PDA

View Full Version : Polarized/Non-Polarized question?


AJK1
03-07-2010, 01:37 PM
Is this term an actual term used by Pro racquet customizers or is it just something that posters on these boards came up with?

LPShanet
03-07-2010, 01:42 PM
Is this term an actual term used by Pro racquet customizers or is it just something that posters on these boards came up with?

Yes, those that are aware of the technique often use the term. If you call any of the techs at the USRSA, for instance, you'll find that most of them know it. However, if you try it on your local pro shop stringer, he may or may not know it.

RJYU
03-07-2010, 02:09 PM
Pro racquet customizers do not use the terms "polarized" or "non-polarized." Also, we never use the term "pallets" for handles that are molded. We have no idea why people have started doing that.

aimr75
03-07-2010, 02:23 PM
Also, we never use the term "pallets" for handles that are molded. We have no idea why people have started doing that.

yeah i always associated pallets with the handles that are attached in halves, like the Head handles, not molded handles

[d]ragon
03-07-2010, 02:49 PM
Pro racquet customizers do not use the terms "polarized" or "non-polarized." Also, we never use the term "pallets" for handles that are molded. We have no idea why people have started doing that.

What terms do you use for where weight is concentrated? Thanks

[d]ragon
03-07-2010, 03:20 PM
Also Ron, could you please shoot me an email: deebin at gmail
I have a question about Indian Wells. Thanks alot!

LPShanet
03-08-2010, 11:06 AM
Pro racquet customizers do not use the terms "polarized" or "non-polarized." Also, we never use the term "pallets" for handles that are molded. We have no idea why people have started doing that.

Interesting. I'd certainly defer to Ron's opinion, as he is a much great authority in this area (pro racquet customizers) than I. However, I've been involved in conversations where the Bosworths used the polarization terms. Also, the term is used extensively in "The Physics and Technology of Tennis" by Howard Brody, Rod Cross & Crawford Lindsey. All are recognized authorities on tennis physics and not TT posters. Obviously, no such term is helpful unless you have more (and quantitative) information about how the weight is distributed.

Ron, what terms do you use when referring to racquets with similar weights/swingweights, where the main difference has to do with whether the weight is concentrated at the throat, versus putting it at the tip and handle?

RJYU
03-08-2010, 03:37 PM
Interesting. I'd certainly defer to Ron's opinion, as he is a much great authority in this area (pro racquet customizers) than I. However, I've been involved in conversations where the Bosworths used the polarization terms. Also, the term is used extensively in "The Physics and Technology of Tennis" by Howard Brody, Rod Cross & Crawford Lindsey. All are recognized authorities on tennis physics and not TT posters. Obviously, no such term is helpful unless you have more (and quantitative) information about how the weight is distributed.

Ron, what terms do you use when referring to racquets with similar weights/swingweights, where the main difference has to do with whether the weight is concentrated at the throat, versus putting it at the tip and handle?

Well, not sure what terms the Bosworth's use, but Nate worked for them for many years, and now I've worked for Nate for 10 years, and I've never heard him use the term polarized or nonpolarized in all those 10 years.

Now going back to the original question, it was all about terms that pro customizers use. The guys that wrote the tennis physics book aren't pro customizers. They are certainly smarter than me, and could boggle my mind with all their physics knowledge, but as far as I know, they aren't "hands on" customizers by any means.

As far as the terminology we use in the office, its all very simple. We state exactly where the weight will be concentrated or added. For example, its quite common in the office for the following sentences to be heard:

"He wants more weight in the handle."

"We need to put a few more grams at the tip."

"Hmm... how about we move the lead to the sides?"

"Should we go to Mcdonald's, Subway, or Wendy's for lunch today?"

Mdubb23
03-08-2010, 03:49 PM
^^Burger King.

On a more serious note, Ron, thanks very much for the information. Do you guys use the term "hairpin" for an uncustomized handle?

RJYU
03-08-2010, 04:05 PM
^^Burger King.

On a more serious note, Ron, thanks very much for the information. Do you guys use the term "hairpin" for an uncustomized handle?

Yes, we use the term "hairpin" or "peg" for an unmolded or unpalleted frame.

AJK1
03-08-2010, 05:17 PM
Pro racquet customizers do not use the terms "polarized" or "non-polarized." Also, we never use the term "pallets" for handles that are molded. We have no idea why people have started doing that.

I thought so.......

aimr75
03-08-2010, 06:09 PM
Ron, just an off topic question, there are some photo's of federers racquets with different lengths of lead tape on each frame, are you simply accounting for the variances in each frame coming from the factory and just matching each?

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/3259/dsc01443ii.jpg

RJYU
03-08-2010, 06:13 PM
Ron, just an off topic question, there are some photo's of federers racquets with different lengths of lead tape on each frame, are you simply accounting for the variances in each frame coming from the factory and just matching each?

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/3259/dsc01443ii.jpg

I'm not going to go into any real details as to our methods, but to answer your question simply: Yes.

aimr75
03-08-2010, 06:20 PM
I'm not going to go into any real details as to our methods, but to answer your question simply: Yes.

no thats fine, i was just after a simple yes/no.. thanks

Rabbit
03-08-2010, 07:05 PM
So, then Ron....the rumors about Priority 1 using a flux capacitor are false then? ;)

Tour90
03-08-2010, 08:22 PM
quick question ron, are the leather grips made by priority one available to the public? the leather grip you supply seem to have very little dye in them compared to the wilson leather that bleeds into white over grips. thanks

larry10s
03-09-2010, 06:36 AM
quick question ron, are the leather grips made by priority one available to the public? the leather grip you supply seem to have very little dye in them compared to the wilson leather that bleeds into white over grips. thanks

any bleeding from a leather racquet ive experienced stops after some usage

aphex
03-09-2010, 06:46 AM
lol, even federer can't get matched racquets from wilson...

PED
03-09-2010, 06:48 AM
I thought so.......

I will add that at RPNY, a molded handle will run you roughly $125 while a pallet based replacement (say from a Head shape to a Wilson shape) will cost you on $75. There is a difference and that's likely where the term came from.

I would assume that most of Ron's customers can swing the extra $ for a molded one ;)

PED
03-09-2010, 06:50 AM
lol, even federer can't get matched racquets from wilson...

You gotta have 20 slams to qualify for that program ;)

TensProfes
03-09-2010, 01:35 PM
Well, not sure what terms the Bosworth's use, but Nate worked for them for many years, and now I've worked for Nate for 10 years, and I've never heard him use the term polarized or nonpolarized in all those 10 years.

Now going back to the original question, it was all about terms that pro customizers use. The guys that wrote the tennis physics book aren't pro customizers. They are certainly smarter than me, and could boggle my mind with all their physics knowledge, but as far as I know, they aren't "hands on" customizers by any means.

As far as the terminology we use in the office, its all very simple. We state exactly where the weight will be concentrated or added. For example, its quite common in the office for the following sentences to be heard:

"He wants more weight in the handle."

"We need to put a few more grams at the tip."

"Hmm... how about we move the lead to the sides?"

"Should we go to Mcdonald's, Subway, or Wendy's for lunch today?"

I saw an article a few years ago about racquet customization that quoted one of the Bosworths (can't remember if it was Sr. or Jr.), and they discussed "polarization". I'll see if I can dig it up.

So to the OP's question, while specific customizers may or may not use the term, it certainly is not just a TT board thing. It may well be limited to "tennis geek" and sports science use, but it's not specific to these discussion boards, as LPShanet correctly pointed out. Not sure if your original purpose was to figure out whether it was a pro-specific term, or whether you were just trying to learn whether anyone with real tennis (or sports science) cred was using the terms. Between LPShanet and Ron, I'd say you've got a pretty solid answer there either way.

Clearly, from Ron Yu's posts, not all pro customizers use the terms and they're not used in everyday work. That makes sense, as most pro customization discussions that I've been party to have been of a more mundane practical nature, and the pros themselves are often not that technical in their discussions of the terms. So while they may ask for "more weight in the head" or "heavier in the handle", they don't tend to employ the same kind of terms as physicists.

However, It would seem that there is still room among pro customizers to investigate the general concept. In other words, what are the differences and relative benefits of adding weight in one fashion versus the other? Since many pros look to their customizers for guidance in this area, a knowledge of the CONCEPTS of polarization might prove useful, regardless of which terms they used to refer to it.

LPShanet
03-09-2010, 01:46 PM
Well, not sure what terms the Bosworth's use, but Nate worked for them for many years, and now I've worked for Nate for 10 years, and I've never heard him use the term polarized or nonpolarized in all those 10 years.

Now going back to the original question, it was all about terms that pro customizers use. The guys that wrote the tennis physics book aren't pro customizers. They are certainly smarter than me, and could boggle my mind with all their physics knowledge, but as far as I know, they aren't "hands on" customizers by any means.

As far as the terminology we use in the office, its all very simple. We state exactly where the weight will be concentrated or added. For example, its quite common in the office for the following sentences to be heard:

"He wants more weight in the handle."

"We need to put a few more grams at the tip."

"Hmm... how about we move the lead to the sides?"

"Should we go to Mcdonald's, Subway, or Wendy's for lunch today?"

Thanks very much for weighing in, Ron, and providing a knowledgeable pro customizer perspective (as well as some reality check type humor!). From what I know, the whole discussion of polarization has been most active in the last 3-5 years, so it wouldn't have been on the table when Nate was working with the Bosworths. Their mentions of it that I'm aware of were more recent. And clearly the idea wouldn't come into the conversation on a daily practical basis anyway since the pros themselves don't really get into that sort of thought process. But I do think there are a number of pro customizers who are aware of the term.

Since we have the fortune of your expertise right now, I (and I'm sure other readers) would love your perspective on the concept. As TensProfes said above, even if the term isn't used by you, you probably have an opinion on the idea. So what would you say the relative differences and benefits are of concentrating weight around middle of the impact area (i.e. the throat bridge and lower hoop), versus adding more of it at the tip of the head and under the handle, assuming that the other specs matched exactly in terms of weight, balance, and swingweight, etc.? Do you usually recommend to pros that they should go one way or another for specific outcomes? (And given the choice, which way would you usually choose to distribute the weight when getting it up to spec?)

jrod
03-09-2010, 02:07 PM
^^^ Well in my line of work, the term polarized is used all the time...vertical, horizontal and cross-polarized are quite common in describing the behavior of antennas. As for its use to describe the weight distribution on a frame, I'll leave that up to the experts. As for why the term has been adopted by some to describe the weight distribution of a frame, if you study language and it's evolution this question seems somewhat silly.

jackson vile
03-09-2010, 02:22 PM
Ron, just an off topic question, there are some photo's of federers racquets with different lengths of lead tape on each frame, are you simply accounting for the variances in each frame coming from the factory and just matching each?

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/3259/dsc01443ii.jpg

The sad part here is that Wison can even give Federer's rackets quality control.

Why can' they make the rackets with less variance, Yonex can do it, Fischer can do it, Head can do it (Austria), etc.

Bartelby
03-09-2010, 02:35 PM
You know practical people have words for things that are different from their theoretical elaboration, so adding weight to the tip can be construed as polarizing the racquet. Most work on racquets, either by technicians or players, seems to be what the French call bricoloage or what we call 'trial and error'.

The reality is that the real question should be: do the terms make sense in terms of the physics of a racquet hitting a ball?

corners
03-09-2010, 08:17 PM
You know practical people have words for things that are different from their theoretical elaboration, so adding weight to the tip can be construed as polarizing the racquet. Most work on racquets, either by technicians or players, seems to be what the French call bricoloage or what we call 'trial and error'.

The reality is that the real question should be: do the terms make sense in terms of the physics of a racquet hitting a ball?

The answer is yes. A more polarized frame will, by definition, have higher recoil weight than a less-polarized frame (if these two racquets share the same static weight). Recoil weight, being one of the three measurable swingweights, contributes to racquet stability.

Of course, polarized is a relative descriptive term. There is no such thing as a polarized racquet, it's just that some racquets are more polarized than others. So when comparing racquets or setups the term is useful (for some people).

samster
03-09-2010, 08:26 PM
Well said, corners!

v205
05-02-2010, 03:55 PM
In RF's racquets pic. Is there weight at 3 and 9 also?

corners
05-02-2010, 05:04 PM
In RF's racquets pic. Is there weight at 3 and 9 also?

Nope. Only at 12

shanked_it
05-02-2010, 05:14 PM
The answer is yes. A more polarized frame will, by definition, have higher recoil weight than a less-polarized frame (if these two racquets share the same static weight). Recoil weight, being one of the three measurable swingweights, contributes to racquet stability.

Of course, polarized is a relative descriptive term. There is no such thing as a polarized racquet, it's just that some racquets are more polarized than others. So when comparing racquets or setups the term is useful (for some people).


One thing I've been wondering, because everyime I play with a racquet, I add weight to the throat, along with either 12 or 10 2 or no other lead in head. Could it be while adding weight to 12 has it's points, which are quite straightforwards, adding to say, the throat would have it's points, maybe just a bit more complicated to see? Everything does seem to have some + and - going on.

corners
05-02-2010, 11:17 PM
One thing I've been wondering, because everyime I play with a racquet, I add weight to the throat, along with either 12 or 10 2 or no other lead in head. Could it be while adding weight to 12 has it's points, which are quite straightforwards, adding to say, the throat would have it's points, maybe just a bit more complicated to see? Everything does seem to have some + and - going on.

Why do you add to the throat? And since you have experience with doing so, what do you think its 'points' are?

shanked_it
05-03-2010, 02:32 AM
Why do you add to the throat? And since you have experience with doing so, what do you think its 'points' are?

That's why I asked, because there is a difference, almost like the racquet feels shorter. I usually adjust so that I lead the head to vibe the ball out a bit, and after this it feels like the racquet head is dragging a bit (I would have to adjust my swingpaths), but adding weight to the throat seems to fix it, eventhough the balance still stays high.

I have this old fischer racquet, it's quite HH, or should I say little HL, weighs 408grams, and it has this same "short" feeling to it, or so I've noticed. Could be that I am making it up. Anyway, as long as my racquet feels comfy, I'm ok with it! :)

corners
05-03-2010, 11:59 PM
That's why I asked, because there is a difference, almost like the racquet feels shorter. I usually adjust so that I lead the head to vibe the ball out a bit, and after this it feels like the racquet head is dragging a bit (I would have to adjust my swingpaths), but adding weight to the throat seems to fix it, eventhough the balance still stays high.

I have this old fischer racquet, it's quite HH, or should I say little HL, weighs 408grams, and it has this same "short" feeling to it, or so I've noticed. Could be that I am making it up. Anyway, as long as my racquet feels comfy, I'm ok with it! :)

OK, I know exactly what you're talking about. I first noticed this when I started to fool around with wood racquets that were heavier, had higher swingweight and were less headlight than the modern racquet I play with. All of these factors are considered to slow down racquet head speed. But I found that the wood racquets were quite easy to swing and I was able to get good spin, meaning my swing was not slowed down very much, despite the extra weight and swingweight. This is probably similar to your 408g Fischer.

I've never used the word "short" to describe the feeling of swinging a woody or similarly weighted frame before, but I would agree that that is how it feels.

But, the trend in racquet design and customization is toward polarization, where weight added, either in the design or afterward with lead, is at the poles - the tip and the butt. This allows for a racquet with high swingweight and thus plowthrough, but low overall weight and with reasonably headlight balance. Many people see this as a way to have your cake (plowthrough and power) and eat it too (low overall weight & high maneuverability but good stability).

However, as you and I have found, racquets with weight in the middle (and woodies by necessity had lots of weight in the throat/bridge) may be heavier and less headlight, but they swing strangely easily, quickly and 'short'.

A couple years ago there was a guy named John Cauthen who became infamous on this forum by espousing a customization method: add lead at 12 o'clock until you find a swingweight that gives you the power and spin you want. Then, add lead at 7" from the butt (top of the handle) until the racquet swings easily. He used lead sheeting carefully shaped to put at 7", claiming that the racquet would swing almost magically "light" if it was "tuned" with this lead weight in the perfect way. A lot of people bought into his method and many others thought he was simply nuts (and there were many reasons for thinking that that had nothing to do with the method just described). In essence, John believed you could have a "heavy racquet that swings light" if you put just the right amount of weight at 7".


Recently, the poster Travlerajm revealed his theory of how the speed of the hand/handle relates to the speed of the racquet head in a groundstroke. He believes the forehand, for example, can be modeled as a double pendulum system, where the arm ending at the wrist is one pendulum and the hand+racquet is the other. Using the equation for the natural frequency of a pendulum he's come up with a simple equation that seems to predict the way in which a racquet will swing. The equation:

MgR/I

where,
M = mass in kg
g = 981
R = balance in cm
I = swingweight of racquet at the wrist axis

I'd like to refer you to one of Travlerajm's threads, and really should do to properly credit him for this info, but I don't have time. I suggest you search under "MgR/I" - you'll find his posts explaining this equation and how to find the swingweight at the wrist axis.

According to his theory, the higher the value of MgR/I the faster the racquet head moves, relative to the hand.

As you can see by looking at the formula, all else being equal, a racquet with a longer (less headlight) balance will have a higher MgR/I, and thus "come around" quicker. This feeling of coming around quickly is what I think you are describing as feeling "short".

Where Travlerajm's theory and Cauthen's madness appear to have converged is at MgR/I. It seems that Travlerajm has figured out why a racquet that is heavy can feel light, if tuned just right. Trav believes, and some anecdotal evidence from others on the board appears to support, that each person seems to have a value for MgR/I where the racquet seems to feel and swing just right, increasing accuracy and reducing effort. For him it's 21, for me it's 21.2+.

Having a formula turns the madness into science, as now, instead of insanely trying to carve a piece of lead into just the right shape, you can simply take some lead tape and add it at 7" from the butt, bit by bit, until the racquet swings most comfortably for you. Then you can measure weight and balance, determine swingweight and calculate MgR/I. People seem to find that once they know their optimum MgR/I they can set up other racquets to swing the same or very similar, even if the weight and swingweight of the other racquets are very different.

Rules:

1) Adding weight at 12 decreases MgR/I and slows down the head, but it also increases swingweight/plowthrough and power

2) Adding weight at 3&9 decreases MgR/I half as much, gram per gram, as at 12. It also increases swingweight/plowthrough/power and twistweight.

3) Adding weight in the bridge/throat increases MgR/I, speeding up the head and slowing down the handle, but also reduces recoil weight and lowers the sweetspot

4) Adding weight around 7" increases MgR/I the most, speeding up the head most efficiently.

5) Adding weight to the butt does not change MgR/I, but has other beneficial effects on racquet performance, such as increasing recoil weight, improving maneuverability and raising the sweetspot.

GPB
05-05-2010, 09:07 AM
However, as you and I have found, racquets with weight in the middle (and woodies by necessity had lots of weight in the throat/bridge) may be heavier and less headlight, but they swing strangely easily, quickly and 'short'.

A couple years ago there was a guy named John Cauthen who became infamous on this forum by espousing a customization method: add lead at 12 o'clock until you find a swingweight that gives you the power and spin you want. Then, add lead at 7" from the butt (top of the handle) until the racquet swings easily. He used lead sheeting carefully shaped to put at 7", claiming that the racquet would swing almost magically "light" if it was "tuned" with this lead weight in the perfect way. A lot of people bought into his method and many others thought he was simply nuts (and there were many reasons for thinking that that had nothing to do with the method just described). In essence, John believed you could have a "heavy racquet that swings light" if you put just the right amount of weight at 7".


Recently, the poster Travlerajm revealed his theory of how the speed of the hand/handle relates to the speed of the racquet head in a groundstroke. He believes the forehand, for example, can be modeled as a double pendulum system, where the arm ending at the wrist is one pendulum and the hand+racquet is the other. Using the equation for the natural frequency of a pendulum he's come up with a simple equation that seems to predict the way in which a racquet will swing. The equation:

MgR/I

where,
M = mass in kg
g = 981
R = balance in cm
I = swingweight of racquet at the wrist axis

I'd like to refer you to one of Travlerajm's threads, and really should do to properly credit him for this info, but I don't have time. I suggest you search under "MgR/I" - you'll find his posts explaining this equation and how to find the swingweight at the wrist axis.

According to his theory, the higher the value of MgR/I the faster the racquet head moves, relative to the hand.

As you can see by looking at the formula, all else being equal, a racquet with a longer (less headlight) balance will have a higher MgR/I, and thus "come around" quicker. This feeling of coming around quickly is what I think you are describing as feeling "short".

Where Travlerajm's theory and Cauthen's madness appear to have converged is at MgR/I. It seems that Travlerajm has figured out why a racquet that is heavy can feel light, if tuned just right. Trav believes, and some anecdotal evidence from others on the board appears to support, that each person seems to have a value for MgR/I where the racquet seems to feel and swing just right, increasing accuracy and reducing effort. For him it's 21, for me it's 21.2+.

Having a formula turns the madness into science, as now, instead of insanely trying to carve a piece of lead into just the right shape, you can simply take some lead tape and add it at 7" from the butt, bit by bit, until the racquet swings most comfortably for you. Then you can measure weight and balance, determine swingweight and calculate MgR/I. People seem to find that once they know their optimum MgR/I they can set up other racquets to swing the same or very similar, even if the weight and swingweight of the other racquets are very different.

Rules:

1) Adding weight at 12 decreases MgR/I and slows down the head, but it also increases swingweight/plowthrough and power

2) Adding weight at 3&9 decreases MgR/I half as much, gram per gram, as at 12. It also increases swingweight/plowthrough/power and twistweight.

3) Adding weight in the bridge/throat increases MgR/I, speeding up the head and slowing down the handle, but also reduces recoil weight and lowers the sweetspot

4) Adding weight around 7" increases MgR/I the most, speeding up the head most efficiently.

5) Adding weight to the butt does not change MgR/I, but has other beneficial effects on racquet performance, such as increasing recoil weight, improving maneuverability and raising the sweetspot.

Wow. Thank you so much, for this detailed recap! I was aware of Cauthen's and Travlerajm's threads, but I've never seen them so succinctly combined as you just did.

Pioneer
05-08-2010, 04:41 AM
What's with the polarized/non-polarized thing? none of the pro customizers use these terms. Plus the logic is flawed - polarized locations means less static weight more swingweight and depolarized means the weight and SW go up gradually. And at the same times Federer's racquet which has a 362g weight and 338 SW seems depolarized but actually he adds lead at 12. And Murray's racquet, which is labeled "depolarized" on this forum, has a static weight of 345g and a SW of around 380. This is clearly heavily "polarized"

Funbun
11-06-2010, 01:00 PM
What's with the polarized/non-polarized thing? none of the pro customizers use these terms. Plus the logic is flawed - polarized locations means less static weight more swingweight and depolarized means the weight and SW go up gradually. And at the same times Federer's racquet which has a 362g weight and 338 SW seems depolarized but actually he adds lead at 12. And Murray's racquet, which is labeled "depolarized" on this forum, has a static weight of 345g and a SW of around 380. This is clearly heavily "polarized"

I know I'm reviving an old thread. Sorry.

Pioneer, I think Murray's SW is now around 350 or 345ish, right? I believe he's still rather depolarized.

Pioneer
11-06-2010, 01:28 PM
Probably because adding lead at 12 gets your MgR/I too far from 21.0 (which is when on your forehand your wrist and racquet head move with the same velocity or something like that). But when you add lead at the throat which adds to the static weight of the frame but changes swingweight very little you get back to close to 21.0


That's why I asked, because there is a difference, almost like the racquet feels shorter. I usually adjust so that I lead the head to vibe the ball out a bit, and after this it feels like the racquet head is dragging a bit (I would have to adjust my swingpaths), but adding weight to the throat seems to fix it, eventhough the balance still stays high.

I have this old fischer racquet, it's quite HH, or should I say little HL, weighs 408grams, and it has this same "short" feeling to it, or so I've noticed. Could be that I am making it up. Anyway, as long as my racquet feels comfy, I'm ok with it! :)

Marcus
11-07-2010, 12:31 AM
The sad part here is that Wison can even give Federer's rackets quality control.

Why can' they make the rackets with less variance, Yonex can do it, Fischer can do it, Head can do it (Austria), etc.


I got 3 KPS 88's all purchased seperately all weigh 372g (with OG) and balance to within a couple of mm !!

I won't hear of Wilson QC issues :)

pyrokid
11-07-2010, 06:38 AM
I got 3 KPS 88's all purchased seperately all weigh 372g (with OG) and balance to within a couple of mm !!

I won't hear of Wilson QC issues :)

You got incredibly lucky.
At one point I had 6 K90s, and the variance in weight between two of them was almost 20 grams, and the variance in balance was 3 pts.

Rabbit
11-07-2010, 06:53 AM
The sad part here is that Wison can even give Federer's rackets quality control.

Why can' they make the rackets with less variance, Yonex can do it, Fischer can do it, Head can do it (Austria), etc.

No, it's probably because Wilson delivers the frames sans any weight and the weight is customed onto the hairpin.

sureshs
11-07-2010, 10:35 AM
Is this term an actual term used by Pro racquet customizers or is it just something that posters on these boards came up with?

I believe the term was invented by one poster on this board - travelerajm.

NLBwell
11-07-2010, 10:26 PM
Interesting that I should come upon this thread right after looking at the TW review for the Prince Ignite. I was thinking about how a racket with a 340 SW and 11 points head light would feel slow (even compared to other rackets around 340 SW) to the testers - it is an exceptionally head light racket. I was thinking of balance point (function of (wt x distance) vs. inertia (function of wt x distance squared). Then I came upon the post about travelerjam's theory, which squares completely with what I had been thinking about that racket.
Serendipitous, I suppose.

jackcrawford
11-08-2010, 05:12 AM
I believe the term was invented by one poster on this board - travelerajm.Yes, and the fact that the world's leading racquet customizing firm that counts Federer and Murray among its many top ATP clients (Priority 1) is unaware of the term speaks volumes about its importance, or to be more precise, its lack thereof.

Pioneer
11-08-2010, 07:57 AM
Physics professors > all.

corners
11-08-2010, 12:32 PM
I believe the term was invented by one poster on this board - travelerajm.

He may have been the first to use the term on these boards, but the concept of racquet polarization (as the ratio of recoil weight to static weight) was written about in "The Physics and Technology of Tennis" by Rod Cross, Howard Brody and Crawford Lindsey prior to that. There's also an interesting article on the USRSA site about Prince's Triple Threat concept from a while back - essentially polarization top to bottom and side to side.

jackson vile
11-08-2010, 01:58 PM
No, it's probably because Wilson delivers the frames sans any weight and the weight is customed onto the hairpin.

Did you even look at the pictures? Wilson QC is one of the worst out of all racket companies.

Don't Let It Bounce
11-08-2010, 06:00 PM
"Polarization" is a general term, found in any dictionary, for the degree to which something (like mass) is distributed away from the middle and toward the ends. It can apply to concepts (i.e., the polarization of opinions) as well as physical objects. It was not invented by a TT poster as a way to disguise theoretical flaws with terminology.

That professional customizers don't use the term on the job is a commentary on what their daily work entails, not on whether the term describes a meaningful characteristic of tennis racquets. They might also say "lead tape" instead of "mass", but that doesn't make the term "mass" irrelevant to the physics of racquet-ball interaction.

By analogy, it is also likely that automobile designers, and those amateurs who enjoy talking about automobile design, use terms that NASCAR pit crews have no need to use.

AlpineCadet
11-08-2010, 06:12 PM
I recently got rid of my "polarized" setup on my YT Prestige Pros. I had 5g at 12'oclock and 5g at the buttcap. The frame feels heavier without that setup, but my serves have increased in consistency (because of the huge drop in static weight.) IMO, the quick snap from the polarized setup should help those with timing issues. Other than that, it's just tinkering with the equipment. Nothing will change how bad my footwork/strokes can be. My SW limit is def. below 340.

Rabbit
11-09-2010, 06:34 AM
Did you even look at the pictures? Wilson QC is one of the worst out of all racket companies.

Yep, I did look at them. I also know that a hairpin might not have any weight added at all. Adding weight is what gets a frame within tolerance. If Federer's racquets are delivered without any weight added, they could be all over the place. Adding weight at the factory, you see, is what brings a racquet into tolerance. Ergo, this would have zero to do with Wilson's QC.

sureshs
11-09-2010, 09:07 AM
"Polarization" is a general term, found in any dictionary, for the degree to which something (like mass) is distributed away from the middle and toward the ends. It can apply to concepts (i.e., the polarization of opinions) as well as physical objects. It was not invented by a TT poster as a way to disguise theoretical flaws with terminology.

That professional customizers don't use the term on the job is a commentary on what their daily work entails, not on whether the term describes a meaningful characteristic of tennis racquets. They might also say "lead tape" instead of "mass", but that doesn't make the term "mass" irrelevant to the physics of racquet-ball interaction.

By analogy, it is also likely that automobile designers, and those amateurs who enjoy talking about automobile design, use terms that NASCAR pit crews have no need to use.

Of course, polarization is used a lot, like water is a polar molecule (oxygen side is negatively charged, the hydrogens side is positively charged) and in describing electrical properties of dielectrics. Question is the use of the term in tennis racquets.

powerslave
11-09-2010, 12:30 PM
Hey just curious isn't 'weight distribution or even gradient' a more apt term to describe the way weight is distributed along the frame ? Polarization to me sounds misleading as it is usually associated with directional/vector quantities .

Povl Carstensen
11-09-2010, 12:42 PM
Hey just curious isn't 'weight distribution or even gradient' a more apt term to describe the way weight is distributed along the frame ? Polarization to me sounds misleading as it is usually associated with directional/vector quantities .

Well here we are talking about polarized weight distribution which I guess is quite describing.

powerslave
11-09-2010, 12:55 PM
^ That is what I have been questioning ? Weight distribution can be even ,uneven or even vary as a gradient across or along the frame , but polarized ?

The word polarization at layman's level refers to phenomenon where there is some change in orientation of entity (wave/particle) just like the domains inside a piece of iron get polarized when one brings a bar magnet close to it or wraps it in a coil with DC supply same is the case with elements in the Polaroid glass that absorb a component of incident radiation and let another pass, but can someone tell me where is the polarization taking place when one adds some mass to a frame ?

Don't Let It Bounce
11-09-2010, 02:24 PM
Hey just curious isn't 'weight distribution or even gradient' a more apt term to describe the way weight is distributed along the frame ? "Weight distribution" would be the best term for that, yeah. "Polarized" is to "weight distribution" as "tall" is to "height", so I suppose "polarization" might correspond to something like "tallness".

The term is descriptive of more than just the physics properties where it's used formally, though. For example, American politics is often described as becoming increasingly polarized in recent decades as politicians and their supporters have adopted increasingly less moderate views. The weight distribution of pro racquets seems to have become more polarized in the last couple of decades, too. You look at the full spectrum of whatever, and there's more whatever on the ends of it.

Maybe the confusion arises when people speak of "polarized" and "unpolarized" as if they meant something in an absolute rather than relative way. ("She's tall." "Oh yeah? How tall? Taller than what?") It adds to the confusion that we can give an absolute description of stuff like height ("She's 5'10" tall."), but with tennis racquet weight distribution all I know of is relative descriptions ("A Kneissl Tom's Reach has a more polarized weight distribution than a Volkl C10.") EDIT: Later developments in this thread (see Corners's posts) have revealed that there IS an absolute description of weight distribution: polarization index, which is just recoil weight divided by racquet weight.

powerslave
11-09-2010, 02:41 PM
^ Appreciate it, however I was being a bit picky on it as it was being used in academic sense here. So wanted to understand the context and more importantly how does one quantify it .

All in all if it is being used on the similar lines as "politics is often described as becoming increasingly polarized in recent decades" then yes I get the drift.

purple-n-gold
11-09-2010, 03:41 PM
Did you even look at the pictures? Wilson QC is one of the worst out of all racket companies.

young man take a closer look. if you line up(eye) the rackets EVENLY(please notice the lower plastic grommets) you will see that the lead strips will not have much varience. even so there maybe some reason for having varying lengths.

Don't Let It Bounce
11-10-2010, 12:23 AM
The annual ECU-NCSU football game.... now THAT's polarization.

Povl Carstensen
11-10-2010, 04:18 AM
Polarized meaning concentrated in the extremes (poles) shouldn't be so hard to understand, even though it also has a different meaning in another context.

sureshs
11-10-2010, 09:32 AM
Polarized meaning concentrated in the extremes (poles) shouldn't be so hard to understand, even though it also has a different meaning in another context.

Concentrated as in most of the weight is there.

Adding some weight to the handle and at 12 o'clock does not concentrate most of the weight there. Most of the weight is still in the other areas of the frame. That is what makes the term suspect in this context.

PED
11-10-2010, 09:44 AM
The funny thing is that the term is used often enough on these boards so most people know what it signifies.

Yes, in a polarized setup, most of the mass of the racquet is elsewhere but the majority of the additional weight added though lead is concentrated at the tip and butt hence the name. :)

sureshs
11-10-2010, 09:51 AM
the majority of the additional weight added though lead is concentrated at the tip and butt

Write this down, everyone. The correct definition of polarization.

Povl Carstensen
11-10-2010, 03:29 PM
Concentrated as in most of the weight is there.

Adding some weight to the handle and at 12 o'clock does not concentrate most of the weight there. Most of the weight is still in the other areas of the frame. That is what makes the term suspect in this context.

Concentrated as in relatively speaking more of the weight is in the extremes compared to nonpolarized. Ofcourse we are talking relatives, not absolutes here...

Povl Carstensen
11-10-2010, 03:32 PM
Write this down, everyone. The correct definition of polarization.
Dont write it down, since a racket does not have to have lead added to be polarized.

sureshs
11-10-2010, 04:45 PM
Dont write it down, since a rakcet does not have to have lead added to be polarized.

Well, show me a stock racquet which has more weight in the tip and the butt combined than in all the other areas combined.

Povl Carstensen
11-11-2010, 08:32 AM
Well, show me a stock racquet which has more weight in the tip and the butt combined than in all the other areas combined.

No I wont show you. But a racket can be polarized in design without having lead added was my point.

AlpineCadet
11-11-2010, 11:14 AM
^is this guy serious?

sureshs
11-11-2010, 01:53 PM
What do you guys think about dumbells? Do you think if you add the weights of the 2 balls/cylinders, it wil be greater than the weight of the shaft?

GPB
11-11-2010, 02:05 PM
What do you guys think about dumbells? Do you think if you add the weights of the 2 balls/cylinders, it wil be greater than the weight of the shaft?

Yes. Even with barbells, though much of the weight is distributed throughout the shaft, there is more mass distributed in the tips (where the weights are located).

I would call either of these setups polarized.

sureshs
11-11-2010, 02:07 PM
Then the dumbell/barbell is polarized in stock form.

(K)evin
11-11-2010, 02:31 PM
OK, I know exactly what you're talking about. I first noticed this when I started to fool around with wood racquets that were heavier, had higher swingweight and were less headlight than the modern racquet I play with. All of these factors are considered to slow down racquet head speed. But I found that the wood racquets were quite easy to swing and I was able to get good spin, meaning my swing was not slowed down very much, despite the extra weight and swingweight. This is probably similar to your 408g Fischer.

I've never used the word "short" to describe the feeling of swinging a woody or similarly weighted frame before, but I would agree that that is how it feels.

But, the trend in racquet design and customization is toward polarization, where weight added, either in the design or afterward with lead, is at the poles - the tip and the butt. This allows for a racquet with high swingweight and thus plowthrough, but low overall weight and with reasonably headlight balance. Many people see this as a way to have your cake (plowthrough and power) and eat it too (low overall weight & high maneuverability but good stability).

However, as you and I have found, racquets with weight in the middle (and woodies by necessity had lots of weight in the throat/bridge) may be heavier and less headlight, but they swing strangely easily, quickly and 'short'.

A couple years ago there was a guy named John Cauthen who became infamous on this forum by espousing a customization method: add lead at 12 o'clock until you find a swingweight that gives you the power and spin you want. Then, add lead at 7" from the butt (top of the handle) until the racquet swings easily. He used lead sheeting carefully shaped to put at 7", claiming that the racquet would swing almost magically "light" if it was "tuned" with this lead weight in the perfect way. A lot of people bought into his method and many others thought he was simply nuts (and there were many reasons for thinking that that had nothing to do with the method just described). In essence, John believed you could have a "heavy racquet that swings light" if you put just the right amount of weight at 7".


Recently, the poster Travlerajm revealed his theory of how the speed of the hand/handle relates to the speed of the racquet head in a groundstroke. He believes the forehand, for example, can be modeled as a double pendulum system, where the arm ending at the wrist is one pendulum and the hand+racquet is the other. Using the equation for the natural frequency of a pendulum he's come up with a simple equation that seems to predict the way in which a racquet will swing. The equation:

MgR/I

where,
M = mass in kg
g = 981
R = balance in cm
I = swingweight of racquet at the wrist axis

I'd like to refer you to one of Travlerajm's threads, and really should do to properly credit him for this info, but I don't have time. I suggest you search under "MgR/I" - you'll find his posts explaining this equation and how to find the swingweight at the wrist axis.

According to his theory, the higher the value of MgR/I the faster the racquet head moves, relative to the hand.

As you can see by looking at the formula, all else being equal, a racquet with a longer (less headlight) balance will have a higher MgR/I, and thus "come around" quicker. This feeling of coming around quickly is what I think you are describing as feeling "short".

Where Travlerajm's theory and Cauthen's madness appear to have converged is at MgR/I. It seems that Travlerajm has figured out why a racquet that is heavy can feel light, if tuned just right. Trav believes, and some anecdotal evidence from others on the board appears to support, that each person seems to have a value for MgR/I where the racquet seems to feel and swing just right, increasing accuracy and reducing effort. For him it's 21, for me it's 21.2+.

Having a formula turns the madness into science, as now, instead of insanely trying to carve a piece of lead into just the right shape, you can simply take some lead tape and add it at 7" from the butt, bit by bit, until the racquet swings most comfortably for you. Then you can measure weight and balance, determine swingweight and calculate MgR/I. People seem to find that once they know their optimum MgR/I they can set up other racquets to swing the same or very similar, even if the weight and swingweight of the other racquets are very different.

Rules:

1) Adding weight at 12 decreases MgR/I and slows down the head, but it also increases swingweight/plowthrough and power

2) Adding weight at 3&9 decreases MgR/I half as much, gram per gram, as at 12. It also increases swingweight/plowthrough/power and twistweight.

3) Adding weight in the bridge/throat increases MgR/I, speeding up the head and slowing down the handle, but also reduces recoil weight and lowers the sweetspot

4) Adding weight around 7" increases MgR/I the most, speeding up the head most efficiently.

5) Adding weight to the butt does not change MgR/I, but has other beneficial effects on racquet performance, such as increasing recoil weight, improving maneuverability and raising the sweetspot.

I nominate this for the best post of all time

sureshs
11-11-2010, 02:36 PM
I have comented on the pendulum thing before. Before getting all wrapped up in the math, think about this:

When a pendulum is moving upwards, is it accelerating or decelerating?

When a pro hits low to high, does the racquet accelerate or decelerate till impact?

Compare the answers, and decide about the pendulum theory.

(K)evin
11-11-2010, 02:40 PM
No I wont show you. But a racket can be polarized in design without having lead added was my point.

no I agree the Babolat Aero Storm is polarized stock, demo it for yourself you'll see what I mean

Bartelby
11-11-2010, 06:43 PM
re 5: So why does adding weight to the butt raise the sweetspot?



OK, I know exactly what you're talking about. I first noticed this when I started to fool around with wood racquets that were heavier, had higher swingweight and were less headlight than the modern racquet I play with. All of these factors are considered to slow down racquet head speed. But I found that the wood racquets were quite easy to swing and I was able to get good spin, meaning my swing was not slowed down very much, despite the extra weight and swingweight. This is probably similar to your 408g Fischer.

I've never used the word "short" to describe the feeling of swinging a woody or similarly weighted frame before, but I would agree that that is how it feels.

But, the trend in racquet design and customization is toward polarization, where weight added, either in the design or afterward with lead, is at the poles - the tip and the butt. This allows for a racquet with high swingweight and thus plowthrough, but low overall weight and with reasonably headlight balance. Many people see this as a way to have your cake (plowthrough and power) and eat it too (low overall weight & high maneuverability but good stability).

However, as you and I have found, racquets with weight in the middle (and woodies by necessity had lots of weight in the throat/bridge) may be heavier and less headlight, but they swing strangely easily, quickly and 'short'.

A couple years ago there was a guy named John Cauthen who became infamous on this forum by espousing a customization method: add lead at 12 o'clock until you find a swingweight that gives you the power and spin you want. Then, add lead at 7" from the butt (top of the handle) until the racquet swings easily. He used lead sheeting carefully shaped to put at 7", claiming that the racquet would swing almost magically "light" if it was "tuned" with this lead weight in the perfect way. A lot of people bought into his method and many others thought he was simply nuts (and there were many reasons for thinking that that had nothing to do with the method just described). In essence, John believed you could have a "heavy racquet that swings light" if you put just the right amount of weight at 7".


Recently, the poster Travlerajm revealed his theory of how the speed of the hand/handle relates to the speed of the racquet head in a groundstroke. He believes the forehand, for example, can be modeled as a double pendulum system, where the arm ending at the wrist is one pendulum and the hand+racquet is the other. Using the equation for the natural frequency of a pendulum he's come up with a simple equation that seems to predict the way in which a racquet will swing. The equation:

MgR/I

where,
M = mass in kg
g = 981
R = balance in cm
I = swingweight of racquet at the wrist axis

I'd like to refer you to one of Travlerajm's threads, and really should do to properly credit him for this info, but I don't have time. I suggest you search under "MgR/I" - you'll find his posts explaining this equation and how to find the swingweight at the wrist axis.

According to his theory, the higher the value of MgR/I the faster the racquet head moves, relative to the hand.

As you can see by looking at the formula, all else being equal, a racquet with a longer (less headlight) balance will have a higher MgR/I, and thus "come around" quicker. This feeling of coming around quickly is what I think you are describing as feeling "short".

Where Travlerajm's theory and Cauthen's madness appear to have converged is at MgR/I. It seems that Travlerajm has figured out why a racquet that is heavy can feel light, if tuned just right. Trav believes, and some anecdotal evidence from others on the board appears to support, that each person seems to have a value for MgR/I where the racquet seems to feel and swing just right, increasing accuracy and reducing effort. For him it's 21, for me it's 21.2+.

Having a formula turns the madness into science, as now, instead of insanely trying to carve a piece of lead into just the right shape, you can simply take some lead tape and add it at 7" from the butt, bit by bit, until the racquet swings most comfortably for you. Then you can measure weight and balance, determine swingweight and calculate MgR/I. People seem to find that once they know their optimum MgR/I they can set up other racquets to swing the same or very similar, even if the weight and swingweight of the other racquets are very different.

Rules:

1) Adding weight at 12 decreases MgR/I and slows down the head, but it also increases swingweight/plowthrough and power

2) Adding weight at 3&9 decreases MgR/I half as much, gram per gram, as at 12. It also increases swingweight/plowthrough/power and twistweight.

3) Adding weight in the bridge/throat increases MgR/I, speeding up the head and slowing down the handle, but also reduces recoil weight and lowers the sweetspot

4) Adding weight around 7" increases MgR/I the most, speeding up the head most efficiently.

5) Adding weight to the butt does not change MgR/I, but has other beneficial effects on racquet performance, such as increasing recoil weight, improving maneuverability and raising the sweetspot.

corners
11-12-2010, 04:12 PM
re 5: So why does adding weight to the butt raise the sweetspot?

Actually, I no longer think it does.

It does raise the COP (center of percussion), which has been identified as one of the two sweet spots. (Sweet spot as is usually used actually refers to the "sweet zone", or portion of the racquet face that generates adequate power. The "power zones" generated experimentally by TW University show this zone quite well.) The other sweet spot would be the vibration node. When the ball strikes the COP the racquet recoils straight back. When the ball strikes above the COP the tip recoils back and the handle recoils forward (out of the hand). When the ball strikes below the COP the tip recoil forward and the handle recoils back (into the palm). Impacts at and below the COP sound quite comfy; above it, not so comfy. Normally the COP is about in the center of the stringbed, but you can move it up by placing lead either in the butt or at the top of the head. (One of the benefits of polarizing the weight distribution).

But, these effects were determined by striking a freely suspended racquet with balls. Later, it was found that adding the weight of the hand to the handle lowered the COP in the throat of the racquet, making it irrelevant.

So it seems that the vibration node (the racquet does not vibrate at all when the ball strikes here) is the sweet spot.

corners
11-12-2010, 04:19 PM
A page back and some time ago the poster Bartleby re-framed the question:

The reality is that the real question should be: do the terms make sense in terms of the physics of a racquet hitting a ball?

I want to post my response to Bartleby again because longtime posters are now making semantic and spurious (and silly) arguments about this. It's really quite simple.

The answer is yes. A more polarized frame will, by definition, have higher recoil weight than a less-polarized frame (if these two racquets share the same static weight). Recoil weight, being one of the three measurable swingweights, contributes to racquet stability.

Of course, polarized is a relative descriptive term. There is no such thing as a polarized racquet, it's just that some racquets are more polarized than others. So when comparing racquets or setups the term is useful (for some people).

Rabbit
11-13-2010, 03:51 AM
I'm taken back to this quote by Ron Yu of Priority1


Well, not sure what terms the Bosworth's use, but Nate worked for them for many years, and now I've worked for Nate for 10 years, and I've never heard him use the term polarized or nonpolarized in all those 10 years.


Methinks this another example of the general boards consensus to overthink their gear.

jackcrawford
11-13-2010, 04:35 AM
Methinks this another example of the general boards consensus to overthink their gear.Exactly. The posters who come up with this stuff are not professional racquet designers, or racquet customizers. They are like the people who have "Einstein is wrong" web sites with many pseudo-impressive equations to show that Newton still explains gravity best.

ART ART
11-13-2010, 05:17 AM
Travlerajm, knows more about rackets, than 99% users in TW.

Now, or you have capacity to learn... or not.

sureshs
11-13-2010, 11:09 AM
Travlerajm, knows more about rackets, than 99% users in TW.

Now, or you have capacity to learn... or not.

Answer my post #71 please

Povl Carstensen
11-13-2010, 01:40 PM
I'm taken back to this quote by Ron Yu of Priority1
Methinks this another example of the general boards consensus to overthink their gear.

Ofcourse it makes a difference whether a racket is heavier in throat area (non polarized) or in the top and bottom of the racket (aka tip and butt, ie. polarized). But what name you give this is really a matter of preference. In the end its about weight distribution, which ofcourse is an integral part of racket design.

Ross K
11-13-2010, 11:41 PM
Okaaaaaay... do we all agree/disagree with this simple statement: weight/lead put on the hoop tip/@ 12 makes the racket come through a tad quicker?

nickarnold2000
11-14-2010, 02:20 AM
I'm taken back to this quote by Ron Yu of Priority1



Methinks this another example of the general boards consensus to overthink their gear.
I think this should be the post of the year!

Funbun
11-14-2010, 05:48 AM
Okaaaaaay... do we all agree/disagree with this simple statement: weight/lead put on the hoop tip/@ 12 makes the racket come through a tad quicker?

If you have correct technique, then yeah. If you think about it.

Povl Carstensen
11-14-2010, 05:50 AM
Okaaaaaay... do we all agree/disagree with this simple statement: weight/lead put on the hoop tip/@ 12 makes the racket come through a tad quicker?

No not really, I would guess the more weight you put on the tip the slower it gets. A lighter more headlight racket alows for faster movement. But you get more weight of shot/penetration/plowthrough with a higher sw (weight at tip).

Rabbit
11-14-2010, 07:01 AM
Ofcourse it makes a difference whether a racket is heavier in throat area (non polarized) or in the top and bottom of the racket (aka tip and butt, ie. polarized). But what name you give this is really a matter of preference. In the end its about weight distribution, which ofcourse is an integral part of racket design.

No, what matters is playing. These dicussions serve to cloud the minds of folks who already tend to put too much thought into their gear. It's like Davydenko's brother replacing paint scrapes with bits of lead tape to keep the frame's weight distribution equal and asking that it be strung .5k different in the first 3 crosses, etc etc etc.

Terms like this really make me wanna barf to be quite honest. If you add weight, the same amount of weight to a frame's throat area and then take an identical racquet, and add the same amount of weight split between the 12 o'clock and buttcap, no one would be able to tell the difference and it wouldn't affect their play negatively/positively pending set up.

What you would do in effect is create the same set up.

No not really, I would guess the more weight you put on the tip the slower it gets. A lighter more headlight racket alows for faster movement. But you get more weight of shot/penetration/plowthrough with a higher sw (weight at tip).

If you add the phrase "all things equal", sure. But a lighter racquet with weight added at the tip will still be more maneuverable than a heavy racquet that is headlight.

And use of the terms 'polarized' 'non-polarized' are still the best sign that you worry more about your gear than your game.

corners
11-14-2010, 07:11 AM
I have comented on the pendulum thing before. Before getting all wrapped up in the math, think about this:

When a pendulum is moving upwards, is it accelerating or decelerating?

When a pro hits low to high, does the racquet accelerate or decelerate till impact?

Compare the answers, and decide about the pendulum theory.

The upper pendulum accelerates and then decelerates. As it decelerates the lower pendulum accelerates - the racquet accelerates into contact. In other words, as the racquet head comes around and accelerates into contact the hand is decelerating. Same thing happens in baseball, golf, smashing window with crowbar, etc. This is well-known.

In my opinion the thing that's debatable about Trav's MgR/I thing is the influence of gravity. He's assuming that, on groundstrokes, the influence of gravity is rather large in a high-to-low-to-high stroke (high backswing - racquet drop - swing up into contact). That may or may not be true, depending on the stroke, I suppose .

corners
11-14-2010, 07:28 AM
I'm taken back to this quote by Ron Yu of Priority1



Methinks this another example of the general boards consensus to overthink their gear.

Definitely we do overthink our gear, but this is a discussion board and to discuss things clearly and simply we need precise words. "polarized" is a fairly simple and precise word to describe a racquet with a relatively high proportion of its mass located toward the tip and butt, toward the poles. Such a racquet will behave differently than a racquet with a lesser proportion of mass in the tip and the butt.

It's easy to predict how a "polarized" racquet will behave in a collision with a ball and compare that behavior to a less polarized racquet - that's simple physics. It's pretty hard to figure out how a polarized racquet will behave during the swing - that's really complicated physics that haven't been modeled and worked out completely yet. Travlerajm's MgR/I thing is an attempt to predict how different weight distributions will swing. It's worth experimenting with, in my opinion, since there is almost nothing in the literature on this topic.

Priority One doesn't use the term polarized. Big deal, apparently they don't need such a word in the work they do. Or they have other terms or phrases to describe weight distribution.

You can quantify polarization by taking the ratio of recoil weight to static weight. I'm not sure what the point would be to discard "polarized" and invent something else to describe that ratio. In fact, I don't understand this debate at all. Given the tendency toward obfuscation and pointless bickering on these boards, if we invent a new term to describe the ratio of recoil weight to static weight, it's likely that posters would key in on the new word and attempt to invalidate it, forgetting all the while that it's simply a tag for the underlying concept.

shanked_it
11-14-2010, 07:41 AM
If you add weight, the same amount of weight to a frame's throat area and then take an identical racquet, and add the same amount of weight split between the 12 o'clock and buttcap, no one would be able to tell the difference and it wouldn't affect their play negatively/positively pending set up.

What you would do in effect is create the same set up.



sorry to say but you are quite incorrect. There's quite a bit of rotation going on with a racquet in a swing, there are many axis that need to be thought of. If you add weight to the throat, it's easier for the racquet to spin around itself like a propellar. But the thing with "easy to move" is, that it gives less control. Not saying you couldn't play with both, but there's IS a big difference...

corners
11-14-2010, 08:19 AM
If you add weight, the same amount of weight to a frame's throat area and then take an identical racquet, and add the same amount of weight split between the 12 o'clock and buttcap, no one would be able to tell the difference and it wouldn't affect their play negatively/positively pending set up.

What you would do in effect is create the same set up.



Yeah, agreeing with shanked it, you are quite incorrect Rabbit.

Let's say we take your frame, 315g/33.9cm/334SW, and add 15 grams of lead to the throat (say, 11" from butt). We get:

330 grams
33.6 cm
339 swingweight

recoil weight: 155
Polarization Index (recoil weight/static weight) = 155/330 = .47

Then we'll take another of your frames and add 7.5 grams to the butt and 7.5 grams at 12 o'clock, "polarizing" it. We get:

330 grams
33.9 cm
360 swingweight

recoil weight: 172
Polarization Index: 172/330 = .52

The "polarized" frame - or the "pole-weighted" frame, if you'd rather - has the same static weight and nearly the same balance as the "throat-weighted" frame. But the swingweights are radically different: 339 vs. 360

I'm not sure, but I think even a beginner could feel the difference between the polarized frame and the other one - could feel it during the swing and could feel it on impact.

The polarized frame, with swingweight of 360, will have much higher plowthrough and "power potential", or inherent power. Having much higher recoil weight - 172 vs. 155 - it will also be more stable, especially on volleys, returns and one-handed backhands. They will also feel very different during the swing - 360 swingweight is going to swing slower and feel more cumbersome than 339, no?

These differences are obviously attributable to the different weight distributions of the two customized frames. You can use "pole-weighted" or "polarized" to describe the weight distribution of one of them, or some other term.

I'm also not buying your "this is just rubbish invented by people who post too much and play to little" argument (Sorry for the paraphrase). There are lots of people who, very prudently, demo lots of racquets before they find one that fits their game.

There are others who like the feel of a particular frame and instead experiment with different weight distributions using lead tape to find what fits their game. Slapping lead on willy-nilly is pretty fruitless and frustrating. It's better to have some idea of what different mass distributions feel and play like to guide your customization experiments. From experience, I know that I would love the way the polarized frame, above, feels like when it hits the ball (blows through the ball, rather), but I also know that the throat-weighted frame will swing more like a wooden racquet (because the low strength/weight of wood didn't allow manufacturers to take mass out of the throat), which I like. It won't crush the ball as well, but it will swing more comfortably for me.

Wood racquets: depolarized
Modern racquets: polarized
Pole-weighted racquets: polarized
throat-weighted raquets: depolarized

What's the big hairy deal?

dParis
11-14-2010, 09:20 AM
No, what matters is playing. These dicussions serve to cloud the minds of folks who already tend to put too much thought into their gear. It's like Davydenko's brother replacing paint scrapes with bits of lead tape to keep the frame's weight distribution equal and asking that it be strung .5k different in the first 3 crosses, etc etc etc.

Terms like this really make me wanna barf to be quite honest. If you add weight, the same amount of weight to a frame's throat area and then take an identical racquet, and add the same amount of weight split between the 12 o'clock and buttcap, no one would be able to tell the difference and it wouldn't affect their play negatively/positively pending set up.

What you would do in effect is create the same set up.



If you add the phrase "all things equal", sure. But a lighter racquet with weight added at the tip will still be more maneuverable than a heavy racquet that is headlight.

And use of the terms 'polarized' 'non-polarized' are still the best sign that you worry more about your gear than your game.
I don't want it to seem like piling on, Rabbit, but I have to agree with other posters that have rebuked your point in this thread. As has been stated before, polarization is just a lable to describe a physical reality in weight distribution of a racquet. I'm one who would be best served by concentrating on stroke and footwork fundamentals and not get caught up in the detail of racquet physics - and generally, that's what I do - concentrate on the basics. But I do find that racquets perform differently for me depending on weight distribution. I find the discussion on the topic interesting and what better place to discuss such things but on a free internet tennis forum?

Rabbit, the statement in your previous post that I highlighted suggests that your "gear over game" criticism ends at the string(s) you use and the tension they are strung at. Why do you think the weight distribution of your racquet doesn't make a difference in performance, but fretting over whether to use a hybrid or full bed set up with gut/syn gut/poly/multi with different tensions in the mains and X's, does? Shouldn't the set up discussion end with simply finding a decent, cheap syn-gut strung at the midpoint of the racquet's recommended tension, then just go out and play?

NBM
11-14-2010, 09:47 AM
Terms like this really make me wanna barf to be quite honest. If you add weight, the same amount of weight to a frame's throat area and then take an identical racquet, and add the same amount of weight split between the 12 o'clock and buttcap, no one would be able to tell the difference and it wouldn't affect their play negatively/positively pending set up.

What you would do in effect is create the same set up.


And use of the terms 'polarized' 'non-polarized' are still the best sign that you worry more about your gear than your game.

this is patently untrue. i am sure it could be done to make the swingweights come out the same if enough effort was put into it or perhaps it would work out by accident, but i believe that adding weight to the throat of a racquet isnt the best use of weight, and the two racquets wouldnt play anywhere close to the same even if you did force the swingweights to turn out the same. has anyone here seen any/many CURRENT pro racquets w. lead in the throat area? that would be a very easy place to add lead if there was any benefit to doing it as opposed to a polarized setup.
i also dont think polarized means the weight is in the buttcap, but rather in the handle <as in silicone for the pros>. i think weight added to the buttcap (below the hand) is rightly known as 'counterweighting'.
i find the term 'polarized' to be a useful meaningful simple descriptive term; lots more relevant than SW1 or SW2 (whatever that is)..now THAT has jammed up lots of readers on this forum, beefing up your racquet to really high swingweights which almost no one (not even some male pros can handle). it has also caused injuries to some who buy into such stuff.
lots of pros take a light racquet and add a bunch of silicone to the handle and lead to the upper hoop...there must be benefits to doing that. it is much easier to explain it by the word 'polarized'.

Povl Carstensen
11-14-2010, 10:08 AM
No, what matters is playing. These dicussions serve to cloud the minds of folks who already tend to put too much thought into their gear. It's like Davydenko's brother replacing paint scrapes with bits of lead tape to keep the frame's weight distribution equal and asking that it be strung .5k different in the first 3 crosses, etc etc etc.

Terms like this really make me wanna barf to be quite honest. If you add weight, the same amount of weight to a frame's throat area and then take an identical racquet, and add the same amount of weight split between the 12 o'clock and buttcap, no one would be able to tell the difference and it wouldn't affect their play negatively/positively pending set up.

What you would do in effect is create the same set up.


If you add the phrase "all things equal", sure. But a lighter racquet with weight added at the tip will still be more maneuverable than a heavy racquet that is headlight.

And use of the terms 'polarized' 'non-polarized' are still the best sign that you worry more about your gear than your game.

I'm not talking about Davidenkos brother here, I'm talking about weight distribution is important for how a racket feels, and swings. Which you confirm with your thoughts on adding weight at the tip of a lighter racket.
And ofcourse you can feel the difference of concentrating mass in the center of the racket or at the extremes. Both in how it swings and in the placement of the sweet spot. It is not the same set up by a long shot. Spreading the weight also gives more swingweight for the same mass.
But to me its actually really not important whether we use the term polarized or not.

Ross K
11-14-2010, 08:56 PM
Okaaaaaay... do we all agree/disagree with this simple statement: weight/lead put on the hoop tip/@ 12 makes the racket come through a tad quicker?

If you have correct technique, then yeah. If you think about it.

No not really, I would guess the more weight you put on the tip the slower it gets. A lighter more headlight racket alows for faster movement. But you get more weight of shot/penetration/plowthrough with a higher sw (weight at tip).



So people even disagree on this very basic issue?...

jackcrawford
11-15-2010, 05:14 AM
Priority One doesn't use the term polarized. Big deal, apparently they don't need such a word in the work they do.

P1 is a big deal, the polarized racquet brigade on this board are the small fry. Still waiting for the before and after video of that racquet with "super-powers", showing the loopy balls it hit stock and the 110 mph forehands after - probably not on the way any time soon...

arche3
11-15-2010, 05:36 AM
My problem with the whole polarized or non polarized term is really the initial thinking behind it. The biggest one of which is the whole sw. 1 or sw 2 terms that got included. If a racket is sw 2 it allows all kinds of crazy shots. It all sounds silly and overly complex. And does not equal real world experience. A super heavy headed racket does not swing faster. In my opinion it swings slower than a head light racket. A heavier racket hits a better ball but it does not whip around faster if it has all the weight at the hoop. A lighter headed racket does that. It all comes down to the physical limitations of the player. A heavier racket hits better. That is the general consensus of advanced tennis players. But if it is too heavy you can't swing it properly. So every individual needs to find the ideal balance of weight vs. Usability for themselves.

(K)evin
11-15-2010, 09:51 AM
so far this is what I've found to be true about racquets and lead tape:

Polarized Racquets(Lead @ 12 & inside buttcap):
-Maximum Spin Potiential
-Has the most Plowthrough and Power with only a small bit of lead added
-It has more consistency
-It's difficult to volley with
-Perfect for baseliners, clay courters and people that like to use heavy spin

Depolarized Racquets(Lead at 3 &9 plus 7" above handle):
-has best plowthrough and stability
-increases control and power
-needs alot of weight to break into SW2 category
-racquet has more forgiveness
-flattens out your stroke which gives you heavy, penetrating shots
-better volleys and returns
-better for serve and volley players and players who love a traditional racquet feel

Weight:

12.0oz to 12.6 oz:
-better consistency
-less power
-lighter to swing for long baseline rallys
-better for defensive players

12.7oz to 13.5oz:
-more control
-arm friendly
-better for all court game and players that like to get up to net
-more power
-more for offensive minded player, with emphasis into transition game

sureshs
11-15-2010, 12:30 PM
I have found my mojo

cork_screw
11-15-2010, 12:37 PM
This term was used by forum members who were trying to describe the degrees of headlight vs headheavy to balance and whenever people feel like they need to add value to what they say they try to over complicate things by throwing around vocabulary that's unecessary. I honestly think the term is vague because if you mention something is polarized, what do you mean? Is it head heavy polarized or headlight polarized? You might as well just cut to the point and specify if you're commenting about a specific weight point to the frame. On a side note, the majority of frames aren't evenly balanced, so of course something will either be head heavy or headlight. And once one person uses it and it catches on everyone starts to use it. Like high school and trends.

DavaiMarat
11-15-2010, 12:50 PM
sorry to say but you are quite incorrect. There's quite a bit of rotation going on with a racquet in a swing, there are many axis that need to be thought of. If you add weight to the throat, it's easier for the racquet to spin around itself like a propellar. But the thing with "easy to move" is, that it gives less control. Not saying you couldn't play with both, but there's IS a big difference...

I must agree with Shanked. I do a quite a bit of lead customization with my TGK's and it's pure physics. Rotational acceleration and torque are all effected by the distance of the mass from the axis of rotation. In a typical groundstroke there are several axis (wrist, shoulder, waist etc) that play a part each affected differently by where the weight if distributed in the frame.

DNShade
11-15-2010, 01:14 PM
has anyone here seen any/many CURRENT pro racquets w. lead in the throat area? that would be a very easy place to add lead if there was any benefit to doing it as opposed to a polarized setup.


http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u150/JasamLasica/Blake/Blakebscap0005.jpg

TONS of lead in the throat area. Blake's new Head sticks.

This is all quite amusing with all the talk on set up and precise lead placement etc. It's really simple guys. You pick a stick you like - maybe play around with a little lead if you feel it needs it (now you need to actually be a good player to know what that means - so you need to get to a high level of play before you need to worry about any of this). You add lead and tinker a bit till it feels right to you. Then you are done. Period.

Then spend the rest of the time hitting!

corners
11-15-2010, 02:07 PM
So people even disagree on this very basic issue?...

I suppose they do. Especially on these boards, where mountains are made of molehills and bones vulture-picked on a regular basis.

But, I know that professional customizers frequently recommend adding mass to the head/tip to slow down a swing. This is often recommended for juniors that are swinging out of control.

Adding weight anywhere in the head will raise the swingweight. Raising swingweight, according to nearly everyone who's swung a racquet and cares about such things, and the only studies that have been done on racquet specs and swingspeed, will slow down the swing.

However, there's also the line of thought that players with grooved strokes will swing any racquet at pretty much the same speed. From there you could conclude that a heavier stick is better, as you'll swing it the same speed anyway, so why not swing a heavier and more stable stick.

I've also seen comments about lead at the tip helping the frame "come around" quicker, like it's picked up momentum earlier in the swing and is now carrying that momentum into contact. There might be something to that. A physicist could probably tell you, but then he'd likely be hectored off the boards by people lacking curiosity.

The thing is, most of what we know about the interaction of racquets and players is anecdotal, speculative or theoretical. There isn't much experimental science behind it, so all statements should ideally be made in non-dogmatical terms. But most of us aren't in the habit of qualifying our speech or writing. In my opinion, that's why we end up with train-wreck threads, like this one.

Funbun
11-15-2010, 02:09 PM
so far this is what I've found to be true about racquets and lead tape:

Polarized Racquets(Lead @ 12 & inside buttcap):
-Maximum Spin Potiential
-Has the most Plowthrough and Power with only a small bit of lead added
-It has more consistency
-It's difficult to volley with
-Perfect for baseliners, clay courters and people that like to use heavy spin

Depolarized Racquets(Lead at 3 &9 plus 7" above handle):
-has best plowthrough and stability
-increases control and power
-needs alot of weight to break into SW2 category
-racquet has more forgiveness
-flattens out your stroke which gives you heavy, penetrating shots
-better volleys and returns
-better for serve and volley players and players who love a traditional racquet feel

Weight:

12.0oz to 12.6 oz:
-better consistency
-less power
-lighter to swing for long baseline rallys
-better for defensive players

12.7oz to 13.5oz:
-more control
-arm friendly
-better for all court game and players that like to get up to net
-more power
-more for offensive minded player, with emphasis into transition game

I don't find this necessarily true. Some players actually prefer a depolarized setup when counterpunching. Take Lleyton Hewitt, for example. Or Murray. Murray is questionable, though, but he's in-between, I suppose.

Also, Federer uses a more polarized setup. Yet, he plays really aggressively at times.

(K)evin
11-15-2010, 05:32 PM
I don't find this necessarily true. Some players actually prefer a depolarized setup when counterpunching. Take Lleyton Hewitt, for example. Or Murray. Murray is questionable, though, but he's in-between, I suppose.

Also, Federer uses a more polarized setup. Yet, he plays really aggressively at times.

I understand that but look Federer has a polarized setup right? so he gets all of the heavy spin and consistency but it is a diffcult to volley with a polarized setup but he uses a heavy frame at 364 grams (taken from Fedfab) which puts him in the range of 12.7oz-13.5oz.

read my post more carefully because Idk why you are talking about counterpunching

Funbun
11-15-2010, 05:36 PM
I understand that but look Federer has a polarized setup right? so he gets all of the heavy spin and consistency but it is a diffcult to volley with a polarized setup but he uses a heavy frame at 364 grams (taken from Fedfab) which puts him in the range of 12.7oz-13.5oz.

read my post more carefully because Idk why you are talking about counterpunching

Nvm. I mistakenly thought you associated weight with polarity.

Povl Carstensen
11-16-2010, 12:59 AM
Another way to look at it: With a lower swingweight you have to swing fatser to get the same ball speed (speed x mass).
I think Murray is a good example. Used to play with a higher swingweight, had a slowish swing (as I saw it) but still good power. Now a bit lower swingweight, and a bit more brisk way of swinging.

Rabbit
11-16-2010, 03:42 AM
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u150/JasamLasica/Blake/Blakebscap0005.jpg

TONS of lead in the throat area. Blake's new Head sticks.

This is all quite amusing with all the talk on set up and precise lead placement etc. It's really simple guys. You pick a stick you like - maybe play around with a little lead if you feel it needs it (now you need to actually be a good player to know what that means - so you need to get to a high level of play before you need to worry about any of this). You add lead and tinker a bit till it feels right to you. Then you are done. Period.

Then spend the rest of the time hitting!

Thank you, splendidly put.

Pioneer
11-16-2010, 07:30 AM
Murray is off-the-hook in terms of polarization. I don't care how many people put him a "depolarized". A "depolarized" racquet won't have a swingweight of 400+ with a weight of 345


I don't find this necessarily true. Some players actually prefer a depolarized setup when counterpunching. Take Lleyton Hewitt, for example. Or Murray. Murray is questionable, though, but he's in-between, I suppose.

Also, Federer uses a more polarized setup. Yet, he plays really aggressively at times.

PED
11-16-2010, 07:35 AM
Murray is off-the-hook in terms of polarization. I don't care how many people put him a "depolarized". A "depolarized" racquet won't have a swingweight of 400+ with a weight of 345

I believe the 400+ SW was from before 2007 when he had his wrist injury at Hamburg. Supposedly, he's gone down on his SW since then. The latest figure I saw on here re balance was 33.2cm.

Pioneer
11-16-2010, 07:40 AM
Still, it's a very light racquet with a very high swingweight. Plus, they stash lead at 12, 3/9 and silicone in the handle which is more towards the tips of the racquet than the throat

I believe the 400+ SW was from before 2007 when he had his wrist injury at Hamburg. Supposedly, he's gone down on his SW since then. The latest figure I saw on here re balance was 33.2cm.

PED
11-16-2010, 07:43 AM
Still, it's a very light racquet with a very high swingweight. Plus, they stash lead at 12, 3/9 and silicone in the handle which is more towards the tips of the racquet than the throat

I totally agree, I really don't like weight at the throat, it deadens the feel for me whenever I've tried it. I like mine at tip and tail ;)

Povl Carstensen
11-17-2010, 07:34 AM
What happened to the later pages of this thread?

Povl Carstensen
11-17-2010, 07:35 AM
I totally agree, I really don't like weight at the throat, it deadens the feel for me whenever I've tried it. I like mine at tip and tail ;)

Yes, but dont tell this to Rabbit, he might have a fit.

Rabbit
11-17-2010, 07:49 AM
Yes, but dont tell this to Rabbit, he might have a fit.

No fit here at all. I think it's hilarious. On the one hand, you have the folks who do this for a living trying to tell the collective members of the boards that the terms are bogus (read Ron Yu from P1) and on the other you have the same group completely ignoring him.

The humor comes in because you guys are trying to elevate something Priority 1 calls 'adding some more here and there' to an Engineering Degree.

Hey.....polarize away....

NBM
11-17-2010, 09:00 AM
I suppose they do. Especially on these boards, where mountains are made of molehills and bones vulture-picked on a regular basis.

But, I know that professional customizers frequently recommend adding mass to the head/tip to slow down a swing. This is often recommended for juniors that are swinging out of control.

Adding weight anywhere in the head will raise the swingweight. Raising swingweight, according to nearly everyone who's swung a racquet and cares about such things, and the only studies that have been done on racquet specs and swingspeed, will slow down the swing.

However, there's also the line of thought that players with grooved strokes will swing any racquet at pretty much the same speed. From there you could conclude that a heavier stick is better, as you'll swing it the same speed anyway, so why not swing a heavier and more stable stick.

I've also seen comments about lead at the tip helping the frame "come around" quicker, like it's picked up momentum earlier in the swing and is now carrying that momentum into contact. There might be something to that. A physicist could probably tell you, but then he'd likely be hectored off the boards by people lacking curiosity.

The thing is, most of what we know about the interaction of racquets and players is anecdotal, speculative or theoretical. There isn't much experimental science behind it, so all statements should ideally be made in non-dogmatical terms. But most of us aren't in the habit of qualifying our speech or writing. In my opinion, that's why we end up with train-wreck threads, like this one.

I think this is a really good and accurate post on all counts.

You are right about folks w. at least semi grooved strokes tending to swing the racquet at the same speed no matter what the swingweight. I;ve encountered this typically when teaching someone using a higher swingweight racquet. They tend to swing the lighter racquet at the same speed as their heavier racquet and then complain that the racquet lacks plow, is unstable, feels flimsy, no power, and etc. These people tend to want to learn to hit w. more top. I try and get them to use their technique to SWING FASTER, thus creating more batspeed for spin and control and juice.

Conversely, when someone uses a lighter racquet and experiments w. a heavier one, they try and swing that one at the same speed as well. They can reap benefits by doing this...a more penetrating ball, more power, a heavier ball, etc. the problem is, that consumes more energy if they are using good lower body and core technique...if they have good technique, their arms dont get tired...they lose their legs and wind.

There also is merit to what you said about weight in the tip tending to help the racquet head pull through once you get it moving. this tends to work from the backcourt, but not so well at net, so perhaps that is a big reason why the pros arent using very headlight racquets these days..they dont volley much.

Also I think the racquet then typically gets weight added in the handle so that the racquet isnt so much hammer weighted, and that tends to help them quite often w. their serves and return of serve....

So polarizing a racquet seems to help the serve, the return of serve, and groundstrokes provided the right swingweight for the player is acheived....there really isnt much of a transition game or net game these days to be concerned with setting up a racquet to help that way <more headlight>

Adding weight to the throat doesnt result in anything close to the above IMO, and is a very inefficient use of additional weight <in general>

PED
11-17-2010, 09:10 AM
I've also seen comments about lead at the tip helping the frame "come around" quicker, like it's picked up momentum earlier in the swing and is now carrying that momentum into contact. There might be something to that.

I've generally found this to be true for me. I tend to like my lead at the tip as opposed to at 3 and 9. Lead at the tip does seem to come around quicker for me.

I would also imagine that swing style as a lot to do with it as well. I use a western FH and take a big cut at the ball so it seems to help me.

It's all down to personal preference.

Funbun
11-17-2010, 11:44 AM
Still, it's a very light racquet with a very high swingweight. Plus, they stash lead at 12, 3/9 and silicone in the handle which is more towards the tips of the racquet than the throat

I've read his swingweight is around 345-350ish nowadays. It's on the forums somewhere... but he's definitely gone a bit more depolarized. He's even stated in an interview recently that he wants the weight more towards the center.

jackcrawford
11-17-2010, 08:20 PM
No fit here at all. I think it's hilarious. On the one hand, you have the folks who do this for a living trying to tell the collective members of the boards that the terms are bogus (read Ron Yu from P1) and on the other you have the same group completely ignoring him.

Well put, what is also hilarious is that the story has changed without the tellers skipping a beat - the posers started out claiming they had inside knowledge from the top racquet customizers, then when that was shown to be a lie, they say that P1 just doesn't know what it is that they're really doing:shock:

welcome2petrkordaland
11-18-2010, 12:47 AM
I've generally found this to be true for me. I tend to like my lead at the tip as opposed to at 3 and 9. Lead at the tip does seem to come around quicker for me.

I would also imagine that swing style as a lot to do with it as well. I use a western FH and take a big cut at the ball so it seems to help me.

It's all down to personal preference.

that's also how I feel. if you naturally (on topspin shots) have lots of racket head speed, have a western and use heavy top, I strongly urge you to try some lead tape at the tip-could be at 12:00, or a 5 or 6 inch strip along the tip including like 10:00 to 2:00. Because your racket head speed is already fast, a little lead will go a long way and make your ball dip into the court, despite taking huge cuts.

I only use a 3-gram strip from 11:00 to 1:00 and 1/2 a gram at 9:00 and 3:00 (on a Babolat APDC with a thin copoly-Kirshbaum Pro Line II 1.15mm at 55 lbs), and my ball dips and dives into the court, like one of those Pteradactl birds on Avatar. My fh swing, though, is not too unlike Bersetegui's . . . so my grip is rather extreme.

Rabbit
11-18-2010, 05:04 AM
Well put, what is also hilarious is that the story has changed without the tellers skipping a beat - the posers started out claiming they had inside knowledge from the top racquet customizers, then when that was shown to be a lie, they say that P1 just doesn't know what it is that they're really doing:shock:


And let's not forget that when you use the tool here at TW to add weight to a racquet, there are two options given:

The first is weight in one spot, typically the throat area

The second is splitting the weight between the handle and hoop.

Both of these options will yield the desired results.

The only time there are not two options is when too much weight is required and it must be split or.....shifting the balance point to HH or HL is required.

PED
11-18-2010, 05:08 AM
^^I'm not trying to be argumentative but a stick that's modded with lead at the tip and tail will play differently than one that's modded with lead in the throat: at least in my experience.

Oh, the balance figures may come out to be the same but it will play differently.

I can make my apd's balance the same with either lead at 3/9 or lead at the tip, but I've found that the 3/9 lead swings more sluggishly for my style.

Just my observations. Not sure about the physics involved, I'm more concerned with the end result on the court :)

Rabbit
11-18-2010, 05:28 AM
^^^
No problem here....I would imagine a lot of it is perception as well.

86golf
11-18-2010, 09:05 AM
I was thinking that a polarized frame had less glare when it was in direct sun. A non-polarized frame can sometimes blind your opponent.

sureshs
11-19-2010, 08:27 AM
I was thinking that a polarized frame had less glare when it was in direct sun. A non-polarized frame can sometimes blind your opponent.

Yeah even my regular glasses are polarized.

Povl Carstensen
11-19-2010, 08:46 AM
No fit here at all. I think it's hilarious. On the one hand, you have the folks who do this for a living trying to tell the collective members of the boards that the terms are bogus (read Ron Yu from P1) and on the other you have the same group completely ignoring him.

The humor comes in because you guys are trying to elevate something Priority 1 calls 'adding some more here and there' to an Engineering Degree.

Hey.....polarize away....

That P1 doesnt use the term, does not mean that they share your limited conception of distribution of weight in a racket.
By the way, I am not using the term either.

Povl Carstensen
11-19-2010, 08:51 AM
[QUOTE=PED;5193662]^^I'm not trying to be argumentative but a stick that's modded with lead at the tip and tail will play differently than one that's modded with lead in the throat: at least in my experience.

Oh, the balance figures may come out to be the same but it will play differently. QUOTE]

Certainly.