Recoil Weight

movdqa

Talk Tennis Guru
Despite this, I still feel it too harsh on my shoulder. I guess the problem is me.
I had Synthetic gut 17 at 55. Now I am trying poly at 35.

My groundstrokes have become very deep, but my srrve is too weak. I suppose because i can't jerk my arm fast enough with such a heavy racquet and balance when serving.
Too high static weight can cause golfers Elbow from the serve. It might cause shoulder problems too. I used to have some frames at 17 ounces with most of the weight in the handle and there was no shock or vibration but it wasn't great for my arm on the serve.
 

Alberges

New User
Too high static weight can cause golfers Elbow from the serve. It might cause shoulder problems too. I used to have some frames at 17 ounces with most of the weight in the handle and there was no shock or vibration but it wasn't great for my arm on the serve.
Wow man!
That's way too much. 17 ounces
I will try get my racquet more from 15 to 8 or 10 HL and reduce at least one oz.
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
Very headlight balance will make it hard to swing, and will cause you to push the racket rather than swing it. Will also make it hard to hit with topspin as the racket head doesn't come under the ball as smoothly.
This setup is good for doubles players in terms of volleys and touch shots. Ok for spin serves. Not so good for flat serves and groundstrokes.
My singles rackets are about 363 g, 360 SW and around 6 or 6.5 balance. I've found that even 7 pt HL was too headlight for that racket, lost the effortless serve and groundstrokes.
For doubles though I use around 8.5 pts HL, same static weight. It's a trade-off cos i know that my groundstrokes and serves suffer but helps my volleys tremendously.
Your mileage may vary.

There's good reason why most women prefer swinging volleys rather than traditional volleys. Their rackets are not headlight enough for regular volleying.

In terms of comfort, I find that with a given swingweight, both too headlight and too head heavy can hurt you, depending on game style. If you wanna play topspin with a very headlight racket, you will end up forcing the racket, can cause arm issues.
But also, if you wanna play doubles with a head heavy racket, it will take a lot of muscle strain to prevent the racket from swinging when you try to volley.
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
17oz is crazy but wooden racquets weighed about 14-15oz so not that far off. I can only imagine trying to swing such a club.
Baseball bats weight over two time that amount, hit balls that are over 2x heavier, are 1/3 longer! And have a higher center of mass. I never heard anyone complain of baseball elbow. There are lots of arm injuries in baseball resulting from throwing that 5 oz ball but not swinging that 30+ oz bat. And while they're on deck what do they do? They add a pound or two of mass on the bat just to warm up.

It take a real tennis wimp to swing a 9 oz tennis racket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dso

Dso

Semi-Pro
Baseball bats weight over two time that amount, hit balls that are over 2x heavier, are 1/3 longer! And have a higher center of mass. I never heard anyone complain of baseball elbow. There are lots of arm injuries in baseball resulting from throwing that 5 oz ball but not swinging that 30+ oz bat. And while they're on deck what do they do? They add a pound or two of mass on the bat just to warm up.

It take a real tennis wimp to swing a 9 oz tennis racket.
LOL. I'm moving toward heavier racquets as I think there is real benefit and I do believe lighter racquets don't absorb off center shots well hence exasperating arm issues. That being said I'm not so sure that analogy works. Batters don't swing as much and they certainly don't run around for a couple hour without letting it go. Plus we can't afford as many "strikes". :)
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
Also, batters don't swing over the shoulder as in tennis.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
If batter swung at as many balls as a tennis player in a 3 hour game there would also be a lot more baseball injuries if they didn't kill themselves trying to swing that much. All I'm saying is there is no right or wrong weight and balance for everyone. You should find the weight and balance you like that feels comfortable you you and fine tune the weight distribution by adjusting how mass is distributed through the racket. How do you fine tune weight distribution? Swing weight, inertia, MgR/I, or just plain hanging physical pendulum period. It just depends on how OCD you are.

EDIT: Go out and find a racket with the right mass and balance and you're stuck with it. Because any mass you add is too much, and you don't have any wiggle room to fine tune or match your sticks.
 
The point I was didn't get across was that in the old days people were swinging 14oz plus racquets which wasn't an issue. Going with very low static weight racquets like 9oz or 10oz is really a bad idea. One should at least consider 11oz and above and figure out what feels good to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dso

graycrait

Hall of Fame
Probably a person needs to figure out where you stand with regards to skill set too. I watch these two 5'3" Spanish girls hammer the ball with what I consider relatively light rackets. The consistency of their contact point, footwork, hitting well out in front and the use of their efficient kinetic chain is remarkable to me. I, on the other hand, need a shorter heavier racket because my strokes can be "off the rails" without a lot of effort. Is it our 42 yr age difference, my lack of early training, my bifocals, my lead feet, etc? I know that if I played against a good 4.0 + player using their rackets strung with their poly I most likely would reinvigorate a case of dormant TE. When I get to hit with these young ladies I feel as if I am an Ent hitting against elves. I relish any chance I get to hit with them. However I'll be using a racket that weighs over 12.4oz.
 

Dso

Semi-Pro
I don't know… people are saying the 12+ oz is so much weight- I'm not sure. I'm over 50 and have been using a Head graphene XT Prestige Pro (12oz) and recently a Volkl C10 Pro (12.5oz). Really it's not that bad. I think serves are the most noticable. Everything else isn't much adjustment IMO. Prior to that most of my racquets were lower 11oz.

That all being said I'm not a 5.5 player that hits the hell out of all my shots and I'm a recovering elbow guy. Crap… I hope I don't ruin my shoulder now… that's all I need right now!

I'm into heavy!
 

Joonas

Semi-Pro
There are many young guns, late ITF years or already entered into tour who play with stock Blades, stock Radicals, stock Babolats. And they dont have arms falling, they outpace TT hacks night and day. And they face heavy ball.

Just saying, but there is reason for stuff.

And nothing wrong to like a heavy stick. But do you need it or does it really help your gane is another thing. I have been there...
 

movdqa

Talk Tennis Guru
There are many young guns, late ITF years or already entered into tour who play with stock Blades, stock Radicals, stock Babolats. And they dont have arms falling, they outpace TT hacks night and day. And they face heavy ball.

Just saying, but there is reason for stuff.

And nothing wrong to like a heavy stick. But do you need it or does it really help your gane is another thing. I have been there...
Does it help my game? Sure. It's a 13.25 ounce frame with a 386 swingweight. Not the lightest but not the heaviest either.

I had an injury back in 2011 and I really can't hit with frames that don't provide a lot of comfort. The only frames that I've hit with since 2012 are my current frames, my previous frames with similar specs and the RF97. I took a bunch of lead off my former frames (down to about 12.8 ounces), hit for two sets and I had golfers elbow twinges for a few weeks afterwards. I had no problems with the RF97. I'm somewhat terrified of hitting with lighter or stiffer frames overall because I don't want to spend six months recovering from golfers elbow again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dso

Joonas

Semi-Pro
Does it help my game? Sure. It's a 13.25 ounce frame with a 386 swingweight. Not the lightest but not the heaviest either.

I had an injury back in 2011 and I really can't hit with frames that don't provide a lot of comfort. The only frames that I've hit with since 2012 are my current frames, my previous frames with similar specs and the RF97. I took a bunch of lead off my former frames (down to about 12.8 ounces), hit for two sets and I had golfers elbow twinges for a few weeks afterwards. I had no problems with the RF97. I'm somewhat terrified of hitting with lighter or stiffer frames overall because I don't want to spend six months recovering from golfers elbow again.
You have a reason - injury. I broke my left wrist 3 months ago. I am right handed. Now I can hit again my two handed BH. While ago a heavier stick allowed me to do it but lighter and stiffer gave some pains. Now I dropped the extra weights of my Pure Strikes and ended to stock 305g. My wrist can take it.

My game took it as well. I am not so depending on perfect timing. Wind, sun, clay courts all can give you additional challenges. Also when your nerves hit you will be better off with something you can deal with without the most perfect preparation.

I am not saying coming from 355 static weight and 340sw to 325 static and 320 sw is a breeze. You will struggle with timing and swinging early at times. But I feel the reward is worth exploring.

My point is that for some like me the feel of rallying with heavy stick gave me the illusion that this is it. But the match play just revealed that lighter stick allo
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
Just yesterday I was at the Aussie Open wildcard playoffs. During one of the matches, I was sitting next to the coach of one of the lower ranked players. Mind you, these guys are all touring pros of course. The coach was carrying the players' spare racket, I asked to check it out. It was a stock Pure Drive Roddick Plus. Which is one of the most powerful but spin friendly, so controllable retail frames on the market, that's why he uses it of course.

But even with that beefy racket, power was lacking a bit from the guy's game. In terms of ball speed. Was relying more on accuracy, movement and his lefty serve.
I know this is just one example but it was an illustration to me that to be the best you can be, you must use the most powerful racket you can control, given your game syle of course. Flimsy control-oriented stuff won't take you places.
 
Probably a person needs to figure out where you stand with regards to skill set too. I watch these two 5'3" Spanish girls hammer the ball with what I consider relatively light rackets. The consistency of their contact point, footwork, hitting well out in front and the use of their efficient kinetic chain is remarkable to me. I, on the other hand, need a shorter heavier racket because my strokes can be "off the rails" without a lot of effort. Is it our 42 yr age difference, my lack of early training, my bifocals, my lead feet, etc? I know that if I played against a good 4.0 + player using their rackets strung with their poly I most likely would reinvigorate a case of dormant TE. When I get to hit with these young ladies I feel as if I am an Ent hitting against elves. I relish any chance I get to hit with them. However I'll be using a racket that weighs over 12.4oz.
I would say all of the above. We aren't trained since we were young to become next generation tennis players. We didn't get to hit thousands of balls a day and we didn't have a coach that trains us hard day in and day out. It's amazing what efficient strokes and kinetic chain can do for one's game.
 

GBplayer

Hall of Fame
Adding 10 or 20 grams to a frame doesn't make it heavy , a lot of people add an overgrip or dampener . It is unlikely that you will find a perfect fit off the shelf . Having a higher recoil weight may or may not help your groundstrokes in singles ? Who cares if you only play doubles ? It makes a huge difference for volleying . Maybe that is why a lot of the up and coming players cannot volley, so don't like doubles ?
 
The only thing the OP doesn't mention in the video that seems like it would be very relevant, is the RA or "stiffness" rating of the frame. If were talking about recoil, are we not also talking about flex? This directly influences the power returned to the ball. I don't know, maybe I'm missing the correlation between the recoil weight discussed here, and the flex rating of a racquet. How does that factor in?

For example, my Donnay has a stock SW of 310, but I bumped that up a bit with 2g of lead tape at the 3 and 9 o-clock positions. I'd have to have the balance point measured, as with the leather grip and lead, that has changed from stock (which was 3pts HL strung). The flex rating is 62, and the weight is around 11.5oz strung with the leather grip and lead involved. How does the flex play into this equation? Logically, it seems it would have to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dso

zalive

Hall of Fame
The only thing the OP doesn't mention in the video that seems like it would be very relevant, is the RA or "stiffness" rating of the frame. If were talking about recoil, are we not also talking about flex? This directly influences the power returned to the ball. I don't know, maybe I'm missing the correlation between the recoil weight discussed here, and the flex rating of a racquet. How does that factor in?

For example, my Donnay has a stock SW of 310, but I bumped that up a bit with 2g of lead tape at the 3 and 9 o-clock positions. I'd have to have the balance point measured, as with the leather grip and lead, that has changed from stock (which was 3pts HL strung). The flex rating is 62, and the weight is around 11.5oz strung with the leather grip and lead involved. How does the flex play into this equation? Logically, it seems it would have to.
In my opinion flex affects realistic model. You can perhaps calculate shock or recoil based on parameters and simplified physics model, but those parameters are based on a model of racquet that stays perfectly straight at impact with the ball - which is not true, as any racquet will actually flex. Realistic, dynamic flex that happens upon impact however will affect both recoil and shock. But that won't make recoil and recoil weight irellevant. Also there's a third thing left out from simplified model: shock and recoil calculations don't take into account the depth of string bed deformation upon impact. And it will affect comfort also, because if ball pockets deeper, recoil and shock will be smaller.

I think several things are important for comfort (random ordered):
  • decent recoil weight
  • RHS*swing weight (it's what wins the colision with the ball)
  • position of COM (more HL is at least a bit better for comfort)
  • dynamic flex (vibration frequency!) - actual racquet stiffness in a realistic dynamic situation
  • string bed stiffness (depends on lot: string, head size and design, grommets type, tensions on string bed, string pattern density and distribution, RHS...)
and that each is important per se - perhaps you don't need all of them ticked to meet comfort, but each of them can significantly contribute...and you need a certain total score satisfied for comfort. And at the end of day you'll be the judge whether actual setup is comfortable enough for you.
 

purdyd

Rookie
I think it is probably as simple as this.

For a given swingweight, the highest recoil weight is for a head light racquet.

For a given static weight, the highest recoil weight is for a neutral balanced racquet.

If your I really want to hit something solid, you want it to impact on the center of mass.

Flex is absolutely part of comfort as it determines how long and how strong the impact force is.

I also believe vibration, which happens after impact is part of comfort and certainly a big part of what we perceive as feel.
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
For a given swingweight, the highest recoil weight is for a head light racquet.

For a given static weight, the highest recoil weight is for a neutral balanced racquet.
For a given SW and static weight the lower the balance the higher the RW (SW = RW + mdd)
I also believe vibration, which happens after impact is part of comfort and certainly a big part of what we perceive as feel.
That's true so in order to have the best feel you want to strike the ball at the COP. The point where your index finger knuckle is on the racket and the COP are conjucant points. So if the ball is struck on the COP there will be no vibration felt in the hand.

To calculate COP = I/md where I is the inertia around the point where your index finger touches the racket, m is mass of the racket in Kg, and d is the distance from your I axis to the center of mass. You can also work this backwards from the COP to find the conjugate point on the handle (the inertia / SW axis.) TW Professor explains it well in post #7 of this thread https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/calculating-cop.571447/ But I have to admit I had to read Post #7 a couple of times before it really began to sink in my thick skull.
 
Last edited:

purdyd

Rookie
For a given SW and static weight the lower the balance the higher the RW (SW = RW + mdd)
The largest moment of inertia for a given mass is obtained when the mass distributed equidistant from the center of mass. I've seen it described as bimodal.

Swing weight and recoil weight are both moments of inertia measured about different points. The MDD is just the method of translating the moments of inertia.

when you move the balance point, and don't change the total mass, you change the swing weight and recoil weight.

so no, for a given weight, the maximum recoil weight is when the mass is centered. It may not be that simple as you would have to know the weight distribution throughout the body but there is really only one point where the recoil weight is at a maximum for any given body of fixed weight

Center of percussion means that the center of rotation is about the handle, that means that the translation velocity is cancelled out by the rotational velocity.

Basically the ball tries to move the racquet backwards but by hitting on the other side of the center of mass, from the handle, the handle will move forward and they cancel each other out.

That means you will have minimal force at the hand but you still are subjected to torque.

I don't see what it has to do with vibration but I certainly see how it would affect feel. But then again, I think most rackets feel pretty good when you hit the sweet spot.
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
The largest moment of inertia for a given mass is obtained when the mass distributed equidistant from the center of mass. I've seen it described as bimodal.
A lot of what you said is just wrong. The largest increase in inertia for a given mass is obtained when the mass is distributed the farthest from the COM not equidistant. If the moment of inertia is the RW and your racket is HL adding mass to 12 o'clock increases the RW the most until the racket becomes HH then adding mass at the butt increases RW the most.

If your inertia is SW adding mass at 12 o'clock always increases inertia the most.
 

purdyd

Rookie
A lot of what you said is just wrong. The largest increase in inertia for a given mass is obtained when the mass is distributed the farthest from the COM not equidistant. If the moment of inertia is the RW and your racket is HL adding mass to 12 o'clock increases the RW the most until the racket becomes HH then adding mass at the butt increases RW the most.

t.
you are violently agreeing with me

but I can see I was not precise - equidistant and farthest away

so if the racquet were constructed of two equal masses the greatest moment of inertia would be about the point mid way between them with two equal masses - center of mass in equal distant between the two equal masses

yes if you make the racquet longer, it will increase in moment of inertia,

that is what you are saying in your quote and I agree,

that means for the highest recoil weight (moment of inertia about the center of mass) for a given mass, you want the balance point (center of mass) to be in the middle

lets take a 27" racquet that I want to have a mass of 300grams

27" = 68.58 cm

Lets assume i can make it out of two masses in which the total distance between the two can't be larger tahn 68.58 cm

i could make the masses equal

the center of mass would be 34.29cm from each mass of 150 grams

the moment of inertia about the center of mass would be 352741 gram cm^2

34.29^2 * 150 + 34.29^2 * 150

lets put the center of mass 6.868 cm from one end,

the mass closest to the center of mass would be 270 grams and the other mass would be 30 grams and 61.722cm away

moment of inertia 126987.8 gram cm^2

270 * 6.858^2 + 30 * 61.722^2
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
so if the racquet were constructed of two equal masses the greatest moment of inertia would be about the point mid way between them with two equal masses - center of mass in equal distant between the two equal masses
The greatest moment of inertia would be when the axis is at one end. SW is a moment of inertia usually measured at a 10 cm axis. When computing MgR/I the Inertia or SW is at 0 cm. RW is the lowest moment of inertia you can ever have. If you use the parallel axis theorem to compute the inertia at any other point on a physical pendulum the value will always be greater, and the increase in inertia will increase by the total mass times the distance from the axis to the COM squared.
 

purdyd

Rookie
The greatest moment of inertia would be when the axis is at one end. SW is a moment of inertia usually measured at a 10 cm axis. When computing MgR/I the Inertia or SW is at 0 cm. RW is the lowest moment of inertia you can ever have. If you use the parallel axis theorem to compute the inertia at any other point on a physical pendulum the value will always be greater, and the increase in inertia will increase by the total mass times the distance from the axis to the COM squared.
I'm sorry I thought this thread was about recoil weight aka moment of inertia about the center of mass?
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
C'mon Rajesh, there are other factors as well...
Personally, I dont feel RW around 165 as anything bad, played with even bit lower RW than that...and as long as layup is not harsh itself...
 
Last edited:

10shoe

Professional
I am just wondering whether the formula for calculating recoil weight requires any revision when testing a racquet that is not 27" long?

For instance, on a Head Ti S6 that weighs 242 gms, bal is 38.8, and swingweight is 299, I get a recoil weight of 100.5. Is it really that low or does the 27.625 length factor in somehow?
 
Last edited:

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
I am just wondering whether the formula for calculating recoil weight requires any revision when testing a racquet that is not 27" long?
No does not matter if it is longer or shorter than 27". RW = SW minus the total mass in kg times the distance from the SW axis to COM in cm squared.
 
Last edited:

Yesudeep

New User
I'm afraid that nothing linear (inertia) is that significant in tennis, everything significant is rotational by nature. Whether it is SW, or RW, both count. Ball hitting the racquet always tend to rotate the racquet, whenever it hits the spot different than COM (and anything on racquets head is typically not a COM) - this is where RW is significant. And the ball recieves energy (transfered to its velocity) from a swing - this is where SW is significant.
Nope. More rotation == low accuracy. Linear stroke mechanics is where it is at. E.g. Federer, you /think/ he rotates his "forehand swish" (if you were to do a biomechanical sensor-based analysis you'd see that he barely does. His stroke is mostly "pulling that handle straight at the ball and letting the head of the racquet whip it." Irvin is right, I'm afraid.
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
Nope. More rotation == low accuracy. Linear stroke mechanics is where it is at. E.g. Federer, you /think/ he rotates his "forehand swish" (if you were to do a biomechanical sensor-based analysis you'd see that he barely does. His stroke is mostly "pulling that handle straight at the ball and letting the head of the racquet whip it." Irvin is right, I'm afraid.
If Federer hit a ball with no spin the ball would be on the fence or over it 99% of the time. I think @zalive's comment was just a misunderstanding between him and me. Newton's laws are always in effect. An object wants to continue in its present state unless acted upon by an outside force. Inertia a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force. Recoil Weight is the amount of torque required to move a racket around the balance point. But all that was a long time ago and water under the bridge.
 

10shoe

Professional
I only stumbled on this thread recently. Since I maintain a database of my stringing including weight, balance and swingweight I was curious to see how this translated into recoil weight. After added a formula for recoil weight to my data I constructed a query that selects the lowest recoil weight for any particular racquet. The reason I went with the lowest reading instead of average reading was to exclude racquets that have been customized. Here is a link to the spreadsheet for anyone who is interested:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kAbo7n-ksX7Y2bLuDdiVu2TLy9KXIRuWMh5mBGdX_Go/edit?usp=sharing
 

10shoe

Professional
@10shoe are those strung or unstrung specs
The spreadsheet is up and revised. I included now min rw, max rw, and avg rw. Also included are the min and max wgt,balance, swingweight for anyone who wants to double check the math. I also added a column for record count. This is the number of stringings that the average rw is based on. All measurements were taken with a Prince Precision Tuning Center on strung racquets.

As Irvin pointed out, there are readings below 100. Most of these are junior racquets, but some are just very light adult racquets like the Head Ti S6. I went through the data and am satisfied that it is reliable. There were some typographical errors skewing the initial results but I cleaned them up.

I still think the min rw is the most reliable even though it represents the low end of mfr specs. Strong players are more likely to customize and also more likely to restring often. Their data tends to shift the averages up.
 

ricardo

Hall of Fame
It works!!!

I transformed my racket from uncomfortable, unstable, pushover to solid, vibration-free, comfortable, powerful racket.
I almost sold it before customization. Now it's a keeper.

Based on my understanding of this thread, I added 1.5 oz to my racket (wilson steam 105s) as follows:

10/2 - 10%
6 - 30%
buttcap - 60%

I tried 10% at 12, but 10/2 is much, much better. No vibration, much more stable.
 
Last edited:
It works!!!

I transformed my racket from uncomfortable, unstable, pushover to solid, vibration-free, comfortable, powerful racket.
I almost sold it before customization. Now it's a keeper.

Based on my understanding of this thread, I added 1.5 oz to my racket (wilson steam 105s) as follows:

10/2 - 10%
6 - 30%
buttcap - 60%

I tried 10% at 12, but 10/2 is much, much better. No vibration, much more stable.
yeah, weight in the right place is amazing... I can play alright (maybe not super serious) with most anything if there is customization room.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
yeah, weight in the right place is amazing... I can play alright (maybe not super serious) with most anything if there is customization room.
That's the way it is...getting racquets to similar specs makes them easily for a player to adjust...


Based on my understanding of this thread, I added 1.5 oz to my racket (wilson steam 105s) as follows:

10/2 - 10%
6 - 30%
buttcap - 60%

I tried 10% at 12, but 10/2 is much, much better. No vibration, much more stable.
10/2 o'clock is not a critical place like 11-1 o'clock zone; however, few additional grams at 7'' from the butt or at the throat might further improve playability, because putting lead to those zones essentially speeds up the swing. And like with everything, there's enough and too much, racquets benefit when they swing just right and evenly. Anyway, good to know this for some personal custom fine tuning.

Anyway, this is the reason why 10/2 was much better to you than 12 o'clock. Since 12 o'clock slows down pendulum period significantly, such a racquet may become (will it become, it depends on its initial specs) heavier to swing and hence suboptimal - so it usually has to be compensated by putting some mass either at 7'' or at the throat. While 10/2 o'clock doesn't make as significant difference - it makes a difference but it's more subtle. 3/9 o'clock makes least difference, it just increases the SW but doesn't affect a pendulum period.

For more understanding of the matter, there's travelerjam's (travlerajm) thread on MgR/I.
 

ricardo

Hall of Fame
That's the way it is...getting racquets to similar specs makes them easily for a player to adjust...




10/2 o'clock is not a critical place like 11-1 o'clock zone; however, few additional grams at 7'' from the butt or at the throat might further improve playability, because putting lead to those zones essentially speeds up the swing. And like with everything, there's enough and too much, racquets benefit when they swing just right and evenly. Anyway, good to know this for some personal custom fine tuning.

Anyway, this is the reason why 10/2 was much better to you than 12 o'clock. Since 12 o'clock slows down pendulum period significantly, such a racquet may become (will it become, it depends on its initial specs) heavier to swing and hence suboptimal - so it usually has to be compensated by putting some mass either at 7'' or at the throat. While 10/2 o'clock doesn't make as significant difference - it makes a difference but it's more subtle. 3/9 o'clock makes least difference, it just increases the SW but doesn't affect a pendulum period.

For more understanding of the matter, there's travelerjam's (travlerajm) thread on MgR/I.
Thanks for the tip.

Customization can make a bad racket good, and a good racket even better.
 

10shoe

Professional
I added a text box for Recoil Wgt to the data input form I use for recording wgt, bal, and swg wgt in my database and have been watching it with interest especially for customers who have arm issues. One of my customers, a 3.0 female has an interesting history. She was using a Prince Ozone 7 when she first started stringing with me. She got it into her head that she needed something smaller and bought a Prince Exo3 White Lite 100. That gave her tennis elbow. We tried to modify it but she gave up on it and eventually playtested and bought a Pure Strike 100 which is what she is using now and her arm problem seems to be behind her.

The recoil weight on these racquets:
Ozone 7 = 146
White Lite = 144
Pure Strike = 145

The flex ratings of the 3 racquets:
Ozone 7 =74
White Lite = 65
Pure Strike = 65

I'm not sure what to conclude from this. I was surprised to see how close the recoil weights were considering how problematic the White Lite was for her.
 
Top