Why is everyone using such light racquets? Can we really not handle it?

[leojramirez]

4. No one really gets tires swing a 320ish thru 330ish SW racket. To me, it total bull manure that you get tired after 60 minutes swinging these SW rackets. If you do, you should see a doctor.

Its simple, most rec players don't swing a racket at the same speed on minute 10 and on minute 100.


From experience I switched from RF97 a while back when I started taking lessons after my coach and stringer both urged me to change to something between 300-305g. My stringer at the time was the brother of Marc Lopez and told me his brother played with a 300g babolat which makes tennis easier. Anyways, I had no consistency on my swing path is what the coach told me. Now I rely on rhs to keep the opponent back and the ball in, my net clearance is higher so there's more room for error...simples. I used to swear by heavy frames from lurking around this site. I used to hit flatter too. I'm 35 and I play a lot better now but thats from coaching and not frame related.
In today's game i genuinely believe theres no room for heavy control frames, but if you are older and content with that then why not.

 

[jmacdaununder2]

Stan, Novak & Andy still going strong with very heavy frames; plenty of 5.0/5.5 on up to the top using heavy frames. There's plenty of advanced players who have never bothered to care enough leaving a lot of optimised performance on the table too.
Also, static weight isn't really as important a parameter as balance & SW.

 

[tim-ay]

No one here is making a living from playing tennis in match play. Play with whateverdafkuwant. why does anyone care if someone likes a heavy racket or a light racket? lol, these threads are nonsensical. ‘

I really dislike mantra platforming, somehow ur allegiance to some podcast comments from a guy in NY are the grail. troll city.

That said, i’m not playing with any RF’s, haha.

 

[Yamin]

RF is light and swings fast for its weight. Needs weight at the tip though and is more suited to a slower swing or eastern grip with high tension which is why I don't play it.. can get similar or better playability with something lighter with higher SW for myself.

Feel like people's description of the RF is very off in here.

People that should not be using heavy rackets probably just shouldn't. If your type of tennis is lollipop from the baseline, have never seen the net and never touched a weight in your life, of course shouldn't be using something heavy.

 

[tim-ay]

RF is light and swings fast. Needs weight at the tip though and is more suited to a slower swing or eastern grip which is why I don't play it.. can get similar or better playability with something lighter with higher SW for myself.

Feel like people's description of the RF is very off in here.

People that should not be using heavy rackets probably just shouldn't. If your type of tennis is lollipop from the baseline, have never seen the net, and never touched a weight in your life, of course shouldn't be using something heavy.

RF is awesome off the ground. Just bothers me on serve after awhile. Really, it’s just from adaption over time. My Six Ones were beefier with similar balance and I played for quite a few years with them. But life is easier sub 340g setup static. Everyone is different though.

 

[TennisHound]

This one obviously needs some lead

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

This one obviously needs some lead

Not sure who is swinging whom here. Right now there's a parallel universe in which racquets are discussing whether that guy's swing weight is too big.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Again I agree with you in spirit but would caution against huge and unnecessary simplications based on a limited world view.

Here are some random points - In my 40s can punch hard (maybe harder than ever) but cannot punch fast. Also a light stiff racket is harder in my body than a heavy soft racket especially when strung at the tension I like in the stiffer frame, also higher than the soft heavy one. Why should anyone spend weeks and months adjusting to a new racquet EZ98 that a lot of people have complained gave them arm issues?

No reason to make any big changes up or down unless rhe player wants, needs to, or has to.

Nothing limited in a world view based on one of the most experienced racket techs in the world who has advised Pros and maybe 10,000 rec players over 20-30 years. I'd say his world view is more expert than anyone commenting here. There is always a reason to advise a rec player to change form what he "wants" to what would make him better, and in my experience it takes a 3rd party to change most rec player's minds.

Again... what do you consider heavy?? RF97 is the extreme exemple but what about 310 gr frames... are those heavy? Experienced player only??

325 SW plus is heavy. As a huge generalization.

I use frames between 11.9 oz and 12.4 oz. My coach broke a string the other day and picked up one of my Melbournes at 12.4 oz strung with full vs gut, for the rest of the session. He said "wow what a club, haven't used a frame like this since college". After 10 minutes of hitting, he really started to enjoy the mass. His balls were heavier and coming in faster, but with a lower trajectory this his usual ezone 98. He said he can see why I love the frame so much but felt he could not use it competitively. I disagreed. He IMO', played better with it and would have to adjust his game a bit to accommodate the frame. I could see maybe it would be tough for teaching all day, but for match play I like to go as heavy as feasible. Usually determined by how the weight affects my serving. almost never off the ground. I am 62 he is 36. the only place i really like a light frame is serving. If a racquet is too light, I get a sore elbow.

He is 36 and might play open tournaments if he has any free time to play at all. That would involve maybe 4 matches in 2 or 3 days in summer heat. A 12 ouncer will feel great for that first hour of hittin g for all of us, not when we get deep in a tournament.
Use what you want. Stop telling other experienced players to use what you like. The racquet is just a tool and there is room for players to excel or enjoy playing with different specs.
No, I am sharing advice from the @1 #1 expert on rackets, I am free to share. These forums have too much bad advice.

It seems for a lot of people could get God's own racquet delivered to them by angels and they would say "It is a fantastic racquet. Really great once I added a gram at 10 and 2."

Exactly, this is on the forums all day long, needs more weight for stability lol

I sometimes wonder if the racquet designers ever read that and think, "Uh, you know, we did just that already!"

lol

That's a very interesting video! It definitely makes me think I need to try going lighter because there's no way I should play with a heavier frame than Novak lol

If I go lighter, would it make sense to string lower to make up for the lack of power from mass?

I think you would be surprised at the power form an Ezone 098 or a Bab Aero Strike or pure drive.

(BTW full disclosure, been there, done that - both things - being influenced and one good session leading to a new post)

lol. It might be good to be influenced by experts.

So happy to see someone start a thread that isn't going to cause any controversy.

Truth is racket weight and SW and become almost as polarizing as trying to define "lag and snap" on the forehand or that orange guy from NY that hides military secrets in Florida.

Anyhow, I throw some more gas on the fire. My thoughts are:

1. The French Tennis Federation said adults should use a racket with a SW of 320 or more, 4 HL or more HL and I believe the static weight was around 10.8 or more. I think this is reasonable as the low limits.
2. I think the game of tennis demands a SW of around 320 to handle the pace of the incoming ball without too much shock or vibration even at intermediate levels.
3. As you move up, I think SW should increase to handle more pace and spin from your opponents.
4. No one really gets tires swing a 320ish thru 330ish SW racket. To me, it total bull manure that you get tired after 60 minutes swinging these SW rackets. If you do, you should see a doctor.
5. My personal experience is SW below 320 simply isn't very good overall. Yes, you can point to that kid in college who plays with 315SW stick but he's been doing it for years and simply doesn't know any better.
6. I like racket with these specs: 11.8 to 12.3 static weight, SW 330-335ish, and balance 6 to 8 HL. My current racket is 12.3, 333SW and 7+HL. I am 66 years old, been playing 46+ years and reasonably fit for an old guy. I started at 320SW with my current frames but tweaked them up to 333SW and like them much better at 333SW in every aspect of the game. They defend against pace and spin better, they attack with pace and spin better, they are very comfortable and I cannot blame any 3rd set fatigue on them because I am simply tired in the 3rd set of a long match from all the running. Please don't try to say you wouldn't be tired if you had a light racket because swing 315SW or 333SW isn't going to make a big difference in fatigue. It's your stamina and overall fitness that cause you to be fatigue.
7. Of course, there's a top limit SW for each of us and anything between 320 and 350 or so is fine as long as you feel good with it.

320 is a great SW, these 340 with added weight at 3 and 9 are just silly. Making it 340-370 SW.

 

[gold325]

@FuzzyYellowBalls

I think since you are 6'5" you need to play atleast 373.75 (15% taller than 5'7" average so 15% more swingweight than 325) .... OK OK Just kidding.

Personally I am in the middle and im only 6'0" - 333g / 6HL / 333sw. Since its a thin beam (and polarized) makes it play like 323.75sw since it flys through the air so well (so I am just under your 325sw limit)

Fun times as always!

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

320 is a great SW, these 340 with added weight at 3 and 9 are just silly. Making it 340-370 SW.

Would you say those numbers apply to people of all sizes / skill levels, or just an average?

 

[NicoMK]

I'm no pro at all, not so strong and not so young either but my preferred weight is 12.8 oz (strung). I tried many times to go down weight but it never quite worked so...

I guess it's entitled to each and everyone's own taste, after all.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

@FuzzyYellowBalls

I think since you are 6'5" you need to play atleast 373.75 (15% taller than 5'7" average so 15% more swingweight than 325) .... OK OK Just kidding.

Personally I am in the middle and im only 6'0" - 333g / 6HL / 333sw. Since its a thin beam (and polarized) makes it play like 323.75sw since it flys through the air so well (so I am just under your 325sw limit)

Fun times as always!

This physics stuff is way beypnd my neandrethal brain, maybe the air up here is thinner. I'm only 6'4$ thank goodness, already hard enough to fit in some places in the world, cars, planes, makes midget threesomes awkward.

You are swinging a big boy racket, you must workout!

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Would you say those numbers apply to people of all sizes / skill levels, or just an average?

I think so, but maybe there is some scientist out there that could study arm length, leg length, body type, and come up with the most optimized racket weight. I don't think it would improve a player's tennis more than 2% or so. Practice and starting to play tennis at around age 5 or 6 will be the most impactful. Most humans should only be able to pick up a 320 gram object and swing it at 100% body involvement over a 3 hour period in 100 degree heat, then do it again 3 hours later in the round 2 of the tournament, then do i again the next day in the semifinals or finals. Without losing the effectiveness they had in the first hour at around the same rate of effectiveness . Plus, the stability of today's rackets with poly at around 305-310 -320 SW is stable enough for all rec velocity balls we all will face from opponents.

But, if someone reading this plays 5- 6 days a week for hours, the sky is the limit, you can train to bump up the SW without losing RHS or injury or any diminishing returns. But, that's rare.

 

[gold325]

This physics stuff is way beypnd my neandrethal brain, maybe the air up here is thinner. I'm only 6'4$ thank goodness, already hard enough to fit in some places in the world, cars, planes, makes midget threesomes awkward.

You are swinging a big boy racket, you must workout!

Infact it is the opposite - I use the high swingweight racket as a bandaid to keep the ball over the net when i mishit and the softness to try keep it in when I cant control the face angle. Once I get where I want to go with my Forehand I will switch to a stiffer, lighter frame so I can do a Carlos Alcaraz impersonation instead of a Soderling Impersonation.

And yes I am overhitting in the video below for maximum effect

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Infact it is the opposite - I use the high swingweight racket as a bandaid to keep the ball over the net when i mishit and the softness to try keep it in when I cant control the face angle. Once I get where I want to go with my Forehand I will switch to a stiffer, lighter frame so I can do a Carlos Alcaraz impersonation instead of a Soderling Impersonation.

And yes I am overhitting in the video below for maximum effect

Aha, you are playing chess, not checkers!

 

[Denis]

The weight of the racquet mostly effects stability on slower strokes. Roger and other 1 handers need it because they sometimes have to use "block shots" on their backhands. Most club players also need it because they lack racquet speed and distance from their body to create stability by crushing the ball.

 

[Denis]

Infact it is the opposite - I use the high swingweight racket as a bandaid to keep the ball over the net when i mishit and the softness to try keep it in when I cant control the face angle. Once I get where I want to go with my Forehand I will switch to a stiffer, lighter frame so I can do a Carlos Alcaraz impersonation instead of a Soderling Impersonation.

And yes I am overhitting in the video below for maximum effect

When you accelerate your racquet your elbow is very close to the body. This is where you loose power.

 

[weelie]

Our local top 10 ATP doubles player said he has been reducing the weight for a long time, and now hits a stock 310g Yonex, while rising through the ranks from top 300 to top 10. He can still hit with singles players, though does not compete at that due to back issues he had.

You can see this among many ATP pros. Not all hit a heavy racket.

Personally, mine are over 12oz. Like they always have been. SW not that high though, maybe 325.

 

[Denis]

Our local top 10 ATP doubles player said for a long time he has been reducing the weight, and now hits a stock 310g Yonex, while rising through the ranks from top 300 to top 10. He can still hit with singles players, though does not compete at that due to back issues he had.

You can see this among many ATP pros. Not all hit a heavy racket.

Personally, mine are over 12oz. Like they always have been. SW not that high though, maybe 325.

Lol, I did the same two years ago I'm playing with Yonex duel G 97 310g. I had 5g lead at the head(almost at 12 o'clock) and 15g in the handle. I've worked hard on making FH and BH swings further from the body and at some point I had wrist pain so I removed all weight and noticed that I have same stability and can actually hit with more power without weight.

 

[Power Player]

Its tricky to go down in weight and sometimes I find myself missing the solidity of 345 gram frames that were a bit more normal even just 10 years ago.

The key for me is how fast I can swing the frame on 2nds over 2-3 hours and also can I get under short balls and whip them into the open court with spin? I think those 2 things help determine how heavy a frame is, besides being obviously late on groundies.

One thing heavier frames can help with is volleying. I had the 330 gram Vcore Pro years ago and it was a log for sure. But my groundstrokes were very consistent and it was the best I had volleyed in years due to how stable the frame was.

Anyway I find the cheat code now is to use a 305 gram XL frame. That keeps things light but has a higher 320s SW which is helpful on the 2 hander and for easy depth. So it is kind of a best of both worlds - the leverage gives you the benefit of a heavier frame while still weighing in pretty light. Of course you need to be comfortable with an XL - it requires better spacing, but after 20 hours or so of matchplay, it feels normal and you have adjusted.

 

[Hnefi]

I think I have seen both sides of this spectrum. I've only been playing tennis for 10 years (started at age 20 in university), but I just picked up a racquet and immediately took to it. For the first 3 years I learned to play with this

and that was super good for my technique.... I realized really quickly that I couldn't arm the ball with something so heavy, and creating spin with an 18x20 made me learn to start hitting with topspin. I think it's a big reason why my groundstrokes are long (my weakness is actually that they are too long).

As I got better I started playing harder and harder hitters, and went to even heavier frames, partially because I learned more about pro specs and spent a fair bit of time holic-ing. My list of main frames: K90, BLX 6.1 Tour, and then Tec 315Ltd - all of those were modified to hit > 350g strung weight. Eventually I started playing with a good group of guys that convinced me I should play something more modern for a bit more help with spin, given that modern tennis is mainly played from the baseline and I like to hit hard. I went to the Vcore Xi98 in 2016 and it helped me a lot, I found more spin with it and also better returns compared to flexible 90" or 95" frames, but I kept it at 355g strung weight since that's what I was used to.

A few weeks ago I switched to a stock Ezone 98, for a full lightweight swap. I am still improving, and my matches are a lot more physical than they used to be. It's not like I physically can't swing my Xi's anymore, I have no tennis elbow or wrist issues, but I can feel that in long points where your legs are tired, having a lighter frame just makes things easier. I've noticed I'm more consistent, my HR doesn't redline as much in long points, and I'm winning more points against my group of partners.

Of course it's not possible to generalize my experience to everyone, but I think that the high-order bit is that tennis is physically tough. I'm in above average cardio shape, but nothing exceptional.... And playing matches is probably the hardest exercise I do. Playing a lighter frame just made that easier, and my results are better under the demands of hitting hard and playing guys who have a lot more time on court than me.

 

[TennisCJC]

Its simple, most rec players don't swing a racket at the same speed on minute 10 and on minute 100.


From experience I switched from RF97 a while back when I started taking lessons after my coach and stringer both urged me to change to something between 300-305g. My stringer at the time was the brother of Marc Lopez and told me his brother played with a 300g babolat which makes tennis easier. Anyways, I had no consistency on my swing path is what the coach told me. Now I rely on rhs to keep the opponent back and the ball in, my net clearance is higher so there's more room for error...simples. I used to swear by heavy frames from lurking around this site. I used to hit flatter too. I'm 35 and I play a lot better now but thats from coaching and not frame related.
In today's game i genuinely believe theres no room for heavy control frames, but if you are older and content with that then why not.

I think SW is more important than static weight. I think as long as you're SW is 320SW or more, then play with whatever you want. Lower than 320SW and the frame cannot handle incoming pace and spin and makes you work too hard to add pace and spin. Below 320SW is also going to have issues with stability, twisting and comfort and may not be the healthiest choice. My personal spec seems to be SW328 to SW335 and I have no problem controlling the racket head or injecting pace where appropriate.

Also, tennis involves a lot more than high RHS. Even pros aren't swinging that fast at returns of serve in many cases. Yes, there are those that stand 20 feet back and try to swing big but even Djokovic is simply making crisp contact with a compact swing on the majority of his returns. Many pros are blocking or chipping returns too. Also, slices, volleys, half-volleys and absorbing pace on deep balls are all typically hit with far less than near-max RHS. I increase RHS when I get a sitter and I am on balance. Basically, I inject pace when I get a weak reply and have to unload on it. I do take a full swing and increase speed on almost all groundstrokes but my normal rally ball is about 3/4 RHS capacity.

300G-305G static weight with a decent SW can be fine. The problem I see is manufacturers are making a lot of rackets with 310-315SW and my view is almost all these rackets would play better with a SW 320 or above.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

In today's game i genuinely believe theres no room for heavy control frames

That's a pretty strong statement, since there are still players even at the elite level using exactly that.

 

[leojramirez]

That's a pretty strong statement, since there are still players even at the elite level using exactly that.

Afaik only the over 30s still play with heavy frames. Its all about stroke mechanics, not wrong, just different. Them kids all into the modern fast rackets. That is where the game is going, the ball is coming so fast the easier it is to move the racket the better. That's why everyone trains their movement and footwork like mad as you see all those trendy insta clips. Sw has to be high enough to be able to return pace though.

 

[Stuballz]

Muscle memory and technique. Your technique and timing is different when playing with lighter frames. There are many advantages the lighter frames provide in competitive tennis. Advancements in frame and string technologies have made it possible. Casual players with lower racquet head speeds will generally benefit from heavier frames, as it provide more stability and plow thru.

I’m a 3.5-4.0 and love heavy racquets. I think what you described must be part of it. I’ve got muscle memory from playing with Prestige for 10 years and now lighter racquets feel off to me.

 

[Hansen]

Afaik only the over 30s still play with heavy frames.

medvedev, rublev, zverev, cerundolo, hurkacz,
there are a few

 

[Fintft]

Muscle memory and technique. Your technique and timing is different when playing with lighter frames. There are many advantages the lighter frames provide in competitive tennis. Advancements in frame and string technologies have made it possible. Casual players with lower racquet head speeds will generally benefit from heavier frames, as it provide more stability and plow thru.

Exactly @socallefty , not to mention the OP.

 

[leojramirez]

medvedev, rublev, zverev, cerundolo, hurkacz,
there are a few

Didn't know, thanks for that. I reread my reply and seems like i had forgotten my argument but I stand by it, on the amateur side it doesn't make much sense to go heavy unless you've learned tennis a while back. If you just play for the one hour and don't compete then thats fine, but if you are playing 1:30+ hours per session and best of 3 sets occasionally, specially on clay, then it doesn't make sense.

 

[KC!]

The 3 top young tennis players use relatively light racquets, close to stock. Alcaraz, Sinner & Rune all have racquets with 325-335 static weights & 325-340 swing weights. The trend in tennis is going lighter, but people should use whatever works for them. So the question of are we really not good enough to use heavy racquets makes no sense to me.

 

[socallefty]

So the question of are we really not good enough to use heavy racquets makes no sense to me.

Me neither. I actually would say the opposite that I am not good enough to play with light racquets unlike younger advanced players. My footwork is too late, I get to the ball too late and end up with an incomplete (low RHS) swing too often on good shots by my opponents when they make me run. If I got to the ball mostly on time and could generate a high RHS swing, then a lighter racquet would help my game as I would generate even more RHS than with my 12 oz racquets when I hit a full swing. Right now, I need the extra SW/mass to get depth on incomplete swings. I’m unable to play good defense with lighter racquets and that is why I haven’t switched to them.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

So the question of are we really not good enough to use heavy racquets makes no sense to me.

I see your point and you're right. But there's a good reason behind the question: if you read or watch racquet reviews, the heavy ones are always recommended to advanced players only.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

Didn't know, thanks for that. I reread my reply and seems like i had forgotten my argument but I stand by it, on the amateur side it doesn't make much sense to go heavy unless you've learned tennis a while back. If you just play for the one hour and don't compete then thats fine, but if you are playing 1:30+ hours per session and best of 3 sets occasionally, specially on clay, then it doesn't make sense.

The problem with this logic is that the definition of "heavy" is different for everyone. I refuse to believe that one can define a racquet as heavy or light, in a way that applies to everyone regardless of fitness level and size.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

I see your point and you're right. But there's a good reason behind the question: if you read or watch racquet reviews, the heavy ones are always recommended to advanced players only.

I think it's because with a very fast swing and great footwork, heavy rackets such as the RF97 and H or anything SW 330 give or take really produces a heavy ball. However, some believe that the hefty stick helps block back the ball on defense better with stability and the ball goes deeper with slower swings, and in a way it calms down erratic swings because it is slow . What some may not realize and don't give new types of rackets like 6 months of playtime to get used to is that modern tweener rackets are stable, just like heavy ones, and with the right strings and the power they give, they do the same block back defensive tricks the heavy sticks do. That's why some really high swinging top juniors use 100 inch power rackets, for defense, not offense, they use them to have power when they can't get to the ball. They don't go heavy because their footwork and body isn't advanced enough yet.

That's the blind spot, the lighter SW 310-320 do the defensive work, the heavy rackets aren't necessary. Plus the lighter ones are easierr to maneuver in place when on defense.

th e switch has to be done over months time, not just a demo test though, so most don't get a chance to try out a real change. Like a VC95 can do the work easily on defense heavier ones can do.

The problem with this logic is that the definition of "heavy" is different for everyone. I refuse to believe that one can define a racquet as heavy or light, in a way that applies to everyone regardless of fitness level and size.

Everyone:
Ezone 98 and 100 medium
Vcore H heavy
Light Teams and stuff from about SW 280-310.

That should capture most adults.

 

[TennisCJC]

Didn't know, thanks for that. I reread my reply and seems like i had forgotten my argument but I stand by it, on the amateur side it doesn't make much sense to go heavy unless you've learned tennis a while back. If you just play for the one hour and don't compete then thats fine, but if you are playing 1:30+ hours per session and best of 3 sets occasionally, specially on clay, then it doesn't make sense.

So, you think an adult can not use a 330SW racket for 3 sets on clay? I have been doing this for most of the last 45 years. I have tried many lighter frames but every racket I've owned plays better for me between 330-340SW than the lower stock 318 or so SW. And, it isn't just defensive shots either. I find it easier to hit pace and spin with higher SW. But, higher SW does greatly improve returns, slices and volleys too. I can see where the right SW will vary per person, but I also think a lot of stock rackets with SW under 320 are poor for performance and health.

 

[TennisCJC]

The 3 top young tennis players use relatively light racquets, close to stock. Alcaraz, Sinner & Rune all have racquets with 325-335 static weights & 325-340 swing weights. The trend in tennis is going lighter, but people should use whatever works for them. So the question of are we really not good enough to use heavy racquets makes no sense to me.

TennisNerd has Sinner's racket at 340SW. I don't think we really know actual specs for Alcaraz and Rune. Also, the best players of the last 20 years (Fed, Nadal, Djoko, Wawa, DelPo, Cilic, Murray) have all used SW 340-370+ and we know that to be true. I think a lot of rec players fall for the it swings nice and easy so it must be good for my game trap. I used to be on a mixed double team with a girl who played college tennis and walloped the ball. See was demo-ing rackets and was considering the lighter version of a Bab racket. I suggested at her level she needed more weight and she went with the regular model with higher SW. I have seen other rec players drop down to lighter rackets because they like the feel of whipping it around. I've seen a few whose game noticeably went down when they bought lighter frames. Yea, you don't want to go too heavy but you don't want to go too light either.

 

[riddick]

A light racquet is easy to use. A light and stiff racquet with a big head size and a large sweet spot, open pattern, easy power & easy spin is easy to use and can play fast and make you unpredictable
Using a light racquet can play like MEP : can arm the ball, don't have to care about proper tennis strokes, proper tennis form and proper tennis footwork, throw in squash strokes / badminton strokes, ...

Well just kidding

The opponent is obviously not at NTRP 4.0 though (NTRP 2.5 - 3.0 max). In addition, the static weight and swingweight of his racquet are obviously too low (ok for a beginner but simply too low for NTRP 4.0)

A funny video.

 

[jimmy8]

The new tech in the wilson shift is amazing. It's so light, but it still feels very stable. It's a stiff racket, but it has enough lateral flex to feel comfortable. It has more control than any other 99 or 98 I've tried. It's so maneuverable, net play is so much easier.

My friend was using the blade 98 v7 16x19, very high swingweight. He was a low 3.5 using that racket and was stuck at that level even though he played like 5 times a week, took lessons, went to camps, played in league.

He got a Wilson shift 300 and quickly moved up to 4.0 and is whooping good 4.0's now. The swingweight of the Shift is way, way lower. He is taking fuller swings. He is getting to more balls at the net because the racket is so maneuverable. Lighter made things way better. Other light rackets aren't the same, the Shift has amazing tech.

 

[TennisCJC]

SW under 320 = sissy frame
SW 320-330 = light
SW 330-340 = medium
SW 340-350 = heavy
SW 350-360 = log
SW over 360 = Thor's hammer

 

[Yamin]

I was returning 100mph+ balls inside the baseline the other day and my preferred racket couldn't handle being that close. Had to switch to my heavier one of the same racket. Instead of the racket crumpling, I could block or take minimal swing for winners. How would a lighter racket have improved the situation? I could play with a beginner racket if I played meters off the baseline or bunt ball.. it would be stable enough. Use what you should or what you need. Too much nonsense in this thread.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

My friend was using the blade 98 v7 16x19, very high swingweight. He was a low 3.5 using that racket and was stuck at that level even though he played like 5 times a week, took lessons, went to camps, played in league.

He got a Wilson shift 300 and quickly moved up to 4.0 and is whooping good 4.0's now. The swingweight of the Shift is way, way lower. He is taking fuller swings. He is getting to more balls at the net because the racket is so maneuverable. Lighter made things way better.

Tennis Warehouse lists the Blade 98 16x19 v7 at 328 swing weight - that's not that high, so unless your friend's racquets were way off spec, I doubt the swing weight difference could explain such a massive difference in results.

Other light rackets aren't the same, the Shift has amazing tech.

I can't comment on this part as I've never used Wilson rackets. Sounds like he just clicked with that racket for some reason?

 

[socallefty]

A light racquet is easy to use. A light and stiff racquet with a big head size and a large sweet spot, open pattern, easy power & easy spin is easy to use and can play fast and make you unpredictable

Playing good tennis is about a balance of power and control, not only about power. At lower levels your priority might be to aim for the whole court or just put your serve inside the entire box and a high power racquet might be easy to use. But as you move to higher levels, you try to hit to smaller targets to bother your opponents or hit winners into smaller space and control becomes the priority for equipment as you also typically have enough swing speed to generate pace/spin.

The racquet you mention above would be a nightmare for me to play with as I would not feel like I can control the ball as I normally can. I like thin beam, dense pattern (or dense in the center), 97/97 head size and medium flexibility (mid-sixties RA) along with 330-340 SW - my racquets have been Dunlop wood, Max200G, Pure Control, AeroStorm Tour and Pure Strike Tour. So, different strokes for different people and what you call an easy-to-use racquet might not be easy for those who have played all their lives with very different racquets.

 

[riddick]

Playing good tennis is about a balance of power and control, not only about power. At lower levels your priority might be to aim for the whole court or just put your serve inside the entire box and a high power racquet might be easy to use. But as you move to higher levels, you try to hit to smaller targets to bother your opponents or hit winners into smaller space and control becomes the priority for equipment as you also typically have enough swing speed to generate pace/spin.

The racquet you mention above would be a nightmare for me to play with as I would not feel like I can control the ball as I normally can. I like thin beam, dense pattern (or dense in the center), 97/97 head size and medium flexibility (mid-sixties RA) along with 330-340 SW - my racquets have been Dunlop wood, Max200G, Pure Control, AeroStorm Tour and Pure Strike Tour. So, different strokes for different people and what you call an easy-to-use racquet might not be easy for those who have played all their lives with very different racquets.

You don't seem to understand what I am getting at in my post. Never mind

A lot of recreational players cannot move / swing anything except a light racquet. Many of them don't know or don't care about proper tennis strokes, proper tennis form and proper tennis footwork.

I just want to play proper tennis on a tennis court. That's what I was trained to do by good coaches when I was a child.

 

[TennisCJC]

You don't seem understand what I am getting at in my post. Never mind

A lot of recreational players cannot move / swing anything except a light racquet. Many of them don't know or don't care about proper tennis strokes, proper tennis form and proper tennis footwork.

I just want to play proper tennis on a tennis court. That's what I was trained to do by good coaches when I was a child.

I understand what you are saying but don't agree with it. Even beginners can and should play SW 320 or higher. Below 320SW is simply bad for performance and health. My wife and daughter are petit as in very small and they swing 320SW and higher quite comfortably. My wife even said she liked it better when I added a bit of weight increasing SW to 330. I think rec players are more prone to buy a very light racket because it feels good when they whip it around in the tennis shop but they don't play well on the tennis court. I also think there is a trend among players and even some coaches to buy into the lighter is better concept. My point is there is a point where light because detrimental to health and performance.

 

[socallefty]

Use what you want. Stop telling other experienced players to use what you like. The racquet is just a tool and there is room for players to excel or enjoy playing with different specs.

I still stand by not telling anyone else there is a ‘perfect’ racquet for them including weight range. Too many variables in terms of player size/height, age, health, injury history, play style, playing level, timing of takeback/swing, footwork speed, caliber of opponents, history with racquets, motivation for playing etc. Also what a players likes for groundstrokes might be different than what they like for serves and maybe even for volleys - a racquet is always a compromise between what works best for different shots. Heck, a player may have a placebo effect and might play better with a racquet that has a paint job they like, a brand they prefer or the one endorsed by a player they like.

 

[jimmy8]

Tennis Warehouse lists the Blade 98 16x19 v7 at 328 swing weight - that's not that high, so unless your friend's racquets were way off spec, I doubt the swing weight difference could explain such a massive difference in results.



I can't comment on this part as I've never used Wilson rackets. Sounds like he just clicked with that racket for some reason?

I said very high, maybe that was an overstatement. It's pretty hard to move, it feels very heavy to swing for me, I'm not a weakling.

The Shift has amazing tech, you should try it, it's amazing.

 

[riddick]

I understand what you are saying but don't agree with it. Even beginners can and should play SW 320 or higher. Below 320SW is simply bad for performance and health. My wife and daughter are petit as in very small and they swing 320SW and higher quite comfortably. My wife even said she liked it better when I added a bit of weight increasing SW to 330. I think rec players are more prone to buy a very light racket because it feels good when they whip it around in the tennis shop but they don't play well on the tennis court. I also think there is a trend among players and even some coaches to buy into the lighter is better concept. My point is there is a point where light because detrimental to health and performance.

Many experienced amateur tennis players prefer a swingweight of 327-330SW. Really advanced players or professional players use 330-340SW or above. They all have high maneuvrability with their racquets and attain fast Racquet Head Speed (RHS) when they go for strong shots or finishing shots. Give them a 320SW racquet, their swing path / racquet path will de-rail and go haywire when they go for strong shots / finishing shots (trying to get their expected pace).

For beginners/intermediates, I think if they have high maneuvrability with their racquets and achieve good control and desired pace when going for strong shots or finishing shots, that's their appropriate swingweight. As long as they play with a flexible racquet (ie. soft gear set-up) and don't fight an advanced hard hitter, their arm health will be ok with low swingweight.

 

[leojramirez]

So, you think an adult can not use a 330SW racket for 3 sets on clay? I have been doing this for most of the last 45 years. I have tried many lighter frames but every racket I've owned plays better for me between 330-340SW than the lower stock 318 or so SW. And, it isn't just defensive shots either. I find it easier to hit pace and spin with higher SW. But, higher SW does greatly improve returns, slices and volleys too. I can see where the right SW will vary per person, but I also think a lot of stock rackets with SW under 320 are poor for performance and health.

Anyone can play with anything, but is it optimal is the question.
Adults are a very broad set of people. Not everyone is fit enough to play a full set of demanding tennis on clay, let alone 3. Heck, even 30 minutes of coaching is tough for some.
The vast majority of people that play tennis and which the racket manufacturers seem to have identified as their primary customers are not pros or anything close to a pro, that is why the majority of rackets coming out are 300-305g.

 

[TennisHound]

Potential Pro Shop Employee Question:
When I steal a racquet, I only steal a heavy one.

True or False

 

[TennisCJC]

Potential Pro Shop Employee Question:
When I steal a racquet, I only steal a heavy one.

True or False

True if you are the most interesting man in the world.

 

[TennisHound]

True if you are the most interesting man in the world.

Haha! I know right lol