The fallacy of heavy racquets?

[Rozroz]

Do you really think people who's livelihood, career and legacy depends on their tools haven't tested everything?
If Djokovic would play better with a light racquet, he would be playing with a light racquet.
Do you think 5.0s became 5.0s by accident? Or maybe they put in thousands of hours of work and experimented with technique, strategy and equipment.
Why would they trust the opinion of one racquet shop guy and not their own body and experience?

of course the pros also tweak their racket (MINOR changes) depends on their needs or age limitations. rec players should do the same.
what's that has to do with playing with a heavier racket than the one that will benefit your game the most?
a 5.0 player should also stick to the racket that fits his level (and it's probably heavier than what a 4.0 needs)

 

[Bender]

Are we forgetting also that weight = power according to the laws of physics? There are many ways to make a racquet and strings more powerful, but adding weight is one of them. A light, flexible, dense pattern frame will not produce any power unless you drastically lower string tension and type.

Yes, but that's assuming RHA / RHS will remain the same, which isn't necessarily the case. For most people their RHA / RHS is affected either right from the beginning or quickly over time when their racquets' static weight starts creeping near 350 g and 330 SW (those are anecdotal numbers so YMMV).

Also, reading between the lines of the OP, I don't think anyone here is actually saying you should swing a frame that is significantly lighter or lower in SW than what you're perfectly capable of swinging, but rather criticising those all-gear-no-idea-but-I-added-60 g-of-lead-tape-so-why-haven't-I-improved types. There's nothing inherently wrong with using a super light frame or a super heavy one, but it's common to come across someone who's out of his element swinging a frame that is clearly unsuitable, and those are usually the "my racquet weighs over 14 oz" types.

 

[Rozroz]

Yes, but that's assuming RHA / RHS will remain the same, which isn't necessarily the case. For most people their RHA / RHS is affected either right from the beginning or quickly over time when their racquets' static weight starts creeping near 350 g and 330 SW (those are anecdotal numbers so YMMV).

Also, reading between the lines of the OP, I don't think anyone here is actually saying you should swing a frame that is significantly lighter or lower in SW than what you're perfectly capable of swinging, but rather criticising those all-gear-no-idea-but-I-added-60 g-of-lead-tape-so-why-haven't-I-improved types. There's nothing inherently wrong with using a super light frame or a super heavy one, but it's common to come across someone who's out of his element swinging a frame that is clearly unsuitable, and those are usually the "my racquet weighs over 14 oz" types.

i can use a heavier frame and it feels good, but after 1/2 hour of heavy practice it will become harder to produce RHS.. so what's the best racket?
i don't think changing to a different, more fitting racket mid practice is a solution.
i prefer a frame that can hold 2-3 hours practice/match play

 

[Bender]

i can swing a certain heavier frame but after 1/2 hour of heavy practice it will become harder to produce RHS.. so what's the best racket?

I dunno what you use, but I went from using a PS90 to a Pure Strike (due to a wrist injury rather than anything related to RHS). I used the stock frame first and just kept adding 1 g of lead tape in the head over some time until I started noticing fatigue at the end of 2 hours of baseline slugging, which conveniently for me happened to be just past the SW I enjoyed most (340). So I dropped it back to 340 and have stayed there since.

The lower static weight of the base Pure Strike was also specifically the reason why even after knowing my desired SW I didn't get the Tour version of the Strike when the 3rd Gen came out--because you can always add weight to a light frame, but you can't remove weight from a heavy one.

What racquet are you using right now and what are its base specs? Because I'd suggest you take a similar route to the one I took--start with the base racquet with no customisation, and add 1 g of lead at a time as needed (unless it's at 3 & 9, in which case you probably can get away with adding 1 g on each side for 2 g total), and stop when you find a weight where you're getting fatigued before your hitting session is over, and then maybe remove an extra gram or two so you can accommodate for bad days or unexpected tiredness, difficult weather conditions, etc.

 

[velvetsledgehammer]

To me volleying is just way easier and feels much more solid with a more traditional heavy head light racquet.

 

[fuzz nation]

I always wonder why so many people are obsessed with heavy racquets, adding weight to racquets, etc. I started to think about this because I recently changed to the Gravity MP from a Radical pro, and my game has been feeling so much better with a slightly lighter racquet. More topspin, maneuverability, 2HBH feels amazing, etc. Does not feel unstable at all for me, and I am a 4.0/4.5ish level player so I do play people who can rip the ball. I actually feel like the lighter racquet makes it easier for me to redirect pace and keep up with heavy balls due to me being able to have faster swing speed and get ahead of the ball. On the run cranking winners is so much easier. I have not been hitting balls on my back foot as much either.

However, contrary to my experiences, many people who demo lighter racquets or the play testers on TW will always harp that the lighter frame is "unstable", or not as heavy as they like. And this is from people of all levels too that say this. Is it ego? Is it that the pros use heavy racquets?

I'd bet that the Gravity MP you switched to isn't just lighter than the Radical Pro you were playing before. It probably also has a different flex profile and "response" at contact - that's a sort of intangible that I think we can only identify when we're hitting balls on the courts. When it's right for us, we know it when we feel it. Sounds to me like you found it

Your new racquet also might have a different balance. This is a biggie that often gets left out of the conversation when we're talking about lighter vs. heavier options in the racquet world. The weight alone doesn't tell much of a story about any frame's potential fit for a certain player without also knowing its balance.

More to discuss in terms of egos, obsessions, and actual player technique when sorting out what's best for anybody. I'll probably pitch in some more of my blathering later on, but I can say that my fundamental impression of racquet weight has changed. It seems to me that we can trick ourselves into going too big when looking for the heaviest frame we can handle for a full outing. My newer point of view is to go at it from the other direction; use the lightest racquet that's still heavy and stable enough through the ball at contact to work well for you. Any extra beef beyond that probably won't be too helpful.

Full disclosure: I play with two models of Volkls that I've tuned into better layouts to fit me. They weigh 12.5/12.7 oz. and both have weighted handles to give them a more familiar balance for me at around 11 pts. head-light. These aren't for everybody, but they're also more civilized players than their weights might lead you to believe. Again, the weight alone doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[TennisHound]

It’s easy to get into the woods on weight, SW, measuring, etc.

Everyone has a preference that they like and feel comfortable with.

 

[DustinW]

use the lightest racquet that's still heavy and stable enough through the ball at contact to work well for you. Any extra beef beyond that probably won't be too helpful.

This is great advice @fuzz nation! This is much better than the typical "use the heaviest racket that you can swing effectively".

 

[socallefty]

I use the heaviest racquet (typically at least 6 pts headlight) that I can serve effectively with in a long match. I can swing well from the baseline with heavier racquets, but my serve has a lower ceiling on weight that reduces my swing speed over time. So, usually the weight has to be high enough that it feels stable from the baseline and at the net while being light enough to serve well.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Advanced (4.5+?) players play with racquets that are similar to what they grew up with. Unlike the denizens of this forum, most players don’t want to experiment with very different racquet specs, strings etc. and lose a lot of matches or change their swing styles while doing so. Players who used to compete a lot in tournaments as kids hate losing matches as adults also and they don’t want to take risks by changing their racquet specs much. They don’t really believe that the secret to their improvement lies in changing their equipment - if they are over 40, they are just trying to hold onto their junior level and they do not aspire to improve further.

I grew up with heavy wood racquets and then with a heavy, thin-beam, flexible (limp noodle?) racquet called the Dunlop Max200G. That’s why any racquet that is less than 12 ozs or too stiff feels weird/unstable or too powerful to me and I have demo’d a lot of them. If my coach as a kid had stuck a light, thick-beam racquet in my hands, my tastes in racquets might be different today. Anyway, I don’t have much incentive to play with racquets that don’t feel right to me when I try them out in a hitting session when there are five other racquets that feel right. So, I have stuck with the same spec range throughout the last few decades - 95-98 sq inches, SW 330-340, <21mm, >12 ozs, <66RA. I’m never going to tell anyone else that this is the only spec range that works as it depends on what they learned tennis with when they played the most in their early development.

That does make sense, but the guru literally talks about the change in balls that occurred while people in their 40s now were adults during that change and the change in bodies when we all hit 40 plus, and then gave his reccomendation, saying the guys were against changing for the first few months or so, but thanked him later. I think everyone with a 12 oz plus stick should try lighter at least for 3 months.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Do you really think people who's livelihood, career and legacy depends on their tools haven't tested everything?
If Djokovic would play better with a light racquet, he would be playing with a light racquet.
Do you think 5.0s became 5.0s by accident? Or maybe they put in thousands of hours of work and experimented with technique, strategy and equipment.
Why would they trust the opinion of one racquet shop guy and not their own body and experience?

Aggassi and Djoker along with others literally took the direct advice of the guy in the video, paid him for racket coaching and changed as they got older and the game of tennis changed. So, yes, I believe it, but I dont need to believe, that is what happened. This guy was hired by Djokavich, it is well known.

 

[DustinW]

That does make sense, but the guru literally talks about the change in balls that occurred while people in their 40s now were adults during that change and the change in bodies when we all hit 40 plus, and then gave his reccomendation, saying the guys were against changing for the first few months or so, but thanked him later. I think everyone with a 12 oz plus stick should try lighter at least for 3 months.

Agree with this. I dropped about 40 grams between the ages of 18 and 45 while still increasing my playing level. Although it won't be for everybody, it is worth a try. But like you said... you have to give it more than 1 hit to see if it will work for you.

 

[socallefty]

That does make sense, but the guru literally talks about the change in balls that occurred while people in their 40s now were adults during that change and the change in bodies when we all hit 40 plus, and then gave his reccomendation, saying the guys were against changing for the first few months or so, but thanked him later. I think everyone with a 12 oz plus stick should try lighter at least for 3 months.

I work out to keep my legs in good shape and typically outlast opponents in long matches in addition to having less injuries than when I was younger. So, not everybody’s body changes the same way when they turn 40. My joints are creaky, but my muscles are in better shape currently because I take care of myself more - eat healthy and avoid foods that increase inflammation, avoid wine/alcohol except occasionally, work out more in addition to playing much more tennis than ever before.

I‘ve never felt that my racquet is too heavy after playing for 3 or 4 hours when I was young or at my current age and I’m always amazed to hear players talking about how they think 25-30 extra grams or 1 ounce causes their arm to get fatigued in 30 minutes. 1 ounce is the weight of a pencil, a CD, a AA battery or a slice of bread! I do have to push myself mentally more to keep my legs moving fast and make sure I get in time to every ball with an early takeback during a long match when I am fatigued. Similarly, I push myself to swing harder when I serve at the end of a long match to prevent my serve speed from going down. Many opponents seem to not try as hard mentally when they are tired and seem comfortable with lazy footwork and slower racquet head speed in the 3rd set - I would say they should work on changing that habit more. Most of them are playing with much lighter racquets than my 12 oz Pure Strike Tour and yet their racquet head speeds and ability to contact the ball early drops dramatically after 2 hours - don’t think it is the racquet that is the issue, but their physical fitness and mental weakness.

If I‘m going to compromise on match results for 3 months, I would rework technique on one of my weaker shots rather than try a lighter racquet and hope that it somehow improves my game.

 

[time_fly]

Racquet head speed trumps mass when it comes to generating power, but that assumes that you always swing as fast as you can. Although I like to hit hard, I still don’t put maximum physical effort into every swing since consistency, smoothness, and timing are all important too. I feel like I usually end up with a better shot using a slightly heavier frame. I do feel the fatigue effect especially on serves if I go too heavy.

I did a little experiment last week. I played a 300g power frame for the first set against a hard-hitting kid less than half my age. Theoretically the light frame should have helped me by letting me be faster and keep the pressure on him. I lost the first set, and in the second set I went back to my Radical Pro and gave myself a few extra feet behind the baseline to compensate. I felt like that worked much better for me and I was up a break when we hit the time limit.

 

[Rozroz]

But you only tried this once.
I think that if you really wanted to give it a try,
At least commit for a month to let your arms and brain “rewire” themselves.
Might work and might not,
But that is the only way to know.

 

[FIRETennis]

I work out to keep my legs in good shape and typically outlast opponents in long matches in addition to having less injuries than when I was younger. So, not everybody’s body changes the same way when they turn 40. My joints are creaky, but my muscles are in better shape currently because I take care of myself more - eat healthy and avoid foods that increase inflammation, avoid wine/alcohol except occasionally, work out more in addition to playing much more tennis than ever before.

I‘ve never felt that my racquet is too heavy after playing for 3 or 4 hours when I was young or at my current age and I’m always amazed to hear players talking about how they think 25-30 extra grams or 1 ounce causes their arm to get fatigued in 30 minutes. 1 ounce is the weight of a pencil, a CD, a AA battery or a slice of bread! I do have to push myself mentally more to keep my legs moving fast and make sure I get in time to every ball with an early takeback during a long match when I am fatigued. Similarly, I push myself to swing harder when I serve at the end of a long match to prevent my serve speed from going down. Many opponents seems to not try as hard mentally when they are tired and seem comfortable with lazy footwork and slower racquet head speed in the 3rd set - I would say they should work on changing that habit more. Most of them are playing with much lighter racquets than my 12 oz Pure Strike Tour and yet their racquet head speeds and ability to contact the ball early drops dramatically after 2 hours - don’t think it is the racquet that is the issue, but their physical fitness and mental weakness.

If I‘m going to compromise on match results for 3 months, I would rework technique on one of my weaker shots rather than try a lighter racquet and hope that it somehow improves my game.

Well said. Legs and mind give out quicker than the arm...

 

[velvetsledgehammer]

Bottom line, there are really only 2 traditionally heavy headlight racquets on the market right ow, the RF97 and the POG. I guess that pretty much puts the market in perspective.

 

[Arak]

Bottom line, there are really only 2 traditionally heavy headlight racquets on the market right ow, the RF97 and the POG. I guess that pretty much puts the market in perspective.

And the yonex vcore pro, Volkl C10 pro.

 

[cha cha]

The teaching pros at my club. All 5.0 minimum, no modifications:
Prestige S
Pro Kennex Q5
Pure Aero
Pure Drive VS
6.1 95S.

Me, who is lucky to get the occasional set off any of them.:
Prestige mid - 330g unstrung.

I have been educated in the ways of internet wisdom.

 

[socallefty]

The teaching pros at my club. All 5.0 minimum, no modifications:
Prestige S
Pro Kennex Q5
Pure Aero
Pure Drive VS
6.1 95S.

Me, who is lucky to get the occasional set off any of them.:
Prestige mid - 330g unstrung.

I have been educated in the ways of internet wisdom.

Your racquet is likely not the reason you are not a teaching pro. Their racquet is likely not the reason they are better than you.

Also, teaching pros spend 8-10 hours on court feeding balls more than half of that time and they like to use light racquets for their daily work. The two coaches who are ex-ATP pros at my club both used heavy lead-weighed racquets on tour 5-7 years ago and use lighter stock racquets (Blade and VCore 95) now for teaching.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

of course the pros also tweak their racket (MINOR

Racquet head speed trumps mass when it comes to generating power, but that assumes that you always swing as fast as you can. Although I like to hit hard, I still don’t put maximum physical effort into every swing since consistency, smoothness, and timing are all important too. I feel like I usually end up with a better shot using a slightly heavier frame. I do feel the fatigue effect especially on serves if I go too heavy.

I did a little experiment last week. I played a 300g power frame for the first set against a hard-hitting kid less than half my age. Theoretically the light frame should have helped me by letting me be faster and keep the pressure on him. I lost the first set, and in the second set I went back to my Radical Pro and gave myself a few extra feet behind the baseline to compensate. I felt like that worked much better for me and I was up a break when we hit the time limit.

I believe 100% what you say happened, but do you trust your self awareness enough to know fior sure the result happened. I don't trust even my in judgment from 1 match, I always second guess.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Your racquet is likely not the reason you are not a teaching pro. Their racquet is likely not the reason they are better than you.

Also, teaching pros spend 8-10 hours on court feeding balls more than half of that time and they like to use light racquets for their daily work. The two coaches who are ex-ATP pros at my club both used heavy lead-weighed racquets on tour 5-7 years ago and use lighter stock racquets (Blade and VCore 95) now for teaching.

I bet those pros use a different stick when feeding, even lighter , he probably meant what they choose to use playing.

 

[Deleted member 776614]

The teaching pros at my club. All 5.0 minimum, no modifications:
Prestige S
Pro Kennex Q5
Pure Aero
Pure Drive VS
6.1 95S.

Me, who is lucky to get the occasional set off any of them.:
Prestige mid - 330g unstrung.

I have been educated in the ways of internet wisdom.

Both of my teaching pros play or played the RF. One became a Yonex ambassador and now plays their 330g stick. The other is 5.0c 2020 rating currently playing RF.

 

[Deleted member 776614]

For me, personally, there's an intricate balance between total weight, swing weight, balance, and grip size. I was loving my L2 TF40 from the baseline and serving, but from midcourt to the net I felt like I wanted to be more connected to the head. I tried adding weight do different places on the handle but never was satisfied. But L3 grip does exactly what I wanted, and I'm much better at volleys and swinging volleys, but I start slapping the ball from the baseline because I lost orientation of the head. I love my TF40s and am determined to (eventually) set them up to my liking, but I'm tired of experimenting and the RF97 has enough mass that I can feel it through ground strokes, yet it's head light enough that I do well in midcourt. Sure, I'd love a racket that was lighter that I could play just as well with, but at some point I need to just focus on playing and not finding a unicorn racket.

 

[lelopez]

It all depends on preference and availability...all teaching pros I dealt with when I was growing up fed balls all day long with ps85's, POGs and 6.1 Classics

 

[Antónis]

For me it's just the way the racquet "feels", I'm used to mid heavy racquets (my 6.0 95's weights around 345 grams, it's heavy by today's standards, and I'm 49, so I should be looking for something easier, but 340 to 350 grams head-light racquets it's usually where I'm comfortable

I've been trying to find a bigger easier suitable racquet for slower days, but most of the stuff simply don't work. Pro Staff 97S was the closest I tested that felt close to what I like, never tried the RFA 97, the regular 97 didn't like (red/black first ones), so as the Blades.
I've tried Diablo MP, Pure Storm GT out of Sampras change, Dunlop AG 300 16x19 and Tour (this is a wonderful racquet I'd love to see on a 16x19 string pattern), but the brief test I did with the 97S 2nd generation was the closest to what I like. Nice pro staff like feeling, light package, the 18x17 string pattern didn't bother me

Light racquets are easier to move but usually are stiff or unstable, or both. Some racquets benefit from added weight - my Pro Braided felt like a different racquet with 10 extra grams, 338 grams final, way more stable - some other just become more sluggish without benefit

 

[socallefty]

For me it's just the way the racquet "feels", I'm used to mid heavy racquets (my 6.0 95's weights around 345 grams, it's heavy by today's standards, and I'm 49, so I should be looking for something easier, but 340 to 350 grams head-light racquets it's usually where I'm comfortable

I've been trying to find a bigger easier suitable racquet for slower days, but most of the stuff simply don't work.

Try the Pure Strike Tour - I love the nice blend of control, spin and power.

 

[Hidious]

Racquet head speed trumps mass when it comes to generating power ...

Says who? I believe it's way more complicated than that.
I'm swinging my badminton racquet at mesmerizing speeds, but still can't seem to generate much power hitting a tennis ball. Should I lower my string tension?

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

For me it's just the way the racquet "feels", I'm used to mid heavy racquets (my 6.0 95's weights around 345 grams, it's heavy by today's standards, and I'm 49, so I should be looking for something easier, but 340 to 350 grams head-light racquets it's usually where I'm comfortable

I've been trying to find a bigger easier suitable racquet for slower days, but most of the stuff simply don't work. Pro Staff 97S was the closest I tested that felt close to what I like, never tried the RFA 97, the regular 97 didn't like (red/black first ones), so as the Blades.
I've tried Diablo MP, Pure Storm GT out of Sampras change, Dunlop AG 300 16x19 and Tour (this is a wonderful racquet I'd love to see on a 16x19 string pattern), but the brief test I did with the 97S 2nd generation was the closest to what I like. Nice pro staff like feeling, light package, the 18x17 string pattern didn't bother me

Light racquets are easier to move but usually are stiff or unstable, or both. Some racquets benefit from added weight - my Pro Braided felt like a different racquet with 10 extra grams, 338 grams final, way more stable - some other just become more sluggish without benefit

Yes, I found only the Vcore 95 is "lighter" while being very stable, maybe physics and a slightly smaller head, maybe Yonex magic.

 

[Hulger]

Says who? I believe it's way more complicated than that.
I'm swinging my badminton racquet at mesmerizing speeds, but still can't seem to generate much power hitting a tennis ball. Should I lower my string tension?

The principle in classical mechanics that E ∝ mv2 was first developed by Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli, who described kinetic energy as the living force, vis viva.

 

[Antónis]

Try the Pure Strike Tour - I love the nice blend of control, spin and power.

Thanks for the advice, but I hope I will never go the Babolat racquets route - I would make an exception for first generation Pure Drives, those were nice no thrills comfortable tweeners, mid flex (they were like RA 64 or so...) I could play with that with some tinkering.

 

[time_fly]

I know I’ve posted this in other threads but it’s one of the most comprehensive discussions I’ve found about the trade off between weight and swing speed.

Bat Weight, Swing Speed and Ball Velocity

Yes, it’s about baseball but the general ideas and physics still apply. The take-always are that ball speed increases rapidly with weight at very low weights, but then tends to reach a long plateau; and pro players are generally using optimum weighted bats according to studies but almost every youth / rec player would benefit from lower weight than is typically required today.

 

[socallefty]

Thanks for the advice, but I hope I will never go the Babolat racquets route - I would make an exception for first generation Pure Drives, those were nice no thrills comfortable tweeners, mid flex (they were like RA 64 or so...) I could play with that with some tinkering.

The strung stiffness RA is 65 for the 12 oz Tour and it feels even more comfortable because it has some dampening material built into the frame. Babolat players racquets like the Pure Strike Tour have no resemblance to the stiff tweeners that are popular like the Pure Drive or Pure Aero.

 

[Deleted member 776614]

The principle in classical mechanics that E ∝ mv2 was first developed by Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli, who described kinetic energy as the living force, vis viva.

I think the Conservation of Momentum is more appropriate here. It gets more complicated than most people on a non-scientific forum care to deal with.

 

[SumYungGai]

I've always played with frames around 12oz or just over, except when I was younger and played with the white Rafter racquet. Most of these racquets are headlight enough that you can still catch up on a swing if you need to, but maintain an always solid groundstroke.

When you go lighter, you lose some of the work heavier racquets do with slice, touch shots, pickups.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

I've always played with frames around 12oz or just over, except when I was younger and played with the white Rafter racquet. Most of these racquets are headlight enough that you can still catch up on a swing if you need to, but maintain an always solid groundstroke.

When you go lighter, you lose some of the work heavier racquets do with slice, touch shots, pickups.

That might be true for your game, certainly no one has "seen" you play more than yourself. Big picture at or near 12 oz isn't that much different than 11.3 ounces, if one is good enough it wouldn't ruin the day playing with one or the other for most.

I'd like you and maybe some others though to listen to this thought process and critique my thinking:

So, I've never tried to led up a stick, but I once tried to use the RF for doubles, quickly finding it not that amazing for singles after about hour 3. Like someone else said, an ounce isn't that much weight difference, but to boom stick my first serve with the heat blaring down on me, I felt like it was heavy after a few hours. But, like everyone here I like discussing rackets.

The theory is this: The video that by now some could say I am obsessed with, this is why I keep returning to it. Is the video an economy of thought, the most bang for the buck opinion and research on what 99% of us players should be using, even if we don't at first think it is right for us. In other words here are the two opposing thoughts:

1. We are gifted a longer interview from a "guru", yes he strings at the US open, has been in business for over 2 decades, has watched more recreational tennis than any of us, and has been paid by people who also know more than we will ever know about tennis to tell them what to play with (ATP Pros). He thinks for rec players 12 oz is too heavy and probably anything inching up to it, I bet he would say 10.5 to 11.5 ounces is the sweet spot for rec players. He admits the RF is the best racket we could use, for half an hour or for sporadic moments, but for every point in a few hours of a match, no we can't use it. Neither can "the wall street guys who used to play college and are now 5.0" that he sees everyday. He also mentions they all argue against his advice until they finally take it and then they thank him.

2. Then we have each of us who thinks we know our game and what is best. I would not trust myself to know what is best for my game.

Obviously quite a few people like heavier sticks, but do they know what is best? You might think they should, I mean they are the ones playing,, but who knows for sure.

 

[Hidious]

The principle in classical mechanics that E ∝ mv2 was first developed by Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli, who described kinetic energy as the living force, vis viva.

Fascinating read (vis viva), thanks.

 

[tennis347]

It really comes down to finding your sweetspot with the weight and balance. When I was a new player around 90 I started playing with thin beam mid size racquets that were over 12 ounces. As I developed my technique, I started customizing my racquets and eventually were around the 13 ounce mark in the 350 SW area. As I got older into my 40's my shoulder wasn't able to handle a racquet that were over 12 ounces. Since then I have scaled down the weight now in my 50's. I do notice that my strokes are not as consistent and heavy with a racquet under 11.5 ounces and SW below 325. The point being if your game is used to heavier frame its difficult to adjust to lighter weight. I still tinker around to figure what's the most SW I can handle for a 2 hour session without effecting my technique and causing any discomfort in my arm. Lighter and stiff is not the way to go for arm health. It's best to play with the heaviest frame your body can handle without sacrificing technique and causing injuries. I still play with a thin box beam Prince Phantom 100P that it's in the 11.5 ounce range and a SW in the high 320's. I also have a Dunlop 200 CX OS customized to 325 grams strung that I use as an in between racquet but I prefer the Phantom due to more plow, stability and heaviness of shot. If I had to play with a 10 or even 11 ounce frame only my level of play would drop dramatically. Once you play with heavier frame, you can never go very light.

 

[Johnny505]

My wife always reminds me she prefers a big heavy head over a light one

 

[Gee]

That might be true for your game, certainly no one has "seen" you play more than yourself. Big picture at or near 12 oz isn't that much different than 11.3 ounces, if one is good enough it wouldn't ruin the day playing with one or the other for most.

I'd like you and maybe some others though to listen to this thought process and critique my thinking:

So, I've never tried to led up a stick, but I once tried to use the RF for doubles, quickly finding it not that amazing for singles after about hour 3. Like someone else said, an ounce isn't that much weight difference, but to boom stick my first serve with the heat blaring down on me, I felt like it was heavy after a few hours. But, like everyone here I like discussing rackets.

The theory is this: The video that by now some could say I am obsessed with, this is why I keep returning to it. Is the video an economy of thought, the most bang for the buck opinion and research on what 99% of us players should be using, even if we don't at first think it is right for us. In other words here are the two opposing thoughts:

1. We are gifted a longer interview from a "guru", yes he strings at the US open, has been in business for over 2 decades, has watched more recreational tennis than any of us, and has been paid by people who also know more than we will ever know about tennis to tell them what to play with (ATP Pros). He thinks for rec players 12 oz is too heavy and probably anything inching up to it, I bet he would say 10.5 to 11.5 ounces is the sweet spot for rec players. He admits the RF is the best racket we could use, for half an hour or for sporadic moments, but for every point in a few hours of a match, no we can't use it. Neither can "the wall street guys who used to play college and are now 5.0" that he sees everyday. He also mentions they all argue against his advice until they finally take it and then they thank him.

2. Then we have each of us who thinks we know our game and what is best. I would not trust myself to know what is best for my game.

Obviously quite a few people like heavier sticks, but do they know what is best? You might think they should, I mean they are the ones playing,, but who knows for sure.

Doesn't he imply with these sentences that a heavier racket (that you can still handle well enough) can give you better results if you are fit enough and your technique and body doesn't suffer from the extra weight?

By the way what level are meant with rec players? I guess he is talking about 3.0-4.0 NTRP rating or something?

I used to play with rackets of about 346 grams/12.2 ounces (strung with dampener, overgrip + added lead etc. included) with a 7pts HL balance and around 330 SW.
I am able to hit much heavier balls especially serves with this setup than my racket in stock condition of 10.5 ounces strung.

 

[a12345]

I think many look at the pros using heavier rackets and want the same but realistically the pros are using racket weights that semi match their body weight.

The likes of Fed Nadal Djokovic Murray are all over 6ft tall, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, Zverev are 6"4 6"6 6"6. Theyre not small people. An average weight between these players seems to be around 85-90kg or 185-200lbs.

And bear in mind these are slimmed down athletic body weights not the average persons blubber weight which is probably 4 or 5 kg or so more for the same height.

If youre slightly taller and heavier yourself you can probably go with a heavier racket, if youre smaller and lighter go with a lighter racket to match your own body weight.

 

[Rozroz]

I think many look at the pros using heavier rackets and want the same but realistically the pros are using racket weights that semi match their body weight.

The likes of Fed Nadal Djokovic Murray are all over 6ft tall, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, Zverev are 6"4 6"6 6"6. Theyre not small people. An average weight between these players seems to be around 85-90kg or 185-200lbs.

And bear in mind these are slimmed down athletic body weights not the average persons blubber weight which is probably 4 or 5 kg or so more for the same height.

If youre slightly taller and heavier yourself you can probably go with a heavier racket, if youre smaller and lighter go with a lighter racket to match your own body weight.

so i wonder what Schwartzamn's specs?

 

[Wheelz]

so i wonder what Schwartzamn's specs?

He has monster specs ! Like 380sw from memory. But he has the swing for it

 

[joe sch]

Do you really think people who's livelihood, career and legacy depends on their tools haven't tested everything?
If Djokovic would play better with a light racquet, he would be playing with a light racquet.
Do you think 5.0s became 5.0s by accident? Or maybe they put in thousands of hours of work and experimented with technique, strategy and equipment.
Why would they trust the opinion of one racquet shop guy and not their own body and experience?

Agree and if the posters questioning pro's setups and weight based on their experiences would post a vid showing their strokes then it would be obvious why their advice is Not good for bigger hitters

 

[socallefty]

Big picture at or near 12 oz isn't that much different than 11.3 ounces, if one is good enough it wouldn't ruin the day playing with one or the other for most.

You are arguing that 11.3 and 12 ozs are not that different and so, players playing with 12 ozs should try it based on one interview you found online. We are saying that 12 ozs is not that different from 11.3ozs also in terms of arm fatigue and since we have tried lighter racquets and didn’t like them, we want to stick with 12 ozs. If 11.3 and 12 ozs are not that different as you admit, why try so hard to argue that other players should give up heavy racquets. I’m a big, fit guy (6’1”, 195 lbs) and don’t feel that arm fatigue is an issue for me as I’ve never felt it over 35 years of playing tennis.

If you research any topic on the internet, you can find experts with good qualifications giving strong opinions that are completely contrary to each other. If at least some of the points of view had some science behind it, it would motivate me to go research that opinion further. Otherwise, I would go crazy trying to follow every view I see online from an ‘expert’ especially if it goes against all the evidentiary experience from my own life and there is zero science for the opinion stated by the ‘guru’.

 

[Dansan]

5'11 155lbs. I was using a couple 360ish gram frames a while. They feel great to hit with and practice with. But actual match they eventually ate me for lunch in 90+ degree heat. Much prefer 335g down to 325g now. 330g is the sweet spot for me. When you get get decent swing weight and high RHS, that sweet spot is when you start hitting pretty big with good timing into the ball and not off the back foot.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

You are arguing that 11.3 and 12 ozs are not that different and so, players playing with 12 ozs should try it based on one interview you found online. We are saying that 12 ozs is not that different from 11.3ozs also in terms of arm fatigue and since we have tried lighter racquets and didn’t like them, we want to stick with 12 ozs. If 11.3 and 12 ozs are not that different as you admit, why try so hard to argue that other players should give up heavy racquets. I’m a big, fit guy (6’1”, 195 lbs) and don’t feel that arm fatigue is an issue for me as I’ve never felt it over 35 years of playing tennis.

If you research any topic on the internet, you can find experts with good qualifications giving strong opinions that are completely contrary to each other. If at least some of the points of view had some science behind it, it would motivate me to go research that opinion further. Otherwise, I would go crazy trying to follow every view I see online from an ‘expert’ especially if it goes against all the evidentiary experience from my own life and there is zero science for the opinion stated by the ‘guru’.

Good point and I agree for most topics. But, is there another expert with the resume with rec players and pro players, I don't know of any, but I would love to see or hear what they have to say if they have a similar pedigree.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Agree and if the posters questioning pro's setups and weight based on their experiences would post a vid showing their strokes then it would be obvious why their advice is Not good for bigger hitters

But Joker did indeed go lighter, I referenced that earlier, so I am a little confused when the poster you responded asked "do you really think they haven't tried everything?", well yes, he did, and went lighter.

 

[cortado]

Just played my VCore HD again this morning. 349g all strung with over-grip and dampener. I'm 31 years old, 5ft11, 158lbs.
No issues with fatigue. Doesn't feel noticeably heavy in use. Feels heavier than my 330g strung racquet just holding it still in the hand, but when using it's not noticeable.

 

[joe sch]

But Joker did indeed go lighter, I referenced that earlier, so I am a little confused when the poster you responded asked "do you really think they haven't tried everything?", well yes, he did, and went lighter.

RE: So, I've never tried to led up a stick, but ...

You really need to experiment with lead. This assumes you have the strokes to appreciate Not( The fallacy of heavy rackets ). Hope this is not more confused for you ?