Swing Weight: is there optimal number for each individual?
- Thread starter ultradr
- Start date
zalive
Hall of Fame
Some twenty years ago SW of 330 was about average. Everyone handled it.
Some 15 years ago I gave a girl beginner a 365 grams racquet strung tightly to play with. She was playing against other beginner girls. Not only she handled it, she was bashing with it the other girls.
It's all a mind game, the rules exist within your head.
Some 15 years ago I gave a girl beginner a 365 grams racquet strung tightly to play with. She was playing against other beginner girls. Not only she handled it, she was bashing with it the other girls.
It's all a mind game, the rules exist within your head.
I do not mind static weight. But I need conscious adjustment if swing weight changes 10+.
My skill matured during 10 years with a prestige (swing weight ~325). I have a fear that I might not be able to execute my most advanced skills with SW 330+.
AMGF
Hall of Fame
I played 320sw for years. Then I started modifying and I thought 330sw was enough. Then 340sw.
I'm currently at 362sw and I don't understand why I thought at some point that 340sw was high. You will get use to whatever you're using. If you want more SW, just add some weight, play with it for a few weeks, then repeat.
My gf (5'7", 130lbs) had a sub 300sw, slowly went up to 315sw and now plays 333sw. She was asking for more weight lately... You definetely get used to whatever you're using, that's my point. And having more sw feels good.
I'm currently at 362sw and I don't understand why I thought at some point that 340sw was high. You will get use to whatever you're using. If you want more SW, just add some weight, play with it for a few weeks, then repeat.
My gf (5'7", 130lbs) had a sub 300sw, slowly went up to 315sw and now plays 333sw. She was asking for more weight lately... You definetely get used to whatever you're using, that's my point. And having more sw feels good.
Backhanded Compliment
Legend
true ... im probably in the 350's and i almost feel like i want more but well see. i dont stress over it i just look for the ability to boss the ball.
esgee48
G.O.A.T.
Look up Travlerajm's threads about MgR/I ~21. 'I' is his surrogate for SW. If you believe his hypothesis, the answer is no; there will be a range. I like using ~340 SW since I can hit easy groundies and well as serves. Too light or too heavy a SW, and I can't generate the RHS to pound the ball.
wsk429
Semi-Pro
Yes, you will adjust and get used to the new SW. However, you will also expend more energy too. How much SW for a player will be capped by his/her fitness level.
AMGF
Hall of Fame
Yes probably. There is a point where it will be too much depending on physical fitness/strength.
Technique will also limit the sw one can hit with.
But from what I see in my club/region, people generally tend to play with lower sw than they could (or should).
I think if people would tune their frame so that their shots land deep in the court most would have higher SW. I see many good players hitting short balls that bounce perfectly in their opponents frames without pushing them back.
I don't try to play with high SW just for the heck of it. I tuned my frame so that when I hit full swing groundstrokes my shots land deep inside the court. For my particular frame/strings combo, that is 362. On another frame or different strings, it can be something else. But usually always in the same ballpark.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Really? I find high swingweight racquets especially helpful on the serve…
wsk429
Semi-Pro
Good point. Higher SW with a purpose makes absolute sense.
wsk429
Semi-Pro
High SW works well with balls tossed out front on serves than directly over the server.
Say Chi Sin Lo
G.O.A.T.
I'd say it's what you grew up with. I grew up with stuff 300+, so I'll always play with something in the range of 330-370.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
? I have always served better kick serves with racquets above 330 swingweight. Low swingweights result in floaty balls with not much on them IME.
Think. If you're 6'5" and 240 lbs., a weight lifter, or linebacker in the NFL, would you play with the same racket that a 110 ballet girl uses?
Did Arnold Swartzenagger use a foil, or a broad sword?
Can that ballet girl even lift a broad sword one handed?
Think for yourself.
Did Arnold Swartzenagger use a foil, or a broad sword?
Can that ballet girl even lift a broad sword one handed?
Think for yourself.
QuadCam
Professional
I've found that you need to balance (no pun intended) swingweight with the racquet balance and static weight.
I find against an open level player who hits a heavy ball, a high swingweight (340+) and around 12 oz works well but I need to keep the racquet at least 6-8 Pts HL. If I'm down around 4 Pts HL, I find I'll catch some balls late or won't put enough spin on the ball .... and sail them long.
Now, playing against the usual 4.0 level guys at the club level, I can get away with alot of variation with my racquets. Their ball comes slower and with less pace.... giving a lot more prep time... and a high swingweight really isn't an issue, and isn't so sensitive to the balance point.
I find against an open level player who hits a heavy ball, a high swingweight (340+) and around 12 oz works well but I need to keep the racquet at least 6-8 Pts HL. If I'm down around 4 Pts HL, I find I'll catch some balls late or won't put enough spin on the ball .... and sail them long.
Now, playing against the usual 4.0 level guys at the club level, I can get away with alot of variation with my racquets. Their ball comes slower and with less pace.... giving a lot more prep time... and a high swingweight really isn't an issue, and isn't so sensitive to the balance point.
wsk429
Semi-Pro
I usually play three matches a day on the weekends. The third match is lost if I don't use a lighter or more nimble stick because I'm tired.
wsk429
Semi-Pro
Don't know how strong you are. But you ain't weak.
ervins.elksnis
New User
Can somebody explain to a beginner how sw can be measured?
esgee48
G.O.A.T.
TWU has a free SW calculator. Fill in mass, balance, distance and time measurements and it will calculate SW. Racquettune's creator also has a SW calculator. That's 2.99 for iOS. Personally, it's pretty easy to use. Just need accurate measurements.
Pro shops also have specialized machines that will calculate SW. Prince Tuning Center, Gamma Accuswing and Babolat RDC are examples of such machines.
However Free is nice since you can do it at home if you are reasonably competent measuring things and have a stop watch.
Pro shops also have specialized machines that will calculate SW. Prince Tuning Center, Gamma Accuswing and Babolat RDC are examples of such machines.
However Free is nice since you can do it at home if you are reasonably competent measuring things and have a stop watch.
Tennisist
Professional
The details of your particular swing / technique dictate what swingweight works for you and what does not. Heavy racquets do not present a problem to a classic swing. In fact, the heavier the racquet, the better the result. However, if you add (or try to add ) wrist into the swing, a heavy racquet will balk and not co-operate. On the other hand, using a low-swingweight racquet with a classic technique will also produce very poor and frustrating results.
If you are new to tennis, stokes have not formed yet, and you are going to learn to produce spin, I'd choose a low-swingweight racquet.
If that takes you nowhere, you can always add some lead here and there, and turn your lightweight racquet into a heavy one.
Best advice would be to pick one in the middle ~ 310-320 range.
Playing a racquet too heavy will only allow you to execute classic strokes, and none of the new stuff, unless you are super strong with your wrist muscles. Playing a racquet too light, without a coach, will result in easy but wrong and hackerish tecnnique that will crumble under heavy hitting and will not improve with time.
If you are new to tennis, stokes have not formed yet, and you are going to learn to produce spin, I'd choose a low-swingweight racquet.
If that takes you nowhere, you can always add some lead here and there, and turn your lightweight racquet into a heavy one.
Best advice would be to pick one in the middle ~ 310-320 range.
Playing a racquet too heavy will only allow you to execute classic strokes, and none of the new stuff, unless you are super strong with your wrist muscles. Playing a racquet too light, without a coach, will result in easy but wrong and hackerish tecnnique that will crumble under heavy hitting and will not improve with time.
Last edited:
EasternRocks
Hall of Fame
Bumping this to hear some more thoughts on the topic.
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
Pretty variable. There are some posters here that are so grooved and rigid with their swings, they can only play within a tight spec range.
I came to tennis from golf. In golf, every club has a different length, static weight and swing weight. You have to maintain a similar swing path and tempo with different clubs all the time in a round of golf. Consequently I can be handed a different racket and adjust pretty quickly to it's unique characteristics. I have a pretty broad range of SW's that I can handle equally well. Pretty much anything 310 to 340.
Below 310 and the racket starts to feel like a toy with no plow or stability. Above 340 and it starts to be cumbersome especially for serves.
I probably have a sweetspot around 330 fo all around playability. But honestly, each stroke has it's ideal SW for me. 340ish SW's are great for my 2HBH and RoS, 330's are best for my FH, slices and volleys, 320's are best for my serve and overheads.
I came to tennis from golf. In golf, every club has a different length, static weight and swing weight. You have to maintain a similar swing path and tempo with different clubs all the time in a round of golf. Consequently I can be handed a different racket and adjust pretty quickly to it's unique characteristics. I have a pretty broad range of SW's that I can handle equally well. Pretty much anything 310 to 340.
Below 310 and the racket starts to feel like a toy with no plow or stability. Above 340 and it starts to be cumbersome especially for serves.
I probably have a sweetspot around 330 fo all around playability. But honestly, each stroke has it's ideal SW for me. 340ish SW's are great for my 2HBH and RoS, 330's are best for my FH, slices and volleys, 320's are best for my serve and overheads.
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
In golf every club may have a different length and static weight but hopefully the SW should be the same for every club except your putter. SW in golf also is totally different from the SW in tennis. In golf SW is a static measurement while in tennis it’s dynamic.
Last edited:
time_fly
Hall of Fame
To handle a higher swingweight you need two things: better preparation, because the racquet will handle more slowly, and better conditioning because you need to achieve the maximum possible racquet head speed on your swing and maintain that speed on each swing over the course of the session.
Swing weights have trended down along with racquet weights. That's because racquet head speed and proper contact point are more important in hitting an accurate and powerful shot than swing weight, and both of those are easier to achieve with a lighter racquet. Below a certain point there is diminishing returns because the player can't swing faster or time the ball better, and the lower swing weight delivers less stability and plow-through.
I personally am skeptical of players who aren't serious college or professional athletes claiming they play better with outlandishly high swing weights. They may not have adjusted to more normal swing weights but I think many would end up playing better if they did make the adjustment.
Swing weights have trended down along with racquet weights. That's because racquet head speed and proper contact point are more important in hitting an accurate and powerful shot than swing weight, and both of those are easier to achieve with a lighter racquet. Below a certain point there is diminishing returns because the player can't swing faster or time the ball better, and the lower swing weight delivers less stability and plow-through.
I personally am skeptical of players who aren't serious college or professional athletes claiming they play better with outlandishly high swing weights. They may not have adjusted to more normal swing weights but I think many would end up playing better if they did make the adjustment.
Tennisist
Professional
As the game gets faster, there is a need to move the racquet faster and faster. Professionals can do it -- via constant conditioning and training, recreational players cannot. Thus, sooner or later, recreational players will hit a limit. There is a limit, beyond which you cannot obtain the proper speed for a shot -- without investing hundreds of hours in training. Once you hit this limit, the only way to improve the speed of your shots, is to go down on swingweight.
I respect your opinion but my view is sort of the opposite. I think racket manufacturers have gone too low in SW because low SW feels OK when you shadow swing the racket in the pro shop. I think there are many rec players (3.0 to 4.5) playing a racket that is too low SW vs playing a racket with too high SW. I also think the minimum SW to play even rec level is 320sw. Below 320sw and the racket is too unstable, does not absorb vibrations at impact and is generally bad for performance and the health of the player. I think a reasonable range for SW for rec players is 320 to 350 and some may even want to go above 350.
I've seen small petite females using SW 320-330 with no problem. SW320 is light.
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
No every club definitely has different swing weights. A driver feels nothing like a pitching wedge. The shorter the club the higher the SW in general. Kind of opposite of tennis but necessary to get the shorter clubs plowing through the ball and turf. I imagine with graphite shafts in golf clubs the SW is pretty dynamic too.
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
My wife wields the Blade 104 SW model. 341 Swing weight. She's 5'0". Sure she gets caught late sometimes when playing against me, but against her 3.5 ladies she can just hammer the ball.
EasternRocks
Hall of Fame
Know plenty of phenomenal players that play with retail racquets with no mods, which means they are often swinging 315-325 swingweights and it looks like they're never worried about pace or absorbing vibrations. Anything above 330, and your demo is so tiny if youre considering rec players. 350+ is clearly reserved for those that play pro. Even college players are playing most stock frames and none of them are playing 350+ SW.
I've jumped around in SW myself. 320-325 is where I was for many years before I jumped up a bit to the 325-330 range in college. Currently batting with a frame that is still in that same range, albeit I sometimes worry that 320-325 is where I need to be again. Definitely a threshold factor with SW. Somewhere I read that the reason why SW's are going down is to help encourage these new modern frames that are open string pattern and very easy to generate RHS onto junior players. The game is changing, and so are the bulk of the specs of frames on the market.
ROCKinCourier
Rookie
I grew up playing with very HL racquets with SW's in the 330's, and I keep reverting back to that. It's what feels good to me.
yes, game is changing but my view is most good juniors playing a sw lower than 320 would actually play better if they increased SW to 330 or more.
it feels good because it is good. SW320 is minimum for real tennis players and around 330 to 340 sw range is ideal for 4.0 through 4.5 level rec players. 330ish SW absorbs shock, is stable at contact, and provides easier access to power and spin.
EasternRocks
Hall of Fame
People's mileage may vary, but my experience is that at 330+, my swing slows down and I can't serve efficiently or take full cuts. Just too cumbersome especially if it is a 21 mm + beam. The guilty party - Babolat Pure Storm Tour GT back in 2011-2012. I do not think that every good junior would play better if they increased to 330+ to be honest.
parvasedpotens
Rookie
Depends on many things. I played a lot higher than 4.5 'level' and was using a 317 swingweight with a static weight of 337g. A lot of ladies are under 320 SW.
I also think that many a man would be served well in the 300-320 range. Static weight is more important for shock than swingweight.
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes the longer the club the lighter the club. A PW and SW will generally be heavier that a driver. But if you have a set of D2 golf clubs they will all have the same D2 SW. problem with a golf SW is the pivot point is at 14” we’ll above your hands. So yes every club will feel different because your hands are well below the pivot used for measuring SW.
We can disagree on this. I don't think 300 SW is good for even lower intermediate players. You can have your opinion but I just disagree. I am sure there are some really good players who play 300 SW and play well with it but I think they would play even better with sw 320+. I had a teammate in old man rec league tennis who was an ex-college player. in college, he played #1 singles, was all conference, is in the university tennis hall of fame and was an alternate for a local world team tennis team when he was young. in his mid 30s, he played with a light, low SW piece of crap racket and still beat everyone else on the team. So yes, there are really good players who play light low SW rackets. My opinion is they would play even better if they increased weight and SW.
I also think the combination of static, SW and balance determine how well a racket absorbs shock with SW being the most important. Many very very good players such as Henin, Serena, Venus, Rafa and Moya play relatively low static weight but high SW.
There will always be exceptions but I think vast majority of players would be better served with SW of 320+.
Not sure if modern game seems to favor lower SW or not. Djokovic has reported 370SW. Nadal reported 355-360SW with moderate static weight. Federer reported 355SW but TW Europe had a Fed match racket at 340SW. Fed has fairly high static weight. Venus and Serena reported 370SW but light static weight. I've seen reports of Bryan brothers over 350SW. I am not sure how that compares to say Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Courier or going back farther to McEnroe, Connors or Borg. Seems most modern ATP is pretty high SW with a few exceptions. WTA has more exceptions but I think majority is still over 330SW. I've seen Henin, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Serena, Venus all reported with SW 335 or higher. maybe modern ATP is slightly lower than 1980's players but modern ATP players are still using pretty stout SW.
Shroud
Talk Tennis Guru
Nice post
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
What are you swinging these days?
Shroud
Talk Tennis Guru
Hey man hope you are well.
Using a Profile 2.7 110” Hammer
Its the one that is black then gold at the top. Weighted to 403g and extended .5”. Not sure the sw. Should measure. Its a bit less than my sig racquet. Btw I am now skipping every other cross for a 16x10 pattern.
You still at 17oz?
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
No. At 13.25 since 2011. My swingweight is probably around 390 now. I had one racquet a few grams heavier with higher swingweight and just added several grams to the other three to match it. I'm using the old 18x20 in 95 sq in. The biggest change several years ago was going from ALU Power to Hyper-G.
Shroud
Talk Tennis Guru
Hyper G seems to be a forum fave.
I think I misspoke. After today I think I am going back to my Hyper Hammer 5.3 stretch. I was using the profile because the 5.3 is not stiff enough...but I think that the profile has a downside compared to the Hyper hammer. Its THICK. Easy to frame and I think its limiting my kicker and the Hyper Hammer is thinner and a bigger frame so it has a bigger spin window.. The profile although I extended it, is shorter and while they both weigh about the same at 403g and 407g the Hyper Hammer has a higher sw weight. Seems like if the static weight is almost the same the one with the higher sw, bigger spin window and longer reach is better. No stick is perfect and it does have a 70RA...
