My attempt at polarization

[NoBadMojo]

Posted in another thread that I am experimenting w. polarizing one of my Becker11Lights. I realize that many of the TW forum members are far too good to even think about using a racquet containing the word 'Light' and this thread will be ignored by many because i didnt lead up to SW2 <whatever that is>, but perhaps this will be meaningful to some members. Not sure if I northpolarized, southpolarized, repolarized, underpolarized, depolarized or what, but had an interesting experiment. ;O

racquet = Becker11Light, leather gripped, regular string setup at regular tension. racquet weighted and balanced to match other customized b11Lights for balance and swingweight, but with weight relocated to 12 and the buttcap instead of 3 and 9 and above the grip collar cuff. swingweight about 315 <not less> and balanced a few points headlight. did this by feel rather than measurement. took 4 pieces of lead about 3-3.5" long at 12 and perhaps a total of 20" of lead temporarily added to the buttcap...not sure on this

changes in performance were several;

basic ralley ball was less spinny and more penetrating and with a lower trajectory (less time in the air). so lost some spin but gained some court penetration and ball carry. a good trradeoff

volleys - no change to speak of. volleyed great.

ROS - this is where the additional carry really came in. my majour weakness is that sometimes my return of serve lands too short in the court even though it seems to have enough pace. also happens less frequently from the backcourt. guys i play with eat that stuff up....First Strike Tennis. I am talking singles here, as that type of service return can be very effective in dubs. this setup made it easier for me to get the ball deep in the court and to start out at least in a neutral position. other racquets which I could get the carry with would often carry but with too much net clearance and not enough pace...not this setup.

Serves/Overheads - The polarized setup made the racquet a little more sluggish on the serve <and a little less effective> whereas there was no discerned diff in the groundstroking. would take some time to dial this in or maybe this is something that would be a deal breaker for me, or perhaps removing a little bit of lead from 12 would do the trick.

All up, there was a def change in the dynamics of my strokes and game by this change. Additionally, the sweetzone seems to be expanded a bit to the North which is where many better players seem to hit.

I think racquets like these which start out light are perfect as a blank canvas for customization..seems to be the way many of the pros racquets start out before they get sent off to a Bosworth or whomever to get customized.

Am happy to respond to anything reasonable

 

[jrod]

I think this thread has achieved it's maximum polarization now...

 

[nhat8121]

I tried also.

Using my TT Warrior at 320g.

I added 20g on the buttcap, 2 overgrips (roughly 10g), 7g at 10 o'clock, 7g at 2 o'clock, and 5g at 12 o'clock...which adds up to the total of about 13oz.

I don't know how much headlight or swingweight this comes about...but it feels quite solid. It's powerful, maybe a bit too powerful, but tamable. Volley is solid like a rock, heavy ball serving.

Then again, it doesn't suit everyone, which is quite understandable.

 

[corners]

racquet = Becker11Light, leather gripped, regular string setup at regular tension. racquet weighted and balanced to match other customized b11Lights for balance and swingweight, but with weight relocated to 12 and the buttcap instead of 3 and 9 and above the grip collar cuff. swingweight about 315 <not less> and balanced a few points headlight. did this by feel rather than measurement. took 4 pieces of lead about 3-3.5" long at 12 and perhaps a total of 20" of lead temporarily added to the buttcap...not sure on this

Did you use 1/2" or 1/4" wide lead tape?

 

[NoBadMojo]

Did you use 1/2" or 1/4" wide lead tape?

The skinny one.

 

[corners]

The skinny one.

If you used 1/4" tape and you added 4 strips total, that makes 12" (about 13" total or so = 3.25g.) added to 12 o'clock. And then 20" of 1/4" tape = 5g. to the butt.

This would give you a Becker 11Light leaded with these specs:
313 grams
32.5 cm (6 HL)
317 SW

This seems pretty light. Putting the same lead at 3& 9 and at the top of the grip would give you:

313 grams
32.8 cm (5 HL)
312 SW

I know, I know, geeking out on the customization tool - but I'm work avoiding.

 

[NoBadMojo]

If you used 1/4" tape and you added 4 strips total, that makes 12" (about 13" total or so = 3.25g.) added to 12 o'clock. And then 20" of 1/4" tape = 5g. to the butt.

This would give you a Becker 11Light leaded with these specs:
313 grams
32.5 cm (6 HL)
317 SW

This seems pretty light. Putting the same lead at 3& 9 and at the top of the grip would give you:

313 grams
32.8 cm (5 HL)
312 SW

I know, I know, geeking out on the customization tool - but I'm work avoiding.

gotcha...that comes out very close to my perception of the setup which i said was 315 and no less.

pretty light? not for me...i'm only a 5.0, and know that you dont need a small headed heavy racquet to play good T.

 

[corners]

gotcha...that comes out very close to my perception of the setup which i said was 315 and no less.

pretty light? not for me...i'm only a 5.0, and know that you dont need a small headed heavy racquet to play good T.

I didn't mean too light - what you play with is none of my business. I was just a little surprised, as your sig says you're swinging the DNX 9 (I reckon with heavy Volkl leather), which is a fair bit heavier. But I guess the SW is about the same, so...

 

[NoBadMojo]

I didn't mean too light - what you play with is none of my business. I was just a little surprised, as your sig says you're swinging the DNX 9 (I reckon with heavy Volkl leather), which is a fair bit heavier. But I guess the SW is about the same, so...

right....the swingweights of the two frames are about the same after modifying the b11L's....my optimal swingweight range is 315-320. i bet the dnx9 has more static weight which i dont care about.

 

[neverstopplaying]

to OP:

Adding weight in a polarized method (handle and hoop) = maintaining balance while maximizing increase in swingweight.

Adding weight in throat = adding total weight while maintaining balance and moderate increase in swingweight.

Using this info as a guide, you should be able to practice with customization to get what you want. It's hard to address your comments on change in performance as I believe it's probably mostly related to your muscle memory.

examples on your comments:
ball is less spinny / serves sluggish = lower racquet head speed as you now have a higher swingweight.
more ball penetration = more mass hitting ball

I agree that a light racquet is great for customization but may also required lead in the throat to add mass with less increase in swingweight. Depends on what you want as total weight.

I think that in order:
1) determine desired balance
2) determine desired swingweight.
3) determine desired final weight
3) add lead with polarization method and fine tune with weight in the throat to add total mass if necessary.

Experiment and enjoy.

 

[tennisntn3477]

NBMJ,
Thanks much for sharing - interesting experiment. Will be interested to hear how the sluggishness on the serve progresses (or does not progress)!

 

[NoBadMojo]

NBMJ,
Thanks much for sharing - interesting experiment. Will be interested to hear how the sluggishness on the serve progresses (or does not progress)!

sure..yw.......we got a 2nd hit in today <the first was truncated because of rain> and the serve was coming around. I might take just a small smidge off 12 and see how that goes before hiding the lead and calling it a day..it's real close and i sure dont want to add any lead in the throat as that obviously defeats the purpose of polarization i would presume/

 

[louis netman]

Hey NBMJ... Thanx for confirming my observations. I did a similar experiment awhile back with an old C8Pro I had laying around. Great frame for modding. Just making certain I don't get addicted again as they are hard to find. I have my last pair saved for the ark voyage...

 

[NoBadMojo]

Hey NBMJ... Thanx for confirming my observations. I did a similar experiment awhile back with an old C8Pro I had laying around. Great frame for modding. Just making certain I don't get addicted again as they are hard to find. I have my last pair saved for the ark voyage...

yw....i am very familiar w. the c8Pro and I bet the specs are close to the B11L other than the string density..the c8 is a little more flexy..there just arent many frames like these around...guess that is why you still have your c8's....mine c8's all became fatigued and are long gone..nuthin worse than a low powered racquet when it becomes fatigued.

 

[drakulie]

People need to stop worrying about leading up their frames,,,,,, they have bigger fish to fry.... like technique, footwork, batspeed, etc.

Frames today are good enough/stable enough to produce heavy shots, if the user know what he is doing, and is meeting the ball out in front with sufficient bat speed.

 

[Chase]

interesting that you noticed less spin on your rally strokes. had the impression from reading these boards that polarisation resulted in easier access to spin (not sure why).

 

[NoBadMojo]

interesting that you noticed less spin on your rally strokes. had the impression from reading these boards that polarisation resulted in easier access to spin (not sure why).

Just theorizing that with the weight at the tip, you would get less whip of the racquet tip which would explain less spin and also more sluggish on the serve....these things are most always about tradeoffs...where you gain in one area, you lose in another.

I really wouldnt go by what the heavy swingweight camp has to say...they said that by polarizing your racquet and getting your swingweight up to 365 you would get more spin out of the racquet than the stock racquet which was around 330 swingweight..that's really not possible

 

[corners]

Just theorizing that with the weight at the tip, you would get less whip of the racquet tip which would explain less spin and also more sluggish on the serve....these things are most always about tradeoffs...where you gain in one area, you lose in another.

I really wouldnt go by what the heavy swingweight camp has to say...they said that by polarizing your racquet and getting your swingweight up to 365 you would get more spin out of the racquet than the stock racquet which was around 330 swingweight..that's really not possible

Or neverstopplaying is correct in surmising that you just haven't got used to the higher swingweight.

Remember that the racquet of the ultimate whipper, Fed, is a Wilson Pro Staff with several grams redistributed from center of racquet to both tip and the butt. A Polar Staff. But then again, he's 6'2" and the most talented player ever, so he could probably hit a slingshot forehand with a frying pan.

 

[drakulie]

Remember that the racquet of the ultimate whipper, Fed, is a Wilson Pro Staff with several grams redistributed from center of racquet to both tip and the butt.

Actually, Federer plays with a stock k90.

 

[corners]

Actually, Federer plays with a stock k90.

Yes. That's what a stock K90 is, more or less.

 

[sureshs]

^^^ with lead under the bumper

 

[skuludo]

Or neverstopplaying is correct in surmising that you just haven't got used to the higher swingweight.

Remember that the racquet of the ultimate whipper, Fed, is a Wilson Pro Staff with several grams redistributed from center of racquet to both tip and the butt. A Polar Staff. But then again, he's 6'2" and the most talented player ever, so he could probably hit a slingshot forehand with a frying pan.

The frying pan offers little control. That is why Roddick became a dinker when he played Chris.

 

[corners]

^^^ with lead under the bumper

Yeah, Priority One confirmed that from Indian Wells.

There's an old thread on here that had a snip from a German magazine that stated that Fed changed his setup for different surfaces. It gave balance and weight for hard, grass and clay. 31.5 cm and 360 grams at Wimbledon, so going by Greg Raven's most recent measurements of a Fed racquet, that looks to be a bone stock K90.

The rest of the info would extrapolate to adding 2-3 grams at 12 for hard court and 4 grams for Clay, which would make his specs:

Grass: stock - 360 / 31.5cm / 338 SW (w/overgrip & 17 gram strings)

Hard: 362-363 / 31.7-31.8cm / ~348-353 SW

Clay: 363 / 31.9 / ~358 SW

Since this is old info, from 2004 if I recall correctly, we have to assume he's using the same "Fed Tour 90" now, as the K90, that he used then.

The poster Equijet claimed that the K90 is the old "Fed Tour 90", with a little weight that he used to put under the bumper and in the butt incorporated into the layup. Which would mean the K90 is Fed's old grass-court setup for the "Fed Tour 90". (Why do I care about this?)

 

[drakulie]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here you go: (includes photos of a actual federer k90 posted by of a poster who actually owns a federer game-day racquet, and posts by Ron Yu from priority one)

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=246366

 

[corners]

thanks Drakulie,

I remember wading through parts of that thread. Does Yu get into any more details about Roger's racquet aside from that they build custom handles for him?

 

[J011yroger]

Are you changing stuff because you are trying to accomplish something?

Or just fooling around changing stuff to see what happens?

J

 

[NoBadMojo]

Are you changing stuff because you are trying to accomplish something?

Or just fooling around changing stuff to see what happens?

J

as i said in my original post, to see for myself what the effect of 'polarization' might be, and to provide the forum with some practical info ... i'm quite set with racquets...there are several racquets i could happily play. i enjoy adapting my game to the gear once in a while..makes me a more well rounded player. ..if i was still playing tourneys i wouldnt be screwing around w. the gear like this

 

[J011yroger]

Ok, I just didn't know if you were doing it to see what it accomplished, or if you were looking to accomplish something specific.

I have a thought, that just popped into my pea brain. About spin vs. penetration reguarding polarized racquets.

Will post below.

J

 

[J011yroger]

Ok, here is the idea.

Of course this is just my theory, and I could be completely wrong, and have no scientific proof to back me up. Just throwing a thought out there.

*** End Disclaimer ***

You (Mojo) said that you found more spin with the non-polarized bats than with the polarized bats, and that your ball got more penetration with the polarized bats than with the non polarized bats.

Now, this surprised you because others had reported more spin with the polarized setup.

Lets make an assumption, which my jive theroy will be based upon. Polarizing the weight in the frame makes it easier to rotate the frame around a fulcrum, and for the purpose of this experiment as it relates to tennis, we will assume that fulcrum is your index knuckle.

Now, you, Mojo, if I recall use a mild FH grip, in the neighborhood of classic eastern. Which would put your index knuckle on the bevel inline with the stringbed. Now if your fulcrum is on that bevel (Bevel 3 as it is commonly called) then the racquet face will rotate in a direction towards the net/back wall.

On the other hand (I am so smooth slipping these puns in) I use a more western grip. That is going to put my index knuckle closer to the bottom bevel (Bevel 5 as it is commonly called). Now if my fulcrum is on the bottom bevel and you rotate the racquet around it, it is going to rotate from floor to ceiling.

This would conveniently explain how some find more spin with the polarized setup, and others find more penetration.

J

 

[Deleted member 25923]

When you polarize a racquet, can you add more to one end than the other, or do you have to add the same amount to each end?

Whats the benefit of polarization?

 

[ronalditop]

When you polarize a racquet, can you add more to one end than the other, or do you have to add the same amount to each end?

Whats the benefit of polarization?

im not so sure, but i think polarization serves to reach a high SW with the least amount of added weight.

 

[J011yroger]

When you polarize a racquet, can you add more to one end than the other, or do you have to add the same amount to each end?

Whats the benefit of polarization?

Yes you can add more to one end than the other, it is personal pref where you add it.

To me when a frame has a lot of weight in the middle it feels vague and sluggish, but when it is polarized it feels mercurial, and more whiplike.

I am a pretty clean ballstriker and hit a little up in the bed, so I am not really concerned about the torsional stability granted by lead at 3&9.

I also have never been big on putting lead around the collar cuff. I always wanted it as far down as possible.

I think it has more to do with personal biomechanics, and strokes. I like to whip on the ball, and choose a setup that augments that.

J

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Yes you can add more to one end than the other, it is personal pref where you add it.

To me when a frame has a lot of weight in the middle it feels vague and sluggish, but when it is polarized it feels mercurial, and more whiplike.

I am a pretty clean ballstriker and hit a little up in the bed, so I am not really concerned about the torsional stability granted by lead at 3&9.

I also have never been big on putting lead around the collar cuff. I always wanted it as far down as possible.

I think it has more to do with personal biomechanics, and strokes. I like to whip on the ball, and choose a setup that augments that.

J

I see. How do you know how much silicone is in your handle?

 

[NoBadMojo]

Ok, here is the idea.

Of course this is just my theory, and I could be completely wrong, and have no scientific proof to back me up. Just throwing a thought out there.

*** End Disclaimer ***

You (Mojo) said that you found more spin with the non-polarized bats than with the polarized bats, and that your ball got more penetration with the polarized bats than with the non polarized bats.

Now, this surprised you because others had reported more spin with the polarized setup.

Lets make an assumption, which my jive theroy will be based upon. Polarizing the weight in the frame makes it easier to rotate the frame around a fulcrum, and for the purpose of this experiment as it relates to tennis, we will assume that fulcrum is your index knuckle.

Now, you, Mojo, if I recall use a mild FH grip, in the neighborhood of classic eastern. Which would put your index knuckle on the bevel inline with the stringbed. Now if your fulcrum is on that bevel (Bevel 3 as it is commonly called) then the racquet face will rotate in a direction towards the net/back wall.

On the other hand (I am so smooth slipping these puns in) I use a more western grip. That is going to put my index knuckle closer to the bottom bevel (Bevel 5 as it is commonly called). Now if my fulcrum is on the bottom bevel and you rotate the racquet around it, it is going to rotate from floor to ceiling.

This would conveniently explain how some find more spin with the polarized setup, and others find more penetration.

J

Huh? lol..i'm just messin w. you. i learned to play tennis with one grip for everything. these days my forehand grip goes anywhere from cont to semi western depending upon the ball i am presented with and the type of shot i am trying to shape. i dont know if what i have experienced is an anomoly w. the spin or what, but a polarized racquet seems to have more hitting weight to it..ie; more bang for the buck <swingweight> provided you dont lose the batspeed in the process...perhaps at the expense of spin production. I've taken a smidge of lead off 12 and added more to the buttcap and will see how that goes..that will be the extent of my customizing adventure i believe...i'm trying this to get a little more movement on my serve with a little less energy expended

When you polarize a racquet, can you add more to one end than the other, or do you have to add the same amount to each end?

Whats the benefit of polarization?

depends upon what kind of balance you wish to end up with and your target swingweight. In my case I was after a few points headlight and a swingweight between 315 and 320...not seriously headlight. My stock racquet started out moderately headlight..I ended up adding substantially more lead to the butt than at 12

im not so sure, but i think polarization serves to reach a high SW with the least amount of added weight.

I dont think that is a desired goal at all.....in fact I would say that 99+ % of tennis players can not swing a high swingweight racquet well enough...unless they are so bad that it doesnt matter what racquet they use. One big reason why I wanted to try this polarization is that the others were leading up already heavy frames to very high swingweights in their polarization process...swingweights almost nobody can really use well enough..i wanted to try it ending up w. a moderate swingweight...something many of us can use well

 

[ronalditop]

I dont think that is a desired goal at all.....in fact I would say that 99+ % of tennis players can not swing a high swingweight racquet well enough...unless they are so bad that it doesnt matter what racquet they use. One big reason why I wanted to try this polarization is that the others were leading up already heavy frames to very high swingweights in their polarization process...swingweights almost nobody can really use well enough..i wanted to try it ending up w. a moderate swingweight...something many of us can use well

People who use racquets with a very high SW often have very slow groundstrokes, and i think the mayority of the tennis population find that very boring (ie murray). When i said that polarization serves to get a high SW, i was not referring to a extremely high SW, but a sw of 330-350 aprox to make the racquet stable, and to get that without adding to much weight to keep the racquet maneuverable enough.

 

[NoBadMojo]

People who use racquets with a very high SW often have very slow groundstrokes, and i think the mayority of the tennis population find that very boring (ie murray). When i said that polarization serves to get a high SW, i was not referring to a extremely high SW, but a sw of 330-350 aprox to make the racquet stable, and to get that without adding to much weight to keep the racquet maneuverable enough.

10 and 11 ounce racquets are stable nowadays and 330-350 swingweight is more than 99+% of the tennis playing public can honestly handle <unless they are so bad that it doesnt matter> and slow groundstrokes just arent going get get many people to a very good level of play. if lots of people could use 330-350 swingweight, more racquets like that would be made.

 

[NoBadMojo]

Think I can bring my polarization experiment to conclusion

Conclusion:
-The quality of ball hit with the polarized setup is marginally better for me than a conventional setup. It would be meaningful to an advanced player..someone at least 4.5..anyone less and folks have bigger fish to fry.

-Polarizing is not magical. It doesnt make a higher swingweighted racquet easier to swing as purported. It doesnt produce more spin as purported..in fact it may produce less.

 

[corners]

Think I can bring my polarization experiment to conclusion

Conclusion:
-The quality of ball hit with the polarized setup is marginally better for me than a conventional setup. It would be meaningful to an advanced player..someone at least 4.5..anyone less and folks have bigger fish to fry.

-Polarizing is not magical. It doesnt make a higher swingweighted racquet easier to swing as purported. It doesnt produce more spin as purported..in fact it may produce less.

Thanks for the (forgone) conclusion

 

[BHud]

Edited comment

 

[nickynu]

People who use racquets with a very high SW often have very slow groundstrokes, and i think the mayority of the tennis population find that very boring (ie murray). .

I think you are missing out on some of the finer aspects of the game if this is what you believe about watching Murray. (PS I sincerely doubt that the majority of fans are in agreement with your shallow assesment)

 

[Lefty78]

People need to stop worrying about leading up their frames,,,,,, they have bigger fish to fry.... like technique, footwork, batspeed, etc.

Frames today are good enough/stable enough to produce heavy shots, if the user know what he is doing, and is meeting the ball out in front with sufficient bat speed.

Feel like I remember reading about a lot of experimentation you did with your personal KPS 88's?
Sort of a case of do as I say and not as I do?

 

[Lefty78]

Ok, here is the idea.

Of course this is just my theory, and I could be completely wrong, and have no scientific proof to back me up. Just throwing a thought out there.

*** End Disclaimer ***

You (Mojo) said that you found more spin with the non-polarized bats than with the polarized bats, and that your ball got more penetration with the polarized bats than with the non polarized bats.

Now, this surprised you because others had reported more spin with the polarized setup.

Lets make an assumption, which my jive theroy will be based upon. Polarizing the weight in the frame makes it easier to rotate the frame around a fulcrum, and for the purpose of this experiment as it relates to tennis, we will assume that fulcrum is your index knuckle.

Now, you, Mojo, if I recall use a mild FH grip, in the neighborhood of classic eastern. Which would put your index knuckle on the bevel inline with the stringbed. Now if your fulcrum is on that bevel (Bevel 3 as it is commonly called) then the racquet face will rotate in a direction towards the net/back wall.

On the other hand (I am so smooth slipping these puns in) I use a more western grip. That is going to put my index knuckle closer to the bottom bevel (Bevel 5 as it is commonly called). Now if my fulcrum is on the bottom bevel and you rotate the racquet around it, it is going to rotate from floor to ceiling.

This would conveniently explain how some find more spin with the polarized setup, and others find more penetration.

J

Very interesting theory. That being said, I polarize my setup and I find I produce more spin this way, despite the fact that I have a relatively traditional forehand grip.

I definitely agree with your other post where you said that the polarized method feels less sluggish and more whiplike. For me, the torsional stability from lead at 3/9 o'clock only helps when you miss hit the ball.

 

[Rule26]

Is 317 a high swingweight?

Is 317 a high swingweight?

Wasn't there a "noman's land" between swingweights that was proportional to the weight - ie the lower the weight of the racquet the higher the swingweight was supposed to be? or that weight polorization didn't substantiate until it was over 360?

Seems like we could call these oversized weighty headlight racquets "Sir Mixalots"