Spreadsheet of all pro specs on TW

WYK

Professional
#3
When I was writing technical documents for Philips Medical Systems, AKA Philips Healthcare, one of the most important issues to consider was making tables that fit on one page. No one likes to scroll around a huge document when they can simply scroll down.
 
#4
I've updated the spreadsheet now and improved the readability.

I omitted most of the specs from the " strung specs" sheet, as the swingweight was calculated using the parellell axis theorem, which I found unreliable. I tested the parellell axis theorem on my own rackets (measured using accuswing, balance board and calibrated 0.1g accurate scale), as well as known specs like nadal, djokovic etc. It gave swingweight measurements that we're wrong by up to +- 30 kg-cm^2.
 

Zoid

Professional
#6
Haas, Moya and Monfils are listed as western...Haas semi, Moya semi, Monfils semi.

Only definitive western guys I can think of are sock, Gulbis, Pella, Fritz, tiafoe, edmund, Khachanov, kyrgios
 
#10
I updated it, tidied it up a bit, and removed a few superfluous columns. I don't think I will totally clean it up for a long time, though. Here are some averages of the pro specs. Sorry, no time to put them in tables or charts. The sample size is small, so the averages don't change much.

ATP Mass Balance Swingweight
top 100 (47 players)
360 32.55 361.3
top 20 - 19 players
360.1 32.54 360.7
top 10 - 16 players
361.4 32.46 359.9
top 5 - 14 players
360.8 32.59 360

ATP DOUBLES Mass Balance Swingweight
top 100 - 39 players
358.6 32.28 355.1
top 10 - 12 players
355.9 32.1 351.2
top 5 - 8 players
357.4 31.86 350.3

WTA Mass Balance Swingweight
top 100 - 21 players
331.2 33.12 343.6
top 20 - 11 players
333.1 33.73 355
top 10 - 10 players
334.7 33.79 358
top 5 - 8 players
337.8 33.55 354.7

WTA DOUBLES Mass Balance Swingweight
top 100 - 20 players
332.7 34.45 345.9
top 20 - 14 players
336.1 34.8 350.8
top 10 - 11 payers
336.4 34.34 349.5
top 5 - 10 players
336.1 33.55 354.7
 
Last edited:
#11
I updated it, tidied it up a bit, and removed a few superfluous columns. I don't think I will totally clean it up for a long time, though. Here are some averages of the pro specs. Sorry, no time to put them in tables or charts. The sample size is small, so the averages don't change much.

ATP Mass Balance Swingweight
top 100 (47 players)
360 32.55 361.3
top 20 - 19 players
360.1 32.54 360.7
top 10 - 16 players
361.4 32.46 359.9
top 5 - 14 players
360.8 32.59 360

ATP DOUBLES Mass Balance Swingweight
top 100 - 39 players
358.6 32.28 355.1
top 10 - 12 players
355.9 32.1 351.2
top 5 - 8 players
357.4 31.86 350.3

WTA Mass Balance Swingweight
top 100 - 21 players
331.2 33.12 343.6
top 20 - 11 players
333.1 33.73 355
top 10 - 10 players
334.7 33.79 358
top 5 - 8 players
337.8 33.55 354.7

WTA DOUBLES Mass Balance Swingweight
top 100 - 20 players
332.7 34.45 345.9
top 20 - 14 players
336.1 34.8 350.8
top 10 - 11 payers
336.4 34.34 349.5
top 5 - 10 players
336.1 33.55 354.7
You can assume the fed spec is incorrect; the last 2 greg raven+tw fed specs (on the 90 frames) were without lead tape in the hoop, and were not final match spec. They were clearly altered weight wise to reflect that what was sold in stores. We saw with fab fed were different non translatable static weight, and different balance on top of the much higher swing weight he actually used. Those specs were taken at TW (confirmed by a staff member when I worked there), even though that was the same "frame" he used, not at all the match spec he used. A rational conclusion would be to assume that's the same case here. And a whole slew of other just basic physics reasons (stability, spin potential, sweet spot location, the racquet overall power would be less than he ever used). Somehow on Talk Tennis people actually believe that. Might have to do with them IP banning people like me for saying it's not right.
Nadal is 360+ (I would guess about 363-364sw as they added 2g to the tip) 33.6cm balance and 342g. So a bit of weight added at each end. The tip weight has been discussed by moya, several other sources from his camp, published by babolat's webpage, and the static/balance comes from an online source that sold his frame (with pure aero paint).
Gulbis the old old old head racquet I had seen specc'd out a little over 360sw, I would be surprised to see him at 380 but who knows, gulbis is actually nuts
Novak is just a bit lighter than before, but similar overall specs judging by his unstrung balance and static.
 
#12
You can assume the fed spec is incorrect; the last 2 greg raven+tw fed specs (on the 90 frames) were without lead tape in the hoop, and were not final match spec. They were clearly altered weight wise to reflect that what was sold in stores. We saw with fab fed were different non translatable static weight, and different balance on top of the much higher swing weight he actually used. Those specs were taken at TW (confirmed by a staff member when I worked there), even though that was the same "frame" he used, not at all the match spec he used. A rational conclusion would be to assume that's the same case here. And a whole slew of other just basic physics reasons (stability, spin potential, sweet spot location, the racquet overall power would be less than he ever used). Somehow on Talk Tennis people actually believe that. Might have to do with them IP banning people like me for saying it's not right.
Nadal is 360+ (I would guess about 363-364sw as they added 2g to the tip) 33.6cm balance and 342g. So a bit of weight added at each end. The tip weight has been discussed by moya, several other sources from his camp, published by babolat's webpage, and the static/balance comes from an online source that sold his frame (with pure aero paint).
Gulbis the old old old head racquet I had seen specc'd out a little over 360sw, I would be surprised to see him at 380 but who knows, gulbis is actually nuts
Novak is just a bit lighter than before, but similar overall specs judging by his unstrung balance and static.

Interesting. I filtered the list of strung specs from 383 to 47 because the sources are not verifiable, or they did not include SW. I will remove Fed. For some reason, the source for Gulbis is an empty field, so it may be wrong. I cannot locate the original source. Though, it would not surprise me at all if he was a radical tinkerer. Rafa has very similar static weight and balance across all 11 strung specs, but the swingweight swung from 350 to 358. Generally most centred around 358. I have you down as one of the sources; the SW is 356. Was this before he added lead to the tip, to try and counter the rosols/soderlings of this world?

I'd prefer to keep Novaks old specs. As much as he is playing great right now, he won most of his slams with his old specs.
 
#13
Your effort is to applaud, however most players on the list have stopped a long time ago. MCenroe even has stopped playing on the seniors tour. He is that old. So calculating averages does not show accurate numbers for todays players.
 
#17
Your effort is to applaud, however most players on the list have stopped a long time ago. MCenroe even has stopped playing on the seniors tour. He is that old. So calculating averages does not show accurate numbers for todays players.
Unfortunately its difficult to find specs for current players. Just to clarify, I did not include any specs for rackets of players post retirement, where they might have changed their specs, due to ageing shoulders etc. I see where you're coming from with players like ivanisevic, but I still think they could play at a high level if they we're in their 20’s today. For guys like me with flattish strokes, I would rather replicate Ivanisevic/Agassi then Chung/Tiafoe.
 
Last edited:
#19
Interesting. I filtered the list of strung specs from 383 to 47 because the sources are not verifiable, or they did not include SW. I will remove Fed. For some reason, the source for Gulbis is an empty field, so it may be wrong. I cannot locate the original source. Though, it would not surprise me at all if he was a radical tinkerer. Rafa has very similar static weight and balance across all 11 strung specs, but the swingweight swung from 350 to 358. Generally most centred around 358. I have you down as one of the sources; the SW is 356. Was this before he added lead to the tip, to try and counter the rosols/soderlings of this world?

I'd prefer to keep Novaks old specs. As much as he is playing great right now, he won most of his slams with his old specs.
It's safer to assume old spec than estimate at new for novak, but maybe a note could be added?

The Gulbis racquet is owned by a member on here (head pt57e? I think?). I might still have pictures of it. Funny story is Sean (the play tester) started telling me about "some guy" bringing it in to TW to have it measured... and I was like oh hey I know that guy and that racquet. Small world really. I will try to get ahold of him and see if he still has the specs. Like you I'd rather revert to an older known spec than guess if there isn't reliable/vetted proof.

That swing weight for rafa was 2011 spec, so the idea of adding more was to help him hit harder/be more aggro (but before moya joined, although both were before 2017 AO).
This is a good read by babolat. Yes the frames are different, and twist weight does change mgr/I and spin access/potential. But swing weight is far more important to emphasize than "cortex" difference. Even string pattern. I'd rather companies be like this, because the small difference in launch angle won't keep you from hitting a gnarly forehand... But 30 swing weight points light will
What's curious here is that 3 grams weren't supposedly added until 2012... So either that's a little fluff or... IDK. If he added 3g to the 2011 spec, in 2012 and then another 2 again in 2017... That's a pretty sick nasty SW. But then again, moya used over 400. Judging by the balance, I don't think he's added 5 at 12 since 2012. But none the less, babolat is saying nadal has weight added at the tip. An overly simple and not 100% honest representation of how much weight /what impact it has, but still much better than everything else we've seen from industry.

http://www.babolat.com/insiders/pure-aero-rafael-nadals-fatal-weapon-0007/#.XEKX3XbYqto

Also here's the static + balance. So you can make your own inferences.

https://www.prostocktennis.com/products/Rafael-Nadal-personal-babolat-pure-aero
 
Last edited:
#20
I've compiled a spreadsheet of all the pro specs on TW. The unstrung specs still need to be adjusted and it still needs some editing. . I'll try and finish it in the next month or two, if I have some free time. Feel free to edit it yourself.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gEsFJifxr3yOa0PlLBOxBirFxKH67jY-2ukMVRQa7DA/edit?usp=sharing
Love the idea ! But without the flex rating . Your gonna get a lot of YAWNS .
Not saying it isn’t awesome compiling info on players racket specs IT IS & it’s a ton of WORK !! So thank you !!
but the one thing people care most about is the flex . With out folks tend to move on . Just like I did . No disrespect
 
#22
Love the idea ! But without the flex rating . Your gonna get a lot of YAWNS .
Not saying it isn’t awesome compiling info on players racket specs IT IS & it’s a ton of WORK !! So thank you !!
but the one thing people care most about is the flex . With out folks tend to move on . Just like I did . No disrespect
Yeah but flex is mostly just a feel thing. It's the weight that really matters and makes the difference in ball speed and ball spin potential. Unless of course you believe technologies actually make a difference
 
#23
I like the fact that some of the numbers are carried out 8 places to the right of the decimal points. That's real precision.
All kidding aside, that's a great job and a lot of work.
Haha. Thanks. Yes, too much work. I should probably set google sheets to round to 2 d.p, but not top of my priorities.
It's safer to assume old spec than estimate at new for novak, but maybe a note could be added?

The Gulbis racquet is owned by a member on here (head pt57e? I think?). I might still have pictures of it. Funny story is Sean (the play tester) started telling me about "some guy" bringing it in to TW to have it measured... and I was like oh hey I know that guy and that racquet. Small world really. I will try to get ahold of him and see if he still has the specs. Like you I'd rather revert to an older known spec than guess if there isn't reliable/vetted proof.

That swing weight for rafa was 2011 spec, so the idea of adding more was to help him hit harder/be more aggro (but before moya joined, although both were before 2017 AO).
This is a good read by babolat. Yes the frames are different, and twist weight does change mgr/I and spin access/potential. But swing weight is far more important to emphasize than "cortex" difference. Even string pattern. I'd rather companies be like this, because the small difference in launch angle won't keep you from hitting a gnarly forehand... But 30 swing weight points light will
What's curious here is that 3 grams weren't supposedly added until 2012... So either that's a little fluff or... IDK. If he added 3g to the 2011 spec, in 2012 and then another 2 again in 2017... That's a pretty sick nasty SW. But then again, moya used over 400. Judging by the balance, I don't think he's added 5 at 12 since 2012. But none the less, babolat is saying nadal has weight added at the tip. An overly simple and not 100% honest representation of how much weight /what impact it has, but still much better than everything else we've seen from industry.

http://www.babolat.com/insiders/pure-aero-rafael-nadals-fatal-weapon-0007/#.XEKX3XbYqto

Also here's the static + balance. So you can make your own inferences.

https://www.prostocktennis.com/products/Rafael-Nadal-personal-babolat-pure-aero
I emailed the bottom link about their rackets. They said something along the lines of they get the rackets from different sources, so they cannot guarantee the specs are the same as those used in matches. I can see it has a signature on the racket, but it could still be a practice racket, or missing lead. Maybe I’m being too vigilant there.
 
#24
Haha. Thanks. Yes, too much work. I should probably set google sheets to round to 2 d.p, but not top of my priorities.


I emailed the bottom link about their rackets. They said something along the lines of they get the rackets from different sources, so they cannot guarantee the specs are the same as those used in matches. I can see it has a signature on the racket, but it could still be a practice racket, or missing lead. Maybe I’m being too vigilant there.
I don't disagree with you. But the weight makes sense. Multiple places are saying he increased tip weight, the mph has changed across the board to match. Would make sense if they added just a couple of grams to the bottom. I mean static is just 5 grams more than what it used to be (as a known true source), balance is the same. And SW is unlisted. More stability and plow through will help everything across the board. Hasn't changed the way the racquet comes around very much at all. Everything makes sense. It's not that radical of a change... At this stage in his career they're not going to idk drop 15 swing weight points while he magically hits the ball harder ;)


I would lean towards it being legit but that's just balance and static weight which takes a back seat to SW which we can conservatively say is in the 360's now.

I want to do a video talking about his stick, and I'll make sure to be clear that this new spec is an educated guess and a good stand in until better info comes out (if it ever does). I can see why you'd be tentative because of part of the bad info bab wrote on their page.
The other thing is are a few frames that popped up on the string forum. And several (all the ones I talked to) were 340g pre pure aero (allegedly match used, nadal on outside of throat with player sticker for multiple). So that's why I think it's legit. Makes sense in total, consistency across a few different sources. With the nadal on the throat it's a lot more difficult for anyone to just fake too.

His evolution was basically 332g in like 05 with 355sw then he swapped strings from duracrap, and also swapped from the double OG to a syntec or whatever, and was at like 356sw or whatever (356 or 357 is basically the same just because calibration differences allows for +/- error universally). Now the talk of an additional 2g... Makes sense with static.
 
Last edited:
#25
I've updated the spreadsheet now and improved the readability.

I omitted most of the specs from the " strung specs" sheet, as the swingweight was calculated using the parellell axis theorem, which I found unreliable. I tested the parellell axis theorem on my own rackets (measured using accuswing, balance board and calibrated 0.1g accurate scale), as well as known specs like nadal, djokovic etc. It gave swingweight measurements that we're wrong by up to +- 30 kg-cm^2.
If you want to improve the readability, have meaningful and consistent number of significant digits. It's easier to compare between specs. I doubt numbers with 7 or 8 significant digits are realistic because a bead of sweat would affect the value at that level of precision.
 
#27
What would be really cool is to get all the top 100-mens rackets and measure all 100 RA complied data
Now that would get my personal vote for #1 thread on TT EVER!
 
#30
I don't disagree with you. But the weight makes sense. Multiple places are saying he increased tip weight, the mph has changed across the board to match. Would make sense if they added just a couple of grams to the bottom. I mean static is just 5 grams more than what it used to be (as a known true source), balance is the same. And SW is unlisted. More stability and plow through will help everything across the board. Hasn't changed the way the racquet comes around very much at all. Everything makes sense. It's not that radical of a change... At this stage in his career they're not going to idk drop 15 swing weight points while he magically hits the ball harder ;)


I would lean towards it being legit but that's just balance and static weight which takes a back seat to SW which we can conservatively say is in the 360's now.

I want to do a video talking about his stick, and I'll make sure to be clear that this new spec is an educated guess and a good stand in until better info comes out (if it ever does). I can see why you'd be tentative because of part of the bad info bab wrote on their page.
The other thing is are a few frames that popped up on the string forum. And several (all the ones I talked to) were 340g pre pure aero (allegedly match used, nadal on outside of throat with player sticker for multiple). So that's why I think it's legit. Makes sense in total, consistency across a few different sources. With the nadal on the throat it's a lot more difficult for anyone to just fake too.

His evolution was basically 332g in like 05 with 355sw then he swapped strings from duracrap, and also swapped from the double OG to a syntec or whatever, and was at like 356sw or whatever (356 or 357 is basically the same just because calibration differences allows for +/- error universally). Now the talk of an additional 2g... Makes sense with static.
So at last you do agree dat Nadal used a stock form Aeropro during the beginning of his career, when he was winning a lot of matches too and had no trouble retourning heavy shots from his opponents even heavier back at them? ;) :happydevil:
 
#31
Unfortunately its difficult to find specs for current players. Just to clarify, I did not include any specs for rackets of players post retirement, where they might have changed their specs, due to ageing shoulders etc. I see where you're coming from with players like ivanisevic, but I still think they could play at a high level if they we're in their 20’s today. For guys like me with flattish strokes, I would rather replicate Ivanisevic/Agassi then Chung/Tiafoe.
Ofcourse it is difficult, because they want to keep it a secret for their opponents. Maybe someone could try fishing the broken racquets from Zverev, Thiem and other nextgens out of the bin and analysing them carefully?
 
#32
Ofcourse it is difficult, because they want to keep it a secret for their opponents. Maybe someone could try fishing the broken racquets from Zverev, Thiem and other nextgens out of the bin and analysing them carefully?
Can players actually gain advantage from knowing their opponents' specs? I'm trying to visualize how I can play better against someone by knowing their sw and balance.
 
#33
So at last you do agree dat Nadal used a stock form Aeropro during the beginning of his career, when he was winning a lot of matches too and had no trouble retourning heavy shots from his opponents even heavier back at them? ;):happydevil:
Your definition of what a stock racquet means is very different from mine if you call that a stock racquet.

Retail APD + weight added to me does not mean stock, that mean's modified.

You really sound like TW staff more and more
 
Last edited:
#34
Can players actually gain advantage from knowing their opponents' specs? I'm trying to visualize how I can play better against someone by knowing their sw and balance.
Agassi used to ask opponents for one of their match used sticks to "auction off for his charity"... Which he did, AFTER having a hit with them and examining specs in detail - so he thought so.
 
#35
Agassi used to ask opponents for one of their match used sticks to "auction off for his charity"... Which he did, AFTER having a hit with them and examining specs in detail - so he thought so.
So Agassi was actually smarter than the image he created.
Lendl did the same thing before him.
The story goes that Lendl even tried out the racquet models his opponents used to find out how they played and what they could do with it. I m not sure how he knew the modifications. Possibly in those times pro stock racquets were not that much in vogue. Furthermore his own racquet tuner Bosworth possibly told him.
 
#36
So Agassi was actually smarter than the image he created.
At the risk of sounding like an Andre apologist, he maintains the infamous "image is everything" quote was one of the very last takes at the Canon commercial shoot... Someone on set asked him to say that -- and he was getting paid so much (relative to anything he'd seen thus far) he obliged... and Canon's ad people ran with that line. Not like he improv'ed it or was ever really his mantra. I don't have the exact pages but pretty sure he said that in his book Open...

Totally believe that about Lendl... he left no stones unturned to maximize his potential.
 
#37
Top