What would produce a heavy ball a heavy racquet or a light racquet?

[TennisCJC]

F = ma is from Newtonian mechanics, not from Einstein and has nothing to do with relativity. Also, 'm' and 'a' are the mass and acceleration of the object being accelerated, not the object causing the accleration.

However, mass*velocity defines the momentum of an object (p = mv), and if you approximate the hitting of a tennis ball to be an elastic collosion, then momentum must be conserved, so that the m*v of the racquet transfers fully to the m*v of the ball, meaning that, yes, a racquet with more mass will create a faster ball given the same swing speed.

I was just trying to introduce a bit of humor but I am not a physics or math major. I am sure you are correct. I think we agree that assuming the swing speed is the same, the heavier racket produces a faster ball.

I don't have a formula to prove it, but I think a heavier racket at the same speed also produces more spin assuming other factors such as racket angle and upward swing path are the same.

 

[TennisCJC]

>>>What would produce a heavy ball a heavy racquet or a light racquet?<<<

So it seems that its not the weight, but the swingweight that is the most important racquet-induced factor determining heaviness?

Agreed. And, pro research seems to support this. As mentioned above, Carlos Moya who has big bulging biceps and could handle at 13 oz racket used a very light but HH racket with a hi SW - around 370 G. He hit a heavy ball. William sisters are the same, they could easily swing heavy rackets but prefer lighter rackets with even or HH balance and 350+ SW.

I don't think even or HH is good though and prefer HL with hi SW.

The doubles players seem to use even higher SW but also almost always HL. I suggest they like HL so the racket feels quick at net and hi SW because blocking volleys becomes very stable, accurate and powerful with mass behind the ball.

 

[0d1n]

You people coming up with "physics" and theory that I'm aware of already...keep "assuming same swing speed" ... ok ??
I'll continue "assuming" that the swing speed will be vastly different in that 3rd set for most "non top pros" if you give them a 360 SW racquet or a 315-330 sw racquet with comparable mass and balance.

 

[vincent_tennis]

Nadal does use a lighter racket but he does customize with lead under the bumper and his final SW is over 350 grams. Carlos Moya used a racket around 10.5-11 oz static weight but it was head heavy and his final SW was around 370 g. Williams sisters use light static weight too but again HH with SW over 350 g.

The vast majority of ATP pros have a SW over 350 g and WTA pros over 335 g. Many WTA pros are over SW 350 g too.

Einstein theory of tennis relativity FORCE = MASS * SPEED. In other words, how hard you hit it is the mass of the racket * the swing speed. You want to play with as heavy a racket as you can up to the point that it does not compromises your swing speed and ability to maneuver the racket. I suggest more players are hurting there games with light rackets than with heavy rackets. I'm in my mid 50s and my current racket is 11.8 oz, SW 331 G, and 4 pts HL, my previous racket was 12.5 oz, sw 338, and 8 pts HL. My wife is 5'4" tall, early 50s, and about 115 lbs. Her racket is 11.1 oz, SW 331, and 1 pt HL.

You don't want a racket that slows your swing significantly and you don't want a racket that you cannot maneuver, but you do want as heavy a racket as you can handle up to these thesholds.

You can not compensate with swing speed for lack of weight in many situations. Best example: you can not expect to return heavy serves by having a very fast swing speed. Even at lower levels, a good serve has too much pace to expect to rip it with a high swing speed and consistently time it well. The pros frequently return serves with smaller, more compact and slower swing speeds and this means you need some mass to absorb the impact and return the ball with a bit of pace. Volleys and slices also benefit enormously from mass as you have slower swing speed and need stability (more mass). Finally, when you do hit your normal topspin drive, it also benefits from mass as you don't have to swing as recklessly to generate the same pace and spin if you have a bit more mass.

Granted, rackets should be sized to the player and a 6 yr old child shouldn't play a 12.5 oz racket. But, anyone pass the age of 12 can handle a SW of 320 or more and would probably benefit enormously from playing a heavier racket. My personal minimum racket specs for 3.5+ level and above 10.5 oz or more, SW 320 or more, balance 4 HL or more HL, and flex 58-68.

F= MA
Mass x Acceleration.

 

[Power Player]

You people coming up with "physics" and theory that I'm aware of already...keep "assuming same swing speed" ... ok ??
I'll continue "assuming" that the swing speed will be vastly different in that 3rd set for most "non top pros" if you give them a 360 SW racquet or a 315-330 sw racquet with comparable mass and balance.

I will be honest, that assumption will vary for everyone. I did more than 3 sets last night and the SW of 360 was not an issue for me when it came to swing speed. You just have to prepare early enough to handle whats coming at you. I think that is important for anyone who plays though.

Going to keep playing the setup against the biggest hitters I can find, but so far I have not had a problem with the higher swingweight. It keeps my swing controlled and consistent. I can get out of control with light racquets really easily.

I do lift weights and am a strong guy for my size, so I am sure that is a factor. But I think some of it is simply moving your feet and setting up your shot as well.

 

[movdqa]

If you watch Federer waiting, he's usually bouncing around on his toes waiting for the next shot to hit. Sometimes it seems that he bounces into position instead of stepping into position. Sometimes the bounce continues through his stroke too.

If you can't get into position well, the weight of the racquet isn't going to matter that much.

 

[TennisCJC]

You people coming up with "physics" and theory that I'm aware of already...keep "assuming same swing speed" ... ok ??
I'll continue "assuming" that the swing speed will be vastly different in that 3rd set for most "non top pros" if you give them a 360 SW racquet or a 315-330 sw racquet with comparable mass and balance.

You are correct in that if the static weight or swingweight causes you to slow down your swing speed significantly or if the weight causes you to be slow with the racket; your racket is too heavy for you.

My opinion is most people overrate the advantages of a light racket because it feels really easy to swing. But, I think 99% of the adults who play tennis can and should play a SW of at least 320. There is an article on the web from the French Tennis Federation and it talks about the best racket for tennis elbow. It doesn't list models just best specs. It likes SW of 320 or more, balance 4 HL or more, and lower flex ratings 58-66 range. I tend to agree with this. There are at least 2 women on my mixed team that play rackets with SW of 320 and 330 and these are fairly small women.

Also, swingspeed cannot compensate for mass. Returning serve with a blocking motion, slicing groundstrokes and volleys are all short, slow swing speed shots but they are critical to the game. A low SW can never be as good as a higher SW for these shots. Also, if you racket it too light, you will have to swing much faster to generate pace and topspin and a higher SW would allow you to take a fast but controlled swing to generate pace.

Bottom line in my opinion. SW is critical, go as high as you can COMFORTABLY handle as you will have more consistency, more power, and better protection for your arm. Don't go so high that you get tired or are too slow with the racket. Finally, resist the temptation to go too light as these rackets swing great in the retail shop but they don't hold up to decent competition on the court.

 

[thug the bunny]

If you watch Federer waiting, he's usually bouncing around on his toes waiting for the next shot to hit. Sometimes it seems that he bounces into position instead of stepping into position. Sometimes the bounce continues through his stroke too.

If you can't get into position well, the weight of the racquet isn't going to matter that much.

Yup. He's like Tigger (Winnie the Pooh). Bouncy wouncy trouncy, full of fun fun fun. The wonderful thing about Roger, is he's the only one.

 

[HEADfamilydynasty]

The Ball Isn't Heavy If Your Opponent Doesn't Find It Heavy.

 

[max]

My opinion is that too many players are believing what the racquet manufacturers are telling them about "lighter is better."

Mass is mass. Put it behind the ball.

 

[BreakPoint]

My opinion is that too many players are believing what the racquet manufacturers are telling them about "lighter is better."

Mass is mass. Put it behind the ball.

I spoke to a Prince product engineer a few years ago and he admitted that when it comes to tennis racquets - "There is no substitute for mass, period." That's a direct quote.

 

[UCSF2012]

Theoretical "tennis player's physics" is useless. Many of us don't even under the concepts behind physics principles that they're just making up "facts."

From personal experience, I hit harder with my KPS88 stock than with my Exo3 graphite 93 stock. But when I leaded up the Exo3, the Exo3 is now hitting heavier. The overall weight (Exo3) is lower, AND the swingweight is lower; yet, it's producing more powerful shots.

You can't use high school or basic college physics to explain tennis physics. The reason is that there are so many assumptions to intro physics courses that the principles do not apply as you would expect. For example, the law of Conservation of momentum is not explicitly straightforward, because it assumes Center of Mass. The tennis racket's center of mass is on the racket shaft, not the hoop.