I gather from this statement and another in our conversation that you don't want more SW. Adding recoil weight without adding swingweight is not only possible, it's easy. It just means more weight in the handle than you'd add in the hoop if adding SW were an option.
Interesting, yes, I'm not sure more SW would mean more points won, might mean less.
Not trying to be rude, but I know teenage females who have no issues swinging frames at 325g. You at 6’4, 200~lbs can handle something a bit heavier without a huge drop in RHS. Unless your technique and footwork is just awful.
My footwork might be awful, sometimes lol. I could handle it, I think you are correct, just hard to quantify how many points it might win me above and beyond what I use now. I think it could win some different kinds of points, but maybe sacrifice too much , it's the age old question of where to compromise/balance..
I don't think you maxed out swing speed at 326g as a 6'4 adult male.
www.desmos.com
Aha, yes, you are probably correct, but let's add some to this discussion, some more random thoughts.
It's not about racquet performance in shots hit with 100% power. I'm not sure where you got this idea. It's about majority of regular shots hit at 60-80% range. it's about every single stroke where we lag the racquet.
Surely, well I mentioned in my blurb, touch volleys, drop.shots, lobs, serve and volley, so I'm theorizing there is a trade off and "every time we hit the ball", is it everytime? Does.the higher RA provide a smaller benefit in these cases, no benefit, a detriment? I'm not sure, just brainstorming.
I definitely recommend trying it out and experiencing it first hand.
That is some well organized data, kudos. Interesting stuff.I definitely recommend trying it out and experiencing it first hand.
Awhile back I shared some insights I gathered from my own data (see below). There is an overall net effect on performance, measured by points won. I don’t track data on every stroke, but I do track my 1st and 2nd serve in percentages. Did not share specifically in my previous posts, but from my data, the impact of RW on serve is less clear cut.
PS. I’ve been following the last 2 great discussions in this thread and have been meaning to weigh in, but I’m still gathering sufficient data before I share my insights. My issue with my own data is that rackets with my ideal RW tend to also have my ideal SW. So there’s a possibility that SW is driving the effects. At present, I only have 9 data points where I played my desired specs (except SW), vs 136 (all met) vs 23 (all but RW). The goal is to amass at least 30 for each condition before I share my results. Problem is I only play twice a week and there’s inertia with not using my desired SW (to me it is the most important spec). But I shall sacrifice in the name of science
When I first embarked on collecting my data, I did visualise mgr/i values against performance indicators like points won or serve in percentages. Unfortunately, no clear pattern emerged from these plots so I didn’t pursue it further. But to be fair, RW expressed as continuous data would probably face a similar no clear pattern issue. The difference being the height-RW table and +/- 2/3 point RW range offered me a simple starting point to categorise these continuous data to aid interpretation. I did try to do something similar for mgr/i using thresholds for very polarised and very depolarised rackets. The issue was those thresholds were too extreme and among the rackets I had, majority sat in the middle of those thresholds.
Sounds like free and open-source software
Hi @forzmr_b, thanks for sharing your research!I definitely recommend trying it out and experiencing it first hand.
Awhile back I shared some insights I gathered from my own data (see below). There is an overall net effect on performance, measured by points won. I don’t track data on every stroke, but I do track my 1st and 2nd serve in percentages. Did not share specifically in my previous posts, but from my data, the impact of RW on serve is less clear cut.
PS. I’ve been following the last 2 great discussions in this thread and have been meaning to weigh in, but I’m still gathering sufficient data before I share my insights. My issue with my own data is that rackets with my ideal RW tend to also have my ideal SW. So there’s a possibility that SW is driving the effects. At present, I only have 9 data points where I played my desired specs (except SW), vs 136 (all met) vs 23 (all but RW). The goal is to amass at least 30 for each condition before I share my results. Problem is I only play twice a week and there’s inertia with not using my desired SW (to me it is the most important spec). But I shall sacrifice in the name of science
Frames w/ OG: | Weight | Balance | SW | RW | MgR/I | Polarization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graphene 360 Radical MP | 325g | 32.4cm | 333 | 170.9 | 20.19 | 0.526 |
| Prestige Tour 2021 | 333g | 32cm | 331 | 170.2 | 20.45 | 0.51 |
I definitely recommend trying it out and experiencing it first hand.
Awhile back I shared some insights I gathered from my own data (see below). There is an overall net effect on performance, measured by points won. I don’t track data on every stroke, but I do track my 1st and 2nd serve in percentages. Did not share specifically in my previous posts, but from my data, the impact of RW on serve is less clear cut.
PS. I’ve been following the last 2 great discussions in this thread and have been meaning to weigh in, but I’m still gathering sufficient data before I share my insights. My issue with my own data is that rackets with my ideal RW tend to also have my ideal SW. So there’s a possibility that SW is driving the effects. At present, I only have 9 data points where I played my desired specs (except SW), vs 136 (all met) vs 23 (all but RW). The goal is to amass at least 30 for each condition before I share my results. Problem is I only play twice a week and there’s inertia with not using my desired SW (to me it is the most important spec). But I shall sacrifice in the name of science
Hi @Brando, the motivation is less about which is more effective for my swing but more about exploring the cost benefit associated with customising my rackets to meet all my optimum specs. In short, if I had to choose between SW or RW, which should I sacrifice? Personally, some tinkering is fun, but the iterative process of tinkering and measurement can become a chore and the time could be spent better else where.
That hasn’t been my experience, but then again I don’t play with rackets that have vastly different characteristics. I just have a variety of Pro Staffs sprinkled with some Blades.
That makes sense then, I've tried a lot of different frames over the last few years. Gave up on 18x20's as they just require so much weight.
Know what, @forzmr_b? I wouldn't dream of derailing your valuable research. But when I read the sentence I've bolded in your reply, I can't help but wince a bit because I don't believe one should have to sacrifice swingweight for recoil weight, and I don't want folks to think that needs to be the case for them either. That said, I get what you're doing. You're testing an interesting hypothetical: If one had to choose, which measure is more essential to your swing performance, SW or RW? And I for one can't wait to hear your results when you've garnered enough playtime to gather the data.
Given that RW already takes into account SW is there really a "compromise" between those two specs? The only thing you'd be compromising I suppose is high or low MGR/I.
Not sure about the math and physics behind SW, RW, and MGR/I and how they're interrelated, but I can only find a weak positive correlation between RW and SW in my data (Pearson's correlation of 0.11) and certainly in practice, I've faced the challenge of optimizing rackets on just 3 specs: RW, SW, and static weight. Extracted some of my data for illustration. Two PS Xs that vary simply from the result of string choice and/or weight added at 12.
| Racket | String Choice | Customization | Static Weight (g) | Balance (cm) | SW | MGR/I | RW | Optimization Result | |
| Frame A | Max Power / Ghostwire | None | 331 | 32.1 | 321 | 20.8 | 159.3 | Does not meet desired SW or RW | |
| Frame A |
| 1.8g at 12 o'clock | 332.8 | 32.3 | 327 | 20.7 | 161.5 | Achieved | |
| Frame A | Paradox Pro | None | 339.2 | 32 | 327 | 20.9 | 162.8 | Achieved | |
| Frame B | Tour Sniper | 2g at 12 o'clock | 339.4 | 31.9 | 328 | 20.8 | 165.2 | Does not meet desired RW | |
| Frame B | Tourna Syn Gut Armor / Ghostwire | None | 334.4 | 31.7 | 320 | 20.9 | 162.5 | Does not meet desired SW | |
| Frame B | VS Touch / Max Power | 2.4g at 12 o'clock | 335.5 | 32.2 | 327 | 20.8 | 161.7 | Achieved |
We have similar preference in frames, My preference is 340-344 grams of static weight, 325-330 SW, 6-7 pts HL, 160 RW.
The 2021 vcore 95 having that high of a RW in stock form is interesting...this could explain why I prefer my SV 95's much more even though the frames are basically the same minus a thinner beam for the SV 95. I didn't know anything about RW when I was using the 2021 Vcore 95's.
I’m just under 5’9
Please excuse me if I'm a bit thick on this, @forzmr_b, but could you explain what you mean by a "weak positive correlation between RW and SW?" I think you mean that when one is "achieved" to your desired spec but not the other, the frame doesn't play as well for you as when both are achieved. Do I have that right?
No, that is not what I meant. What you have described is what I’m working towards demonstrating. At the moment it seems to be the case, but I lack data on the non-ideal setups to confidently say so.
I play in the tropics so it does add some weight but it’s a rabbit hole I don’t want to go into, nor do I want to measure my racket specs before and after every session just to be super precise on what specs I play with hahaha.
You generally add weight to the hoop to increase SW, therefore increasing RW also. That was my original point.
Most people when modifying a frame are adding weight to the hoop of their frames which increases SW & RW. That's why I said what I said.
Any thoughts on bent arm and semi-western? Cause that’s me ☺️. I estimate that my elbow is bent to form a 150/160 degree angle on most cases.DEFINING A LOOSE MODERN SWING
Several times along this thread I’ve said that my RW Table works best for “players with a loose modern swing.” But, my bad, I haven’t defined the term. What exactly do I mean by a loose modern swing?
Most of us learn to swing by sweeping our arms forward off of a relatively immobilized shoulder, which anchors the arm to meet the ball in front along a predictable path. This also entails stiffening the arm and locking the wrist to direct the racquet’s coming through, which renders its weight distribution less material to the swing.
A loose, modern swing starts not in the arm but from the torso uncoiling the shoulders in a wide arc, during which the shoulder joint tightens at the just the right instant to bring the loose arm along for the ride. Here the arm’s very floppiness acts like a whip, translating the kinetic energy (that started in coiling the torso off the player’s low-bend knees) down through the forearm and into the racquet, which, just before contact, is torsionally twisted in three rotational reversals, each coming individually from the shoulder, forearm, and wrist.
34:25 into Biomechanics of The Forehand - Cyril Genevois, Tennis Vlaanderen channel, YouTube, Dec 17, 2020.
The circled areas in the 3 graphs above the 3 photo-pairs displays how sudden and forceful these rotational reversals can be, one leading to the next as the swing moves forward. First, shoulder rotation shifts from outward to inward. Then the forearm turns from suppinated to pronated. Finally, the wrist swings forward, from stable to unstable. These three reversals can be catastrophic for ball striking, combining to destabilize a system that’s been moving along in a nice, predictable path until centrifugal force comes along to activate them just before we hit the ball (impact being represented by the rightward vertical line in each graph).
This very well explains why hitting a heavy ball is far more difficult than it looks. It also makes a racquet’s weight distribution all the more important because the amount of weight and where it’s located affects how a frame will angularly and inertially respond when these sudden directional changes are allowed to occur. With a tight-armed swing, shoulder rotation reverses, and depending on the tightness, some degree of forearm and wrist rotation may happen, but the racquet’s path is significantly more linear. Here the racquet is less pulled in three different directions than manually forced into one.
The upshot is that we all have to swing tight-armed at first, if only to time the swing of a racquet to meet an incoming ball. At this beginner stage, a frame’s weight distribution is all but inconsequential. And even for intermediates, there’s nothing wrong with a tight-armed swing. It can be consistent and predictable and is used effectively by counterpunchers and spinmeisters everywhere. It’s just not a loose modern swing.
In post #396 of this thread, @tele brought up a related point: Players who swing bent-armed (often being those with an eastern forehand) may shorten the length of their double pendulum enough to make my table inaccurate for them. After consulting with a couple of advanced players who’re both versed in biomechanics and swing an eastern FH, I’ve concluded that tele is probably right because the more bent the arm, the stiffer it becomes; in the extreme, the shoulder joint is tucking the elbow in against the player’s ribs.
Interestingly, one bent-armed eastern forehander posited that this may be why he prefers his recoil weight around 5 points higher than my table recommends. As he explained it, with his elbow tucked into his ribs, the loose part of his swing was halved down to forearm to wrist (vs. shoulder joint to wrist), which reduced his racquet lag. So it feels like he needs the extra RW to get back the hoop-lag stolen by his shortened double pendulum.
I'd be interested to hear from others who swing an eastern forehand if this makes sense to them and/or if they've gotten a sense of this in their own swing...
DEFINING A LOOSE MODERN SWING
Several times along this thread I’ve said that my RW Table works best for “players with a loose modern swing.” But, my bad, I haven’t defined the term. What exactly do I mean by a loose modern swing?
Most of us learn to swing by sweeping our arms forward off of a relatively immobilized shoulder, which anchors the arm to meet the ball in front along a predictable path. This also entails stiffening the arm and locking the wrist to direct the racquet’s coming through, which renders its weight distribution less material to the swing.
A loose, modern swing starts not in the arm but from the torso uncoiling the shoulders in a wide arc, during which the shoulder joint tightens at the just the right instant to bring the loose arm along for the ride. Here the arm’s very floppiness acts like a whip, translating the kinetic energy (that started in coiling the torso off the player’s low-bend knees) down through the forearm and into the racquet, which, just before contact, is torsionally twisted in three rotational reversals, each coming individually from the shoulder, forearm, and wrist.
34:25 into Biomechanics of The Forehand - Cyril Genevois, Tennis Vlaanderen channel, YouTube, Dec 17, 2020.
The circled areas in the 3 graphs above the 3 photo-pairs displays how sudden and forceful these rotational reversals can be, one leading to the next as the swing moves forward. First, shoulder rotation shifts from outward to inward. Then the forearm turns from suppinated to pronated. Finally, the wrist swings forward, from stable to unstable. These three reversals can be catastrophic for ball striking, combining to destabilize a system that’s been moving along in a nice, predictable path until centrifugal force comes along to activate them just before we hit the ball (impact being represented by the rightward vertical line in each graph).
This very well explains why hitting a heavy ball is far more difficult than it looks. It also makes a racquet’s weight distribution all the more important because the amount of weight and where it’s located affects how a frame will angularly and inertially respond when these sudden directional changes are allowed to occur. With a tight-armed swing, shoulder rotation reverses, and depending on the tightness, some degree of forearm and wrist rotation may happen, but the racquet’s path is significantly more linear. Here the racquet is less pulled in three different directions than manually forced into one.
The upshot is that we all have to swing tight-armed at first, if only to time the swing of a racquet to meet an incoming ball. At this beginner stage, a frame’s weight distribution is all but inconsequential. And even for intermediates, there’s nothing wrong with a tight-armed swing. It can be consistent and predictable and is used effectively by counterpunchers and spinmeisters everywhere. It’s just not a loose modern swing.
In post #396 of this thread, @tele brought up a related point: Players who swing bent-armed (often being those with an eastern forehand) may shorten the length of their double pendulum enough to make my table inaccurate for them. After consulting with a couple of advanced players who’re both versed in biomechanics and swing an eastern FH, I’ve concluded that tele is probably right because the more bent the arm, the stiffer it becomes; in the extreme, the shoulder joint is tucking the elbow in against the player’s ribs.
Interestingly, one bent-armed eastern forehander posited that this may be why he prefers his recoil weight around 5 points higher than my table recommends. As he explained it, with his elbow tucked into his ribs, the loose part of his swing was halved down to forearm to wrist (vs. shoulder joint to wrist), which reduced his racquet lag. So it feels like he needs the extra RW to get back the hoop-lag stolen by his shortened double pendulum.
I'd be interested to hear from others who swing an eastern forehand if this makes sense to them and/or if they've gotten a sense of this in their own swing...
@Brando can piggy back on this if I misrepresent something. The higher than ideal RW probably feels good on your dhbh because of added stability/plow and you are probably not swinging the dhbh as loose as the fh swing which means the specs are less critical.
You're welcome, @ZeroandOne. Thanks for sharing your findings. I believe the serve is the ultimate test of whether you have the right recoil weight for you because, unlike groundies, an effective serve requires a loose fluid motion. That is, you can tighten up your arm and guide the ball in 'till the cows come home on your FH. But there's little fudge-room to do this on serve and get the ball in with any regularity (at least assuming standard service form vs., say, the serving platter serve of a beginner).
I do have a 2HBH, but I also hit 1HBH for fun. The 1HBH was more affected than the 2HBH.
