Polarization, Recoil Weight & MgR/I demystified?

ryohazuki222 said:
No. I was getting closer to 20 out of curiosity but as I get closer and closer, I become more inconsistent with my timing. And then start adding some mass at the balance point until it feels good.

Closer down to 20 tends to feel better than higher for me in the event that I time it perfectly. But overall just not a stick I’d want to take into a match.
Click to expand...
Hello Ryo! (With shenmue villager voice). I think that I more often start my swing earlier than later, maybe that's why I feel more comfortable in that zone. However, I still want to try to adjust above that number to see what my sweet point is.
 
Taking into consideration that the MgR/I evaluates how easy is for a racquet to come through in a vertical axis, why is twistweight not taken into consideration? Or, wouldn't it be better to use the spinweight value instead of the swing weight? Any thoughts?
 
TW is measured in the same units as SW, but is a very low number about 20 times smaller. This reflects the fact that spinning around an axis caused by an off centre hit is far more likely to happen than deflecting motion in line with the principle pivot point.
 
iowaviking11 said:
when getting unstrung specs should I assume 30g for strings?
Click to expand...
Hi @iowaviking11, I'm late to the discussion and you prolly know it now; but in case not, assume 14-18g depending on the string type. If playing poly, a full bed is usually 17-18g. If playing a multi, 15-16g is a safe bet. Syn guts are the lightest and range from 14-15.5g. With all of these estimates, head size, string pattern, and the weight of the strings themselves all have an affect and should be factored in. (Of course, if you have a scale, you can weigh the racquet before and after stringing to get an exact #. )
 
José Fernando Barba said:
Taking into consideration that the MgR/I evaluates how easy is for a racquet to come through in a vertical axis, why is twistweight not taken into consideration? Or, wouldn't it be better to use the spinweight value instead of the swing weight? Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
My thought, @José Fernando Barba, is agreement that twistweight is key to racquet performance. More than affecting a frame's stability on off-center hits, it's best tuned to playstyle: higher for flatter hitters and lower for spinmeisters; higher for baseliners and lower for all-courters and serve and volleyers, etc. In my thinking, it's not an either-this-is-important-or-that-is thing. No spec stands alone. They all exist and change in context of one another.

If so, the question becomes, how do we maximize racquet performance by understanding how a change in one spec affects the others. For instance, when players say that X is their maximum weight or Y is their maximum swingweight, what they mean is that these are the maximums in context of the other Big-3 specs they're used to swinging. If we swung a lower weighted frame, we might very likely dig a higher than 'max' swingweight. Or if we lower the balance enough, we may find we can swing more weight than we thought.

Finding out how changing the combination of Big-3 specs changes the feel and performance of a racquet takes years of actually feeling it for yourself. For we fiddlers it's a lifelong pursuit. Hells, I just finished shifting weight from tip to 3 & 9 on a frame Briffidi SW1 revealed is twistweighted at only 12.9. Since I tend not to hit off-center, I didn't know. But, man, does the racquet perform better at 13.5tw; and maybe I hit more off center than I thought...

The point is, I used recoil weight as my guide to make the change, going from 170 to 171rw to keep the weight distribution in my wheelhouse so that I knew, even before stepping on the court, the racquet would still swing maneuverably for me. In this way, I maximized the performance of the racquet by adding twistweight for better contact without compromising its agility in the slot. To do so I had to add a little more weight at 3 & 9 than I'd had at noon. Could this have turned out to feel like too much weight? Yes. Did it? No. It felt better, and I'm glad I reached a bit out of my comfort zone to find out.
 
Last edited:
Hey @Brando and @travlerajm could you help me out?
I am setting up my tfights 305s.
I tried 2 setups:

1. unstrung 320g/310mm/295 sw
2. unstrung 320g/310mm/305 sw

Nr 2 is overall much better but with both I have issues on serves - It is hard for me to find the loop and this free fall just before acceleration (sensation of fluid movement) Alternatively it is also difficult to setup to trophy position and then explode. (Sensation of loading and holding the power position)
. Now something is holding me kinda.

(I added 1g at 12 to nr 1 to see the middle ground between the two but the issue was still there. However groundstrokes were similarly good now and close to what I want.)

is there any theory where should I go next?
Ideally I would like to have the backhand of nr 2. Forehand of nr 1 (with this +1g) and fixed feel on serve haha !

Cheer!
Danny
 
Last edited:
galapagos said:
Hey @Brando could you help me out?
I am setting up my tfights 305s.
I tried 2 setups:

1. unstrung 320g/310mm/295 sw
2. unstrung 320g/310mm/305 sw

Nr 2 is overall much better but with both I have issues on serves - It is hard for me to find the loop and this free fall just before acceleration (sensation of fluid movement) Alternatively it is also difficult to setup to trophy position and then explode. (Sensation of loading and holding the power position)
. Now something is holding me kinda.

(I added 1g at 12 to nr 1 to see the middle ground between the two but the issue was still there. However groundstrokes were similarly good now and close to what I want.)

is there any theory where should I go next?
Ideally I would like to have the backhand of nr 2. Forehand of nr 1 (with this +1g) and fixed feel on serve haha !

Cheer!
Danny
Click to expand...
From no. 2 remove all handle weight you added.
 
I’m not sure if you’re a follower of my theory, @galapagos, so I’ll explain why I think your 315g/315mm/305 sw setup may be optimal for you. It’s a high number that naturally comes with the higher weights that longer arms (like yours) and their thicker joint structures need or else they lose tip awareness. But higher weights swing slower.

The solution? Maximize swingweight to minimize weight. But SW has to be counterbalanced or else it becomes tip-heavy. The resulting polarization helps to speed the system back up; not by decreasing the force required to initially accelerate it, but by making the weight more maneuverable afterwards, when the hoop is flipping around in the slot. This tends to work best for longer arms if the balance is low because it lowers inertia, making a heavier frame feel lighter and more maneuverable where you want it to be, in the slot.

So what does all this add up to? High weight and SW with a low balance point and, as a result, a high polarization and low MgR/I, which are standard features at a high RW like 170. Assuming a ~17g poly string, your 305sw setup becomes approximately:
337g, 32cm, 335sw, 172rw, 20.45 MgR/I, 0.510 Pi

Having seen your swing in your vids, I think this is a good spec combo for you. If I changed anything, I’d trim weight &/or SW to trim off a couple of RW points. You could take some from the hoop or from 20cm, shifting it to the butt or just taking it off. As long as what you do lowers the balance, you’ll know you’re going in the right direction (and do use TennCom’s tool to see how the numbers change).

Which road you’d explore would be up to you. Just know that swingweight does more than add power and whip-through. It changes your angle of impact, and so, can be used to manipulate that. More SW means a sharper angle of impact, both on serve and groundstrokes, by making racquet velocity decrease less than forearm velocity from the added weight &/or polarization.

I know that sounds funny but it’s what is really happening when you add swingweight to a loose modern swing; the whole system is slowed, but the racquet less so than the forearm, which tends to initiate forearm pronation, which sharpens the angle of impact.
 
Brando said:
I’m not sure if you’re a follower of my theory, @galapagos, so I’ll explain why I think your 315g/315mm/305 sw setup may be optimal for you. It’s a high number that naturally comes with the higher weights that longer arms (like yours) and their thicker joint structures need or else they lose tip awareness. But higher weights swing slower.

The solution? Maximize swingweight to minimize weight. But SW has to be counterbalanced or else it becomes tip-heavy. The resulting polarization helps to speed the system back up; not by decreasing the force required to initially accelerate it, but by making the weight more maneuverable afterwards, when the hoop is flipping around in the slot. This tends to work best for longer arms if the balance is low because it lowers inertia, making a heavier frame feel lighter and more maneuverable where you want it to be, in the slot.

So what does all this add up to? High weight and SW with a low balance point and, as a result, a high polarization and low MgR/I, which are standard features at a high RW like 170. Assuming a ~17g poly string, your 305sw setup becomes approximately:
337g, 32cm, 335sw, 172rw, 20.45 MgR/I, 0.510 Pi

Having seen your swing in your vids, I think this is a good spec combo for you. If I changed anything, I’d trim weight &/or SW to trim off a couple of RW points. You could take some from the hoop or from 20cm, shifting it to the butt or just taking it off. As long as what you do lowers the balance, you’ll know you’re going in the right direction (and do use TennCom’s tool to see how the numbers change).

Which road you’d explore would be up to you. Just know that swingweight does more than add power and whip-through. It changes your angle of impact, and so, can be used to manipulate that. More SW means a sharper angle of impact, both on serve and groundstrokes, by making racquet velocity decrease less than forearm velocity from the added weight &/or polarization.

I know that sounds funny but it’s what is really happening when you add swingweight to a loose modern swing; the whole system is slowed, but the racquet less so than the forearm, which tends to initiate forearm pronation, which sharpens the angle of impact.
Click to expand...
I am flirting with the theory but at the moment I feel like with the new specs I am drafting different player. Of course I am exaggerating but the sensations of my loop on the forehand are different and as a grinder I play huge attention to what I feel during the takeback. In fact when I compete this is my number one "reference point" for being consistent. Rest I just try to stay stable to let the "loop" do it's thing in a most repetitive way.

thank you Brando as always. If you don't mind I would like to mention you in my video.

as a player that is reacting more rather than dictating I find myself often in a more challenging "reaching" situations where "hands" play bigger role than "arm" and here is where I struggle with the 320/310/305 sw. Flicking motions are a bit limited? Also on clay there is a risk of a random bounce where "up-down" swings could be too easily interrupted. Or in general sprints block bigger loops.
I want to stay within this spec range mainly for the ball quality I could produce however I want to tweak it a bit and create some headroom for more sudden situations.
Funny enough I already had something very close to that "up down" feel yet with a slightly faster "reaction" time compared to what I have with the 305 sw.
you can see me play with the "x" specs at 8:48 (I think I perform really good there but for some reason the stability of the frame is worse from my memory - hitting off center was more jarring - compared to 320/310mm/305):
here
estimated specs over there are around 320g/31.3/304-306 sw.
When I tried to recreate the specs later on during my journey I landed on a confirmed 320,5/31.4/306 but the feeling of "up down" motion was gone (I couldnt feel the "up" motion so "down" wasn't as "relaxed" or "fluid" and therefore the acceleration was disturbed).
Still the overall stability and backhands go to 320/310/305sw one but my forehand was really good there (whatever the specs were haha) which I miss.
As I try to calculate some options it seems 320g/308mm/301 SW could be my spot - getting the RW from the slightly more HL balance while still keeping the sw relatively high to keep the "hoop stability" hopefully on a similar level.
What do you think? More HL setup maybe might help me stay more fluid on my serve motion?
When I look at my racquet history I prefer 320g-323g setups so it seems I dont want to go under 320 and play more with sw and balance

Oh btw. I tried 315/315/305 and I think it has a weird impact on my elbow. 320/310/305 feels easier to whip. Haven’t tried serving with it

with love,
Danny
 
Last edited:
Curious to know if anyone following this thread has a Functional Tennis Saber and has tried tuning it for RW?

I just got one and have yet to measure its specs. But I imagine it might be difficult to do without adding too much weight and even if it was tuned, would it feel/swing the same as a standard racket given the small head size and different racket shape/mold?

@Brando
 
I personally don't know of anyone, @forzamr_b. That you use the Saber enough to ask, though, is impressive. The last time I swung one, it didn't come through at all like any of my standard racquets. I think that's why I haven't picked one up in a while. Do you have access to a swingweight machine? If so, it'd be interesting to find out how low its SW really is.
 
Brando said:
I personally don't know of anyone, @forzamr_b. That you use the Saber enough to ask, though, is impressive. The last time I swung one, it didn't come through at all like any of my standard racquets. I think that's why I haven't picked one up in a while. Do you have access to a swingweight machine? If so, it'd be interesting to find out how low its SW really is.
Click to expand...
Haha I asked the question before I swung one! I figured that for it to be an effective training tool, it needs to elicit the same swing mechanics from me as my regular stick. Hence, my pondering…

I’ve since used it a couple of times. It definitely feels different, particularly balance and weight distribution, just holding it in hand. Thankfully, during hitting, it doesn’t feel as drastically different.

I have a Briffidi so here’s its strung specs with one overgrip:
Static: 315.7g
Balance: 33.2cm
SW: 288
TW: 5.1
Mgr/i: 22.05
RW: 118.08
Polarization: 0.374

My preferred racket strung specs with one overgrip:
Static: 320-335g
Balance: 31-33cm
SW: 315-325
RW: 158-163

50pt difference in RW, should I attempt to add lots of weight to the handle? Hahaha
 
ZeroandOne said:
Tell us how it plays first
Click to expand...
Hmmm… It feels more headlight than its actual balance. I’ve never played with a regular racket with such low SW before, so I don’t really have a gauge on how it compares. But without knowing its SW I would have estimated the SW to be higher, maybe 300-310. For groundstrokes, I hit off-centre maybe 1 out 5 hits, on serves 1 in 3. Haven’t volleyed with it yet. Can’t be sure if the shanks are just because of the small head size or the swing path is a contributing factor.

Regular racket, I hit off-centre 1 in 30 groundstrokes, hardly ever on serves?
 
Brando said:
Recoil weight, the polarization index, and MgR/I are different measures of racquet polarization calculated from the same variables of weight, balance & swingweight (SW):

THE FORMULAS:
Recoil Weight = SW - (wt. in kg. x (cm balance - 10)²)
The Polarization Index = Recoil Weight ÷ Weight in grams
MgR/I = (wt. in kg x 980.5 x cm balance) ÷ (SW + (20 x kg wt. x cm balance) - (100 x kg wt.))

THE IDEAS
Recoil Weight is like swingweight except its axis is the balance point instead of 10cm (your hand). The higher the RW, the more polarized the frame: >170 is very polarized; <150 is very depolarized.
The Polarization Index looks at RW in proportion to mass to arrive at a simpler polarization measure: most racquets hover around 0.50 PI, with > 0.50 PI being more polarized and <0.5 PI being less polarized.
MgR/I is used to adjust how quickly the hoop comes through your swing so as to fit arm length and swing style by varying weighting and its positioning to achieve your ideal racquet head lag. (The higher the MgR/I, the less polarized the frame and the faster the hoop comes through.) <20 is very polarized; >21.5 is very depolarized.

It’s easy to assume that these measures move consistently visa vie one another, as if a lower recoil weight means a less polarized frame, and so, a higher MgR/I every time. While this is mostly true, it’s not the hard n’ fast rule people think. As you’ll see from the case of Andrey Rublev’s racquet customization, there are differences among the three polarization measures that are easy to miss and quite confusing, too, unless you dive a bit deeper:

Rublev’s Racquet
vs. its stock specs*		In
Year		Length
[cm]		Weight
[grams]		Balance
[cm]		Swing
Weight		Recoil
Weight		Polariz’n
[RW/Wt]
MgR/I
Stock Gravity Pro201868.633232.0332171.30.5220.37
Rublev’s Gravity Pro201968.635931.0335176.70.4920.92
* All specs are strung specs, as they will be throughout this post.

Rublev’s racquet tech adds 20.4 grams around 16cm up the handle, probably in the form of gobs of silicon, plus 1.6g of tape at 10 & 2. Then Rublev adds an overgrip and, after all is stuck n’ done, balance has dropped from 7 HL to 10 HL. Meanwhile, swingweight has risen (barely), and it makes sense because mass added anywhere on a frame increases SW (even if sometimes unnoticeably).

What’s surprising is the rise in RW. I’d think that adding even that much weight that far up a 22cm handle would reduce recoil. But only the polarization index decreases, from 0.52 to 0.49, which doesn’t seem to make sense. How does a mod job lower the polarization index but raise recoil weight when they’re supposed to be the same thing?

Breaking it down, a 5g overgrip increases polarization from 0.5156 to 0.5159 and increases RW from 171.3 to 173.7. OK, that makes sense. What’s less obvious is that the other added weight (a whopping 22 grams of it) rose proportionally more than its distribution raised recoil weight. Indeed, weight increased 8% while RW increased only 3%, making the polarization index fall, by the numbers. This means that if the weight is big enough and/or its distribution is far enough from the poles, then a frame’s polarization index (being a ratio of RW) can drop even as its recoil weight (an absolute value) rises.

Here’s another fun fact. MgR/I rises when weight is added below the balance point but falls from weighting above it. This makes MgR/I different from recoil weight and the polarization index in that it can indicate which end is more polarized.

How exactly does MgR/I change with weight distribution? When weight is added under the buttcap, MgR/I barely rises. From there, the higher up weighting is placed, the more MgR/I increases until mass is placed at the balance point, where MgR/I begins to drop back down. The higher mass is placed above the balance point, the more MgR/I drops, ending up lower than the starting MgR/I. This table displays the phenomenon when 9 grams of weighting is moved up a frame with stock specs of 320g, 33cm balance, 325 SW, and 20.54 MgR/I:

9g AT VARYING LOCATIONSbutthandleb/phooptip
9-gram Location:​
1 cm17 cm33 cm50 cm68 cm
Resulting MgR/I:​
20.5520.7320.7120.5020.07
MgR/I change from 20.54:​
+0.01+0.19+0.17-0.04-0.47

While I find these patterns fascinating, you might well ask, “Do I really need to know this MgR/I stuff?” The short answer is no, not unless you’re, say, micro-adjusting down the 21.5 MgR/I of your 350g frame for added spin.

‘Truth is, the most popular racquets are between 20.4 and 20.8 MgR/I. Not coincidentally, that’s the standard deviation of 2022’s top-sellers, which average 20.58 MgR/I. In this midrange there are so many combinations of weight, balance, and SW that can reach any one MgR/I that seeking MgR/I as some kind of a benchmark is almost meaningless.

Take Wilson’s Ultra 100 v.4 with its light, very evenly distributed weighting and 4 HL balance. Compare that to Yonex’s Vcore 95 with its heavy-ish, more handle-weighted 7 HL balance. For all their differences, these frames have virtually identical MgR/Is and swingweights:

of
Year		Length
[cm]		Weight
[grams]		Balance
[cm]		Swing
Weight		Recoil
Weight		Polariz’n
[RW/Wt]		MgR/I
Wilson Ultra 100 v.4​
202268.631833.0317148.80.4720.78
Yonex Vcore 95​
2020​
68.6​
326​
32.0​
316​
158.2​
0.49​
20.79​

‘Think, maybe, such pairings are outliers? Try this one on for size:

of
Year		Length
[cm]		Weight
[grams]		Balance
[cm]		Swing
Weight		Recoil
Weight		Polariz’n
[RW/Wt]		MgR/I
Head Boom MP
2022​
68.6​
315​
32.7​
318​
155.7​
0.49​
20.51
Tecnifibre Tfight RS 305
2020​
68.6​
323​
33.5​
333​
154.9​
0.48​
20.51

So I say, don’t bother with MgR/I if you haven’t already. Get to know your favorite recoil weight instead. It’ll tell you a lot about why some racquets with the same specs can feel “mysteriously” different.

But if you’ve already started down the MgR/I rabbit hole, consider that spec measures are most useful in combination versus targeting some absolute value in any one of them, as some tend to do with MgR/I. Together, specs paint a vivid picture of how a racquet can perform. Learning how to see that in the numbers is fun (to us geeks at least), and getting to enjoy the results on court, the most fun of all.
Click to expand...
Racketpedia ricoil weight and polar index for Gravity Pro are substantially different, 156.5 and 0.95 respectively for the 2023, even lower for the 2025. Boom MP 2024 is lower than your measurement too, 142.5. I guess these data could vary a lot from racket to racket....

You report such a high recoil weight, higher than a Ki 15 300, but a low polar index...is it right?
 
I come here today to ask Brando if there is a name and measurement for a part of the racquet swing that I have been puzzled about.

The whole forehand swing can be sort of (1) circular, or (2) a sideways U shape, or (3) a sideways V shape movement.
What I see in common is a point in space where the racquet comes to the end of its backward travel, almost stops, and then goes forward.

This is an instant in time & space that could be called the "turnaround point," and might be measured in something like "rotational time."
Maybe this measurement is just a "subset" of the regular SW measurement, but there seems to be another dimension to it. Any ideas?
------ So Be It ⚜️ ------
 
mmazzini1 said:
Racketpedia ricoil weight and polar index for Gravity Pro are substantially different, 156.5 and 0.95 respectively for the 2023, even lower for the 2025. Boom MP 2024 is lower than your measurement too, 142.5. I guess these data could vary a lot from racket to racket....

You report such a high recoil weight, higher than a Ki 15 300, but a low polar index...is it right?
Click to expand...
I assume the Ki 15 300 is a 300g unstrung racquet?

The recipe to have high recoil weight and low polarization is to make the racquet heavier, with the weight somewhere between the balance point and the ends.

The gravity Pro being 320g unstrung and 18x20 string pattern means it can be quite heavy like this.

However, I haven't looked at the wiki so I'm not sure if this factor alone accounts for the specifications you're seeing.
 
forzamr_b said:
Hmmm… It feels more headlight than its actual balance. I’ve never played with a regular racket with such low SW before, so I don’t really have a gauge on how it compares. But without knowing its SW I would have estimated the SW to be higher, maybe 300-310. For groundstrokes, I hit off-centre maybe 1 out 5 hits, on serves 1 in 3. Haven’t volleyed with it yet. Can’t be sure if the shanks are just because of the small head size or the swing path is a contributing factor.

Regular racket, I hit off-centre 1 in 30 groundstrokes, hardly ever on serves?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why I never picked up a Saber again. Since I have a very loose arm, at (what I now discover from you @forzamr_b is) the very low RW of 118, I couldn't swing the thing with anything close to the right timing for me. Indeed it sounds like your performance with it is way better than mine. I dig your idea of weighting it up closer to your own preferred recoil weight. Have you tried it?
 
mmazzini1 said:
Racketpedia ricoil weight and polar index for Gravity Pro are substantially different, 156.5 and 0.95 respectively for the 2023, even lower for the 2025. Boom MP 2024 is lower than your measurement too, 142.5. I guess these data could vary a lot from racket to racket....

You report such a high recoil weight, higher than a Ki 15 300, but a low polar index...is it right?
Click to expand...
Racketopedia logs two different polarization measures. The first one, your "0.95," is a measure I'm unsure of (and if anyone knows it, do tell). The second measure is the polarization index [RW/Wt. in grams]. That's the one I can comment on. Gravity Pro 2023 averages around 0.50 Pi unstrung. Strung, that comes in at 0.504 with a 167rw. And, yes, @mmazzini1, that makes it polarized but far less so than what I'd expect for such a high recoil weighted frame.

If my RW theory is right, then 167rw is apt for longer arms that generally prefer to swing similarly high polarizations that sacrifice a measure of maneuverability in the slot for the kind of mass or swingweight that, more importantly, opens up larger wrist structures for greater lag coming out of it (the slot). HGP 2023's relatively low polarization-to-RW ratio is explained by its having both a lot of mass and SW. Usually racquets that come in around a meaty 332g strung are lower swingweighted. But this Gravity Pro's SW is even higher, at 334, also giving it a high balance (32.4cm) for such a heavy frame.

Ideally, a frame trades off one thing for another, like maneuverability for lag. But this one kinda sacrifices the advantages of both unless you have the form to carry it off. That is, it's maneuverable but so heavy that the whole system, both arm and racquet, is slowed enough to require super early takebacks anyway. And it's laggy but so high swingweighted that it'll tend to whip-through the ball at too sharp a racquet face angle despite the lag having opened your wrist up earlier. Add the thin (20mm) beam and you get one hard racquet to swing powerfully, which, for better or worse, is its reputation. But if you can get it back early and then swing it fast enough, I bet the ball comes off the strings like sizzling buttah.
 
Last edited:
Youngheart said:
I come here today to ask Brando if there is a name and measurement for a part of the racquet swing that I have been puzzled about.

The whole forehand swing can be sort of (1) circular, or (2) a sideways U shape, or (3) a sideways V shape movement.
What I see in common is a point in space where the racquet comes to the end of its backward travel, almost stops, and then goes forward.

This is an instant in time & space that could be called the "turnaround point," and might be measured in something like "rotational time."
Maybe this measurement is just a "subset" of the regular SW measurement, but there seems to be another dimension to it. Any ideas?
------ So Be It ⚜️ ------
Click to expand...
It doesn't have a name, at least not one I'm aware of. I think that's because amateurs, when learning groundstrokes, tend to pause at that point and then swing forward in a sudden horizontal change of direction. That's not a moment in their learning that teachers want anyone focusing on. So we don't name it.

As you know, the ideal ATP takeback goes from high to low, the inverted hoop dropping to let gravity build momentum for you while the hand(s) sweep forward. Together, this drop & sweep should form a continuous motion that's kind of accidentally circular. And if the arm and wrist are loose enough, the hoop will even flip at that point where, once upon a time, the student paused. One might even say the expression you're looking for may be the racquet-flip?
 
Last edited:
Brando said:
It doesn't have a name, at least not one I'm aware of. I think that's because amateurs, when learning groundstrokes, tend to pause at that point and then swing forward in a sudden horizontal change of direction. That's not a moment in their learning that teachers want anyone focusing on. So we don't name it.

As you likely know, the ideal ATP takeback goes from high to low, the inverted hoop dropping to let gravity build momentum for you while the hand(s) sweep forward. Together, this drop & sweep should form a continuous motion that's kind of accidentally circular. And if the arm and wrist are loose enough, the hoop will even flip at that point where, once upon a time, the student paused. So one might even say that the ideal expression you're looking for may be the racquet-flip?
Click to expand...
That sounds about right to me. Each racquet has a different micro-second amount of time in its "cosmic orbit" of racquet-flip.
That can make different brands of racquets feel really different. I guess instead of trying to pin the difference just on racquet-flip
all by its self, I should be thinking of all the components that go into it, such as weight, balance, SW, TW, RW, polarization, etc.
All of those measurements combined into one formula, could shine a light onto the different racquet-flip feel between racquets.
------ So Be It :unsure: ------
 
Brando said:
Yeah, that's why I never picked up a Saber again. Since I have a very loose arm, at (what I now discover from you @forzamr_b is) the very low RW of 118, I couldn't swing the thing with anything close to the right timing for me. Indeed it sounds like your performance with it is way better than mine. I dig your idea of weighting it up closer to your own preferred recoil weight. Have you tried it?
Click to expand...
Actually now I wonder if my RW, polarisation, and Mgr/I numbers are inaccurate because the Saber is not 27 inches in length.

Can anyone advise if the formulas apply for non standard lengths?

Also I haven’t had time to tinker with the Saber.
 
Brando said:
It doesn't have a name, at least not one I'm aware of. I think that's because amateurs, when learning groundstrokes, tend to pause at that point and then swing forward in a sudden horizontal change of direction. That's not a moment in their learning that teachers want anyone focusing on. So we don't name it.

As you know, the ideal ATP takeback goes from high to low, the inverted hoop dropping to let gravity build momentum for you while the hand(s) sweep forward. Together, this drop & sweep should form a continuous motion that's kind of accidentally circular. And if the arm and wrist are loose enough, the hoop will even flip at that point where, once upon a time, the student paused. One might even say the expression you're looking for may be the racquet-flip?
Click to expand...
How the topspin is performed after contact with the ball (IGA-the end of the kick is to the left in an arc with strong rotation)ALKARAZ-over the left shoulder behind the back NADAL -up over the right shoulder?DO ALL of THEM have rigid polarized rackets (wrist open, rackets head late?MODERN SCHOOL
 
That's the trend, @arsen, and most pros add polarizing weight when they customize their racquets. But it's certainly not always so. Witness Alcaraz adding 5 or so grams of tape to the throat of his Pure Aero 98 to dampen the vibrations of this famously crispy frame.
 
Brando said:
That's the trend, @arsen, and most pros add polarizing weight when they customize their racquets. But it's certainly not always so. Witness Alcaraz adding 5 or so grams of tape to the throat of his Pure Aero 98 to dampen the vibrations of this famously crispy frame.
Click to expand...
Is that the best practice for someone who doesn't want to play with a polarized racket but is struggling with elbow issues? At what point does the weight start being beneficial, because aren't depolarized rackets harder on the arm and adding weight to the balance point increases MGRI?
 
Unfortunately, @BillyBanquo, there are no one-size-fits-all answers to your questions, at least when it comes to polarization.

My theory is that the taller the player, the more polarized the racquet should be; the correct polarization then reducing stress on the arm by allowing you to swing loosely and still get apt angles of impact. But that's only if you practice a loose modern swing. The stiffer your swing, the less racquet weight distribution matters because the arm is muscling the angle of impact, instead of the racquet affecting it as a passive link in a kinetic chain.

In terms of impact vibrations, depolarized racquets can dampen them better, as can heavier racquets. Both absorb vibrations. But there are caveats, like racquet stiffness and a little understood measure called Vibration (Hz). Nevertheless, if I had elbow issues, I'm not sure I'd look to this stuff first, anyway.

After loosening my grip on my racquet, I'd look to my strings. Do you play poly? If so, when's the last time you changed 'em out? If that's not the problem, then what tension are you playing? If over 50#, then try ≤48#. Or try a softer poly. Best yet try the most poly-like (snapbackiest) nylon out there, Prince Lightening Pro.

(BTW, yes, adding weight at the balance point increases MgR/I, but not quite as much as adding it at around 7" [18cm] up the handle, where there's evidence that it can reduce vibrations.)
 
Brando said:
Unfortunately, @BillyBanquo, there are no one-size-fits-all answers to your questions, at least when it comes to polarization.

My theory is that the taller the player, the more polarized the racquet should be; the correct polarization then reducing stress on the arm by allowing you to swing loosely and still get apt angles of impact. But that's only if you practice a loose modern swing. The stiffer your swing, the less racquet weight distribution matters because the arm is muscling the angle of impact, instead of the racquet affecting it as a passive link in a kinetic chain.

In terms of impact vibrations, depolarized racquets can dampen them better, as can heavier racquets. Both absorb vibrations. But there are caveats, like racquet stiffness and a little understood measure called Vibration (Hz). Nevertheless, if I had elbow issues, I'm not sure I'd look to this stuff first, anyway.

After loosening my grip on my racquet, I'd look to my strings. Do you play poly? If so, when's the last time you changed 'em out? If that's not the problem, then what tension are you playing? If over 50#, then try ≤48#. Or try a softer poly. Best yet try the most poly-like (snapbackiest) nylon out there, Prince Lightening Pro.

(BTW, yes, adding weight at the balance point increases MgR/I, but not quite as much as adding it at around 7" [18cm] up the handle, where there's evidence that it can reduce vibrations.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply Brando! I'm just a bit confused because in your recoil weight thread you said depolarized rackets translate to more shock on the arm? I definitely agree with your theory and as a shorter player only 5'6 I've felt that I've preferred that pushing of the racket sensation than pulling. I've been using the new Ezone 100 and I use polys and string it pretty frequently. It's the first time I've suffered from so much elbow issues with a racket, I'm generally at 50 lbs and I've even had issues using Mach10 but I also play very frequently. Do you think adding weight to the handle would be a good idea, and if so how much do you think would make a difference?
 
Could you do me a favor, @BillyBanquo, and insert the quote of where I said depolarized rackets translate to more shock on the arm into your reply?

(To do this, highlight the text where I posted it and click on the +Quote button in blue at the bottom right corner of all posts. Then, to insert it here, click on the Insert quotes... button that will appear in the lower left corner of your post reply here.)

I'm not saying I didn't say it, I just want to know the context, if I did. Thanks.

If you play very frequently, I'd put that new Ezone 100 down and play with your prior racquet until you figure out what's going on. Not enough players know that elbow pain means you're already doing damage. And that damage, if it continues, can too quickly become permanent. Trust me, if you love playing a lot, you don't want that.

In the meantime, toward figuring this out, I suggest trying out different solutions with your Ezone 100 but STOPPING IMMEDIATELY IF YOU FEEL EVEN JUST A TWINGE OF ELBOW PAIN. Failing to stop is where players make their tragic mistake.

Do you have access to an RDC or SW1 machine to measure the swingweight of your Ezone 100 copy? If not, can you at least measure its weight and balance? And if so, what are they? I can't advise you which way to go in terms of weighting unless I know where you are.

But, whatever your answers, the first thing I'd do is cut out whatever poly(s) you have in your Ezone (because you know that setup is damaging) and restring it at 47# or less. If you still experience pain, stop, cut out those strings, and try a softer poly or the same at 45# or less. If that doesn't work, try Prince Lightning Pro at 53#. If THAT hurts your arm, then you know your problem isn't the strings but the racquet. The strategy here is to isolate and rule out the most obvious sources of your problem first and then move on to the less obvious.

I know this is a labor-intensive solution, but protecting your arm health is worth it.
 
Last edited:
@Trip @dr. godmode @Brando


I just watched a recent tenncom customization video (excellent one), and he says high MgR/I is good for finding contact in front. My game is basically like baby Federer, with contact well in front on FH and OHBH, and maybe low MgR/I is something I'm missing in my setup that I built around high SW of 337 and high recoil. My height is 6'2", with long arms (high ape index). I just feel the racquet is not flipping as effortlessly as I had it with my Pure Strike Tour. I also really enjoy my depolarized Prestige Tour (2021). How can I have a high recoil and high MGRI setup at the same time, I'm confused?

Here's my strung specs

Static weight: 331
Balance: 32 cm
Swingweight: 337
Recoil weight: 176.8
MgR/I: 20.137
Polarization Index: 0.534

This is how I feel about my racquet setup:

ErlWIxgVkAQZSPN.jpg:large



Video for reference:

 
Tranqville said:
How can I have a high recoil and high MGRI setup at the same time, I'm confused?
Click to expand...
Having a setup that has both a high RW and a high MGR/i requires a baseline amount of static weight, usually slightly higher than your swing weight number. This is because you typically need to have at least a certain amount of mass present in/around the balance point itself, to boost MGR/i into the mid-20's and beyond (ie. enough of a mass distribution that will make the racquet swing more like a sword and less like an axe), while still being able to have enough mass at either end of the racquet to maintain a high-enough RW. Once you play enough with the numbers required to make this happen, you'll see the relationship unfold for yourself.

The challenge is to see how little static weight and SW can be used to pull this off. The less mass and the more even mass distribution you start with, the lower the total numbers you can typically get away with. The issue in your case is that you're starting with a customized ISO 305 that has a very polarized, "see-saw" type mass distribution and is already at 315g unstrung. To keep it wieldable enough, we'd ideally like at least some of that mass to be relocatable, hopefully in the form of lead tape on the hoop, and/or some kind of removeable material in/on the handle. If that's less so the case, then we'll be forced to simply add enough static weight to the center of the racquet, to simply try and overwhelm the mass at the ends, but in doing so, I think we may quickly end up with too high a combo of static and SW to be wieldable.

So, before going ahead with any suggestions, I'd like to know how much weight has been added to the frame, in exactly which spots, and with what materials, so we can know how much can be relocated, if any. I'll wait for your answer there, before we proceed forward. Thanks Tranq!
 
Last edited:
Trip said:
So, before going ahead with any suggestions, I'd like to know how much weight has been added to the frame, in exactly which spots, and with what materials, so we can know how much can be relocated, if any. I'll wait for your answer there, before we proceed forward. Thanks Tranq!
Click to expand...
My two frames were done by Unstrung Customs: purchased with matched specs by the customizer and only 10g of silicon was injected into the handle. I must add they are matched extremely well, I can't detect a slightest of difference and they weight exactly the same. That's as far as I know. My question is not on how to customize my ISO, but if there another stock frame that would fit this high MgR/I, high recoil concept. Percept H, maybe?

BTW, I'm comfortable with a high static weight as far as the SW is not above 340.

Overall, I wonder what you guys think aobut this high MgR/I, high recoil idea - is this too crazy?
 
RF97 Autograph has 177.5 RW and 20.84 MgR/I, pretty much perfect for me. I hit with that frame recently, it was weird and I felt strain in my forearm. This thing has so much inertia, it's hard for me to control the follow-through like I can do so easly with my ISO (which is not light by any means).

I hope not to highjack this tread too much about my particular search, but get un-confused on how to combine static weight, SW, RW and MgR/I in making racquet decisions.
 
Tranqville said:
My question is not on how to customize my ISO, but if there another stock frame that would fit this high MgR/I, high recoil concept.
Click to expand...
Forget about MgR/I and RW. For similar rackets, use the racket finder to identify rackets with the same mass, balance, and SW as your ISO.

EDIT: if you can’t find enough rackets that “fill the bill.” I would suggest looking at a lighter platform racket and customizing the mass, balance, and SW to your ISO. You may find a stiffer or more flexible racket you like even better than your ISO. Or a racket with other specs different as long as the mass, balance, and SWs are the same.
 
Last edited:
Irvin said:
EDIT: if you can’t find enough rackets that “fill the bill.” I would suggest looking at a lighter platform racket and customizing the mass, balance, and SW to your ISO. You may find a stiffer or more flexible racket you like even better than your ISO. Or a racket with other specs different as long as the mass, balance, and SWs are the same.
Click to expand...
I'm overall highly satisfied with my ISO - I just wander if I made an MgR/I mistake. My current setup is comfortable for me, the racquet moves effortlessly on all shots and I never get tired, so there is a bit of room for me to increase the static or SW if necessary.
 
Tranqville said:
I'm overall highly satisfied with my ISO - I just wander if I made an MgR/I mistake. My current setup is comfortable for me, the racquet moves effortlessly on all shots and I never get tired, so there is a bit of room for me to increase the static or SW if necessary.
Click to expand...
So what is the point in your questions? Why look for another racket?
 
Irvin said:
Forget about MgR/I and RW. For similar rackets, use the racket finder to identify rackets with the same mass, balance, and SW as your ISO.
Click to expand...
With all due respect Irvin, he's already aware of most of what's out there, and there isn't much that provides 330+ SW and 170+ RW in stock form. So the best he's going to do is pick a frame that's as close as possible, prioritizing on a mold and string bed he typically plays best with (ie. thick-enough hybrid-box beam, medium density pattern, largest sweet spot possible), then add small amounts of weight to bring it up to spec.

Tranqville said:
[...] I just feel the racquet is not flipping as effortlessly as I had it with my Pure Strike Tour. [...]
My question is not on how to customize my ISO, but if there another stock frame that would fit this high MgR/I, high recoil concept. Percept H, maybe?
[...] BTW, I'm comfortable with a high static weight as far as the SW is not above 340.
Click to expand...
Apologies for missing that. At similar recoil levels, having a higher MGR/i may very well allow for a potentially easier racquet flip, as the lower polarity will likely allow for easier manipulation of the hoop, mid-stroke. That said, you may not want to over-do the boosting of MGR/i, but instead look for a value just high enough, perhaps in the mid-upper 20's, that allows for easier out-front meeting of the ball and racquet flip, but also still has enough polarity, tip awareness and natural whip-through, to preserve easy-enough baseline play and repeated execution of serves. On that note, specs with excessively high MGR/i's (usually approaching or beyond 21) usually need excessively high static weights, to keep from lacking substance on contact (thus your take away about how the baseline swing physics of the RF97A felt mostly nice, but the actual required level of exertion to operate the frame was just too much).

For frames that will adhere to all of the above, in/around the SW and RW you're used to, here's what I would look at:

RacquetStock Strung
→​
With 5g Over Grip
→​
Least added weight for mid-high MGR/i with similar-enough SW and RW
ProKennex Ki Q+ 5 Pro332g / 32cm / 334sw / 20.29 mgr/i / 173.3rw
→​
337 / 31.66 / 334 / 20.36 / 176.0
→​
8g on the lower neck: 345 / 31.6 / 336.6 / 20.50 / 175.6
Tecnifibre TFight 305S320 / 32.5 / 324 / 20.39 / 162.0
→​
325 / 32.1 / 324 / 20.45 / 165.3
→​
5g bevels 3 & 7, 5g heavier grip, 8.5g lower neck, 2.5g at 12: 346 / 31.6 / 335.6 / 20.63 / 174.2
Volkl Vostra V10 320g337 / 32 / 327 / 20.77 / 163.9
→​
342 / 31.7 / 327 / 20.86 / 166.0
→​
3g around base of butt cap, 2g @ 12: 348 / 31.74 / 337.6 / 20.68 / 173.1
Wilson RF 01 Pro337 / 32.4 / 331 / 20.76 / 161.9
→​
342 / 32 / 331 / 20.81 / 165.5
→​
5g under butt cap, 2g @ 12: 349 / 31.76 / 338.3 / 20.7 / 173.0

As you can see, to raise MGR/i enough while also playing similar swing weight and recoil weight that you have been, your static weights are going to have to rise, pretty noticeably. Additionally, the balance point will have to drop a bit, in order to maintain a high-enough RW at similar SW. And that's just to get to a reasonable "middle ground" MGR/i of 20.5 to 20.7 -ish. If you wanted to go even higher, we'd have to keep centralizing the weight, and with "normal" weight class frames, that will have a ceiling, namely how much overall static weight you can handle. One thing you will notice, as I spec'd up higher static weights, I allowed the recoil to drop slightly, as the sheer amount of added static mass often won't require quite as much RW to produce the lagging effect that you're used to (versus lower static mass with slightly higher RW).

Beyond that, if you feel you just can't handle these static weight levels, then we'd have to start with noticeably lower weight class frames altogether, but we'd have to do considerably more customization work to get to the end product, and I presume that is something you'd prefer to avoid.

Anyways, let me know your thoughts on all this, and we'll go from there.
 
Last edited:
Trip said:
With all due respect Irvin, he's already aware of most of what's out there, and there isn't much that provides 330+ SW and 170+ RW in stock form. So the best he's going to do is pick a frame that's as close as possible, prioritizing on a mold and string bed he typically plays best with (ie. thick-enough hybrid-box beam, medium density pattern, largest sweet spot possible), then add small amounts of weight to bring it up to spec.
Click to expand...
With all due respect isn’t that what I said in post #192? Don’t forget to note the edit I made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
A Better Polarization Index
Replies
6
Views
1K
ZIMING
Z
Brando
Who Cares about Recoil Weight?
22 23 24
Replies
1K
Views
85K
ZIMING
Z
N
MgR/I
Replies
4
Views
2K
Irvin
Irvin
M
Calculator for final tuning using MgR/I
Replies
9
Views
2K
Irvin
Irvin
F
Help with Racquet Polarization and Depolarization.
Replies
3
Views
3K
bc-05
B
Back
Top