# Optimum Racquet Balance for Performance II - MgR/I Data for ATP Pros

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by travlerajm, Jul 5, 2011.

1. ### cornersLegend

Joined:
Jul 31, 2008
Messages:
5,447
To raise MgR/I closer to 21 you either need to add mass around the top of the grip or remove mass from close to the tip. In your case, I would try adding 12 grams at the top of the handle. This should get you pretty close. For a quick try that is easily reversible, you can simply tape two quarters (about 6 grams each) at the top of the handle. Tape them tightly, one on each side. If you like it, you can just unwrap your grip an inch or two and wrap some lead tape around to replace the quarters.

2. ### Maroon_TenniskidSemi-Pro

Joined:
Jan 8, 2011
Messages:
628
Yeah I tried that and swung the racket around in the air a little bit and it felt pretty good! I didn't get a chance to hit, but i may tomorrow. Would you mind explaining how you did the math?

3. ### Maroon_TenniskidSemi-Pro

Joined:
Jan 8, 2011
Messages:
628

Mass: 341.9g

Balance 12.5in

SW: 333

MR^2: 344.6565688

Moment of Inertia: 515.9165

MgR/I: 20.63055972

How did that not change MgR/I very much? It feels like it changed quite a bit, but the numbers aren't changing much

4. ### Maroon_TenniskidSemi-Pro

Joined:
Jan 8, 2011
Messages:
628
Nevermind, I found out that I did swingweight wrong on the TW swingweight calculator. SW was actually 321, and I found that made MgR/I into 21.12. I will go on court sometime this week and see how it plays.

5. ### TennisFan2New User

Joined:
Jun 3, 2013
Messages:
23
Location:
Atlanta
So I have a question regarding the lead placement in the head and the handle.

I read in one of your posts from a couple years ago about depolarization and polarization that you need to either add lead at 6/9 or 12 depending on which route you wish to take;however, adding at both places does not work out?

Is this still true? Or did I make this up in my head? Because I have found with my racquet: SW: 318, Balance: 32cm, Weight: 335g. To move to the MgR/I value of 20.6 (from 21.1) I not only need to add lead at 7in (from the butt) but also at 6/9 and 12 to make the balance I am looking for work out and still maintain a MgR/I Value.

Because the problem that I am having, I can get the MR^2 value in the perfect range by adding lead at 6/9 and counter balancing at 7". But then then MgR/I value is closer to 21. So I have to bring the SW of the racquet up into the ~360s to the MgR/I value to where I want it.

Currently I have lead at 21" (10g), 27" (8g) and 7" (8) and that gives me:
Mass: 361g
Balance: 33cm
SW: 364
MgR/I: 20.61
MR^2: 394

There are other lead placements where I can achieve the same balance and the same weight; however, I do not want to place the lead in the butt of the racquet as I've read its better to balance at 7" in this forum.

Any suggestions would be awesome!

6. ### travlerajmHall of Fame

Joined:
Mar 14, 2006
Messages:
4,703
Location:
Seattle
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to achieve. But if you take your current specs and continue to add lead at the top of the handle, eventually you will reach specs that feel really nice.

My suggestion is to start by adding another 22.5g centered about 5.3" from the butt, then carefully go through the steps on post #2 of this thread.

7. ### TennisFan2New User

Joined:
Jun 3, 2013
Messages:
23
Location:
Atlanta
Sorry for the seemingly randomness to my original post, like I said I'm new to the customization game. So this is my first real attempt. I first came upon your thread from like 5 years back about polarization and depolarization. So i was concerned about adding weight at both 12 and 3/9.

I was trying to make the racquet more stable by adding some mass in the hoop and then counter balance like you had suggested higher in the handle. While at the same time trying to stay around the MgR/I and MR^2 values that you say are optimal through the formulas.

So I would add an additional 22.5g around 5.3" to make it more depolarized?

Joined:
Jul 16, 2013
Messages:
1,145
Location:
Tennessee
Great info
Thanks

9. ### JanowiczJProfessional

Joined:
Oct 3, 2013
Messages:
960
Hi guys! Back in the day I was reading this thread and I remember someone posted an online excel sheet to help using traveljr formulas...

At the time I decided to not try to change anything but recently I suffered a leg injury that kept me out of the courts and I decided to change some things of my strokes, try new racquets, etc.

So, I used the search function but I can't find who posted it and on which thread it was posted, searched for "excel, excel sheet, spread sheet" but couldn't find anything...

Can someone help me? Thanks in advance.

Last edited: Aug 22, 2014

Joined:
Jun 13, 2009
Messages:
1,260
11. ### IrvinG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Mar 15, 2007
Messages:
14,934
Location:
Marietta, Ga
Was there ever a table listed showing optimum MgR/I values for men and women depending on height?

Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
Messages:
658
Location:
Rotherham, United Kingdom
No there isn't. I've wanted to setup a spreadsheet for a while now that calculates peoples personal MgR/I, based on arm height and other factors. It's not simple though. You would need to compare at least two players with perfectly tuned MgR/I, and know how much various factors like swingweight, forehand grip influence MgR/I.

Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
Messages:
658
Location:
Rotherham, United Kingdom
I forgot to add, if you are interested in a spreadsheet that shows an individuals Mg/RI for their height, you should try tuning your MgR/I against a wall. To do so, follow the instructions in the OP. An alternative method can be found here - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7338377&postcount=332

All we need is one person who can successfully precisely tune their MgR/I. Then this can be compared against travlerajm and we can roughly establish how height affects MgR/I.

14. ### Circa 1762Rookie

Joined:
Apr 28, 2012
Messages:
103
I gave up on MgR/I weighting in favor of more modern weighting (low static weight, high SW), but only because using my optimum MgR/I produced a racket that was too heavy for long match play. For the sake of science...

Height: 5'8"
Forehand MgR/I at 350g static weight: 21.10
Backhand MgR/I at 350g static weight: 22.84

Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
Messages:
658
Location:
Rotherham, United Kingdom
Did you wall tune to get that number? I'm still looking for someone who could precisely tune their MgR/I. Then perhaps they could volunteer to do the experiments I tried and failed.

16. ### Circa 1762Rookie

Joined:
Apr 28, 2012
Messages:
103
I didn't wall tune, but I tuned fairly scientifically (matched stock A and B rackets with same strings, etc.) through rallying and match play over the course of a year and a half.

Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
Messages:
658
Location:
Rotherham, United Kingdom
Cheers. I need to find out how much swingweight affects MgR/I. So compare two matched stock rackets, with the same MgR/I, but 10pts different swingweight. Then try adding another 10pts and see if the MgR/I changes by a similar amount to the difference in MgR/I between the two rackets. Then I could establish how swingweight impacts MgR/I.

That's the sort of thing I wanted to do. I'd even calculated precisely where to add lead tape to increase the swingweight by exactly 10pts, without changing the MgR/I.

Last edited: Feb 9, 2016
18. ### Don't Let It BounceHall of Fame

Joined:
Sep 15, 2009
Messages:
1,684
Isn't the "I" in "MgR/I" derived directly from swing weight?

19. ### Mig1NCProfessional

Joined:
Jun 13, 2009
Messages:
1,260
**** deleted

I checked my spreadsheet and see what Joonas said below.

Last edited: Sep 16, 2014
20. ### JoonasSemi-Pro

Joined:
Apr 12, 2013
Messages:
617
Location:
Costa del Sol, Spain
I=SW+20*M*R-100*SW

Note:
R in cm (balance)
M in kgs

21. ### Don't Let It BounceHall of Fame

Joined:
Sep 15, 2009
Messages:
1,684
That's the formula I have on my spreadsheet, too, and it seems like a clear answer to the question of how swing weight affects MgR/I.

Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
Messages:
658
Location:
Rotherham, United Kingdom
Here is a quote from travlerajm on why swingweight might affect MgR/I. There are probably others but I don't have time to search.

23. ### colowhisperSemi-Pro

Joined:
Sep 22, 2012
Messages:
535
NYS ^^wow, I am really glad you posted that old quote. I experimented with these specs for a while and tried tuning my sticks to ~21.0 but never liked the way they hit. When I tuned purely by "feel" then plugged in the measurements I always ended with 21.4 - 21.5. But now I realize that's because I like my swingweight 310-320, so my racquets tuned by feel actually make sense for Trav's formula. Epiphany.

Last edited: Sep 19, 2014

Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
Messages:
658
Location:
Rotherham, United Kingdom
That's good to hear colowhisper. This is exactly why we need to find out how things like swingweight affect MgR/I. So people can feel the benefits, not just on this board, put perhaps on a larger scale.

25. ### Mig1NCProfessional

Joined:
Jun 13, 2009
Messages:
1,260
Interesting, I have found that in actual play, a shade over 21 works best for me too.

I prefer SW the same as colowhisper, and I am 5'11" tall.

26. ### taurussableProfessional

Joined:
Oct 2, 2012
Messages:
1,295
to help me understand mgr/i better:

adding weight to handle increase the number, adding weight to tip decrease the number,

so balance is somewhat related to mgr/i

so can I say that a racket with a big HL balance tend to have a bigger mgr/i?

why shorter people need a bigger mgr/i and bigger HL balance?

can you give me some intuition regarding these questions?

27. ### torpantennisLegend

Joined:
May 3, 2013
Messages:
8,382
Balance is that R. And no, mgr/i is not directly the balance. It turns out that:
1) mgr/i remains constant if you add mass to the buttcap
2) mgr/i increases if you add mass to the balance point
3) mgr/i decreases if you add mass to the top parts of the racquet head

So mgr/i is basically a measure of how much the racquet has mass around the throat, in relation to mass in the top of the racquet head. Let's assume a constant balance, like 6HL. Then racquets with low static weight/high SW have low mgr/i, and racquets with high static weight/low SW have high mgr/i.

Most stock tweeners need a lot of mass around the throat to optimize mgr/i. Many player's racquets need mass around the tip to optimize mgr/i.

28. ### taurussableProfessional

Joined:
Oct 2, 2012
Messages:
1,295
very interesting stuff. With that said, can I say mgr/i is like a polarization index describing how polarized a racket is?

29. ### taurussableProfessional

Joined:
Oct 2, 2012
Messages:
1,295
travlerajm:

do you think by filming myself using high speed cameras on fh side, I can have an idea if my current mgr/i value is too low or too high?

wrist lag too much means mgr/i too low? and check how the racket face behaves in the contact zone?

unfortunately i am pretty addicted to this stuff right now.

Last edited: Nov 6, 2014
30. ### torpantennisLegend

Joined:
May 3, 2013
Messages:
8,382
Not trav, but will still answer. Yes, too low mgr/i in theory means too slow racquet part of the double pendulum, i.e too much racquet lag. It feels counter intuitive however that how can added mass around the throat make the racquet swing faster. But I think the answer is that it doesn't.

I think the point is that the added mass around the throat slows down the arm MORE than it slows the racquet. But if it's so, the next question is, why doesn't .mass in the buttcap work the same way?

31. ### taurussableProfessional

Joined:
Oct 2, 2012
Messages:
1,295
Thanks. my mgr/i is at 20.64 now. when I review my hitting videos I do find my racket comes around too quickly(too whippy) in contact zone.

+1 I have 25g lead in buttcap and 8g around the top hoop.

Last edited: Nov 6, 2014
32. ### BlueBHall of Fame

Joined:
Jun 18, 2012
Messages:
2,610
Location:
Vancouver, BC
I also found that with lower number the head comes around too quickly.

33. ### Mig1NCProfessional

Joined:
Jun 13, 2009
Messages:
1,260
Jim also said that other parameters needed to be considered when finding your ideal value. Not just height, but also if you have a western grip, things like that.

34. ### Mig1NCProfessional

Joined:
Jun 13, 2009
Messages:
1,260
So... In a way, you are describing the opposite of polarizing.

Interestingly the new Head Graphine XT series claim high polarization, and when I plug them into my spreadsheet, it shows them having a low mgr/i. So maybe that's true?

35. ### taurussableProfessional

Joined:
Oct 2, 2012
Messages:
1,295
that's true low mgr/i == high polarization

36. ### levrierNew User

Joined:
Dec 3, 2015
Messages:
10
hello everybody, my name is Seb, newbie on this forum, living in switzerland and passionate about tennis and racquet customisation. I arrive now on this forum after having studied all the posts of traveljam and testing it during months and months. Actually my racquet is a pro staff 97LS fully customised, leather grip, lead at 3 and 9, lead at 7 inches of the buttcap, weight 335g, balance 32.3cms, SW 322. So after a lot of testings, MgR/I=21 for this racquet. My height is 5"11 and i love serve and volley. My very precise question is : i understand that my groundstocks are more accurate when optimizing MgR/I at 21 but what about the volley and serve ? Considering your experience, is it better to go slightly above or behind 21 if we want to optimize volley or is it the same as groundstrocks ??? thanks a lot and sorry for my english.

37. ### Mig1NCProfessional

Joined:
Jun 13, 2009
Messages:
1,260
For me having a higher number was more optimized for the serve for sure. But I can't say for certain about volleys

38. ### Doc HollidaeHall of Fame

Joined:
Dec 28, 2006
Messages:
2,691
Since this thread got revived, I was curious what I'd need to do to accomplish this MgR/I = 21 spec. I'm 5'5", 150 lbs, and play with a Pure Aero Tour. Provided the Pure Aero Tour is spec'd exactly like the TW specs, what would I need to do to achieve the MgR/I = 21?

PAT Specs:
Weight : 337.36g
Balance: 32.26cm
SW: 328

39. ### BlueBHall of Fame

Joined:
Jun 18, 2012
Messages:
2,610
Location:
Vancouver, BC
What's up, Doc?

Providing that your spec is spot on, current MgR/I is about 20.83. You only need to add an overgrip estimated at 6g and a dampener estimated at 2g and the MgR/I will be about 21.

40. ### BlueBHall of Fame

Joined:
Jun 18, 2012
Messages:
2,610
Location:
Vancouver, BC
For me, lower number (more polarized) serves better, but 21 or more is steadier on the ground strokes.

41. ### BlueBHall of Fame

Joined:
Jun 18, 2012
Messages:
2,610
Location:
Vancouver, BC
That's funny Seb, you customized that frame very close to my ideal spec
I like the ground strokes at 21 or just a tad above. Serves are better and spinnier below 21.

42. ### Doc HollidaeHall of Fame

Joined:
Dec 28, 2006
Messages:
2,691
Thanks Blue B. I should be close to that already then.

43. ### AMGFSemi-Pro

Joined:
Apr 22, 2015
Messages:
579
Location:
Anyone knows how and if an extended frame affects the equation?
My specs are:
344g
31.75cm balance
343SW
5'10

I measured the MgR/I at 20,32. What should I try to make it 21?

Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
44. ### travlerajmHall of Fame

Joined:
Mar 14, 2006
Messages:
4,703
Location:
Seattle
1. For serves: I compiled data on TW Racquet Review scores vs racquet specs for approximately 200 frames listed on TW database last year (my thread post got deleted when TW changed to a new server). Interestingly, the racquets with MgR/I = 21.0 (i.e., between 20.95 and 21.05) had by far the best scores for not only groundstrokes and returns, but also serves.
2. For length: the optimum MgR/I does not change noticeably with length. Personally, I'm a big fan of racquets that slightly shortened (i.e., for a 98-100" headsize, I prefer length of about 26.75". This seems to give me the very noticeable control, stability, maneuverability, and comfort benefits of a shorter frame without any noticeable downsides.

45. ### levrierNew User

Joined:
Dec 3, 2015
Messages:
10
thank you very much for answers, and do you have compiled data for volley ? best regards

46. ### levrierNew User

Joined:
Dec 3, 2015
Messages:
10
yes BlueB, it seem's that specs work well )))

47. ### travlerajmHall of Fame

Joined:
Mar 14, 2006
Messages:
4,703
Location:
Seattle
In my data from the TW Review scores, specs favoring shorter dwell time (crisper response) strongly correlated with better volley scores:
Stiffer RDC, Denser String Pattern, and Lower Degree of Polarization (higher MgR/I) were all strongly correlated with better volley scores.

48. ### levrierNew User

Joined:
Dec 3, 2015
Messages:
10
another question, when i read you Traveljam, you say your racquet is 26.7 inches. When you cut a racquet , it will low the swingweight, right ?

49. ### levrierNew User

Joined:
Dec 3, 2015
Messages:
10
and thanks again for the answers about volley, really great and incredible work. i know nobody in europe with this knowledge

50. ### travlerajmHall of Fame

Joined:
Mar 14, 2006
Messages:
4,703
Location:
Seattle
Yes, shortening a racquet reduces the swingweight by roughly 35 kg-cm^2 per inch shortened.
Which means that my shortened Blade at 360 SW has the same amount of mass in the head as a standard length frame with 370 SW.