Relationship between power and balance

[anubis]

It just hit me today: balance is integral to power.

Take two racquet with the exact same static weight. Have the distribution of weight different, more in the handle making one 10 points HL and the other 2 points HL. The one that is 2 points HL will be more powerful.

Now, take the one that is 2 points HL. To equal it's power but make it 8 points HL, I would need to add a significant amount of weight in the handle and in the hoop to achieve that goal. Probably close to an ounce or more.

OK, so let's put this to an example. Two racquets:
Head IG Radical MP, strung weight with overgrip: 312 grams
Head IG Prestige MP, strung weight with Head leather grip and overgrip: 350 grams.

the radical is 1 point HL
The Prestige is 9 points HL

I "perceive" the Radical as having significantly more power than the Prestige. Even though the Prestige is almost 40 grams heavier, the Radical has more easy power.

Both are dense string patterns, 18x20.

Therefore, my conclusion is that balance (distribution of mass) is more important than static weight. You don't need a heavy racquet to hit the ball deep.

 

[BlueB]

Swing weight is what counts and what you are probably describing...
If the 2 frames had the same SW and same static weight, they still could have different balance point (weight distribution). The one that matches your swing style/dynamic the best, to produce the best racguet head speed will be perceived to have more power.

Anyhow, you can not just rely on static weight and balance to predict the power...

 

[ChicagoJack]

... Therefore, my conclusion is that balance (distribution of mass) is more important than static weight.

Hi Anubis,

1. I get what you are saying, but I think you might be squashing the two distinct concepts of balance point and weight distribution into a single interchangeable, and predictable definition. To further illustrate BlueB's point ...the examples below, illustrate that swingweight (which is the factor most closely related to ACOR ie Raw Racquet Power) cannot be predicted using the balance point and overall mass.

2. What you are experiencing makes perfect sense, I think perhaps you are just verbalizing it awkwardly. You are rightly sensing the lighter IG Radical to be more powerful than the IG Prestige because well, it is more powerful. A stock IG Prestige has a swingweight of 310, while the lighter, more head heavy IG Radical has a swingweight of 320. You've plopped in a leather grip on the Prestige, further increasing the tailweight, but that's not going to increase measured sw by much.

Regards -Jack


Example #1 | Both frames 326g and 4 HL | Swingweights are 330 and 317 | Which means the Slazenger has more weight at the tip and tail.




Example #2 | Both frames 335g and 6 HL | Swingweights are 333 and 318 | Which means the Babolat has more weight at the tip and tail.




Example #3 | Both frames 315g and 4 HL | Swingweights are 346 and 308 | The Prince is longer, has more weight at tip and tail

 

[corners]

BlueB and CJack - great responses.

It's a pity: there is so much great stuff written on this message board on this topic over the past four or five years, but most of it is all buried and forgotten. It's nice that knowledgeable and helpful posters step up with good info, but it's a shame that this info has to be written over and over and over and over again. Every week we see a new iteration of a question that has already been asked and answered a hundred times.

Then again, nearly all the questions anyone ever asks about "power", balance, swingweight, stiffness, etc., etc. are addressed expertly in the Racquets Articles at TW University.

 

[ChicagoJack]

^^ True that.

 

[max]

OP: this was a method used about 15 years ago by Wilson to introduce "power" to lighter frames. Even balance technology.

 

[Sparky]

Adding t corners post. This was posted a while back. http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/racquetweighting.php

 

[donquijote]

The question is: can you keep the balls within lines with the lighter racquet? which is the ultimate goal when you hit in tennis. I found myself arming my relatively lighter racquet to prevent over-hitting.
Also creating a heavy ball is more difficult with a light racquet unless you have a good spinning technique.

 

[Fintft]

My 6.1 95 has overall maintained its static weight for the last few editions while the swing weight has become lower: hence more controll and less power.

 

[LeeD]

Using rackets as light as 10 oz strung, I've never had any problems, except for returns of fast serves, and returns of deep fast groundies.
ADD MORE TOPSPIN, if you're scared of hitting long. Aim lower too.
So, now on 11 oz racket's with 320 SW, never have problems arming the ball due to the racket weight.
6 years ago, played with 12.5 oz 345 SW rackets.

 

[BlueB]

Sooo, what last 3 posts have to do with OP's question?

 

[donquijote]

Sooo, what last 3 posts have to do with OP's question?

Here is what the OP said: "Even though the Prestige is almost 40 grams heavier, the Radical has more easy power. "

 

[anubis]

Sooo, what last 3 posts have to do with OP's question?

LOL a TT thread that stays on topic, you so crazy

seriously tho, my questions were answered. let the thread evolve into whatever it wishes

 

[Fintft]

Sooo, what last 3 posts have to do with OP's question?

My point was that I only partially agree with the OP: i.e. why I wouldn't necessarily go for a lighter racquet, instead I keep the same static weight and only vary the swing weight to achieve the desired power and control.

I don't think that's too difficult to follow.