NEW TWU RACQUET PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS TOOL

[TW Professor]

The interactive TWU Racquet Performance Analysis Tool compares the shot performance of every racquet to every other in 9 areas--shot
1. Speed
2. Distance
3. Spin
4. Launch angle
5. Flight time
6. Swing speed
7. Power
8. Power zone size
9. Plow through



These are measurements and calculations of what the racquet actual does, not just what it is (typical static weight, balance, headsize, etc.), though that data is also displayed.

Racquets can be compared
1. All at once, or by brand, or choose any 2 or 3 to compare.
2. By headsize, swingweight, weight, balance, twistweight, or vibration frequency.
3. By swinging with the same effort or the same speed for each racquet.
4. By on-center and off-center hits.

OTHER FEATURES
Similar racquets: Highlight and compare all similar racquets to each other.
Customize racquets: Customize racquets and show the result compared to all other racquets.
Help buttons, icons and screens: Multiple information sources for explanations, definitions and terminology.
Interactive: Simply click on any of the dots or choose from the dropdown menus in the Control Panel.

Click on the "Shot inputs" arrow at top to see the shot being analyzed.

The address:
https://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/racquetanalyzerTWU.cgi

An interactive mini-version also appears in the upper left of every racquet brand page which also clicks through to the full tool.

 

[g4driver]

Thanks for the new interactive tool. I was surprised to see the 2017 Pure Drive providing more spin than the Pure Aero. Didn't see that coming.

The TW website lists grommets for the newest Pure Drives as "2018 Pure Drive" but this new tool shows the Pure Drive as : 2015, 2017, and 2018 for the PD Tour, Plus and Tour Plus.

Is the 2017 Pure Drive in this TW tool the Robin Egg Blue Pure Drive? I am guessing yes, since the frame came out in 2017, one year earlier than the standard Babolat release of every third year.

If it is, my opinion is calling it a 2018 Pure Drive instead of a 2017 PD makes it easier for consumers as this matches what TW calls the Grommets that fit this frame, and puts this frame in the same family of 2018 PD Tour, Plus and Tour Plus frames.

 

[Zoolander]

Found this the other day, interesting to play around with.

Thanks TW professor!

 

[Anton]

Same swing speed = same spin for all rackets? Seems unrealistic.

 

[travlerajm]

This is cool effort.

But it looks like some of the calculations haven't been thought through. For example, adding 20g of mass to the butt supposedly has negligible effect on spin according the tool. In real life, adding that much mass to the butt increases spin noticeably.

 

[SpinToWin]

This is cool effort.

But it looks like some of the calculations haven't been thought through. For example, adding 20g of mass to the butt supposedly has negligible effect on spin according the tool. In real life, adding that much mass to the butt increases spin noticeably.

Or maybe it actually affects the biomechanics of the stroke

 

[TW Professor]

Same swing speed = same spin for all rackets? Seems unrealistic.

The tool calculates the results of the frame only, not strings. Swing speed and angle, ball incident angle, and racquet tilt are the biggest contributors to spin. These are all held constant in the calculations (see the shot parameters by clicking the "View shot inputs" at the top of the tool).

Equipment-wise, string and string pattern are most important, and then the frame. String is assumed to be the same in every racquet (type does not matter).

This leaves the frame, and its primary influence on spin is in how it affects swing speed. That is what is reflected in the tool. When you choose "Same swing effort for all racquets" from the dropdown menu in the Control Panel, you will see that the frame does influence spin. If you choose "same swing speed for all racquets," then the spin is the same. This is true whether you hit on-center or off-center (see last paragraph below on off-center hits).

When you swing every racquet with the same speed, that requires more effort, perhaps different timing, and maybe even alterations in the swing. It changes the feel of the swing, impact, and aftermath, and thus changes the perception and/or reality of the resulting spin. The tool does not take any player variables into account except that the racquet will influence swing speed (not the player's response to that).

There is another way frames might influence spin. When you hit off-center, high or low, the racquet twists. This alters the angle and relative speed of the ball parallel to the strings. These, in turn, affect friction which affects spin. But how much of this occurs during impact and how much affect on spin is there? These are questions I have been experimenting with lately -- no conclusions yet. However, if there is significant difference it will most likely be due to twistweight.

 

[TW Professor]

This is cool effort.

But it looks like some of the calculations haven't been thought through. For example, adding 20g of mass to the butt supposedly has negligible effect on spin according the tool. In real life, adding that much mass to the butt increases spin noticeably.

Adding mass to the butt does not significantly change the racquet's swingweight, twistweight, or hittingweight (calculations in the tool were made assuming axis of rotation at the end of the racquet). Hence, the rotational velocity of the racquet will not be influenced. The linear velocity of the CM will decrease, however, and that would decrease spin.

In a similar vein, I just finished an experiment with Rod Cross where we were examining whether there is any difference in ACOR (power) between a free-standing racquet and a hand-held one. Adding the hand to the handle is basically adding about 500g to the racquet. We fired balls at about 35 mph at different locations on the racquet. In all cases there was no difference. Essentially, during impact, the ball never gets the information that there is anything on the butt end. It leaves the strings before the bending wave gets back to it. All the ball knows is the effective mass at the impact point (hittingweight).

Adding weight to the butt might change the player's behavior with the racquet in response to the radically altered feel, but it doesn't change what the racquet does to the ball, independent of the player.

 

[travlerajm]

Adding mass to the butt does not significantly change the racquet's swingweight, twistweight, or hittingweight (calculations in the tool were made assuming axis of rotation at the end of the racquet). Hence, the rotational velocity of the racquet will not be influenced. The linear velocity of the CM will decrease, however, and that would decrease spin.

In a similar vein, I just finished an experiment with Rod Cross where we were examining whether there is any difference in ACOR (power) between a free-standing racquet and a hand-held one. Adding the hand to the handle is basically adding about 500g to the racquet. We fired balls at about 35 mph at different locations on the racquet. In all cases there was no difference. Essentially, during impact, the ball never gets the information that there is anything on the butt end. It leaves the strings before the bending wave gets back to it. All the ball knows is the effective mass at the impact point (hittingweight).

Adding weight to the butt might change the player's behavior with the racquet in response to the radically altered feel, but it doesn't change what the racquet does to the ball, independent of the player.

Thank you for your reply.

You have pointed out that adding a significant amount of mass to the butt of a racquet would have negligible effect on the twistweight, swingweight, hitting weight, and ACOR. I do not doubt your lab results.

I would, however, like to challenge your assumptions on the primary factors that influence the spin potential of a racquet. I would assert based on my personal experience that the dwell time of the ball/stringbed impact (perceived as softness of the impact) is the single most important mass-related factor influencing the spin potential of a racquet, more critical than swingweight or ACOR. And the softness of the impact is very sensitive to tailweighting.

Adding a large amount of mass to the butt of a racquet will greatly increase the dwell time (make the impact feel much softer and more cushioned, with less shock), resulting in dramatic increase in spin potential. In my anecdotal experience, even when a racquet is strung in such a way that ordinarily gives a “low-spin” response, adding 50 to 100g of mass to the butt end of the racquet can increase the dwell time and soften the impact sufficiently enough for the racquet to produce as “spinny”and “grabby” a ball response as the case where the racquet were instead modified by substituting a “maximum-spin” “high-snapback” stringbed in lieu of tailweighting.

Furthermore, if you start with a very stiff frame (75 RA), it is possible to make the impact on the stringbed feel softer and more pillowy (and hence spinnier) than the impact against the stringbed of a much more flexible frame (63 RA) strung at the same tension simply by adding enough mass to the butt end of the stiffer frame.

I would of course be interested to see how my observations on the effect of tailweighting on spin potential compare to lab results.

 

[Anton]

Thank you for your reply.

You have pointed out that adding a significant amount of mass to the butt of a racquet would have negligible effect on the twistweight, swingweight, hitting weight, and ACOR. I do not doubt your lab results.

I would, however, like to challenge your assumptions on the primary factors that influence the spin potential of a racquet. I would assert based on my personal experience that the dwell time of the ball/stringbed impact (perceived as softness of the impact) is the single most important mass-related factor influencing the spin potential of a racquet, more critical than swingweight or ACOR. And the softness of the impact is very sensitive to tailweighting.

Adding a large amount of mass to the butt of a racquet will greatly increase the dwell time (make the impact feel much softer and more cushioned, with less shock), resulting in dramatic increase in spin potential. In my anecdotal experience, even when a racquet is strung in such a way that ordinarily gives a “low-spin” response, adding 50 to 100g of mass to the butt end of the racquet can increase the dwell time and soften the impact sufficiently enough for the racquet to produce as “spinny”and “grabby” a ball response as the case where the racquet were instead modified by substituting a “maximum-spin” “high-snapback” stringbed in lieu of tailweighting.

Furthermore, if you start with a very stiff frame (75 RA), it is possible to make the impact on the stringbed feel softer and more pillowy (and hence spinnier) than the impact against the stringbed of a much more flexible frame (63 RA) strung at the same tension simply by adding enough mass to the butt end of the stiffer frame.

I would of course be interested to see how my observations on the effect of tailweighting on spin potential compare to lab results.

Just to add to the subjective record - I found no increase in comfort or spin from adding weight to lower handle.

 

[Anton]

The tool calculates the results of the frame only, not strings. Swing speed and angle, ball incident angle, and racquet tilt are the biggest contributors to spin. These are all held constant in the calculations (see the shot parameters by clicking the "View shot inputs" at the top of the tool).

Equipment-wise, string and string pattern are most important, and then the frame. String is assumed to be the same in every racquet (type does not matter).

This leaves the frame, and its primary influence on spin is in how it affects swing speed. That is what is reflected in the tool. When you choose "Same swing effort for all racquets" from the dropdown menu in the Control Panel, you will see that the frame does influence spin. If you choose "same swing speed for all racquets," then the spin is the same. This is true whether you hit on-center or off-center (see last paragraph below on off-center hits).

When you swing every racquet with the same speed, that requires more effort, perhaps different timing, and maybe even alterations in the swing. It changes the feel of the swing, impact, and aftermath, and thus changes the perception and/or reality of the resulting spin. The tool does not take any player variables into account except that the racquet will influence swing speed (not the player's response to that).

There is another way frames might influence spin. When you hit off-center, high or low, the racquet twists. This alters the angle and relative speed of the ball parallel to the strings. These, in turn, affect friction which affects spin. But how much of this occurs during impact and how much affect on spin is there? These are questions I have been experimenting with lately -- no conclusions yet. However, if there is significant difference it will most likely be due to twistweight.

But frame's string pattern seems like a set property (unless you are Andy Murray).

A stiff, heavy frame with open pattern should produce the most spin per RH speed and angle. Right? All of these properties will force the ball deeper into the stringbed.

And then the whole concept of "swing effort" is kinda questionable as well given how a good technique with wrist lag can allow the use of higher swingweight rackets to produce solid, stable rackethead speed from moderate effort.

 

[TW Professor]

Thank you for your reply.

You have pointed out that adding a significant amount of mass to the butt of a racquet would have negligible effect on the twistweight, swingweight, hitting weight, and ACOR. I do not doubt your lab results.

I would, however, like to challenge your assumptions on the primary factors that influence the spin potential of a racquet. I would assert based on my personal experience that the dwell time of the ball/stringbed impact (perceived as softness of the impact) is the single most important mass-related factor influencing the spin potential of a racquet, more critical than swingweight or ACOR. And the softness of the impact is very sensitive to tailweighting.

Adding a large amount of mass to the butt of a racquet will greatly increase the dwell time (make the impact feel much softer and more cushioned, with less shock), resulting in dramatic increase in spin potential. In my anecdotal experience, even when a racquet is strung in such a way that ordinarily gives a “low-spin” response, adding 50 to 100g of mass to the butt end of the racquet can increase the dwell time and soften the impact sufficiently enough for the racquet to produce as “spinny”and “grabby” a ball response as the case where the racquet were instead modified by substituting a “maximum-spin” “high-snapback” stringbed in lieu of tailweighting.

Furthermore, if you start with a very stiff frame (75 RA), it is possible to make the impact on the stringbed feel softer and more pillowy (and hence spinnier) than the impact against the stringbed of a much more flexible frame (63 RA) strung at the same tension simply by adding enough mass to the butt end of the stiffer frame.

I would of course be interested to see how my observations on the effect of tailweighting on spin potential compare to lab results.

Adding weight to the butt will increase the dwell time of the impact between the handle and the hand but not to the ball and racquet. That does lead to less shock, less acceleration of the butt into the hand, and a softer feel. Most of this sensation occurs after the ball has left the strings. The impact will feel very solid and the effective stiffness of the racquet will be reduced, but the spin should not be affected.

If on the other hand, weight is added somewhere in the hoop, then the ball dwell time will increase and spin will be increased or decreased depending on the net sum of about a dozen competing effects, with dwell time be more of a correlated parameter rather than a causative one (http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/location.php).

However, any gain in equipment caused spin can be totally negated if the change in the equipment caused the racquet speed at the contact point to slow done enough.

This is what the data tells me. I am presently doing a couple of experiments that pertain to these questions and hopefully they will give us more insight into what is going on.

 

[TW Professor]

But frame's string pattern seems like a set property (unless you are Andy Murray).

A stiff, heavy frame with open pattern should produce the most spin per RH speed and angle. Right? All of these properties will force the ball deeper into the stringbed.

And then the whole concept of "swing effort" is kinda questionable as well given how a good technique with wrist lag can allow the use of higher swingweight rackets to produce solid, stable rackethead speed from moderate effort.

Yes, string pattern is a set property for a given racquet, but if you are comparing different racquets it makes a difference.

I assume that by "deeper into the stringbed" you mean more friction and spin. But there is a maximum spin that friction will produce for any given swing speed and angle. That maximum will occur when the contact speed of the ball and strings is zero (this includes the ball speed and direction parallel to the strings, the rotation speed and direction of the ball on the strings [which changes during impact], and the speed and direction of the displacement and snap-back of the string on the ball). If the ball starts spinning too much, friction will even reverse itself and start taking away spin. The only way to fix that is to swing even faster or at a steeper angle!

By "swing effort" I mean that the player is applying the same force to each racquet in order to swing it. In that case, it doesn't matter what kind of swing or technique you use, the higher swingweight racquet will swing more slowly.

The goal of the tool is to compare all racquets given the same inputs. In so doing, the results will only depend on the properties of the racquet, not the player. Player's will find that they gravitate to certain performance profiles compared to others. There is no good or bad or best or worst, even though there is a most and least in any performance category. There are better or worse fits between racquet and player, however. One goal of the tool is to provide maximum information to optimize that fit.

 

[travlerajm]

Adding weight to the butt will increase the dwell time of the impact between the handle and the hand but not to the ball and racquet. That does lead to less shock, less acceleration of the butt into the hand, and a softer feel. Most of this sensation occurs after the ball has left the strings. The impact will feel very solid and the effective stiffness of the racquet will be reduced, but the spin should not be affected.

If on the other hand, weight is added somewhere in the hoop, then the ball dwell time will increase and spin will be increased or decreased depending on the net sum of about a dozen competing effects, with dwell time be more of a correlated parameter rather than a causative one (http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/location.php).

However, any gain in equipment caused spin can be totally negated if the change in the equipment caused the racquet speed at the contact point to slow done enough.

This is what the data tells me. I am presently doing a couple of experiments that pertain to these questions and hopefully they will give us more insight into what is going on.

Interesting comment that amount of shock to the hand doesn't necessarily correlate with softness of ball/stringbed impact. But still does not explain the dramatic increase in the spinniness of the ball response, which is certainly real and not imagined.

Another thing I'd be curious to know more about:
When I add mass to the hoop (starting with a typical racquet with ~325 SW), the ball response gets flatter and more powerful. But as I keep adding mass (especially at 3 and 9), eventually I reach a point where the ball response stops getting flatter, and the spin level starts to increase. Further additions of mass beyond that point make the ball response spinnier and spinnier. The point of "flattest" ball response (i.e., what I perceive as the "peak" power-to-spin ratio) seems to occur at a swingweight of around 360. Not sure what causes this? I suspect it has something to do with ball compression, because increased ball compression would mean lower power level (more energy loss), but also more spin (more overspin generated during decompression phase of the ball-stringbed impact due to rotational moment of inertia of the ball as the radius increases).

This would make for interesting lab experiment to explore this nonlinear spin-vs-swingweight behavior.

 

[Anton]

Yes, string pattern is a set property for a given racquet, but if you are comparing different racquets it makes a difference.

I assume that by "deeper into the stringbed" you mean more friction and spin. But there is a maximum spin that friction will produce for any given swing speed and angle. That maximum will occur when the contact speed of the ball and strings is zero (this includes the ball speed and direction parallel to the strings, the rotation speed and direction of the ball on the strings [which changes during impact], and the speed and direction of the displacement and snap-back of the string on the ball). If the ball starts spinning too much, friction will even reverse itself and start taking away spin. The only way to fix that is to swing even faster or at a steeper angle!

"Deeper into stringbed" at same tension, to me is an indication of more force acting on the individual strings, producing more snap-back effect. That seems consistent with what you are saying.

Since heavier, stiffer, more open patterns put more force on the strings, it seems resonable that more spin can be had at same racket speed/adngle.

 

[ron schaap]

The interactive TWU Racquet Performance Analysis Tool compares the shot performance of every racquet to every other in 9 areas--shot
1. Speed
2. Distance
3. Spin
4. Launch angle
5. Flight time
6. Swing speed
7. Power
8. Power zone size
9. Plow through



These are measurements and calculations of what the racquet actual does, not just what it is (typical static weight, balance, headsize, etc.), though that data is also displayed.

Racquets can be compared
1. All at once, or by brand, or choose any 2 or 3 to compare.
2. By headsize, swingweight, weight, balance, twistweight, or vibration frequency.
3. By swinging with the same effort or the same speed for each racquet.
4. By on-center and off-center hits.

OTHER FEATURES
Similar racquets: Highlight and compare all similar racquets to each other.
Customize racquets: Customize racquets and show the result compared to all other racquets.
Help buttons, icons and screens: Multiple information sources for explanations, definitions and terminology.
Interactive: Simply click on any of the dots or choose from the dropdown menus in the Control Panel.

Click on the "Shot inputs" arrow at top to see the shot being analyzed.

The address:
https://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/racquetanalyzerTWU.cgi

An interactive mini-version also appears in the upper left of every racquet brand page which also clicks through to the full tool.

Interesting stuff.
So far i have come to the conclusion that adding weight to the head(hoop) of your racquet increases swingweight and thus power, but you decrease spin in the same -linear- amount. So you can never improve both. Some of the lightest consumer racquet models give actually the highest spin. So Now i have to get used to light racquets for optimal spin? As A side note, even some WTA players hit with over 3000rpm on Roland Garros. So how significant is your data?

 

[newyorkstadium]

Another great tool, thanks @TW Professor. How did you test for swingspeed? I'm guessing it was a vertical pendulum or something, so the impact of twistweight on the swingspeed can't be gauged, as there was no racket twisting.

 

[chrisb]

The tool calculates the results of the frame only, not strings. Swing speed and angle, ball incident angle, and racquet tilt are the biggest contributors to spin. These are all held constant in the calculations (see the shot parameters by clicking the "View shot inputs" at the top of the tool).

Equipment-wise, string and string pattern are most important, and then the frame. String is assumed to be the same in every racquet (type does not matter).

This leaves the frame, and its primary influence on spin is in how it affects swing speed. That is what is reflected in the tool. When you choose "Same swing effort for all racquets" from the dropdown menu in the Control Panel, you will see that the frame does influence spin. If you choose "same swing speed for all racquets," then the spin is the same. This is true whether you hit on-center or off-center (see last paragraph below on off-center hits).

When you swing every racquet with the same speed, that requires more effort, perhaps different timing, and maybe even alterations in the swing. It changes the feel of the swing, impact, and aftermath, and thus changes the perception and/or reality of the resulting spin. The tool does not take any player variables into account except that the racquet will influence swing speed (not the player's response to that).

There is another way frames might influence spin. When you hit off-center, high or low, the racquet twists. This alters the angle and relative speed of the ball parallel to the strings. These, in turn, affect friction which affects spin. But how much of this occurs during impact and how much affect on spin is there? These are questions I have been experimenting with lately -- no conclusions yet. However, if there is significant difference it will most likely be due to twistweight.

Yes, string pattern is a set property for a given racquet, but if you are comparing different racquets it makes a difference.

I assume that by "deeper into the stringbed" you mean more friction and spin. But there is a maximum spin that friction will produce for any given swing speed and angle. That maximum will occur when the contact speed of the ball and strings is zero (this includes the ball speed and direction parallel to the strings, the rotation speed and direction of the ball on the strings [which changes during impact], and the speed and direction of the displacement and snap-back of the string on the ball). If the ball starts spinning too much, friction will even reverse itself and start taking away spin. The only way to fix that is to swing even faster or at a steeper angle!

By "swing effort" I mean that the player is applying the same force to each racquet in order to swing it. In that case, it doesn't matter what kind of swing or technique you use, the higher swingweight racquet will swing more slowly.

The goal of the tool is to compare all racquets given the same inputs. In so doing, the results will only depend on the properties of the racquet, not the player. Player's will find that they gravitate to certain performance profiles compared to others. There is no good or bad or best or worst, even though there is a most and least in any performance category. There are better or worse fits between racquet and player, however. One goal of the tool is to provide maximum information to optimize that fit.

I read in earlier research that the angle the racket was coming up at had a great influence, that the vertical vector of 45 degrees would lift the ball in a flat stroke, whereas the vertical vector of 60 degrees would produce topspin. What component vertical and horizontal di you use for your tests, and since mass x acceleration results in power, what was your rate of acceleration, a constant, or a variable dependent on mass, and couldn`t that variable skew your outcomes

 

[newyorkstadium]

Another great tool, thanks @TW Professor. How did you test for swingspeed? I'm guessing it was a vertical pendulum or something, so the impact of twistweight on the swingspeed can't be gauged, as there was no racket twisting.

Just found some old notes with an interesting revelation on twistweight. I looked at a bunch of rackets with equal swingweight and mass.

For certain rackets with matching SW and weight, the racket with lower balance but higher twistweight was quicker.
For certain rackets with matching SW and weight, the racket with lower balance and lower twistweight was quicker
For certain rackets with matching SW and weight, the racket with the same balance but higher twistweight was slightly quicker!
For certain rackets with matching SW and weight, the racket with lower balance and equal twistweight was quicker

This indicates that twistweight doesnt have a clear impact swingspeed on groundstrokes. This is interesting, as it's been speculated that higher twistweight rackets may be less manoeuvrable, due to the rotation of the racquetface in a groundstroke. Though, the impact of TW on manoeuvrability is said to be most pronounced for serves.

@TW Professor

Full list of racquets with matching weight and swingweight

Swingweight	Weight	Racket	Balance	Twistweight	Swingspeed (MPH)
307​	301​	Volkl V-Feel V1 MP	33.3​	14.8​	50.2​
307​	301​	Head Gravity S Graphene 360+	33.5​	15.5​	50.2​
320​	318​	Yonex VCORE 100 (300)	33​	14.6​	49.6​
320​	318​	Head Graphene 360 Instinct MP	33​	14.9​	49.6​
339​	318​	Head Graphene 360 Extreme MP	33.5​	15.1​	49.3​
339​	318​	Head Graphene 360+ Speed MP	33​	14.4​	49.4​
326​	320​	Tecnifibre TF40 305	33.3​	14.5​	49.4​
326​	320​	Dunlop SX 300	33​	14.9​	49.4​
325​	323​	Prince Textreme Beast 98	32​	14.8​	49.6​
325​	323​	Head Gravity Tour Graphene 360+	33​	14.8​	49.4​
318​	326​	Yonex VCORE PRO 97	32​	14.2​	49.7​
318​	326​	Yonex VCORE PRO 97(310)	32​	13.8​	49.7​
318​	326​	Dunlop CX 200 Tour 16x19	32​	13.6​	49.7​
318​	326​	Prince Phantom 100G	32​	14.5​	49.7​
318​	326​	Head Graphene 360 Speed Pro	32.5​	14.2​	49.7​
325​	326​	Wilson Clash 100 Pro	31.5​	14.4​	49.7​
325​	326​	Yonex REGNA 98	32​	14​	49.6​
325​	326​	Yonex VCORE 95 2018	32​	13​	49.6​
325​	326​	Prince Phantom O3 100X	32​	15.8​	49.6​
325​	326​	Head Graphene 360 Radical Pro	32.4​	14​	49.5​
325​	326​	Volkl V-Sense 10 Tour	33.5​	14.3​	49.3​
321​	332​	Tecnifibre TFight 315 RS	32​	15​	49.6​
321​	332​	Wilson Pro Staff 97 v13	32​	14.3​	49.6​
321​	332​	ProKennex Ki Q+Tour (315) - 2019	32.5​	13.5​	49.5​
330​	332​	Head Graphene 360+ Radical Pro	32.4​	14.1​	49.3​
330​	332​	ProKennex ki Black Ace pro	33​	15.2​	49.3​
324​	335​	ProKennex Ki 5 (320) 2018	32​	14.8​	49.6​
324​	335​	Prince Phantom 100X (18x20)	31.5​	14.5​	49.5​
325​	315​	ProKennex Ki 5 300 2018	33​	14.9​	49.5​
325​	315​	ProKennex Ki Black Ace (315g)	32​	14.9​	49.4​
327​	335​	Babolat Pure Aero Tour 2019	32.3​	15.1​	49.3​
327​	335​	Head Graphene 360+ Prestige Pro	32.5​	14.2​	49.3​
323​	337​	Volkl V-Feel 10 (320g)	32.5​	14.7​	49.4​
323​	337​	Head Graphene 360+ Prestige MP	32​	13.9​	49.5​
326​	337​	Prince Phantom Pro 100 (18x20)	31.5​	15​	49.5​
326​	337​	Head Graphene Touch Prestige Mid	32​	!2.2	49.4​
326​	337​	Tecnifibre ATP TFight 320 XTC	32​	15.2​	49.4​
326​	337​	Yonex VCORE PRO 97HD (18x20)	32​	14.1​	49.4​
332​	341​	Babolat Pure Aero Tour	32.6​	15.6​	49.1​
332​	341​	Babolat Pure Aero VS Tour	32.3​	14.8​	49​