Swingweight vs stiffness (understanding power and stability)

[pico]

Given that a racquet is of a decent static weight, does the increased stiffness of a racquet make it stable and powerful even though it might be of a low swingweight and thus on par with a lower flex racquet of a higher swingweight (either stock or through customisation). I have a friend who is 4.5 and he plays a stock Babolat Pure Aero Team (gets good depth, stability, power, spin) which got me wondering about whether stiffness or swingweight are influential in power and stability of a racquet (given a decent static weight).

 

[Crocodile]

I would say it’s swing weight first as major priority for racquet stability and then stiffness further down the list.
And this becomes more evident if you are a traditional linear type player. If you are a very modern player with angular fast RPM’s then you may well experience your idea of stability with a light and stiff frame.

 

[Soundbyte]

Not to throw a wrench into things, but twistweight is probably a better metric of "stability." As most people commonly review to stability as the how the racket responds to slightly off center hits (as we're not pros hitting the center of the sweetspot every time).

 

[AMGF]

Twistweight is the single most overlooked feature of a tennis frame in my opinion.

As long as you play against weak servers and low spin players tw is not that important. But when you start facing 110+mph flat serves, 90mph spin serves and/or players with great fh and tons of spin you need tw.

Tw helps to lower the unforced errors as the face of the racquet is not as much affected by off center hits. It helps at the volley and defense.

It does however make the racquet less maneuverable, so beginner or lower skill level players should not pursue high tw unless they have their swing mechanics dialed in.

 

[pico]

Twistweight is the single most overlooked feature of a tennis frame in my opinion.

As long as you play against weak servers and low spin players tw is not that important. But when you start facing 110+mph flat serves, 90mph spin serves and/or players with great fh and tons of spin you need tw.

Tw helps to lower the unforced errors as the face of the racquet is not as much affected by off center hits. It helps at the volley and defense.

It does however make the racquet less maneuverable, so beginner or lower skill level players should not pursue high tw unless they have their swing mechanics dialed in.

What is considered high twistweight?

 

[AMGF]

What is considered high twistweight?

I guess everyone has its own definition. For me under 14 is low, 14-15 is medium and over 15 is high.

My PSVSs are currently set at 15.0 tw.

 

[Power Player]

Yeah a high twistweight and swingweight can be too much and feel like a frying pan. Example - early Head Extreme Tours were like 15.5 TW and 330 SW.

I love the newer Yonexes. Many have a 14-15TW but the SW is lower so they still come through the air quickly and smoothly. Feel more like a classic frame but impact the ball like a modern one. I think that is why higher level players are competing with lighter frames now.

 

[HitMoreBHs]

Yeah a high twistweight and swingweight can be too much and feel like a frying pan. Example - early Head Extreme Tours were like 15.5 TW and 330 SW.

I love the newer Yonexes. Many have a 14-15TW but the SW is lower so they still come through the air quickly and smoothly. Feel more like a classic frame but impact the ball like a modern one. I think that is why higher level players are competing with lighter frames now.

One of these days, someone will come up with a formula that incorporates both SW and TW that can be used to calculate the relative manueverability of a racquet. If I'm using a racquet with a TW higher than 14.5, I find I need to lower SW by 3-5 to avoid the racquet feeling excessively sluggish.

With low TW racquets like the 360+ Prestige Mid (13.8), I've even spec'd it up to SW350 and the head still comes round remarkably quickly.

 

[pico]

So I am learning through this - higher TW, lower SwingWeight = maneuvarable plow and stability. Love it.

 

[AMGF]

One of these days, someone will come up with a formula that incorporates both SW and TW that can be used to calculate the relative manueverability of a racquet. If I'm using a racquet with a TW higher than 14.5, I find I need to lower SW by 3-5 to avoid the racquet feeling excessively sluggish.

With low TW racquets like the 360+ Prestige Mid (13.8), I've even spec'd it up to SW350 and the head still comes round remarkably quickly.

I agree and think the same. There’s probably a formula that could integrate sw/tw/ and maybe static/balance to get a clear picture of the frame.

 

[Dragy]

What is considered high twistweight?

Some Pro TW (Nadal, Djokovic) was measured slightly above 16. Stock racquets mostly go inbetween 13.5 and 14.5. 14+ is for heftier frames or ones with wide hoop (100+ sq.in.). Most 14.5+ TW farmes get very positive feedback for stability

 

[Dragy]

I agree and think the same. There’s probably a formula that could integrate sw/tw/ and maybe static/balance to get a clear picture of the frame.

We still base on personal experience, which is sluggish for one may be decently fast for the other. Rather than trying to figure out one-fit-all formula we can use general guidelines to go from our current setups. Like when you can benefit from buffing this or that, or recducing something

 

[pico]

Some Pro TW (Nadal, Djokovic) was measured slightly above 16. Stock racquets mostly go inbetween 13.5 and 14.5. 14+ is for heftier frames or ones with wide hoop (100+ sq.in.). Most 14.5+ TW farmes get very positive feedback for stability

I thought Nadal was 12.6 or something on TW?

 

[Dragy]

I thought Nadal was 12.6 or something on TW?

Now they did it the right way, with Briffidy himself instructing. So I take those words

 

[pico]

Now they did it the right way, with Briffidy himself instructing. So I take those words

I LOVED this vid. Thanks for sharing! I learnt so much. I am still puzzled abt Rafa's stick. I thought the twistweight of an Aeropro Drive retail was in the 14s. So his is prostock I guess? Or does the lead he has at 12 get the twistweight to 16?
Follow up question - is there a general rule for how much lead at 3 and 9 bumps TW by? For example - if I add 2g of lead to 3 on a racquet - how much would TW go up by? Or is that dependent on the racquet?

 

[Dragy]

Follow up question - is there a general rule for how much lead at 3 and 9 bumps TW by? For example - if I add 2g of lead to 3 on a racquet - how much would TW go up by? Or is that dependent on the racquet?

That would depend on the racquet width and whether you put lead inside the hoop or, for example, under the cap grommet.
You can use tennis-warehouse customization worksheet, where you can input width for added mass.
For my Speed Pro the with is 4.5" which adds ~1.3 pt to TW for every 10g

With Nadal, I don't know his customization exactly, but if it's lead all the way from 10 to 2 under the bumper guard, it can be that. Or just some infused frame maybe.

 

[pico]

I just looked up the stock twistweights of the 3 racquets I use mostly nowdays. They are all between 14.5 to 14.7. I find I hit my best ohbh with them. I wonder if this is the contributing factor mostly.

 

[Dragy]

I just looked up the stock twistweights of the 3 racquets I use mostly nowdays. They are all between 14.5 to 14.7. I find I hit my best ohbh with them. I wonder if this is the contributing factor mostly.

Having TW on the higher side definitely makes slightly off-center hits give much more consistent outcome. Be it PWS, lead at 9&3 or simply wide frame like Gravity or Pure Drive.

The case is usually we talk about more or less same mass and balance frames, and if TW is on higher side it might be that mass at 12 o’clock is limited, and it might play dead in the upper hoop, particularly softish frames.

 

[AMGF]

I just looked up the stock twistweights of the 3 racquets I use mostly nowdays. They are all between 14.5 to 14.7. I find I hit my best ohbh with them. I wonder if this is the contributing factor mostly.

No doubt that tw plays a role especially with a ohbh. With two hands you’re less likely to be affected by a mis-centered shot as both hands helps stabilize the face.

 

[Dragy]

No doubt that tw plays a role especially with a ohbh. With two hands you’re less likely to be affected by a mis-centered shot as both hands helps stabilize the face.

It kind of feel thing though rather than performance. Off-center hits with 2HBH will still go weak or sometimes dip into the net, even though you don’t feel the twist so much with both hands holding the racquet.

Djokovic and Nadal, for instance, appear to use slightly higher TW than Federer.

 

[artdeco]

I think twist-weight feels more stable IF you can get the right contact. However, if the sluggishness of the high twist-weight is preventing you from getting good contact...
I've been messing around with my Asian version PS90. Twist-weight must be pretty low. Feels very stable 'cause I can make good contact every time.

 

[Dragy]

I think twist-weight feels more stable IF you can get the right contact. However, if the sluggishness of the high twist-weight is preventing you from getting good contact...
I've been messing around with my Asian version PS90. Twist-weight must be pretty low. Feels very stable 'cause I can make good contact every time.

Do you mean it’s sluggishness because high TW goes with high SW? Or do you mean same SW but higher TW is sluggish? (well and balance and static weight, but let’s say those are pretty close for comparison)

 

[AMGF]

It kind of feel thing though rather than performance. Off-center hits with 2HBH will still go weak or sometimes dip into the net, even though you don’t feel the twist so much with both hands holding the racquet.

Djokovic and Nadal, for instance, appear to use slightly higher TW than Federer.

Agreed. But Federer static weight is higher than Nadal and Djoko. You can’t just look at one spec as they all interact together.

You also have players having different preferences as well so I don’t think we can really look at random pros and arrive to a definitive conclusion as to what is the best tw.

However I’m believing that TW is super important and that it has been overlooked for a long time. It does affect how a racquet feels and plays. It’s up to everyone to test and find their ideal specs.

 

[Dragy]

However I’m believing that TW is super important and that it has been overlooked for a long time. It does affect how a racquet feels and plays. It’s up to everyone to test and find their ideal specs.

I agree. The only question I have so far is "can you go too high?" Or is it just the "how much static and SW you can handle - maximize your TW within that"

I do add lead at 9-10 and 2-3 on my frames as a general rule, but as of today try to stay with 330-332 SW (was using 338-340 before that).

 

[AMGF]

Agreed. But Federer static weight is higher than Nadal and Djoko. You can’t just look at one spec as they all interact together.

You also have players having different preferences as well so I don’t think we can really look at random pros and arrive to a definitive conclusion as to what is the best tw.

However I’m believing that TW is super important and that it has been overlooked for a long time. It does affect how a racquet feels and plays. It’s up to everyone to test and find their ideal specs.

Quoting myself to add that the new Briffidi’s machine that accurately measures TW is bringing a relatively affordable tool to the masses and will allow more people to get to know their tw and start experimenting. It also does bring awareness to a spec that is often not well known, hard to understand and hard to measure.

 

[AMGF]

I agree. The only question I have so far is "can you go too high?" Or is it just the "how much static and SW you can handle - maximize your TW within that"

I do add lead at 9-10 and 2-3 on my frames as a general rule, but as of today try to stay with 330-332 SW (was using 338-340 before that).

As anything I believe there is indeed a too high. Looking at Djokovic’s spec I know for sure I can’t play with that. But my level of play doesn’t require that I do. What I do when setting my racquets is to get the stability I need to return the best flat first serves I face. After that, if needed, I will add lead at 12 to get the depth I want. I then adjust the balance with weight under the grip as needed.

Last year I made the move away from 27.5in after many years playing with them as the TW was always too low and when adding lead to make it stable the SW would shoot right up in the 350s which made it too high for me to play my best. That’s why I switched to the PSVS.

But I just purchased the new Pure Aero+ because it now comes stock with a rather high tw (14.7) for a 27.5in. I feel that this one might be the 27.5in frame I have been trying to built with its high TW, but plenty of room to adjust sw and balance due to its low static weight. I can’t wait to give this one a try.

 

[NicoMK]

I love the newer Yonexes. Many have a 14-15TW but the SW is lower so they still come through the air quickly and smoothly. Feel more like a classic frame but impact the ball like a modern one. I think that is why higher level players are competing with lighter frames now.

Which one(s) are you thinking of in particular? Thanks.

 

[Power Player]

Which one(s) are you thinking of in particular? Thanks.

Ezone 98 is a great example. I added a little bit of lead and it’s even more stable. Still plays super light.

 

[HitMoreBHs]

I think twist-weight feels more stable IF you can get the right contact. However, if the sluggishness of the high twist-weight is preventing you from getting good contact...
I've been messing around with my Asian version PS90. Twist-weight must be pretty low. Feels very stable 'cause I can make good contact every time.

This is exactly my experience, which led me to eventually giving up on the Gravity Tour (TW 14.8) and going back to a mid (360+ Prestige Mid with TW 13.8. Prior to that, I had largely used a PT600 for two decades).
Despite the generous head size and sweetspot, the relative sluggishness of the GTour gave me problems getting the head round fast enough to make solid contact, especially on high backhand drives. My topspin backhand is the best shot in my game and if I can't strike it reliably, it's giving up too much.

 

[Injured Again]

I personally am twistweight insensitive. The stroke where the racquet is most quickly rotated around its long axis is the serve and I can pretty much square up the racquet face equally well with any racquet from 12-17 twistweight with no adjustment issues. On groundstrokes, I typically notice the overall swingweight more than twistweight as well, even if I can tell that low twistweight racquets twist more on off-axis hits. That's because I tend to mis-hit as often high on the stringbed as I do off-axis, and for those hits that are on axis but high on the stringbed, the shock from a low swingweight racquet is greater than an off-axis hit on a low twistweight racquet.

 

[Grafil Injection]

I wonder if you have to factor in head-size as well as weight, SW, TW and stiffness. I reckon about a 1/2 oz difference in weight/SW needs to be considered for about every 10sqi size. So a 365g/340sw 85sqi swings about the same as a 350g/340sw 95sqi, or 335g/340sw 105sqi.

 

[Yamin]

I think if you're more eastern/traditional swing weight is more of a burden than twist weight. With western grip, swing weight increases swing speed with no burden. Twist weight and beam width however, makes a huge difference. Just dropping this here as I've been a bit misled by all the "swing weight makes things heavy" comments. Vcore 97H/18x20 blade v7 for example are faster to me than pretty much any other yonex or babolat on my groundstrokes.

As for stiffness, also think it depends on your strokes. If I don't get any dwell time, I don't get any power, despite people always saying higher RA is the way to go for power. Think I'm the only person that can't get power out of a pure drive.

Swing weight X your swing speed is probably the ultimate determination of power. Stability overall will play a part as well. I whipped out my Flexpoint Prestige Mid the other day and its power level was comparable to most rackets I've demoed over the last 2 years... expected it to be flaccid and unplayable with how the comments read on this forum about small head sizes and control rackets...

 

[aaron_h27]

I just looked up the stock twistweights of the 3 racquets I use mostly nowdays. They are all between 14.5 to 14.7. I find I hit my best ohbh with them. I wonder if this is the contributing factor mostly.

I've noticed this also. Low twistweight no good for the OHBH.

But low twistweight is good for the forehand, im wondering if its better to use a 2HBH if your game is based around your forehand. Since low twistweight shouldn't hinder the 2HBH as much.

 

[aaron_h27]

As anything I believe there is indeed a too high. Looking at Djokovic’s spec I know for sure I can’t play with that. But my level of play doesn’t require that I do. What I do when setting my racquets is to get the stability I need to return the best flat first serves I face. After that, if needed, I will add lead at 12 to get the depth I want. I then adjust the balance with weight under the grip as needed.

Last year I made the move away from 27.5in after many years playing with them as the TW was always too low and when adding lead to make it stable the SW would shoot right up in the 350s which made it too high for me to play my best. That’s why I switched to the PSVS.

But I just purchased the new Pure Aero+ because it now comes stock with a rather high tw (14.7) for a 27.5in. I feel that this one might be the 27.5in frame I have been trying to built with its high TW, but plenty of room to adjust sw and balance due to its low static weight. I can’t wait to give this one a try.

I did notice that the extended frame version of the same racket (For instance Ezone 98) felt less stable than the standard length version. I assume they remove some lead from 3 & 9 to keep the SW down and balance roughly the same.

 

[Grafil Injection]

I made a simple chart of all the TWs listed at TWU in descending order. I think this shows that there is quite a tight range of racket TWs with 85% being between 12 and 16 kg/cm2, and 65% being between 13 and 15kg/cm2. The outliers become quite extreme, with the maximum at almost 20 being the Gamma Big Bubba, and the minimum just under 10 is the Dunlop Bio 100. Just looking at the list, the prevalent factor at those extremities is very much head-size, but in the usual range of TWs, I would say weight/SW is more closely linked.

 

[AMGF]

I did notice that the extended frame version of the same racket (For instance Ezone 98) felt less stable than the standard length version. I assume they remove some lead from 3 & 9 to keep the SW down and balance roughly the same.

Good observation. Adding .5in to the length of the frame adds 20sw. Companies do seem to adjust weight distribution on their 27.5in versions as they are very rarely 20sw higher and the tw is almost always adjusted lower compared to the regular 27in frame as well.

 

[Irvin]

Power is directly proportional to SW. If two racquets have the same length and swingweight, then the stiffer of the two will have a higher RP near the tip and the throat (but they will have the same RP in the middle of the strings).

Raw Racquet Power - Tennis Industry

 

[aaron_h27]

Power is directly proportional to SW. If two racquets have the same length and swingweight, then the stiffer of the two will have a higher RP near the tip and the throat (but they will have the same RP in the middle of the strings). RP is rebound power.

Raw Racquet Power - Tennis Industry

So if SW is the same a shorter racket is more powerful correct?

 

[Irvin]

So if SW is the same a shorter racket is more powerful correct?

Yes

 

[TennisHound]

Given that a racquet is of a decent static weight, does the increased stiffness of a racquet make it stable and powerful even though it might be of a low swingweight and thus on par with a lower flex racquet of a higher swingweight (either stock or through customisation). I have a friend who is 4.5 and he plays a stock Babolat Pure Aero Team (gets good depth, stability, power, spin) which got me wondering about whether stiffness or swingweight are influential in power and stability of a racquet (given a decent static weight).

You need a little stiffness, especially in the throat for stability and power. If you look at all the “power” racquets, they have a stiff throat.

 

[pico]

Yes

hmmmm wonder if I should play a customised junior racquet....hmmmmm

 

[KC!]

The New Dunlop FX 500 kind of an anomaly.
It has 321 swing weight, 16.2 twist weight & very whippy.
Powerful, but more controlled than the 2021 Pure Drive.

 

[artdeco]

This is exactly my experience, which led me to eventually giving up on the Gravity Tour (TW 14.8) and going back to a mid (360+ Prestige Mid with TW 13.8. Prior to that, I had largely used a PT600 for two decades).
Despite the generous head size and sweetspot, the relative sluggishness of the GTour gave me problems getting the head round fast enough to make solid contact, especially on high backhand drives. My topspin backhand is the best shot in my game and if I can't strike it reliably, it's giving up too much.

Strangely I've been finding that my topspin backhand is actually best with VCore Pro HD (18x20 high twist weight), and less predictable with PS90 and 360+ Mid.

 

[artdeco]

I've noticed this also. Low twistweight no good for the OHBH.

But low twistweight is good for the forehand, im wondering if its better to use a 2HBH if your game is based around your forehand. Since low twistweight shouldn't hinder the 2HBH as much.

This fits with my experience. My forehand is better with PS90, one-hand backhand much better with VCore Pro HD.

 

[pico]

The New Dunlop FX 500 kind of an anomaly.
It has 321 swing weight, 16.2 twist weight & very whippy.
Powerful, but more controlled than the 2021 Pure Drive.

WOW! That's high for a stock racquet! Do you use it? How do you like it?

 

[KC!]

It's the highest I've seen on a stock racquet; it's a great racquet. I hit with hit, but don't currently use it.

 

[pico]

It's the highest I've seen on a stock racquet; it's a great racquet. I hit with hit, but don't currently use it.

what restricted the switch?

 

[KC!]

what restricted the switch?

I found another racquet that I really liked, the New 2023 Vcore 100.
It has 14.9 twist weight , 322 Swing weight. It makes everything easy for me, easy spin, power, depth & still good control with my swing path. If you're a flatter hitter the FX 500 probably better.

 

[Grafil Injection]

hmmmm wonder if I should play a customised junior racquet....hmmmmm

A shorter racket to have the same SW would need to be heavier. Let's say 15g heavier if you took off 0.5inch length. But even if that additional weight is no problem, the centre of the stringbed of a shorter racket will be travelling slower for the same hand-speed. So whilst SW is directly linked to power, you can't ignore other factors that are also directly linked.

 

[tele]

I LOVED this vid. Thanks for sharing! I learnt so much. I am still puzzled abt Rafa's stick. I thought the twistweight of an Aeropro Drive retail was in the 14s. So his is prostock I guess? Or does the lead he has at 12 get the twistweight to 16?
Follow up question - is there a general rule for how much lead at 3 and 9 bumps TW by? For example - if I add 2g of lead to 3 on a racquet - how much would TW go up by? Or is that dependent on the racquet?

maybe i missed it, but i could not see where he mentioned if these racquets actually belonged to the players themselves. seems to contradict Info here