Originally Posted by kaiser
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?
The first phase of the stroke is the important part for control, because it determines the racquetface angle and the racquetface angular velocity at the start of the hitting zone. Thus what happens in the first part of the stroke determines the forces that the player needs to apply in the second part of the stroke.
My point is that:
A) Cross has made the same observation that I have -- that adding the right amount of mass to the handle can improve control by allowing the player to relax the wrist through the hitting zone.
B) Cross explains the phenomenon with his force balance model, while I explain it with the MgR/I pendulum model.
C) It is easy to determine which model is more correct, because the models predict two completely different results:
Both models predict that adding mass to the top of the handle can enable a relaxed wrist through the hitting zone. But Cross's model predicts that adding mass to the butt of the racquet will work even more efficiently than adding to the top of the handle, while the MgR/I pendulum model predicts that adding mass to the butt of the racquet will have almost negligible effect (for a forehand).
Thus all you need to do to prove which model holds up (and which model fails) is do an experiment adding mass to different parts of the handle and then attempt to hit a moving ball toward a target with a relaxed wrist, see how targeting accuracy is affected, and find the amount of mass needed to maximize control. I have done this experiment hundreds of times. In fact, I do it every time I set up a new racquet or change my setup to ensure that my balance is optimized.