Same.
Who Cares about Recoil Weight?
- Thread starter Brando
- Start date
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
I wasn't reacting to your suggestion that the other specs have to be in range, but to the tone of your comments to me as a whole. Go back and re-read your posts and tell me you didn't react strongly against those who have questioned the theoretical constructs of the proposed theory. Nobody else has reacted like you. When I initially posted yesterday with some fresh thoughts, you responded immediately with snark. Weird ...
My tone is the way it is with you because your skepticism and questions come off disingenuous and fake, hence you trying to debunk a theory you didn't even try nor could you be bothered to read the whole thread. I don't know what your purpose or end goal is here...maybe to prove how "smart" you are? You can try to act dumb like these are innocent questions you're asking to gain knowledge for yourself but some of us can see through your BS.
Other people aren't me.
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
After I share my feedback and post the video, I won't be posting here again. I'm happy to take my disingenuousness and fakeness to other less abrasive threads.
forzmr_b
Rookie
@PistolPete23 I’m sorry that your experience of this thread has been marred by your experience with one individual. I’ve stayed silent because I don’t want to be sucked into this thing between you two that has become personal. And I presume others feel the same. But, I’m weighing in now as I’ve been appreciative of your skepticism and its contribution to the discourse in this thread. My intellectual curiosity is focused on “what works” so I like that others like yourself are focused on “why it works”. I look forward to reading your experience and hope it won’t be affected by your dislike of @aaron_h27.
@aaron_h27 I understand your frustration, but even if @PistolPete23 is indeed disingenuous, at least his posts are polite and his challenges to the theory are reasonable (in my opinion). Yes, he has been persistent but we shouldn’t fault him for that. But I do agree that @PistolPete23 and other skeptics should go out and do their own experiments instead of just debating the theory. @PistolPete23 has said he would, so why not give him the benefit of doubt and reserve judgment on his intentions for now?
Last edited:
That's a bit unfair to me as I've tried to be polite to him multiple times and I even took the time out of my day to come up with a suggested spec for him and I was responded to an extremely sarcastic comment on his end. I can see how his posts come across as polite but when you read between the lines a bit more it's clearly an act and he has been rude to me multiple times even if not overtly.
He can try to play boy who cried wolf now, but don't throw rocks and try to hide your hands later.
dr. godmode
Hall of Fame
I have not kept up well with this thread but I wanted to chime in a little bit with a weird experience i had with the CX200.
I'm pretty on-board with the table. 170-172RW feels best to me. Below that and I find myself bending my arm on contact too much on the FH side, above that feels too hefty to swing fast reliably.
But there's something sus about the stock CX200 I've been using at 140RW. I can really relax my arm and let it flow. Not a straight arm contact point, but I can feel my arm finding the stretched out contact point. Have confirmed this over several hitting sessions and have moved passed the honeymoon phase. This is the lowest RW frame I've used, and other low RW frames (Gravity MP) caused me all sorts of timing woes on my FH.
Anyone else tried something that far outside their range?
I'm pretty on-board with the table. 170-172RW feels best to me. Below that and I find myself bending my arm on contact too much on the FH side, above that feels too hefty to swing fast reliably.
But there's something sus about the stock CX200 I've been using at 140RW. I can really relax my arm and let it flow. Not a straight arm contact point, but I can feel my arm finding the stretched out contact point. Have confirmed this over several hitting sessions and have moved passed the honeymoon phase. This is the lowest RW frame I've used, and other low RW frames (Gravity MP) caused me all sorts of timing woes on my FH.
Anyone else tried something that far outside their range?
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
I feel the same way. @PistolPete23 is following the approach of how science is done. When a new theory is proposed, it has to stand on its own theoretically and then the experimental data has to back it up. Or if experimental data is done first and an interesting hypothesis is made, theory has to be proposed to be the foundation for why the hypothesis is valid. Otherwise, other researchers are not going to spending time and effort to do similar experiments to validate a hypotheses that doesn’t stand up to theoretical scrutiny.
When I expressed some skepticism, the OP basically agreed that the theory was not sound yet (see post 398) and he was building up an anecdotal framework first. To me, this stands the risk of the placebo effect (post 346) having an impact on those who buy into the concept first without questioning the theory. I’ve stayed out of the debate mostly after that, but my skepticism is high also on matching optimal recoil weight to arm length as if swing speed and other swing parameters depend only on arm length. I don’t question that recoil weight is an additional interesting spec to know about a racquet.
This is why I trust biomechanics papers published in scientific journals more than theories postulated on TTW about tennis technique and equipment.
Last edited:
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
Replied sarcastically because of the bolded. Leave out that last sentence on your end and there wouldn't have been an issue.RW as a spec doesn't exist in a vacuum, sure 176 RW may be ideal but if 350 SW is too high for you or, 361g is past your static weight limit then it negates any benefit IMO. But I hope im wrong and it works for you.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try out what you already have, but if you could demo a racket and spec it out to something similar to the specs you're already using then that would be a better experiment.
I'm sure you know all about minimizing variables mr academia
Honestly that was me trying to put a light hearted joke at the end of that post with you mentioning your education background here, but I can see how you took that as a dig so I'll take responsibility for that.
Just trust da science bruh, it's mostly safe and effective.
Do you feel any difference in arm comfort at 140 vs 170?
Also whats the MGR/I on the 140 RW frame out of curiosity
bananavanman
New User
looking for the scientific method in an amateur tennis forum about an enormously subjective sport? biomechanical journals? i couldn't disagree more.
guidelines/suggestions, and self testing/experience for me. skepticism is fine of course, but unproductive when it solely remains theoretical. we're not splitting atoms here, you don't need your own reactor, just pick up your racket and swing out.
dr. godmode
Hall of Fame
Strung specs of the stock CX200 were
323g
32.8cm
308SW
13.2TW
140.1RW
21.3 mgri
0.43 polarization
So super depolarized setup.
No comfort issues on my forehand side, but did miss time some backhands pretty badly which stressed my left elbow and gave me some golfer's elbow which went away after a few days.
Defs not a setup that I'll be able to stick with. Despite having a high ceiling for my tennis, my floor is terrible and my balls are much less heavy than with my Whiteout, according to my opponents.
workerONE
New User
I customized two rackets with my ideal RW (174-175) and a third racket below my ideal RW @ 168.
I went to hit today and I noticed immediately when using the correct RW that I didn't need to hold my wrist in the hitting position, that when swinging my wrist went into the correct position without any effort. By "correct position" I mean that I normally bend my wrist back a little to keep the racket face pointed down court and get good contact, and with the correct RW the weight of the racket bent my wrist.
In fact I could literally let my arm hang loose, and swing the racket and get good results. I didn't need to guide the racket through the swing path as much by using my wrist, if that makes sense. So I really believe now. It lets you focus on on other aspects.
One thing I found is that it's hard to guess how to get to your ideal RW, and keep the lowest possible static weight. edit: I made a spreadsheet listing all reasonable specs and the RW and then for a given racket I see if customization is possible to that spec.
Edit: this description isn't accurate:
...as long as I increased the weight and swing weight together (weight at both ends) the RW would go up. If you increase just one it will go down, I believe.
I don't know if I've read every post in this thread but I've seen people asking if there's a web form or something to help get specs for your desired RW, and haven't seen anything.
This is how I do it: (((balance point inch) x 2.54) -10)squared * (static weight in kg) - swingweight
This will give you your RW in a negative number because I resequenced the formula.
If you store the ((balance point inch) x 2.54) -10)squared part into calculator memory (or copy/then paste) you don't need to do that part each time.
I have a Pro Staff at 174.5 RW with 348g, 334SW, 12.375 bal ... this racket was 345g before so I hit my RW with only 3g modification. I got a Head Speed Pro to similar specs.
My CX200 at 174 RW is 354g 336sw 12.375 bal ... I couldn't get it any lower. It might not be too heavy for me but I've ordered the light version of the CX200 and I think I'll be able to get that to 174RW at only 340g or so. Edit: CX200 Light was a failure but CX200 is perfect
I went to hit today and I noticed immediately when using the correct RW that I didn't need to hold my wrist in the hitting position, that when swinging my wrist went into the correct position without any effort. By "correct position" I mean that I normally bend my wrist back a little to keep the racket face pointed down court and get good contact, and with the correct RW the weight of the racket bent my wrist.
In fact I could literally let my arm hang loose, and swing the racket and get good results. I didn't need to guide the racket through the swing path as much by using my wrist, if that makes sense. So I really believe now. It lets you focus on on other aspects.
One thing I found is that it's hard to guess how to get to your ideal RW, and keep the lowest possible static weight. edit: I made a spreadsheet listing all reasonable specs and the RW and then for a given racket I see if customization is possible to that spec.
Edit: this description isn't accurate:
...as long as I increased the weight and swing weight together (weight at both ends) the RW would go up. If you increase just one it will go down, I believe.
I don't know if I've read every post in this thread but I've seen people asking if there's a web form or something to help get specs for your desired RW, and haven't seen anything.
This is how I do it: (((balance point inch) x 2.54) -10)squared * (static weight in kg) - swingweight
This will give you your RW in a negative number because I resequenced the formula.
If you store the ((balance point inch) x 2.54) -10)squared part into calculator memory (or copy/then paste) you don't need to do that part each time.
I have a Pro Staff at 174.5 RW with 348g, 334SW, 12.375 bal ... this racket was 345g before so I hit my RW with only 3g modification. I got a Head Speed Pro to similar specs.
My CX200 at 174 RW is 354g 336sw 12.375 bal ... I couldn't get it any lower. It might not be too heavy for me but I've ordered the light version of the CX200 and I think I'll be able to get that to 174RW at only 340g or so. Edit: CX200 Light was a failure but CX200 is perfect
Last edited:
Yeah I think the SW is too low for any type of serious match play but probably fun to hit with im sure!
LOBALOT
Hall of Fame
Amazing... I was just going to post this very question when I logged in and saw this.
I play exclusively dubs and I am finding that I am losing a tad bit of control on my ground strokes, volleys, lobs, etc that come with reaction shots in dubs with a more polarized racquet (32" sleeve length, 5'7", 162 recoil) especially depth/touch. However, I am serving better than I have in a long time with much more action on my serves (can see the ball curving sharply in the air this sort of thing) than with less polarized racquets.
It has me wondering if I should have a more polarized weighted racquet for when I serve 1 out of 4 games and then grab one with more even balance the other 3 games.
I just worry that if I drop down to 160 recoil if I will lose that serving mojo.
Feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Add weight across the handle is your best option.
LOBALOT
Hall of Fame
So you are saying lower the recoil weight correct?
I honestly don't understand what recoil weight does and it how it affects playability so can't speak to that. You want to add weight to the handle but keep the general profile if that makes sense. Similar to how some use a leather grip.
It's how you see old config rackets have low twist weights but are still stable.
Last edited:
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
At the risk of irking the more technical heads in this thread, hope I don't, that's overthinking it. Or I might be wrong....but here's the thought process....
The racket is 5-10% of the matches won or lost, at most. Unless there is a severe deficiency somewhere.
Not how many more points would you win, but how many more matches would you win if you swapped rackets for serve compared to using one? I'd stick with one.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Unless you hit a service winner, you still need to hit volleys and groundstrokes, right? So, you have to pick a compromise where you serve and hit reasonably well.
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
I read the entire thread, including the stuff on MGR/I, as well as other available content on the topic of the double pendulum as a model for the tennis swing. There were some enlightening points raised by a few TTW members, but there was also a s***load of qualitative claims and conjectures that were blatantly incorrect. I took the time to deep dive into the physics of SW, RW, and MGR/I. Here are my final(ish) thoughts; not saying it's the absolute truth, just what currently makes sense to me based on physics. Individuals who subscribe purely to personal experience and find technical discussions repulsive don't have to read this or respond.
1) RW is the resistance of a racquet to rotate around its balance point or equivalently, center of mass. After watching many slo-mo videos of ATP pros serving and hitting groundstrokes, I do not see any evidence of a racquet rotating about it's balance point once the racquet accelerates towards the ball. This is true even with Nadal, who hits with a "throwing motion" perhaps more than anyone else on tour. My conclusion is that RW has little to do, if at all, with racquet velocity relative to forearm velocity (i.e., how laggy it is).
2) On the flip side, SW is highly relevant to the double pendulum and racquet lag. The TW Prof demonstrated this experimentally in a very convincing manner with high speed video capture. I recommend anyone interested to read the following TWU article by TW Prof (https://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/racquetweighting.php). No mention of RW because, again, the racquet never rotates around its balance point when you swing it. At no point does your wrist feel the moment of inertia at the balance point because you're not gripping the racquet at the balance point.
3) To further illustrate, RW does not depend on what end you hold the stick. I previously attempted to convey this with a hammer example. If you hold a golf club by the head or by the handle, the RW is the exact same for both configurations; it is agnostic to orientation. But one configuration will swing drastically differently than another because SW does depend strongly on the distribution of mass relative to where you hold the golf club. This simple example begs the question what is RW really contributing to the swing?
4) The notion that SW is merely one spec while RW is more because it's a combination of other specs is incorrect. You can re-write the equation and have SW on one side and RW, balance, and static weight on the other. Both RW and SW are equally a measure of how mass is distributed along the long axis of the racquet. The only difference is the point of reference, with SW's being 10 cm above the butt cap by convention, and RW's being the balance point. Claiming that SW is independent of balance is a falsehood. Given equal mass, one racquet with a substantially more "head-heavy" balance would likely have a higher SW because more mass is concentrated far away from the reference point.
5) MGR/I conveying "similar" information as RW is a blatant misconception. MGR is a measure of the moment, or torque, existing at the tail end when a racquet is allowed to rotate about this axis. I is the moment of inertia, the same thing as SW but the axis of rotation is at the butt, not 10 cm above. The ratio of one quantity to the other yields angular acceleration, just like F/m yields linear acceleration; that is, if a racquet is held horizontally and allowed to rotate freely about it's butt cap, MGR/I quantifies how rapidly that rotation occurs. The two quantities are not related at all in the information conveyed.
6) RW is an important spec, but not in relationship to the swing. It appears in the calculation of another spec, the hitting weight. Generally, higher RW values tend to increase the hitting weight; i.e. you will be able to drive through the ball more effortlessly and cleanly.
A final note to all the ones who have experimented with the ideal suggested RW based on height and have discovered that it worked well for you. You can't rule out the placebo effect without performing a double blind experiment with control group and calculating the associated p-value. But if the placebo effect is indeed making you play better, and you're ok with that, then all the more power to you. After all, at the height of the Power Balance bracelet's popularity, even professional athletes were wearing the product, claiming that it gave them an edge.
1) RW is the resistance of a racquet to rotate around its balance point or equivalently, center of mass. After watching many slo-mo videos of ATP pros serving and hitting groundstrokes, I do not see any evidence of a racquet rotating about it's balance point once the racquet accelerates towards the ball. This is true even with Nadal, who hits with a "throwing motion" perhaps more than anyone else on tour. My conclusion is that RW has little to do, if at all, with racquet velocity relative to forearm velocity (i.e., how laggy it is).
2) On the flip side, SW is highly relevant to the double pendulum and racquet lag. The TW Prof demonstrated this experimentally in a very convincing manner with high speed video capture. I recommend anyone interested to read the following TWU article by TW Prof (https://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/racquetweighting.php). No mention of RW because, again, the racquet never rotates around its balance point when you swing it. At no point does your wrist feel the moment of inertia at the balance point because you're not gripping the racquet at the balance point.
3) To further illustrate, RW does not depend on what end you hold the stick. I previously attempted to convey this with a hammer example. If you hold a golf club by the head or by the handle, the RW is the exact same for both configurations; it is agnostic to orientation. But one configuration will swing drastically differently than another because SW does depend strongly on the distribution of mass relative to where you hold the golf club. This simple example begs the question what is RW really contributing to the swing?
4) The notion that SW is merely one spec while RW is more because it's a combination of other specs is incorrect. You can re-write the equation and have SW on one side and RW, balance, and static weight on the other. Both RW and SW are equally a measure of how mass is distributed along the long axis of the racquet. The only difference is the point of reference, with SW's being 10 cm above the butt cap by convention, and RW's being the balance point. Claiming that SW is independent of balance is a falsehood. Given equal mass, one racquet with a substantially more "head-heavy" balance would likely have a higher SW because more mass is concentrated far away from the reference point.
5) MGR/I conveying "similar" information as RW is a blatant misconception. MGR is a measure of the moment, or torque, existing at the tail end when a racquet is allowed to rotate about this axis. I is the moment of inertia, the same thing as SW but the axis of rotation is at the butt, not 10 cm above. The ratio of one quantity to the other yields angular acceleration, just like F/m yields linear acceleration; that is, if a racquet is held horizontally and allowed to rotate freely about it's butt cap, MGR/I quantifies how rapidly that rotation occurs. The two quantities are not related at all in the information conveyed.
6) RW is an important spec, but not in relationship to the swing. It appears in the calculation of another spec, the hitting weight. Generally, higher RW values tend to increase the hitting weight; i.e. you will be able to drive through the ball more effortlessly and cleanly.
A final note to all the ones who have experimented with the ideal suggested RW based on height and have discovered that it worked well for you. You can't rule out the placebo effect without performing a double blind experiment with control group and calculating the associated p-value. But if the placebo effect is indeed making you play better, and you're ok with that, then all the more power to you. After all, at the height of the Power Balance bracelet's popularity, even professional athletes were wearing the product, claiming that it gave them an edge.
forzmr_b
Rookie
A blind study (double or single) would logistically be a challenge and I don’t think people would be motivated to invest that level of resources. But my data perhaps can offer something close to it. I have a bunch of data points from before this thread and a bunch after. If I segment and analyse it myself, it’ll be the closest “naturalistic” single blind study. Alternatively, I can prep the data in a way that RW info and the before and after info are masked and hand it to someone else to analyse and interpret. This would be a “naturalistic” double-blind.
I also intend to do statistical matching of cases to try and control for other factors that could be at play between the before and after periods. I can make both the full and matched masked datasets available.
Any takers? @PistolPete23 ?
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
What is the outcome you measured? Match results? Higher number of points won? Shot speed with a radar?
If if it just some subjective opinion of you or your opponent on whether you played better, hit easier or had more comfort in each session, then it is completely subjective and susceptible to the placebo effect.
But did you try it?
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
I did, initially felt more hitting power with the high RW and SW stick. Tbh, it felt extra whippy, the racquet was coming through really fast relative to my forearm, but I felt my arms tiring quickly. Didn’t notice a difference in hitting consistency or swinging comfort, maybe less jarring on mishits from the stability provided by the extra mass. I hit with the high RW stick first against the ball machine, then took off the extra mass and hit without for another basket, all forehands. Arms were already tired by the time I hit with the unweighted racquet.
I don't have anyone to take stats for me so I simply am going off of am I playing the type of tennis I want to play (i.e how enjoyable is it for me on court) and is this translating to winning points/matches? Also am taking into consideration injuries and arm comfort etc...
In the last month I've played tons of 10 pt tiebreakers against some local juniors (UTR 6-7) losing two out of the last 25. I'm 25W-2L in tiebreakers against practice partners. I often practice against these same juniors and this is much higher than my normal average. I never kept track before but I would say I was losing 1 out of every 5 prior to using my ideal RW. Also I have barely been on the court in the last month due to work and I have been able to keep my level pretty high which is abnormal for me. Could this all be placebo? Sure. I think form can vary by day to day and month to month.
Now the real test is actual matches against against other adult 4.5 male's...(UTR 7-9) My UTR is around a low 8 at the moment but at my peak I was closer to 9 but I just don't have time to play much anymore. I'm probably playing about 4-6 hours a week. Anyways I've played two flex matches so far with the ideal recoil weight. The first match I beat a guy who I lost to previously 3 times...6-3, 1-6, 6-3. Rated 9 UTR currently and hadn't lost a match in our league. That was a big win for me as I was expecting to lose.
Second match I played a guy who I had a 1-1 H2H with (UTR 7.8), I won the last match we played in straight sets but he came out firing and won the first set in like 30 minutes, but after he lost steam I turned it around and won 1-6, 6-0, 6-0 (WTA scoreline LOL)
This is still too early to come to any conclusions but for now I am enjoying myself on the court, the racket is allowing me to play how I want to play and I'm also winning matches. I'll try to use this set-up the remainder of the year to give a full picture and see if im winning more matches than normal.
I did make a racket change around the time I started taking RW seriously so I don't know how much of my performance can be attributed to the racket change or the ideal RW, maybe its a combination of both. I don't care either way. Haha
You had your mind made up before the experiment so not suprised by your findings. Placebo works both ways unfortunately
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
I think the only study, although really hard to do, would be swingvisioned hitting sessions on a ball machine and of a matches with different rackets .
The only data I have for myself is almost all the Yonex sticks, but unfortunately, they tend to have SW and RW going up hand in hand so most results from this would be hard to isolate to RW. On serves, the H , previous model tothe percepts produced the heaviest measured serves and interestingly when hitting on a chain link fence court produced the most balls stuck in the fence, about every other one due to spin. But, hard to say if that was just mass in my simpleton mind.
@aaron_h27 nice results, and how you feel is probably most important, but real data would be nicer as of course you know how many variables go into a match or practice tie break in your case.
The only data I have for myself is almost all the Yonex sticks, but unfortunately, they tend to have SW and RW going up hand in hand so most results from this would be hard to isolate to RW. On serves, the H , previous model tothe percepts produced the heaviest measured serves and interestingly when hitting on a chain link fence court produced the most balls stuck in the fence, about every other one due to spin. But, hard to say if that was just mass in my simpleton mind.
@aaron_h27 nice results, and how you feel is probably most important, but real data would be nicer as of course you know how many variables go into a match or practice tie break in your case.
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
Why did you ask for my results if you already "knew" I had my mind made up?
Edit: Placebo does work both ways. That's why you need a double blind test. Even if I said it was absolutely a horrible experience, which honestly it wasn't, my results would still be anecdotal. But since you keep asking me to try, I went ahead and tried it.
Yeah match results can be subjective I think a better way would be to track 3-6 months with a non-ideal RW setup and track 3-6 months with a ideal RW setup and see like how many points won, service percentage, etc... to get a full picture. Unfortunately that would take a lot of resources and time.
The reason I don't think it's placebo (for me personally) is because some of my favorite setups are right on the money for my height at 158-160 RW before I even found out about this thread or took it seriously and the frames I didn't really particularly enjoy are out of my range. The Wilson Ultra 95 Countervail played awfully for me for 2 months before giving up on it and I honestly could not figure out why (It was spec'd at 166 RW). The 2021 Vcore 95 played better for me a few years ago but something always felt off then I realized that was at 167 RW, where as the SV95 feels perfect for me at 160 RW despite mostly being the same frame.
My 2022 Ezone's were my favorite frames over the last 4 years the ones I won the most matches with and felt comfortable with and they somehow got spec'd at 158 RW accidentally by feel.
Just wanted to confirm my gut feeling.
All this tells me is that the racket was too heavy for you at 360g static and 350 SW which is higher than ATP Average...I already brought this up earlier but I digress.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Yes, the 22 Ezone would be a lot of people's favorite frame for sure, good choice. I'd actually choose that Ezone for every player if there was some bizarre universe where there could be only one racket for every player and I had to decide which one.
To me your data is more useful than just arguing about theory and how the racket should swing etc...thanks for going about testing this thoroughly.
I don't agree with hitting on a ball machine for 60 minutes as a proper test, at the end of the day we are all looking for an extra edge in match play. That's the real test, playing points.
If you have any recommendations/advice on how you track your stats I can try to help out with the project if it's not too time consuming.
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
Sharing a video because I said I would do it. I edited it to only show the forehands because I got too tired to hit backhands with the unweighted racquet. Also note that I usually play with a different racquet, the Furi Arma Pro 98, which has higher launch and a lot more pop that has worked great for me as I approach middle age. It was a transition to get used to the PC 2.0 again, I found myself hitting the net cord more often than usual with both the unweighted and weighted versions of the racquet. Unweighted segment begins at 4:15.
Edit: Apologies for the pickleball sounds and tilted camera. If I end up doing this experiment again with another racquet, I'll make sure the video doesn't have my lower body cut out.
Edit: Apologies for the pickleball sounds and tilted camera. If I end up doing this experiment again with another racquet, I'll make sure the video doesn't have my lower body cut out.
Thanks for sharing, What are we supposed to be gathering from this video?
IMO you need try a racket in your original weight class, against a proper opponent(s) and preferably longer than 5 minutes. I don't see any conclusions that can be drawn from this test, other than the racket was too heavy for you, which I already predicted.
It seems like you had more shape/spin on the second half of the video vs the beginning?
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
I'm only sharing the video because I said I would earlier after you and others repeatedly asked me to go try it for myself; the video is proof that I actually customized my racquet and did it, so you would stop badgering me about trying it. I don't conclude anything from the video and neither should you.
Maybe, maybe not. I hit good and bad forehands with both setups.
If you're gonna write essays on the topic and try to debunk it's your due diligence to try it, if you took that as me "badgering" then you then ok... If you only care about theoretical stuff and writing essays then everything you've posted now makes sense, however most of us are trying to find an edge to win matches and that testing is done with hours of court time against actual opponents.
I concluded that you are a man of your word!
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
I did try it, but honestly, the way you want me to try it will take extra effort, effort I don't want to expend to validate a theory I don't fundamentally agree with. As somebody else mentioned, if the theory doesn't stand up against scientific scrutiny, then it's not worth spending time on extensively to test the hypothesis. Also, don't take my interest in science to mean I don't care about my on-court tennis performance. I care about both, actually, even though you may find that hard to believe.
I've said all I wanted to say and hope others have found my "essay" to offer some valuable perspectives. I've also shared the video and provided feedback, so this is my last post here.
Ok here's why I think MGR/I & RW are related...especially if you somewhat loosely believe in the theory that recoil weight somewhat relates to height. The chart is just a guideline not a hard and fast rule.
It's pretty much near impossible to spec a stock racket to RW >= 170 and MGR/I >= 21 (depolarized) without 350 grams of static weight & 330 SW or more... This static weight/SW combination is too high for a majority of players.
Shorter players who are targeting a RW of 150-165 have many more combinations they can use that give them the adequate recoil weight for their height without sacrificing MGR/I or going too high with SW. For example my specs are 344g, 328 SW, 32.1 cm balance, 160 RW, 21 MGR/I as a 5'7 player. I play primarily on fast hard courts with an all court game style, eastern FH, one hand backhand. I find depolarized rackets work better than polarized ones for the surface I play on and my gamestyle (I say depolarized rackets are MGR/I >= 21)
Let's say there's a player who plays exactly like me but just happens to be 6'3. Trying to get a similar spec to mine but a bump in RW means the player would need 354g, 336 SW, 31.3 bal, 174 RW, 20.9 MGR/I. Now obviously a 6'3 guy is most likely stronger than a 5'7 guy but this racket is really hard to use for any player regardless of height.
So the compromise for taller players is does the extra RW help my game more than a higher MGR/I? I know taller players who like depolarized sticks and shorter guys who like polarized but if you're a tall guy trying to get that depolarized feel then you have to wield a lot of extra weight around to get a decent RW.
Shorter players have more options in a viable static weight range if they want to go polarized or depolarized it's possible within 325g-350g which is a reasonable static weight for rec adult males
It's pretty much near impossible to spec a stock racket to RW >= 170 and MGR/I >= 21 (depolarized) without 350 grams of static weight & 330 SW or more... This static weight/SW combination is too high for a majority of players.
Shorter players who are targeting a RW of 150-165 have many more combinations they can use that give them the adequate recoil weight for their height without sacrificing MGR/I or going too high with SW. For example my specs are 344g, 328 SW, 32.1 cm balance, 160 RW, 21 MGR/I as a 5'7 player. I play primarily on fast hard courts with an all court game style, eastern FH, one hand backhand. I find depolarized rackets work better than polarized ones for the surface I play on and my gamestyle (I say depolarized rackets are MGR/I >= 21)
Let's say there's a player who plays exactly like me but just happens to be 6'3. Trying to get a similar spec to mine but a bump in RW means the player would need 354g, 336 SW, 31.3 bal, 174 RW, 20.9 MGR/I. Now obviously a 6'3 guy is most likely stronger than a 5'7 guy but this racket is really hard to use for any player regardless of height.
So the compromise for taller players is does the extra RW help my game more than a higher MGR/I? I know taller players who like depolarized sticks and shorter guys who like polarized but if you're a tall guy trying to get that depolarized feel then you have to wield a lot of extra weight around to get a decent RW.
Shorter players have more options in a viable static weight range if they want to go polarized or depolarized it's possible within 325g-350g which is a reasonable static weight for rec adult males
Last edited:
forzmr_b
Rookie
I have a bunch of objective data I obtained by tracking points using SwingVision and my Apple Watch. I generally use points won in a set expressed as a percentage of total points played as my main outcome indicator. But I can also make available 1st and 2nd serve in percentage since RW has been touted as most influential on the serve. I also have set wins and games won (expressed as a percentage). And most recently, I started coding dominance ratio and break force per set as I came across those in the forum and decided to explore these metrics (but I haven’t analysed those data yet). I also track other data like opponent level, racket head size, string type etc, so there’s some level of control over other potentially influential factors.
forzmr_b
Rookie
Unless you invest in SW and an Apple Watch, then yes it would take a bit of effort. But without, I guess set wins and games won would be easy to track as you just need to note down the match score at the end of your session, what racket was used, and opponent level.
tele
Professional
I was curious about this a little while ago, and I think increasing recoil weight by adding weight (either to the butt or tip of the hoop) increases hitting weight. However, for two racquets with identical static weight and swingweight, I am not sure the one with the higher RW (i.e. lower balance) will necessarily have a higher hitting weight in the center of the racquet because distance from the center of mass is also a factor in hitting weight, and the one with the lower recoil weight will have a higher center of mass. I did not do the math for this, which would be the best way to know, but I checked racquets in TWU with similar static weight/swingweight but markedly different recoil weights, and the hitting weight didn't differ much. Possibly some errors in my thinking here but thought I would bring it up.
edit: just to be clear, this is meant to be a supplement the point quoted, not an argument against it.
Last edited:
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
....yes, kind of my conundrum even before experimenting , but I guess tall people can go lower since the RW chart is mostly a range or starting point not a must have number.
Taller people can sacrifice RW for a higher MGR/I or just not worry about it at all and try to hit the RW number. Extended frames can hit 170+ RW without a lot of static weight so that's probably why a lot of taller players use them.
Brando
Professional
Thank you for trying my table out for yourself, @workerONE, and writing in so vividly with your results. I dare say, your description of how it feels swinging your recommended RW (text greened by me) is better than mine in post #276:
But the feeling you’re talking about is the same. @Trip once described it as “a sense of the racquet becoming weightless in your hand just before contact.”
Re. technically figuring out how to adjust RW, I think your method is fine. I do it a bit simpler. I use TWU’s Customization Worksheet to ‘guestimate’ where to add weight and then check my resulting specs with TennCom's RW Calculator, repeating the process until I get my desired RW via the Big-3 spec combo I think I can swing best. Meanwhile I use this maxim: More SW = more RW. More weight and/or higher balance = less RW.*
Along the way I think of weight first. The higher the weight I’m going for, the lower the balance and/or SW I know I’ll want. The lower the weight, the higher the balance and/or SW can be handled. For instance, (and in answer to @Tranqville's post #657), I'd only go with a higher SW than I'm used to if the weight of the racquet were lower in compensation. And even then I'd keep the increase in SW proportional to the decrease in weight.
(And, for the record, I'd never recommend that one increase both weight and SW beyond your comfort level to achieve a target RW. As @aaron_h27 pointed out, that's a doomed strategy. Better to find a racquet that has the weight, balance, and SW you want or one that has a lower RW, such that you can strategically add weight to it to achieve your target.)
* Edit: I’m using customizer’s shorthand here for use of TennCom's RW Calculator: If we increase weight in the tool without changing balance and SW, RW will decrease. This does NOT mean that if you add weight anywhere on a frame in practice that RW will go down; whether it goes up or down depends entirely on where weight is added.
Last edited:
