Questions about Polarized & Depolarized set-ups

I think Polaried rackets (rackets with a higher Recoil Weight) has been blown out of proportion. A uniform stick with have an inertia around the center of mass equal to 1/12 the mass times the length squared. for instance if I took a stick 68.58 cm long that weighed 325 g or .325 Kg it would have an inertia of .325*68.58*68.58/12 or 127.3787775 Kgcm^2 around the center of mass which would be located in the center of the stick at 34.28 cm. If I wanted to calculate the inertia 10 cm from one end the it would be equal to the inertia at the center of mass plus the mass times the distance from the COM minus 10 cm squared or 127.3787775+(24.28*24.28*.325) or 318.9722575. Now that is not bad if you have a racket with a SW of 319 and total weight of 325 it that is what you want. But that uniform racket would have a high balance of 34.28 which may not be what you want. If you want to change the SW, TW, balance or total weight then IMO it would be best to address that and not RW, unless of course you're going to swing the racket around the center of mass.

travlerajm said:

yes. Much differently if the amount of weight is significant. Will feel like two completely different racquets.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'll give it a go and see. Sounds to me more weight is needed at 7" to achieve the same balance since it's closer to balance point.

Dragy said:

Just to share, I’m using modified DR98s for like 2 years now. First went with 340g setup, 7-8HL, 328 SW - achieved with long strips at 3&9 (~2.8g each side), 1-2g (different racquets of a pair) at 12 and counterbalance under the butt cap. Rather stable and forgiving - many off-center shots, even perceived as bad, still appeared serviceable.
But the latest thing was adding ~10g at the throat, around 10”, and that thing just plays so noticeably smoother. That last added lead was pure de-polarization experiment, and I’m not going to withdraw it.

Click to expand...

What does adding weight at the throat do? Sounds like I may need to try that!

aaron_h27 said:

What does adding weight at the throat do? Sounds like I may need to try that!

Click to expand...

It actually depolarizes racquet (the percentage of mass near the center of mass gets higher, as opposed to adding mass to the poles - tip and buttcap). There’s been a long MGR/I thread to cover the topic.
The outcome of having less polarization with all other things being equal (yes it’s possible, but no, adding 10g as I did is not such theoretical case) is faster rotating, flipping racquet.
I actually did what I did because I had room to add mass, and was a tad on polarized side, although headlight.

Dragy said:

yes it’s possible

Click to expand...

Well I withdraw this claim. The practical thing is: you can achieve same balance and swingweight with different static mass, where heavier racquet will be less poralized.
Similarly, you can achieve same mass, same balance, but different swigweight, where higher SW will be more polarized.
Also, you can achieve same mass, balance, SW and, consequently, MGR/I (polarization), but different twistweight, by putting lead in different locations on the hoop and counterbalancing in different locations on the handle and throat.

Found a guy with an RDC machine I am going to get my SW checked tomorrow! Super excited

SW 333 & 334 on both of my rackets according to an RDC. I was measuring it manually but only got 315. It's good to know im not playing with a wimpy stick! LOL

Anyways my specs

340g (8g of lead at 3&9, 6g in the throat)
6 pts HL
333 SW
MGR/I = 20.8

I am going to add 4-6g to the throat to get MGR/I 21.0

aaron_h27 said:

SW 333 & 334 on both of my rackets according to an RDC. I was measuring it manually but only got 315. It's good to know im not playing with a wimpy stick! LOL

Anyways my specs

340g (8g of lead at 3&9, 6g in the throat)
6 pts HL
333 SW
MGR/I = 20.8

Click to expand...

Nice that they were so close to each other, I've heard of much bigger differences than that!

Someone already mentioned it in this thread, but adding weight to 10 and 2 or even 11 and 1 is a worthwhile experiment because it's common for players to regularly contact the ball above the center of the stringbed. So it will shift the sweetspot higher and if you happen to contact the ball higher on the stringbed, it will feel like you're suddenly hitting the ball dead center in the sweetspot consistently.

I just tried lead at these locations for the first time and was amazed at the difference. It took some time and experimentation to get it right because there was an immediate and significant increase in power, but after 15-20 years of playing with lead at 3, 9 and 12 (and in the handle to get to 7.5-8pts HL), I'm kinda kicking myself for not trying it sooner.

supineAnimation said:

Someone already mentioned it in this thread, but adding weight to 10 and 2 or even 11 and 1 is a worthwhile experiment because it's common for players to regularly contact the ball above the center of the stringbed. So it will shift the sweetspot higher and if you happen to contact the ball higher on the stringbed, it will feel like you're suddenly hitting the ball dead center in the sweetspot consistently.

I just tried lead at these locations for the first time and was amazed at the difference. It took some time and experimentation to get it right because there was an immediate and significant increase in power, but after 15-20 years of playing with lead at 3, 9 and 12 (and in the handle to get to 7.5-8pts HL), I'm kinda kicking myself for not trying it sooner.

Click to expand...

Few grams at 10 & 2 works great on my PS 97S (which already has perimeter weighting system, giving a little extra to 3 & 9).

travlerajm said:

yes. Much differently if the amount of weight is significant. Will feel like two completely different racquets.

Click to expand...

Tried both ways. 6g in the butt cap vs 12g at 7 inch from butt cap to achieve 31.4cm (~9 pts HL) balance.

The 6g under butt cap seemed to have achieved the desired result (better maneuverability), but slight instability (I think I didn't hit cleanly). Feel wise not too dissimilar to before adding weight in terms of service and ground strokes from both wings.

The weight at 7 inch had definitely increased power (plow-through?) as I could not control my forehands for the first 5-10 minutes - mostly landed long. I think I wasn't used to the added mass and didn't swing as loose as I could have. You are right, felt very different from before adding weight. Service felt like more I had pace on the balls.

Unfortunately I only have one racquet (Prince Phantom 93P) and can't do an A-B test. So for now I have gone back to 6g under butt cap and will try it for a longer period before giving the 7 inch placement a try again.

hurworld said:

Tried both ways. 6g in the butt cap vs 12g at 7 inch from butt cap to achieve 31.4cm (~9 pts HL) balance.

The 6g under butt cap seemed to have achieved the desired result (better maneuverability), but slight instability (I think I didn't hit cleanly). Feel wise not too dissimilar to before adding weight in terms of service and ground strokes from both wings.

The weight at 7 inch had definitely increased power (plow-through?) as I could not control my forehands for the first 5-10 minutes - mostly landed long. I think I wasn't used to the added mass and didn't swing as loose as I could have. You are right, felt very different from before adding weight. Service felt like more I had pace on the balls.

Unfortunately I only have one racquet (Prince Phantom 93P) and can't do an A-B test. So for now I have gone back to 6g under butt cap and will try it for a longer period before giving the 7 inch placement a try again.

Click to expand...

The added weight affects a racquet in two ways:
1. Impact dynamics.
2. Swing dynamics.

For impact dynamics, one of the primary bending modes is halfway up the handle. Placing mass lower than the node (at the butt) shifts the node toward the butt, which lengthens the distance between the two nodes. This lengthens the dwell time and makes the impact feel softer and spinnier. This tends to worsen control on volleys and slices, but may be helpful for generating spin.

Placing mass near the top of the handle does the opposite to the impact dynamics. It shortens the dwell time and makes the impact feel crisper and more stable, but less spinny. This can help for volleys and slices, but may make groundies and serve seem harder to spin.

For swing dynamics, mass near butt will not be very noticeable on forehands because the mass is added at the pivot point of the pendulum (the wrist joint). But mass added at top of handle will increase mgR/I value of racquet, which will make it naturally swing faster about the wrist axis. This may be perceived as more power, depending on starting specs. Certain mgR/I values will be much easier to control than others.

adding mass near butt will reduce mgr/I with respect to a 2hb (because pivot point is halfway up the handle), while keeping mgr/I for forehand the same.

I actually depolarized my racket even more by taking lead off of 3 & 9 and moving it to the throat after realizing that you don't need a super high twistweight to make your racket depolarized. So right now my set up is 12g in the throat of my DR 98. I realized lead at 3 & 9 makes the racket too sluggish and clubby. I need to measure the balance point but I believe my MGR/I is somewhere close to 21, or at least closer than it was before. I've come to the realization I do not like high twistweight or polarized rackets for the most part. I can see the benefit of using a polarized frame on clay but my all court game benefits more from a depolarized frame.

338g
325 SW
6-7 pts HL?

I'm liking this set-up a lot, not as much easy power because of the lower SW, but i am much more consistent. My slice backhand & forehand are benefitting from this set-up. I do wish the SW was a tad bit higher for some easy power. But honestly I probably won't go above 340 as i see really no reason too with the current players I face. If 340 is enough for Fed, its definitely enough for a rec player. My game doesn't rely on heavy spins but more placement & variety.

back after 3 months, Right now my set-up for my DR 98's are

350g
336 SW
8 pts HL
MGR/I = 20.8-9

6 grams at 3 & 9, 6 grams in the throat, 10 grams 7 inches from the buttcap

I need a little weight at 3 & 9 otherwise the racket is flopping around a lot for me and my technique

I dont know how to explain it, but is easier for me to hit targets/play aggressive with a lower SW, high MGR/I set-up.

I went back to a higher SW set-up (355 SW, MGR/I 20.2) for about a month, and it was great for serving but had trouble hitting accurate groundstrokes. Even just rallying cross court i had trouble consistently finding corners and would often find myself hitting more towards the middle. Spin was great though.

During matches i felt like all I could do was play defense even with players who had much lower SW than I did. Shots were very loopy.

travlerajm said:

The added weight affects a racquet in two ways:
1. Impact dynamics.
2. Swing dynamics.

For impact dynamics, one of the primary bending modes is halfway up the handle. Placing mass lower than the node (at the butt) shifts the node toward the butt, which lengthens the distance between the two nodes. This lengthens the dwell time and makes the impact feel softer and spinnier. This tends to worsen control on volleys and slices, but may be helpful for generating spin.

Placing mass near the top of the handle does the opposite to the impact dynamics. It shortens the dwell time and makes the impact feel crisper and more stable, but less spinny. This can help for volleys and slices, but may make groundies and serve seem harder to spin.

For swing dynamics, mass near butt will not be very noticeable on forehands because the mass is added at the pivot point of the pendulum (the wrist joint). But mass added at top of handle will increase mgR/I value of racquet, which will make it naturally swing faster about the wrist axis. This may be perceived as more power, depending on starting specs. Certain mgR/I values will be much easier to control than others.

adding mass near butt will reduce mgr/I with respect to a 2hb (because pivot point is halfway up the handle), while keeping mgr/I for forehand the same.

Click to expand...

Because of the benefits and drawbacks of each handle weighting approach, wouldn’t it be better to split the difference and add weight to both? For example, adding weight to the entire handle with lead or internally with silicone or a leather grip (whichever method you prefer). I’m thinking this would give the best overall benefit with least amount of drawbacks?

Seems that most stock rackets are polarized... outside of maybe the Vcore and a few, but it seems harder to find than the opposite. No ?

Wheelz said:

Seems that most stock rackets are polarized... outside of maybe the Vcore and a few, but it seems harder to find than the opposite. No ?

Click to expand...

Yes

Vcore Pro 330, RF 97, Phantom 93P are the only ones I know that aren't polarized stock.

Ezone 98 is close to being depolarized, same with Pure Strike Team.

Most popular rackets today are polarized, Wilson Blade, Wilson Clash, etc...

FiReFTW said:

But now im thinking since some people here say 3 and 9 decreases the maneouverability and sometimes its not so good, that I go with:

3-4grams at 12
1 gram at 3
1 gram at 9

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I think you're right on the money with this. I play with the 2015 Pro Staffs and set up my frames exactly like this.

4 grams at 12
1 gram each at 3 and 9

Twistweight has to be just right for me, i've gone too far and i've gone too low. The DR 98 is a bit unstable for me in stock form (13.69 TW) i added 4 1.5 gram strips at 3 & 9 and now it's stable. It seems I like a TW around 14.

Still messing around with specs, IM GETTING REALLY CLOSE!!

I realized my limit for static weight is about 346g give or take a gram or two (I'm 5'7, 140 lbs). Static weight makes a racket hard to maneuver for me personally, even with low SW. I always hated those rackets that were like 12.5 oz but only 320 SW, it all makes sense now.

also I don't really like lead at 7 inches from the buttcap, i much prefer it at the throat, it seems like less strain on my arm, to me personally.

I'm basically torn between these two set-ups

Set-up A
340g
353 SW
5 pts HL
20.2 MGR/I

-Pros: more power, more spin, more comfortable, stable, few extra free points on serve
-Cons: consistency, directional accuracy, net play

Set-up B
340g
332 SW
7 pts HL
20.7 MGR/I

-Pros: Accuracy, Net play, Maneuverability, return of serve
-Cons: Less free power, not as comfortable, less stable, less free points on serve, hard to return really fast serves

I'm leaning towards set-up B, as i like to play an all-court game and i may add a gram or two at noon to bump the SW up if needed, & get a best of both worlds.
I do return better with Set-up B so that may be the tiebreaker

aaron_h27 said:

Set-up B
340g
332 SW
7 pts HL
20.6 MGR/I

Click to expand...

That looks like a great setup. It would work for a lot of players but many don't think to tinker with their equipment.

BTW, how do you measure your SW numbers? I notice you said you had been doing it "manually". How were you doing it?

Karma Tennis said:

That looks like a great setup. It would work for a lot of players but many don't think to tinker with their equipment.

BTW, how do you measure your SW numbers? I notice you said you had been doing it "manually". How were you doing it?

Click to expand...

I got Set-up B measured on a friend's RDC so im kinda estimating Set-up A based off that.

aaron_h27 said:

I got Set-up B measured on a friend's RDC so im kinda estimating Set-up A based off that.

Click to expand...

So you didn't actually measure the SW yourself using something like SwingTool?

Wow I do not wt m sticks, my son has recently played around He uses the K factor wilson 95 16 x 19 6.1s He has added wt at the 3 9 points of his frames to try to get more power into his forehands on high topspin shots. His biggest concern is the added wt sometimes effects his contact point which imo is the most important part of the swing

Karma Tennis said:

So you didn't actually measure the SW yourself using something like SwingTool?

Click to expand...

I had Set-Up B SW measured on an RDC.

Set-Up A i just added 6 grams at noon which is about 20 SW points give or take.

Posted this in another thread but its applicable here so yeah...

Just wanted to say thanks for the MR^2 formula, i've been trying to see what depolarization does for my game, given that im a shorter player (5'7) with an all court game, 1HBH. I've been using a slightly extended racket for the past 15 months and have been unable to get anywhere near close to 385 due to extended rackets being overly HL.

Before venturing into my current frame, I was always under the impression that high level players use small headsizes and heavy static weights, headlight balance (didn't know anything about swingweight)This led to me using a pro staff 85 for about a year or so, and a RF 97 for a while. My game pleatued and I was losing to players I know I could beat, Frustrated. I don't know why but i started demoing ligter rackets and saw that I played better with them in matches, but that was the only point of reference I had for choosing my next racket. Enter DR 98.

The DR 98 is a great stick, My serve actually became a weapon because of the extra length, and it's super comfortable. My only 2 gripes are the high launch angle and I feel the weight distribution could be a bit better, although most extended frames have a similar weight distribuiton so i don't know how reasonable it is to have a stock depolarized weighting for a extended frame. Most are 5+ HL with 11 oz static. I just so happened to use an extended length by accident, the DR 98's are .125 inch longer than standard rackets and i found that out after I bought it, cool. Atleast I got to try an extended frame.

throughout my time customizing my DR 98, I realized I don't like static weight above 340 grams, i lose too much RHS and my groundstrokes start spraying more than normal, so that is my limit personally for my phsique and strokes. I like a TW around 14-14.5, and I like my SW to be at least 335. Based on the MR^2 = 385 formula I needed a racket that was 2 pts HL if i wanted 340 grams static.

I looked around for rackets that could be weighted to that spec (which are not many) and found that the head mircogel radical could be modded to those specs seeing that it comes 2 pts HL stock and 312 starting static weight...so i went ahead and bought one, its only $89 so i figured why not, curiosity got the best of me. I leaded it up to 340 grams and the balance was 2 pts HL exactly! Perfect. I'm on my way to becoming an ATP Pro. Lol Jk.

I went out for a practice match today with the pre-strung synthetic gut...won 7-6, 6-3 against a guy i normally struggle with/lose to, first impressions compared to the DR 98, lower launch angle due to the string pattern, which was really helpful on chip return of serves and slice backhands. I have a 1HBH and I use my slice quite often and I felt more confident attacking with it. Definitely less errors than normal, but could be due to the string pattern also. For some reason though I had really good consistency with second serves, they were landing deep in the box with more spin than my DR 98's, only 1 double fault for me over a 2 set match is really good. Compared to the 5-6 i would normally hit with my DR 98. DR 98 definitely wins on flat 1st serves because of the extra reach, but I liked everything else with the mircogel. I will do more experimenting and report back.

I am looking for more control on groundstrokes, and to cut down on unforced errors. My DR 98's are great when im playing well, but when im slightly off my game, everything is magnified. That is my reason for searching for a more optimal set-up for my game. I may end up switching back, but im confident that with these specs I can play some good tennis, although my thoughts mean nothing and match-play is the only evidence of such a claim. Don't get me wrong...the DR 98 was a major upgrade from those heavy players rackets and has won me a lot of matches, but i still feel like I can squeeze a little more out of my game.

In summary im thankful that I have found some insight as to the type of racket I can play best with due to threads like these, I was not maximizing my skillset by playing with heavy player's frames that are overly HL with low SW's. I am a short guy and mostly play singles. So now it finally makes sense why I hated certain frames when I demoed them (93p, Dunlop Aerogel 200, etc...)

Delete.

aaron_h27 said:

Delete.

Click to expand...

Wow so much great info in this thread and thanks for posting so much of your experience.
Curious if you believe a 341 / 6pts HL / 330~ spec is considered depolarized or if it’s in between polarized and depolarized? Using more or less this currently.

EasternRocks said:

Wow so much great info in this thread and thanks for posting so much of your experience.
Curious if you believe a 341 / 6pts HL / 330~ spec is considered depolarized or if it’s in between polarized and depolarized? Using more or less this currently.

Click to expand...

depolarized.

EasternRocks said:

Wow so much great info in this thread and thanks for posting so much of your experience.
Curious if you believe a 341 / 6pts HL / 330~ spec is considered depolarized or if it’s in between polarized and depolarized? Using more or less this currently.

Click to expand...

What is the hoop size of the racquet? (What racquet is it?)

Karma Tennis said:

What is the hoop size of the racquet? (What racquet is it?)

Click to expand...

Ezone xi 98

aaron_h27 said:

depolarized.

Click to expand...

interesting. So polarized is only when the swingweight is greater than static weight? I wonder if I’d like my spec more if I kept swingweight but lowered static a bit. Can’t really do that on my racquet unless I removed one of my two overgrip and I don’t want to do that.

EasternRocks said:

Ezone xi 98

Click to expand...

Yes, with the specs you posted, I would agree with aaron that your setup is more depolarised.

I would add 3 grams of weight at 12 and 4 grams of weight inside the handle placed as near as possible to the butt-cap trap door. You could use Blue-Tac as a temporary solution which would allow you to experiment with different configs.

Ideally, I would remove one of the overgrips - but if you simply must have 2 overgrips, then consider replacing your grip with a thinner grip, or use the thinnest ogs you can (Babolat VS grips are very thin and very lightweight).

EasternRocks said:

interesting. So polarized is only when the swingweight is greater than static weight? I wonder if I’d like my spec more if I kept swingweight but lowered static a bit. Can’t really do that on my racquet unless I removed one of my two overgrip and I don’t want to do that.

Click to expand...

Polarised is basically when a lot of the weight is distributed at the Poles of the racquet (ie 12 on the hoop, and as near as possible to the butt-cap). The impact on the SW is dependant on the racquet configuration. For example, it is usually a lot easier to polarize an 85, 90 or 93 hoop stick than a 98 or 100 hoop stick.

Karma Tennis said:

Yes, with the specs you posted, I would agree with aaron that your setup is more depolarised.

I would add 3 grams of weight at 12 and 4 grams of weight inside the handle placed as near as possible to the butt-cap trap door. You could use Blue-Tac as a temporary solution which would allow you to experiment with different configs.

Ideally, I would remove one of the overgrips - but if you simply must have 2 overgrips, then consider replacing your grip with a thinner grip, or use the thinnest ogs you can (Babolat VS grips are very thin and very lightweight).



Polarised is basically when a lot of the weight is distributed at the Poles of the racquet (ie 12 on the hoop, and as near as possible to the butt-cap). The impact on the SW is dependant on the racquet configuration.

Click to expand...

I have added 2 grams at 12 to reduce the depolarization and I’m kind of at my limit with swingweight being around 330ish.
I like the two overgrips because I am using a leather grip and it isn’t as harsh. The first base grip is a thinner Wilson and what’s on top is yonex.
not sure I can really push any further even though I’m curious how a polarized set up would feel. Granted I’ve never played with any polarized frames growing up - flexpoint prestige mp, babolat pure storm tour gt. Did play with the graphene 2013 speed pro which I recall being polarized, but I actually found it too polarized and a bit cumbersome to get rotational force especially off my backhand side.

The only other things you could do are pretty extreme.

Either shave the racquet's bumper guard as much as practical to reduce the weight in the hoop. The weight that you save could them be re-distributed to the tips.

Alternatively, you could remove the bumper guard altogether and use tubing to protect the strings from the grommet holes. But that is a really extreme option and requires a lot of effort everytime you restring.

Of course, you could also try a much thinner gauge string to reduce the weight in the hoop and then redistribute the saved wieight to the tips.

You could also shave down the grips - but that would depend on whether you need the entire handle for a DHBH etc.

If you use a string vibration dampener, replace it with an elastic rubber band, or get rid of it completely.

Otherwise, you are looking to get a different racquet. LITE or TEAM versions of many racquets are great customisation sticks.

Karma Tennis said:

The only other things you could do are pretty extreme.

Either shave the racquet's bumper guard as much as practical to reduce the weight in the hoop. The weight that you save could them be re-distributed to the tips.

Alternatively, you could remove the bumper guard altogether and use tubing to protect the strings from the grommet holes. But that is a really extreme option and requires a lot of effort everytime you restring.

Of course, you could also try a much thinner gauge string to reduce the weight in the hoop and then redistribute the saved wieight to the tips.

You could also shave down the grips - but that would depend on whether you need the entire handle for a DHBH etc.

If you use a string vibration dampener, replace it with an elastic rubber band, or get rid of it completely.

Otherwise, you are looking to get a different racquet. LITE or TEAM versions of many racquets are great customisation sticks.

Click to expand...

I may try again full 120 gauge. Currently do a 125/120 hybrid. But wouldn’t that reduce swingweight since it’s a lighter string? I’m not necessarily unhappy with the setup. Just curious if my spec is pretty common for the high level player or if it’s more likely to see someone with a lighter racquet than 341 and a swingweight that’s higher than it’s static weight? Probably would mean the balance would also be a bit more too heavy huh. Can’t play anything shorter than 6pts HL when I have a racquet in the 12 oz range and high 320’s swingweight. It gets too tiring to swing in long matches.
Just little curious if I’m missing out on dropping the static weight and getting it to match the swingweight a little more closely.

edit: seems pretty impossible to get to 332-3 static and 330 swingweight with this racquet the more I’m thinking about it. Especially if I won’t budge on the leather plus two overgrips. I did get rid of the dampener and play without it to help reduce static weight.

Karma Tennis said:

Yes, with the specs you posted, I would agree with aaron that your setup is more depolarised.

I would add 3 grams of weight at 12 and 4 grams of weight inside the handle placed as near as possible to the butt-cap trap door. You could use Blue-Tac as a temporary solution which would allow you to experiment with different configs.

Ideally, I would remove one of the overgrips - but if you simply must have 2 overgrips, then consider replacing your grip with a thinner grip, or use the thinnest ogs you can (Babolat VS grips are very thin and very lightweight).



Polarised is basically when a lot of the weight is distributed at the Poles of the racquet (ie 12 on the hoop, and as near as possible to the butt-cap). The impact on the SW is dependant on the racquet configuration. For example, it is usually a lot easier to polarize an 85, 90 or 93 hoop stick than a 98 or 100 hoop stick.

Click to expand...

why is it easier on a smaller hoop?

edit : is there a sliding scale of less depolarized inching closer to polarized? I surely made my racquet more polarized by placing the lead at 12, correct? I may just like a depolarized frame that is slightly closer to polarized than a very clearly depolarized setup like 339/8 pts HL/325-326

aaron_h27 said:

depolarized.

Click to expand...

you still enjoying depolarized ?

EasternRocks said:

Just little curious if I’m missing out on dropping the static weight and getting it to match the swingweight a little more closely.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse polarisation and SW.

I have a very light Wilson racquet that has a very high SW because it has a very large hoop size and is very head heavy. It is certainly not polarised!

Polarisation means a lot of weight at the poles of the racquet. You could take a lot of weight out of the handle (eg. get rid of the leather grip) which would reduce your static weight significantly (my guess would be somewhere between 15 to 25 grams if you are using a typical leather grip). And even more if you got rid of one of the overgrips. You would end up with a much more head heavy racquet, lower static weight, still high SW. But it would not be polarised.

EasternRocks said:

why is it easier on a smaller hoop?

Click to expand...

Smaller hoop sizes have more of the racquet weight distributed along the main axis of the racquet. So placing extra mass at each tip has a much greater polarisation (polarising!) effect.

Karma Tennis said:

Don't confuse polarisation and SW.

I have a very light Wilson racquet that has a very high SW because it has a very large hoop size and is very head heavy. It is certainly not polarised!

Polarisation means a lot of weight at the poles of the racquet. You could take a lot of weight out of the handle (eg. get rid of the leather grip) which would reduce your static weight significantly (my guess would be somewhere between 15 to 25 grams if you are using a typical leather grip). And even more if you got rid of one of the overgrips. You would end up with a much more head heavy racquet, lower static weight, still high SW. But it would not be polarised.



Smaller hoop sizes have more of the racquet weight distributed along the main axis of the racquet. So placing extra mass at each tip has a much greater polarisation (polarising!) effect.

Click to expand...

isnt that racquet polarized because to get that swingweight and weight in the head, it’s thereby indicating that there is weight at the top pole?

so you’re saying if a racquet has high swingweight relative to a low static, it’s not always polarized? Confused!

I also would have thought if I took static weight off like leather and one og like your example, the ratio of having that lead up at 12 versus less weight on the handle would make my frame more polarized.

I want to try to give it a go polarizing to compare but I don’t think I have any way to go about it other than to string full 120 and take that weight difference and between the hybrid and stick it at 12. It’ll probably still be like 340 static high 330’s sw which isn’t ideal for what my limitations are with heft. Just bought a swingweight machine to see if I can maybe get something like a 337 static 335 swing.

EasternRocks said:

isnt that racquet polarized because to get that swingweight and weight in the head, it’s thereby indicating that there is weight at the top pole?

so you’re saying if a racquet has high swingweight relative to a low static, it’s not always polarized? Confused!

I also would have thought if I took static weight off like leather and one og like your example, the ratio of having that lead up at 12 versus less weight on the handle would make my frame more polarized.

I want to try to give it a go polarizing to compare but I don’t think I have any way to go about it other than to string full 120 and take that weight difference and between the hybrid and stick it at 12. It’ll probably still be like 340 static high 330’s sw which isn’t ideal for what my limitations are with heft. Just bought a swingweight machine to see if I can maybe get something like a 337 static 335 swing.

Click to expand...

What is the effect of putting, say 10g at 3 and 10g at 9? What does that do to the Balance and the SW? Do you think doing that is a more polarised or de-polarised set up?

Afaik, polarised racquets are racquets that have significant weight distributed at either or both tips of the centre longtitudal axis of the racquet.

In your case, redistributing more of the weight to 12 will increase the polarisation. But it will come at a cost of a higher SW and a more Head Heavy balance. As you say, that could affect your stroke in a negative way. But the only way to know for sure it to give it a try and see the result.

EasternRocks said:

you still enjoying depolarized ?

Click to expand...

I would say I prefer a depolarized set-up with my current racket but only because I tried so many set-ups and found what works for me, right now I'm 340g, 6-7 pts HL, 330 SW

Racket tuning can get really complicated , but one thing I will say is to focus on ONE variable at a time. Static Weight, SW, Balance Point, Twistweight.

I don't really worry about MGR/I anymore.

Start with a nice platform racket (300-310g unstrung, low twistweight) I personally like the Vcore 95 for this, but you can look up twistweights online.

If you prefer a lower SW I would stay away from 18x20 patterns.

EasternRocks said:

Ezone xi 98

Click to expand...

Excellent platform racket for customization I believe it has a fairly low twistweight.

Anyways I wouldn't really worry about the depolarization or polarization aspect, what are you looking for by customizing? More power? More spin? More stability when facing heavy servers?

EasternRocks said:

interesting. So polarized is only when the swingweight is greater than static weight? I wonder if I’d like my spec more if I kept swingweight but lowered static a bit. Can’t really do that on my racquet unless I removed one of my two overgrip and I don’t want to do that.

Click to expand...

Adding an overgrip depolarizes a racket. Removing it would make it more polarized.

I would say for you to check your balance point? If you're a two handed player who plays a baseline game you could probably get away with less handle weight.

EasternRocks said:

I may try again full 120 gauge. Currently do a 125/120 hybrid. But wouldn’t that reduce swingweight since it’s a lighter string? I’m not necessarily unhappy with the setup. Just curious if my spec is pretty common for the high level player or if it’s more likely to see someone with a lighter racquet than 341 and a swingweight that’s higher than it’s static weight? Probably would mean the balance would also be a bit more too heavy huh. Can’t play anything shorter than 6pts HL when I have a racquet in the 12 oz range and high 320’s swingweight. It gets too tiring to swing in long matches.
Just little curious if I’m missing out on dropping the static weight and getting it to match the swingweight a little more closely.

edit: seems pretty impossible to get to 332-3 static and 330 swingweight with this racquet the more I’m thinking about it. Especially if I won’t budge on the leather plus two overgrips. I did get rid of the dampener and play without it to help reduce static weight.

Click to expand...

Are you using a leather grip plus two overgrips? Seems a bit unnecessary unless you serve & volley or play a lot of doubles. The average balance point on the ATP is 6 pts HL, I would imagine you have a 10-11 pts HL racket with all that handle weight. Don't think its necessary. You could go down to 7-8 pts HL and lower your static weight a bit for more maneuverability/spin.

Polarized?

aaron_h27 said:

Excellent platform racket for customization I believe it has a fairly low twistweight.

Anyways I wouldn't really worry about the depolarization or polarization aspect, what are you looking for by customizing? More power? More spin? More stability when facing heavy servers?

Click to expand...

I want more stability but not at 3/9 because I don’t like high twistweight. I like to have a wrist involved forehand and am very “handsy” and feel oriented.

aaron_h27 said:

Adding an overgrip depolarizes a racket. Removing it would make it more polarized.

I would say for you to check your balance point? If you're a two handed player who plays a baseline game you could probably get away with less handle weight.

Click to expand...

I like the double overgrip on top of leather because it reduces the harshness of the feel on my hand and I also get more leverage on the off hand for my two hander. I have a weak right hand so a little more stability as I pass the racquet through contact and into my follow thru.

aaron_h27 said:

Are you using a leather grip plus two overgrips? Seems a bit unnecessary unless you serve & volley or play a lot of doubles. The average balance point on the ATP is 6 pts HL, I would imagine you have a 10-11 pts HL racket with all that handle weight. Don't think its necessary. You could go down to 7-8 pts HL and lower your static weight a bit for more maneuverability/spin.

Click to expand...

no I am at 6.5 pts hl with the leather and two og when putting 2 grams of 12 o clock lead. 7 pts hl when I put 1.5 grams. 7.5 pts hl when there’s no lead. Stock I don’t have enough stability against big serves and put away power.