New FIND -- LOW Swingweight Does NOT equal good Manuverability, especially at NET

[Fedace]

WOW,,,,, i found out today that Low Swingweight does not equal manuverability. I am experimenting with Yonex RQIS tour-2 which is my normal doubles rackets and HEAD Youtek Speed Lite which has very Low swingweight of 301 or so. I went out and played some doubles, and to my surprise, it was much easier to manuver the Yonex tour-2 with SW of about 320. and the HEAD with SW of 301 felt clumsy and hard to manuver at net. Not sure what the explanation is on this. I know people are going to jump on me on this since this is mostly subjective opinion. but then Racket Manuverability is a subjective opinion,,,, No ???:shock:

 

[Fedace]

I have also been hitting with stock frame of Babolat Pure drive GT plus. Supposedly the SW on this frame is 330 according to Tennis warehouse. Have to disagree with this. It feels more like 320 or 318 in that range. and it feels like more manuverable than the old Pure drives,,, at least at net anyway..

 

[stormholloway]

You hit with a lot of different racquets. What do you play with primarily?

 

[Fedace]

You hit with a lot of different racquets. What do you play with primarily?

Yonex RQis Tour-1 and Tour-2. I am looking to switch to Babolat however. New aeropro GT looks good to me..

 

[stormholloway]

But you've got a Head racquet in there somewhere?

 

[OHBH]

balance point would be more important than swingweight in terms of manuverability

 

[Fedace]

But you've got a Head racquet in there somewhere?

Yea, that Head was a experimental racket... i got fed up with it, and i am dumping it for good. I got my eye on the new YONEX rackets. Look at these new Beauties from Yonex,,,, S-FIT rackets ???

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Yonexracquets.html :shock:

 

[Fedace]

balance point would be more important than swingweight in terms of manuverability

YOU are a GENIUS. I couldn't agree more. More head light it is the better the manuverability. Swingweight seem to be 2ndary.

 

[stormholloway]

Yea, that Head was a experimental racket... i got fed up with it, and i am dumping it for good. I got my eye on the new YONEX rackets. Look at these new Beauties from Yonex,,,, S-FIT rackets ???

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Yonexracquets.html :shock:

But what makes you want to play with these racquets? I think you're a bit too all over the place. Babolat, Head, Yonex, and now you've got a whole different line of Yonex in mind. Take it easy bro. I'm a racquet ***** too but you've taken the cake.

 

[Fedace]

But what makes you want to play with these racquets? I think you're a bit too all over the place. Babolat, Head, Yonex, and now you've got a whole different line of Yonex in mind. Take it easy bro. I'm a racquet ***** too but you've taken the cake.

I agree with you up to a certain extent. experimenting with all these rackets have thrown off my timing somewhat lately. and i haven't been able to time the ball as well in league matches lately:???:

 

[AndrewD]

balance point would be more important than swingweight in terms of manuverability

No, it isn't.

 

[iTennis]

No, it isn't.

So what is?

 

[fuzz nation]

Two things I've found in my experience - your mileage may vary:

1) Swingweights are too often misleading and occasionally just plain wrong. I recommend that everyone who cares about the spec's of their racquets should get familiar with their preferred static weight and balance. My opinion of SW's is that they're some sort of gimmick that some "suit" came up with to help sell more racquets. I'm happy for anyone who has had good luck with this handy-dandy reference, but I think it has caused too much confusion among players. If you know the static weight and balance that you like in a racquet, you'll know at a glance whether a potential demo, etc. will feel familiar when you use it.

2) Maneuverability in my racquets absolutely comes down to the right balance. My 12.8 oz. ProStaffs have a balance of around 10 points HL. Although they're rather hefty, they are also very easy for me to handle around the net. In contrast, when I got a pair of LM Prestige mids a while ago, I was helpless with these lighter frames, especially around the net, because they were only a couple of points HL. After putting a bundle of lead tape on their handles and taking their static weights up to 13.4 oz., I was much more comfortable with these racquets because of their balance.

I will note that while a stiff, light racquet would probably be quicker for me around the net, I'm also hooked on the stability that comes with more heft in a frame. Although my trusty ol' 6.1 Classics aren't as lightning quick as some fly swatters, I only need to get these racquets behind the ball and use a minimal effort to pop it back over the net. Where a super light frame would get blown out of my hands in some heavier exchanges, these racquets are rock-solid.

So that's just me...

 

[iTennis]

Swing weight measurement is standardized based on engineering principal so no gimmick.... if done and used right for comparison. It gives me a better idea of heft/ plow-through and weight distribution (i.e. polarized vs depolarized) characteristics, and I care more about swing weight than static weight, especially for hitting ground-stroking and service. Looking at static weight and balance alone, you would not tell the difference between 27" and 28" sticks, where 28" stick would swing heavier with more heft.

Because swing weight is a dynamic characteristic to quantify momentum (i.e. plow-through), it would mean little for volleys where you do not swing the stick much. I think maneuverability at the net would directly correlate the balance then static weight. Maneuverability and solidness/ stability are two different and counterproductive things that make up playability up at the net, so it is balance/ weight combo that you need find.

 

[markwillplay]

I think head size also contributes...smaller headsize seems more manueverable all other things being equal.

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Two things I've found in my experience - your mileage may vary:

1) Swingweights are too often misleading and occasionally just plain wrong. I recommend that everyone who cares about the spec's of their racquets should get familiar with their preferred static weight and balance. My opinion of SW's is that they're some sort of gimmick that some "suit" came up with to help sell more racquets. I'm happy for anyone who has had good luck with this handy-dandy reference, but I think it has caused too much confusion among players. If you know the static weight and balance that you like in a racquet, you'll know at a glance whether a potential demo, etc. will feel familiar when you use it.

2) Maneuverability in my racquets absolutely comes down to the right balance. My 12.8 oz. ProStaffs have a balance of around 10 points HL. Although they're rather hefty, they are also very easy for me to handle around the net. In contrast, when I got a pair of LM Prestige mids a while ago, I was helpless with these lighter frames, especially around the net, because they were only a couple of points HL. After putting a bundle of lead tape on their handles and taking their static weights up to 13.4 oz., I was much more comfortable with these racquets because of their balance.

I will note that while a stiff, light racquet would probably be quicker for me around the net, I'm also hooked on the stability that comes with more heft in a frame. Although my trusty ol' 6.1 Classics aren't as lightning quick as some fly swatters, I only need to get these racquets behind the ball and use a minimal effort to pop it back over the net. Where a super light frame would get blown out of my hands in some heavier exchanges, these racquets are rock-solid.

So that's just me...

Yes... That is just you because you're crazy.

If it came down to just balance and static weight, the n-Six.One Tour and the ProStaff Tour would've been massive hits like the [K]Six.One Tour. People looked at the specs and thought they'd be the holy grail of player's frames, but both got terrible reviews.

And yet the [K]Six.One Tour feels more maneuverable and is easier to swing than its predecessors regardless of the higher swingweight. The reason is it's weight distribution. It was more polarized (which in the case of these rackets, it actually just means the racket was more evenly weighted throughout the frame like normal rackets, which made it easier to whip around).

For some people the power of the mind and what they were taught to believe outweighs reality. fuzz nation is a standout case of that.

 

[stormholloway]

And yet the [K]Six.One Tour feels more maneuverable and is easier to swing than its predecessors regardless of the higher swingweight. The reason is it's weight distribution. It was more polarized (which in the case of these rackets, it actually just means the racket was more evenly weighted throughout the frame like normal rackets, which made it easier to whip around).

That's strange because I always feel like there's a big vacuum of mass in the throat of the K90. It's the one issue I have with it: it doesn't seem like mass is evenly distributed, but rather than mass was 'scooted' down to each end of the frame.

 

[markwillplay]

weight distribution is probably the most important factor..agreed.

 

[Fedace]

weight distribution is probably the most important factor..agreed.

Yes,, weight disribution is same thing as balance point such as how head light the racket is.....

 

[Fedace]

HOLY COW,,,, i found my NEW racket..... Pure Drive plus GT. This racket is lightening quick at net and perfect for serving and volleying. GREAT AWSOME Doubles racket. Never thought a extended racket could be a great serve and volley racket but this one proved me wrong.
SCHOCK..... i was serving 102-103 MPH bombs on regular basis and this is a DEMO racket with Crappy reaction string in it...... i bought 2 of these today...................
__________________

 

[Fedace]

This Pure drive plus GT has Swingweight of about 320... 330 by TW website is Wrong. and it is very head light.... i think that is why it is so Lightening Quick at Net............

 

[jazzyfunkybluesy]

No, it isn't.

Despite your post count. You are wrong sadly.

 

[Fedace]

Despite your post count. You are wrong sadly.

I am still very confused about the Pure drive plus GT. It has virtually exact Same specs on weight and point HL but yet the Swingweight is so much Less. If you tell me that i am just imagining it, you are WRONG. I was hitting today with a Pro that has been using the Pure Drive plus Cortex for a long time now and he hit with my demo for just 10 minutes and he said,,,,YUP....Not sure what it is but this frame is much more manuverable and SW seem like it is much less.....he said at least by 10.........

 

[Bud]

HOLY COW,,,, i found my NEW racket..... Pure Drive plus GT. This racket is lightening quick at net and perfect for serving and volleying. GREAT AWSOME Doubles racket. Never thought a extended racket could be a great serve and volley racket but this one proved me wrong.
SCHOCK..... i was serving 102-103 MPH bombs on regular basis and this is a DEMO racket with Crappy reaction string in it...... i bought 2 of these today...................
__________________

Slap on leather grips and they should become slightly more maneuverable (balance increases 3 additional pts. HL without noticeably increasing SW)... plus it will add a bit of static weight (0.5 oz) to the frame as well.

 

[AlpineCadet]

I can play a 12+oz stick with a 10+ hl balance and have a faster racket head speed than a 10+oz stick that's even balanced. Stroke mechanics and timing is the only issue for me, not sure about you though.

 

[iTennis]

Yes,, weight disribution is same thing as balance point such as how head light the racket is.....

Nope....... they are not the same.

Let's say you have a stick with 6pt HL balance. And I can add 50g of lead right at the balance point in the throat to change weight distribution along the lengthwise of the stick (i.e. more mass in the middle) while maintaining the original balance. Or I can add 25g of lead in the hoop and another 25g in the handle and still maintain the original balance, yet now the weight is distributed more in the each end (i.e. polarized.)

 

[AndrewD]

Despite your post count. You are wrong sadly.

No, I'm not.

 

[jazzyfunkybluesy]

I am still very confused about the Pure drive plus GT. It has virtually exact Same specs on weight and point HL but yet the Swingweight is so much Less. If you tell me that i am just imagining it, you are WRONG. I was hitting today with a Pro that has been using the Pure Drive plus Cortex for a long time now and he hit with my demo for just 10 minutes and he said,,,,YUP....Not sure what it is but this frame is much more manuverable and SW seem like it is much less.....he said at least by 10.........

I was responding to AndrewD you twit. Balance point is the primary measure of maneuverability followed by total weight.

 

[jazzyfunkybluesy]

No, I'm not.

Then what is genius?

 

[iTennis]

I am still very confused about the Pure drive plus GT. It has virtually exact Same specs on weight and point HL but yet the Swingweight is so much Less. If you tell me that i am just imagining it, you are WRONG. I was hitting today with a Pro that has been using the Pure Drive plus Cortex for a long time now and he hit with my demo for just 10 minutes and he said,,,,YUP....Not sure what it is but this frame is much more manuverable and SW seem like it is much less.....he said at least by 10.........

You are confused because of mixing up the balance and swing weight as the same thing...... It would only take about 4g in upper hoop to gain SW of 10, and the mfr can easily take that much weight and re-distribute to change SW while keeping the static weight and balance the same. By the way, many mfrs allow weight tolerance much more than a few gram on production, so the difference may or may not be by design......

 

[markwillplay]

thanks itennis..... no way is weight distribution the same as balance fedace...no way. I have had sticks thqt were 8 pts headlight that were more manueverable than sticks that were10 pts easy.

 

[AndrewD]

Balance point is the primary measure of maneuverability followed by total weight.

Balance point is the measure (forget primary - that implies there's more than one) of BALANCE. Swingweight is the measure of MANOEUVRABILITY.

If you PERCEIVE a head light racquet to be more manoeuvrable than a head heavy one that is NOT a definitive measure, it is a perception.

If what you said is correct then the Prince Speedport Black Longbody should be as manoeuvrable as the Prince Speedport Black regular length. They're both the same weight and they're both the same balance but we all know the extended length one is far less manoeuvrable. The length increases the swingweight which, in turn, makes it less manoeuvrable. So balance isn't the key and neither is static weight, it's swingweight that makes the difference.

 

[stormholloway]

If you PERCEIVE a head light racquet to be more manoeuvrable than a head heavy one that is NOT a definitive measure, it is a perception.

But it is a measurement, and undoubtedly the most important measurement of all.

 

[Fedace]

You are confused because of mixing up the balance and swing weight as the same thing...... It would only take about 4g in upper hoop to gain SW of 10, and the mfr can easily take that much weight and re-distribute to change SW while keeping the static weight and balance the same. By the way, many mfrs allow weight tolerance much more than a few gram on production, so the difference may or may not be by design......

That is exactly right. that is why i said There is NO real correlation between swingweight and balance of the racket.

 

[Buckethead]

Yea, that Head was a experimental racket... i got fed up with it, and i am dumping it for good. I got my eye on the new YONEX rackets. Look at these new Beauties from Yonex,,,, S-FIT rackets ???

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Yonexracquets.html :shock:

They're really beautiful,the SFIT 1 in particular.I'm going to be using some of the Yonex mid size,probably the mid.
Get the SFIT 1 ,but not the Babolat.Babolat is not up to Yonex standards.
I see you like blue,ah?

 

[Fedace]

They're really beautiful,the SFIT 1 in particular.I'm going to be using some of the Yonex mid size,probably the mid.
Get the SFIT 1 ,but not the Babolat.Babolat is not up to Yonex standards.
I see you like blue,ah?

I already bought 2 babolat Pure drive plus GT. just cause i never could hit such big serves before and not in a while. Serves sounded like Roddick's serves. Anyway, YES, these Yonex looks really good on the specs, just as good as RQIS tour-2 rackets. I am going to DEMO the SFIT-1 and see what happens. Does TW have the demoes yet ??????

 

[Buckethead]

I already bought 2 babolat Pure drive plus GT. just cause i never could hit such big serves before and not in a while. Serves sounded like Roddick's serves. Anyway, YES, these Yonex looks really good on the specs, just as good as RQIS tour-2 rackets. I am going to DEMO the SFIT-1 and see what happens. Does TW have the demoes yet ??????

I don't know about the demos,but they're too light for me,not that i'm that good,I just like heavy rackets for stability,and that feel that you can crash a ball.I think the serve is affected by the weight, no doubt about it,but you can get used to it,and later you'll have the bombs again.Serving hard is well related to great technique and if you have you can the heavy weight rackets in your favor.
But that SFIT 1 would be a try for me.I wish they made a 345g SFIT.

 

[Bud]

That is exactly right. that is why i said There is NO real correlation between swingweight and balance of the racket.

There is definitely a correlation between static weight, balance and SW... especially when adding weight inside the buttcap or at the tip of the frame.

I just created a thread about removing the bumper from a PSTGT. It increased the HL balance by slightly more than 3 points and decreased the SW by 10-15 units. All that from removing 8 grams of plastic at the top of the frame.

 

[mawashi]

There is definitely a correlation between static weight, balance and SW... especially when adding weight inside the buttcap or at the tip of the frame.

I just created a thread about removing the bumper from a PSTGT. It increased the HL balance by slightly more than 3 points and decreased the SW by 10-15 units. All that from removing 8 grams of plastic at the top of the frame.

Exactly, Fedace you're easily confused. How the hell can something with the same weight but different balance swing the same?

If a hammer n a piece of metal weigh the same which one would have a higher sw?

Sheese, I wonder if you slept through school like you did during the Davy match.

mawashi

 

[jazzyfunkybluesy]

Balance point is the measure (forget primary - that implies there's more than one) of BALANCE. Swingweight is the measure of MANOEUVRABILITY.

If you PERCEIVE a head light racquet to be more manoeuvrable than a head heavy one that is NOT a definitive measure, it is a perception.

If what you said is correct then the Prince Speedport Black Longbody should be as manoeuvrable as the Prince Speedport Black regular length. They're both the same weight and they're both the same balance but we all know the extended length one is far less manoeuvrable. The length increases the swingweight which, in turn, makes it less manoeuvrable. So balance isn't the key and neither is static weight, it's swingweight that makes the difference.

Sorry after reading this again you are correct.:twisted:

 

[Koz]

YOU are a GENIUS. I couldn't agree more. More head light it is the better the manuverability. Swingweight seem to be 2ndary.

It's a combination of a lot of things. What if you had a 10 lb racquet with a super headlight balance point? It's not going to be more manuverable than a normal racquet with a normal swingweight.

Just some food for thought.

 

[djinni999]

It's a combination of a lot of things. What if you had a 10 lb racquet with a super headlight balance point? It's not going to be more manuverable than a normal racquet with a normal swingweight.

Just some food for thought.

exactly. swingweight is the only measure that takes into account weight, distribution of weight and balance point. balance is a superfluous measure - without knowing either swingweight or mass.
that said, given two racquets of equal mass, the more HL one will be more manouverable, period (like AndrewD initially implied, because it has a lower swingweight).
and to emphasize what was earlier said: manouverability means nothing if you have low stability. this becomes more and more pronounced as the incoming ball's pace and spin increases.