RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
Sorry man I missed it. I'll do that for you a bit later todayThat being said, did you have a chance to work out the recoil weight and where to put the lead for my 3 racquets? I gave you the specs in a previous post above
Recoil Weight
- Thread starter zalive
- Start date
Christian Olsson
Professional
On an interesting note, I have 170 in recoil now that I reduced from 20 to 10 grams in the handle and I think it's a minimum for me. My MGR/I is 20.6 now which works better for me. 6'4 long btw.
----------------------------
Volkl super g 10 midplus
----------------------------
Volkl super g 10 midplus
I did, but others seems either did not read it, or don't want to see the result as it conflict with their argument.
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
@ushynoti
TT Warrior:
Swingweight: 327
Static weight: 11.4 oz (323 g)
Balance: 12.875 in/ 33 cm/ 5 pts HL
I'll do this one and show you the formula and where to put in the numbers, because it's really simple (I promise you can do it) and it is important that you know how to do it, in the future.
(SW) - M(Mass in KG) * (cm balance-10.16)^2
327-(.323)*(33-10.16)^2
Copy paste into google. Done.
158.5
Blade 93:
Swingweight: 333
Static weight: 12.03oz (341.04g)
Balance:6 pts HL
(SW) - M(Mass in KG) * (cm balance-10.16)^2
Graphene Prestige Rev Pro:
Swingweight: 329
Static weight: 11.2 oz (317.51 g)
Balance: 12.88in / 32.72cm / 5 pts HL
(SW) - M(Mass in KG) * (cm balance-10.16)^2
Go ahead and do the second ones, I can check your work if needed. I promise you can do it.
Then you need to figure out what your max sw you can use is. If we take 333 to be your "max" (you can probably learn to use higher), we can go 327 to 333. That means 2 grams at 27". That will give us close to 333-(.325)*(33.2-10.16)^2=160.47 or about 160.
Then adding 10g at the bottom of the handle, we get 333-(.335)*(32.2-10.16)^2=170. Pretty straight forward. Every gram you add to the 27" mark, increases balance .1cm an adds 3.33sw points. Every gram you add at the bottom of the handle (preferably the trap door for max effect), will decrease balance .1cm. This makes doing calculations very easy. You could easily round 333 up to 334 because you'd be adding 6.66~ swing weight points, but you get the point. 171 to 170 won't be a big difference you will notice, they're within the noise (range of error for these calculations, between scale variation/estimation, swing weight estimation, and balance estimation). 170 to 175 is a noticeable but not necessarily all that drastic. 170 to 178 is much more noticeable and drastic.
TT Warrior:
Swingweight: 327
Static weight: 11.4 oz (323 g)
Balance: 12.875 in/ 33 cm/ 5 pts HL
I'll do this one and show you the formula and where to put in the numbers, because it's really simple (I promise you can do it) and it is important that you know how to do it, in the future.
(SW) - M(Mass in KG) * (cm balance-10.16)^2
327-(.323)*(33-10.16)^2
Copy paste into google. Done.
158.5
Blade 93:
Swingweight: 333
Static weight: 12.03oz (341.04g)
Balance:6 pts HL
(SW) - M(Mass in KG) * (cm balance-10.16)^2
Graphene Prestige Rev Pro:
Swingweight: 329
Static weight: 11.2 oz (317.51 g)
Balance: 12.88in / 32.72cm / 5 pts HL
(SW) - M(Mass in KG) * (cm balance-10.16)^2
Go ahead and do the second ones, I can check your work if needed. I promise you can do it.
Then you need to figure out what your max sw you can use is. If we take 333 to be your "max" (you can probably learn to use higher), we can go 327 to 333. That means 2 grams at 27". That will give us close to 333-(.325)*(33.2-10.16)^2=160.47 or about 160.
Then adding 10g at the bottom of the handle, we get 333-(.335)*(32.2-10.16)^2=170. Pretty straight forward. Every gram you add to the 27" mark, increases balance .1cm an adds 3.33sw points. Every gram you add at the bottom of the handle (preferably the trap door for max effect), will decrease balance .1cm. This makes doing calculations very easy. You could easily round 333 up to 334 because you'd be adding 6.66~ swing weight points, but you get the point. 171 to 170 won't be a big difference you will notice, they're within the noise (range of error for these calculations, between scale variation/estimation, swing weight estimation, and balance estimation). 170 to 175 is a noticeable but not necessarily all that drastic. 170 to 178 is much more noticeable and drastic.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
You mentioned RW in my TE thread so I watched the video, and read part of this thread ... will read more later. But I have an initial question:
The thinking is that a COM closer to the handle (same as saying more HL), produces less force on the hand/arm in stopping the forces that wants to revolve around that COM. This actually seems the opposite to me thinking about it logically.
Let's say I am holding my racquet in a normal FH grip near the butt of the racquet. I hold the racquet horizontally next to the net post. The net post will be our COM in this analogy. I press the flat racquet head againt the post that would be a HH COM. I now have you press against the racquet tip trying to rotate the racquet around the post (COM). I have to resist some with my hand ... but not much. Now I slide the racquet to where the post is at the base of the throat (HL). Now when you press at the racquet head to make the racquet rotate around the post (COM) ... you have some serious leverage and I can't stop the rotation ... much bigger impact on my hand, arm and frickin TE.
Where am I off? Everyone says HL is easier on TE ... but in my analogy using your COM, it seems it should be the opposite.
saleem
Semi-Pro
let us try this different way, pick up a hammer (head heavy) and try to swing with it and see how it feels it is going to be hard on your forearm and elbow now grab the same hammer backward (the head end in your hand, headlight) try swinging and see what it does.
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
@ByeByePoly yout thinking is right but you're not hitting the net post I hope. You want you Sweetspot near the point of contact when you hit the ball. The only Sweetspot you can adjust the location of is the COP (Center of Percussion.) As you add mass below the COP the COP moves down toward the added mass and vice-a versa. The hammer analogy is a good one. As you accelerate or stop the hammer your elbow is under stress like your pushing on the net post. As the hammer swings and continues moving without you arm trying to change the speed in any way there is no elbow pain like hold the racket 12" away from the net post. But a sledge hammer has a lot of mass. Just holding it beside the net post exerts stress on you're elbow because you have to exert enough for to overcome gravity. Holding a racket is no problem until you start adding mass. The more mass you add the more you arm has to work.
Back to COP if you could get the COP (Sweetspot) adjusted so the ball would hit it you would feel very little pain when you strike the ball much like when a hammer hits a nail. But let that nail hit off the head like on the handle and you arm has to control the hammer head trying to twist off to the side.
The whole basis for RW was chapter 6 from The Physics and Technology of Tennis. RD talks about the book a lot and has mentioned several time there is very little discussion of RW in Chapter 6, I think he said it's only mentioned on one page. The reason, chapter 6 is about Sweetspots not RW. But if you want to jack up your SW in the high 300s and your RW to to 200 or better think about what you arm will feel like when you have to keep starting and stopping the swing over and over again. I believe RD (Racquet Guy) has a bad wrist now. Small wonder.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong sometimes adding weight is a good thing, but not always. And adding weight in the wrong place for you because someone else had good results could be worse than doing nothing at all.
Back to COP if you could get the COP (Sweetspot) adjusted so the ball would hit it you would feel very little pain when you strike the ball much like when a hammer hits a nail. But let that nail hit off the head like on the handle and you arm has to control the hammer head trying to twist off to the side.
The whole basis for RW was chapter 6 from The Physics and Technology of Tennis. RD talks about the book a lot and has mentioned several time there is very little discussion of RW in Chapter 6, I think he said it's only mentioned on one page. The reason, chapter 6 is about Sweetspots not RW. But if you want to jack up your SW in the high 300s and your RW to to 200 or better think about what you arm will feel like when you have to keep starting and stopping the swing over and over again. I believe RD (Racquet Guy) has a bad wrist now. Small wonder.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong sometimes adding weight is a good thing, but not always. And adding weight in the wrong place for you because someone else had good results could be worse than doing nothing at all.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Hey Canada ... I like your "different way", and it points out something I intended to post a thread on regarding TE. My TE has taught me that there is two areas of pain 1) impact on full swing 2) maneuverability/touch.
On my first attempt to hit after resting my TE, I tried to warm up with mini-tennis (hitting inside the service lines). Hurt bad ... touch shots don't have the racquet momentum of a full swing. A heavier racquet or RW doesn't help in this part of tennis. I could hit my drop shot off my backhand with a 9 oz racquet without much difference ... it's also a touch shot. This is the aspect of tennis that your example speaks too, imo. I think HL is an obvious benifit here. Btw ... on that first hit attempt, when I went back to the baseline and hit full swings, very little pain.
But that's not what is being discussed here with heavier racquets and RW ... it's a discussion about impact on full swing. More specifically, it's a discussion about reducing the force around the COM (my analogy/example).
I am not questioning the obvious advantage of heavier racquets at impact. I am questioning the effect of HL on impact. For example, consider a baseball bat or a golf club, neither of which are the equivalent of HL ... the mass is HH.
The important goal here is avoiding TE, and giving tennis players the best chance to stay in the game once you get it. I think poly is the main culprit ... but I'm not vested in being right about that. I just want less TE, whatever that "right answer" is.
Liked your "different way" ... it helps in the discussion.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Good post ... read my response to Saleem and let's keep talking. My one initial response is I question the stress on my elbow on any deceleration. And if I am wrong on that ... then I certainly would not want a heavy racquet.
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
Your arm hurts now because it's damaged your can't adjust the racket today and make the elbow pain go away. I bet there are times when it hurts and you don't even have the racket in your hand.
Ever hit a ball and it just feels solid? The racket feels like you cutting through soft butter with a hot knife. That's what it feels like to hit in the sweet spot. If you hit in the Sweetspot (more often than not) the faster the racket is traveling the faster the ball is repelled. But by the same token you don't want the ball to deflect the racket so much your arm has to push the ball. And if you have shots off center (outside the Sweetspot) your arm hurts more. At contact you want the racket to plow through the ball. Good luck finding that happy spot.
zalive
Hall of Fame
If my arm was hurting chronically, this is what I'd do:
- play with low tension string bed
- play with soft strings (if it takes than the best string type available, whether it is gut or multi)
- play with a racquet with open string pattern
- play with a racquet with bigger head size (they are always softer and hence easier on the arm)
- play with a racquet with good energy return
- play with a racquet with high recoil weight (RW)
- learn to hit as much in front of me as it gets (this is what I do anyway)
- learn to hit as effortless as I can (long swing path, higher RHS, clean contact, using unit turn, legs, hips, body and all that frees my arm as much as possible from the process, loose arm...)
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Saleem, Irvin, zalive
Thanks for playing... let's keep going.
My post here really is a specific challenge to the premise that lowering the COM (more HL) helps reduce arm/elbow forces at impact on a full swing. At this point, I stand by my analogy as a pretty solid argument against this premise. I went back and checked the video at the top of the thread, he is talking about the rotation force around the COM at impact ... i.e. no other force, like arm deceleration.
So that is what I would like to challenge, and debate. I will throw in the following, just for context and information... even though my particular TE and recovery isn't my narrowed focus here. Obviously I have posted like crazy about it in the TE threads, and read a lot of very helpful posts... good people here trying to help. I'm just trying to be one of those "good people trying to help".
What do I think would prevent 90% of tennis elbow from playing tennis ... in order of importance:
1) hit the sweet spot ... don't need to move the sweet spot with weight ... just hit it
2) hit the sweet spot
3) hit the sweet spot ... you get the idea, like the 3 rules of golf ... 1) keep your head down 2) keep your d@mn head down 3) keep your f****** head down
4) only use soft nylon or multi or gut at mid-tensions or lower
5) if you do 4, use any racquet you want
6) use any grip size you want
7) technique could matter, particularly someone strong enough to muscle a backhand without letting the racquet do the work, but for the most part, technique is not the culprit. The parks and the clubs are filled with very unique homegrown late-hitting swings... and the vast majority of those people hitting a nylon string are not getting TE. Pop in some poly and watch the arm bands fill the parks.
I offer the following as anecdotal evidence that "it's the poly stupid". Not calling anyone stupid ... just trying to keep the humor with my TE.
EDIT: Came back and added this point. I forget what a blessing poly is for the quick string breaker. I played it by choice, not a big string breaker. I do get it why some have a hard choice without poly. If I snapped gut quickly, it would not been a long term option.
So I had the great good fortune to play with mostly the same 15-20 4.5 players in club doubles league for two decades. Not exactly, some moved, some new members, but basically a pretty good "control" group for my observation. Over the years, the ages in the Wed and Sat double league were age 45-75 ... we all aged together, and I was the younger end. The vast majority of us used light stiff HH racquets.. I used a Wilson K Four 105 (9.9 oz strung, 73 flex, 320 SW, 3 pts HH, etc). We all used racquets like this... accept for a couple of our players who had played college tennis ... I suspect they had heavier racquets. Several of those guys played with a Wilson Profile (one was awesome with that sucker)...the oldest guy had a giant weed tennis racquet. We all played nylon strings... I would say mostly Wilson Sensation. Could not comment on other's tension, except I knew some liked 60+. Wasn't a lot of mishits ... a few big servers but mostly placement ... all came to the net ... very little topspin other than the occasional topspin lob...
What's the point of this old guy's memory lane? Not one single case of tennis elbow with any of those guys in 20+ years with all of those light HH arm-killing racquets. Just sayin...
Thanks for playing... let's keep going.
My post here really is a specific challenge to the premise that lowering the COM (more HL) helps reduce arm/elbow forces at impact on a full swing. At this point, I stand by my analogy as a pretty solid argument against this premise. I went back and checked the video at the top of the thread, he is talking about the rotation force around the COM at impact ... i.e. no other force, like arm deceleration.
So that is what I would like to challenge, and debate. I will throw in the following, just for context and information... even though my particular TE and recovery isn't my narrowed focus here. Obviously I have posted like crazy about it in the TE threads, and read a lot of very helpful posts... good people here trying to help. I'm just trying to be one of those "good people trying to help".
What do I think would prevent 90% of tennis elbow from playing tennis ... in order of importance:
1) hit the sweet spot ... don't need to move the sweet spot with weight ... just hit it
2) hit the sweet spot
3) hit the sweet spot ... you get the idea, like the 3 rules of golf ... 1) keep your head down 2) keep your d@mn head down 3) keep your f****** head down
4) only use soft nylon or multi or gut at mid-tensions or lower
5) if you do 4, use any racquet you want
6) use any grip size you want
7) technique could matter, particularly someone strong enough to muscle a backhand without letting the racquet do the work, but for the most part, technique is not the culprit. The parks and the clubs are filled with very unique homegrown late-hitting swings... and the vast majority of those people hitting a nylon string are not getting TE. Pop in some poly and watch the arm bands fill the parks.
I offer the following as anecdotal evidence that "it's the poly stupid". Not calling anyone stupid ... just trying to keep the humor with my TE.
EDIT: Came back and added this point. I forget what a blessing poly is for the quick string breaker. I played it by choice, not a big string breaker. I do get it why some have a hard choice without poly. If I snapped gut quickly, it would not been a long term option.
So I had the great good fortune to play with mostly the same 15-20 4.5 players in club doubles league for two decades. Not exactly, some moved, some new members, but basically a pretty good "control" group for my observation. Over the years, the ages in the Wed and Sat double league were age 45-75 ... we all aged together, and I was the younger end. The vast majority of us used light stiff HH racquets.. I used a Wilson K Four 105 (9.9 oz strung, 73 flex, 320 SW, 3 pts HH, etc). We all used racquets like this... accept for a couple of our players who had played college tennis ... I suspect they had heavier racquets. Several of those guys played with a Wilson Profile (one was awesome with that sucker)...the oldest guy had a giant weed tennis racquet. We all played nylon strings... I would say mostly Wilson Sensation. Could not comment on other's tension, except I knew some liked 60+. Wasn't a lot of mishits ... a few big servers but mostly placement ... all came to the net ... very little topspin other than the occasional topspin lob...
What's the point of this old guy's memory lane? Not one single case of tennis elbow with any of those guys in 20+ years with all of those light HH arm-killing racquets. Just sayin...
Last edited:
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Hit a tennis ball coming at you with the head of the hammer. Now turn it around and hit it with the handle. That is the RW test.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
"Your arm hurts now because it's damaged your can't adjust the racket today and make the elbow pain go away. I bet there are times when it hurts and you don't even have the racket in your hand."
I have been lucky with my TE ... never had much pain when not hitting a tennis ball. Never lost any grip strength, etc. From day one, backhands (ohb flat or slice, 2hbh) had zero pain. Forehand lots of pain, serve was not possible for the first 2 months. I'm about at the 3 month mark now, and doing light hits with a arm band... although the arm band seems to do nothing for the slight pain if I miss the FH sweetspot. The thread below on my "supinator" suspected problem has given me the most progress. I still have no clue why my forehand hurts with my TE and not my backhand, unless I have in fact guessed corretly that I have had a supinator problem all this time rather than the usual extensor injury. (And... I have started to think it's quite possible I had both, because I did improve using the green flexbar for two months ... but then, maybe that was the tendon healing on it's own timetable and I had nothing to do with it).
I have talked about my TE in several threads...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ri-that-is-the-question.570899/#post-10576938
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...be-supinator-problem-and-not-extensor.571493/
Retiring my new Pure Strike 16 x 19
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/babolat-pure-strike-after-tennis-elbow.570491/
Asking for help stringing my new Volkl Org V1 Pro with full gut
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...what-tension-full-vs-16.571222/#post-10599055
zalive
Hall of Fame
The reason why more HL is better for the arm than HH is, actually, easy to understand from the geometrical point of view.
If you look at the racquet as a two levers that start at COM, then more HL balance means that lever on the racquet's head side will be longer (both relatively and absolutely) while lever on the hand side would be lower. And when ball hits the racquet, racquet will tend to rotate around its COM. The result of a different geometry proportion of levers is that taking the same impact on the racquet's head will produce shorter recoil (length/force) on hand side, meaning - shock on the arm will be lower.
There's a physical formula proof of this too, it can be found on the net. But this is an easy graphical way to understand what happens, and why it is more HL that is better for the arm.
But now: it certainly doesn't mean someone's arm will stay healthy if he uses HL racquet, or that someone will develop arm problems if he uses HH racquet. It just means what it means: the more HL racquet is, the better for the arm (and also: the shorter the racquet, the better for the arm).
Last edited:
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
Easy way to prove that is go out on a cold day and hit a baseball with a bat and hit a ball in the Sweetspot on the bat. Then choke up and hit the ball out of the tip of the base. You're bat is more HL when you choke up and your hands will sting more if you hit the ball off center.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Wouldn't the test be "hit the ball in the sweet spot with the regular grip" and then "choke up and hit the ball on the sweet spot"?
-- OR -- do the same and hit both off the tip?In either event, you seem to be taking my side that HH is not a culprit in a full swing impact.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
I was very good in math and have no idea what you just tried to explain.
Let's try this. Let's make sure we are on the same page talking about the rotational forces we care about around COM at impact. I am understanding it just like my net post analogy... the racquet head wants to rotate around the COM (counterclockwise for right hander), and that rotation force causes impact on the hand to stop that rotation (that force hitting the hand also counterclockwise).
Let's just make sure we are all talking about the same thing. Perhaps you are saying something like both sides of the COM are attempting to bend towards impact (head counterclockwise ... and grip clockwise force). Surely not.
EDIT: Just listened to the video again, and he is talking about rotation around the COM ... so my net post analogy stands. You are obviously going to get more rotational force against the hands when the COM rotation point is nearer the grip... just like if you use a crowbar.
http://www.beyondthecarseat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/crowbar_36335_lg.gif
Last edited:
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
No my point was its not because the bat was head light it was better on on hands, but rather if you hit the ball in the Sweetspot every time it's better on your hands. By by the same token as you choke up on the bat the Sweetspot moves down (the opposite direction from you hand movement.)Wouldn't the test be "hit the ball in the sweet spot with the regular grip" and then "choke up and hit the ball on the sweet spot"?
In either event, you seem to be taking my side that HH is not a culprit in a full swing impact.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Yes ... the heavier racquet (more mass) at impact seems obvious. I am challenging the HL part of it at impact ... waiting for an acceptable explanation and defense of that claim. I have seen that claim everywhere, other tennis websites, etc but have yet to see any actual explanation of "why"... just a repeated claim. If anyone has a link beyond just a claim ... please post it.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Irvin, you are going to have to quit moving that sweet spot around, I have enough problems hitting it.
I recently had a related conversation with my stringer. I was having him weigh my new Volkl with two OGs, and tell me how much HL. I mentioned how many on TT custom weighted their racquets. His response was he would put his $ on the Volkl engineers when they designed the arm friendly racquet as is.
Irvin, you are going to have to quit moving that sweet spot around, I have enough problems hitting it.
I recently had a related conversation with my stringer. I was having him weigh my new Volkl with two OGs, and tell me how much HL. I mentioned how many on TT custom weighted their racquets. His response was he would put his $ on the Volkl engineers when they designed the arm friendly racquet as is.
Right... Wilson pays Fed millions, but still couldn't make frame for him that needs no customization.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
His thinking, and mine is one might actually be a bit too clever trying to make an engineered arm friendly racquet "more" arm friendly ... i.e. Volkl has been in the business of engineering arm friendly racquets for a long time and seem to know what they are doing. For example, the anedotal evidence is that the light V1 classic has been an arm friendly racquet for decades, but it would fail all the heavier racquet/RW standard of this thread.
That was not meant to imply nobody should customize their racquets... I probably could have said that better.
saleem
Semi-Pro
that was a swing test not hitting testHit a tennis ball coming at you with the head of the hammer. Now turn it around and hit it with the handle. That is the RW test.
I gave an example of head heavy and head light swinging (obviously in an extreme example using hammer) I hope your racquet is not that HH.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
that was a swing test not hitting test
Nah ... not HH. My new racquet ... org v1 pro with full gut and 2 og is 11.7 +3hl. My actual preference is 11.3ish +5HL. I am coming from a 2012 pd gt, and briefly pure strike 16 x 19.
We may be talking past each other. I don't think your "swing test" is what this RW thread is about. I think it's about "impact and forces on the arm from that impact". Not the maneuverability of the racquet. Do you disagree with this?
My challenge on the HL issue isn't about preference ... I want the HL to be better for my TE since I prefer it. But so far I have yet to read any logical evidence that supports it. That is why I was interested to watch the RW video ... wanted to see something that logically supported/explained it. Unfortunately my logic (limited as it is) is that if we have to be concerned about some racquet rotation at a balance point ... surely it must be easier on the arm if the rotation point is nearer the impact.
Holding out hope that I either 1) see the light with RW and HL .... or 2) someone posts a link to a different explanation of why HL actually helps at impact.
I suspect that most recommendations of HL for arm friendly may in fact be simply your swing test ... easier to swing therefore easier on the arm... nothing to do with impact.
Where is a RanchDressing when you need one?
saleem
Semi-Pro
RanchDressing is dealing with health issues, hopefully he is better by now he needs/deserve a little break.
zalive
Hall of Fame
I was very good in math and have no idea what you just tried to explain.
Let's try this. Let's make sure we are on the same page talking about the rotational forces we care about around COM at impact. I am understanding it just like my net post analogy... the racquet head wants to rotate around the COM (counterclockwise for right hander), and that rotation force causes impact on the hand to stop that rotation (that force hitting the hand also counterclockwise).
Let's just make sure we are all talking about the same thing. Perhaps you are saying something like both sides of the COM are attempting to bend towards impact (head counterclockwise ... and grip clockwise force). Surely not.
EDIT: Just listened to the video again, and he is talking about rotation around the COM ... so my net post analogy stands. You are obviously going to get more rotational force against the hands when the COM rotation point is nearer the grip... just like if you use a crowbar.
http://www.beyondthecarseat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/crowbar_36335_lg.gif
Well, I guess expression 'lever' is not the best one as there is no really leveraging here, but I'm not native in english, not sure which one would be better.
I guess the best way to explain would be to draw the picture, but currently I'm not in the mood for drawing lol.
Force is not the key to understanding here. It's momentum. Racquet's head has to deal with momentum that ball carries and transfers to racquet while it's sitting in the string bed. This momentum has nothing to do with where the COM is, it depends on ball's speed. And the result of this is that the other end will tend to travel (back) less if COM is closer to the hand.
In your example COM stays in the same position but (relative to the hand) 'lever' is longer by choking up, so of course recoil pulling will be harsher.
Last edited:
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Oh, sorry to hear that. He had just posted on my TE thread recently. Wishing a speedy recovery.
saleem
Semi-Pro
He pops up online and posts but he is dealing with an injury and autoimmune.
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
You're not wrong in thinking that adding weight to the handle isn't the "best" solution. I do recommend adding weight to the tip first but there is a limit that most players for what swing weight they can or are willing to use. So adding weight to the bottom of the handle is the next furthest distance we can use, and since most people have less issues with adding weight to the handle to anywhere else. However, even then there are tangible performance trade offs in lowering COM, especially when we are doing this in large increments (like shifting the nodes of the frame downwards). However, adding weight at the furthest points away from COM will resist the recoil motion of the racquet the most. This decreases the amplitude of the "shock" or initial wave of energy going into the racquet, measured at the handle.
Also when you increase swing weight you also increase the force of the impact, so that increases how much force the racquet experiences. Which in some cases can actually make things worse, and others be more than adequate to do the job needed, completely dependent on the player/his her technique, the racquet, and strings.
So it's rather complex. Yet this approach of maxing swing weight, then adding weight to the other furthest com distance (that won't increase swing weight very much) is the most effective approach for mass use.
Any time you add weight to the racquet you will increase it's resistance to recoiling (and by the nature of vibration being a product of the initial wave amplitude, decrease vibration frequency). But weight at COM does very very little, and the further (larger lever) away you can place that weight the more effective.
This does mean weight at the handle has a point of diminishing returns, where you have to add more and more weight. But that's why I recommend starting with swing weight first.
Starting to go in circles here, but it's not quite super simple. Just approaching it in this fashion with maxing sw then adding weight to the handle, has been the best approach for every player I've modified for, myself, and now a lot of people online who've given me feedback whether via email, comments, on reddit etc.
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
But mass towards the tip also gets a longer lever to work against that motion for the mass when com is lower. So it's not quite that simple. Especially when we consider what increasing hitting weight at the tip can do for plow through, in terms of the racquet does during recoiling. Also I'm aware of how crowbars work lol, I did use them for analogy in one of my very first videos.
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/vibfrequency.cgi
Like I tried to explain in my last post, adding weight to the bottom of the handle isn't the most effective, but once you've maxed out your swing weight, you've also maxed out how much weight you can add in the hoop of the frame. So you move down below the COM, simply because it's your only viable next step. Again emphasis on the bottom of the handle, as adding weight to the top of the handle will have little effect until you reach high mass numbers.
You can absolutely get a racquet that is "comfortable enough" by using something with a low static weight, light swing weight, flexy and huge head size/open string pattern/super soft strings. But the performance that frame has in terms of spin production, control, and outright power is dwarfed by using a racquet with more mass, high swing weight, and a tighter string pattern/stiffer string bed. Recoil weight is an attempt to preserve high performance without sacrificing comfort. That's the purpose.
To me an oversized frame with super soft strings isn't "un comfortable" (sometimes it can be depending on the frame) but the performance is... Well flat out bad. Sure I could theoretically beat joe schmoe with it, but compared to how I can play with a heavier racquet, tighter pattern and stiffer strings, it's laughable. Just like one can beat plenty of joe schmoes with a dinked in waiter's serve, but compared to hitting the serve properly over 100mph, it's a joke.
At the end of the day, because I can hit more spin and more pace with the heavier racquet more easily and consistently, it makes playing more fun (for me). Since recoil weight has been the single discovery that changed racquets from being harsh right after hitting the ball to being fine, it's been fantastic for me. A lot of other people have been enjoying the benefits too. I'm pretty sure that video wouldn't have as many views or likes if it wasn't pertinent, and effective for the average user. Or more simply if other people didn't have similar experiences when trying that modification out.
Theoretical discussion is great but I'd encourage you to give it a shot. Take a racquet and set it up to have a higher recoil weight than you're using. Give a 340 sw with 175+ recoil weight a shot, and see how that works for you.
Last edited:
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Saleem says you are recovering from injury ... heal quick, that is the important stuff.
I am not for or against any racquet mods(i.e. adding weight to handle) ... simply investigating anything that might help TE. Your RW presents something new to consider. Sometimes I do that by challenging a concept ... even if it riles up the tt natives.
Let me start by asking you a basic question about what we are actually measuring with RW:
1) the rotational force around the balance point
-- OR --
2) a snap back after initial racquet flex
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
High recoil-weight racquets tend to be more arm-friendly, but I am not sure that recoil weight is the direct cause of the arm-friendliness.
Wilbur McCutchen, on his site, racquetresearch.com, derived a formula for the shock of impact. He shows that the shock is very closely correlated to the parameter, Mr^2/I,
where M is the racquet mass, r is the distance between the axis of rotation and the balance point, and I is the moment of inertia about the axis of rotation.
He suggests using 10-cm from the butt as the axis of rotation, which is a reasonable estimate for the axis of rotation caused by the racquet/ball impact, because it combines both the translational and rotational aspects of the recoil.
So r = R - 10 (where R is the distance from butt to balance in cm).
M is mass in kg.
I = "SW" about the 10-cm axis (different than the zero-cm axis I that I refer to often).
The lower the value of M(R-10)^2/SW, the lower the shock of impact.
Now, high recoil-weight tends to correlate with low M(R-10)^2/SW values, but not always.
M(R-10)^2/SW is much more sensitive to balance than recoil weight.
It's possible to haveracquet specs with very low recoil, but also very low shock (according to McCutchen's formula). This is because shock is function not only of the effective mass of the impact point, but also a function of the dwell time. The longer the dwell time, the lower the shock of impact:
The shorter the balance, the longer the moment arm between the impact point and the axis of rotation with which the ball exerts a force on the frame. The longer the impact moment arm, the less the racquet will resist rotational motion. The more the racquet rotates during the collision, the longer the dwell time. the longer the dwell, the lower the shock of impact.
So in essence, a racquet that has a large amount of tail weighting will have a high recoil weight, but it will actually rotate more about the axis of rotation due to the longer moment arm for the force of the ball collision.
It's possible to experimentally put McCutchen's formula to the test and go head-to-head against the recoil weight theory that has been asserted in the this thread. Here is how:
Take two otherwise-like frames with the following weighting specs, and compare the comfort level of the impact.
Racquet A: 370 SW, 350g, 32cm. RW = 201 kg-cm^2. SW/[M(R-10)^2] = 2.18
Racquet B: 320 SW, 280g, 32cm. RW = 184 kg-cm^2. SW/[M(R-10)^2] = 2.36
Racquet A has higher recoil weight, but high shock according to McCutchen's shock surrogate formula.
Racquet B has lower recoil weight, but lower shock according to McCutchen's formula (low effective mass, but theoretically should have longer dwell time).
If Racquet A feels more comfy, it would validate the recoil weight theory. If Racquet B feels softer, it would tend to support McCutchen's formula.
I honestly don't know what the result of this experiment would be, because I haven't done it myself.
However, what I have tried (about 10 years ago), is tail-weighting a hammer-style frame with 3 ounces of lead.
I ended up with specs of something like:
SW 340, 350g, 28.5cm balance. RW = 221. SW/[(R-10)^2] = 2.85
So this racquet has 10% higher recoil weight that Racquet A above, and theoretically 30% lower shock!
I started with a Wilson Titanium Hammer 5.0 OS, which has 72 RA and is about 9.5 oz. stock. But with the extreme tailweighting, the dwell time was extreme, and the impact was softer than any other frame I've ever used, despite the stiffness of the frame. I had strung it with kevlar/syn gut at mid 50s tension. The spin level was also extreme -- much spinnier than a normal racquet -- kind of like spaghetti string level spin. It was impossible to hit a flat shot. Even volleys had unintentional spin due to the soft cushiony response and long dwell time. Serves were amazing - I could make the ball kick and "dance" in unpredictable ways.
Of course, the downside was that ultra long dwell time makes it very difficult to control the launch angle, which was extreme. This was more of a novelty racquet - not one I would confidently use in competition.
Was the extremely comfortable response due to the high recoil weight? Or due to the extreme dwell time? Based on how it played, I am inclined to believe it was the latter, because it gave me the sensation that the racquet was rotating back upon impact, catching the ball softly like a net, then throwing it back with mega spin.
Wilbur McCutchen, on his site, racquetresearch.com, derived a formula for the shock of impact. He shows that the shock is very closely correlated to the parameter, Mr^2/I,
where M is the racquet mass, r is the distance between the axis of rotation and the balance point, and I is the moment of inertia about the axis of rotation.
He suggests using 10-cm from the butt as the axis of rotation, which is a reasonable estimate for the axis of rotation caused by the racquet/ball impact, because it combines both the translational and rotational aspects of the recoil.
So r = R - 10 (where R is the distance from butt to balance in cm).
M is mass in kg.
I = "SW" about the 10-cm axis (different than the zero-cm axis I that I refer to often).
The lower the value of M(R-10)^2/SW, the lower the shock of impact.
Now, high recoil-weight tends to correlate with low M(R-10)^2/SW values, but not always.
M(R-10)^2/SW is much more sensitive to balance than recoil weight.
It's possible to haveracquet specs with very low recoil, but also very low shock (according to McCutchen's formula). This is because shock is function not only of the effective mass of the impact point, but also a function of the dwell time. The longer the dwell time, the lower the shock of impact:
The shorter the balance, the longer the moment arm between the impact point and the axis of rotation with which the ball exerts a force on the frame. The longer the impact moment arm, the less the racquet will resist rotational motion. The more the racquet rotates during the collision, the longer the dwell time. the longer the dwell, the lower the shock of impact.
So in essence, a racquet that has a large amount of tail weighting will have a high recoil weight, but it will actually rotate more about the axis of rotation due to the longer moment arm for the force of the ball collision.
It's possible to experimentally put McCutchen's formula to the test and go head-to-head against the recoil weight theory that has been asserted in the this thread. Here is how:
Take two otherwise-like frames with the following weighting specs, and compare the comfort level of the impact.
Racquet A: 370 SW, 350g, 32cm. RW = 201 kg-cm^2. SW/[M(R-10)^2] = 2.18
Racquet B: 320 SW, 280g, 32cm. RW = 184 kg-cm^2. SW/[M(R-10)^2] = 2.36
Racquet A has higher recoil weight, but high shock according to McCutchen's shock surrogate formula.
Racquet B has lower recoil weight, but lower shock according to McCutchen's formula (low effective mass, but theoretically should have longer dwell time).
If Racquet A feels more comfy, it would validate the recoil weight theory. If Racquet B feels softer, it would tend to support McCutchen's formula.
I honestly don't know what the result of this experiment would be, because I haven't done it myself.
However, what I have tried (about 10 years ago), is tail-weighting a hammer-style frame with 3 ounces of lead.
I ended up with specs of something like:
SW 340, 350g, 28.5cm balance. RW = 221. SW/[(R-10)^2] = 2.85
So this racquet has 10% higher recoil weight that Racquet A above, and theoretically 30% lower shock!
I started with a Wilson Titanium Hammer 5.0 OS, which has 72 RA and is about 9.5 oz. stock. But with the extreme tailweighting, the dwell time was extreme, and the impact was softer than any other frame I've ever used, despite the stiffness of the frame. I had strung it with kevlar/syn gut at mid 50s tension. The spin level was also extreme -- much spinnier than a normal racquet -- kind of like spaghetti string level spin. It was impossible to hit a flat shot. Even volleys had unintentional spin due to the soft cushiony response and long dwell time. Serves were amazing - I could make the ball kick and "dance" in unpredictable ways.
Of course, the downside was that ultra long dwell time makes it very difficult to control the launch angle, which was extreme. This was more of a novelty racquet - not one I would confidently use in competition.
Was the extremely comfortable response due to the high recoil weight? Or due to the extreme dwell time? Based on how it played, I am inclined to believe it was the latter, because it gave me the sensation that the racquet was rotating back upon impact, catching the ball softly like a net, then throwing it back with mega spin.
Last edited:
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
hahaha ... answer my question before addressing travler ... that looks like a LONG answer.
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
I want to preface this with the idea that if something works for a player at the end of the day that's all that matters. I just use recoil weight and promote it, because it generally speaking is applicable to a lot of frames, and is a very simple/straight forward model to apply to most racquets/players. You don't have to start with an overly light racquet, you can just start with what you have and work from there. So far I think it's been very well received. And the only feed back that I've gotten in terms of negativity are two: one that the feel in the upper hoop suffers for some players (a by product of lowering COM, something I didn't want to get into in that video), and the other consistently are people who haven't tried it. Citing some ultra light usually oversized frame with ultra soft string bed being plenty comfortable.
And I chose my words carefully and instructions with intent. I aimed to allow a player to use a more "professional" max performance oriented setup. That is, a "stiffer" string bed, tighter pattern, sub 100 sq head size, allowing for any RA, string, tension to be used.
That way you have another option that allows you to pursue a maximum performance oriented racquet. To me, if I have comfort, but not enough performance (control/directional power etc) the racquet is well crap, just as much as if it has performance but not enough comfort (hurting the arm after swinging full speed, with full incoming pace).
And that's it. That's the goal. That's the point. It's not to say that this is the ONLY mechanism to allow for a racquet to be comfortable. Does an oversized frame with soft strings work in terms of comfort? Yeah totally. Does using multi filament at 50lbs in a lock out machine give comfort? Yeah totally. Do you need a high swing weight for that to be comfortable? No not at all. I'll come back to this in a moment. But, the video was a bit over simplified. I mean I really could have expanded and covered many different scenarios and specifications/relations to how recoil weight can be looked at. One big one is thinking about recoil weight in relation to swing weight. But that would require a comprehensive understanding of swing weight and it's implications in terms of how the racquet performs. That's a series I still need to do, but honestly never thought these videos would garner so much attention and that discussion would get far enough to require every opinion of mine fully explained/supported. Not by any means complaining, just explaining my perspective.
It's a simple, straight forward solution. And to me the simplest solution/procedure is usually the best. Especially because beyond being useful, keeping things simple breaks down the 'fear' barrier most players have when it comes to racquet modification. There are tons of ways to approach frames, and get real fancy with our evaluations, but people want to play.
First of all, the fundamental precipice of approaching this project with extreme tail weighting is not what I advise nor recommend. Even though it can be comfortable. It simply won't have the power/plow through/performance with a low swing weight.
Higher swing weights, given the same swing speed (which I will always argue within reason correct technique will decide RHS more than SW will), produce more force on the ball and consequently the racquet. Low swing weights produce less force. So fundamentally you are hitting the ball softer. So the needed inertial 'resistance' to that impact is much lower, to protect you from the impact.
When you make this comparison between Racquet A and Racquet B you are fundamentally changing the parameter of the force input to both A and B. So to me, that doesn't disprove the idea of higher recoil weight. But simply is highlighting one of the topics I wasn't interested in discussing, which is important to discuss. I know a lot of people think I talk too much, but I seriously usually post up videos that are sometimes a quarter of what I initially setup to say. And I'm constantly looking to take out more and more, to keep videos appealing, and consumable.
Beyond that, I look at it as reaching a comfortable range of shock absorption, rather than having the most shock absorption possible. It's about finding the sweet spot where the racquet performs very very well, but is also very comfortable. Not so much about having max comfort or max shock absorption. Because again, having one without the other sucks. And with my approach,it seems a lot of people are very satisfied with the results, not just from comfort perspective, but the added stability and what it brings in terms of performance.
At the end of the day, my videos are all information coming in through my filter, with my opinion. That's why I chose a platform that's conducive to sharing your opinion, rather than going after some kind publication or something. So recoil weight isn't the perfect way to approach things, and when you really look at it, it can get a bit complex. But, as a shot gun approach I believe it works. That doesn't mean you can't manufacture a specific setup that would be an exception to its efficacy.
And I chose my words carefully and instructions with intent. I aimed to allow a player to use a more "professional" max performance oriented setup. That is, a "stiffer" string bed, tighter pattern, sub 100 sq head size, allowing for any RA, string, tension to be used.
That way you have another option that allows you to pursue a maximum performance oriented racquet. To me, if I have comfort, but not enough performance (control/directional power etc) the racquet is well crap, just as much as if it has performance but not enough comfort (hurting the arm after swinging full speed, with full incoming pace).
And that's it. That's the goal. That's the point. It's not to say that this is the ONLY mechanism to allow for a racquet to be comfortable. Does an oversized frame with soft strings work in terms of comfort? Yeah totally. Does using multi filament at 50lbs in a lock out machine give comfort? Yeah totally. Do you need a high swing weight for that to be comfortable? No not at all. I'll come back to this in a moment. But, the video was a bit over simplified. I mean I really could have expanded and covered many different scenarios and specifications/relations to how recoil weight can be looked at. One big one is thinking about recoil weight in relation to swing weight. But that would require a comprehensive understanding of swing weight and it's implications in terms of how the racquet performs. That's a series I still need to do, but honestly never thought these videos would garner so much attention and that discussion would get far enough to require every opinion of mine fully explained/supported. Not by any means complaining, just explaining my perspective.
It's a simple, straight forward solution. And to me the simplest solution/procedure is usually the best. Especially because beyond being useful, keeping things simple breaks down the 'fear' barrier most players have when it comes to racquet modification. There are tons of ways to approach frames, and get real fancy with our evaluations, but people want to play.
First of all, the fundamental precipice of approaching this project with extreme tail weighting is not what I advise nor recommend. Even though it can be comfortable. It simply won't have the power/plow through/performance with a low swing weight.
Higher swing weights, given the same swing speed (which I will always argue within reason correct technique will decide RHS more than SW will), produce more force on the ball and consequently the racquet. Low swing weights produce less force. So fundamentally you are hitting the ball softer. So the needed inertial 'resistance' to that impact is much lower, to protect you from the impact.
When you make this comparison between Racquet A and Racquet B you are fundamentally changing the parameter of the force input to both A and B. So to me, that doesn't disprove the idea of higher recoil weight. But simply is highlighting one of the topics I wasn't interested in discussing, which is important to discuss. I know a lot of people think I talk too much, but I seriously usually post up videos that are sometimes a quarter of what I initially setup to say. And I'm constantly looking to take out more and more, to keep videos appealing, and consumable.
Beyond that, I look at it as reaching a comfortable range of shock absorption, rather than having the most shock absorption possible. It's about finding the sweet spot where the racquet performs very very well, but is also very comfortable. Not so much about having max comfort or max shock absorption. Because again, having one without the other sucks. And with my approach,it seems a lot of people are very satisfied with the results, not just from comfort perspective, but the added stability and what it brings in terms of performance.
At the end of the day, my videos are all information coming in through my filter, with my opinion. That's why I chose a platform that's conducive to sharing your opinion, rather than going after some kind publication or something. So recoil weight isn't the perfect way to approach things, and when you really look at it, it can get a bit complex. But, as a shot gun approach I believe it works. That doesn't mean you can't manufacture a specific setup that would be an exception to its efficacy.
Last edited:
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
I didn't see traveler's response, I took a while typing things because I'm doing other stuff at the same time.hahaha ... answer my question before addressing travler ... that looks like a LONG answer.
Traveler is a real smart guy. It was his postings that made me look at racquet modification more seriously, beyond just swing weight (which was a journey of it's self to make that realization alone), and get a further appreciation of evaluating the mass distribution of the frame as a whole rather than just stats.
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
Rather than drone on and on with my own opinions etc, here's the full side note on that racquet vibration article.
It talks about reducing vibration by reducing intitial shock, and emphasizes at the end that the best way to reduce that is to add weight to the areas far away from the COM. Once you've done as much "as you can" (weight in the hoop, and maximized for SW), the only spot left that won't increase swing weight is the bottom of the handle.
To me the reduced vibration is not of importance, but simply a symptom of better shock resistance. So a big part of this is more directed to a consumer with lets just call them different views.
It talks about reducing vibration by reducing intitial shock, and emphasizes at the end that the best way to reduce that is to add weight to the areas far away from the COM. Once you've done as much "as you can" (weight in the hoop, and maximized for SW), the only spot left that won't increase swing weight is the bottom of the handle.
To me the reduced vibration is not of importance, but simply a symptom of better shock resistance. So a big part of this is more directed to a consumer with lets just call them different views.
What Does Vibration Frequency Mean To You?
When a ball hits a racquet, the racquet bends. The elastic force force acts to restore the bent racquet to its original position. But in doing so, the racquet builds up momentum and overshoots its starting position. This action continues back and forth and is what we know as vibration. The vibration will continue until the racquet loses energy through internal friction and the damping effect of squashing into the hand.
Vibration is a wonderful indicator of dynamic racquet stiffness. The usual stiffness measurement is performed while supporting the racquet at the handle and in the throat while a force is applied to the tip. The stiffness index is a measurement of how much the racquet tip is deflected. This is a static measurement (performed over a much longer time than the impact of a ball) and depends only on the intrinsic forces holding the racquet together and is what we commonly refer to as static racquet stiffness. However, when the ball impacts the racquet it is a dynamic, instantaneous event, and the amount of racquet deflection depends on both its stiffness (elastic restorative force) and mass distribution. Bending is directly proportional to the degree of stiffness, for the obvious reason that stiffness is, by definition, resistance to bending. And bending depends inversely on mass because a heavy mass is more difficult to accelerate (and decelerate) into bending motion than is a lighter mass.
The combined influence of stiffness and mass is measured by the racquet's vibration frequency. This is the number of back-and-forth cycles that the racquet completes in one second. Frequency is measured in Hertz (Hz), where 1 Hz = 1 cycle per second. The time it takes for one back-and-forth (one cycle or one oscillation) is known as the period of the vibration. And the maximum distance a point on the racquet travels back-and-forth from its equilibrium positon is theamplitude of the vibration.
The stiffer and lighter the racquet, the greater (faster) the frequency, shorter the period, and less the amplitude. And the softer and heavier the racquet, the slower the frequency, the longer the period and the greater the amplitude. Every other combination falls somewhere in-between.
The vibration frequency is the same no matter where the ball strikes on the stringbed, with the exception of one point (to be explained shortly). However, the amplitude changes considerably depending on impact location. The amplitude of each vibration is greatest for impacts near the tip and throat. It is least just below the center of the racquet head, and in fact becomes zero at the location known as the vibration node, or vibration sweetspot. If you hit this point, the racquet will not bend. This can be visualized easily like this: when you hit close to the tip, the tip bends backward; when you hit close to the throat, the tip bends forward; when you hit right at the spot where the motion changes from backward to forward, the tip won't move at all. That location is the vibration node.
The graph above is a measurement of the acceleration of a racquet's handle at a location 10 cm (about 4 inches) from the butt end resulting from an impact at 25 inches from the handle butt. This graph shows the acceleration of this spot as it changes its motion back and forth. We measure freely suspended racquets, so there is no hand to dampen vibrations in these graphs. The first peak is the combined shock and vibration. It is the motion of the handle resulting from the racquet's backward recoil, backward tip rotation (and forward handle rotation), and bending. This is the initial shock. The peaks after the shock are just the racquet vibrations (bending back-and-forth).
What you feel (all that you feel) is the racquet thump (shock) and vibration in your hand. The stiffness and mass distribution will determine what that feels like — i.e., the force involved. In other words, shock and vibration measurements are the essence of racquet feel.
When you customize a racquet by adding lead tape, you reduce the vibration frequency. More mass is more difficult to accelerate into vibration, and the racquet will therefore feel softer. The degree of vibration reduction will depend on where you add the weight. If you add it to a vibration node (just below the middle of the head or at the top of the hand on the grip) the frequency will change very little, if at all. If you add it near the tip or the middle of the racquet, vibration will decrease more.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I think our racquet philosophies are more or less aligned.
GatorTennis
Rookie
I think everyone knows that comfort is about more than just recoil weight. The most arm friendly racquet that I've hit was a Volkl V1, which has a RW of about 142. It also has a tremendous shock control handle, open string pattern and a 102 sqin headsize. It is for more comfortable than my mid with a 180 RW and closed pattern. All that said, I think it is accurate to say that the higher the RW with all other variables being static...the more comfort. It was especially true with my racquets where I had one in stock form (plus leather grip) and one customized. I can hit poly in one setup without discomfort, guess which one.
My MgR/I is 20.6, but don't know what that means. I am getting used to this setup pretty quickly. More power, more spin, etc. still getting used to the 2pts more HL, but getting there. Have no idea of my twist weight. Racquet is stable and I can manipulate it at net pretty quick. So either I'm hitting the sweetspot a lot with a low twist weight, or I have a decent blend by coincidence. It's got to be the latter because I'm not that good.
What I rarely hear anyone talk about is the force at which things happen. It seems like a bunch of vacuum talk, and maybe that's the best we can hope for. Let's think about things realistically. Does a 3.5 women need to worry about RW? I think a couple of the guys like @RanchDressing do a good job of being practical with this stuff, but when some of you guys take it to the Nth degree...well you're not Federer and you never will be. I think the horse is dead.
My MgR/I is 20.6, but don't know what that means. I am getting used to this setup pretty quickly. More power, more spin, etc. still getting used to the 2pts more HL, but getting there. Have no idea of my twist weight. Racquet is stable and I can manipulate it at net pretty quick. So either I'm hitting the sweetspot a lot with a low twist weight, or I have a decent blend by coincidence. It's got to be the latter because I'm not that good.
What I rarely hear anyone talk about is the force at which things happen. It seems like a bunch of vacuum talk, and maybe that's the best we can hope for. Let's think about things realistically. Does a 3.5 women need to worry about RW? I think a couple of the guys like @RanchDressing do a good job of being practical with this stuff, but when some of you guys take it to the Nth degree...well you're not Federer and you never will be. I think the horse is dead.
zalive
Hall of Fame
Larger head size will help some by itself, because you get lower string bed stiffness with the same tension when on a larger head size racquet.
But to assess what recoil does to the arm is much easier to a player that already has a sensitive arm. I had issues with my wrist and it was fairly easy for me to see how much increased RW helped with all other things being equal - my arm told me what I needed to know . So while to say RW isn't all is fair, to disregard it as not important is not wise either. Though if someone plays with otherwise nice a setup (head size, string @ tension, frame construction and comfort) and without too much time on court, I guess he doesn't have to pay attention to RW at all.
But to assess what recoil does to the arm is much easier to a player that already has a sensitive arm. I had issues with my wrist and it was fairly easy for me to see how much increased RW helped with all other things being equal - my arm told me what I needed to know . So while to say RW isn't all is fair, to disregard it as not important is not wise either. Though if someone plays with otherwise nice a setup (head size, string @ tension, frame construction and comfort) and without too much time on court, I guess he doesn't have to pay attention to RW at all.
Last edited:
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
The center of mass is the point where all the mass in a rigid object is concentrated. Take your racket and spin it in the air and the COM will travel in a straight path except for the gradation all pull. RW is actually the inertia of the racket around the COM. It is a measure of the force required to rotate the racket around the COM. When you rotate a racket in an arc the force required to accelerate that racket is SW and that force is dependent on the distance from the SW axis to the center of mass plus the Inertia (RW.) The higher the RW the higher the SW and the higher force required to accelerate the racket. Too high a SW then would be bad for your arm merely because it is just too Mars (like swinging a sledge hammer.) Too low a SW would be easy too swing but when the racket strikes the ball it does not want to plow through the ball. Seems like your happy medium for RW (I) is 142.
Now when the racket strikes the ball the COM wants to continue traveling in a straight line (except for outside forces.) When the ball strikes the string bed above the ball the COM wants to travel in a straight line but the ball wants to push the tip of the head back and the handle forward. The higher the RW, the higher the SW, the higher the plow through, and the more work the ball has to do to change the path of the COM. On the other end, the higher the RW, the higher the SW, the higher the plow through, and the less work you must do to keep the racket traveling at the same speed on the same path.
Does really matter what your specs are as long as you're happy with your racket. When you get ready for a new racket though knowing the specs you like helps you find a new racket.
EDIT: There's also the distance from the COM distance from your hand, and the distance from the COM to the point where the ball hits the strings. This distance creates leverage for both opposing forces. Moving your COM down 1/4" (2 pets) makes you do more work. That's what you have to adjust for, that added weight and less leverage.
Last edited:
GatorTennis
Rookie
Are you Hillary Clinton, because you didn't even come close to responding to what you quoted?
What have you experienced from such a recoil weight and swingweight?
I put my racquet at 212 of recoil weight and 368 of swingweight
static weight 415 g
balance 29.5 cm (15 pts HL)!!!
I put this balance by adding electrical tape to the handle, because I realised my grip size was too small. After finishing, I found a huge balance shift. Grip size was 2, now I think it is 4 , when I just wanted a 3. I also added a lot of tape to the buttcap a la Richard Gasquet.
I also added, just to balance it from 16 HL to 15 by adding 2 grams of lead on 12, 3 and 9 o' clock.
My racquet is a Prince TT Rebel 95 (18x20, stiffness 67). Pretty old, but similar to the current Prince Tour 100P with Textreme.
What is your opinion about this extreme HL balance???
I put my racquet at 212 of recoil weight and 368 of swingweight
static weight 415 g
balance 29.5 cm (15 pts HL)!!!
I put this balance by adding electrical tape to the handle, because I realised my grip size was too small. After finishing, I found a huge balance shift. Grip size was 2, now I think it is 4 , when I just wanted a 3. I also added a lot of tape to the buttcap a la Richard Gasquet.
I also added, just to balance it from 16 HL to 15 by adding 2 grams of lead on 12, 3 and 9 o' clock.
My racquet is a Prince TT Rebel 95 (18x20, stiffness 67). Pretty old, but similar to the current Prince Tour 100P with Textreme.
What is your opinion about this extreme HL balance???
Last edited:
Despite this, I still feel it too harsh on my shoulder. I guess the problem is me.
I had Synthetic gut 17 at 55. Now I am trying poly at 35.
My groundstrokes have become very deep, but my srrve is too weak. I suppose because i can't jerk my arm fast enough with such a heavy racquet and balance when serving.
I had Synthetic gut 17 at 55. Now I am trying poly at 35.
My groundstrokes have become very deep, but my srrve is too weak. I suppose because i can't jerk my arm fast enough with such a heavy racquet and balance when serving.
