Originally Posted by travlerajm
I think Cross's statement is interesting:
"Having extra weight in the handle therefore allows a top player to control what he is doing. It slows down the forward motion of the handle and the backward motion of the head just enough so that he can swing the head around with a reasonable effort rather than an excessive amount of wrist torque."
The extra weight in the handle that Cross refers to (that permits swinging without wrist exertion) is the weight required to bring MgR/I up to a player's personal optimum value (most lightweight stock racquets lack enough handle mass for MgR/I to be optimized).
However, according to Cross's explanation, adding weight to the butt of the racquet would accomplish the task. But according to my findings, that is not true. The handle weighting must be higher in the handle to have the desired effect (i.e., increasing MgR/I). Thus Cross's explanation can be easily disproved (with a simple on-court experiment).
Thus? You just stated that MgI/R is only valid for the first, backswing phase of the tennis stroke (the drop from high to low driven by gravity). Cross is talking about the second phase of the stroke, so how can your MgI/R theory disprove that?
2 x Dunlop 4D200 Tour, full bed BHBR16 @ 36-38 lbs, tailweighted to ~10 pts HL, 374g