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

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

It's VERY difficult to play at men's 4.5 level with anything lighter than 300g static weight unstrung and 320 swing weight strung. 300g-315g unstrung and 320-335 swing weight (strung). I found it's really difficult to return a 105+ mph serve with a less than 320sw. The racquet just gets completely pushed around. If you are a "rabbit". I don't find too many players with well-developed games that play with anything lighter and most play with something heavier. Most common ones that I see at 4.5 level are Blade, Speed Pro, Pure Aero+, some VCore 97's, some PS97's, a few Pure Drives, a few regular Pure Aeros, a few Gravity Tour's, a few Clash Pro's. Most of the folks that do use something lighter are older and using an oversize (Blade 104 or PD 107) with a highly elastic string. Average it all out and you have 305g static weight, 99 sq in headsize, 325ish swing weight, and an RA around 65. There's probably a reason why that's the average. Not too light to play against big servers and not too heavy to play against pushers.

I agree that it takes a slightly heavier racquet to handle the pace of solid 4.5 play (even some 4.0 play). Most of the 4.5s in our league use plain racquets around 305g and up. However, there are always the exceptions. Our 5.0 uses a stock PDVS and one guy uses a Tecnifibre 300. Another older 4.5 (58yo) who used to play 5.5 uses some older Wilson 95 that weighs about 10.7oz strung and he clobbers the ball.

I’ve played against some of them with my Blade Team weighted to 11.3oz (without leather grip), but felt much more comfortable at 11.7oz (with leather grip and some more lead at 12). It doesn’t have to be leather but a little more weight in the handle helps steady the frame.

SW is not important to return hard serves, that's a myth, you just need skill and timing. SW 218 Ezones are incredibly popular in college tennis. I knowN that's close to 320, but really they could return serves with sw 310 or 300, you just do hit the sweet spot and have timing.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

I don't have any data to support this, but I think it makes sense that swing weight is important for returns (even if it's indirectly and not because of any swinging mechanics).

Here's a thought experiment: imagine a 1kg weight attached to a very light wooden handle. You're not allowed to swing them, only to hold them in place in order to return a serve. Would you rather hold the weight and let the ball hit the handle, or the other way around?

In both cases the static weight is the same, but I think it's clear that it's best to let the ball hit the heavier side that has the most weight on it.

 

[K1Y]

SW is not important to return hard serves, that's a myth, you just need skill and timing. SW 218 Ezones are incredibly popular in college tennis. I knowN that's close to 320, but really they could return serves with sw 310 or 300, you just do hit the sweet spot and have timing.

True. Alot of the popular frames in college are on the edge of 320 or slightly below it. Pure aero, pure drive, speed mp, ezones, vcores.

 

[mcs1970]

SW is not important to return hard serves, that's a myth, you just need skill and timing. SW 218 Ezones are incredibly popular in college tennis. I knowN that's close to 320, but really they could return serves with sw 310 or 300, you just do hit the sweet spot and have timing.

You are an advanced player. You mentioned you went to a lighter racquet and had to spend some time to get used to it.

What is your current racquet and specs? What specifically, if anything, did you have to change to get used to a lighter racquet? For me the bh and bh slice ( which is an important part of my game) is what seems to get affected whenever I try a lighter racquet.

 

[robyrolfo]

I agree that it takes a slightly heavier racquet to handle the pace of solid 4.5 play (even some 4.0 play). Most of the 4.5s in our league use plain racquets around 305g and up. However, there are always the exceptions. Our 5.0 uses a stock PDVS and one guy uses a Tecnifibre 300. Another older 4.5 (58yo) who used to play 5.5 uses some older Wilson 95 that weighs about 10.7oz strung and he clobbers the ball.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't a smaller head size allow for more stability given a certain weight? I think that's the key ingredient to some racquets like the Vcore 95 for example.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't a smaller head size allow for more stability given a certain weight? I think that's the key ingredient to some racquets like the Vcore 95 for example.

I'm not sure the Vcore 95 is a good example here, since it's heavier than the 98 / 100 versions.

Looking at those three racquets in TW's racquet comparison tool:

Weight: 95 > 98 > 100
Swing weight: all about equal (318-322)
Twist weight: 100 > 98 = 95

The only noteworthy differences are the twist weight on the 100, and the fact that the smaller head sizes are a bit heavier in static weight.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

I don't have any data to support this, but I think it makes sense that swing weight is important for returns (even if it's indirectly and not because of any swinging mechanics).

Here's a thought experiment: imagine a 1kg weight attached to a very light wooden handle. You're not allowed to swing them, only to hold them in place in order to return a serve. Would you rather hold the weight and let the ball hit the handle, or the other way around?

In both cases the static weight is the same, but I think it's clear that it's best to let the ball hit the heavier side that has the most weight on it.

Important is the key word, does it have an impact at all, yes, but the general idea in the comment I replied to was closer to it is absolutely necessary to have a high swingweight to return 4.5 served. It's not, and if you "need" a high swingweight just to return a serve something is missing in return skill. Today's rackets sub SW 320 can handle any serve of you can use it and if college kids can, that's the gist of what I was saying. So , yes, higher sw might be more stable slightly in off center shots, but I think important is a word best saved for timing and skill.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

You are an advanced player. You mentioned you went to a lighter racquet and had to spend some time to get used to it.

What is your current racquet and specs? What specifically, if anything, did you have to change to get used to a lighter racquet? For me the bh and bh slice ( which is an important part of my game) is what seems to get affected whenever I try a lighter racquet.

I'm really not that advanced, but I appreciate it. I'm using the Regna now, it's sw 322. Used to use the Ezone. I needed about 2 weeks to adjust to to the Ezone from the HD. I wasnt missing shots st first just not fully locked in.

Slices, same thing happened to me, the slices are different with the HD and ezone. I think it's more the string pattern though and launch angle and not the SW? But , there is a difference.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't a smaller head size allow for more stability given a certain weight? I think that's the key ingredient to some racquets like the Vcore 95 for example.

I think you are correct, it is funny though to place a VC95 on top of an Ezome and see the head size difference is incredibly small. Almost hard to see.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

Important is the key word, does it have an impact at all, yes, but the general idea in the comment I replied to was closer to it is absolutely necessary to have a high swingweight to return 4.5 served. It's not, and if you "need" a high swingweight just to return a serve something is missing in return skill. Today's rackets sub SW 320 can handle any serve of you can use it and if college kids can, that's the gist of what I was saying. So , yes, higher sw might be more stable slightly in off center shots, but I think important is a word best saved for timing and skill.

Yeah agreed. If one believes Alcaraz is using a stock unmodded racquet (Pure Aero 98 which has pretty mild specs), that also drives this point home - above certain spec levels, people can make any racquet work if they like it (from rec to elite level).

 

[Yamin]

There is a lot of misinformation on these forums regarding swing weight, and I see it echoed frequently. Not sure if it's because people are uneducated on twist weight or because it's hard to measure, but twist weight is the spec that greater impacts maneuverability and what I'd call "static stability" that people generally refer to.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

There is a lot of misinformation on these forums regarding swing weight, and I see it echoed frequently. Not sure if it's because people are uneducated on twist weight or because it's hard to measure, but twist weight is the spec that greater impacts maneuverability and what I'd call "static stability" that people generally refer to.

Why is twist weight more important? My understanding is that swing weight and twist weight are similar measurements for different directions of movement. So both of them impact stability and maneuverability for different kinds of movement.

 

[Power Player]

Yeah agreed. If one believes Alcaraz is using a stock unmodded racquet (Pure Aero 98 which has pretty mild specs), that also drives this point home - above certain spec levels, people can make any racquet work if they like it (from rec to elite level).

At the same time, a lot of these examples are young guys with serious motors who can hit the ball hard for 4 -5 hours. College kids get free frames or discounted ones and don't really over think it yet. People don't get into gear typically until they get a little older.

I think more importantly is the less you know, the better sometimes. Before I found this place, I used a close to 13oz Head frame and had no idea it was heavy or anything like that. So I came here and that changed everything because now you want to try out all these setups that people are raving about. And honestly, that is pretty fun, but I was not playing college tennis where performance and winning is all that matters.

If you have good technique, I think you can save a lot of energy with a heavy frame if you are built a certain way. And then there are guys with great technique that will argue that lighter is much better for the,m. What really matters is hitting the ball out in front and in the lines over and over, while enjoying your time on the court. I have gone back and forth and appreciate both things, and don't think that there is one right weight or spec for everyone to abide by.

 

[Yamin]

Why is twist weight more important? My understanding is that swing weight and twist weight are similar measurements for different directions of movement. So both of them impact stability and maneuverability for different kinds of movement.

Not to say it is more important, but more impacting for the "regular player" that is not hitting into the ball. Best example I can give is the Percept 97H vs. a Prestige Tour. Percept has high twist weight low swing weight and the Tour is the opposite.

The Tour isn't great at stationary blocking and doesn't provide much in terms of spin, power, or stability in the "low to mid range". On the "top end" however it is greater than the Percept in most of those regards and feels much faster despite a significantly higher swing weight. The percept almost feels like a "thicker beam" and more power oriented racket compared to other control rackets and it is due to the high twist weight.

 

[Stradivarius]

I play with a Pro staf 97L and looking forward to buy a Ultra V.3, being the PS too unforgving and stiff.
I am a professional orchestra musician and Just cant jeopardize my left arm anymore in a club match.
From time to time I play with a Wilson OS 275gr, wouldn't it be for the serve and returns I would stick to it.

 

[ichaseballs]

easier to hit spin with a lighter racquet.
the older flatter style is much better suited with a heavier stick

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

At the same time, a lot of these examples are young guys with serious motors who can hit the ball hard for 4 -5 hours. College kids get free frames or discounted ones and don't really over think it yet. People don't get into gear typically until they get a little older.

I think more importantly is the less you know, the better sometimes. Before I found this place, I used a close to 13oz Head frame and had no idea it was heavy or anything like that. So I came here and that changed everything because now you want to try out all these setups that people are raving about. And honestly, that is pretty fun, but I was not playing college tennis where performance and winning is all that matters.

If you have good technique, I think you can save a lot of energy with a heavy frame if you are built a certain way. And then there are guys with great technique that will argue that lighter is much better for the,m. What really matters is hitting the ball out in front and in the lines over and over, while enjoying your time on the court. I have gone back and forth and appreciate both things, and don't think that there is one right weight or spec for everyone to abide by.

The last hour of the 2.5 hour podcast with Nik and Jonas of tennis nerd explains a lot of their opinions on this stuff and kind of echos your thoughts especially the less you know is better...
quick sum: trying rackets, tinkering is great if it is a hobby
Customizing for any other reason than matching rackets or being a hobbyist is not impactful to rec player performance, even string tension isn't.
Most rec players are using too heavy of a racket.
Grab a racket you like within a normal spec range, don't mod it, unless it's to match, and practice .

Tennisnerd - Where we bond over tennis | tennisnerd

The space where tennis fans, players, journalists, coaches, and gear heads connect through the sport we all love.

tennisnerd.podbean.com

 

[Stradivarius]

The last hour of the 2.5 hour podcast with Nik and Jonas of tennis nerd explains a lot of their opinions on this stuff and kind of echos your thoughts especially the less you know is better...
quick sum: trying rackets, tinkering is great if it is a hobby
Customizing for any other reason than matching rackets or being a hobbyist is not impactful to rec player performance, even string tension isn't.
Most rec players are using too heavy of a racket.
Grab a racket you like within a normal spec range, don't mod it, unless it's to match, and practice .

Tennisnerd - Where we bond over tennis | tennisnerd

The space where tennis fans, players, journalists, coaches, and gear heads connect through the sport we all love.

tennisnerd.podbean.com

It is almost imposible to compare the extreme training top players have with the rec level of club players, advanced or not, still I see lots of club players with so and so racket...

 

[Power Player]

The last hour of the 2.5 hour podcast with Nik and Jonas of tennis nerd explains a lot of their opinions on this stuff and kind of echos your thoughts especially the less you know is better...
quick sum: trying rackets, tinkering is great if it is a hobby
Customizing for any other reason than matching rackets or being a hobbyist is not impactful to rec player performance, even string tension isn't.
Most rec players are using too heavy of a racket.
Grab a racket you like within a normal spec range, don't mod it, unless it's to match, and practice .

Tennisnerd - Where we bond over tennis | tennisnerd

The space where tennis fans, players, journalists, coaches, and gear heads connect through the sport we all love.

tennisnerd.podbean.com

Yeah Roman is really dialed into the lighter racquet for rec players, which is probably a fair take. That said, I have the Whiteout XTD he helped design and I had to tweak it a little because for me I was swinging way too fast with that thing in stock form for my own good. If I was 20 and had endless energy it wouldn't matter but adding some weight helps me chill out on the swing. Heavier can help with cleaner and consistent hitting for some. It can also destroy others. Its really down to what is enjoyable and what brings winning results. That's a quality combo that is pretty individual, and can change with injury..etc.

On a side note, Roman did an amazing job with that WO frame. It's damn good.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

It is almost imposible to compare the extreme training top players have with the rec level of club players, advanced or not, still I see lots of club players with so and so racket...

I don't think this matters as much as it might seem. Yes, top players are stronger and have better endurance, but this is mostly so that they can handle extremely tough matches that last for many hours and contain long rallies played with very fast ball pace. The weight of the racquet is a small factor next to those other things.

What I'm trying to say is that you don't need to be anywhere near pro level of athleticism to play rec-level tennis with a heavy racquet.

 

[Stradivarius]

I don't think this matters as much as it might seem. Yes, top players are stronger and have better endurance, but this is mostly so that they can handle extremely tough matches that last for many hours and contain long rallies played with very fast ball pace. The weight of the racquet is a small factor next to those other things.

What I'm trying to say is that you don't need to be anywhere near pro level of athleticism to play rec-level tennis with a heavy racquet.

No, you don't, you are right but depends on each individual characteristics being able to do it. I couldn't handle a Six One for more than a few games without feeling I needed a stronger arm and a superior technique to handle a heftier racket.
Whats the average WTA tour racket weight? Just curious.

 

[Mischko]

I play with a Pro staf 97L and looking forward to buy a Ultra V.3, being the PS too unforgving and stiff.
I am a professional orchestra musician and Just cant jeopardize my left arm anymore in a club match.
From time to time I play with a Wilson OS 275gr, wouldn't it be for the serve and returns I would stick to it.

Ultra is clearly the stiffest Wilson racquet, many people spin and just block with it because it feels too stiff in clean flat power hitting, and it's difficult to control trajectory with

PS97L definitely absorbs more impact shock, and is made for clean flat hitting. Ons Jabeur plays with it. It's also a frame where you can easily add 10-15g to the handle, under the grip on top of the handle for example, and put a softer string without losing control. Element should go nicely into it

Both need a bit of lead at 12 though to feel best

 

[aaron_h27]

340g and 325 SW is about the perfect spec for me personally. Light enough for baseline play, yet stable enough at net to come in when needed. Perfect set-up for hard courts.

It's a mid-range spec racket. Not light, nor heavy. For me heavy rackets are 350g+ and Light rackets are <330g

 

[KYHacker]

Good comments on the swing weight issue. I think other highly relevant issues are the speed of the court, the height of the bounce, and the opponent's pace and spin. Where I am, most of the "season" is played indoors on very low-bouncing, very fast indoor courts. In the summers, which is out of season for USTA, most matches are played on very slow clay or fairly slow hard courts, both with higher bounces. Long story short, the slower, higher-bouncing clay lends itself more to a lighter racquet and faster racquet head speed to impart more depth and spin on the ball. On the other hand, on the indoor courts, a much higher swing weight and twist weigh have significant advantages to overcome the lower, skidding bounces and when returning big serves that are sliding through with a bounce at waist high or lower.

For me personally as I have improved and when playing at a higher level, my RF97A was the most effective on Day 1 of playing but that faded Day 2 and Day 3 and so on if I played multiple times a week. I went lighter (300g, 318 swing weight) and found the same thing. Very effective on Day 1, less effective on subsequent days. Different reasons for both. For the RF97, I would be fatigued and my footwork would suffer-- that racquet is too demanding for poor footwork. For the 300g racquet with low swing weight, I had to keep up too much racquet head speed. As I fatigued throughout the week, I wasn't able to keep my timing, racquet head speed, and plow where it needed to be. So, something in the middle is where I play my best. 305-315g (varies based on swing weight and twist weight and balance), 320-330 swing weight, and a twist weight of 14-15. Trying now to find out what specific mix of those specs yields the best results and most importantly leads to fewer niggling injuries. That said, I been experimenting with poly tensions of 40lbs and less and find that those tensions can compensate somewhat for having a lower swing weight. Right now, the best mix of specs seems to be a Blade 98 v8 18x20 that is nearly on spec. 332g with 326 swing strung with overgrip and dampener. That spec seems to have me hitting on time and in the sweetspot more often than not.

 

[aaron_h27]

True. Alot of the popular frames in college are on the edge of 320 or slightly below it. Pure aero, pure drive, speed mp, ezones, vcores.

I work in media and visit a lot of tournaments/college matches and there are a lot of division I players/futures with lead tape on rackets. It's very common now. Maybe 5-6 years ago it wasn't, but a lot of people are customizing rackets even a lot of the girls have lead tape also.

So while there are probably a few playing with a light spec I don't think too many players are playing with SW's below 320...I mean most stock rackets come with a SW above 320 and when you add a thick 1.30 gauge poly they are definitely using rackets with SW >= 320.

 

[aaron_h27]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't a smaller head size allow for more stability given a certain weight? I think that's the key ingredient to some racquets like the Vcore 95 for example.

No smaller headsizes require more weight to equal the stability of a larger head size.

Lighter rackets play better with larger head sizes, open string patterns. It's common for WTA players to use this spec.

 

[K1Y]

Yeah Roman is really dialed into the lighter racquet for rec players, which is probably a fair take. That said, I have the Whiteout XTD he helped design and I had to tweak it a little because for me I was swinging way too fast with that thing in stock form for my own good. If I was 20 and had endless energy it wouldn't matter but adding some weight helps me chill out on the swing. Heavier can help with cleaner and consistent hitting for some. It can also destroy others. Its really down to what is enjoyable and what brings winning results. That's a quality combo that is pretty individual, and can change with injury..etc.

On a side note, Roman did an amazing job with that WO frame. It's damn good.

Where can I read/hear more about Roman his take on lighter rackets? The podcast is with Nik right?

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

I work in media and visit a lot of tournaments/college matches and there are a lot of division I players/futures with lead tape on rackets. It's very common now. Maybe 5-6 years ago it wasn't, but a lot of people are customizing rackets even a lot of the girls have lead tape also.

So while there are probably a few playing with a light spec I don't think too many players are playing with SW's below 320...I mean most stock rackets come with a SW above 320 and when you add a thick 1.30 gauge poly they are definitely using rackets with SW >= 320.

Most of the SMU and TCU team members don't cusomize at all and the same goes for high level 10 utr plus juniors. Probably 95% don't from my sample sizes, most don't even know what their SW is.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Where can I read/hear more about Roman his take on lighter rackets? The podcast is with Nik right?

Yes, last hour, it's kind of funny too considering most of the customization chatter on the forums. The podcast audio is 2.5 hours, the youtube video is shorter, go for the audio.

 

[Stradivarius]

Ultra is clearly the stiffest Wilson racquet, many people spin and just block with it because it feels too stiff in clean flat power hitting, and it's difficult to control trajectory with

PS97L definitely absorbs more impact shock, and is made for clean flat hitting. Ons Jabeur plays with it. It's also a frame where you can easily add 10-15g to the handle, under the grip on top of the handle for example, and put a softer string without losing control. Element should go nicely into it

Both need a bit of lead at 12 though to feel best

Thanks Mishko, good to know. I haven't decided yet on my next frame, Ultra was one of the options since it is a bit heavier and bigger frame and following soe recommendations. I've been using Tour bite @ 48 lbs on the PS97L but still is a bit unforgiving and hard on the arm, still find needs some more power. Tried the Babolat Pure Drive for a while and liked it... but changes are always nice in the short term. Thanks again.

 

[Mischko]

Shift 99 should be your first demo. If you don't like it immediately, play with it some more. Also with some lead at 12, 2-3g

 

[robyrolfo]

I think you are correct, it is funny though to place a VC95 on top of an Ezome and see the head size difference is incredibly small. Almost hard to see.

Yes, I noticed that as well. The difference really is minimal when you compare fairly similar racquet head sizes one on top of the other. Was the same with my Vcor Pros and the Vcore 95

I'm not sure the Vcore 95 is a good example here, since it's heavier than the 98 / 100 versions.
Looking at those three racquets in TW's racquet comparison tool:
Weight: 95 > 98 > 100
Swing weight: all about equal (318-322)
Twist weight: 100 > 98 = 95
The only noteworthy differences are the twist weight on the 100, and the fact that the smaller head sizes are a bit heavier in static weight.

Thanks for the info. Curious how twist weight is measured, though. Seems like the larger the racquet head, the further away from dead center you can make contact, and the more twisting force there will be.

My assumption was that the 95 feels more stable than expected because there is less usable distance from dead center, and so a shorter lever for the twisting action to work on.

No smaller headsizes require more weight to equal the stability of a larger head size.

Lighter rackets play better with larger head sizes, open string patterns. It's common for WTA players to use this spec.

See above. The longer a lever, the less force needed, so shouldn't a smaller head size being a smaller lever make it feel more stable?

 

[tele]

Yes, I noticed that as well. The difference really is minimal when you compare fairly similar racquet head sizes one on top of the other. Was the same with my Vcor Pros and the Vcore 95

Thanks for the info. Curious how twist weight is measured, though. Seems like the larger the racquet head, the further away from dead center you can make contact, and the more twisting force there will be.

My assumption was that the 95 feels more stable than expected because there is less usable distance from dead center, and so a shorter lever for the twisting action to work on.

See above. The longer a lever, the less force needed, so shouldn't a smaller head size being a smaller lever make it feel more stable?

afaik, if you hit the ball the same distance off−center toward the sides on two racquets, the racquet with the higher twistweight (usually, but not always, the one with the larger head size) will be more stable against rotation. the racquet with a larger head size has the longest potential lever (i.e. the ball could contact the racquet further out from the center on a wide head), but the ball hopefully wont be hitting the sides of the racquet very frequently.

 

[Hnefi]

Yes, I noticed that as well. The difference really is minimal when you compare fairly similar racquet head sizes one on top of the other. Was the same with my Vcor Pros and the Vcore 95

Thanks for the info. Curious how twist weight is measured, though. Seems like the larger the racquet head, the further away from dead center you can make contact, and the more twisting force there will be.

My assumption was that the 95 feels more stable than expected because there is less usable distance from dead center, and so a shorter lever for the twisting action to work on.

See above. The longer a lever, the less force needed, so shouldn't a smaller head size being a smaller lever make it feel more stable?

In order to properly compare the two from a physics perspective, you have to consider the point of impact being at the same distance away from center. We all know that a racquet with a larger head size gives you more real estate to impact the ball before it touches the frame, but those "impact zones" are not usable for racquets with a smaller head size. The length of the "lever" you are thinking of is the distance from the impact point to the central axis of rotation, and it's true that larger frames have larger "potential" lever arms - however, to have any fair chance of comparing them using physics, we have to consider the same impact distance. Said another way, any shot that hits the strings (and not the frame) of the 95" is also going to hit the strings of the 100", but the inverse is not true.

If two racquets make contact with the impact point say X cm from the central axis, the larger headsize will have a greater resistance to twisting and more stability because it almost surely will have greater moment of inertia (MOI). I say "almost surely" because the exact MOI depends on the racquet's weight distribution, which we can't know in this hypothetical scenario. But, assuming the racquets have equal weight and weight distribution for a proper comparison, increasing the distance of the frame and strings from the central axis of rotation makes it more resistant to twisting because the same ball impact force has to move a mass which is further away from the axis. That resistance increases with the square of the distance to the rotational axis, which is a formal way of explaining the feeling we tennis players get that even 1-2g of lead tape added to a frame at the tip makes a HUGE difference in feeling, where adding the same weight in the throat is a lot less perceptible.

 

[ppma]

The tool you work with shapes your muscle memory, so it is mostly determined by what you learned with.

I learned with an almost 380gr strung 95sqin aluminum dunlop, so when I stepped up to graphite I looked for something similar, yet slightly lighter (326 unstrung) also 95sqin and flexy. Got away with it, but I recall I needed to make significant adjustments until I got used to the new frames.

 

[aaron_h27]

Most of the SMU and TCU team members don't cusomize at all and the same goes for high level 10 utr plus juniors. Probably 95% don't from my sample sizes, most don't even know what their SW is.

The lies you keep telling yourself, if you don't like customizing thats fine, lol but please don't act like high level players aren't matching their frames or simply don't care about their equipment because you don't or have this weird agenda against customizing.

Most professional players or high level collegiate player absolutely get their frames matched/customized. My sample size is larger than two teams, I've been going to Division I college matches and futures tournaments for a few years now as part of my job with media.

Also you do realize adding that changing strings/leather grip/overgrip/dampener is altering the specs of a frame, just like lead tape. Adding a few grams of lead is easy for most people to do rather than straight up buy a new racket if they wanted to try a different spec

 

[aaron_h27]

There is a lot of misinformation on these forums regarding swing weight, and I see it echoed frequently. Not sure if it's because people are uneducated on twist weight or because it's hard to measure, but twist weight is the spec that greater impacts maneuverability and what I'd call "static stability" that people generally refer to.

Yes I have found twistweight to be a better spec to focus on IMO.

Certain rackets can play well with 320 SW because there is a lot of free power (large head size, open string pattern, mid-high RA) where as I have found some rackets that need 330-340 SW to hit the same type of ball because there wasn't much free power (small head size, dense pattern, low RA) so I feel like SW is racket dependent and not so much player dependent.

Regardless of the SW there's a certain twistweight range that I like. I've gone too low which hurts your backhand significantly and I've gone too high which hurts maneuverability/spin/forehand.

But I can tell whether I will like a frame or not depending on the twistweight value from TWU, it's saved me so much money because I can already have an idea in my mind of how that racket is going to play based on the twistweight number.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

The lies you keep telling yourself, if you don't like customizing thats fine, lol but please don't act like high level players aren't matching their frames or simply don't care about their equipment because you don't or have this weird agenda against customizing.

Most professional players or high level collegiate player absolutely get their frames matched/customized. My sample size is larger than two teams, I've been going to Division I college matches and futures tournaments for a few years now as part of my job with media.

Also you do realize adding that changing strings/leather grip/overgrip/dampener is altering the specs of a frame, just like lead tape. Adding a few grams of lead is easy for most people to do rather than straight up buy a new racket if they wanted to try a different spec

I don't think I'm telling myself lies, just also sharing what I see. For sure professional players customize, but the high level juniors I see and college players, not so much. Hugs to you.

Sponsored players I know get matched rackets from the reps, but sure matching is done sometimes if needed. I don't feel that us the same discussion as adding weight for stability or to change original specs, that's the gist of this thread.

 

[KYHacker]

Well, most of the high level juniors that I have been around customize their specs. Sometimes it is with lead-- other times it's with a new frame. I haven't seen many high level juniors that aren't playing with 320+ swing weight. I just hit with a nationally ranked 12yo and she is using a 305g racquet with 327 target swing weight. When I used to hit with 14's, 15's, and 16's that were headed to DI and DII, they all used a Blade 98 16x19 or 18x20 (before they reduced the swing weight in the v8 version), a Blade 104 (with copious lead), PS97, Prestige Pro (16x19), Speed MP 360+, or PA+. Recently, I see a lot of Yonex VCore's. Haven't hit with those kids to see if they are using lead, though. I have also seen quite a few competitive (not DI prospects) playing with Clash frames. Almost all of the ones that are going anywhere are near or over 330 swing weight and most of those frames are 15 or so on twist weight.

 

[K1Y]

Well, most of the high level juniors that I have been around customize their specs. Sometimes it is with lead-- other times it's with a new frame. I haven't seen many high level juniors that aren't playing with 320+ swing weight. I just hit with a nationally ranked 12yo and she is using a 305g racquet with 327 target swing weight. When I used to hit with 14's, 15's, and 16's that were headed to DI and DII, they all used a Blade 98 16x19 or 18x20 (before they reduced the swing weight in the v8 version), a Blade 104 (with copious lead), PS97, Prestige Pro (16x19), Speed MP 360+, or PA+. Recently, I see a lot of Yonex VCore's. Haven't hit with those kids to see if they are using lead, though. I have also seen quite a few competitive (not DI prospects) playing with Clash frames. Almost all of the ones that are going anywhere are near or over 330 swing weight and most of those frames are 15 or so on twist weight.

That means they all have balance above 330 mm balance right? If they raise sw but dont counterbalance.

 

[K1Y]

Yes I have found twistweight to be a better spec to focus on IMO.

Certain rackets can play well with 320 SW because there is a lot of free power (large head size, open string pattern, mid-high RA) where as I have found some rackets that need 330-340 SW to hit the same type of ball because there wasn't much free power (small head size, dense pattern, low RA) so I feel like SW is racket dependent and not so much player dependent.

Regardless of the SW there's a certain twistweight range that I like. I've gone too low which hurts your backhand significantly and I've gone too high which hurts maneuverability/spin/forehand.

But I can tell whether I will like a frame or not depending on the twistweight value from TWU, it's saved me so much money because I can already have an idea in my mind of how that racket is going to play based on the twistweight number.

Apparently Kasatkina uses 284 sw unstrung. Thats a 100 inch open 16x19 with 70 RA.

 

[GodlessEndeavor]

That means they all have balance above 330 mm balance right? If they raise sw but dont counterbalance.

They're in good company if so Off the top of my head: Nadal, Justine Henin, Carlos Moyá all used balance above 33. Nadal's is just a bit above 33, the latter two were well above that.

Edit - I think Serena and Venus Williams' racquets were quite head heavy too according to old threads.

 

[robyrolfo]

In order to properly compare the two from a physics perspective, you have to consider the point of impact being at the same distance away from center. We all know that a racquet with a larger head size gives you more real estate to impact the ball before it touches the frame, but those "impact zones" are not usable for racquets with a smaller head size. The length of the "lever" you are thinking of is the distance from the impact point to the central axis of rotation, and it's true that larger frames have larger "potential" lever arms - however, to have any fair chance of comparing them using physics, we have to consider the same impact distance. Said another way, any shot that hits the strings (and not the frame) of the 95" is also going to hit the strings of the 100", but the inverse is not true.

If two racquets make contact with the impact point say X cm from the central axis, the larger headsize will have a greater resistance to twisting and more stability because it almost surely will have greater moment of inertia (MOI). I say "almost surely" because the exact MOI depends on the racquet's weight distribution, which we can't know in this hypothetical scenario. But, assuming the racquets have equal weight and weight distribution for a proper comparison, increasing the distance of the frame and strings from the central axis of rotation makes it more resistant to twisting because the same ball impact force has to move a mass which is further away from the axis. That resistance increases with the square of the distance to the rotational axis, which is a formal way of explaining the feeling we tennis players get that even 1-2g of lead tape added to a frame at the tip makes a HUGE difference in feeling, where adding the same weight in the throat is a lot less perceptible.

Thanks for this response. A lot of interesting stuff here that I hadn't considered (and I'm certainly not a physicist), especially the part about the forced needed to twist as you move away from center.

One thing about that, though: while it is logical to think that the smaller racquet head will twist easier because the force is being applied closer to the frame (so closer to the end of the lever, if your will, on the side of the frame closest to the ball), doesn't this ignore to some extent the other end of the frame? Because when/if a ball tries to twist a racquet, it twists both sides of the frame at once, so wouldn't the smaller racquet then have a smaller twisting force on the opposite end of the frame (since there is a fulcrum in the middle, and the lever is then smaller beyond the fulcrum)? Or am I totally confused... which is a distinct possibility.

 

[TennisHound]

…

 

[shamaho]

I use the RF97 and even add lead tape. I'm a lowish 4.5 player, so good but by no means elite.

Yet, I hear everyone say the RF is incredibly heavy and can really only be used by top-of-the-line players. That makes me think I have the wrong racquet, but when I try lighter frames they feel like they get pushed around by the ball, and my shots aren't nearly as heavy.
I also think about the fact that 10 years ago, all rec players were using heavy frames. So it shouldn't be too absurd to have a heavier frame.

What am I missing about these lighter racquets?

you might be misising... age , that's all

I also had memory muscle ie. swing mechanics tuned to heavier frames, and like you lighter frames just didn't compute ....

BUT !!! ...remote working from the pandemic led to muscle loss + ageing body and with it lost the ability to quickly accelerate the racket head, or make last second flicks with the racket....

So I went from a custom PS97 (heavier than the stock 315g) to a 305g stick with same balance and same general characteristics - so I'm happy again for a few years...

Though I feel I hit a heavier ball with the PS97 but it took a lot from me to make a decent shot, so shot quality would decay through a match... The lighter stick allow to make that fall much much less steep

 

[Hnefi]

Thanks for this response. A lot of interesting stuff here that I hadn't considered (and I'm certainly not a physicist), especially the part about the forced needed to twist as you move away from center.

One thing about that, though: while it is logical to think that the smaller racquet head will twist easier because the force is being applied closer to the frame (so closer to the end of the lever, if your will, on the side of the frame closest to the ball), doesn't this ignore to some extent the other end of the frame? Because when/if a ball tries to twist a racquet, it twists both sides of the frame at once, so wouldn't the smaller racquet then have a smaller twisting force on the opposite end of the frame (since there is a fulcrum in the middle, and the lever is then smaller beyond the fulcrum)? Or am I totally confused... which is a distinct possibility.

The "lever" analogy is fair but you're just getting the conclusion backwards. All analogies are imperfect without equations and mathematics to back them up, but the main thought stands.

Think about it like this. If you are trying to lift 1000kg with your body weight and the aid of a lever, would you put the 1000kg close to the fulcrum, or far away?

The answer to that will give you the answer to your racquet question. When the ball tries to twist a frame around its central axis of rotation (what you are calling the "lever" effect), moving the other side of the frame from impact point can be thought of as moving a fixed weight further away from a fulcrum. The fixed force applied by the ball has a lot less "mechanical advantage".

 

[Yamin]

I haven't played a 93 that lacks stability. My prestige mid is more stable than the latest percept H and that has higher twist and swing weight.

 

[chrisb]

I use the RF97 and even add lead tape. I'm a lowish 4.5 player, so good but by no means elite.

Yet, I hear everyone say the RF is incredibly heavy and can really only be used by top-of-the-line players. That makes me think I have the wrong racquet, but when I try lighter frames they feel like they get pushed around by the ball, and my shots aren't nearly as heavy.
I also think about the fact that 10 years ago, all rec players were using heavy frames. So it shouldn't be too absurd to have a heavier frame.

What am I missing about these lighter racquets?

The formula used is mass x acceleration this iswill Give you force to hit through the ball it seems that players are going light to hit harder. Your thoughts?

 

[mauricem]

I've been using a pair of dunlop biomimetic 200 lites I got from a friend. Never bothered weighing them until now as they felt right but very surprised to see the one I like best is 370g and the 2nd one which has never felt as good is 362.
They were modded when I got them with some lead at 3 and 9 and some silicone in the handle but there must be something else hidden under the bumper or in the handles!

I'm an average club player for my age and as I get closer to 70 I've tried lighter bigger head frames for some more pop but always come back to the dunlop 95s mainly for their precision, control and manuverability. The wide beam racquets I used to play with like the AG 500 tour feel slow and cumbersome when I tried them recently.

I even tried a stock rf97 but it felt heavy compared to the dunlops even though it was probably 30g lighter?

 

[Tranqville]

This video is really insightful and eye-opening on the difference of performance in light vs heavy racquets. I was surprised how well light racquets pefrormed in the spin department.