racquet stiffness and spin potential

[Wilander]

my first opened thread - so HELLO from austria to everyone!

there are different opinions about frame stiffness and the racquet's ability to produce spin.
some argue that the contact time on stiffer frames decrease and therefore the strings have fewer time to "spin" the ball. on the other hand, the player who produces by far the most spin on this planet is using a very stiff frame (RA 70).
this (very good and seemingly knowledgeable) post about racquet-customization states, that: "the spin potential of stiff frames will be severely limited once they are properly leaded up. So I recommend starting with a flexible frame."

what is your opinion and experience on this topic?

 

[kalic]

My opinion (and experience) is: if you "brush" the ball, like Rafa or Andreev, stiffer is better for spins. If you "hit through the ball", like Djokovic or Murray, softer is better.

 

[fuzz nation]

I just answered another thread asking about specific racquets that seem to offer huge spin potential. Had a few experiences to share there, but your question seems to be a bit different.

What I've found with frames that have more flex (all other things being about the same) is that they put less "pop" or velocity into the ball at contact, while still generating the same rate of spin. Less zip on the ball with just as much spin will make the ball turn over much easier off of the same stroke.

Regardless of whether a racquet is stiff or flexible, the duration of the ball contacting the strings is almost exactly the same. While a soft frame feels like it is "pocketing" the ball, that sensation going into the player's hand is the frame taking a longer time to bend back at contact and return to its original alignment. More often than not, that feels really nice!

Stiff racquets can make a lot of spin for a more modern stroke that routinely depends on more angular contact than a traditional stroke that runs more directly through the ball. I'd say that since making spin on the ball depends somewhat on the speed of the racquet face moving across the ball, not through it, too much lead on a racquet's hoop can slow it down to the point that it's more difficult to achieve that same racquet speed.

That's confusing because some extra weight on the hoop of a frame can make for more power and stability at impact, especially with a rather light racquet. But you can't expect to get more spin from a slower moving racquet. Rafa's extreme spin comes from the ferocious racquet head speed he can generate over and over.

 

[Wilander]

Thanks for your opinions.

My opinion (and experience) is: if you "brush" the ball, like Rafa or Andreev, stiffer is better for spins. If you "hit through the ball", like Djokovic or Murray, softer is better.

I know what you mean, although I think Rafa and Igor are brushing the ball, because their frames have so much power. they cant hit through the ball, because their strokes would land long.
Softer frames require to hit more through for depht, as brushing would send the ball short.

 

[Wilander]

too much lead on a racquet's hoop can slow it down to the point that it's more difficult to achieve that same racquet speed.

Agree, but I think thats not the point travlerajm is making.
He states that: "the spin potential of stiff frames will be severely limited once they are properly leaded up."
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=788364&postcount=1

That sounds to me, that regardless of racquet head speed, the heavy, stiff racquet will produce less spin.

 

[fuzz nation]

Hmm...

Thanks for encouraging me to read that in-depth post. A lot going on there and that comment about the limited spin production is interesting. The assertion throughout the post is that power increases as weight increases and in that write-up, travlerajm doesn't make any reference to the racquet speed slowing down as lead is added, so I'll bet he's only thinking about increased power from a constant swing rate.

If that's the case, then we've got a racquet that already is inherently powerful, since stiffness in a frame gives it more pop compared with a more flexible one. Adding lead will give it even more power from the same swing, but the spin doesn't increase; it's the same swing with the same rate of angular movement across the ball at contact. The racquet's setup is too prone to higher velocity shots.

Sorry for not having the math to back me up, but I'm pretty sure that what's being inferred by that piece of the post is that there isn't extra spin available to control the extra velocity on the ball when the weight increases. In my own racquet experiments, my heavy stiff ProStaff 6.1 Classics have been wonderful serve and volley frames specifically due to the pop I get with them. Since these these racquets are both hefty and rather stiff, they generate plenty of velocity for me, but I only get enough spin to control my strokes with them when I take an especially deliberate low-to-high swing across the ball - to generate extra spin.

A more flexible alternative with similar heft and balance gives me a lot more control over my strokes since the extra velocity that would accompany extra stiffness is absent here. My general perception is that the ratio of pop to spin that I get from a given swing turns more in favor of spin as my racquet gets more flexible.

I'm not surprised that travlerajm can embrace different styles of play depending on which sort of racquet layout he uses. Although the reference to the Coria set up is rather out of the blue - I don't see any other reference to describe the layout for those can't miss, long, loopy strokes. Anyway, it's not hard to believe that his different frames can work well for him in certain settings.

My ProStaffs remain my personal all-time favorites for serve and volleying or the heaviest doubles action I might encounter. In a singles format where I need to land more strokes though, there's absolutely no contest. I'm profoundly more consistent and capable with a more flexible alternative like my Volkl C10's or LM Prestige mids.

 

[tarkowski]

Hmm...

Thanks for encouraging me to read that in-depth post. A lot going on there and that comment about the limited spin production is interesting. The assertion throughout the post is that power increases as weight increases and in that write-up, travlerajm doesn't make any reference to the racquet speed slowing down as lead is added, so I'll bet he's only thinking about increased power from a constant swing rate.

If that's the case, then we've got a racquet that already is inherently powerful, since stiffness in a frame gives it more pop compared with a more flexible one. Adding lead will give it even more power from the same swing, but the spin doesn't increase; it's the same swing with the same rate of angular movement across the ball at contact. The racquet's setup is too prone to higher velocity shots.

Sorry for not having the math to back me up, but I'm pretty sure that what's being inferred by that piece of the post is that there isn't extra spin available to control the extra velocity on the ball when the weight increases. In my own racquet experiments, my heavy stiff ProStaff 6.1 Classics have been wonderful serve and volley frames specifically due to the pop I get with them. Since these these racquets are both hefty and rather stiff, they generate plenty of velocity for me, but I only get enough spin to control my strokes with them when I take an especially deliberate low-to-high swing across the ball - to generate extra spin.

A more flexible alternative with similar heft and balance gives me a lot more control over my strokes since the extra velocity that would accompany extra stiffness is absent here. My general perception is that the ratio of pop to spin that I get from a given swing turns more in favor of spin as my racquet gets more flexible.

I'm not surprised that travlerajm can embrace different styles of play depending on which sort of racquet layout he uses. Although the reference to the Coria set up is rather out of the blue - I don't see any other reference to describe the layout for those can't miss, long, loopy strokes. Anyway, it's not hard to believe that his different frames can work well for him in certain settings.

My ProStaffs remain my personal all-time favorites for serve and volleying or the heaviest doubles action I might encounter. In a singles format where I need to land more strokes though, there's absolutely no contest. I'm profoundly more consistent and capable with a more flexible alternative like my Volkl C10's or LM Prestige mids.

Absolutely outstanding post fuzz. As always, glad to have you here.

 

[Kevo]

It's interesting to watch Nadal's forehand in slow motion. Many times he hits that straight arm, trailing racquet type forehand that Federer and Verdasco can hit as well. The difference is in Nadal's follow through. He loops the frame over his head a lot where Fed and Verdasco tend to go around the body. It seems more likely to me that it's not as much the frame stiffness that matters as it is the technique. I think Nadal's lasso forehand is simply the result of how much effort he puts into his swing pulling the racquet up and rotating the head more than is typical.

I've experimented a little with different frames going from wood which is heavy and flexible to super light stiff frames. In my experience the limit of spin is simply how fast I can manage to get the frame moving. With all of them I can hit heavy spin that bounces shoulder high and with my forehand I can consistently hit a ball that will land in and bounce 5 ft. up the back fence. So on average, I don't think there is much hope of getting anything significantly different with one frame versus another.

However, having said that, I have hit some outliers that were noticeably more spinny than usual. Those tend to happen only with the light frames although there might be a rare exception here and there with a heavy frame. What I think that means is that speed of swing is the limiting factor on spin. So if you want the most spin possible get a lighter frame and swing as fast as possible. I think what makes Nadal unique is he can swing really fast a high percentage of the time. I don't think most players could manage that.

 

[fuzz nation]

Well thanks!

And good morning to all the cool people in Colorado! Hope your coffee is inspiring you as righteously as mine today. Feel free to share your "what makes a racquet feel like a spin factory for me, etc." stories, too.

 

[fuzz nation]

Morning Kevo - agree with you entirely. Rafa's racquet speed is nearly inconceivable to me and I've never even seen the guy play live. Without that extreme speed in his swing, his spin just couldn't happen, but the timing that he needs to be able to execute that sort of stroke over and over with good contact is astounding for me.

My needs in a racquet have always included enough heft to give the racquet the amount of stability that want, especially up at the net, so I've never thrived with anything much lighter than maybe 12.2-12.4 oz. The big revelation came for me when I got into some much softer frames, though. Suddenly I could take a full, comfortable swing at the ball without a constant feeling of needing to hold back, yet I could land a lot more strokes. Testimony for finding the "right fit" I suppose.

In my case, I did find significantly different performance with different frames, so I guess that's why I enjoy the war stories we share here.

 

[Kevo]

In my case, I did find significantly different performance with different frames, so I guess that's why I enjoy the war stories we share here.

I may have not been completely clear in my post. I'm not saying that you won't get different results from different frames. I think what you said about finding the right fit is correct, and that it will be different for different people.

My comments were more directed at spin "potential". Your "potential" to put spin on the ball is not significantly different with different frames, only different technique or ability. So assuming you are skilled enough as a player to use the same swing with different frames, the results will not be significantly different. At least not in the sense that your shot will go from looking like a Hewitt forehand to a Nadal forehand. You might change RPMs enough to notice, but not enough to move up in weight class so to speak.

Rafa is really an amazing athlete. I would imagine that Rafa could out spin most of us using a junior frame with the included syn gut string job. That doesn't mean he could hit a 100mph winner with it, but he would still be tough to beat.

He'd probably need about 50 frames to finish a match. There would be a big pile of warped and twisted bob the builder racquets over to the side of the court or something. He should actually do a charity event like that and then auction the frames on ****.