Reasonable swingweight?
- Thread starter wings56
- Start date
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
Could be. That hitting session was after my next-to-last Neo-Adjuvant Chemo session. I had radiation therapy that morning too.
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
I would guess 370 and below. I play-tested a stock RF-97 and the racquet came through way too fast.
jklos
Professional
Fair enough. Thiem seems to have no problem generating power with a lower SW. Neither do juniors or other semi pros or pros or even amateurs for that matter. But again it's a preference.
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
I can but it takes time to get acclimated. I find that it takes less effort to hit with high-swingweight racquets.
jklos
Professional
True. I can pound the ball with the RF but overtime it gets sluggish for me.
wings56
Hall of Fame
I would agree with this to a certain point
BlueB
Legend
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
It is very interesting to me because in 43 years of playing tennis I’ve never experienced the arm fatigue to which many here refer, and I see myself as of average “strength “. NOT SAYING it doesn’t happen, just that I am. Puzzled.
Further with modern equipment and techniques I find it easier to hit with pace and spin. This is especially true on the forehand
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Further with modern equipment and techniques I find it easier to hit with pace and spin. This is especially true on the forehand
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
wings56
Hall of Fame
I'd have to agree. I've played wooden racquet tournaments and never had arm fatigue
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
I loaned BHBH a racquet with around a 390 swingweight a long time ago and he didn't have any problems using it (might have surprised him). I've used swingweights from 300 to 400 and I find that high swingweights take less effort than low swingweights. I am not a strong guy. I can bench 110 (easily) squat 125 and deadlift 195 which I don't consider strong though probably quite good for my age (60) given how out-of-shape people my age typically are. My fitness center manager weighs 90 pounds and she can deadlift twice her weight but she's a lot younger than I am.
So low swingweights for people that are really strong and high swingweights for weak old guys recovering from cancer like me.
wings56
Hall of Fame
Interesting observation.
If by some miracle I could generate my typical RHS on a 390 SW racquet, I'd break my wrist. I used to think all the people here playing with 360+ SW racquets were full of crap, until I saw how they swung the ball. It's not by any means a modern FH. Which is fine. Whatever works for them, but I don't think the majority here are hitting a typical modern FH with a 360+ SW.
Power Player
Bionic Poster
Correct. 9/10 It’s guys with really slow racquet head speed. Which makes sense why they like the higher weights. Check out the SWs on old granny frames from the 90’s - they were pretty massive. Not saying these guys are grannies, but it’s a similar concept in terms of swing speed.
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
I'd love to see it.
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
It’s on video here. 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
BHBH has posted a lot of videos over the years.
Sorry I missed it. Haven't been active here as much as I like to be. Link? Is it the one you uploaded and you are hitting with him?
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
Sorry, I don't have a link. I just have seen a ton of them.
It depends on players strength and technique.
If your game rely on high RHS and your forehand swing path is low to high, you don't want to use high SW racquet.
Ashtonbrewer94
Rookie
Swingweight does matter yes, and typically better players will have a heavier swingweight. However, I don't think SW is as important as static weight. I have two reasons behind this.
1. I play a PS Team that's weighted up to 340g (24g tungsten in the handle, 2g at 12, 4g total at 3&9) but the swingweight is only around 315-318 max, and it is much more stable and comfortable than racquets I've played with SWs over 330.
2. I come from a golf background, and while both swingweight and static weight are very important in golf, they are important for different reasons. Swingweight is more about feeling the clubhead in space and being able to deliver the club properly, whereas static weight is more about your rhythm and swing speed. I know players who swing over 120 mph who use heavy clubs with medium swingweights, but I don't know any strong players who use lighter clubs with high swingweights. Not sure if the principles are the same for tennis, but I believe static weight is the 1a to swingweights 1b.
1. I play a PS Team that's weighted up to 340g (24g tungsten in the handle, 2g at 12, 4g total at 3&9) but the swingweight is only around 315-318 max, and it is much more stable and comfortable than racquets I've played with SWs over 330.
2. I come from a golf background, and while both swingweight and static weight are very important in golf, they are important for different reasons. Swingweight is more about feeling the clubhead in space and being able to deliver the club properly, whereas static weight is more about your rhythm and swing speed. I know players who swing over 120 mph who use heavy clubs with medium swingweights, but I don't know any strong players who use lighter clubs with high swingweights. Not sure if the principles are the same for tennis, but I believe static weight is the 1a to swingweights 1b.
smalahove
Hall of Fame
Good points.
I fall in between the two categories, and ime, another important factor is movement and weight transfer, and esp. upper body rotational speed.
I enjoy "lighter" SW and faster frames on my forehand side, as I am able to properly move into the shot, hitting in front, and leveraging my wrist lag. On my backhand side, I am not anywhere as fast swinging through the ball, my left foot is weaker, so the loading and unloading is weaker, and my results are way better with higher SW. It's the difference between swinging a whip or a samurai-sword (i guess), compared to shoveling heavy snow or swinging a sledgehammer.
In golf, SW and other metrics related to the club and shaft, is a reflection of the type of swing you have, not how good a player you are. Do you have a smooth acceleration or a faster, almost jerky one? Do you like the a flexier or rigid type of feel?
Just look at Berdych or Djokovic. They hit huge forehands, but they're not accelerating as fast through the shot as others, but their SW lets them swing that way. Other like Fritz, Kyrgios, Tiafoe okay with (almost) stock frames if I'm not mistaken, with medium SW, but they generate a lot of RHS.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Reasonable depends on the player. I myself struggle playing against good players with anything under 330. The higher it gets the harder the timing becomes in turn. The swingweight thus should be hefty enough that you don’t find yourself pushed around, yet whippy enough to maintain good timing, i.e. contact up in front. Finding what that swingweight is requires tinkering and testing, no way around it.
Last edited:
Statements like that are incredibly misleading, need more context, and really doesn't help anyone new trying to get into the game. Within a certain range of SW, it really depends on the player's technique and strength. I mean, we really going to tell Thiem he needs more SW? Maybe Nadal needs to play with a 400 SW like the 60 year olds do here. There is definitely a point where SW is too much for a given player and that doesn't make them a worse player.
BlueB
Legend
I always prefered higher static then SW, and both lower then the sledgehammers some of the TT crowd like swinging. Someting like 335-340g, 320-325 SW...
However if one of the components HAD (not voluntarily) to be WAY above my preffered, I'd rather choose the SW. Very high static kills my shoulder and wrist. With high SW I loose controll and timing, somewhat.
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
However if one of the components HAD (not voluntarily) to be WAY above my preffered, I'd rather choose the SW. Very high static kills my shoulder and wrist. With high SW I loose controll and timing, somewhat.
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
Because they are freaks of nature that can harness their legs, core and arms in a kinetic chain even the best of us rec players couldn't dream of recreating. The comparison of a 3.5-5.0 rec player to a top pro is ludicrous. The top pros could generate power with a frying pan.
It's more than preference. For rec players it comes down to coordination and timing. If you are very coordinated with impeccable timing you can swing fast and use a light racquet, generating power off of the speed. If you aren't as coordinated with lesser timing, you need to swing slower and hence a bit more momentum will help your power.
