Tennisnerd
- Thread starter riddick
- Start date
Dragy
Legend
320 is great SW, stable enough, punchy enough to send the ball across the whole court length. Coupled with soft string - even better.
Lower SW really works mostly for bunters who are accidentally on court, not involved a lot, not ready to learn even simple strokes.
Or for weaker small women and juniors, who can swing fast enough, but just not ready for bit of heft.
Greatest feature of higher SW is stability. When they face even half-decent players, you don’t want your mom’s racquet twisted and hit out of her hand every 2nd shot.
Lower SW really works mostly for bunters who are accidentally on court, not involved a lot, not ready to learn even simple strokes.
Or for weaker small women and juniors, who can swing fast enough, but just not ready for bit of heft.
Greatest feature of higher SW is stability. When they face even half-decent players, you don’t want your mom’s racquet twisted and hit out of her hand every 2nd shot.
R_Gasquet
New User
320SW is absolutely fine, especially for racquets with lighter static weight. I got my wife a 285g Head Extreme MP Lite when she started learning how to play and she asked me to customize the racquet several times, asking for more plow and stability until it reached around 318SW.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
As much as I love your posts @Dragy SW 320 can handle anything on court if you hit the sweetspot. It's stable, plenty of UTR 10 plus players I know use SW318-324 it in high level competition.
brentzki
Rookie
Yes but not many people here are UTR 10 are they. UTR 10+ players hit the middle of the sweetspot 99% of the time.
How many people here are UTR 10+? My guess is very little, if any.
You're always making comments in every single thread about the good players that use low swingweights. However, people here may actually like the benefit of lead/higher SW racquets for additional stability for when they don't make flush contact.
Stop pushing this low SW, "I play with all these kids and see stock racquets" agenda, let people do what they want.
He's a bit obsessed with pushing the low SW narrative.
What's in it for him? I have no idea.
vsbabolat
G.O.A.T.
That’s just going to upset the group that believes low swing weights for everyone unless you’re 10+ UTR.Tennisnerd's mom (a newbie) uses a swingweight of 320SW
nintendoplayer
Semi-Pro
When users post about high level players hitting with heavy (swing)weight racquets they get attacked for even comparing pro specs to recreational players…and if they post about high level players with low swingweight racquets, they get attacked as well?
Isn‘t this forum about opinion and personal experience?
As if a Tennisnerd video (a guy who is constantly made fun of in this forum how he cannot be taken seriously) suddenly has more relevance than any real-world experience…?
To me this video still smells a lot like they both aren‘t yet done with their racquet journey, both still experimenting a lot.
Just two fellow recreational players talking about where they currently are on their Racquetoholic-journey.
And watching them hit actually shows you that their specs don‘t fit that well. Compare how their rallies looked in earlier Nerd-videos and now. The balls (especially Jonas’s) often have a too high trajectory, going long, missing the control and precision his pal had in previous videos. The rallies are often very short, as well - many times due to unforced errors. When Jonas tries to attack a shorter lower ball, you can directly see how he‘s a bit slow with the racquet and cannot efficiently swing and then simply pushes the ball over the net quite weakly…
So the end result, most of the rallies they show in this video, isn‘t very convincing. His pal is hitting a few winners (if he has enough time to prepare, which of course works quite well if Jonas is pushing back weak balls with relatively high trajectory) but apart from that there’s not a lot to be seen here.
They both don’t look like playing better Tennis than before, in my opinion it’s quite the opposite.
That‘s why this video isn‘t any good proof for anything, in my opinion. (and I have no issues with TN, I actually like his channel a lot)
brentzki
Rookie
I haven't even watched the video haha.
I'm also not advocating for light or heavy, I'm just saying there is some merit to heavier SW's and people should do what they want, whether they prefer lower or heavier swingweights.
If people say the racquet feels unstable and twists in their hand against harder hitters then I think their opinion or experience is valid without people chiming in saying "320 SW is plenty stable" because "I've seen UTR 10+'s use them".
I'm UTR 6 and I know for a fact that I don't hit the sweetspot all the time. In my experience having a slightly heavier SW (high 320's - 330) allows some extra depth and stability when I don't make perfect contact.
Last edited:
Dragy
Legend
I agree, 320 is good enough. But higher might be better for particular players
Lower - not likely, if we talk about adults and new balls.I am an advanced beginner/intermediate player (probably around 3.5ish I don't know) and I started experimenting with lead tapes and putty a few weeks ago. I increased the swingweight of my vcore 100 to 335 by adding 2+2 g to 10-2 and added 6 g to buttcap (total weight ended up as 340 with overgrip dampener etc.). I thought it would feel harder to swing but instead making it more headlight made it much easier and my swings improved significantly (my coach is saying this). Moreover, I don't feel any soreness on my elbow anymore. However, I am quite athletic and I can swing it for 3 hours without getting tired. I was scpetical at first but I can recommend higher swingweight to most begginer/intermediate players as long as they are not arming the ball most of the time and they are strong enough to swing it.
ozbikebuddy
Rookie
Just putting this out there..... Has No One here ever hit with Wilson Hammer?
there were sub 300g and were all head heavy, and were aimed a recreational players, these all had higher swing weights. The whole concept of lighter frames was around maintain a decent swing weight while making it lighter.
All TN is saying here is if you can handle/use a higher swing weight, but don't want to use some like a Prestige/ProStaff/Volkl C10, there are ways you can modify tweeners etc to get a similar result. He make the point on numerous occasion in both videos, swing what you can handle. I'm in my 50s and when i started playing in the 70's i learnt using a wooden racquet, so i learnt to swing with a high swing weight. Even thought I'd love to use a PD or PA or something similar, they just all fell no right when i use them. The ideas in this video show someone like me that with the right alterations I might be able to.
When he refer to his mother, i dare say her swing speed is not that high, but she likely has long classic style swings, and used to wood frames too, so using a modern frame altera but might not be such a bad thing. Remember we are all different, and we are not all that same generation and all grew using different tech. Tennis is NOT an 1 size fits all sport when it comes to equipment
there were sub 300g and were all head heavy, and were aimed a recreational players, these all had higher swing weights. The whole concept of lighter frames was around maintain a decent swing weight while making it lighter.
All TN is saying here is if you can handle/use a higher swing weight, but don't want to use some like a Prestige/ProStaff/Volkl C10, there are ways you can modify tweeners etc to get a similar result. He make the point on numerous occasion in both videos, swing what you can handle. I'm in my 50s and when i started playing in the 70's i learnt using a wooden racquet, so i learnt to swing with a high swing weight. Even thought I'd love to use a PD or PA or something similar, they just all fell no right when i use them. The ideas in this video show someone like me that with the right alterations I might be able to.
When he refer to his mother, i dare say her swing speed is not that high, but she likely has long classic style swings, and used to wood frames too, so using a modern frame altera but might not be such a bad thing. Remember we are all different, and we are not all that same generation and all grew using different tech. Tennis is NOT an 1 size fits all sport when it comes to equipment
Klatu Verata Necktie
Hall of Fame
Back in the early 80s, my mom started playing tennis seriously with a Prince Graphite oversized racquet. She was a beginner and used the heavy 12 ounce + stick to groover her strokes.
In 1989, being a huge Andre Agassi fan, I picked up the Donnay Pro One, which was Donnay's version of Andre's Prince Graphite Oversize. Like the Prince, the Donnay was 12+ ounces, and served my just fine as a 13 year old.
I still have both racquets, btw. As a matter of fact, I still pull out the Prince Graphite from time to time and it plays just fine.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Take a moment to consider this...some people say you need more mass, as @Dragy said, and the reason is for stability. Surely most here are under UTR 10 and aren't playing with or against them often, but I'm trying to balance out the discussion because it seems so many here really think they need more weight for plow through and stability! They don't. Maybe they don't face these kinds of players and realize 1. the heavy hitters are doing just fine with low SW and 2. If you brought a heavy racket against them for "mehr starbility" it would just be a handcuff.
I envision some people want to improve and are thinking if I slowly increase the swingweight and get used to it I can hit with the big boys. There has to be some people thinking this is an aspiration to get closer to the weights of the pros for stability. Without realizing the players just 4 UTR or whatever above them don't even do that.
I am letting people do what they want, but I guarantee some of them want to improve and they need to know the reality of the level they are trying to get to.
So let me do what I want and share my experiences and they can ignore me if they feel like it.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Just helping others, someone may get brainwashed reading the posts about adding weight to improve their game to the point they jump one NTRP. If you add up my posts considering lower SW and compare them to the posts about adding,my posts would easily be drowned out . I'm sharing what I see in the hands of players I play against on the court and for some , it seems they are adding weight to handle the balls these guys and sometimes gals are hitting. I'm just offering the evidence that easily stock SW 318-325 is very common in very high level players and the high SW won't necessarily improve your performance against them, nor even be necessary.
I only think about 100 people read these posts anyway.
If my posts bother you it's ok to ignore me, no problem.
And, as I've said before , in the real world, most advanced players don't know their own SW and I also haven't seen too many lower level players leading up sticks to their detriment. So, now that the RF97 is dying out (that was a disaster for so many without them knowing it) , hardly anyone is doing the 340Gram 330 plus SW and actually winning a ton of USTA matches.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Good observations, TN might actually want to hear your observations . The video did get a ton of comments though so he has to lean into it.
And to my defense, I am not trying to attack anyone, just share my personal experience and prevent the rare occasion where someone new to tennis stumbles on this forum and thinks you have to have weight to return serves from or hit with high level players.
ps. also helps me pass the time during meetings, haha.
You're obsessed with this topic and it's really annoying.
How many times are you going to repeat the same thing? We get it.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
I'm with ya, I learned with a wood stick when I was 4 years old, quickly was saved from that with new tech, but the first racket in my tiny hands was wood. You could use a PA or PD easily, just would take a few months of a learning curve playing 5 days a week and throw in a few singles tourneys.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
If you are always in time to hit the ball in the sweet spot, a lighter racquet will still have enough stability to handle heavy shots. So, higher level players with better anticipation and footwork can handle heavier shots with lighter racquets while having the advantage of faster swing speed due to the higher maneuverability.
Most rec players are late to the ball a lot and end up hitting many shots with incomplete/late swings or make contact outside the sweet spot. In this case, you are make likely to feel a lighter racquet is unstable against heavy shots or lacks shot depth and might feel the need for a heavier racquet particularly on defense. The heavier racquet with higher mass will give more depth on mistimed shots and incomplete swings.
Of course, what is considered heavy or light is subjective depending on a player’s physique/strength, level, style etc.
Most rec players are late to the ball a lot and end up hitting many shots with incomplete/late swings or make contact outside the sweet spot. In this case, you are make likely to feel a lighter racquet is unstable against heavy shots or lacks shot depth and might feel the need for a heavier racquet particularly on defense. The heavier racquet with higher mass will give more depth on mistimed shots and incomplete swings.
Of course, what is considered heavy or light is subjective depending on a player’s physique/strength, level, style etc.
Last edited:
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
You are one person, you are not a voice for "we", it would be easier for you to just ignore me than to follow up my posts with nothing other than I am obsessed. Why not share your experiences playing tournaments or UTR 10 players and what you saw in their hands or why not share your opinion about why you think a high SW is a benefit and how? That would add something to the discussion other than just sharing your thoughts on me.
You're only trying to convince yourself and that's okay. Your technique is awful and you really can't even benefit from higher SW's.
How about you play with what you want to play with and let others do the same.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
100%.
I already stated that I work in media and I'm around college players and futures players at tournaments pretty much every week and there's lead on all the frames. You keep repeating that college players don't customize but it's not true. Stop trying to push this weird agenda. If you like unmodified frames then play with them and leave the customizers alone.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
I'm pretty much settled on my SW, never been above 330 in the past decade, mostly 318-325, so not really thinking about my weights. Meaning I've been relatively light or mid SW for so long now I wouldn't go heavier. I do appreciate your constructive criticism of my technique.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
So maybe you are upset that I didn't give enough credence to your experience, I am sorry. Thank you for sharing. Customization is great for matching rackets and tinkering, so customize away. Some college players do customize, some don't. Have a good one, and if you have any tips for improving my technique, let me know
.
pgh10-4
New User
The Hammer line is a great example. Many were 95 sq with 320+ SW, even 330+. According to a lot of people here and on youtube, they'd be for big, strong pros only. Yet my aunts who were in their 40's and 50's at the time used them fine. I used a Hammer 6.2 aka the skunk when I was 10 years old.
brentzki
Rookie
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Ok, also 100%.
I can't relate I guess. If I imagined I missed the sweetspot (SP) a whole lot (despite my terrible technique, ahem, I don't miss the SP often) maybe I would plan a SW boost for the times I miss the SP? I'm just not able to understand the match winning bonus of planning a SW to help with missing the SP . I do understand a bonus of a power racket or 100 inch head for some depth on defense, but if the racket is a high sw (say 330-390 lol if anyone has a 390) for the main purpose of stability, whatever ball you produce hitting outside the SP is going to be blown up by the opponent anyway, right? I'm probably missing something, but willing to learn or listen.
Dragy
Legend
Based on what we know about you, you seem to be quite high over average passionate player in terms of talent. The way you play and make the shots quite hard and without missing is beyond my mind — I’d never be able to do it that way, and I don’t see many who do similar stuff.
A bit tongue-in-cheek from me, huh
But still, pro players miss the sweetspot a lot. Rec players miss the sweetspot a lot. Players use well-established technique to maximize their chances. While talented lazy and/or stubborn guys use what works for them and wonder why everyone else doesn’t.
Quite same with SW and stability. This is quite obvious theme. And you can learn to play with less stability and just accept downsides as “part of reality”. Like Alcaraz, for example, who seems to have just a tad more difficulties when he’s returning against big hitters compared to other game situations. Wonder why?
jmacdaununder2
Legend
Already had arm injuries too...
Dragy
Legend
SW is brought up because it more or less represents the part of mass allocated through the hoop, unless it’s something extremely weird like ton of weight concentrated in the throat…
So it’s the easiest way to talk about mass that has direct effect on ball impact. Which is very likely No. 1 important element, as you may adapt the swing in many ways, but ball impact is what it is. And if you have less than optimal mass behind the impact, it just makes everything unnecessarily more challenging.
That being said, of course you want decent balance/mass distribution, overall in the ballpark and also — matching what you are used to.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I’m not good enough to play with a low sw.
pgh10-4
New User
I'm fully aware of what SW represents which is why I took issue with the lack of context (balance / static weight) in either video. To add, beam profile and stiffness are often overlooked in reviews as they influence the way a racket bends. The Pure Drive has a slightly higher SW than the CX200 tour yet plays completely different. While important, SW is not useful on its own - again, more context is needed.
Grafil Injection
Hall of Fame
I agree, but I think TN has narrowed down the field of rackets, in his head, to those being applicable for a typical reasonable amateur watching his vlogs, into the following ranges:
97-100sqi, 290-315g unstrung, 21-23mm beam, probably 16x19 pattern, 310-330sw.
Hence, when TN says 320 is a good target for his Mum I guess he means quite near 318-322 and with those other specs, rather than any complete beginners or advanced players sticks around 320sw.
Last edited:
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
It is painfully obvious to me that my feet are not fast enough anymore to go under SW of 330. I have to sacrifice swing speed and pace to get more balls deep with a higher SW racquet when I’m late to the ball which happens way too often on defense these days.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
What you all know about me you probably think I am insane lol.
For sure if I played say a young college tennis kid in a match I would miss the sweetspot more often if I could get a racket on the shots/serve, but at least in my experience, I'm not facing anywhere near that kind of serve or shot I saw in college , there's just no way I could translate a pro player and their need for some stability to rec tennis, unless most all the people in the forums discussing weight for stability are playing open tournaments or are on the futures circuit or something , which I doubt is the case?
I pretty much assume for purposes of my discussions the weight for more stability is to fight off 5.0 serves at best (and probably not really if they are posting here) and there are so few 5.0 servers that can come anywhere close to a serve that demands more stability. That's how I am framing my opinions, no pun intended.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Silly, try it for a year, but you have to play more than you do normally.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Whether strategy is yielding the best results, a stiff wide beam racket could give you the same depth or lower SW with lower tensions (so more maneuverable at net) , but since you already play everyday and are more self-aware than anyone I've ever met with the journaling and stuff, you probably are the only person on the forums that actually does know which racket is the "best" for you.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Thanks for the nice words. The problem for me with stiff, wide beam racquets is that they are not precise enough for me to feel confident aiming for small targets near the lines. They suit a very high topspin player who can bother opponents with the ‘action‘ they put on the ball and don’t have as much pressure to hit near the lines. My game is based more on pace, accuracy and good spin (for my level) including on serve and I feel like I need to be very accurate with smart targets to beat the better players. At my age, I need to keep points short and move my younger opponents around quickly by using the full court.
I hit with an active college player with an UTR around 12 on Friday. If he got his racquet on the ball even on the stretch, he could get it back deep or hit a good lob. The only way to trouble him was to aim close to the lines and move him around. I would not want to take the court with a thick beam club - prefer a thinner beam scalpel. I feel like power from extra mass with a thinner beam is more controllable for my game than power from stiffness/thicker beam - maybe it is also the fact that I don’t like the feel of the stiffer, thicker beam. YMMV.
It is a multi-dimensional problem to choose a racquet and strings with so many variables - power, control, precision, feel, sweet spot size, spin potential and comfort. And the same equipment performs differently for vertical shots (serves, OHs, high volleys) and horizontal shots due to different inertia along different axes. Even horizontal shots like groundstrokes can have more or less vertical momentum based on what trajectory and spin rate you choose plus what your swing style is like (linear, modern, NextGen). At some point for a player who has played a long time like me, it is easier to just pick equipment that is similar to what I’m used to and not think about it during matches rather than constantly try to get an extra edge from optimizing equipment - that can be a never-ending rabbit hole. Meanwhile I have matches to win 4-5 days of the week.
Last edited:
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
That's great, what a treat to get to hit with a UTR 12.
