Ah. I didn't see your edit after the fact. Yes, I think you and I are aligned on what we're telling @Tranqville then.
Polarization, Recoil Weight & MgR/I demystified?
- Thread starter Brando
- Start date
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
You were probably running through all your calculations while I make the edit and missed it. Adding an OG that weighs 5 g increases the RW and MgR/I while making very little change in the actual feel of the racket.Ah. I didn't see your edit after the fact. Yes, I think you and I are aligned on what we're telling @Tranqville then.
Tranqville
Hall of Fame
tele
Hall of Fame
Why not just boost the mgr/i of your iso by adding a significant amount of weight(e.g. tape 4-6 quarters) to the top of the handle? That, along with your rf 97 experience, might help you answer your question without having to buy a new racquet.
Tranqville
Hall of Fame
I have put in some work over this summer, training daily for 1.5 hours on weekdays (with match practice on Saturdays). As I improved, I discovered that I enjoy my stock ISO more and actually prefer it (over customized) on serve and forehand. So logically, adding more weight to the handle of my custom ISOs will slow down my serve and forehand even more. This is mirrowing @galapagos experience customizing his ISO 305 - the frame is not taking the weight well, it's intended to be played stock, I'm afraid.
As such, a lower weight class platform frame would be ideal, for the much wider customization window. But I presume you want the least amount of customization work required, and for that, something akin to the list I produced above and/or what @Irvin was suggesting (which are pretty much one-in-the-same) would be the best call.
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
Small wonder! Adding weight ANYWHERE on you frame increases the inertia of the racket! If you increase the inertia you must increase the force applied to the rackets slows down. The 10 g of silicone in the handle is going to be difficult to get out now.
Tranqville
Hall of Fame
I have been playing with 315g+ racquets for decades, starting with Dunlop 200G Hotmelt - I will be fine.
Last edited:
Don't know if you'd be inclined to mess around with a Volkl, but I have a feeling that Vostra 10 320g might be worth a look. Either the Grip 4 with normal-width base grip, or potentially a Grip 5 with a lighter/thinner grip if you like a little more bevel feel (and if you swap with something like a Wilson Feather Thin, also more ability to re-add some of that lost mass to the upper-handle/throat, and raise MGR/i even a bit more, at the cost of a bit of recoil weight).
tele
Hall of Fame
Have you tried adding weight *only* to the top of the handle of your stock iso?
Tranqville
Hall of Fame
I have silicon in the handle of my customized frames, I haven't done anything else.
Last edited:
dr. godmode
Hall of Fame
Imma give you a highly non-technical answer:@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:
Video for reference:
Try adding weight to the top of the handle in 3-5g increments.
Also Dimitrov uses low mgri so at the end of the day its still all personal and relative
Brando
Professional
Hey @Tranqville. My answer is essentially the same as @Trip's but I'll put it less technically. Folks generally prefer one of two modes of weight distribution in their racquet...
The first mode is to minimize weight. Here the idea is to distribute mass as economically as possible: placing it near the hitting point where it adds the most power and under the hand where it counterbalances the hoop weight to add control. This preference means a lower MgR/I because it means a higher percentage of the weight will be located higher in the frame (where it subtracts MgR/I value) and in the butt (where it adds practically no MgR/I value). This also means replacing the lost weight with more swingweight, with the consequence that weight is usually less than swingweight.
The second mode is to maximize weight. This is the O.G. pro mode of weighting, where, as Agassi used to recommend, "You swing as much mass as you can handle." And the best way to handle more mass is to place it inside the handle and as close to it as possible. This, of course, increases MgR/I and inevitably means more weight than swingweight.
Personally, I prefer to minimize weight. @dr. godmode prefers to maximize it. When he made the video you're referring to, he was swinging his Whiteouts at around 170rw. I have his specs because, being the same height, we both were playing the same recoil weight and compared our different approaches:
Beckett's modded up Whiteout:
- 343g, 31.6cm, 331sw 171rw, 20.70 MgR/I, 0.498 Pi
Brando's modded up Graphene 360 Radical MP:
- 326g, 32.2cm, 331sw, 170rw, 20.25MgR/I, 0.522 Pi
The bottom line is that what Beckett said in his video, about a higher MgR/I being better, simply reflects his preference for a much heavier frame. At the time, I tried to seduce him to "the light side," jokingly calling his way "the dark side." But, in truth, we both agreed that neither way is better, just different.
The first mode is to minimize weight. Here the idea is to distribute mass as economically as possible: placing it near the hitting point where it adds the most power and under the hand where it counterbalances the hoop weight to add control. This preference means a lower MgR/I because it means a higher percentage of the weight will be located higher in the frame (where it subtracts MgR/I value) and in the butt (where it adds practically no MgR/I value). This also means replacing the lost weight with more swingweight, with the consequence that weight is usually less than swingweight.
The second mode is to maximize weight. This is the O.G. pro mode of weighting, where, as Agassi used to recommend, "You swing as much mass as you can handle." And the best way to handle more mass is to place it inside the handle and as close to it as possible. This, of course, increases MgR/I and inevitably means more weight than swingweight.
Personally, I prefer to minimize weight. @dr. godmode prefers to maximize it. When he made the video you're referring to, he was swinging his Whiteouts at around 170rw. I have his specs because, being the same height, we both were playing the same recoil weight and compared our different approaches:
Beckett's modded up Whiteout:
- 343g, 31.6cm, 331sw 171rw, 20.70 MgR/I, 0.498 Pi
Brando's modded up Graphene 360 Radical MP:
- 326g, 32.2cm, 331sw, 170rw, 20.25MgR/I, 0.522 Pi
The bottom line is that what Beckett said in his video, about a higher MgR/I being better, simply reflects his preference for a much heavier frame. At the time, I tried to seduce him to "the light side," jokingly calling his way "the dark side." But, in truth, we both agreed that neither way is better, just different.
Last edited:
@Brando - Very nice simplified update and framing inside of the "two method" paradigm. That said, @Tranqville, I'm sure you might be wondering if there's a perfect middle-ground spec, one to "rule them all", for each one of us, and there may very well be, but the trouble required to chase and ultimately find it, versus the worth of doing so, then becomes the question.
A good example of the above is trying to optimize around a single, identical setup for both singes and doubles, which as we know are two completely different animals. In singles, it's often the case where paradigm #1 (lower MGR/i, lower static, higher swing weight) combined with more a controlled string bed, tends to play best, at least in modern-enough play, where you're taking bigger, more deliberate cuts, with more prep time, from deeper in the court. In doubles, at least a certain amount more of paradigm #2 (higher MGR/i, higher static weight, lower swing weight) combined with a bouncier, more explosive string bed, tends to play best, as our movements are much more momentary, reactive, abbreviated, and in closer proximity. As such, this often explains why many feel compelled to have two difference setups, one for either event, even though doing so is typically discouraged by most, especially those who place less value on the whole MGR/i–RW tuning thing.
Ultimately, as @Brando said, there is no single "right" approach here, nor single best spec to fit us universally, as I show above; only the spec that gives us the most for free, with the fewest trade-offs. That's a roundabout way to say, you may also simply be best to stay put exactly where you are. If you did want to try an opposite-end-of-the-spectrum test, though, then perhaps you might finally decide to pickup a 305S, as they're already .2-.3 higher in MGR/i and ~10-15 points lower in SW, versus the ISO.
A good example of the above is trying to optimize around a single, identical setup for both singes and doubles, which as we know are two completely different animals. In singles, it's often the case where paradigm #1 (lower MGR/i, lower static, higher swing weight) combined with more a controlled string bed, tends to play best, at least in modern-enough play, where you're taking bigger, more deliberate cuts, with more prep time, from deeper in the court. In doubles, at least a certain amount more of paradigm #2 (higher MGR/i, higher static weight, lower swing weight) combined with a bouncier, more explosive string bed, tends to play best, as our movements are much more momentary, reactive, abbreviated, and in closer proximity. As such, this often explains why many feel compelled to have two difference setups, one for either event, even though doing so is typically discouraged by most, especially those who place less value on the whole MGR/i–RW tuning thing.
Ultimately, as @Brando said, there is no single "right" approach here, nor single best spec to fit us universally, as I show above; only the spec that gives us the most for free, with the fewest trade-offs. That's a roundabout way to say, you may also simply be best to stay put exactly where you are. If you did want to try an opposite-end-of-the-spectrum test, though, then perhaps you might finally decide to pickup a 305S, as they're already .2-.3 higher in MGR/i and ~10-15 points lower in SW, versus the ISO.
Tranqville
Hall of Fame
It can get even more complicated depending on the surfaces you play on. On slow clay generally the lower MGR/i sticks work best like you said with high SW and indoor hard generally the higher MGR/i works better. It's all about your strengths and what type of style you want to play.
I play on fast high bouncing outdoor hard 98% of the time. Singles & doubles so I think I've stumbled upon an all-around set-up that works for now. Something that's good at the baseline but also competent at net.
@aaron_h27 - Indeed. Finding a setup that maxes out your effectiveness for surface, event type, level and frequency of play are all factors. And the combo of all of those rarely stays stagnant, so the target will certainly move, requiring some readjustment here and there.
Tranqville
Hall of Fame
I mostly play on indoor hard and some outdoor hard in the summer. Another argument for me to try a high MgR/I setup.
We have very similar specs. Mine are 347g, 330 SW, 32.0 bal. I'm a little lower than you in the SW department, but similar balance point and similar static weight. I'm also only 5'7 (I have long arms for my height) so I do like a bit lower RW and also one handed backhand. Pretty cool
If you have somewhat classic grips and like to play all-court style I can't see why you wouldn't like it on hard courts!
Indeed, factoring in the spec I found for my Prestige MP-L's, that certainly applies. However, as an ode to the last few posts, I've been trialing a bunch of different frames lately, many of which provide a higher power output per unit hitting weight, and as such, have been finding I'm able to slip down into the 320's to 330-ish SW range, and still attain a similar heaviness of ball, but often times even spinnier, from additional RHS of lighter SW. In combo with that, I've also tried a myriad of static/balance/sw combo's, all along the "sliding scale" between the paradigms that @Brando described above, while keeping RW around what I've previously seen to be optimal for me, more often than not anyways.
For example, in my latest round of testing with the ND M98P, I've found that a strung spec of medium-high static (upper 330's grams strung), low-ish/whippy SW (mid 320's) and very low balance point (just above 31cm), has allowed me to keep MGR/i adequately high, have very instantaneous maneuverability for the one-hander, while also keeping RW adequately high, and while some might think that such a combo of low-ish SW and such a low balance point would produce a lack of tip-awareness and/or natural whip-through, I've found the airspace taken up by the mold and the stock weight of the layup add enough "I know where the racquet is in space, at all times" feeling, that it just seems to feel right for me. And compared to my MP-L's at low-mid 330's SW, I'm able to get as much, if not more, through-the-court velocity at low-mid 320's SW with the M98P. So it's a bit of a win-win. All of that mentioned to say that your optimal spec certainly will change as you switch frames, apart from just playing conditions.
Last edited:
Brando
Professional
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
Easily calculate RW, MgR/I, and I at 0 cm with desmos.
Inputs are SW, weight, and balance
Outputs are RW, Inertia at butt, and MgR/I
www.desmos.com
Inputs are SW, weight, and balance
Outputs are RW, Inertia at butt, and MgR/I
Racket specs
www.desmos.com
Last edited:
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
TheNadural
Rookie
As a new inductee into the hardcore overthinking racket spec enthusiast group, I figured I would share my experience with MGR/I.
I was experimenting with two rackets:
I was experimenting with two rackets:
- Clash v3 Pro
- 325g, 31.9cm, 330sw
- MGRI - 20.14
- RW - 174
- Mods - overgrip and 3.5g what what in the butt
- Strung - otoro/confidential
- Ezone 98 2025
- 332.5g, 32cm, 324sw
- MGRI - 20.72
- RW - 163
- Mods - overgrip, 6ish grams in the butt, and a little tape at 12 to get to a reasonable SW
- Strung - otoro spin/wasX
- Ground strokes
- If you are lazy and late to the ball with your footwork, the Clash was easier to get around, especially trying to pull cross court.
- When you are using short choppier strokes, the Clash excelled for both FH and OHBH here. Noticed this even more with OHBH when my footwork sucked and I was jammed up, the Clash was easier to get through contact.
- When I wanted to take an easy ball up the middle and hit inside out, the Clash was on the struggle bus for direction control coming through and hitting center court or pulling cross court unintentionally. The Ezone had a clear advantage here in controlling direction and the inside out FH was just way more dialed.
- In general when you were in the right place, the Ezone was better at consistent direction and depth control. When you were swinging fast/choppy or jammed, the Clash was effective at offering some training wheels.
- Spin/Power
- Can't really comment - Ezone had lower launch, more power, and a hair less spin than the clash, but that could be contributed to a lot more factors than MGRI
- Serve
- Didn't notice much of a difference. Both served well for me.
- I slightly prefer the EZ but no idea if MGRI is a factor. The clash may have been a little more likely to hit into the net and EZ more likely to go long but would need more time to really conclude anything.
- IME, balance and SW are more important factors for service feel
- Volley
- I know some of you pretend to practice volleys but I wasn't able to.
- Other notes
- Clash pro - basically stock - is an excellent racket and super fun to run around and play with, especially if you want to carve the ball some when you aren't taking it as serious or are tired. The 330SW and light static weight make for a unique experience out of the box.
- EZ98 - with some tweaks - great mix of power/control/spin for me to play serious mediocre tennis with.
@TheNadural - Good initial measurement work (too many peeps tend to start shooting away with specific questions, but don't provide any measurements...).
That said, if you're hoping to move towards an idea of what numbers, if any, work best for you, I would suggest trying to reduce any many concurrent variables as you can. As it stands, literally everything is different. At a bare minimum, I would think you'd at least want identical frames, string setups, base grip, over grip and dampener. From there, you can play with added mass in select spots, knowing the rest is more or less equal. I presume you know all that, and I don't mean to shoot down your enthusiasm, but I think controlling the experiment a bit more will help keep the guesswork to a minimum.
That said, if you're hoping to move towards an idea of what numbers, if any, work best for you, I would suggest trying to reduce any many concurrent variables as you can. As it stands, literally everything is different. At a bare minimum, I would think you'd at least want identical frames, string setups, base grip, over grip and dampener. From there, you can play with added mass in select spots, knowing the rest is more or less equal. I presume you know all that, and I don't mean to shoot down your enthusiasm, but I think controlling the experiment a bit more will help keep the guesswork to a minimum.
Last edited:
TheNadural
Rookie
Trip, I explicitly stated this is not super controlled (read - not at all controlled). I don’t have identical rackets and strings and a swing robot, or a means to procure one…yet. My OCD only goes so far. When my wife approves a racket purchase, it obviously has to be for a completely different model I haven’t played with yet - this is known.
Totally get it. Real-world constraints. Again, didn't mean to take the wind out of your sails. Maybe you can snag a copy of either for extra cheap via The Bay, FB marketplace, etc. at some point. Short of that, you can still experiment with your stuff as it is.
Just from what you stated so far, it seems like you might be more comfortable with lighter static weight, higher swing weight, higher recoil weight, lower MGR/i, which for modern-enough singles play is to be somewhat expected for most players, especially those with a 2HBH. I would see if you can adjust your EZ98 up to more similar numbers, and see if that improves playability at all for you. If it does, then that will be a pretty good data point.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
What’s “excellent bubble”?
AI bubble is one, i suppose
I would kindly refer any mgri curious tinkerer to read along from here:
Shroud
Talk Tennis Guru
interesting how people who actually try things have a different view of those doing thought experiments....I would kindly refer any mgri curious tinkerer to read along from here:
TheNadural
Rookie
Interesting that my post came across this way and you may be right, but I actually prefer the EZone - though I enjoy both. The clash is easier to play when lazy, or just messing around and having fun, but the Ezone was better when playing to win as I felt like I had much more precision and depth control with it. Currently I only have a OHBH due to a shoulder issue.
In a primarily horizontal motion - wrist going from extension to neutral - where you are not swinging up or down with/against gravity, does MGRI matter? If so, how?
Last edited:
Saw you are 5’10”, and the “recommended” RW for your height is RW164, so your tuned EZone at 163 will probably work better for you then the tuned Clash at RW174.
For me I can swing between RW161-162 (am a shorty… and older… lol), and recently I have been trying to reduce the weight/SW and TW numbers to make it easier for me at the end of the session, or over 4 sets - but keeping the balance the same and the RW still around 161-162.
Still some way to find a new setup for me, but I reckon the height vs RW recommendation is a good one.
TheNadural
Rookie
It was a joke - you see it in scouting reports for athletes referring to the muscular composition of their butt
Everyone is different.
How did you go with the RW170? It may just work for you at your 173cm height.
What are the other numbers for your racquet?
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
@arsen If your racket has a RW of 162 and you want to increase it by 8 points you can accomplish that by adding mass either above or below the balance point. All the different combinations will not feel the same even if the RW is. Just adding an overgrip to your racket will add about 6 g and 3 RW points.
Interesting topic. My results from newly bought 305S strung with HLT 1.20 with 5g Tecnifibre overgrip
Static mass: 329g
Balance: 32.4
Swingweight 330.5
MGR/1: 20.46
Recoilweight: 165.42
I'm 182cm tall (5 feet 11) so I guess adding 1 gram of tungsten to 12 o'clock should be the right move if I want to match RW to my height?
-->
Static mass: 330g
Balance: 32.5
Swingweight 333.75
MGR/1: 20.41
Recoilweight: 166.6
Another option would add one gram at a time to racket butt if I feel the swingweight is too much?
Compared to my Ezone 100 I feel like this higher swingweight and lower MGR/1 feels better on my THBH. I hit quite modern forehand.
Do you think it's worth to try tinkering more with MGR/1 ratio and maybe try a bit higher Recoilweight?
Static mass: 329g
Balance: 32.4
Swingweight 330.5
MGR/1: 20.46
Recoilweight: 165.42
I'm 182cm tall (5 feet 11) so I guess adding 1 gram of tungsten to 12 o'clock should be the right move if I want to match RW to my height?
-->
Static mass: 330g
Balance: 32.5
Swingweight 333.75
MGR/1: 20.41
Recoilweight: 166.6
Another option would add one gram at a time to racket butt if I feel the swingweight is too much?
Compared to my Ezone 100 I feel like this higher swingweight and lower MGR/1 feels better on my THBH. I hit quite modern forehand.
Do you think it's worth to try tinkering more with MGR/1 ratio and maybe try a bit higher Recoilweight?
Last edited:
Brando
Professional
Hi, @Pantsaai. You've got the idea of this down pat. Placing just a little extra weight at tip or tail would both get you to your target recoil weight.
As which would be better for you, I like how your instincts guide you toward trying 1 gram of tape (and I love that you use tungsten-- me too!) at noon first. Rising to 334sw will not only add power and slightly slow both your forearm and racquet but also, less obviously, will speed up the rate at which your 305S's hoop catches up with hand out of lag and into whip-through around your loose wrist into contact. This will most notably sharpen your angle of impact, inviting more topspin and a more vertical swing path.
If these outcomes don't end up improving your consistency, then I'd trade the tip weight for a gram of tail weight. The slightly lower balance will make your 305S feel more maneuverable in the slot, where the forearm is moving faster than the frame, and so, creating the racquet lag we covet.
As to your question of tinkering with MgR/I vs. RW, experimenting with adding tail vs. tip weight is essentially experimenting with MgR/I at a target recoil weight, which is what I believe to be the most effective approach to combining MgR/I and recoil weight to give you your most the naturally swinging racquet. Why? In short recoil weight rises and falls with weight; more weight = more RW. MgR/I, on the other hand, is a weight-neutral ratio. I believe it's best to target the weight distribution measure that includes the heft of the frame in its formula first and then tweak it with the formula that doesn't.
As which would be better for you, I like how your instincts guide you toward trying 1 gram of tape (and I love that you use tungsten-- me too!) at noon first. Rising to 334sw will not only add power and slightly slow both your forearm and racquet but also, less obviously, will speed up the rate at which your 305S's hoop catches up with hand out of lag and into whip-through around your loose wrist into contact. This will most notably sharpen your angle of impact, inviting more topspin and a more vertical swing path.
If these outcomes don't end up improving your consistency, then I'd trade the tip weight for a gram of tail weight. The slightly lower balance will make your 305S feel more maneuverable in the slot, where the forearm is moving faster than the frame, and so, creating the racquet lag we covet.
As to your question of tinkering with MgR/I vs. RW, experimenting with adding tail vs. tip weight is essentially experimenting with MgR/I at a target recoil weight, which is what I believe to be the most effective approach to combining MgR/I and recoil weight to give you your most the naturally swinging racquet. Why? In short recoil weight rises and falls with weight; more weight = more RW. MgR/I, on the other hand, is a weight-neutral ratio. I believe it's best to target the weight distribution measure that includes the heft of the frame in its formula first and then tweak it with the formula that doesn't.
Circa 1762
Rookie
@Pantsaai: If I may make a suggestion, based on my own tinkering with RW and MgR/I, it would be to start with larger differences. Unless you’re highly attuned to the racket, 1 gram probably isn’t going to make enough difference for you to feel it, and you’re going to spend time searching for a difference that you can’t really feel. Instead, I’d start with a big difference. Especially if you’re adding weight in the butt or at noon, maybe 10 grams. If you like the original better, then try just 5 grams. And so on, until you’ve homed in on what feels best. Just my two cents.
Brando
Professional
You make a good point, @Circa 1762. I agree that larger changes than a mere gram are generally preferable when customizing. In this case, though, I think @Pantsaai is looking to see if tweaking a frame very close to his target recoil weight will make a feelable difference. To many players such a small change wouldn't be feelable. To others the difference between swinging 330.5 and 334sw will be noticeable.
Thanks for the input. I came to the same conclusion. Switched to a heavier Babolat grip and added some lead to 10 and 2 and around 7.5 grams in the handle 20 cm height. Feels really good. Might have to lower the weight in the handle maybe a few grams but this feels really nice. Like the racket is your hands extension when swinging forehands.
