Reasonable swingweight?
- Thread starter wings56
- Start date
Yes . It does . I’ve went from stock sw on the graphene speed pro to 343 by adding 2.25 gm lead tape at 12 o’clock, strings , vibration dampener
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
fuzz nation
G.O.A.T.
If you want to get more feedback on this topic, you'll probably get more looks and replies by floating your question in the "Racquets" section where the equipment nerds hang out.
I've always appreciated the idea of calculating the swing-weights of individual racquets to get a number that reflects the "heaviness" of one racquet compared with another. I think that some folks have found this spec to be rather helpful and that's great, but I don't use this number anymore because it can actually create a misleading impression of a frame for me.
Two racquets can have the same swing-weight, but have significantly different layouts and weight distributions. One can be rather light in terms of static weight along with perhaps head-heavy balance while another can have a relatively heavy static weight and a balance that's substantially head-light. Despite having the same swing-weight, these racquets would be very different players for me (and for most of us).
If swing-weights are a helpful reference for you, that's great. I prefer to look at the combo of any frame's static weight, balance, and flex when I want to get an idea of how it will maneuver and also how stable it might be through the ball. Since swing-weights can be misleading without knowing some other specs, I just go for other specs and these three have been a better guide or predictor for me of what a racquet's personality might be on the courts.
As players improve, they often trend toward heavier racquets that have higher swing-weights. As long as these heavier frames are a manageable weight for that player, they can potentially offer more power and stability in general. That can become more important as developing players work toward producing stronger shots, but also as they play stronger opponents and face faster incoming shots.
Switching into heavier alternatives doesn't have to be intimidating. Hefty frames can be quite manageable and comfortable when they also have enough head-light balance to handle with relative ease. And sometimes it can be easy to simply tune a little extra heft and stability into a frame using some lead tape, etc. I'd bet that almost any racquet weighing 11.0-11.5 oz. would be fine for lower level players as long as it also had a comfortable balance.
As a tennis teacher, I'm actually not wild about very light racquets, even for beginners. Those sorts of frames might be helpful for absolute beginners who are just trying to get the strings on the ball, but they allow developing players to get away with bad habits too often. They let us produce shots by swinging with not much more than the arm and shoulder instead of the larger essential muscles in the legs and the core. They also require especially fast swing speeds to generate more power. That can be stressful, especially for developing players who don't have well developed mechanics.
There are some players with fantastic timing who can swing light racquets super-fast and hit terrific shots, even at the college level. Heavier racquets aren't a must for everybody as they improve, but when the power increases and the ball gets moving faster, most of us need enough beef on hand to "win the collision" and hit the ball with some authority using our comfortable swing speeds. I also like to go to the net, so I crave the inherent stability of a heavier racquet to command my volleys.
I've always appreciated the idea of calculating the swing-weights of individual racquets to get a number that reflects the "heaviness" of one racquet compared with another. I think that some folks have found this spec to be rather helpful and that's great, but I don't use this number anymore because it can actually create a misleading impression of a frame for me.
Two racquets can have the same swing-weight, but have significantly different layouts and weight distributions. One can be rather light in terms of static weight along with perhaps head-heavy balance while another can have a relatively heavy static weight and a balance that's substantially head-light. Despite having the same swing-weight, these racquets would be very different players for me (and for most of us).
If swing-weights are a helpful reference for you, that's great. I prefer to look at the combo of any frame's static weight, balance, and flex when I want to get an idea of how it will maneuver and also how stable it might be through the ball. Since swing-weights can be misleading without knowing some other specs, I just go for other specs and these three have been a better guide or predictor for me of what a racquet's personality might be on the courts.
As players improve, they often trend toward heavier racquets that have higher swing-weights. As long as these heavier frames are a manageable weight for that player, they can potentially offer more power and stability in general. That can become more important as developing players work toward producing stronger shots, but also as they play stronger opponents and face faster incoming shots.
Switching into heavier alternatives doesn't have to be intimidating. Hefty frames can be quite manageable and comfortable when they also have enough head-light balance to handle with relative ease. And sometimes it can be easy to simply tune a little extra heft and stability into a frame using some lead tape, etc. I'd bet that almost any racquet weighing 11.0-11.5 oz. would be fine for lower level players as long as it also had a comfortable balance.
As a tennis teacher, I'm actually not wild about very light racquets, even for beginners. Those sorts of frames might be helpful for absolute beginners who are just trying to get the strings on the ball, but they allow developing players to get away with bad habits too often. They let us produce shots by swinging with not much more than the arm and shoulder instead of the larger essential muscles in the legs and the core. They also require especially fast swing speeds to generate more power. That can be stressful, especially for developing players who don't have well developed mechanics.
There are some players with fantastic timing who can swing light racquets super-fast and hit terrific shots, even at the college level. Heavier racquets aren't a must for everybody as they improve, but when the power increases and the ball gets moving faster, most of us need enough beef on hand to "win the collision" and hit the ball with some authority using our comfortable swing speeds. I also like to go to the net, so I crave the inherent stability of a heavier racquet to command my volleys.
wings56
Hall of Fame
I was hoping to get feedback with some personal experience... Thinking that adult league players may say something like... 3.0 should use 330 SW...3.5 340.... 4.0 350 etc
BlueB
Legend
No, it's personal. You need to experiment with this and find what you like. I went down from 325+ to 320 over the last few years. I was a strong 4.0 last time the club rated me...
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
wings56
Hall of Fame
I need to recalculate... I tried to calculate and came up with 386. I can't imagine it's actually that high...
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
I hit with Gulbis' racquet several years ago...it was about 12.6 oz and 360 ish SW if I remember right...felt awesome so I leaded up my c10s to about that weight and was really happy with it.
After taking time off tennis though I found that my timing wasn't good with that SW so now I'm gradually going back to more weight.
For me, super heavy plus high SW is great for my backhand (2 handed) but harder to control on forehand. I also like heavier for volleys and serves.
Moveforwardalways
Hall of Fame
For adult rec players, weighting up a racquet is generally unnecessary. Not that it is wrong, but just not necessary. Even at the men’s 4.5 level, very few players add weight to their frames, and playing stock racquets is very common. The pace and spin at 4.5 is just not enough to require added weight to stabilize the frame or add power. Most 4.5 adults do not serve in the triple digits or hit 80+ mph ground strokes. Maybe at the D1 level adding weight may be necessary, but for the “after work” 4.5 adult player, there is ample pace and spin in a stock racquet.
wings56
Hall of Fame
All I did was add 2g of lead to 12 o clock on a burn 95. SW should be more like 350ish?
wings56
Hall of Fame
I know this is also a very player specific thing...
BlueB
Legend
Is it 335 stock? Then more like low 340s.
Why have you added the weight in the first place?
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
wings56
Hall of Fame
Supposedly 337 stock. I just switched from a racquet with a static weight of about 360g. I started using the heavier racquet in college and just never really backed off of it until recently. Obviously, I don't play for 3 hours a day anymore... I also don't got against a D1 ball. The burn was just too light off the shelf.
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
Yeah 320-340. And it gets higher as you face heavier balls.
Moveforwardalways
Hall of Fame
That is true. I just don’t know who is out there hitting this ball that is so heavy that a 360+ swing weight is necessary. You may be talking about futures or challenger level stuff. I don’t know what level you play. But no one at 4.5 or below is hitting that heavy.
MathGeek
Hall of Fame
There came a point a few years back when I realized my strength and mass had gone and I was no longer going to win with power. I gave up my heavy racquet and on a lark bought a Head Ti.S6, swing weight 318. The thing was crazy light.
But for all the power I gave up, I gained awesome control. The thing seemed to read my mind and send those fuzzy yellow balls just where I wanted them to go. It was as close as I've ever gotten to a magic wand. Soon after, my wife and son both switched too.
Down here in the NTRP 3.0-3.5 zone (UTR 4-6), power impresses folks, but accuracy and control actually win matches. The light swing weight gets the racquet on the ball and sends it back over. Often pretty darn close to where I wanted it.
But for all the power I gave up, I gained awesome control. The thing seemed to read my mind and send those fuzzy yellow balls just where I wanted them to go. It was as close as I've ever gotten to a magic wand. Soon after, my wife and son both switched too.
Down here in the NTRP 3.0-3.5 zone (UTR 4-6), power impresses folks, but accuracy and control actually win matches. The light swing weight gets the racquet on the ball and sends it back over. Often pretty darn close to where I wanted it.
wings56
Hall of Fame
I do play at 4.5, but I regularly play with UTRs of 9 to 11. My lighter racquet now feels actually better than the heavier one does.
I'll comment back once I figure out the swingweight, which based on responses is probably somewhere in the 340s.
Yes it’s lighter and has higher head heavy balance than the heavy with more head light balance . My stock graphene speed pro at 11.7 oz 7pt HL now with 5.5 grams lead split 70/30 between polar ends is 12.3 oz and 6HL but feels more head heavy than stock , but still swings faster then a non polarized frame to me
I also measure the swing weight using the tw university method of hanging by pencils and timing to number 10 swings then input into sw calculator. With string and vibration dampener I have a 343 sw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I also measure the swing weight using the tw university method of hanging by pencils and timing to number 10 swings then input into sw calculator. With string and vibration dampener I have a 343 sw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wings56
Hall of Fame
How many times did you take measurement? How far off were measurements?
Take average of 3 times and the result is input into sw calculator. The results are accurate and sensitive to how well you time .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wings56
Hall of Fame
Sorry, I meant how different were the 3 different measurements you took?
Those are the times in seconds . Average time in seconds . Swing weight and balance point
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wings56
Hall of Fame
Those are the times in seconds . Average time in seconds . Swing weight and balance point
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow this is pretty close! Mine were wildly off. Going to try again tomorrow. Thank you!
BlueB
Legend
Swing 40 times instead of 10, then divide the time by 4. Way more accurate.
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
SavvyStringer
Professional
It's not that easy. It all depends on stroke mechanics and length. Too much SW with bad technique can not only cause problems striking the ball but also cause injuries. Most will get to a point where their preferred swing weight will stop going up regardless of level. Shorter strokes tend to fare better with less swing weight and longer more fluid strokes can typically handle more swing weight.
wings56
Hall of Fame
Excellent advice
wings56
Hall of Fame
I did 20 swings and divided by 2. both of the racquets I measured were within 2 100ths of a second on 20 swings. Very happy with my results.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
I agree, the only thing I can add to this thread is I see way too many 4.0 and below players using Wilson Pro Staff autographs and even the Yonex 330g , I am fairly confident it isn't helping them play better and 30% or so of them are not in good physical condition at all. Those players should tone it down a little weight wise in my opinion.
time_fly
Hall of Fame
If you’re a real stud like me then about 390. I apply lead tape by the yard in my utter dominant manliness. But if you’re not quite there yet, no shame in admitting it, stick lower like 315-325.
PS. Got bageled last night by some guy with a stock Pure Aero. I must need more lead tape.
Just head over to the racquet forum if you need more advice like this.
wings56
Hall of Fame
If you’re a real stud like me then about 390. I apply lead tape by the yard in my utter dominant manliness. But if you’re not quite there yet, no shame in admitting it, stick lower like 315-325.
PS. Got bageled last night by some guy with a stock Pure Aero. I must need more lead tape.
Just head over to the racquet forum if you need more advice like this.
SW on my stick came in at 354. Static weight of 340. My other frame was 338 with static weight of 330. I'm going to match them.
wings56
Hall of Fame
LMAO I can see that
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
Best set of tennis I played was with an RF97. Unfortunately it fatigued me by the second set. But for 30 min it was glorious.
I think many good 3.5’s and most 4.0’s can handle heavier frames and play well with them if they don’t fatigue. The most awful strokes I see still come from the Pure Aero/Pure Drive/Ultra world.
I can’t recall the last time I saw someone with a 12.5 oz stick playing terrible. Most have pretty smooth strokes and hit with control and pace.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
I can't argue that your experience is wrong, you've seen them playing ok. I see them unable to maneuver the racket at net, having poor footwork, not swinging the stick at full speed (meaning they aren't hitting bad shots, but they would get better action and variety with a lighter weight), I mean they aren't hurting themselves or unable to pick up the racket, but they swing the 12.5 sticks slowly like a giant hammer pendulum so it isn't helping them, they aren't using the weight to do anything special, just carrying around more weight with no benefit.
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
Admittedly I see very few people under 4.0 with 12.5 oz frames. And the two I know of, one is a slapper and the other hits with solid technique and has great touch and hands at the net. Most of the sub 4.0 players i know are firmly in the PD/PA/Ultra camp. So I'm probably getting a biased sample. By 4.0 and above the higher weighted rackets like the RF97, Old Prostaffs and 6.1's start to make an appearance and these guys have used heavy rackets their whole life and aren't moving away from them.
Then in the senior group the Babolats start to make an appearance again largely to help with serving power as their strokes are still that smooth linear conti grip FH and BH that don't benefit at all from the spin friendly nature of the Babs. Then the super seniors are all rocking light OS frames to but bunt balls around.
Power Player
Bionic Poster
There’s no real answer to this. High swing weight camp for rec players believes in slow swing speeds that are repeatable for easy power. Lower swing weight camp believes in high racquet speed. I have been in both camps, but I prefer the latter. My SWs vary from 320-335 or so now. In the past I played at 365.
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
@wings56 measure your rackets using a cross string 3 strings off from where you measured them first and see what your SWs are. You may also want to video your racket swings and use an editor to determines your period. Timing the period with a stop watch is a waste of time.
EDIT: BTW if you make a mistake of +/-0.01 sec in a racket’s period your measured SW will be off by about +/-5 points. That’s a 10 SW point swing. If you have an iOS device get SwingTool it is usually accurate to +/- 0.002 seconds.
EDIT: BTW if you make a mistake of +/-0.01 sec in a racket’s period your measured SW will be off by about +/-5 points. That’s a 10 SW point swing. If you have an iOS device get SwingTool it is usually accurate to +/- 0.002 seconds.
Last edited:
wings56
Hall of Fame
I did 20 swings to reduce margin of error. On the heavier stick, the measurements were only off by .02 seconds after 2 attempts so I stuck with that. The lighter frame measured exactly the same after 2 attempts so I didn't do anymore.
I miss calculated the swing weight . It’s
333. My weight strung is 340gm or 11.9 ounces. My weighing scale
read 10 grams more last time and needed a re-measurement tonight after feeling that there’s no way that adding 5.5 grams of lead on the stock frame would bring a 320 unstrung after 5.5 grams lead would equal 350 grams strung . It’s not possible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
333. My weight strung is 340gm or 11.9 ounces. My weighing scale
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Winners or Errors
Legend
I find my preferred swingweight range is 320-350. Below that range I struggle with timing. Above that range I struggle with endurance.
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think so.
