doubles, playstyles etc. I am more of the belief that players play well with racquets that have specs similar to what they developed their game with which changes every 1-2 generations. Look at the range of racquet specs used by ATP and WTA pros including singles and doubles players that have similar shots or styles.
- Coming up with racquet specs (including new ones seen only on TTW) that supposedly fit a player’s height or arm length independent of a player’s physical strength/age, level, swing type, play style, racquet history etc.
- Talking about a racquet as if it has immutable performance irrespective of how it is strung. A specific string job (strings, gauge, tension) can completely change a racquet’s power/control/spin/comfort/feel/sweet spot size and one string job just shows a sliver of a racquet’s performance range. If you string with stiff 15g poly at 60 lbs or 17g natural gut at 45 lbs, do you think the racquet’s performance/feel is the same for a player apart from stability and maneuverability?

I think there is a huge placebo effect affecting many that have been on these boards for a long time soaking up all these TTW dogmas. You are not going to find too many coaches or those working for racquet companies in technical roles making these assertions.
 
Last edited:
tele said:
perhaps your narrow definition of maneuverability is what's not making sense. from the twu website:

"Swingweight is a measurement of a racquet's resistance to being rotated about an axis going through your hand. A low swingweight makes it easy for the player to swing the racquet (maneuverable). But it also makes it easy for the ball to move the racquet, resulting in loss of power."
Click to expand...
If we equiate SW with maneuvrability, we don't even need the redundant term. I saw a research that defines maneuvrability much more rigorously, but based on the same idea of measuring inertia.

Identifying the Inertial Properties of a Padel Racket: An Experimental Maneuverability Proposal - PMC

Although the moment of inertia of padel rackets is one of their fundamental properties and of particular interest to the players, hardly any manufacturer specifies the parameter for its rackets. The present paper offers a solution to determine the ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
Tranqville said:
If we equiate SW with maneuvrability, we don't even need the redundant term. I saw a research that defines maneuvrability much more rigorously, but based on the same idea of measuring inertia.

Identifying the Inertial Properties of a Padel Racket: An Experimental Maneuverability Proposal - PMC

Although the moment of inertia of padel rackets is one of their fundamental properties and of particular interest to the players, hardly any manufacturer specifies the parameter for its rackets. The present paper offers a solution to determine the ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
I was not trying to say that swingweight=maneuverability(though I think there is a strong association between them), but rather how easy a racket is to swing is probably commonly considered (including by members of TTW) to be a factor determining how maneuverable a racquet feels. However, you seemed to want to exclude how a racquet swings from the definition of maneuverability, which does not make sense to me(or, based on quickly skimming it, to the authors of the article you linked to).
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter so much if you're a baseliner who does not come to the net. Otherwise, yeah, maneuverability matters big time - even at the baseline especially if you want good racquet acceleration through your shots. And, frankly, all good players venture to the net sometimes making decent maneuverability a necessity.
 
Maneuverability is
the capability of a vehicle, vessel, or object to move, change direction, or alter its position easily and quickly.

Interesting topic. Using the above definition maneuverability to me is a few things. Swingweight or swing inertia is certainly one of them. In general a heavier racket is harder to maneuver from one side to another (FH to BH, or center to with FH orBH). The resistance of the racket to these desired movements and last second changes we have to make based on wind, speed, spin, surface, etc…

A 100g racket will feel significantly more maneuverable to me than a 300g one. To your point I think when comparing 300g +- there are certainly very small returns in “maneuverability” via static weight, but there are IMO significant maneuverability returns based on differences in how that 300g is distributed in Racket A vs B.
 
Manaoverability is less when you have plenty of time and/or early prep, but more when you're pushed out wide and on the run.
 
Grafil Injection said:
Tend to agree except for serving. I struggle to get adequate pace and spin when SWs get high (say >360), or with a reasonable SW is combined with a big racket head (say SW 345 and head-size 100sqi+).

For most other shots, if all your practice is done with a log, you will get used to it in a few months.
Click to expand...
Weird. I use sw over 400 and have been using 512sw. I serve so much better than with light racquets.

Lightweight gets more spin for sure but its not as heavy.
 
Shroud said:
Weird. I use sw over 400 and have been using 512sw. I serve so much better than with light racquets.

Lightweight gets more spin for sure but its not as heavy.
Click to expand...

I don't have any rackets of your calibre, but I do agree that the results of serving with beefy sticks can be excellent. For example, my MAX 150Gs, which are around 370sw, hit pulverising serves.

However, combine 370sw with a large-headed racket, and I feel it's hard work pronating and swinging through.
 
Unit turns - more like kinetic chains instead for myself and most other players I work with. Unit turns today more for volleys with other shots more about storing up energy through kinetic principles.
Manoeuvrability - I think a better way to look at this is to consider it as dexterity. Whether you are an old school serve has volleyer or modern day super fast rpm guy or girl you will use dexterity in a variety of ways.
One of reasons why the current Tecnifibre T Fight 315 and 305 were well received was because of their improved dexterity. As an older S & V player my go to frames would have been Volkl C10 Pri’s and PB 10 Mids, Q Tour 325’s and RF’s because of their rock solid stability and ability to absorb heavy hitting from advanced players but todays advanced racquets can offer most if that in a 315 or 320 with more dexterity and less fatigue:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
rds, rqis kblade tour and their friend
Replies
21
Views
2K
Roms
R
M
Racquet recommendation - Yonex - 4.5
Replies
7
Views
2K
Yurifi
Y
H
Grip size DOES matter !
Replies
12
Views
5K
seaducer67
S
S
Do fake racquets matter?
Replies
25
Views
4K
PimpMyGame
PimpMyGame
B
why does stability matter?
Replies
36
Views
2K
Shroud
Shroud
Back
Top