Swing Weight vs. RHS

[Shroud]

Foot fault!

Good on you for posting videos and being prepared to be subject to the opinions of the masses. It takes some cajones.

Thanks dude! You are right. Lots of guys come out of the woodwork to comment but don't seem to have their own vids....

When you say FF I think you are talking about the ones where I cross the center line. It looks maybe like I hit the ball after the foot lands but if you go frame by frame I don't think its a FF. I tore my left meniscus about 4 years ago and well I am pretty lucky to just be playing and I think you can see how I do my best to get off the left leg asap.

FWIW posting vids is easy and well you ALWAYS learn from it so maybe its the cajones thing you are talking about that stops people.

 

[movdqa]

Thanks dude! You are right. Lots of guys come out of the woodwork to comment but don't seem to have their own vids....

When you say FF I think you are talking about the ones where I cross the center line. It looks maybe like I hit the ball after the foot lands but if you go frame by frame I don't think its a FF. I tore my left meniscus about 4 years ago and well I am pretty lucky to just be playing and I think you can see how I do my best to get off the left leg asap.

FWIW posting vids is easy and well you ALWAYS learn from it so maybe its the cajones thing you are talking about that stops people.

I can post videos and I have the process down but it's still work, particularly the editing.

It's pretty cheap to do if you don't factor in the cost of the smartphone. The Tripod was $10 and I keep it in my bag so it's easy to setup. The work is in editing out the dead time in the video.

I imagine that a lot of critics also don't factor in age. Let's see their video when they're in their 60s.

 

[Shroud]

I can post videos and I have the process down but it's still work, particularly the editing.

It's pretty cheap to do if you don't factor in the cost of the smartphone. The Tripod was $10 and I keep it in my bag so it's easy to setup. The work is in editing out the dead time in the video.

I imagine that a lot of critics also don't factor in age. Let's see their video when they're in their 60s.

Yeah, editing sucks and is time consuming but the programs are free.

Great point about the age. I am not that old but getting there....

 

[sma1001]

When you say FF I think you are talking about the ones where I cross the center line. It looks maybe like I hit the ball after the foot lands but if you go frame by frame I don't think its a FF.

I got the impression you were maybe either stepping on to the line, or landing first, but didn't do frame by frame so if you are satisfied with it then so am I. If you've done the analysis i've no doubt you are right.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Here you go. And with a full kevlar string bed at 86/86lbs to boot. Sure my technique could be better but the sw isnt what is holding me back:

@Shroud, I love your videos.

The sound of kevlar making contact with ball is amazing. On occasion it sounds like a cricket bat hitting a cricket ball (ie, the famous "willow on leather" crack that we fans of the Gentleman's Game are very familiar with.)

Certainly easy to tell when you hit the ball in the ideal part of the string be simply by listening to the sound on contact.

 

[Power Player]

I got in on this and took a 4 inch strip off my frame at 12. Sounds like nothing but it felt like it dropped the SW a fair amount down from the 365 I had it at.

Somebody needs to do some type of physics analysis to see if the Isometric head shape of the Yonex somehow gives you more than 3 SW points per gram when you add lead at 12. It just seemed rather drastic for dropping 6 SW pts. My frame is now 353 grams, guessing 359SW and balance is about 4 pts HL.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure, but the math says I should be at 359 even though it felt lighter. Regardless, here is what I noticed, most things are obvious :

More RHS of course. I wasn't sure how much I liked this, but I got back into" trust the frame" thinking after some time. I will say I was hitting very big FHs and I felt I had more control over them - everything was staying in and the ball was coming off the court heavy.

More trajectory. This was interesting, but I got a little more net clearance. My shots were less linear and I had a little more directional control.

Honestly, I played really well. I held serve every game and was able to attack my opponents backhand with big FHs consistently. My net game was clean and I wasn't making a lot of mistakes. Sounds awesome, but I still was missing that little extra heft. Maybe it's in my head, but I'm thinking I may split the difference and add 2 inches back instead of 4.

There is a real fine balance, but I am real close to where I can crank the ball with lots of spin and still not overswing. As long as I am doing that, I am good. Additionally my second serve has plenty of spin, and was heavy enough to set up my FH off the return.

 

[Matthew Lee]

He can't keep 5 rally balls in the court. End of discussion. He's taking no 5.0 and 5.5 to the woodshed any time soon.

Would love to see how you play

 

[RanchDressing]

He can't keep 5 rally balls in the court. End of discussion. He's taking no 5.0 and 5.5 to the woodshed any time soon.

He wasn't the one I was referring to. Instead I meant someone who was an ITF Pro player, and now simply a usta certified teaching pro.

Shroud actually can keep 5 rally balls in, but hey whatever. Only the finest of trolling is allowed on TT. Lets see your play video then! Since you're telling everyone what NTRP they are, and saying what they should or should not care about.

People like you have only been helping the industry push along their smoke and mirrors act. Even though I'm sure you don't think so. But the more you discourage proper analysis, the more the consumer loses power.

 

[Shroud]

@Shroud, I love your videos.

The sound of kevlar making contact with ball is amazing. On occasion it sounds like a cricket bat hitting a cricket ball (ie, the famous "willow on leather" crack that we fans of the Gentleman's Game are very familiar with.)

Certainly easy to tell when you hit the ball in the ideal part of the string be simply by listening to the sound on contact.

Thanks Karma. Like Kelly McGillis in Top Gun, "So YOU are the one!!"

Yes I love the sound of that racket and had to switch to Vimeo to host because Youtube really compressed the sound and made it sound like I was hitting a leather couch!!

I just wish the kevlar was as spinny as poly! Its OK with string savers but more spin with poly crosses....

I like watching vids too so post one if you have it.

 

[Shroud]

I got in on this and took a 4 inch strip off my frame at 12. Sounds like nothing but it felt like it dropped the SW a fair amount down from the 365 I had it at.

Somebody needs to do some type of physics analysis to see if the Isometric head shape of the Yonex somehow gives you more than 3 SW points per gram when you add lead at 12. It just seemed rather drastic for dropping 6 SW pts. My frame is now 353 grams, guessing 359SW and balance is about 4 pts HL.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure, but the math says I should be at 359 even though it felt lighter. Regardless, here is what I noticed, most things are obvious :

More RHS of course. I wasn't sure how much I liked this, but I got back into" trust the frame" thinking after some time. I will say I was hitting very big FHs and I felt I had more control over them - everything was staying in and the ball was coming off the court heavy.

More trajectory. This was interesting, but I got a little more net clearance. My shots were less linear and I had a little more directional control.

Honestly, I played really well. I held serve every game and was able to attack my opponents backhand with big FHs consistently. My net game was clean and I wasn't making a lot of mistakes. Sounds awesome, but I still was missing that little extra heft. Maybe it's in my head, but I'm thinking I may split the difference and add 2 inches back instead of 4.

There is a real fine balance, but I am real close to where I can crank the ball with lots of spin and still not overswing. As long as I am doing that, I am good. Additionally my second serve has plenty of spin, and was heavy enough to set up my FH off the return.

See that is what I am talking about!!!! Though my situation is a bit more extreme but that is where I want to go, where you get the spin and the heft it thats possible. There has to be a sweet spot between the two.

I think I will just add 1g slowly until I get there.

But yeah I was getting more height and more spin with the lower SW.

 

[Shroud]

Shroud actually can keep 5 rally balls in, but hey whatever.

Yes I can, I just am not wired like that. heck even in the pros 80% of points are won in the 1st THREE balls. So for me, this long rally stuff doesnt make sense and I tend to just end points.

But yeah you are right. Wonder if floyd has a vid of him in a 100 ball + rally??:

 

[RanchDressing]

See that is what I am talking about!!!! Though my situation is a bit more extreme but that is where I want to go, where you get the spin and the heft it thats possible. There has to be a sweet spot between the two.

I think I will just add 1g slowly until I get there.

But yeah I was getting more height and more spin with the lower SW.

I don't think it's coincidence that most pros are near that 350 mark. Even the extreme's of 370 statistically aren't that far away. I think you should try 350 for a little while and see how it goes.

 

[Shroud]

I don't think it's coincidence that most pros are near that 350 mark. Even the extreme's of 370 statistically aren't that far away. I think you should try 350 for a little while and see how it goes.

Ok I can setup another racket at 350. I think I am around 340 now. I will measure both and see what the best on is. Though I think the lower SW lets me use a softer cross and lower tensions on the cross (46 vs 86) and that might be a good thing. Also it should shorten the hoop a bit so the SW will be lower so I need to measure to see.

There is some thing to be said for being about to control the racket at the last minute and get more spin. But there is something to be said for solidity and effortless swinging!

Got to love tennis!

 

[Matthew Lee]

I think I'm just gonna stick with my 337 SW AI 98
It's just my game and my personal preference, but kudos to you guys! Bold moves should come out to great rewards, am I right?

 

[Shroud]

I think I'm just gonna stick with my 337 SW AI 98
It's just my game and my personal preference, but kudos to you guys! Bold moves should come out to great rewards, am I right?

hit with what works, but dont be afraid to add a gram at 12pm and a gram in the handle and see.

AI 98 is a pretty good racket IIRC.

 

[Irvin]

I got in on this and took a 4 inch strip off my frame at 12. Sounds like nothing but it felt like it dropped the SW a fair amount down from the 365 I had it at.

Somebody needs to do some type of physics analysis to see if the Isometric head shape of the Yonex somehow gives you more than 3 SW points per gram when you add lead at 12. It just seemed rather drastic for dropping 6 SW pts. My frame is now 353 grams, guessing 359SW and balance is about 4 pts HL.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure, but the math says I should be at 359 even though it felt lighter. Regardless, here is what I noticed, most things are obvious :

More RHS of course. I wasn't sure how much I liked this, but I got back into" trust the frame" thinking after some time. I will say I was hitting very big FHs and I felt I had more control over them - everything was staying in and the ball was coming off the court heavy.

More trajectory. This was interesting, but I got a little more net clearance. My shots were less linear and I had a little more directional control.

Honestly, I played really well. I held serve every game and was able to attack my opponents backhand with big FHs consistently. My net game was clean and I wasn't making a lot of mistakes. Sounds awesome, but I still was missing that little extra heft. Maybe it's in my head, but I'm thinking I may split the difference and add 2 inches back instead of 4.

There is a real fine balance, but I am real close to where I can crank the ball with lots of spin and still not overswing. As long as I am doing that, I am good. Additionally my second serve has plenty of spin, and was heavy enough to set up my FH off the return.

See that is what I am talking about!!!! Though my situation is a bit more extreme but that is where I want to go, where you get the spin and the heft it thats possible. There has to be a sweet spot between the two.

I think I will just add 1g slowly until I get there.

But yeah I was getting more height and more spin with the lower SW.

Why add weight at 12 if you want the heft back, add mass @ 6 o'clock just to see what happens. Still have mass behind the ball with only 1/7th the SW increase. And a lower SW increase gives you more RHS.

 

[Minion]

I think there is some confusion / misinformation about a 'high' SW. If anything, a high SW promotes the use of the kinetic chain, which is a good thing. You try and slap the ball with a 350+ sw....no, rather don't It has been proven, by people much smarter than myself, and in a much more articulate manner, that proper use of the kinetic chain does a whole lot of impressive stuff, and produces a high RHS.

Personally, I found it impossible to use the kinetic chain with a super light sw like 320 AND hit a decent ball. It was just, so underwhelming. With a SW of 355, I can swing very relaxed, use the kinetic chain, and let the racquet do the work, viola!

 

[oble]

I have 2 of the same rackets but I removed all the lead from one. The fully leaded has a 400SW the one without the lead is around 330.

I really like the RHS of the 330 one and see the advantage of that and it being sooo light to maneuver. But I miss the 400sw and its solidity and effortlessness.

Is there a way to get both? Say a 340- 350sw? Or are they mutually exclusive? at what point does RHS start to diminish and what is the sweet spot for both? The magical 370SW is almost right in the middle between these two extremes.

I guess the only way to find out is to gradually lead it up to find what plays right for you, instead of jumping between swingweight extremes?

I definitely feel that there is a small range in between the extremes where it's still easy to physically keep the RHS up without overswinging while having the stability/plow through for the level of competition that one is facing. For me, that's around mid 330's to 340 SW, static weight around 340g +/- a couple of grams.

 

[Irvin]

I think there is some confusion / misinformation about a 'high' SW. If anything, a high SW promotes the use of the kinetic chain, which is a good thing. You try and slap the ball with a 350+ sw....no, rather don't It has been proven, by people much smarter than myself, and in a much more articulate manner, that proper use of the kinetic chain does a whole lot of impressive stuff, and produces a high RHS.

Personally, I found it impossible to use the kinetic chain with a super light sw like 320 AND hit a decent ball. It was just, so underwhelming. With a SW of 355, I can swing very relaxed, use the kinetic chain, and let the racquet do the work, viola!

KINETIC - of, relating to, or something in motion. The higher the SW (more often than not,) the slower the racket, and the lower your kinetic energy.

 

[Minion]

KINETIC - of, relating to, or something in motion. The higher the SW (more often than not,) the slower the racket, and the lower your kinetic energy.

Are you suggesting that Federer, Djokovic, Wawrinka have low RHS?

 

[Joonas]

I sort of decided to stop tinkering and move to lighter sticks like Pure Drive. I had some success between PD and heavy ones with slightly leaded Pure Strike 16/19.

However yesterday inspired by few comments here I slapped few strips of lead my trusted platform iPrestige MP and took the SW up to 355 just to see how it goes. Well, the obvious outcome was increased power in forehands. But also increased spin. Depth control was superb but I count that to Prestiges quality more than to weight itself. Backhands I can't say really as my left wrist is still broken after falling on it 4 weeks ago so I am only slicing BH. But the slice with 355 SW is really effortless as long as I can find the ball low. High balls is anoher story then...

But this experiment made me think again. True that my results and consistency has been better with PD with just little added weight, overall weight below 330g. But I have always also lacked the pure, raw power in my strokes and felt bit impotent in terms of weapons. I never quite understood the common view that PD delivers super power. In stock form 2012 has SW of 308 and I lack power everywhere else than the serve.

Then again with Prestige with 355SW I definitely could out power my opponents in rallies but is it really worth trying and adapting to heavy setup trusting that I can play effectively with that even when I am not relaxed. I mean the matches against pushers when being relaxed start easily to be just a distant memory.

@Power Player I remember you settling with EP without lead so obviously below 330SW. How did it go and what made you change back to heftier setup and tinkering? How is your consistency compared to "tweener time"?

 

[zalive]

KINETIC - of, relating to, or something in motion. The higher the SW (more often than not,) the slower the racket, and the lower your kinetic energy.

Wait a minute...you suggest that RHS is the only variable for kinetic energy calculation, while SW itself is not?
SW is also a variable for kinetic energy. Because of this, bolded conclusion is not true. The truth is that outcome is too complex to reach the one way conclusion.

 

[movdqa]

Are you suggesting that Federer, Djokovic, Wawrinka have low RHS?

The argument against comparing with pros is that rec players don't have the fitness attributes to use heavy racquets. You could add Berdych and Soderling in there at around 400.

The idea on the kinetic chain is that you use your larger muscles to get the racquet moving which should take less effort as they are more efficient at generating more force than your smaller muscles.

 

[Irvin]

Are you suggesting that Federer, Djokovic, Wawrinka have low RHS?

Are you suggesting you can swing as hard as Federer, Djokovic, and Wawrinka just because your SW is as high as their's is? Maybe you're under the impression if your SW is as high as the top pro's you will play as good as the top pros. That being the case maybe all little league baseball players should play with heavy wooden bats.

 

[Minion]

Are you suggesting you can swing as hard as Federer, Djokovic, and Wawrinka just because your SW is as high as their's is? Maybe you're under the impression if your SW is as high as the top pro's you will play as good as the top pros. That being the case maybe all little league baseball players should play with heavy wooden bats.

What? No, not at all. You said "The higher the SW (more often than not,) the slower the racket, and the lower your kinetic energy". This is generally true, but Federer for example has very fast RHS, and it is not because he is strong - it is because of his technique, which includes the kinetic chain.

 

[Irvin]

Wait a minute...you suggest that RHS is the only variable for kinetic energy calculation, while SW itself is not?
SW is also a variable for kinetic energy. Because of this, bolded conclusion is not true. The truth is that outcome is too complex to reach the one way conclusion.

So I said I did not suggest that kenetic energy is dependant on motion. Without motion there is no kenetic energy. Just like without distance there is not SW. Add a point mass on the Pivot axis and there is no increase in SW. The formula for kenetic energy is 1/2 the mass times the velocity squared. (Ref http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmec/ke.gif) Moving the mass of down (either by a few grams or 12" lower on the racket) does not change the total mass much or any at all but makes could make a big change in the ability of the racket to be swung faster.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Personally, I found it impossible to use the kinetic chain with a super light sw like 320 AND hit a decent ball. It was just, so underwhelming. With a SW of 355, I can swing very relaxed, use the kinetic chain, and let the racquet do the work, viola!

OK. So first question for you is ... "What do you mean when you say "decent ball"?" Powerful? Deep? Heavy? Flat? Loopy?

A heavier racquet, or a racquet with a higher SW requires a greater transfer of kinetic energy from your body through the racquet to the ball to produce effective shots.

A player with consistent stroke technique produces similar levels of kinetic energy every stroke. Where the result changes is in the transfer of kinetic energy from the body to the racquet to the ball. Optimal transfer of this energy requires optimal timing of the stroke and hit.

Pro. Tennis players don't necessarily produce any more kinetic energy than Amateur players. Pro. Tennis players are just more effective at transferring that energy through the racquet to the ball basically because they have superior timing. This superior timing is usually the result of a combination of genetic factors and years of appropriate practice.

For many amateur players a heavier racquet facilitates a smoother stroke, to a certain point. This smoother stroke promotes better timing, or rather more consistent timing which translates into better hit balls at least for a period of time. The heavier stick does not promote higher RHS though. Higher RHS can be generated with a lighter racquet, however it is more difficult to achieve consistent hitting unless the player's timing is spot on. Poor timing of strokes introduces inefficiencies into the kinetic energy transfer from player to racquet to ball.

The best players can wield a light racquet almost as well as a heavier racquet because they have optimised strokes. But the heavier racquet will supercharge their results to a certain point because greater levels of kinetic energy are transferred to the ball than is the case with a lighter racquet.

 

[Irvin]

What? No, not at all. You said "The higher the SW (more often than not,) the slower the racket, and the lower your kinetic energy". This is generally true, but Federer for example has very fast RHS, and it is not because he is strong - it is because of his technique, which includes the kinetic chain.

You're correct I did say that, except for the part you threw in about Federer.

 

[zalive]

So I said I did not suggest that kenetic energy is dependant on motion. Without motion there is no kenetic energy. Just like without distance there is not SW. Add a point mass on the Pivot axis and there is no increase in SW. The formula for kenetic energy is 1/2 the mass times the velocity squared. (Ref http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmec/ke.gif) Moving the mass of down (either by a few grams or 12" lower on the racket) does not change the total mass much or any at all but makes could make a big change in the ability of the racket to be swung faster.

Yeah, but I guess you do understand the point then.
If SW goes up, RH goes down. Kinetic energy is proportional inertia (SW) and to square of angular velocity (which is RHS).
But we cannot calculate how much higher SW will slow down the RHS, because it's depends upon personal technique and physique.

We do know that without SW there's no kinetic energy, so for SW = 0 we have Ek = 0. We also do know that at certain weight (very high) our physical ability to swing it will fail, and without RHS also Ek = 0.
So we do know there is somewhere in between peak point for kinetic energy. And we do know it's complex, depends on player and that we cannot calculate it.
So forget about conclusions about which is better, lower or higher.
But that pros use a certain range of SW is indicative.

One thing also is important: ball mass is constant. Collision of ball and racquet outcome (kinetic energy distribution) depends on inertia vs ball mass relation. I'd say that the more inert the other object (racquet) is, the more kinetic energy the ball will carry out of collision. But it would be interesting to calculate it with physical forumulas.

 

[Power Player]

Why add weight at 12 if you want the heft back, add mass @ 6 o'clock just to see what happens. Still have mass behind the ball with only 1/7th the SW increase. And a lower SW increase gives you more RHS.

Because I like high swing weight. That's the whole point. I have been playing at SW365 the past 6 weeks and have been loving it.

 

[Power Player]

@Power Player I remember you settling with EP without lead so obviously below 330SW. How did it go and what made you change back to heftier setup and tinkering? How is your consistency compared to "tweener time"?

My strokes are the same, but I just don't swing as hard. I was swinging really hard and fast for years. I started playing tennis when I was around 7 and was from the Agassi school of "hit as hard as you can", but I was using 90's heavy graphite frames and was a kid.

It takes a toll when the frames are light, and you are swinging that fast. Wears you out and it's not great on the arm. Additionally, my shot tolerance sucked because I'd get tired. I just stay in control now. I also really love it on my 2hander. That was an area where higher SW immediately made a difference. The 2 hander is perfect for high SWs. You have to trust the frame on a 2 hander and just let your body supply the power.

I won a lot of matches with the Extreme Pro. I have no issues at all with that frame. It was just a different play style. Less punishing on the opponent, more defensive and grindy. I just don't enjoy playing tennis like that even when I am winning matches.

My consistency is a high point now. I'm using the Yonex Xi98 vcore and with this setup, it reminds me a lot of the old Babolat Aerostorm tour. Tons of spin and control. I can string it in the upper 40s and it feels great.

 

[Irvin]

If SW goes up, RH goes down. Kinetic energy is proportional inertia (SW) and to square of angular velocity (which is RHS).
But we cannot calculate how much higher SW will slow down the RHS, because it's depends upon personal technique and physique.

We can't calculate it but we can make a damn good guess. SW = mdd while KE = .5mvv
if you move 5 g of mass from 12 to 6 like I was suggesting above the dd value in the SW formula goes down by about 12*12*2.54 SW go3es down and m stays the same so RHS goes up which means vv goes up in the KE formula. if the V squared goes up and mass stays the same you will have more Kenetic energy.

 

[Irvin]

Because I like high swing weight. That's the whole point. I have been playing at SW365 the past 6 weeks and have been loving it.

Yet you change to a lower SW and like the benefits. What makes you think you like high SW and not just the high mass in the head? Long story short, if you like what you have stay there there's no reason to change.

 

[movdqa]

Yet you change to a lower SW and like the benefits. What makes you think you like high SW and not just the high mass in the head? Long story short, if you like what you have stay there there's no reason to change.

It took me several months of experimenting with lead tape to find out what I win the most with.

The thing is that increasing swingweight, even by a relatively small amount, takes some time to adjust to and I'd guess that your muscles, timing and maybe even your footwork are changed. So what felt heavy in the past may not feel heavy after a week or two. You might be able to recover any lost RHS as well if that's what you want. Up to a point where you start to lose overall power. This painful process may be why pros don't like to change their frames.

 

[Power Player]

Yet you change to a lower SW and like the benefits. What makes you think you like high SW and not just the high mass in the head? Long story short, if you like what you have stay there there's no reason to change.

Dude I dropped like 6 SW points and I kind of want to go back up. Only reason I changed was because I was reading this thread and I'm basically at fine tuning mode. I know I like high SW because I am playing better tennis and have been for a sustained period of time.

 

[ONgame]

How can people on here just casually play with 400 swingweight racquets?
What level of tennis do you 400 SW users play at?

 

[Shroud]

How can people on here just casually play with 400 swingweight racquets?
What level of tennis do you 400 SW users play at?

That sounds like its directed at me

I play 4.0 ball, mostly doubles. I am the one in the pants. FWIW if i posted this before this thread its doubtful anyone could guess the SW.

Its a different stroke for sure.

 

[Shroud]

Foot fault!

Good on you for posting videos and being prepared to be subject to the opinions of the masses. It takes some cajones.

Hey Man. Looking at the last video I posted there are some FFs where I touch the line. I used to stand back more but lately have been moving closer but looks like I need to step back a bit. Thanks!

 

[Minion]

OK. So first question for you is ... "What do you mean when you say "decent ball"?" Powerful? Deep? Heavy? Flat? Loopy?

A heavier racquet, or a racquet with a higher SW requires a greater transfer of kinetic energy from your body through the racquet to the ball to produce effective shots.

A player with consistent stroke technique produces similar levels of kinetic energy every stroke. Where the result changes is in the transfer of kinetic energy from the body to the racquet to the ball. Optimal transfer of this energy requires optimal timing of the stroke and hit.

Pro. Tennis players don't necessarily produce any more kinetic energy than Amateur players. Pro. Tennis players are just more effective at transferring that energy through the racquet to the ball basically because they have superior timing. This superior timing is usually the result of a combination of genetic factors and years of appropriate practice.

For many amateur players a heavier racquet facilitates a smoother stroke, to a certain point. This smoother stroke promotes better timing, or rather more consistent timing which translates into better hit balls at least for a period of time. The heavier stick does not promote higher RHS though. Higher RHS can be generated with a lighter racquet, however it is more difficult to achieve consistent hitting unless the player's timing is spot on. Poor timing of strokes introduces inefficiencies into the kinetic energy transfer from player to racquet to ball.

The best players can wield a light racquet almost as well as a heavier racquet because they have optimised strokes. But the heavier racquet will supercharge their results to a certain point because greater levels of kinetic energy are transferred to the ball than is the case with a lighter racquet.

By "decent ball", I mean a ball I hit right in the sweetspot with near perfect timing. It can be powerfull, flat, topspin, depends on what I was going for.

I have consistent stroke mechanics, and I can hit a decent ball with my stock PD2015 which has a sw of 320 as well. But the resulting ball is much heavier with the 355sw. I don't change my stroke mechanics to 'adjust' to a 355 sw. I don't have to. 355sw is not that heavy. I'm still baffled by why people would think so.

I do see a lot of rec players slap the ball though, without using their legs, hips and sometimes even their shoulders. I can imagine in that case, a higher sw will not work for them. To each his own I guess

 

[Minion]

That sounds like its directed at me

I play 4.0 ball, mostly doubles. I am the one in the pants. FWIW if i posted this before this thread its doubtful anyone could guess the SW.

Its a different stroke for sure.

I'm going to guess the SW

I would say it's about 380.

 

[Shroud]

I'm going to guess the SW

I would say it's about 380.

LOL.

 

[Minion]

LOL.

Aww c'mon

 

[Shroud]

Aww c'mon

Ok, the racket is at 406sw by measurement. Though its a special racket in that its light at 362g.

 

[Minion]

Ok, the racket is at 406sw by measurement. Though its a special racket in that its light at 362g.

Bloody hell....Nice

You must be a pro to play with that high sw

 

[zalive]

Yet you change to a lower SW and like the benefits. What makes you think you like high SW and not just the high mass in the head? Long story short, if you like what you have stay there there's no reason to change.

When it come to rotation mass is not directly relevant, it's inertia that is relevant - however, mass is relevant to inertia, and swing weight exists because mass exists. Only, it's the swing weight which is the inertia applicable to rotational motion.

But yeah, in the end it's just how one likes it. You can take some benefit from lower SW certainly.

Actually I've come to conclusion that, because you can manipulate string bed power and power that comes from construction design of a racquet, that the whole pro SW range story boils down to a margin of error. You can manufacture and tune a good pro racquet with lower specs so you actually get all the power and spin you need in a lighter package. It's how big the error margin will be, this is where is the difference. This is what I believe, that SW range typically used by pros is such because it's likely the most forgiving range. Stability from some inertia will make some less than perfect shots still go in and make them turn out less bad, when it comes to percentages.

If this is true then everybody is kind of right. You can set up a good racquet with lowish SW, you can do it with highish SW. You can adjust your technique to make most of any SW you use.

 

[Serjojeee]

I also think that for your different shots different raquets and sw are better, so it's a compromise. From leading the ps18x20 at 3/9 (+10 pts) bh slice became more heavy and accurate, flat forehands are bombs, serve became more consistent but backhand became erratic. I play with it a lot - Wawrinka stile, not running around bh very much, and it's pretty consistent. Overall balls are flying deeper, more stringbed tension is needed. With my very long strokes with all the leg drive and core rotation + 20 pts to sw will be too much I believe - It'll be ok for serves, but worse for baseline bashing - too tiring for topspin shots on the shoulder. For a more flat game high swingweights are better.

 

[Serjojeee]

And Cap will agree with me that from a strategic point of view cross court drives will see the most benefit form high sw racquets (Wawrinka/Djokovic style). So if you are running aroud your bh a lot and playing more angles, than a lighter racquet makes more sense as it's less tiring on top spin shots.

 

[zalive]

It depends on a technique. Same goes for BH as for FH, you need certain topspin (if we talk about topspin shots) to create a bigger margin for error. SW itself will never stop topspin generation or make it less. Even higher TW won't stop generation of topspin. At the moment of contact racquet face has to be down relative to swing path to allow creation of topspin. The bigger this tilt is, more topspin will be created, but the bigger the tilt, the more RHS is needed also to be sufficient to create both speed and spin. Which means a certain correct technique is needed, a full swing and a correct stance to support it. The rest is adjusting swing path for a net clearance height that ensures sufficient margin of error.

If you don't close racquet's face enough, racquet may become too powerful.

Higher SW racquets often require control nature of the frame itself (being control oriented rather than powerful) and sufficiently slow string bed. This is the game to make things predictable: make it inert by SW, but then take away excess power by otherwise control oriented setup. In the end racquet won't be too powerful, but just predictable and stable. But it's important what is used as a platform. My recommendation is to start with light enough control oriented frame, then build up SW and RW (and TW if needed). The rest is string bed.

 

[Serjojeee]

It depends on a technique. Same goes for BH as for FH, you need certain topspin (if we talk about topspin shots) to create a bigger margin for error. SW itself will never stop topspin generation or make it less. Even higher TW won't stop generation of topspin. At the moment of contact racquet face has to be down relative to swing path to allow creation of topspin. The bigger this tilt is, more topspin will be created, but the bigger the tilt, the more RHS is needed also to be sufficient to create both speed and spin. Which means a certain correct technique is needed, a full swing and a correct stance to support it. The rest is adjusting swing path for a net clearance height that ensures sufficient margin of error.

If you don't close racquet's face enough, racquet may become too powerful.

Higher SW racquets often require control nature of the frame itself (being control oriented rather than powerful) and sufficiently slow string bed. This is the game to make things predictable: make it inert by SW, but then take away excess power by otherwise control oriented setup. In the end racquet won't be too powerful, but just predictable and stable. But it's important whati is used as a platform. My recommendation is to start with light enough control oriented frame, then build up SW and RW (and TW if needed). The rest is string bed.

It's true, you can get as much topspin from a heavy racquet, but it will not come that easy - the racquet must move upward to create topspin (closed raquet at start, leg drive, windshield wiper finish is just a biomechanical thing, pure physics is forward and up motion). I feel it that way also - easier to create topspin with lighter sw raquets.

 

[zalive]

Well I must put disclaimer, I use OHBH.

With OHBH you can use verticality for a swing path: start racquet position is up above, then swing starts to go down at first half of path, then finishes up. Down then up. All needs to be coordinated with body turn (weight transfer from back to front foot). Stance I use for BH is closed. No need for windshield wiper, you can get a lot of topspin, but by using an extreme grip like BH SW or at least between BH SW and BH Eastern. Currently I use BH Eastern and it's not enough for this type of swing, so I should switch to a BH SW.