Swing Weight vs. Static Weight question

T

tennisnoob1949

Semi-Pro
I've read many posts on swing weight and static weight on this forum, and the general conclusion I have read is that swing weight generally influences 'power' of a racquet more than static weight. My question is: if you had a racquet with lower static weight and high swing weight (e.g. Head Graphene Prestige Rev Pro, swing weight ~ 330, static weight ~ 11.1 oz) - what should one expect from a racquet? Reviews on TW say that it is low powered, but then the swing weight is reasonably high, so not sure how to think about that.
 
An interesting point if you look at Amazing Results in the article above, is that the longer racket with the same SW the lower the rebound power. so you have to have a higher RHS with a longer racket to get the same power as you would have with a shorter racket.
 
tennisnoob1949 said:
Appreciate it, very interesting read!

While the article lays it out very clearly, I don't understand the feedback from some of the TW testers on the Rev Pro - how they say it's lower powered even though the swing weight is ~330. Maybe there's some degree of subjectivity to those reviews.
Click to expand...
Frame stiffness on the Rev Pro is 59. The frame stiffness also has a lot to do with power the stiffer the frame the greater the power.
 
One follow up question then: if you had 2 racquets with identical swing weight, one with a lower static weight and the other with higher static weight, I wonder which one will 'feel' more powerful. Clearly, the one with lower static weight is more polarized. I am wondering why everybody would not choose the former, since it comes at less penalty related to static weight.
 
tennisnoob1949 said:
Clearly, the one with lower static weight is more polarized.
Click to expand...
Hummm, Why do you think that? SW = RW + m(COM -10)^2 RW or inertia at the COM could be th same and RW is a measure of polarization. m or Mass will sure be lower in the lighter racket. Then there is the balance point or COM. My guess is most lighter racket have a higher balance point but not necessarily so.
 
Irvin said:
Hummm, Why do you think that? SW = RW + m(COM -10)^2 RW or inertia at the COM could be th same and RW is a measure of polarization. m or Mass will sure be lower in the lighter racket. Then there is the balance point or COM. My guess is most lighter racket have a higher balance point but not necessarily so.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I guess I meant to say - if 2 racquets with same SW and balance point have different weights, the lighter one is more polarized.

My larger question is why does everyone not play with lighter weighted racquets that are heavily polarized (while maintaining balance point to their preference) by adding lead to the extremities? Seems like that's a better way to get to high swing weight and a head light balance rather than playing with a racquet with high static weight.
 
tennisnoob1949 said:
Fair point. I guess I meant to say - if 2 racquets with same SW and balance point have different weights, the lighter one is more polarized.

My larger question is why does everyone not play with lighter weighted racquets that are heavily polarized (while maintaining balance point to their preference) by adding lead to the extremities? Seems like that's a better way to get to high swing weight and a head light balance rather than playing with a racquet with high static weight.
Click to expand...

Not an unreasonable position. I can say that I've tried a lot of different frames through recent history and I'm very sensitive to a couple of things with my own gear.

I very much prefer my racquet to feel stable through the ball - much of that stability (plow through, yaddah-yaddah...) comes from having enough beef in the hoop to effectively "win the collision" with the ball, including with my volleys, etc. where the racquet doesn't swing at relatively high speed.

I also like my racquet to maneuver rather easily, so I need significant head-light (HL) balance to get that comfortable handling. If my hoop is hefty enough to be relatively stable against the ball, I usually also need a LOT of weight in the handle to get my balance up to about 10 pts. HL (and a static weight of 12.6-12.8 oz.). A lighter racquet with a lot of weight in the hoop will have much less HL balance and its handling will be much more sluggish for me, despite its lower overall weight.
 
fuzz nation said:
Not an unreasonable position. I can say that I've tried a lot of different frames through recent history and I'm very sensitive to a couple of things with my own gear.

I very much prefer my racquet to feel stable through the ball - much of that stability (plow through, yaddah-yaddah...) comes from having enough beef in the hoop to effectively "win the collision" with the ball, including with my volleys, etc. where the racquet doesn't swing at relatively high speed.

I also like my racquet to maneuver rather easily, so I need significant head-light (HL) balance to get that comfortable handling. If my hoop is hefty enough to be relatively stable against the ball, I usually also need a LOT of weight in the handle to get my balance up to about 10 pts. HL (and a static weight of 12.6-12.8 oz.). A lighter racquet with a lot of weight in the hoop will have much less HL balance and its handling will be much more sluggish for me, despite its lower overall weight.
Click to expand...
Makes sense.

My question is motivated by some of the more modern frames where they are lighter in static weight, have a high swing weight AND have a HL balance. E.g. Head Graphene XT Rev Pro (~315g strung, 6 pts HL, ~325-330 SW). Let's say my target swing weight is ~335-340, then one option: start with the Graphene XT Rev Pro, add 3-4 g lead at 12, add 3-4 g lead in the butt cap (~321-323g, 6 pts HL, ~335-340 SW). Another option: start with the Head Graphene XT Prestige Pro (~332g, 6 pts, ~330 SW), add 2-3 g at 12, 2-3g in the butt cap to get (~336-338g, 6 pts HL, ~335-340 SW). From my perspective, the former seems like a better option than the latter, unless there is something about the latter that gives me some kind of advantage.
 
Irvin said:
An interesting point if you look at Amazing Results in the article above, is that the longer racket with the same SW the lower the rebound power. so you have to have a higher RHS with a longer racket to get the same power as you would have with a shorter racket.
Click to expand...

If that made sense, wouldn’t baseball players play with short bats? Or long drive golfers play with short drivers?

The test doesn’t take into account the torque transfer that goes up with a longer (moving) lever.
 
Good question and I've seen the same comments...

Remember F(orce) = m(ass) * a(cceleration), where mass is static weight.

So the higher static weight racquet is going to be less affected by the force of the incoming ball and apply a greater force to drive the ball back across the net -- this translates to the feeling of more plow through, more stability on impact, and a heavier ball being returned (within reason; too much mass and acceleration declines and thereby Force declines).

Swingweight translates to the resistance you experience when swinging the racquet through the contact point. Too low of a swingweight and you have to dial back the force of your swing (or be much more precise in your timing as the racquet head moves too fast and will seek to pass ahead of your hand as you accelerate). Too high of a swingweight and the racquet will feel too heavy; you will have to start your swing earlier to make it to the contact point on time (slower acceleration, slower speed). With the ideal swingweight, you can swing aggressively through the ball and the racquet maintains a natural but not hindering lag through contact - reduces the need for precision (racquet stays square through contact naturally) and allows you to swing with a natural rhythm. This is why you commonly read that you should use the highest swingweight you are comfortable with.

Finding the right mix of swingweight and static weight will yield your optimal power profile, and also facilitate more precision and control.
 
milowie said:
Good question and I've seen the same comments...

Remember F(orce) = m(ass) * a(cceleration), where mass is static weight.

So the higher static weight racquet is going to be less affected by the force of the incoming ball and apply a greater force to drive the ball back across the net -- this translates to the feeling of more plow through, more stability on impact, and a heavier ball being returned (within reason; too much mass and acceleration declines and thereby Force declines).
Click to expand...

This is true. However, the question that is usually asked is - what should be the 'm' in the above equation, overall weight, or weight of the racquet head itself or something else. A lot of mass in the handle does not usually help with the force since the racquet head does not have the additional mass.

milowie said:
Swingweight translates to the resistance you experience when swinging the racquet through the contact point. Too low of a swingweight and you have to dial back the force of your swing (or be much more precise in your timing as the racquet head moves too fast and will seek to pass ahead of your hand as you accelerate). Too high of a swingweight and the racquet will feel too heavy; you will have to start your swing earlier to make it to the contact point on time (slower acceleration, slower speed). With the ideal swingweight, you can swing aggressively through the ball and the racquet maintains a natural but not hindering lag through contact - reduces the need for precision (racquet stays square through contact naturally) and allows you to swing with a natural rhythm. This is why you commonly read that you should use the highest swingweight you are comfortable with.

Finding the right mix of swingweight and static weight will yield your optimal power profile, and also facilitate more precision and control.
Click to expand...

Irvin's article seems to indicate the strong correlation between SW and rebound power ('RP'), so I guess swing weight is not just an indicator of resistance to swinging but also the power imparted.
 
The rev pro having a smaller hoop might give you the control you want, compared to a 95-98 sq in head or pro, or pro compared to 100 sq in head. I think when you hit near frame on most racquets, deflection of strings may be similar, but in sweet spot there can be a lot more power that may not be wanted or needed.
 
tennisnoob1949 said:
This is true. However, the question that is usually asked is - what should be the 'm' in the above equation, overall weight, or weight of the racquet head itself or something else. A lot of mass in the handle does not usually help with the force since the racquet head does not have the additional mass.



Irvin's article seems to indicate the strong correlation between SW and rebound power ('RP'), so I guess swing weight is not just an indicator of resistance to swinging but also the power imparted.
Click to expand...
Good points, good article.

Couple of thoughts:

(1) this also seems to invalidate racquet stiffness as a factor in power -- maybe influence from RA is negligible compared to Swingweight, so you don't see the diff in the chart??

(2) in the scattered static weight vs RP chart explanation the author asserts "In Figure 1 the points are scattered all over the place because the RP depends mainly on the weight of the head rather than the weight of the whole racquet. Two racquets of the same weight will have different values of RP if one is head- heavy and the other is head light. The head heavy racquet will have a larger RP, so it has more inbuilt power."

Given swingweight increases disproportionately the closer the weight is to the tip of the racquet - perhaps the higher swingweights are simply a proxy for more weight in the hoop... and to your point (and validated by the author's comments) it's mass in the hoop, not mass of the entire racquet, that defines F in F=ma.. in that case, this correlation of Swingweight and RP would make sense and be consistent with the laws of physics.

(3) the article is specific to the theoretical case of hitting the ball purely on the sweetspot... in practical terms, however, power is lost as we hit off-center due to vibration... increasing Twistweight and Recoil Weight (3&9 o'clock and handle area respectively), reduces that loss, thereby recovering that lost power... so from OP's perspective, you can't look at Swingweight alone if you are trying to optimize for power.

(4) actual racquet head speed (acceleration) will vary from racquet configuration to racquet configuration; this must be taken into consideration beyond the published specs when determining the power you will generate for a given setup.

So it seems the best approach, at the end of the day, is hands-on experimentation to see what setup ends up generating the best result for the OPs particular swing- and, when it comes to power, knowing what factors influence power output, so you can experiment deterministically.
 
tennisnoob1949 said:
I am wondering why everybody would not choose the former, since it comes at less penalty related to static weight.
Click to expand...

Because polarised racquets feel like crap! To me anyways. And your assuming static weight is a bad. If it was all the pros would use Carlos Moya type specs, when almost all pros are over 340g static weight at the least.
 
Zoolander said:
Because polarised racquets feel like crap! To me anyways. And your assuming static weight is a bad. If it was all the pros would use Carlos Moya type specs, when almost all pros are over 340g static weight at the least.
Click to expand...
But you can be over 340g and still have a polarized set up (Murray is an extreme example). In fact several of today’s top players use polarized set up and over 340g. But many pros are also playing depolarized. There are no magic specs (or numbers).
 
AMGF said:
But you can be over 340g and still have a polarized set up (Murray is an extreme example). In fact several of today’s top players use polarized set up and over 340g. But many pros are also playing depolarized. There are no magic specs (or numbers).
Click to expand...
Totally agree, no magic numbers/specs, and it's very specific to each player.

Other than pure theoretical speculation :), I did have a practical consideration for starting this thread:
I just acquired a prestige rev pro, and have customized it to the same SW and balance as my current stick (Dunlop AG 200). The starting weight for the 2 racquets is 0.9 oz apart, so I didn't bother trying to customize that. The Rev pro feels less 'solid', but also late in matches, feels easier to wield. I was trying to get some perspective on how to think about customization of the Rev Pro (e.g. should I lead it to up match static weight and balance, but leave SW alone etc.).
 
Don’t overthink it. If you feel the frame is too light add weight. If you feel it lacks power add weight to the tip. If it lacks stability add weight at 3/9. If it’s not maneuverable enough make it more HL.

If the launch angle is too high add more tension. If the frame feels too stiff get a softer one. Etc.

Don’t shoot for a number, get the frame to work for you. Test and try. If the frame makes your best shot even better and doesn’t make your worst shot worst, buy a couple and don’t look back. :)
 
AMGF said:
Don’t overthink it. If you feel the frame is too light add weight. If you feel it lacks power add weight to the tip. If it lacks stability add weight at 3/9. If it’s not maneuverable enough make it more HL.

If the launch angle is too high add more tension. If the frame feels too stiff get a softer one. Etc.

Don’t shoot for a number, get the frame to work for you. Test and try. If the frame makes your best shot even better and doesn’t make your worst shot worst, buy a couple and don’t look back. :)
Click to expand...
Solid advice, makes complete sense! :)
 
tennisnoob1949 said:
Reviews on TW say that it is low powered, but then the swing weight is reasonably high, so not sure how to think about that.
Click to expand...

That (simpli) means that you can not gain easy power with that racquet.-
You have to go up to 350+ sw (eg. with +6g on 12) and the the racquet will be cumbersome...
Low powered racquets must have lower sw in order to be customizable.
 
only way to know if the racket has enough power is to try it. to me, a 330SW 11.1 oz racket could be stable enough and have enough power. You can also can power by string type and tension. As others said above, Moya popularized the low static weight combined with high SW setup. Nadal, Henin, Venus and Serena also use this type of setup but they all have SW over 350 or at least that's was reported early in their career. I tried a similar setup a few years ago SW336, static weight was about the same 336g and 4HL. it felt solid and had plenty of power.
 
Much harder to get your timing and feel right with polarized setup. It's all good on paper until you swing it, trust me I've tried
 
So how to tell if racquet polarized is best for me, I have a 12oz polarized 7pts hl 320sw racquet. Would like to compare with a similar racquet that is nonpolarized. So a racquet that comes through at same recoil maybe. What would specs be of this racquet and what would be effects on strokes, serves?
 
Hmgraphite1 said:
So how to tell if racquet polarized is best for me, I have a 12oz polarized 7pts hl 320sw racquet. Would like to compare with a similar racquet that is nonpolarized. So a racquet that comes through at same recoil maybe. What would specs be of this racquet and what would be effects on strokes, serves?
Click to expand...
At 340g, 320sw and 7hl, your racquet already is what is considered highly depolarized.
 
I know an old post here ... But I've been thinking a lot about this.

How much more maneuverable would you expect a racquet that weighs 330g and a 350g SW be compared to a 345g racquet with 350g SW? Or would the heavier racquet be more maneuverable?
 
wings56 said:
I know an old post here ... But I've been thinking a lot about this.

How much more maneuverable would you expect a racquet that weighs 330g and a 350g SW be compared to a 345g racquet with 350g SW? Or would the heavier racquet be more maneuverable?
Click to expand...
To rotate any racket around a 10 cm pivot with the inertia of 350 Kgcm^2 would require the exact same torque no matter how much the racket weight whether it is 300 g or 3 Kg. Your problem is you can’t rotate a racket around a 10 cm point and play tennis at the same time. If the balance points of the 330 g and 345 g rackets were the same the 330 g racket would be more maneuverable.
 
Irvin said:
To rotate any racket around a 10 cm pivot with the inertia of 350 Kgcm^2 would require the exact same torque no matter how much the racket weight whether it is 300 g or 3 Kg. Your problem is you can’t rotate a racket around a 10 cm point and play tennis at the same time. If the balance points of the 330 g and 345 g rackets were the same the 330 g racket would be more maneuverable.
Click to expand...

Is it fair to say that swingweight is a decent measure of polarization, and balance point is solely a measure of how much weight is distributed in the handle vs. head?
 
wings56 said:
Is it fair to say that swingweight is a decent measure of polarization, and balance point is solely a measure of how much weight is distributed in the handle vs. head?
Click to expand...
No SW is not necessarily a good indication of polarization. I could have a 5 lb racket with a very high SW that is not polarized. And balance point is the average of all mass or a point where the weighted relative position of the mass sums to zero.

EDIT: RW is a good indication of polarization.
 
Last edited:
wings56 said:
How much more maneuverable would you expect a racquet that weighs 330g and a 350g SW be compared to a 345g racquet with 350g SW? Or would the heavier racquet be more maneuverable?
Click to expand...

That's the anwser...
Irvin said:
If the balance points of the 330 g and 345 g rackets were the same the 330 g racket would be more maneuverable.
Click to expand...

Meaning that a heavier HL racket could be more maneuverable than a HH lighter one.
Meaning that maneuverability mostly depends on the balance!
On the other side, fatigue mostly depends on swingw and staticw...

Polarization it's another story....
 
wings56 said:
And polarization effects swingweight correct?
Click to expand...

Every addition of weight above the point we use to handle the racket, aprox 10 cm from buttcap, effects the swingweight!
This addition can be either for polarization or depolarization...
That's why I call it "another story"...
 
Evobacsi said:
If 2 rackets static weight and balance are identical, does it mean it will have the same sw?
Click to expand...
No, it depends on weight distribution.
A racquet with much weight in the throat can have the same balance point of a more polarized racquet, whose weight is more distributed in the hoop, but the latter will have a higher swingweight.
That's because the swingweight depends on the square of the mass distance from the swinging pivot (quadratic trend), whereas the balance points is simply the weighted (no pun intended) arithmetic mean of the mass distance (linear trend).
 
Evobacsi said:
If 2 rackets static weight and balance are identical, does it mean it will have the same sw?
Click to expand...

Imagine you have two 27" long sticks that each weighs two ounces. On one stick, you have two five ounce weights, one on each end. On the other stick, you have two five ounce weights together in the middle. Both sticks with weights weigh 12 ounces, and both are equally balanced, but the one with the weights on the end will be harder to swing if you hold it at one end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Tired quickly..reduce swing weight?or reduce static weight?
Replies
16
Views
4K
TennisMaverick
TennisMaverick
Gee
  • Poll Poll
Static weight vs swing weight
Replies
18
Views
2K
LPShanet
L
T
Static Weight (Mass) vs Swing Weight: Relationship Preference?
Replies
9
Views
3K
corners
C
GasquetGOAT
Weight vs Swing Weight vs Balance
Replies
5
Views
2K
Irvin
Irvin
R
Swing Weight Or Mass? (dynamic vs static)
Replies
23
Views
3K
TennisAsAlways
TennisAsAlways
Back
Top