Swing weight, swing speed, and swing effort

[time_fly]

I’m testing the 2nd gen SX 300 Tour versus the 1st gen, and one of the changes they made was to reduce the swing weight quite a bit. I’ve noticed that on max-effort swings I am getting roughly the same power levels, with the new one having more racquet head speed (RHS) and the older having more plow-through. But I’m concerned that on average rally balls I am losing power with the new one because I subconsciously use the same swing timing and speed with both frames when I’m not consciously applying maximum effort. Since my exertion is not near the maximum, I automatically use a little extra effort to swing the heavier frame at the same speed without being aware of it.

Normally, I would think of choosing the right swingweight as finding the highest weight where I don’t feel like I’m tired or late to the ball when under pressure. But now I am wondering if I should focus more on how the ball comes out when I am not trying to swing my hardest, since getting extra power on 80% effort swings is really useful and saves wear-and-tear versus having to “redline” every swing?

 

[MattHeup]

Don't overthink it. Pick whichever you play better with. You should get a racquet for your strokes, don't change your strokes for a racquet. Also, you can always add swingweight. Can't do a whole lot to take it away though.

 

[Djinn]

As a general rule. Swingweight is the most important spec. Always try to play with the highest swingweight you can handle.

 

[Crocodile]

Dunlop has worked on making this new update a more spin focussed frame and therefore you will he encouraged to topspin the ball more and increase your swing speed markedly. I was wondering how you would go with the Prince Synergy 98 as a comparison with its 330 SW or even the Vortex with its 14/21 string pattern.

 

[aaron_h27]

As a general rule. Swingweight is the most important spec. Always try to play with the highest swingweight you can handle.

I'm not sure why this gets repeated on this board, but swingweight isn't the most important spec, if i hand you a racket with a different string pattern, balance and headsize from your usual racket you would definitely not be happy.

 

[MattHeup]

Not to mention stiffness and beam thickness, etc. Swingweight is important, yes, but not the singular priority and honestly not even number one, as long as it's within reason (not like 280 or 450, strung). A lighter swingweight can be good too because you can accelerate it faster, especially rotating upwards as you swing forwards, which means more spin. There's a balance to be had, just like with any other spec. Sure, I could manage a 350 swingweight but considering the amount of pace I'm hitting against and my game style, I like my 325-330 just fine.

 

[Deleted member 775108]

As a general rule. Swingweight is the most important spec. Always try to play with the highest swingweight you can handle.

Having started with this exact thought i have now amended it as follows - Play with the lowest total weight and lowest swing weight and lowest flex that can handle the type of opponents at your level you play with, both defensively & offensively for the maximum length of time you need to play them.

 

[MattHeup]

Frankly, personal preference factors in too. Don't play with a spec if you don't like it, no matter how it plays for you. It's pointless to create these perfect rules, call them guidelines and be done with it.

 

[time_fly]

Having started with this exact thought i have now amended it as follows - Play with the lowest total weight and lowest swing weight and lowest flex that can handle the type of opponents at your level you play with, both defensively & offensively for the maximum length of time you need to play them.

I’ve posted the link to an extensive study done on baseball bat weights in the past. Empirically, bat exit velocities get close to a peak at a certain bat weight for each player depending on the player’s size and strength, and then plateau for a while as weight goes up before dropping. Within this plateau range, players should always take the lightest legal bat weight because it will give them easier handling while providing 96% or more of the maximum exit velocity. I’d expect something similar with tennis racquets; the difference is there’s a lot more variability in weight distribution and swing weight with racquets versus bats so probably swingweight is more important than static weight.

 

[fuzz nation]

I’m testing the 2nd gen SX 300 Tour versus the 1st gen, and one of the changes they made was to reduce the swing weight quite a bit. I’ve noticed that on max-effort swings I am getting roughly the same power levels, with the new one having more racquet head speed (RHS) and the older having more plow-through. But I’m concerned that on average rally balls I am losing power with the new one because I subconsciously use the same swing timing and speed with both frames when I’m not consciously applying maximum effort. Since my exertion is not near the maximum, I automatically use a little extra effort to swing the heavier frame at the same speed without being aware of it.

Normally, I would think of choosing the right swingweight as finding the highest weight where I don’t feel like I’m tired or late to the ball when under pressure. But now I am wondering if I should focus more on how the ball comes out when I am not trying to swing my hardest, since getting extra power on 80% effort swings is really useful and saves wear-and-tear versus having to “redline” every swing?

I think that there's definitely something to be said for being able to play without trying too hard. That makes for a less stressful and more sustainable game over time.

In my experience with these sort of racquet experiments, I've found that I can't jump to a significantly lighter frame without being tricked into "redlining" with a lot of my strokes and serves. I'm 56 and I've been playing since I was a kid, so my swing tempo is what it is. My move on the ball has been built to work with a racquet in the neighborhood of 12.5+ oz. and comfortable HL balance. I use the combo of racquet weight, balance, and flex as my reference instead of swing weights. I also know the combo of stability and maneuverability that's right for me when I feel it.

When I try to hit at full speed using a significantly lighter frame that puts less inherent thump on the ball, I unconsciously swing harder/faster to get that same punch on the ball. I've failed with this endeavor more than once, but the last time I tried it I mildly injured my shoulder, so no more flirting with disaster there for me.

I might need a slightly less hefty frame in the future - perhaps 0.2-0.4 oz. lighter - but it's impossible for me to simply swing faster to get the same results with a significantly lighter racquet. It doesn't match up with the way I swing at the ball. So that's my situation.

I can also say that my view of racquets has changed. I think that the approach of using the heaviest racquet that we can manage for a full outing can be trouble - it can trick us into biting off more than we can chew. Now I like to think of a decent fitting racquet (decent fitting for me) as being as light as I can use while still being comfortably stable through the ball. My 12.5 oz. Volkl C10 has enough for me to command the ball - no need to try to manage something that's up around 13 oz. like I used in the past.

 

[Djinn]

I'm not sure why this gets repeated on this board, but swingweight isn't the most important spec, if i hand you a racket with a different string pattern, balance and headsize from your usual racket you would definitely not be happy.

Headsize and string pattern, sure. However those aren't specs that you can really change once your've decided on a racquet. When someone mentions that you should play with the highest swingweight you can handle, they are referring to specs that can be altered. So sure, I would not be happy if you handed me a racquet with a different headsize or string pattern. However, as far as balance goes, I would much less happy if you handed me a racquet that was of a different swingweight than balance. Of course this can be different for some people.

 

[lockbox]

Some good replies here. Some not so good. I say that because I think there is a great deal of nuance to the swingweight inquiry. @time_fly post about bat weights is interesting and I would definitely read the study if pointed to it. I've been altering swingweights on my sticks for some time. It seems there is a range of somewhere between 10 or 15 kg*cm^2 swingweight points where the racket isn't too light for my opponents, and at the high end, isn't too heavy that i'm tired or fatiguing.

However, I am noticing some variability in my performance. At the lower end (~322 swingweight) the racket is more maneuverable and I can get more Racket head speed and end up with slightly more winners. However, against heavy hitting groundstroke opponents there is less ability to "block" high pace shots back. On the heavier side (~337), there is much more plow-through, I am able to handle heavier shots (assuming technique is good) but I feel "sluggish" and ultimately I feel I am losing more often to players I can/should beat. It's not clear cut.

I'm currently testing 330ish swingweight to see how I feel there. Just my $0.02 on this subject.

 

[aaron_h27]

Headsize and string pattern, sure. However those aren't specs that you can really change once your've decided on a racquet. When someone mentions that you should play with the highest swingweight you can handle, they are referring to specs that can be altered. So sure, I would not be happy if you handed me a racquet with a different headsize or string pattern. However, as far as balance goes, I would much less happy if you handed me a racquet that was of a different swingweight than balance. Of course this can be different for some people.

If your normal racket has a SW of 330, 7 pts HL balance and I give you another racket with a SW of 326, 7 pts HL balance I doubt you'd even notice.

But if your normal racket has a SW of 330, 6 pts HL and I give you a racket with SW 330, 6 pts head heavy, you would definitely notice that difference in balance.

 

[time_fly]

Here is a link to the studies on bat weight versus batted ball velocity and distance:

Bat Weight, Swing Speed and Ball Velocity

Here is a follow up study that discusses moment of inertia (MOI), i.e., swing weight. The researchers note that swing weight is more important than static weight for bat performance. Unfortunately the study and use of swing weights in baseball still seems to be primitive compared to tennis so I thought this article was a little less useful and relevant. A lot of it depends on the details of a baseball swing, which is quite different than tennis. At some point I will look for newer research.

Swing Weight of a Bat (Why moment-of-inertia matters more than weight)

For those of you who aren’t into baseball, manufacturers don’t report swing weights for their bats. They generally categorize them as “balanced” or ”end-loaded”. But both of those options would seem very head-heavy to a tennis player, and without standards or numbers it’s hard to say how much of a difference there is between them or if different manufacturers are consistent in how they label their designs.

 

[Djinn]

If your normal racket has a SW of 330, 7 pts HL balance and I give you another racket with a SW of 326, 7 pts HL balance I doubt you'd even notice.

But if your normal racket has a SW of 330, 6 pts HL and I give you a racket with SW 330, 6 pts head heavy, you would definitely notice that difference in balance.

I'm sorry, but did you even read your own reply my guy? You want to hand me racquets with 330 SW vs 326 SW and see if I can tell the difference. A difference of 1.2% in respective specs.

THEN, you want to give me racquets with 6 pts HL vs 6 pts HH balance and see if I can tell the difference. A difference of 200% in the opposite direction in respective specs.

Am I getting this right?

I'm all for standing up for your beliefs but making a disingenuous argument to prove your point is quite low my friend.

 

[aaron_h27]

I'm sorry, but did you even read your own reply my guy? You want to hand me racquets with 330 SW vs 326 SW and see if I can tell the difference. A difference of 1.2% in respective specs.

THEN, you want to give me racquets with 6 pts HL vs 6 pts HH balance and see if I can tell the difference. A difference of 200% in the opposite direction in respective specs.

Am I getting this right?

I'm all for standing up for your beliefs but making a disingenuous argument to prove your point is quite low my friend.

That's not a disingenuous argument, I'm merely pointing out that other things are important besides swing weight.

Do you booboo.

 

[Djinn]

That's not a disingenuous argument, I'm merely pointing out that other things are important besides swing weight.

Do you booboo.

By offering spec differences of 1.2% in one case and 200% in the second case? That's not a great way to make an argument.

The mere fact that you have to make such extreme choices available should go to show you how much SW is more important than balance.

 

[aaron_h27]

By offering spec differences of 1.2% in one case and 200% in the second case? That's not a great way to make an argument.

The mere fact that you have to make such extreme choices available should go to show you how much SW is more important than balance.

Ok.

 

[Djinn]

Ok.

Glad I got that cleared up for you.

 

[TennisHound]

I’m testing the 2nd gen SX 300 Tour versus the 1st gen, and one of the changes they made was to reduce the swing weight quite a bit. I’ve noticed that on max-effort swings I am getting roughly the same power levels, with the new one having more racquet head speed (RHS) and the older having more plow-through. But I’m concerned that on average rally balls I am losing power with the new one because I subconsciously use the same swing timing and speed with both frames when I’m not consciously applying maximum effort. Since my exertion is not near the maximum, I automatically use a little extra effort to swing the heavier frame at the same speed without being aware of it.

Normally, I would think of choosing the right swingweight as finding the highest weight where I don’t feel like I’m tired or late to the ball when under pressure. But now I am wondering if I should focus more on how the ball comes out when I am not trying to swing my hardest, since getting extra power on 80% effort swings is really useful and saves wear-and-tear versus having to “redline” every swing?

Id just go back to the old one.

 

[aaron_h27]

Glad I got that cleared up for you.

You cleared up nothing for me, I was just done with the conversation.

 

[Djinn]

You cleared up nothing for me, I was just done with the conversation.

Arrogance is bliss I suppose.

I apologize, let me try to be better. What questions can I answer for you to clear your confusion on why SW is the most important dynamic spec on a racquet?

 

[Deleted member 775108]

By offering spec differences of 1.2% in one case and 200% in the second case? That's not a great way to make an argument.

Unfortunately neither is your way - A is 4" taller than average. B is 4" shorter than average does not mean A is 200% taller than B....

6HL is around 323mm
Even Balance is around 343mm
6HH is around 362mm
Therefore difference around 11.7%, not
200%.

To be frank you are the one who reads more disengenious in the last few posts. And your last post with a fake apology just proves it.

Maybe you should reread what the other person typed and try to interpret in it slightly different than you seem to be have.

Arrogance is bliss I suppose?

 

[Djinn]

Unfortunately neither is your way - A is 4" taller than average. B is 4" shorter than average does not mean A is 200% taller than B....

6HL is around 323mm
Even Balance is around 343mm
6HH is around 362mm
Therefore difference around 11.7%, not
200%.

To be frank you are the one who reads more disengenious in the last few posts. And your last post with a fake apology just proves it.
Maybe you should reread what the other person typed and try to interpret in it slightly different than you seem to be have.

Arrogance is bliss I suppose?

1. Ok, you're right. I should have looked at it in the mm scale and not point scale as the other person presented it.

2. The apology is also not fake. I realized I was being a ****** and changed my behavior when I could have easily deleted my first sentence. Left it there to remind myself to be better.

3. Even when we look at the provided example, it's still 1.2% vs 11.7% difference.

But sure, let's try to point out silly mistakes to discredit arguments that have been proven again and again. Anything to avoid falsifying that SW has been shown to be the most important dynamic spec, right?

How about just not spreading misinformation. Or admitting your mistake when presented with the right information?

 

[Djinn]

1. Ok, you're right. I should have looked at it in the mm scale and not point scale as the other person presented it.

2. The apology is also not fake. I realized I was being a ****** and changed my behavior when I could have easily deleted my first sentence. Left it there to remind myself to be better and try to genuinely help.

3. Even when we look at the provided example, it's still 1.2% vs 11.7% difference.

But sure, let's try to point out silly mistakes to discredit arguments that have been proven again and again. Anything to avoid falsifying that SW has been shown to be the most important dynamic spec, right?

How about just not spreading misinformation. Or admitting your mistake when presented with the right information?

 

[Deleted member 775108]

But sure, let's try to point out silly mistakes to discredit arguments that have been proven again and again. Anything to avoid falsifying that SW has been shown to be the most important dynamic spec, right?

How about just not spreading misinformation. Or admitting your mistake when presented with the right information?

Take a chill pill.

That person's example was not that great since in the real world you would not be able to get a 330sw 6hh (maybe possible around 270-280g) and 330sw 6hl racket (typically 320-330g) at the same weight...

But that person didn't actually say that something else was more important than SW... He just said there are other factors unless I missed something

Misinformation is a quite meaningless word in this current world context so let's not go there.

 

[Djinn]

Take a chill pill.

That person's example was not that great since in the real world you would not be able to get a 330sw 6hh (maybe possible around 270-280g) and 330sw 6hl racket (typically 320-330g) at the same weight...

But that person didn't actually say that something else was more important than SW... He just said there are other factors unless I missed something

Misinformation is a quite meaningless word in this current world context so let's not go there.

Wait, so you aren't sure you missed something, but you decided to take part in this argument anyway? You definitely missed something, bud. Maybe go back and read instead of once again trying to take this argument on some pointless tangent.