View Single Post
Old 09-09-2012, 01:27 AM   #213
kaiser's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Holland - Belgium
Posts: 695

Originally Posted by stoneage View Post
Let me begin by saying that I am not out to spread venom and I apologize if you get that impression. As I already said I have been intrigued with the concept and I have spent many hours trying to find out what it really means, and got a little annoyed of the lack of solid information. I must admit I am a little surprised by your reply, with a background like that you should be able to give better answers to the questions asked by me and others.

You (and others) are often referring to the fact that the concept works in practice and as I have said I have never doubted that. With all your additional requirements you end up with a fairly heavy, head light racquet with rather high swingweight. Not a radical concept for stable play, and it is not surprising that people like. No problems there.

But beyond that you are claiming that the formula is describing a lot of things in a tennis swing. You didn't have to do that to make your tuning specs creditable, it would have been enough to refer to experience and your collected data. But you are making those claims and then it is your call to give evidence that they are true. You have not given one single shred of evidence. You say that you could feel how MgR/I works. Feelings are fine and probably more important than physics for a good tennis game. But physics isn't based on feelings, so if you present something as a physical fact it must be based on math and/or solid measurements. You have given neither.

Lets just pick one example (of many): "The point is that tuning the racquet's natural swing frequency to match the natural swing frequency of the arm will significantly improve control by ensuring that your racquetface naturally stays perpendicular to your target as it passes through the hitting zone". This is a very specific claim of the natural swing frequency of the racquet, i.e. MgR/I, being connected to the swing frequency of the arm (whatever that is). This problem is possible to analyze and a proof could be given that is more than just words. If you can't do that don't make the statement. I might sound negative when I express my doubts, but if you had described how you reached that conclusion I or someone else might have been able to give more constructive critique, or just applauded your result.

Maybe you are saving it for your book, then I will read it with great interest (honestly).
Hear, hear!
kaiser is offline   Reply With Quote