Why head light vs. head heavy?

[Gtech]

I have been puzzling over this question for a while. I am hopping someone can educate me.

It seems that most rackets these days are head light (7 pts seems to be the normal) even for rackets that are lightweight meaning 10.6oz unstrung.

I can understand a heavy racket (12oz) needing to be head light for manueverabilty, but why are the light weight rackets also so head light?

Would it not be better to have a lightweight racket more like 4 pts HL so there is some mass on the shots and for more power on serves?

I also see a lot of people discussing having to add lead to their lightweight frames? Wouldn't rackets that are more head heavy solve that.

A few years ago it seems that the Wilson Hammer was all about lightweight and head heavy, but it seems that theory has died. Why?

This discussion assumes you are "modern" type player, with long strokes and hitting tons of topspin on both sides.

 

[dman72]

I have been puzzling over this question for a while. I am hopping someone can educate me.

It seems that most rackets these days are head light (7 pts seems to be the normal) even for rackets that are lightweight meaning 10.6oz unstrung.

I can understand a heavy racket (12oz) needing to be head light for manueverabilty, but why are the light weight rackets also so head light?

Would it not be better to have a lightweight racket more like 4 pts HL so there is some mass on the shots and for more power on serves?

I also see a lot of people discussing having to add lead to their lightweight frames? Wouldn't rackets that are more head heavy solve that.

A few years ago it seems that the Wilson Hammer was all about lightweight and head heavy, but it seems that theory has died. Why?

This discussion assumes you are "modern" type player, with long strokes and hitting tons of topspin on both sides.

The hammer racquet idea had it's benefits: stiff, head heavy = more power with less overall weight.

The trade off was tennis elbow and wrist injuries because of the lack of overall mass.

I'm not sure that a lightweight head light racquet is any better for your arm than a hammer..maybe if it is flexible.

 

[PBODY99]

Sales of frames to the mass market, of which the people on a message board are not representative of, are driven by first impression many times. The pick up weight of the frame therefore becomes a major influence. You would be surprised by how many frames are purchased without being demoed.

 

[tailofdog]

Not That Light

I have been puzzling over this question for a while. I am hopping someone can educate me.

It seems that most rackets these days are head light (7 pts seems to be the normal) even for rackets that are lightweight meaning 10.6oz unstrung.

I can understand a heavy racket (12oz) needing to be head light for manueverabilty, but why are the light weight rackets also so head light?

Would it not be better to have a lightweight racket more like 4 pts HL so there is some mass on the shots and for more power on serves?

I also see a lot of people discussing having to add lead to their lightweight frames? Wouldn't rackets that are more head heavy solve that.

A few years ago it seems that the Wilson Hammer was all about lightweight and head heavy, but it seems that theory has died. Why?

This discussion assumes you are "modern" type player, with long strokes and hitting tons of topspin on both sides.

With a 10.6 oz racquet you will have it 11.2 oz strung so its not that light. That might have something to do with it