Specs: Nadal and Paes racquet specs

#3
Nadal's racquet was the last strung before he went on-court for the final. After Casey strung and stencilled it, I put in on the Star Stringing Babolat RDC to get the measurements, except for the length, which I measured with a tape measure.

As for Paes' racquet, George had prepared a couple of racquets already, and when Leander came to pick them up, he dropped off two additional racquets to string. After George had strung and stencilled the first, I measured it on the RDC.

Thus, I got each racquet directly from the person who strung it, and measured each immediately after stringing.
 

jura

Professional
#6
Are you sure about the length of Paes' racket? Because I hold them end of last year and I thought I remember that it was the PD+ . . . - But I'm not sure.
 

thefan

Professional
#8
Wow, nadal's racquet is only 11.6 ounces?

I've also heard from people on this forums that nadal's racquet is actually 340 grams (11.94 ounces). 20 grams leaded up from the 320 gram stock apd.
 
Last edited:
#10
Wow, its suprising to see these pros using racquets at or under 12 oz when some people on these boards say that they need 13+oz frames and anything less is "unstable". (which is fine, everyone likes something different)

It just goes to show how vastly different people play the same game.:eek:
 
#12
Wow, its suprising to see these pros using racquets at or under 12 oz when some people on these boards say that they need 13+oz frames and anything less is "unstable". (which is fine, everyone likes something different)

It just goes to show how vastly different people play the same game.:eek:
All racquets become unstable if not hit in the sweet spot.
 
#15
What's interesting for me is that someone as strong and fit as Nadal uses a racquet with a swingweight of 355; Paes, a doubles player, uses a swingweight of 351.

I'm pretty sure that's indicative that 5.0-5.5 amateurs in general, who don't train like professionals, and amateur singles players shouldn't use swingweights higher than, I would say, at most 340. If you're rated any lower than that, using something higher than 330 is completely counterproductive to achieving better results, improving stroke patterns, and maintaining the energy to move and play your best.

It's true that having a heavier swingweighted racquet helps you hit a heavier ball if you swing with the same speed and fundamentally sound pattern that you employ with a lighter swingweighted racquet, BUT THERE'S A POINT AT WHICH ADDED SWINGWEIGHT IS HARMFUL TO ONE'S GAME. That's to say nothing about the effect swinging such a heavy swingweighted racquet has on your fitness and movement.

Although I'm convinced by some of the more knowledgeable posters on this board that the swingweight measurement itself is imprecise and that there are, in fact, multiple types of swingweight, I still think the measurement has real world, on the court relevance.

Repeating myself, but in conslusion: I understand and agree with the argument that higher swingweight frames may allow you to use less effort to hit the ball harder, heavier, etc. But this argument completely ignores the fitness realities that constrain EVERY tennis player. If you want easier power, try lower tensions, a different string, or a racquet with a bigger sweetspot that has a swingweight suited to you.
 
Last edited:
#16
What's interesting for me is that someone as strong and fit as Nadal uses a racquet with a swingweight of 355; Paes, a doubles player, uses a swingweight of 351.

I'm pretty sure that's indicative that 5.0-5.5 amateurs in general, who don't train like professionals, and amateur singles players shouldn't use swingweights higher than, I would say, at most 340. If you're rated any lower than that, using something higher than 330 is completely counterproductive to achieving better results, improving stroke patterns, and maintaining the energy to move and play your best.

It's true that having a heavier swingweighted racquet helps you hit a heavier ball if you swing with the same speed and fundamentally sound pattern that you employ with a lighter swingweighted racquet, BUT THERE'S A POINT AT WHICH ADDED SWINGWEIGHT IS HARMFUL TO ONE'S GAME. That's to say nothing about the effect swinging such a heavy swingweighted racquet has on your fitness and movement.

Although I'm convinced by some of the more knowledgeable posters on this board that the swingweight measurement itself is imprecise and that there are, in fact, multiple types of swingweight, I still think the measurement has real world, on the court relevance.

Last thing: I understand and agree with the argument that higher swingweight frames allow you to use less effort to hit the ball harder, heavier, etc. But this argument completely ignores the fitness realities that constrain EVERY tennis player. If you want easier power, try lower tensions, a different string, or a racquet with a bigger sweetspot that has a swingweight suited to you.
Excellent post! I agree 100%!
 

AJK1

Hall of Fame
#18
What's interesting for me is that someone as strong and fit as Nadal uses a racquet with a swingweight of 355; Paes, a doubles player, uses a swingweight of 351.

I'm pretty sure that's indicative that 5.0-5.5 amateurs in general, who don't train like professionals, and amateur singles players shouldn't use swingweights higher than, I would say, at most 340. If you're rated any lower than that, using something higher than 330 is completely counterproductive to achieving better results, improving stroke patterns, and maintaining the energy to move and play your best.

It's true that having a heavier swingweighted racquet helps you hit a heavier ball if you swing with the same speed and fundamentally sound pattern that you employ with a lighter swingweighted racquet, BUT THERE'S A POINT AT WHICH ADDED SWINGWEIGHT IS HARMFUL TO ONE'S GAME. That's to say nothing about the effect swinging such a heavy swingweighted racquet has on your fitness and movement.

Although I'm convinced by some of the more knowledgeable posters on this board that the swingweight measurement itself is imprecise and that there are, in fact, multiple types of swingweight, I still think the measurement has real world, on the court relevance.

Last thing: I understand and agree with the argument that higher swingweight frames allow you to use less effort to hit the ball harder, heavier, etc. But this argument completely ignores the fitness realities that constrain EVERY tennis player. If you want easier power, try lower tensions, a different string, or a racquet with a bigger sweetspot that has a swingweight suited to you.
Me too, i agree totally.
 

psamp14

Hall of Fame
#19
I just got back from the Pacific Life Open, where among other things, I had the opportunity to measure one of Nadal's racquets and one of Paes' racquets.

You can see the results on this web page:

http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html
i just spent some time on your site and i have to say...you've got one great site...i read all the reviews and comparisons and am impressed

good knowledge and keep it up :)
 
#22
Great post Greg, and great site. It's refreshing to find someone posting facts in a clear and concise manner and not just mere speculation and wild opinions.
 
#25
Cool work Greg. Now for the rest of you, this shows that using a calculation for swingweight versus actually putting a frame on the machine shows how inaccurate a calculation is. Throw in these two guys play right roughly give or take, 3400 swingweight without string. That's the other thing here. You can have two frames taht were identical in all aspects prior to stringing,b ut post stringing, they can and most likely will have different numbers.
 
#28
I WANNA SEE THE K90 SPECS ROGER is USING caz I bet it's a VERY DIFFERENT Stick than the Retail one. This time I'm willing to sue Wilson over it - I mean it damn it.
 
#29
I just got back from the Pacific Life Open, where among other things, I had the opportunity to measure one of Nadal's racquets and one of Paes' racquets.

You can see the results on this web page:

http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html
It says Pro Hurricane and those strings are a creamy yellow color. I think he may be still using the Kirschbaum Super Spiky because his strings look more like those. Shiny, vivid, brighter yellow and transparent looking. Whaqt do you think he uses?
 
#33
If anyone couldn't tell from my other posts, I completely agree with DoubleHanded&LovinIt. That is a great post.

People can do what they want, but don't do it believing it is going to make you into a pro based on the wrong assumptions that pro's are doing what you're doing.
 
#35
i like travelrajm's energy and enthusiasm and i have no problem with the formula's (you have to watch strung/unstrung though, make sure you're comparing apples to apples)... but it's only as good as the basic data and then he went one step further and started analyzing player's shots from AO and relating to his guesses at swingweight (where there wasn't even data - federer?)....

it all got a bit much. and one difference between tennis and say golf or baseball hitting is that the ball has to stay in. if it didn't have to stay in, for sure i can see much heavier and higher SW racquets.
 
#36
Nadal's racquet was the last strung before he went on-court for the final. After Casey strung and stencilled it, I put in on the Star Stringing Babolat RDC to get the measurements, except for the length, which I measured with a tape measure.

As for Paes' racquet, George had prepared a couple of racquets already, and when Leander came to pick them up, he dropped off two additional racquets to string. After George had strung and stencilled the first, I measured it on the RDC.

Thus, I got each racquet directly from the person who strung it, and measured each immediately after stringing.

Did you measure another racket that had been previously measured on antoher machine so that you knew it was accurate?

If you have that kind of access why don't you check out more pro's rackets, it would be very very interesting.

Thanks for what you have done though
 
D

Deleted member 6835

Guest
#37
But Nadal's racquet has a swingweight of 355 and Paes' is 351. Don't those qualify as SW2 or close to it?
yup, BP is right. Trav had some parts right, but on the other hand, some of his info has greatly misled some people on these boards. its their fault for listening to him.

anyways, what i liked is that federer doesnt use any lead tape, his racket is identical to the stock form. so trav and lots of people on the boards were wrong about that.

thanks greg for finally proving wrong some ignorant people on these boards... err.. i mean thanks for the info ;)
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#39
yup, BP is right. Trav had some parts right, but on the other hand, some of his info has greatly misled some people on these boards. its their fault for listening to him.

anyways, what i liked is that federer doesnt use any lead tape, his racket is identical to the stock form. so trav and lots of people on the boards were wrong about that.

thanks greg for finally proving wrong some ignorant people on these boards... err.. i mean thanks for the info ;)
The Federer case is different. It may not have been the one that Federer uses. That has been discussed for ever before. The new info happens to be on the same web page, that is all.

And the logic is strange - some parts are right, others - well, not wrong? Of course if I tell people to jump out their cars on a highway and they do it, it is their fault. But that doesn't mean I was approximately right in the first place. One's got nothing to do with the other.
 
#41
I just got back from the Pacific Life Open, where among other things, I had the opportunity to measure one of Nadal's racquets and one of Paes' racquets.

You can see the results on this web page:

http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html
Greg, I'd like to join the chorus of thanks here for a couple of nice hard data points, finally. Let's hope we can have more in the future.

As for travlerajm, it looks like you were right about increased polarization but would you consider recalibrating your SW2 levels slightly downwards following this? I had estimated that in order to get to some of your more extreme guesses for pro setups, one would have to remove mass from the middle of the racquet (assuming they were based on stock models to start with!), which seems unlikely.
 

FitzRoy

Professional
#43
Before you guys jump all over travlerajm's case, consider that he was calculating his estimate of Nadal's SW from the specs on jura's list from the 2005 French Open. At that time, Nadal's racquet, unstrung, was this:

Nadal, Rafael (ESP ) 2 321 32.2 68.5
BABOLAT TOUR DURALAST 1.35 25/24

Note that it's 321 grams unstrung. Now, many people account for 15 grams when adding strings, but we know for sure that Duralast weighs more than that, probably more than 20 grams. Nadal's dampener weighs probably 2 or more grams. If you add those to the unstrung 321, you come up with 343; Greg's info here says 332.

So either Nadal's specs have changed since 2005, to the tune of ~11 grams less weight (which would also result in a change in SW), or jura's info is wrong. Either of these facts could account for travlerajm's estimate being off. I would suggest that posters here consider all of the available information before jumping to immediate conclusions based on the number 355.
 
#44
Before you guys jump all over travlerajm's case, consider that he was calculating his estimate of Nadal's SW from the specs on jura's list from the 2005 French Open. At that time, Nadal's racquet, unstrung, was this:

Nadal, Rafael (ESP ) 2 321 32.2 68.5
BABOLAT TOUR DURALAST 1.35 25/24

Note that it's 321 grams unstrung. Now, many people account for 15 grams when adding strings, but we know for sure that Duralast weighs more than that, probably more than 20 grams. Nadal's dampener weighs probably 2 or more grams. If you add those to the unstrung 321, you come up with 343; Greg's info here says 332.

So either Nadal's specs have changed since 2005, to the tune of ~11 grams less weight (which would also result in a change in SW), or jura's info is wrong. Either of these facts could account for travlerajm's estimate being off. I would suggest that posters here consider all of the available information before jumping to immediate conclusions based on the number 355.

I'm not BS'ing but ive heard from someone who "does" some pro's racquets that jura can be off by abit on some.
 

FitzRoy

Professional
#45
I'm not BS'ing but ive heard from someone who "does" some pro's racquets that jura can be off by abit on some.
I'm sure it's a possibility, but from what I understand jura didn't take those specs himself, but rather got them directly from the French Open stringing service measurements.
 
#46
Before you guys jump all over travlerajm's case, consider that he was calculating his estimate of Nadal's SW from the specs on jura's list from the 2005 French Open. At that time, Nadal's racquet, unstrung, was this:

Nadal, Rafael (ESP ) 2 321 32.2 68.5
BABOLAT TOUR DURALAST 1.35 25/24

Note that it's 321 grams unstrung. Now, many people account for 15 grams when adding strings, but we know for sure that Duralast weighs more than that, probably more than 20 grams. Nadal's dampener weighs probably 2 or more grams. If you add those to the unstrung 321, you come up with 343; Greg's info here says 332.

So either Nadal's specs have changed since 2005, to the tune of ~11 grams less weight (which would also result in a change in SW), or jura's info is wrong. Either of these facts could account for travlerajm's estimate being off. I would suggest that posters here consider all of the available information before jumping to immediate conclusions based on the number 355.

Some other points to consider:

Greg's SW measurement is on a frame that is squashed by 1/8" (3mm). This means that the swingweight would be roughly 362 rather than 355 if it were not squashed (the stock Aeropro Drive would have a squashed SW of ~317 rather than 324). My estimate for Nadal's SW is 368 based on the 68.5cm length Jura posted (I rounded to the nearest 5 kg-cm^2 in my pro swingweights thread), so my estimate is almost the same as Greg's measurement. Also, you can't focus too much on the measured swingweight. What matters much more is how much mass is actually added to the upper hoop. The measured swingweight just provides a guideline to how much mass you need to add. The fact that Nadal's frame is squashed has little effect on the amount of mass that he needs to add under his bumper, but it drastically effects the value registered by the RDC machine.

Secondly, my estimate for Nadal's swingweight is based on Nadal's statement on his fan website that he adds 15g of lead under his bumper and 5g in the butt.

Greg suggested that Nadal's specs could be reached by adding 9.5g under the bumper and 5 gram in the butt. The problem is that adding 9.5g under the bumper of a stock Aeropro Drive results in a racquet that has very little spin-efficiency. It would hit a flat and powerful ball, and it would be almost completely uncontrollable at the ~53-lb tension Rafa reportedly uses. Adding 15g under the bumper and tuning the SW properly produces an entirely different effect - roughly 15g under the bumper at 53-lb tension produces a racquet that is extremely spin-friendly and hits an extremely heavy, easy-to-control ball (the type of ball that we see come off of Nadal's racquet when he hits a forehand). If you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

In other words, I have no plans to "revise SW2 theory" as some posters have suggested.
 
Last edited:

ShcMad

Hall of Fame
#47
I'm sure it's a possibility, but from what I understand jura didn't take those specs himself, but rather got them directly from the French Open stringing service measurements.
I don't doubt Jura's credibility. I appreciate his posting of all the pros' specs measured at the FO. However, it seems like the unstrung weight of the racquets on his list is a couple grams higher than usual.

An example is Carlos Moya's racquet. In Jura's list it's listed as being 307 unstrung; however, I've heard Michael Ludwig among others saying it's a little below 300 grams. So, I don't know who's telling the truth. I know that there are tolerances when raquet-matching, however, >7 is not good. Maybe players like heavier setups for clay courts? I really don't know.
 
#48
Secondly, my estimate for Nadal's swingweight is based on Nadal's statement on his fan website that he adds 15g of lead under his bumper and 5g in the butt.

Greg suggested that Nadal's specs could be reached by adding 9.5g under the bumper and 5 gram in the butt. The problem is that adding 9.5g under the bumper of a stock Aeropro Drive results in a racquet that has very little spin-efficiency. It would hit a flat and powerful ball, and it would be almost completely uncontrollable at the ~53-lb tension Rafa reportedly uses.


{i butchered his post to get what i wanted}

Isn't it possible that 15g and 5g is an average or the most common number ie. he has a key spec and the 15g and 5g is the average needed.

and a sort of reply to your comments on the changed SW and length;
Rafa ASKED for em strung top to bottom surely then he must be used to the small shortening and used to that SW. That racquet didnt hinder him did it.?
 
Top