"Powerful racket" a misleading description

[diggler]

I've been playing tennis for a long time but always felt I could do with some more power. When racket manufacturers label something as a powerful racket, I have bought it thinking it would give more power. But it is so wrong.

My Ncode N1 is very light and very stiff and it is powerful compared to other rackets, only if you take a short swing. If you take a big swing, it is not very powerful at all compared to other heavier rackets.

This light racket has given me arm problems. I've had to add a lot of weight to it.

Therefore, powerful is a misleading term. "Powerful for short swings only" would be a more accurate description.

 

[bertrevert]

Phew, I don't know, their power ratings don't take into account swings. Everyone swings different. I recall the Head S1-L5 (I think) stood for SHORT through to LONG swings. You just had to self-rate yourself. I don't remember finding it helpful and think maybe they still use it.

Anyway coupling racquet power ratings to swing speeds and types is a bit dubious anyway.

 

[Ripper]

I've been playing tennis for a long time but always felt I could do with some more power. When racket manufacturers label something as a powerful racket, I have bought it thinking it would give more power. But it is so wrong.

My Ncode N1 is very light and very stiff and it is powerful compared to other rackets, only if you take a short swing. If you take a big swing, it is not very powerful at all compared to other heavier rackets.

This light racket has given me arm problems. I've had to add a lot of weight to it.

Therefore, powerful is a misleading term. "Powerful for short swings only" would be a more accurate description.

Hummm. "Very Stiff" equals to Power. However, "Very Light" does not. There lies your explanation.

 

[IT WAS IN!!!]

what was your racquet before you wanted something with more power

 

[Bottle Rocket]

I think that's why racket descriptions usually include something like "best suited to 4.5+ players".

Either way I mostly agree with you and because of that, the skill level, strength, and style all need to be taken into account before someone can come up with a demo list.

A good example is so many guys that come from N90's or something like that, something near 13 ounces. Then they try a Pure Drive or something near 11 ounces, even though it has more inherent power, with the same speed swing, you don't get any help from it.

The part I don't agree with is the length of swings... It is simply about how much racket head speed you produce. If you can produce a fast swing with a heavy racket, you're going to be producing tons of power. I don't think the length of swing is the issue.

 

[superstition]

It is simply about how much racket head speed you produce. If you can produce a fast swing with a heavy racket, you're going to be producing tons of power. I don't think the length of swing is the issue.

Newton's Laws:

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object. (F = mass*acceleration). Acceleration = (change in velocity) divided by (change in time). Velocity = (change in position) divided by (change in time)

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[Bottle Rocket]

That's great... Everything I said stands.

I haven't ever heard anything about that Newton guy before...

 

[diggler]

Apologies for my error. When I said short swing, I should have said slow swing.

re Newton, isn't tennis a bit more complicated than that. You have the flexibility of the racket, type of string, age of string.

2 rackets with identical mass and velocity will not necesarily give the same results based on these other variables.

 

[Bottle Rocket]

I have argued weight issues to death in other threads... A search on any topic like heavy balls, racket mass, racket flex, racket power, and other topics will bring up all kinds of good stuff.

Newtons laws don't even come close to describing the whole story when you hit that little fuzzy ball.

Anyway, your thread does make a good point.

 

[superstition]

That's great... Everything I said stands.

I haven't ever heard anything about that Newton guy before...

Swing speed isn't the whole story. If you swing a 5 ounce racquet as fast as a 14 ounce racquet, the higher mass in the second racquet will produce more ball speed.

Also, if swing length isn't important, why do most pros have large swings/follow-through? Why don't most of them bunt the ball like many seniors and beginners?

 

[sureshs]

Power refers to intrinsic power, due to factors like stiffness, head size, and extended length. These factors play a major role when the speed is less, e.g., with short swings. It is perceived as "repulsive power" and the ball flying off the racquet and landing deep, even with slight poking. When speed is increased, the mass of the racquet becomes an important factor. Then, it becomes necessary to reduce the headsize and stiffness, otherwise the ball will fly out of the court. This further increases the importance of mass. In the other direction, a big stiff long racquet usually will not have much mass, because the target audience is players who don't want to swing heavy things. Complicating this is that a very light racquet will not help at all, unless it is made big and stiff and long.

 

[Lindros13]

....<snip>......Therefore, powerful is a misleading term. "Powerful for short swings only" would be a more accurate description.

I sort of agree with the OP that the term powerful can be misleading. I like your comment about labeling these racquets, "Powerful for short swings only".

However, I think it's better to say, "Powerful with only a short swing."

 

[fuzz nation]

Another funny thing about the power issue is that the word is a little bit loaded. Some people use the term "powerful" to describe a racquet that gives them a lot of control when they swing really hard. The racquet allows for a more powerful game, but the stick itself can be more dead and control oriented. No racquet is powerful or generally good until it's matched up with a player who can swing it well.

 

[Noveson]

Swing speed isn't the whole story. If you swing a 5 ounce racquet as fast as a 14 ounce racquet, the higher mass in the second racquet will produce more ball speed.

Also, if swing length isn't important, why do most pros have large swings/follow-through? Why don't most of them bunt the ball like many seniors and beginners?

He didn't say it was important, he said that with the same swing speed a short/long swing will produce the same results. It is easier to generate speed from a long strokes, which is why the pros do it, but that doesn't mean a short stroke will be slower or less powerful. Obviously the weight needs to be taken to account, nobody ever said it didn't.

 

[superstition]

He didn't say it was important, he said that with the same swing speed a short/long swing will produce the same results. It is easier to generate speed from a long strokes, which is why the pros do it, but that doesn't mean a short stroke will be slower or less powerful. Obviously the weight needs to be taken to account, nobody ever said it didn't.

I'm not interested in arguing further over what someone said since what really matters are the facts regarding a tennis ball being struck with a racquet, but the post seemed to say that racquet head speed is more important than factors such as swing length and racquet mass.

Let's move on, since we all apparently agree that mass, head speed, and swing length are all important. To me, as I mentioned, though, mass is the fundamental issue because swinging a tissue at the same speed as a 16 ounce racquet will have a dramatically different effect on a tennis ball.

 

[[K]aotic]

That's great... Everything I said stands.

I haven't ever heard anything about that Newton guy before...

someone needs motion physics 101

 

[Noveson]

I'm not interested in arguing further over what someone said since what really matters are the facts regarding a tennis ball being struck with a racquet, but the post seemed to say that racquet head speed is more important than factors such as swing length and racquet mass.

Let's move on, since we all apparently agree that mass, head speed, and swing length are all important. To me, as I mentioned, though, mass is the fundamental issue because swinging a tissue at the same speed as a 16 ounce racquet will have a dramatically different effect on a tennis ball.

Yeah I pretty much agree with everything you said. Wasn't much of an argument...