SWINGWEIGHT???

[Bobs tennis]

I have read so much about this but find it confusing. I use a head microgel radical o/s 107 with a advertised swingweight of about 315. Used a friends Gamma 137 with a giant swingweight of around 400 and granted they play so different ,didn't find the gamma tiring nor hard or heavy to swing. Actually felt the radical heavier to swing. I realize that it is heavier. If swingweight is so critical why are seniors loving them. Is it because of their shorter swings?? Weaker eyes?? I'm close to about as senior as you can be and watch several super senior tournament where bubba thrives even with 400 swingweight.

 

[Irvin]

SW is a measure of how much torque is required to move a racket around a point 10 cm from the butt of the racket. Inertia is a measure of how much force is required to move a racket around the Center of Mass (COM.) Suppose you suspend both rackets on a string connected to the COM, then you could easily blow on either racket an it will move around. Lay either racket don on the table and try to blow them off. Good luck unless you have a strong blower.

Now what happens when you swing a racket is the racket most of the time is not rotating around the 10 cm SW axis. The racket itself is not going to rotate around that axis until you change the racket’s path just prior to striking the ball. For the most part the heavier the racket and the higher the balance point the more tiring the racket will be. SW has very little to do with it.

How maneuverable the racket is when you are changing it direction has everything to do with SW and TW depending on which axis / axes you’re trying to change. Usually too high a SW / TW will show up in sore muscles or tendinitis or slow maneuverability.

 

[Shroud]

I have read so much about this but find it confusing. I use a head microgel radical o/s 107 with a advertised swingweight of about 315. Used a friends Gamma 137 with a giant swingweight of around 400 and granted they play so different ,didn't find the gamma tiring nor hard or heavy to swing. Actually felt the radical heavier to swing. I realize that it is heavier. If swingweight is so critical why are seniors loving them. Is it because of their shorter swings?? Weaker eyes?? I'm close to about as senior as you can be and watch several super senior tournament where bubba thrives even with 400 swingweight.

Imho not all sw is equal. The bubba gets its sw from length and not from mass. Its a light racquet so it doesnt take alot to move it around and for a senior its perfect. Often have dreams of getting one, cutting off 2+ inches and adding a ton of weight. One day

Also you can have two sticks with the same sw and one can feel more sluggish. It really depends where the weight is, whats the balance,etc

 

[Bobs tennis]

Shroud-This persons bubba is 28 not 29". He told me he bought his new and for a while they were offering them at 28.

 

[Irvin]

Imho not all sw is equal. The bubba gets its sw from length and not from mass. Its a light racquet so it doesnt take alot to move it around and for a senior its perfect. Often have dreams of getting one, cutting off 2+ inches and adding a ton of weight. One day

Also you can have two sticks with the same sw and one can feel more sluggish. It really depends where the weight is, whats the balance,etc

The greater the SW of a racket, no matter what the mass and balance is, the slower it will rotate around its 10 cm axis with any given force. For the higher SW racket to rotate at the same speed more force must be applied.

 

[Irvin]

Shroud-This persons bubba is 28 not 29". He told me he bought his new and for a while they were offering them at 28.

It does not matter what the mass and length is. If a racket has a SW of 400 and another 300 the one with the higher SW will require more force to rotate it around the SW axis.

Mass and balance is what it feels like in your hand. SW is a measure of the torque required to rotate the racket.

 

[Irvin]

This video IMO explains Inertia well, and points out a few misconceptions.

 

[Shroud]

The greater the SW of a racket, no matter what the mass and balance is, the slower it will rotate around its 10 cm axis with any given force. For the higher SW racket to rotate at the same speed more force must be applied.

I was talking about the results. A 400sw from mass and one from length produce very different outcomes for me. Its especially noticeable on the serve...

 

[fuzz nation]

I have read so much about this but find it confusing. I use a head microgel radical o/s 107 with a advertised swingweight of about 315. Used a friends Gamma 137 with a giant swingweight of around 400 and granted they play so different ,didn't find the gamma tiring nor hard or heavy to swing. Actually felt the radical heavier to swing. I realize that it is heavier. If swingweight is so critical why are seniors loving them. Is it because of their shorter swings?? Weaker eyes?? I'm close to about as senior as you can be and watch several super senior tournament where bubba thrives even with 400 swingweight.

I haven't played with those racquets, but I've been confused with swingweights in the past myself. I respect what this number is intended to represent, but it doesn't tell me so much on its own. What's been a problem for me is that even if two frames have identical swingweights, they can also have rather different weights and balances. That can make their handling and "swing behavior" rather different, too.

I usually look primarily at the weight and balance (and flex rating, too) when trying to decide whether a racquet might have potential for me. I've become pretty familiar with my preferred ranges of these specs and how they combine to give me a decent fit (I only use 27" racquets, so I guess I can't readily apply my preferences to longer alternatives).

If you keep track of these specs when you try different frames though, I'll bet you gain some understanding of what "works" for you. Static weight, balance, and flex together can usually paint a much less misleading picture for me than a swingweight.

 

[PMChambers]

I was talking about the results. A 400sw from mass and one from length produce very different outcomes for me. Its especially noticeable on the serve...

It will because the assumption we rotate a racquet around a pivot point 10mm up from the handle to hit a ball is false. There is definitely rotation, multiple rotations every joint will have some rotation but the swing path is often linear through hitting zone.

The obvious time SW experience is reflex volley where racquet is pivoted at the wrist. The more time the more shoulder rotation.

There's isn't one number means all. But need to look at weight, balance, SW and TW to get idea of what happens and when. Then feel RA, cross section modulus, etc. Many manufactures tried to make a one number rule them all, Dunlop, Prince, Wilson, etc. It just not fully representative of playability. Plus you break nearly all simplified rating systems with your weird inventions / preferences.

 

[Shroud]

It will because the assumption we rotate a racquet around a pivot point 10mm up from the handle to hit a ball is false. There is definitely rotation, multiple rotations every joint will have some rotation but the swing path is often linear through hitting zone.

The obvious time SW experience is reflex volley where racquet is pivoted at the wrist. The more time the more shoulder rotation.

There's isn't one number means all. But need to look at weight, balance, SW and TW to get idea of what happens and when. Then feel RA, cross section modulus, etc. Many manufactures tried to make a one number rule them all, Dunlop, Prince, Wilson, etc. It just not fully representative of playability. Plus you break nearly all simplified rating systems with your weird inventions / preferences.

I suppose I do. The main issue was when serving on the kick serve. Shorter racquet had more depth:

Anyhow here is the thread

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/sw-from-lead-vs-sw-from-length.575045/

 

[JustTennis76]

I have read so much about this but find it confusing. I use a head microgel radical o/s 107 with a advertised swingweight of about 315. Used a friends Gamma 137 with a giant swingweight of around 400 and granted they play so different ,didn't find the gamma tiring nor hard or heavy to swing. Actually felt the radical heavier to swing. I realize that it is heavier. If swingweight is so critical why are seniors loving them. Is it because of their shorter swings?? Weaker eyes?? I'm close to about as senior as you can be and watch several super senior tournament where bubba thrives even with 400 swingweight.

How long did you use your friend's 400 SW racket? Just hitting it for a session may not tell the true story comparing to your microgel radical SW. Play a few sets or matches for a period of time say 3 to 4 weeks with the heavier SW racket. I bet you can surely tell the difference then and it be a lot harder to keep up. Too many times, I have fallen trap to some racket that plays amazing for a session from my experience. I am never making that same mistake again and sticking to my current rackets that has a lower SW.

 

[Irvin]

I was talking about the results. A 400sw from mass and one from length produce very different outcomes for me. Its especially noticeable on the serve...

And rightfully so. If you have 2 rackets with identical SW they will produce the same power and and rotating those rackets around the 10 cm axis will be the same. But if one racket is 25” and the other is 29” the shorter racket (more often than not) must weigh more to obtain as much SW as the longer one. Running around with the heavier will require more work. And if head size is super oversized it’s a power bonus.

Assume you had a 20 cm solid rod, because the rod is solid it will have inertia equal to 1/12ML^2. To get a SW of 400 (1/12*M*20*20) or 400 = 33.3M the M of the rod with a SW at 10cm would be about 12 Kg. Which would be hard to run around the court with a normal tennis racket with a SW of 400 or a 26.4 lb weight? The lighter the racket the less tiring it is. The higher the SW the more powerful it is. Why do older players like the big bubbas and weed rackets? They’re less tiring, more powerful, and the racket suits their game.

 

[Shroud]

And rightfully so. If you have 2 rackets with identical SW they will produce the same power and and rotating those rackets around the 10 cm axis will be the same. But if one racket is 25” and the other is 29” the shorter racket (more often than not) must weigh more to obtain as much SW as the longer one. Running around with the heavier will require more work. And if head size is super oversized it’s a power bonus.

Assume you had a 20 cm solid rod, because the rod is solid it will have inertia equal to 1/12ML^2. To get a SW of 400 (1/12*M*20*20) or 400 = 33.3M the M of the rod with a SW at 10cm would be about 12 Kg. Which would be hard to run around the court with a normal tennis racket with a SW of 400 or a 26.4 lb weight? The lighter the racket the less tiring it is. The higher the SW the more powerful it is. Why do older players like the big bubbas and weed rackets? They’re less tiring, more powerful, and the racket suits their game.

Hey Irvin. The long racquets never produced the same results as a similiar swing weight from mass. Serves on the shorter heavier racquet were more powerful and much deeper

There is a big difference if the sw comes from length or from mass IME. Which seems to be the opposite of what you are saying

 

[Bobs tennis]

SOOOO if his is a 28 length perhaps the sw is less then 4xx.I can't find any info supporting specs on 28" length but he swears he bought it new at that length. I wrote the rest of his specs down off the frame and the weight was 9.6 with balance of 15.0 inchs

 

[Irvin]

Hey Irvin. The long racquets never produced the same results as a similiar swing weight from mass. Serves on the shorter heavier racquet were more powerful and much deeper

There is a big difference if the sw comes from length or from mass IME. Which seems to be the opposite of what you are saying

So you take a heavier racket and add mass to the head to make it feel longer then you add mass at 7” to make it feel shorter to get the MgR/I right. Is that pretty much it? You could get the same mass and balance by adding the mass more in the center of the racket but you would not see the same power that comes from the higher SW would you? For any given mass I believe (and you do too) there is the right ratio of balance (R) to SW or Inertia (I.) aka MgR/I is nothing more than mass times the ratio of balance/inertia times a constant (gravity) thrown in for good measure. Gravity though makes very little change though it is just a confusion factor IMO.

I’m not arguing that if you change mass, or the ratio of balance/inertia doesn’t make a difference.

 

[Bobs tennis]

Irvin-Am i correct that if you shorten the frame or grip up on the racket you would lower the SW.

 

[Shroud]

So you take a heavier racket and add mass to the head to make it feel longer then you add mass at 7” to make it feel shorter to get the MgR/I right. Is that pretty much it? You could get the same mass and balance by adding the mass more in the center of the racket but you would not see the same power that comes from the higher SW would you? For any given mass I believe (and you do too) there is the right ratio of balance (R) to SW or Inertia (I.) aka MgR/I is nothing more than mass times the ratio of balance/inertia times a constant (gravity) thrown in for good measure. Gravity though makes very little change though it is just a confusion factor IMO.

I’m not arguing that if you change mass, or the ratio of balance/inertia doesn’t make a difference.

What are you saying Irvin? It doesnt seem to be related to my point that sw from length doesnt have the same affect as sw from mass.

Maybe i dont understand but 400sw from mass and 400 sw from length have the same ratios but very different results.

Not sure i understand the feel longer part. If you mean higher sw sure but the length has a different feel. Thats the point. Same sw can feel very different.

 

[Irvin]

Maybe i dont understand but 400sw from mass and 400 sw from length have the same ratios but very different results

All inertia comes from mass. Without mass there is no inertia.

Not sure i understand the feel longer part. If you mean higher sw sure but the length has a different feel. Thats the point. Same sw can feel very different.

I’m saying the same thing you’re saying we just aren’t speaking the same language. If you want to match 2 rackets all specs must be the same. Just matching SW won’t cut it.

Not sure i understand the feel longer part. If you mean higher sw sure but the length has a different feel. Thats the point. Same sw can feel very different.

COM is the unique point on a racket you feel. The higher the COM the longer the racket feels.

 

[SteveI]

SW is still a measure of how hard or easy it is to get a frame moving and into position to contact the ball??

 

[Irvin]

SW is still a measure of how hard or easy it is to get a frame moving and into position to contact the ball??

No not at all. When you take the racket back you start pulling on the racket to get into position that not SW. just before contact you should turn the racket off that path like a windshield wiper as the racket passes from one side to the other. SW is the measure of how much rotational acceleration is required.

EDIT: Just about anyone could move a racket with a SW of 500 from back to front. But when that racket must change path is when they start looking sluggish.

 

[SteveI]

No not at all. When you take the racket back you start pulling on the racket to get into position that not SW. just before contact you should turn the racket off that path like a windshield wiper as the racket passes from one side to the other. SW is the measure of how much rotational acceleration is required.

EDIT: Just about anyone could move a racket with a SW of 500 from back to front. But when that racket must change path is when they start looking sluggish.

I just said that... LOL

 

[TennisHound]

I have read so much about this but find it confusing. I use a head microgel radical o/s 107 with a advertised swingweight of about 315. Used a friends Gamma 137 with a giant swingweight of around 400 and granted they play so different ,didn't find the gamma tiring nor hard or heavy to swing. Actually felt the radical heavier to swing. I realize that it is heavier. If swingweight is so critical why are seniors loving them. Is it because of their shorter swings?? Weaker eyes?? I'm close to about as senior as you can be and watch several super senior tournament where bubba thrives even with 400 swingweight.

Some of this you will need to figure out on your own. Read the specs on the racquets you try. Much of this is trying a racquet that gets a certain feel you want.

 

[n8dawg6]

a measure of how hard

thaaaats what she said

 

[SteveI]

thaaaats what she said

Love it...

 

[Shroud]

thaaaats what she said

Good to see you are at your poast!!!