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

[nov]

Didnt read your topic, only title and can assure that missed timing is your problem

 

[phanamous]

Polarized setup isn't necessarily bad, it just has to suit your game. Take Nadal and Federer as 2 extreme examples.

Nadal's racquet is very polarized. He adds a ton of lead at 12 under the bumper guard. That thing is like Thor's hammer with him wielding it with the way he slings the racquet at the ball with a very loose grip on his FH. His setup can only be managed with a 2HBH grip. It suits his game best as it's mostly baseline allowing him to generate so much spin and pace from far back where timing is less of an issue. His APD is very forgiving and stable given the thicker beam and wider larger head size.

Federer's racquet is very static heavy while being more headlight very suited to his net game. His FH swing is more classic, not slingly like Nadal's, and his 1HBH can better manage it. It's even suitable for his infamous quick timing SABR on opponent's serve. His RF97 is narrower and thinner beam is more maneuverable and better suited for inside the baseline and at net.

 

[Yamin]

Have you noticed that a spinning figure skater spins faster when (s)he pulls her/his arms in close to the body

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.

For anyone who still doesn't understand, these sum it up. Nothing to do with timing.

 

[aaron_h27]

Polarized setup isn't necessarily bad, it just has to suit your game. Take Nadal and Federer as 2 extreme examples.

Nadal's racquet is very polarized. He adds a ton of lead at 12 under the bumper guard. That thing is like Thor's hammer with him wielding it with the way he slings the racquet at the ball with a very loose grip on his FH. His setup can only be managed with a 2HBH grip. It suits his game best as it's mostly baseline allowing him to generate so much spin and pace from far back where timing is less of an issue. His APD is very forgiving and stable given the thicker beam and wider larger head size.

Federer's racquet is very static heavy while being more headlight very suited to his net game. His FH swing is more classic, not slingly like Nadal's, and his 1HBH can better manage it. It's even suitable for his infamous quick timing SABR on opponent's serve. His RF97 is narrower and thinner beam is more maneuverable and better suited for inside the baseline and at net.

Both Federer & Nadal are good examples.

Federer's 90 was a depolarized set-up with low twistweight (364g, 355 SW, 6 pts HL)

Then when he moved to the 97 he went even more depolarized (366g, 340 SW, 9 pts HL) with higher twistweight and more HL balance to give stability on the backhand.

 

[Brando]

[Deleted]

 

[Brando]

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.

Ah, now I understand, @phanamous . That makes sense. Even though you intellectually understand that, all other things equal, a polarized racquet is more recoil-stable than a depolarized one, the fact that it's got a higher swingweight makes timing the shot harder. Indeed this may have to do with why great pros with one-handed backhands (Federer, Wawrinka, Shapovalov) tend to use head lighter rackets.

 

[Brando]

Polarized setup isn't necessarily bad, it just has to suit your game. Take Nadal and Federer as 2 extreme examples.

Nadal's racquet is very polarized. He adds a ton of lead at 12 under the bumper guard. That thing is like Thor's hammer with him wielding it with the way he slings the racquet at the ball with a very loose grip on his FH. His setup can only be managed with a 2HBH grip. It suits his game best as it's mostly baseline allowing him to generate so much spin and pace from far back where timing is less of an issue. His APD is very forgiving and stable given the thicker beam and wider larger head size.

Federer's racquet is very static heavy while being more headlight very suited to his net game. His FH swing is more classic, not slingly like Nadal's, and his 1HBH can better manage it. It's even suitable for his infamous quick timing SABR on opponent's serve. His RF97 is narrower and thinner beam is more maneuverable and better suited for inside the baseline and at net.

A great analysis, @phanamous , and well-said. May I quibble with one thing? The word 'stable' generally refers to recoil stability while 'forgiving' refers to torsional stability, which is measured by twist weight. I may be wrong here, but the Tennis Nerd played with one of Nadal's racquets and remarked how unforgiving it felt on off-center hits because, as you say, all the added weight is under the bumper & buttcap (with a smidge in the beam bridge, they say).

 

[phanamous]

A good compromise might be to load up lead strips between 10/2 and 11/1. This will keep the weight near the tip still while offering some added help with twist weight.