Interesting phenomenon...increasing SW (lead @ 12) decreases stability?

A

aaron_h27

Hall of Fame
Not sure if anyone can explain why this happens, but I have noticed when you increase SW on a platform type of racket by adding short strips (4 inches of 1/4 lead tape) @ 12 the stability seems to decrease.

When I first started customizing, I was playing with a DR 98 (stock twistweight =13.69) in stock form but once I added 4g of lead @ noon I found myself shanking/hitting off center more. I had to add additional lead at 3 & 9 to bring the stability back to what it was originally in stock form.

I did a google search on this and found this thread from a while back > https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-reduce-twist-weight-by-adding-weight.623065/

Basically the consensus from that thread was that you can't decrease stability by adding weight to the frame and that made perfect sense to me, but on court it doesn't seem to work that way.

Now of course some rackets come with a ridiculously high twistweight so this doesn't really apply there, this is more so talking about platform type of rackets (DR 98, Vcore 95, Ultra Tour 97, etc...) and the effects of increasing SW by 10-20 pts.

My theory is that for a certain SW you need a certain amount of twistweight otherwise the racket will be unstable. For example you could theoretically add 10g @ 12 to a stock racket and increase the SW from 320>350 but it most likely won't be useful because you can't really tap into the power of a high SW frame with a low twistweight.

TLDR;

1. If you increase the SW past a certain point you will need to add additional twistweight
2. SW needs to be considered in relation to other specs of the frame (twistweight, balance, static weight)

I would love to hear some more thoughts from @travlerajm or any other people who have thoughts on this...
 
Last edited:
Novichok said:
I don't agree with this theory. :censored:
Click to expand...
Can you explain more in depth why not? What is your experience customizing frames?

But I think it makes sense...SW/TW is kind of like a marriage. If the SW is too high in relation to the TW the racket will be unstable. Sometimes the opposite happens where you have TW that's really high in relation to the SW but then you just have a racket that's really stable but not that maneuverable.

The market seems to be going in the direction of really high TW frames with low SW's but there's still a few platform type rackets you can buy (thankfully)
 
Some quotes from the other thread linked in the OP

Anton said:
I think there is something to it from dynamic perspective.

I noticed that if lead is added at just 12 some rackets feel a bit "thinner" and less stable laterally on off center shots.

Seems plausable that if during such impact the tip is more eager to plow there could be more force acting on the sides of the loop.
Click to expand...

Rozzdawg said:
What you're saying is completely right here, mate. Basically what you are describing is 'polarizing' a setup. Increasing the polarization of a frame means increasing spin potential and swingweight most drastically by adding weight to the 12 area on the hoop and possibly the handle to counterbalance it. This sacrifices the feeling of stability in a racket slightly, because stability comes mostly from adding weight to the sides of the frame at 3 and 9. This increases the twistweight most dramatically. A high twistweight is what makes the racket most stable. This would be called depolarizing. What you're saying is correct, I'm just offering you the technical jargon on it.
Click to expand...
 
aaron_h27 said:
Can you explain more in depth why not? What is your experience customizing frames?

But I think it makes sense...SW/TW is kind of like a marriage. If the SW is too high in relation to the TW the racket will be unstable. Sometimes the opposite happens where you have TW that's really high in relation to the SW but then you just have a racket that's really stable but not that maneuverable.
Click to expand...
The racquet won't become unstable if the twistweight remains the same.

I think you're mistiming the ball due to the sudden increase in swingweight which makes you feel the racquet is unstable.
 
Novichok said:
The racquet won't become unstable if the twistweight remains the same.

I think you're mistiming the ball due to the sudden increase in swingweight which makes you feel the racquet is unstable.
Click to expand...
I knew this was coming....Did you read my original post where I said adding lead at 3 & 9 in addition 12 brought the stability back to what it was originally in stock form? So clearly it's not me "mistiming" the ball from SW increase. The SW is even higher with the additional lead at 3 & 9.

And yes I initially thought the same thing as you! The racket stability should stay the same if the twistweight remains the same but this doesn't happen on court!
 
aaron_h27 said:
I knew this was coming....Did you read my original post where I said adding lead at 3 & 9 in addition 12 brought the stability back to what it was originally in stock form? So clearly it's not me "mistiming" the ball from SW increase. The SW is even higher with the additional lead at 3 & 9.
Click to expand...
You're still mistiming the balls, but the racquet becomes more forgiving to off-centre hits due to the weight added at 3 and 9. ;)
 
Novichok said:
You're still mistiming the balls, but the racquet becomes more forgiving to off-centre hits due to the weight added at 3 and 9. ;)
Click to expand...
That doesn't make any sense at all. I am a high level player (5.0 level) who has used SW's ranging from 320-360 the past 3 years I am telling you it's not a matter of mistiming the ball. If you haven't seen any video of me playing, you're just assuming.
 
Last edited:
Mistiming balls and racket stability are two different things, I am not some low level player who can't properly describe what's happening on the court. I appreciate you sharing your opinion but this is an opportunity for those willing to learn more about racket mods to help their game (myself included), if this is not you then please skip over this thread :)
 
Dug up this quote from @RanchDressing

bkfinch said:
I’m really curious what your definition of high TW is...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

RanchDressing said:
It's relational.

A 15tw on a 320sw racquet is pretty high. But on a 360sw it's not that high at all. When I talk about a high twist weight setup I generally mean a racquet that has a substantial mass added at 3/9. I have more specific numbers, but most people aren't very careful about measuring TW. In fact most players don't even measure it. So they get to stay with my secret data ;)
Click to expand...
 
Doesn't sound like you counter-weighted in the tail. 4g at 12, based on a TW article on customizing, would move the balance by 1 point or a little more, which would be noticeable.
It would also move the sweetspot higher in the stringbed.
So your shots in the center of the stringbed would not feel the same as before the lead was added.

Edit: also explains why the lead at 3&9 made it feel good again. You moved the sweetspot back down and "expanded" it toward the weight.
 
Chairman3 said:
Doesn't sound like you counter-weighted in the tail. 4g at 12, based on a TW article on customizing, would move the balance by 1 point or a little more, which would be noticeable.
It would also move the sweetspot higher in the stringbed.
So your shots in the center of the stringbed would not feel the same as before the lead was added.

Edit: also explains why the lead at 3&9 made it feel good again. You moved the sweetspot back down and "expanded" it toward the weight.
Click to expand...
I did not, my initial goal with customizing was to increase SW and test the effects of a higher SW without changing the static weight too much.
 
Last edited:
aaron_h27 said:
I did not, my initial goal with customizing was to increase SW and test the effects of a higher SW without changing the static weight too much.
Click to expand...
Yes, so the balance moved as did the sweetspot. The sweetspot (in general) moves toward where weight is added.
Having the sweetspot higher in the stringbed could make the racquet "feel" more unstable when hitting the center because that isn't where the sweetspot is anymore.
 
Chairman3 said:
Yes, so the balance moved as did the sweetspot. The sweetspot (in general) moves toward where weight is added.
Having the sweetspot higher in the stringbed could make the racquet "feel" more unstable when hitting the center because that isn't where the sweetspot is anymore.
Click to expand...
I think my original post gave off the impression that I added 4g of lead @ 12 and immediately decided it was unstable hours later. Let me clarify...I played with that racket for weeks and only after then I decided it needed more stability by adding lead at 3 & 9. I also have customized a bunch of different rackets with different balance points and adding lead @ 12 and nowhere else also gave the same effect. I only gave one example in the OP because I didn't want it to be super long.

But your theory is definitely interesting I'd like to try it...so if lead is added @ 12 where would you need to counter-balance to keep the same sweetspot?
 
@aaron_h27 makes sense

Well every racquet is different, the exact same set of variables applied to one racquet won't work or feel the same on another. That's part of the fun of it, but it's also infuriating.

You'd need a balance board and to know what the balance was prior to the lead being applied at 12. Typically to counterweight people put it on the handle or inside if it has a removable buttcap.
There's a lot of articles on customizing.
 
If a racquet becomes unwieldy due to a higher swingweight more mishits will occur IMO. I do notice better stability when weight is added at 3 and 9 versus 12.
 
aaron_h27 said:
I think my original post gave off the impression that I added 4g of lead @ 12 and immediately decided it was unstable hours later. Let me clarify...I played with that racket for weeks and only after then I decided it needed more stability by adding lead at 3 & 9. I also have customized a bunch of different rackets with different balance points and adding lead @ 12 and nowhere else also gave the same effect. I only gave one example in the OP because I didn't want it to be super long.

But your theory is definitely interesting I'd like to try it...so if lead is added @ 12 where would you need to counter-balance to keep the same sweetspot?
Click to expand...
@Chairman3 , I believe, called out your problem perfectly. Since you know the stock twistweight of your stick and that intel is only available (to my knowledge) via a button on TWU's Customization Worksheet , I'm assuming you know how to use the tool (and if your don't, you should bc it's easy to learn). While Chairman3 is right that every racquet is different, you can get a pretty good approximation of how much to tailweight under the buttcap as the most efficient way to move your balance point back down. FYI, a good place to start is with as much weight as you've added at noon. But, again, using the tool to virtually check out how different weights will affect balance and twistweight is easy.

P.S. You don't need a balance board. Measuring balance on a table edge is perfectly fine (and easy to do; just make the measure the true tipping point and not just the point at which the racquet handle begins to lift off the table). Table measurements tend to be 1-2mm higher (longer) than a board's but what counts more than the absolute value of the measurement is the change of balance that happens from a mod.
 
Last edited:
LeungD said:
You don't know what you don't know. But enjoy hammering people with your ignorance. You need to post less and read more.
Click to expand...
Dude you have literally contributed nothing to this thread and nothing from your post history has been relating to racket mods/customizing but you come in here on some high horse like you know anything about what I'm talking about.

The fact that you've generalized all this to "you're mis-timing the ball from the extra SW" really shows YOUR ignorance. Move along now.
 
I'm guessing people who don't feel the stability difference use eastern grips or hit flatter.

I get what you're saying OP. I think it has more to do with the racket wobbling during your swing from the new distribution. Adding weight to 3 and 9 steadies the swing.
 
Hey OP — just skimmed the thread but seems like you’re still trying to figure this out. Maybe this helps.

1- I don’t agree with the original hypothesis you had but I think there is a relationship

for reference— I’m also a 5.0 player. At least pre-pandemic when I actually played tournaments so I’ll assume you might be running into similar things that I did. Note that majority of my testing was done with a ball machine and then rallying with a human. For the most part I don’t know any 5.0s in the area I moved to so more 4.0-4.5 rallying.

here’s what I think based on my experiences:
— to your thread title…. I’d agree. To your post… not really
— I don’t have the tools to measure what I feel so it’s a subjective conclusion
— if you haven’t. Check out the material on impacting tennis; for the most part I’ve found that guy has some cool theories that seem to hold up

when you add weight at 12, you are increasing both swingweight, recoil weight, balance and polarization. You are decreasing mgri I think. Too lazy to confirm.

what I found with more polarization is that the best balls I hit are better but I get more sporadic somehow. This is actually consistent with what the impacting tennis guy says will happen. (Note that I’ve been messing with my swing alongside the racket so maybe it’s a corrupted test.)

I don’t know if stability is the right word… personally I’d use “predictability” to describe it.

when tuning for myself, the best method I’ve found is to load up on polarization until it starts hurting consistency. Too many shanks, too many random balls a little off. At that point, if you start adding 1 gram at a time to the balance point you will increase mgri which I’d say improves predictability. Using your words, I’d say it improves stability.

the balancing comes between fine tuning the original mass at the poles with the mass at the center. Maybe you don’t just want to add weight. But maybe you don’t want to reduce swingweight either.

it really helps to have a control racket and experiment racket to a/b test aside from because it’ll be super clear that they feel different, what the change felt like, and which preferred.

Since you’re a 5.0 I’m pretty sure you’re going to adapt to whatever. For me, for the first time in my life I got curious what it would be like if I adapted the equipment to me instead of me adapting to the equipment. Results were amazing. Literally every ball I hit makes me happy and have never been more consistent in my tennis life.

it’s worth mentioning that I did find it helpful to get good measurement tools and calculators just to keep track. But when you get into the granular fine tuning I stop measuring and go purely based on feel and on court performance. then i just measure it after the fact.
 
aaron_h27 said:
Not sure if anyone can explain why this happens, but I have noticed when you increase SW on a platform type of racket by adding short strips (4 inches of 1/4 lead tape) @ 12 the stability seems to decrease.

When I first started customizing, I was playing with a DR 98 (stock twistweight =13.69) in stock form but once I added 4g of lead @ noon I found myself shanking/hitting off center more. I had to add additional lead at 3 & 9 to bring the stability back to what it was originally in stock form.

I did a google search on this and found this thread from a while back > https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-reduce-twist-weight-by-adding-weight.623065/

Basically the consensus from that thread was that you can't decrease stability by adding weight to the frame and that made perfect sense to me, but on court it doesn't seem to work that way.

Now of course some rackets come with a ridiculously high twistweight so this doesn't really apply there, this is more so talking about platform type of rackets (DR 98, Vcore 95, Ultra Tour 97, etc...) and the effects of increasing SW by 10-20 pts.

My theory is that for a certain SW you need a certain amount of twistweight otherwise the racket will be unstable. For example you could theoretically add 10g @ 12 to a stock racket and increase the SW from 320>350 but it most likely won't be useful because you can't really tap into the power of a high SW frame with a low twistweight.

TLDR;

1. If you increase the SW past a certain point you will need to add additional twistweight
2. SW needs to be considered in relation to other specs of the frame (twistweight, balance, static weight)

I would love to hear some more thoughts from @travlerajm or any other people who have thoughts on this...
Click to expand...
When you add 4 g of mass at 12 you WILL increase TW. Each 1 g of TW’s 1/4” lead tape is 11 cm long. So assume you add 4 11 cm strips of lead at 2 o'clock. So you have 8 0.5 g of lead on each side of center. That will increase TW by 0.04 kgcm not much granted but there is some increase.

When you add 4 g at 12 you not on increase SW increase balance or move the balance higher on the racket. So your new balance and SW is higher that it was before. Have you ever thought about you center of percussion? The COP won’t be changing much but it does change, see FORMULA for calculating COP. I have no idea but that could be what you’re experiencing. MGR/I could also play a role. Good luck.

EDIT: Think about the sweet spot area on a racket. How wide that area is determined some by the TW. And the length of the area is determined by balance and SW. if you increase the length of the sweet spot are would so also want to increase its width so the area is proportionally the same only larger? When you add mass to a racket the sweet spot moves in the direction of the added mass.

EDIT: When you raise SW maybe you should lower balance. When you add mass to 3 o’clock maybe you also need to add mass at 9 o’clock so your sweet spot is not moved away from the area you are accustomed to hitting.
 
Last edited:
aaron_h27 said:
Not sure if anyone can explain why this happens, but I have noticed when you increase SW on a platform type of racket by adding short strips (4 inches of 1/4 lead tape) @ 12 the stability seems to decrease.

When I first started customizing, I was playing with a DR 98 (stock twistweight =13.69) in stock form but once I added 4g of lead @ noon I found myself shanking/hitting off center more. I had to add additional lead at 3 & 9 to bring the stability back to what it was originally in stock form.

I did a google search on this and found this thread from a while back > https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-reduce-twist-weight-by-adding-weight.623065/

Basically the consensus from that thread was that you can't decrease stability by adding weight to the frame and that made perfect sense to me, but on court it doesn't seem to work that way.

Now of course some rackets come with a ridiculously high twistweight so this doesn't really apply there, this is more so talking about platform type of rackets (DR 98, Vcore 95, Ultra Tour 97, etc...) and the effects of increasing SW by 10-20 pts.

My theory is that for a certain SW you need a certain amount of twistweight otherwise the racket will be unstable. For example you could theoretically add 10g @ 12 to a stock racket and increase the SW from 320>350 but it most likely won't be useful because you can't really tap into the power of a high SW frame with a low twistweight.

TLDR;

1. If you increase the SW past a certain point you will need to add additional twistweight
2. SW needs to be considered in relation to other specs of the frame (twistweight, balance, static weight)

I would love to hear some more thoughts from @travlerajm or any other people who have thoughts on this...
Click to expand...
I can relate to this. I’ve modified a pretty light racquet with lead from 9.5 around to 2.5 and it does seem to buck a little when struck off center. I could probably add some weight in other areas, but I like the plow through with (relatively) light weight (11oz).
 
I always add lead at 12 only because I want to reach 340 SW with the least amout of weight possible. I never measured TW but I can definitely feel that the racquet is more stable than the stock version. I bet that it is not as stable as it would be if I added at 3/9 instead of 12 but still much more stable than stock.

I don't know if that is because just the higher SW gives more stability in and of itself or because the lead from 12 reaches to 10/2 areas.
 
Hi, @DogInSpace (hilarious handle, BTW). You obviously get that adding tape at noon is the most efficient way to increase swingweight. So I'm sure you get the impo of counterweighting if the tip weight raises your balance point too high. But as to twist weight, there's no way to measure it (that I know of) outside of an RDC machine.

So the rest of us click the button in the directions to the right of the Customization Worksheet to bring up TW's comprehensive list of racquet twist weights. Then we insert that measure as our starting TW when using to the tool. Using the tool in this way will answer your question as to whether the weight you add, if it drapes toward 10&2, will add too much TW or maybe not enough, depending.

Conventional wisdom has it that you should be looking for an ending (post mod) twist weight no higher than 15, 16 on the very outside. A lot of amateur modders don't realize that adding weight at 9&3, they're raising their TW way above 16, where their ability to create topspin and correctly angle the frame at net is unnecessarily compromised.
 
Last edited:
ryohazuki222 said:
Hey OP — just skimmed the thread but seems like you’re still trying to figure this out. Maybe this helps.

1- I don’t agree with the original hypothesis you had but I think there is a relationship

for reference— I’m also a 5.0 player. At least pre-pandemic when I actually played tournaments so I’ll assume you might be running into similar things that I did. Note that majority of my testing was done with a ball machine and then rallying with a human. For the most part I don’t know any 5.0s in the area I moved to so more 4.0-4.5 rallying.

here’s what I think based on my experiences:
— to your thread title…. I’d agree. To your post… not really
— I don’t have the tools to measure what I feel so it’s a subjective conclusion
— if you haven’t. Check out the material on impacting tennis; for the most part I’ve found that guy has some cool theories that seem to hold up

when you add weight at 12, you are increasing both swingweight, recoil weight, balance and polarization. You are decreasing mgri I think. Too lazy to confirm.

what I found with more polarization is that the best balls I hit are better but I get more sporadic somehow. This is actually consistent with what the impacting tennis guy says will happen. (Note that I’ve been messing with my swing alongside the racket so maybe it’s a corrupted test.)

I don’t know if stability is the right word… personally I’d use “predictability” to describe it.

when tuning for myself, the best method I’ve found is to load up on polarization until it starts hurting consistency. Too many shanks, too many random balls a little off. At that point, if you start adding 1 gram at a time to the balance point you will increase mgri which I’d say improves predictability. Using your words, I’d say it improves stability.

the balancing comes between fine tuning the original mass at the poles with the mass at the center. Maybe you don’t just want to add weight. But maybe you don’t want to reduce swingweight either.

it really helps to have a control racket and experiment racket to a/b test aside from because it’ll be super clear that they feel different, what the change felt like, and which preferred.

Since you’re a 5.0 I’m pretty sure you’re going to adapt to whatever. For me, for the first time in my life I got curious what it would be like if I adapted the equipment to me instead of me adapting to the equipment. Results were amazing. Literally every ball I hit makes me happy and have never been more consistent in my tennis life.

it’s worth mentioning that I did find it helpful to get good measurement tools and calculators just to keep track. But when you get into the granular fine tuning I stop measuring and go purely based on feel and on court performance. then i just measure it after the fact.
Click to expand...

Great post! I think "predictability" might be a better word for it, my experience pretty much is the same as yours. I also customize my rackets the same way. I normally bump the SW up to 330-340 by adding lead @ 12. If it needs more twistweight I'll remove some lead @ 12 and place it at 3 & 9 then I add any remaining weight along the handle. I have found through a lot of customization that my static weight limit is around 345g right now I'm currently playing 342g, ~330 SW, 7-8 pts HL. Loving it so far.
 
Irvin said:
When you add 4 g of mass at 12 you WILL increase TW. Each 1 g of TW’s 1/4” lead tape is 11 cm long. So assume you add 4 11 cm strips of lead at 2 o'clock. So you have 8 0.5 g of lead on each side of center. That will increase TW by 0.04 kgcm not much granted but there is some increase.

When you add 4 g at 12 you not on increase SW increase balance or move the balance higher on the racket. So your new balance and SW is higher that it was before. Have you ever thought about you center of percussion? The COP won’t be changing much but it does change, see FORMULA for calculating COP. I have no idea but that could be what you’re experiencing. MGR/I could also play a role. Good luck.

EDIT: Think about the sweet spot area on a racket. How wide that area is determined some by the TW. And the length of the area is determined by balance and SW. if you increase the length of the sweet spot are would so also want to increase its width so the area is proportionally the same only larger? When you add mass to a racket the sweet spot moves in the direction of the added mass.

EDIT: When you raise SW maybe you should lower balance. When you add mass to 3 o’clock maybe you also need to add mass at 9 o’clock so your sweet spot is not moved away from the area you are accustomed to hitting.
Click to expand...
Thanks for explaining Irvin, I figured that twistweight would increase if mass is added @ 12, but couldn't figure out why sometimes rackets would feel less stable after adding lead @ 12 or "predictable" as @ryohazuki222 puts it.

I do generally buy low-twistweight frames (95-98 sq inches) and lead them up to my preferred specs. Do you think it's possible that at higher swingweights a frame with a low twistweight is more noticeable?
 
Brando said:
Hi, @DogInSpace (hilarious handle, BTW). You obviously get that adding tape at noon is the most efficient way to increase swingweight. So I'm sure you get the impo of counterweighting if the tip weight raises your balance point too high. But as to twist weight, there's no way to measure it (that I know of) outside of an RDC machine.

So the rest of us click the button in the directions to the right of the Customization Worksheet to bring up TW's comprehensive list of racquet twist weights. Then we insert that measure as our starting TW when using to the tool. Using the tool in this way will answer your question as to whether the weight you add, if it drapes toward 10&2, will add too much TW or maybe not enough, depending.

Conventional wisdom has it that you should be looking for an ending (post mod) twist weight no higher than 15, 16 on the very outside. A lot of amateur modders don't realize that adding weight at 9&3, they're raising their TW way above 16, where their ability to create topspin and correctly angle the frame at net is unnecessarily compromised.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. It's very important to find that perfect twistweight value for your stroke. Not too low to where you're shanking balls but also not so high that it hinders manuverability and lowers spin.

I can honestly play with a range of swingweight's but I need my twistweight to be just right lol.
 
aaron_h27 said:
I do generally buy low-twistweight frames (95-98 sq inches) and lead them up to my preferred specs. Do you think it's possible that at higher swingweights a frame with a low twistweight is more noticeable?
Click to expand...
Possibly if you think it feels less stable. Because the racket is too light maybe and the added mass at 12 makes it too polar twisting the racket because there isn’t enough mass at 3&9 to counteract it.
 
Clay surface and 1HBH really amplify the instability effects of polarized racquets. Timing the ball becomes more difficult as bounces are more unpredictable and weaker on the back hand side. This is when you really realize how much micro adjustments one makes during a swing at the ball.

Given 2 racquets that somewhat swing the same in SW feel, you'll be hitting the sweet spot less successfully on a polarized setup as it impedes on your mid-swing micro adjustments. So it's a double whammy on instability feel as ball contacts are less centered and less weight at 3/9 to help also.

This is why you won't find too many 1HBH players that actually like polarized setups.
 
phanamous said:
Clay surface and 1HBH really amplify the instability effects of polarized racquets. Timing the ball becomes more difficult as bounces are more unpredictable and weaker on the back hand side. This is when you really realize how much micro adjustments one makes during a swing at the ball.

Given 2 racquets that somewhat swing the same in SW feel, you'll be hitting the sweet spot less successfully on a polarized setup as it impedes on your mid-swing micro adjustments. So it's a double whammy on instability feel as ball contacts are less centered and less weight at 3/9 to help also.

This is why you won't find too many 1HBH players that actually like polarized setups.
Click to expand...
Wow! Ok this is getting good. I actually use a 1HBH and agree with you completely. It’s hard to use a polarized racket on 1HBH due to the lack of stability (or twistweight), but I do like polarized racket for forehand especially hitting topspin. Im guessing two handed players can make up for the lack of stability with the second hand so they can reap the benefits of both. Life can be unfair sometimes…lol
 
That added momentum at the tip of the racquet slinging into the ball is what gives you the added RHS resulting in more spin. It doesn't come for free however as it hinders your ability to make mid-swing micro adjustments to hit the sweet spot more often. It's much less of an issue for 2HBH players, likely preferred even?

I tend to add weight more at 4/8 location as it suits my 1HBH better. I'm less of a baseline player so it's better suited for volleys and overheads control at the net also.
 
phanamous said:
Clay surface and 1HBH really amplify the instability effects of polarized racquets. Timing the ball becomes more difficult as bounces are more unpredictable and weaker on the back hand side. This is when you really realize how much micro adjustments one makes during a swing at the ball.

Given 2 racquets that somewhat swing the same in SW feel, you'll be hitting the sweet spot less successfully on a polarized setup as it impedes on your mid-swing micro adjustments. So it's a double whammy on instability feel as ball contacts are less centered and less weight at 3/9 to help also.

This is why you won't find too many 1HBH players that actually like polarized setups.
Click to expand...
Would you mind elaborating on your thinking, @phanamous ? Specifically, 'less successfully' than what, a less polarized setup with a higher twist weight?
 
Weight added at 12 makes a racquet more slingy and harder to control as that weight is so far from your hand. If I'm late or early starting my swing, it's harder to speed up or slow down mid-swing which is very noticeable on clay due to the more unpredictable bounces. Because it's harder to control, I feel I'm less consistent at hitting the ball in the sweet spot resulting in my impression that the racquet is less stable even though it's not.

Brando said:
Would you mind elaborating on your thinking, @phanamous ? Specifically, 'less successfully' than what, a less polarized setup with a higher twist weight?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Increasing swingweight while maintaining MGR/I
Replies
26
Views
2K
AMGF
AMGF
T
Twistweight and SW of Yonex DR 98
Replies
10
Views
911
TysonMcMuffin
T
Shangri La
How much does leading change the twistweight?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Shangri La
Shangri La
el sergento
Adding lead to 12 o'clock - long strips or shorter localized strips?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Bartelby
Bartelby
V
lead question. plz answer.
Replies
4
Views
904
TaihtDuhShaat
TaihtDuhShaat
Back
Top