The Complete Idiot's Guide to Choosing a Tennis Racquet

[ac3111]

When I started looking for infos on racquets in order to buy one, I came across a website called racquetresearch.com. The texts there have not been updated since 2002 so I do not know if they are still valid. But I have not met so detailed approach on racquets anywhere else.
The following text is taken from there. Sorry for the provocative title of it but did not want to censor it myself.

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Choosing a Tennis Racquet
by Wilmot McCutchen​

An idiot wouldn't be reading this. Instead, he would swing a racquet a few times in the pro shop, and say: "Wow, it's so light! I'll take it!" After a few weeks of violent banging, he would drop out of the game with tennis elbow.
Tennis elbow should be your main concern. Light, stiff, head-heavy racquets are bad for tennis elbow, so avoid them. Simple physics (which I will not bore you with, here) is clear on this, and so are the big hitters on the men's tour.
First, the bottom line: heavy and head-light is best. Best for performance, best for avoiding injury. Here are average values from the database of 296 racquets in October 1999. Elbow Crunch is a measure of elbow safety (should be low), and Work is the effort needed (should be low) for ball speed. The conclusion is clear: heavy and head-light = good // light and head-heavy = bad.
Read the rest of the article here. I hope it proves to be useful.

My shallow knowledge of physics and the use of common logic leads me to the following conclusion. The further the balance point of the racquet from the human body, then the heavier it feels and the more difficult to control it. The closer to the body then the more advantage you take when twisting/turning the body to hit the ball.
I have noticed also that when the racquet is headlight the swingweight is smaller than the static weight. When it is head-heavy, it is the opposite. So when using a head-light racquet you go from higher weight (when static and on stand by mode) to lower weight (when swinging and hitting the ball). And during the stressful time for the body which is the time of hitting the ball, the hl racquet is lighter than when static. The head-heavy racquet is the opposite. It is heavier when hitting the ball. Take into consideration the principle of inertia. The head-light racquet is heavier when static so you have to try a bit harder to set it in movement but when it starts to move it becomes lighter, so easier to stop. The head-heavy racquets are considered to be more powerful. And the extra power is generated more by the racquet not the body movement. And when the power of the racquets meets the ball I think stress is bigger than if it was light-head because the head-light will take advantage of the energy generated from the body movement since it is closer to the body.
But these are some theoretical thoughts inspired both by the website and the thread about a beginner playing with a head-light but heavy racquet such as the Wilson K 6.1. 95.

 

[mdthsv]

Alll good in theory, but if playing with a particular racket hinders your development as a player, that is a problem. The K6.1 is not a huge stretch for a developing player that is serious about improving.

What kills me is beginners playing with the K6.0 or paying $$$ for 6.0SV's because Sampras plays with them. Both choices are counterproductive to developing as a tennis player.

Headsize, weight, swingweight, cult-following, stiffness, etc means nothing if it doesn't help your game. I see too many people get sucked into this crap. You can't buy a better game, with the exception of proper instruction AND sweat equity.

Find a racket that you can play well with now (and maybe the next level) and feels good. Take it one step at a time. Reevaluate when your performance exceeds your racket's. The best pro in my city, a recent sectionally-ranked open player in the Southern section, plays with a 'Tweener racket, as do several players on the ATP/WTA Tour.

 

[ac3111]

Thank you for your answer. When you are in a constant everyday learning phase you do not care that much about the performance of the racquet but mostly if it is comfortable and of course if there is a higher risk to cause any injury or discomfort after playing with it long time.

 

[matchmaker]

The site you mention is great. I read it a few years ago from A to Z.

It was an eye opener for me. At that time market trends were towards light and headheavy racquets and all salespersons would try and talk you into buying them. Talking about idiots...

 

[Deuce]

I've written on this subject several times... and my position has not changed.

While Wilmot likely means well with his theories, they simply don't hold water, because...

He just generalizes.
In determining which racquets are 'safe' for the arm/elbow, he completely ignores extremely important variables like strings, tension, stroke mechanics, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the fact that we, as human beings, are different from one another.
For example, hitting repeated forehands with Racquet A may hurt my arm/elbow, but not yours. Hitting repeated backhand slices with Racquet B may hurt your arm/elbow, but not mine.
Etc.

Wilmot's theories and 'calculations' assume that all human beings are physically the same, that all playing styles and strokes are the same, etc.

Obviously, he cannot take into account the millions of different bodies/strengths/playing styles/strokes that exist among all tennis players - and I'm not asking him to do that.
What I am saying is that his racquet ratings may or may not apply to you. The ONLY way to find out is to try the racquets yourself - which renders his ratings entirely useless.

I guarantee that his top rated, 'safest' racquet will cause pain for many, many players - just as it won't cause pain for many, many players.
And his lowest rated, most 'unsafe' racquet will cause no pain for many, many players, and will cause pain for many, many players.

For Wilmot's theories and calculations to be relevant to us, we would have to be machines or robots, all constructed alike, with identical styles and strokes.
But we're human beings, constructed differently, with different styles and strokes.
Therefore, Wilmot's offerings are about as good as flipping a coin to find out if a given racquet will hurt your arm or not.

 

[ac3111]

A not fit player can get an injury anytime in any sport. And you have a point that human beings can be totally different in terms of physical condition and technique as well.
But I can figure out why the sales policy of a certain period instructed light frames and head-heavy racquets. When you hold a light racquet it seems easy and comfortable to play with. And most of the head heavy I noticed that are powerful. So you don't have to try that much to hit hard. If a salesperson gives to the customer to hold a K Six 6.1. 95, the customer will think "What a heavy stick". And when he tries it and sees that hitting a ball with it is like hitting your hand on a wall he will dislike it. I talk about the beginner and for those who just want to play tennis not very seriously, progress etc.

Now I sense that an opposite trend is coming to surface. Pros like Federer make some strokes seem very easy. They make tennis look like an easy sport. And people are starting to go to the opposite direction buying pro's stuff and racquets. This kind of trend I think always must have existed but when a major great player marks an era I think it makes the whole trend even bigger.

 

[Dino Lagaffe]

Wilmot McCutchen made a serious and honest attempt to scientifically prove which racquets are "good" for you and which aren't. In doing so, as Deuce pointed out, he generalized quite a bit. I agree with McCutchen's main point, The conclusion is clear: heavy and head-light = good // light and head-heavy = bad. if the question is; in general, from a tennis elbow point of view, what racquets are good or bad? Of course there are exceptions, and maybe Wilmot took his theories a little bit too far. Keeping this in mind, his findings make for an interesting reading, but should as always be read with a critical mind.

 

[Kevo]

You could make an argument for heavy and head heavy. At some point in the equation the balance shifts. Imagine hitting a tennis ball with a 4lb. sledge. All the impact would be absorbed by the head of the hammer. Now the only thing you would need to worry about as far as injury is concerned is how you swing the hammer.

Imagine the other way around. The handle hits the ball. Now the ball has quite a bit of leverage against the head of the hammer. This is the part that I think gets people into trouble.

If you manage to swing in a way that puts the elbow or wrist in a weak , leveraged position and then the ball makes contact, the impact goes straight into the the joint while it's in a weak position. This is why hitting late is so problematic.

 

[matchmaker]

I've written on this subject several times... and my position has not changed.

While Wilmot likely means well with his theories, they simply don't hold water, because...

He just generalizes.
In determining which racquets are 'safe' for the arm/elbow, he completely ignores extremely important variables like strings, tension, stroke mechanics, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the fact that we, as human beings, are different from one another.
For example, hitting repeated forehands with Racquet A may hurt my arm/elbow, but not yours. Hitting repeated backhand slices with Racquet B may hurt your arm/elbow, but not mine.
Etc.

Wilmot's theories and 'calculations' assume that all human beings are physically the same, that all playing styles and strokes are the same, etc.

Obviously, he cannot take into account the millions of different bodies/strengths/playing styles/strokes that exist among all tennis players - and I'm not asking him to do that.
What I am saying is that his racquet ratings may or may not apply to you. The ONLY way to find out is to try the racquets yourself - which renders his ratings entirely useless.

I guarantee that his top rated, 'safest' racquet will cause pain for many, many players - just as it won't cause pain for many, many players.
And his lowest rated, most 'unsafe' racquet will cause no pain for many, many players, and will cause pain for many, many players.

For Wilmot's theories and calculations to be relevant to us, we would have to be machines or robots, all constructed alike, with identical styles and strokes.
But we're human beings, constructed differently, with different styles and strokes.
Therefore, Wilmot's offerings are about as good as flipping a coin to find out if a given racquet will hurt your arm or not.

Deuce,

I agree with you. I used to be a big fan of Wilmot's website and read it through from A to Z. I even bought a Prince Original Graphite Oversize because that was the arm-friendliest racquet ever according to the website. While it is a very good racquet without any shock or vibration, I did get TE back with it, mainly because I think OS racquets (although the POGOS rather plays like an MP) require a lot of windshield wiper (on the FH) and pronation (on the serve).

Actually when I started playing mids my TE went away for a long time.

When you look at Wilmot's list, the Pure Drive, is situated ahead of the PS 6.0 or the Prestige, that kind of shows how Wilmot's system doesn't work.

I think the problem is that he tests racquets in lab condition, but not really in the hand of a player.

I do think his work is useful in a way because he is a pioneer in actually studying the racquet's physics.

 

[ac3111]

Something maybe off-topic... I noticed that Wilmot's site is deserted, not updated at all and the contact email not valid...