Questions about Polarized & Depolarized set-ups

#1
I've been reading a lot of things on racket customization and trying to figure out the best set-up for my game i just have a few questions for some experts out there. I've been playing tennis for 10 years, 24 years old, I'm a 4.5-5.0 player. My game is pretty much what it is, I just want to maximize my strengths by doing some equipment mods. My goal is to get to 350-360 SW just to challenge myself and see if i can play with a pro spec racket.

My racket is a Yonex DR 98 & after being strung and adding 3 over grips i was at 323 g (11.4 oz), 10-11 pts HL. I believe My SW is around 310-315 and not 324 as listed on TW, due to my racket being under spec weight wise and more HL.

I know polarized rackets SW > static weight
* for example Wilson Blade at 320g and 326 SW
* Carlos Moya, Henin, Fognini, Fed, Nadal
*better for topspin, manuverability, clay courters

versus depolarized which would be static weight > SW
*prince phantom 93p 343g and 330 SW
*sampras, djokovic, agassi, blake
*better for all court game style, flatter hitting, volleys

My racket is 323g and my SW is 310 roughly which would mean it's slightly depolarized already.

In order for me to get to 360 SW the two extremes would be

1. add 15g of lead at 12, which would give me 339g and 355-360 SW 6 pts HL (more polarized)
2. add 30g of lead at 3 and 9 which would give me 354g and 355-360 SW 6 pts HL (still polarized, just not as much as the first option, a lot more twist weight)

Now of course i don't plan to do this all at once, but over time i would like to slowly add weight to get to 360 SW.

So my questions are...

1. I'm hearing that adding weight at 3 & 9 can flatten strokes and reduce spin, would a set up that has a lot of weight at 3 & 9 have WORSE spin access than the stock form of the racket with no weight at 3 & 9 and lower SW?? I'm worried if i choose the second option I will loose spin, however in stock form I have more than enough spin for my gamestyle.

2. Would both set-ups be equal in maneuverability ? or would the higher twist weight of the second option make the second option less maneuverable?

3. Should Federer be grouped in with other polarized set-ups because his static weight is 364 g with SW being 355-360, compared to Moya who is much more extreme

4. What are the downsides of high twistweight? How do you know when it's too high?

5. It seems like adding weight at 3 & 9 is still slightly polarizing the racket no? maybe not as much as 12 o clock, but I feel like extreme depolarization would be either in the buttcap or throat correct?

6. Which option would be better for a slice backhand? I love my slice backhand and I use it quite frequently

I'm leaning towards the second option because I am more of an all court baseliner (I like to stay at the baseline but serve and volley on occasion to throw in variety, and use my slice backhand a lot, plus dropshots) and I don't really play on clay. Ultimately only I will know what racket is best after playing with both, but i would love to hear some of you guys' experiences so I have modded both my DR 98's

*More polarized set up
6g of lead at 12 o clock (330g, 330 SW, 9 pts HL)

*More Depolarized set up
12g of lead at 3 and 9 (338g, 330 SW, 9 pts HL)

I have already hit with the more polarized set-up for a week now and It's doing okay. I do notice more spin than stock form, however it is slightly unforgiving. More un-returned serves which is nice. But i think thats due to the higher SW. I'm excited to try the more depolarized set-up this week though!

Will report back soon!
 
Last edited:
#2
Basically im confused as to why adding lead at 3 & 9 would REDUCE spin assuming that

1. Higher SW = more spin
2. Less HL balance = more spin
3. More forgiveness = more spin

Now it makes sense that lead at 3 & 9 wouldn't add as much spin as at 12, but how does going up in SW reduce spin assuming the player does not slow down his stroke?
 
#3
To me, it would appear that higher swing weight makes the shot more solid and makes one hit more through the shot. So effectively it at least feels the topspin is reduced, as balls fly out.
 
#4
1. I don't think it would decrease your spin but it wouldn't maximize you spin. Check out racquettech on YouTube. Good videos.

2. I find more twistweight is less manoeuvreable I would argue someone like Rafa would need a more maneuverable racquet to generate that much spin.

3. Imo Federer has a polarized setup.

4. Maneuverability and when it starts inhibiting your stroke.

5. Polarization refers to the mass being located far away from the centre of mass. If you think if a racquet like a planet then a polarized racquet has mass located at the poles. This means a full depolarized racquet would have all the mass in the middle (throat area) and none at the tip and buttcap.

6. Idk my slice sucks.

I wouldn't call myself an expert though. There are guys who know more about the physics than I do.

I play 5.0 level and a have an SV95 with max polarization. 8g at 12 and a leather grip + overgrip. No weight at 3 and 9 although I will probably start testing other setups soon as I feel my game is changing away from spin.
 
#5
1. I don't think it would decrease your spin but it wouldn't maximize you spin. Check out racquettech on YouTube. Good videos.

2. I find more twistweight is less manoeuvreable I would argue someone like Rafa would need a more maneuverable racquet to generate that much spin.

3. Imo Federer has a polarized setup.

4. Maneuverability and when it starts inhibiting your stroke.

5. Polarization refers to the mass being located far away from the centre of mass. If you think if a racquet like a planet then a polarized racquet has mass located at the poles. This means a full depolarized racquet would have all the mass in the middle (throat area) and none at the tip and buttcap.

6. Idk my slice sucks.

I wouldn't call myself an expert though. There are guys who know more about the physics than I do.

I play 5.0 level and a have an SV95 with max polarization. 8g at 12 and a leather grip + overgrip. No weight at 3 and 9 although I will probably start testing other setups soon as I feel my game is changing away from spin.
I checked his stuff out, pretty good information, one thing he says though is that high TW is bad for volleys, when everyone else is saying otherwise.

At the end of the day though i have to test it out and see for myself :)
 
#6
I checked his stuff out, pretty good information, one thing he says though is that high TW is bad for volleys, when everyone else is saying otherwise.

At the end of the day though i have to test it out and see for myself :)
I think he meant excessive twistweight where maneuverability is compromised.

I would also like to say a lot of this seems like a nice objective way to analyze equipment, but I have found that everyone's playing experiences affect they way they play and the way their games deal with different specs. This, paired with playing different opponents, on different days when your body feels different, makes it hard to isolate variables. A lot of people on this forum will argue about stuff because they have different experiences and it can get ugly and pointless.
 
#7
OK, consider what I'm about to say which I believe will completely simplify this entire process.

Q/ What is the primary reason for playing a tennis match?
A/ To WIN the tennis match.

The only way you are going to know which setup works best for you is to play a lot of matches (and I mean "a lot" of matches, say 100 matches) with each setup. After you have done this, you can then analyse your results. Obviously, the best setup for you will be the one that helped you to win the most matches.

Look, customising racquets is great fun. Ask yourself, do you want to be a Tennis Player who wins matches?, or a Tennis Racquet Customiser who likes to experiment with different setups? IMO, you cannot be both at the same time. And trying to be both will reduce your enjoyment in both areas.
 
#8
Im currently in the process of modifying my racquet also.

Im using the Pro Staff 97CV

I like the racquet alot, been playing with it for a while, but reviews all say its lacking power and pop and the sweetspot is a bit small.

Stock its 332grams and 320SW.

Im using an overgrip so its 337grams tho.

At first I was thinking of one option upon talking to a member here that has alot of knowledge of this stuff, but now im thinking if the other option might seem better.

So I was thinking to add:

2 grams at 12
2 grams at 3
2 grams at 9

More swingweight, more easy power, and also increase sweetspot with 3 and 9.

But now im thinking since some people here say 3 and 9 decreases the maneouverability and sometimes its not so good, that I go with:

3-4grams at 12
1 gram at 3
1 gram at 9

Thoughts?
 
#9
I think he meant excessive twistweight where maneuverability is compromised.

I would also like to say a lot of this seems like a nice objective way to analyze equipment, but I have found that everyone's playing experiences affect they way they play and the way their games deal with different specs. This, paired with playing different opponents, on different days when your body feels different, makes it hard to isolate variables. A lot of people on this forum will argue about stuff because they have different experiences and it can get ugly and pointless.
Yep very true, thats why im trying both set-ups regardless of what I think may be better for my game i have to try both!

OK, consider what I'm about to say which I believe will completely simplify this entire process.

Q/ What is the primary reason for playing a tennis match?
A/ To WIN the tennis match.

The only way you are going to know which setup works best for you is to play a lot of matches (and I mean "a lot" of matches, say 100 matches) with each setup. After you have done this, you can then analyse your results. Obviously, the best setup for you will be the one that helped you to win the most matches.

Look, customising racquets is great fun. Ask yourself, do you want to be a Tennis Player who wins matches?, or a Tennis Racquet Customiser who likes to experiment with different setups? IMO, you cannot be both at the same time. And trying to be both will reduce your enjoyment in both areas.
You know what you're right...I just find all this information so interesting though as someone who played the majority of my tennis not giving a damn about equipment until maybe 2 years ago? I started using different strings and now im modifying my rackets. It's pretty fun but like you said there can be a point where you're too focused on equipment. My goal is to just find something to compliment my game not necessarily do everything for me.

Im currently in the process of modifying my racquet also.

Im using the Pro Staff 97CV

I like the racquet alot, been playing with it for a while, but reviews all say its lacking power and pop and the sweetspot is a bit small.

Stock its 332grams and 320SW.

Im using an overgrip so its 337grams tho.

At first I was thinking of one option upon talking to a member here that has alot of knowledge of this stuff, but now im thinking if the other option might seem better.

So I was thinking to add:

2 grams at 12
2 grams at 3
2 grams at 9

More swingweight, more easy power, and also increase sweetspot with 3 and 9.

But now im thinking since some people here say 3 and 9 decreases the maneouverability and sometimes its not so good, that I go with:

3-4grams at 12
1 gram at 3
1 gram at 9

Thoughts?
Do you have two rackets? You could try some with lead at 12 and the other with lead at 3 & 9

In all honesty I don't think a few grams at 3 & 9 will decrease the manuverability that much, people have said that once you start adding a LOT of weight at 3 & 9, but 4g isn't a big deal.
 
#10
Im currently in the process of modifying my racquet also.

Im using the Pro Staff 97CV

I like the racquet alot, been playing with it for a while, but reviews all say its lacking power and pop and the sweetspot is a bit small.

Stock its 332grams and 320SW.

Im using an overgrip so its 337grams tho.

At first I was thinking of one option upon talking to a member here that has alot of knowledge of this stuff, but now im thinking if the other option might seem better.

So I was thinking to add:

2 grams at 12
2 grams at 3
2 grams at 9

More swingweight, more easy power, and also increase sweetspot with 3 and 9.

But now im thinking since some people here say 3 and 9 decreases the maneouverability and sometimes its not so good, that I go with:

3-4grams at 12
1 gram at 3
1 gram at 9

Thoughts?
Based on what im reading though, if your racket is already heavy in stock form like 12.6 oz with a low SW for example the RF 97, you would benefit from adding weight at 12 b/c you could raise the SW without really changing the static weight much. Otherwise if you added weigh at 3 & 9 only you'd be into the 13-14 oz range before hitting 360 SW (more traditional all court style)

however if you play with a tweener, like the blades, pro staffs, etc...those are already very polarized frames and would benefit more from lead at 3 & 9 UNLESS you're going for that light racket, heavy SW feel (Nadal, Moya, etc...)
 
#12
Based on what im reading though, if your racket is already heavy in stock form like 12.6 oz with a low SW for example the RF 97, you would benefit from adding weight at 12 b/c you could raise the SW without really changing the static weight much. Otherwise if you added weigh at 3 & 9 only you'd be into the 13-14 oz range before hitting 360 SW (more traditional all court style)

however if you play with a tweener, like the blades, pro staffs, etc...those are already very polarized frames and would benefit more from lead at 3 & 9 UNLESS you're going for that light racket, heavy SW feel (Nadal, Moya, etc...)
My pro staff is 97CV so its not 12.6oz its 11.7oz.

Btw i thought about adding a bit at 3 and 9 because its said the sweetspot is small and off center hits not as good.
 
#13
Moderate TW is great for stability on volleys (which don't always hit the exact center of the stringbed).

But add too much TW and the racket loses its maneuverability at net... (hard to get it into position)
What is considered moderate TW?

Anyways I took a hit with my depolarized frame today and loved it on groundstrokes and volleys, so much forgiveness. I noticed i didn't get as much kick on my second serve but i mean were talking small differences here. I didn't notice a decrease in spin on groundstrokes.
 
#15
My pro staff is 97CV so its not 12.6oz its 11.7oz.

Btw i thought about adding a bit at 3 and 9 because its said the sweetspot is small and off center hits not as good.
We did several "experiments" with the PS97CV.

Adding 3 grams at 3 and 3 grams at 9 makes the racquet MUCH more stable and provides more "Rebound Power" if RHS can be maintained. There is little impact on manoeuvrability for any decent player who can move reasonably well. And it does make the racquet a little more forgiving on off centre hits.

However, this extra mass makes it difficult to retain the same spin potential on Ground Strokes, especially on the FH side.

Adding mass to the tip of the PS97CV is a waste of time IMHO. It makes the racquet even more unforgiving on off centre hits and doesn't really provide any major benefits.

We also did the "Round The World" customisation, adding mass at the tip, the butt, and at 3 and 9. But after doing this, we came to the conclusion that it probably made more sense to strip down an RF97A.
 
#17
We did several "experiments" with the PS97CV.

Adding 3 grams at 3 and 3 grams at 9 makes the racquet MUCH more stable and provides more "Rebound Power" if RHS can be maintained. There is little impact on manoeuvrability for any decent player who can move reasonably well. And it does make the racquet a little more forgiving on off centre hits.

However, this extra mass makes it difficult to retain the same spin potential on Ground Strokes, especially on the FH side.

Adding mass to the tip of the PS97CV is a waste of time IMHO. It makes the racquet even more unforgiving on off centre hits and doesn't really provide any major benefits.

We also did the "Round The World" customisation, adding mass at the tip, the butt, and at 3 and 9. But after doing this, we came to the conclusion that it probably made more sense to strip down an RF97A.
Hmmm

As far as I know, the more swingweight the racquet has the more spin potential there is, so I don't get the "difficult to retain spin potential on groundstrokes", if anything it should be more spin potential, since there is more compression of the ball with more mass, considering the swing speed is the same.

Adding mass at the tip is suppose to add the most swingweight of any part of the racquet, why would it make it more unforgiving on off centre hits tho, are you sure about that? Never heard about it, but im not saying its not possible.
 
#18
Hmmm

As far as I know, the more swingweight the racquet has the more spin potential there is, so I don't get the "difficult to retain spin potential on groundstrokes", if anything it should be more spin potential, since there is more compression of the ball with more mass, considering the swing speed is the same.

Adding mass at the tip is suppose to add the most swingweight of any part of the racquet, why would it make it more unforgiving on off centre hits tho, are you sure about that? Never heard about it, but im not saying its not possible.
I'm guessing there is more spin potential at equal racquet head speed. Heavier swing weight and you may see this drop.

Has anyone mentioned injuries? OP is only 24 so probably not an issue but all that additional swing weight takes effort and adds wear and tear. That said, a very light racquet can cause issues as well. I have recently given up on a Prestige MP (Graphene). By the time I add a little lead to open up the sweet spot my static weight is up to 358 strung (that's only 4gms lead).
 
#19
Hmmm

As far as I know, the more swingweight the racquet has the more spin potential there is, so I don't get the "difficult to retain spin potential on groundstrokes", if anything it should be more spin potential, since there is more compression of the ball with more mass, considering the swing speed is the same.

Adding mass at the tip is suppose to add the most swingweight of any part of the racquet, why would it make it more unforgiving on off centre hits tho, are you sure about that? Never heard about it, but im not saying its not possible.
I don't think adding mass at 3 & 9 lowers spin than the stock form of the racket, but it wouldn't give you as much spin as 12 assuming the SW is matched on both rackets. Which has been my experience also. Adding mass at 3 & 9 is still polarizing the racket, although not as much as the 12 position.

Depolarizing a frame would be adding weight to the handle & throat mostly, b/c that doesn't make the SW go up much, but adds static weight.
 
#21
Hmmm

As far as I know, the more swingweight the racquet has the more spin potential there is, so I don't get the "difficult to retain spin potential on groundstrokes", if anything it should be more spin potential, since there is more compression of the ball with more mass, considering the swing speed is the same.

Adding mass at the tip is suppose to add the most swingweight of any part of the racquet, why would it make it more unforgiving on off centre hits tho, are you sure about that? Never heard about it, but im not saying its not possible.
Actually, I should have used the term "spin rates" rather than "spin potential". "Rates" is an objective measurable statistic. "Potential" is difficult to measure as it varies depending on circumstances.

Increasing the SW of the racquet certainly increases spin potential regardless of anything else.

Increasing the SW ot fhe racquet will reduce the spin rates unless the RHS is maintained.

As for mass placement ... adding mass at the tip has the greatest effect on SW. IME, it does make the racquet more unforgiving because the centre of mass distribution is concentrated more greatly along the centre axis of the racquet rather than towards the 3 and 9
 
Last edited:
#22
Weight at 10 & 2 might be a good compromise?

The mass is distributed almost as far as 12 on the vertical axis; and 9/3 on the horizontal axis.
 
#23
Actually, I should have used the term "spin rates" rather than "spin potential". "Rates" is an objective measurable statistic. "Potential" is difficult to measure as it varies depending on circumstances.

Increasing the SW of the racquet certainly increases spin potential regardless of anything else.

Increasing the SW ot fhe racquet will reduce the spin rates unless the RHS is maintained.

As for mass placement ... adding mass at the tip has the greatest effect on SW. IME, it does make the racquet more unforgiving because the centre of mass distribution is concentrated more greatly along the centre axis of the racquet rather than towards the 3 and 9
What if instead of 2g at 3&9&12 I would try 2.5g at 3&9 and 1g at 12, that would have a similar effect but the 3&9 would increase the sweetspot more while 12 would not have such an effect on it.
 
#24
Yes, I would certainly try that first. Of course the extra mass in the hoop will change the Racquet Balance unless you counter with extra mass in the handle.
 
#25
I saw a video where a guru said that adding weight at 12 could reduce twist weight. He was measuring on a machine. Makes no sense to me.

I am used to a high TW for volleys. I may benefit more from lead at 12 but I put mine at 3 and 9. I think it is just a feel I am used to.
 
#26
What if instead of 2g at 3&9&12 I would try 2.5g at 3&9 and 1g at 12, that would have a similar effect but the 3&9 would increase the sweetspot more while 12 would not have such an effect on it.
You could also add a long strip going from 11 to 1 that could give you the benefit of both Spin & forgiveness
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
#27
I saw a video where a guru said that adding weight at 12 could reduce twist weight. He was measuring on a machine. Makes no sense to me.

I am used to a high TW for volleys. I may benefit more from lead at 12 but I put mine at 3 and 9. I think it is just a feel I am used to.
I hope that was not one of my videos because it is wrong. It is impossible to add mass anywhere and reduce inertia. It is like adding weight to a scale the more you add the higher it goes. "Mass is that quantity that is solely dependent upon the inertia of an object. The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has. A more massive object has a greater tendency to resist changes in its state of motion." (Ref - https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass)

I do not know of any machine that will accurately measure TW. Take for instance an RDC machine all reading are in whole numbers. If you measure TW with an RDC machine you will get 12, 13, 14, 15, etc... never down to +/- 0.1
 
Last edited:
#29
I will try to find that video. The guy definitely sounded like he knew what he was talking about but I swear that’s what he said. He was looking at a reading on the machine somehow or another. I thought to myself then it seemed impossible that adding weight anywhere would reduce twistweight.
 
#30
I will try to find that video. The guy definitely sounded like he knew what he was talking about but I swear that’s what he said. He was looking at a reading on the machine somehow or another. I thought to myself then it seemed impossible that adding weight anywhere would reduce twistweight.
That video is easy to find i watched it the other day on youtube
 
#33
Just a warning for those messing with lead, for some odd reason using short strips at 3 & 9 (4 inches) gave me a lot of arm pain and created a lot of hotspots on the string bed, I now use 8 inch strips going from about 2 to 5 and 7 to 11 and have had much better luck. I do it the same way Osaka does. Feels a lot more comfortable than stock and bigger sweetspot. I like lead better on the sides rather than 12 for the DR 98. it's still very easy to swing. I have added 16g total so far and it's still very easy to swing.

I added 6g at noon and the racket became unwieldy so this way is easier to bump up the SW gradually and get a bit more forgiveness. No loss of spin so far.

So im guessing i prefer depolarized. I play with a DR 98 so your results will vary
 
#34
After messing around with a lot of set-ups I prefer long strips of lead at 3 & 9. 8g total for now

Lead at noon
*More spin
*Maneuverability
-Too much spin at times, trouble flattening shots
-Directional control
-Unforgiving, lots of shanks
-Slice backhand became inconsistent

Lead at 3 & 9

*More spin, not as much as noon though
*Directional control
*Volleys
*Return of serve & Serve
*Slice backhand
*Can take balls on the rise
*Stability without a very high SW
-More power, some balls sailing long may need to bring up tension
-Not as maneuverable as lead at noon, which means I have to use a lower SW.

At the end of the day all points start with serve & return, so I am choosing the 3 & 9 set-up based on that. I serve & return much better with lead at 3 & 9. Volleys are much better, more solid. I use my slice quite often. Hope someone can learn something from my trials. Keep in mind I am using a DR 98, so you may need to see what lead placements work for your game & racket
 
#35
After messing around with a lot of set-ups I prefer long strips of lead at 3 & 9. 8g total for now

Lead at noon
*More spin
*Maneuverability
-Too much spin at times, trouble flattening shots
-Directional control
-Unforgiving, lots of shanks
-Slice backhand became inconsistent

Lead at 3 & 9
*More spin, not as much as noon though
*Directional control
*Volleys
*Return of serve & Serve
*Slice backhand
*Can take balls on the rise
*Stability without a very high SW
-More power, some balls sailing long may need to bring up tension
-Not as maneuverable as lead at noon, which means I have to use a lower SW.

At the end of the day all points start with serve & return, so I am choosing the 3 & 9 set-up based on that. I serve & return much better with lead at 3 & 9. Volleys are much better, more solid. I use my slice quite often. Hope someone can learn something from my trials. Keep in mind I am using a DR 98, so you may need to see what lead placements work for your game & racket
what are your final specs?
 
#39
I'm loving a depolarized set-up right now! I can serve much easier. More consistency, more power, more spin. No downsides. The DR 98 is already a great serving racket but this set-up makes it even better! Serves are much faster now, even second serves don't sit up in the box anymore. I hit 2 double faults today over 3 hour match, had a lot of free points won.

Returning is also better with the twist weight being higher. More forgiveness, directional control.

I even did some more tweaking....I was reading some threads on MGR/I and im not one to believe things blindly, but there may be some truth to the theory. Both my rackets have 8g of lead at 3 & 9 however I added about 8 rubber bands 7 inches from the buttcap on one of my rackets (about 16g) to see if it made any difference. It swings much easier and feels easier on the arm. I thought something was off. How can a racket that's heavier swing SO much easier than the one without the rubber bands? I use an eastern forehand and im 5'7. So my Target MGR/I should be 21.2 or so. I went out and hit some of the best tennis I have ever played in my life and the crazy thing is I don't feel any fatigue after playing for 3 hours in high pressure point situations. I can see now how people are able to use high swing weights. I still don't think I need to go up to 360, but I would like to keep playing around with the MGR/I. The racket with the rubber bands is now 12.3 oz and 8 points HL.

When I added lead at noon, I lowered the MGR/I value of a racket that's already polarized which lead to the racket feeling clubby, unstable and unforgiving however I convinced myself that higher SW is better and i would eventually play better once i adjusted. Nope. I was losing to people I normally beat for 4-6 weeks which made me even re-think lead all together.

I'm glad i realized I prefer a de-polarized set-up which can inform my racket choices going forward and hopefully do some more tinkering. I haven't been this excited about tennis in a while!

I wish i could accurately measure my MGR/I, the only thing I know is that it's higher than it was before, but i have no way of figuring out my SW. I think my SW is around 330-335 but i have no way of accurately measuring it
 
#42
After messing around with a lot of set-ups I prefer long strips of lead at 3 & 9. 8g total for now
Question: how long are your strips and I assume centered exactly at 3/9? Also, are you putting strips on each side of the stringbed at 3 and same at 9? Or just one strip at 3, one at 9, on opposite sides of the stringbed? I've seen both (TW's video on using lead at 3/9 suggests the latter).
 
#45
Question: how long are your strips and I assume centered exactly at 3/9? Also, are you putting strips on each side of the stringbed at 3 and same at 9? Or just one strip at 3, one at 9, on opposite sides of the stringbed? I've seen both (TW's video on using lead at 3/9 suggests the latter).
I use 8 inch strips centered at 3 & 9 on each side. So 4 total. 8 grams
 
#47
I have now played with a Yonex SV98 plus (27.5 inch long) since they first came out. I have a one hand backhand, therefore, I cut the grip down and
do not use a full length overgrip. Why? With only 5-1/2 inch of the pallet wrapped with a stock grip and an overgrip and the rest of the pallet bare, I reduce the weight of the grip by about 3 to 4 grams.

According to TW's site the SV98 plus is rated at 340 swing weight strung and 5 points head light. With the removal of some of the grip material, I should have a slightly higher swing weight. When playing a natural gut/poly hybrid the swing weight is even higher than full poly. Best racquet setup I have ever played with. Have no intention of using any other racquet in the near future.

Aloha
 
#48
Both my rackets have 8g of lead at 3 & 9 however I added about 8 rubber bands 7 inches from the buttcap on one of my rackets (about 16g) to see if it made any difference. It swings much easier and feels easier on the arm.
This is the part I don't get. Does adding weight at 7" from buttcap play differently from adding weight under the buttcap, assuming the amount of weight added achieve the same balance in both cases?
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
#49
I'm loving a depolarized set-up right now! I can serve much easier. More consistency, more power, more spin. No downsides. The DR 98 is already a great serving racket but this set-up makes it even better! Serves are much faster now, even second serves don't sit up in the box anymore. I hit 2 double faults today over 3 hour match, had a lot of free points won.

Returning is also better with the twist weight being higher. More forgiveness, directional control.

I even did some more tweaking....I was reading some threads on MGR/I and im not one to believe things blindly, but there may be some truth to the theory. Both my rackets have 8g of lead at 3 & 9 however I added about 8 rubber bands 7 inches from the buttcap on one of my rackets (about 16g) to see if it made any difference. It swings much easier and feels easier on the arm. I thought something was off. How can a racket that's heavier swing SO much easier than the one without the rubber bands? I use an eastern forehand and im 5'7. So my Target MGR/I should be 21.2 or so. I went out and hit some of the best tennis I have ever played in my life and the crazy thing is I don't feel any fatigue after playing for 3 hours in high pressure point situations. I can see now how people are able to use high swing weights. I still don't think I need to go up to 360, but I would like to keep playing around with the MGR/I. The racket with the rubber bands is now 12.3 oz and 8 points HL.

When I added lead at noon, I lowered the MGR/I value of a racket that's already polarized which lead to the racket feeling clubby, unstable and unforgiving however I convinced myself that higher SW is better and i would eventually play better once i adjusted. Nope. I was losing to people I normally beat for 4-6 weeks which made me even re-think lead all together.

I'm glad i realized I prefer a de-polarized set-up which can inform my racket choices going forward and hopefully do some more tinkering. I haven't been this excited about tennis in a while!

I wish i could accurately measure my MGR/I, the only thing I know is that it's higher than it was before, but i have no way of figuring out my SW. I think my SW is around 330-335 but i have no way of accurately measuring it
Just to share, I’m using modified DR98s for like 2 years now. First went with 340g setup, 7-8HL, 328 SW - achieved with long strips at 3&9 (~2.8g each side), 1-2g (different racquets of a pair) at 12 and counterbalance under the butt cap. Rather stable and forgiving - many off-center shots, even perceived as bad, still appeared serviceable.
But the latest thing was adding ~10g at the throat, around 10”, and that thing just plays so noticeably smoother. That last added lead was pure de-polarization experiment, and I’m not going to withdraw it.
 
#50
This is the part I don't get. Does adding weight at 7" from buttcap play differently from adding weight under the buttcap, assuming the amount of weight added achieve the same balance in both cases?
yes. Much differently if the amount of weight is significant. Will feel like two completely different racquets.
 
Top