Brando

Professional
Advanced players care about recoil, and here’s why. Swingweight, twist weight, and recoil weight (also called ‘hitting weight’) all measure the inertia of a racquet along different axes or planes. Recoil weight shares the same plane as swingweight but its axis is the balance point (vs. the hand), and that makes it a piece of the racquet puzzle you never knew you were missing. RW measures how close a frame’s weighting is to its poles. The higher the recoil, the more polarized it is.

Polarity matters because it very much affects a racquet’s behavior. For instance, weighting at the tip adds polarity, placing mass as close to the sweetspot as it can be, resulting in maximal increase (per gram added) in power and plow through at ball contact. The wider this weight is spread over the tip, the more twist weight it adds, meaning more stability on off center hits. Add counterweight on the handle or, most efficiently, under the butt, and you add inertial stability, enabling you to swing-through with less effort.

To any player this all sounds pretty good. So why isn’t every racquet polarized? Two reasons.

First, while polarization may make a frame swing more efficiently (as in power from effort), it also makes it harder to swing accurately. The very definition of “unwieldy,” truly polarized racquets require consistent, advanced form to bring them through because it takes more energy to get their generally weightier hoops moving. So you have to swing early, much earlier than with a depolarized frame; which is weighted more evenly, making the hoop come through faster.* Since amateurs prefer ease in their swing over efficiency, especially if it costs consistency, makers tend to make less polarized racquets.

The second reason for depolarized frames is that the length of a player’s arm can determine their preferred RW. Longer armed players tend to prefer the pulling-a-hoop feel of high RW. Shorter armed players prefer the pushing-a-handle feel of low RW. Why? The arm swings a racquet as the upper lever in a double-pendulum with its pivot points being the shoulder and wrist.

The longer your arm, the faster it’ll bring the racquet (the lower lever) through, enabling it to pivot forward to meet the ball too soon and at too sharp an angle. So taller players prefer frames with more hoop-lag so as to meet the ball in front with a stable (open) wrist. Weight closer to the tip and/or tail (polarizing weight) slows down the hoop so as to increase that lag for longer arms. Shorter arms bring the racquet through slower, causing the hoop to more naturally lag the handle. These players then prefer lower recoil weights for less lag. This means using a racquet that’s more evenly weighted throughout, a depolarized frame.

Are there exceptions to these “rules?” Sure, and they abound among the pros, with their higher weights and swingweights. Amateurs, though, can use these principles to get an idea of where to start hunting their best recoil weight. It’s no coincidence that the height of the average player (male and female) is 5' 7" [170cm] and the average RW of the top-20 selling frames of 2022 is a middle of the road 158 (with a standard deviation of 7).

The ideal recoil weight for a polarized frame is 170 or more while ideally depolarized frames measure 150 or less. To calculate a racquet’s RW, you only need to know its weight, balance point and swingweight (SW):
SW - (wt. in kg × (balance [in cm] - 10)²) = Recoil Weight

You don't need calculate RW yourself. Instead, simply feed its Big-3 specs (wt., balance, SW) into TennCom’s handy tool. Easy-peasy.

ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL (and exceptions assumed)

Polarized racquets (165 - 180 RW+) are recoil-stable (more forgiving of horizontally off-center hits), require more precise timing (due to lag), and produce more power. They can also produce more spin and sharper hitting angles. Heavier racquets tend to be more polarized, with more mass distributed where it's needed at the impact point and under the hand as counterbalance.

Depolarized racquets (155 - 140 RW-) tend to be lighter and more torsion-stable (higher twist weighted), hitting a flatter ball and allowing more precise tuning of depth. While easier to swing, they translate more impact shock to the arm since lacking the mass to absorb vibration. Polarized frames, having more mass near the impact point and/or under the hand, absorb more vibration. (Tecnifibre fills its mostly depolarized frames with foam to soften this shock.)

Customizer Note: increasing the SW to weight ratio increases RW, as does lowering balance via tail weighting because both increase polarization.

* Polarization’s hoop-lag effect can be understood from the analogy of swinging a plain iron rod of equal weight and length with a rod ‘barbelled’ at each end. The barbelled rod will be harder to get moving, and so will lag your swing but release more energy on whatever it hits.

EDIT: READERS HAVE ASKED ME TO POST MY RW TABLE (introduced in post #25 and rounded out in post #298) HERE FOR EASIER REFERENCE:

Apt Racquet Recoil Weight (±2 points) per Player Height (as indicator of arm length)
4’10”
140 RW
4’11”
142 RW
5’ 0”
144 RW
5’ 1”
146 RW
5’ 2”
148 RW
5’ 3”
150 RW
5’ 4”
152 RW
5’ 5”
154 RW
5’ 6”
156 RW
5’ 7”
158 RW
5’ 8”
160 RW
5’ 9”
162 RW
5’10”
164 RW
5’11”
166 RW
6’ 0”
168 RW
6’ 1”
170 RW
6’ 2”
172 RW
6’ 3”
174 RW
6’ 4”
176 RW
6’ 5”
178 RW
6’ 6”
180 RW
6’ 7”
182 RW
Recoil: S/W - (mass in kg x (balance-point [in cm] - 10)²)



 
Last edited:

Superchoo

New User
Very interesting concept and thanks for posting. I’ve read that in some cases, one handers might also prefer slightly more depolarised frames so they can move (or push) the racket inline with the arm on that wing.

In cases where greater recoil weight is also required, say for example when a one hander is playing higher level opposition with heavier returns, do you think greater overall racket mass is also required whilst keeping the same depolarised ratio?
Perhaps this why some look to mgr/i as an indicator of racket suitability, as i believe it expresses polarisation, recoil weight and mass?
 
Last edited:

Brando

Professional
You're welcome, @Superchoo. Kind of you to say. Yes, the OHBH indeed invites a lower recoil for its faster racquet head speed (RHS). If you wanted to add mass to the frame without adding recoil, you'd have to add it close to the balance point. Depending on the racquet, though, this may very well net you less power and slower RHS in the end.

Oh, and if you want to explore more about recoil and how it relates to MgR/I, I invite you to check out thread, Polarization, Recoil Weight, & MgR/I Demystified?
 
Last edited:
@Brando, this is intriguing. I went deep down the MgR/I rabbit hole about a decade ago and emerged unsure about how useful it really was in practice, but this seems potentially much more useable.

In your opinion, does RW correlate with optimal stroke mechanics? For example, if player A has an ideal of RW of 140, does their optimal forehand look different from the optimal forehand of player B with ideal RW of 170 - and is the difference a function of RW rather than just correlated with RW?

I’m asking because I’m nearing the end of a long racket demo process, and my favorites all are within 5 RW of each other. And my previous frame, which I ultimately concluded had much too high a SW for me but I otherwise loved, also was in that narrow 5 RW band. But I’m also in the middle of an existential crisis about my forehand mechanics, and I’m wondering whether my optimal RW should point me in a specific direction. (Or would that be approaching this cart before horse?)
 

Superchoo

New User
My thinking is, that part of someone’s recoil weight diagnosis should include the known max weight of racket a player can handle after, for example, two sets of tennis (probably a slowly changing weight as that player grows/ ages btw) and the average heaviness of the shots they’re facing.

Also, it worth considering that if a Ohbh player steers towards a depolarised frame for reasons mentioned earlier, they will need to ensure that racket has enough RW to counter opposition shots with enough plow through so not to cause them injury.
In turn, a two hander requiring a more polarised racket of equal RW to the depolarised one hander racket above, will not require as much static weight to reach the same RW number.
 
Last edited:

Tranqville

Professional
@Brando how important is the weigth of the arm? I read somewhere on the forum that in sports like tennis, baseball, etc the racquet (bat) should weight 6x more than the ball, and 6x less than the arm.
 

Tranqville

Professional
Also, it worth considering that if a Ohbh player steers towards a depolarised frame for reasons mentioned earlier, they will need to ensure that racket has enough RW to counter opposition shots with enough plow through so not to cause them injury.

I play with high (174) RW racquet and it feels better for me on my OHBH than on the forehand. Perhaps it has to do with my technique: my OHBH is near-perfect, while forehand still needs improvement in kinetic chain efficiency. On OHBH, I feel like the weight of the racquet is doing all the work, it's an effortless shot. My 342g racquet feels like a feather on OHBH, like it's floating weightless into the ball.

This post helped me understand why I'm hitting my forehand late - I need to prepare earlier and generate more power from the ground.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this post - as a tall person it may demystify some things for me.

A few questions…
Do you use strung or unstrung weight in the formula?


How do extended rackets work in this formula?


Also what about a tall guy with a OHBH? Do we need to sacrifice one thing for the other?
 

Brando

Professional
Great questions all around @Circa 1762, @Tranqville, and @Saitamaxpunch1. I think I can answer most of them all in one swell foop. At least I’m going to give it a shot…

Having the right RW for your arm-length can absolutely improve your swing as a kinetic chain. For instance, when I went from 155 to 174, a door opened. I now understood that my swing had been a constant fight with my racquet. But now she came through as if reading my mind. I say “she” because this connection wasn’t free.

I had to do my part. I had to level-up, to be worthy of the gift the racquet was giving me by honing my footwork, getting her back early, and loosening my death grip, etc. But when my form rose enough to unleash her, swings became effortless and the ball came off the string bed with a predictable heaviness I’d only dreamt of.

There’s no free ride in tennis. Maybe that’s one reason we love it. But if your results from practice and research have leveled off in the intermediate, I’d look A) at your form & footwork, and B) at the recoil weight you’re playing versus that which your arm is begging for. If there’s a difference, you might want to explore a switch.

That said, recoil doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s a function of three important measures, and a surprising variety of them can result in any one RW. So, yes, you have to become aware of your personal static weight limit. Next, it helps to know your ideal balance and SW at that weight. And, third, it’s about knowing that improving your RW will likely change the ratios among those 3 inputs.

When I mildly tip-weighted the aforementioned 155 RW frame from 325 to 331 SW, it felt far more unwieldy than the 174 at 338 SW. It’s not that the 155 was worse than the 174 (a 167 at stock); it was that it was weighted and balanced to be 325. That was its sweetspot.

Customizers know that frames have their characters and that it’s best to start with one as close to the personality you’re looking to reach as you can. Becoming your own personal racquet expert is about knowing how a change in one measure or another will change the feel of the others, and knowing what change to start with. This changes from frame to frame and for player to player. There’s no “one size fits all.”

So the answers to some of the questions above is an unsatisfying “it depends.” Is it your form that’s making your racquet search or swing difficult or is it your recoil? I don’t know; I haven’t seen you swing. But one thing I do know. Look to form first. Perfect that first. Film yourself and see what you’re doing wrong (and we’re all doing stuff wrong) and fix that.

Optimizing your form brings you an understanding of whether you’ve been fighting your racquet or yourself. Maybe it’s been a little of both. Either way, earn your way to that intel with practice and you’ll feel the better for having done it.
 
Last edited:

Brando

Professional
Thanks for this post - as a tall person it may demystify some things for me.
Am gratified it helps, @Saitamaxpunch1.
Do you use strung or unstrung weight in the formula?
Generally the formula uses strung specs since that's what we play with. But it can be used with unstrung specs too, as when comparing frames for purchase; just make sure that all the specs are unstrung (or strung).
How do extended rackets work in this formula?
Exactly the same. If length were in the formula, it'd be different. But the effect of a racquet's length is already built into into the formula's three inputs.
Also what about a tall guy with a OHBH? Do we need to sacrifice one thing for the other?
The generic answer is, NO. The OHBH begs the same Big-3 specs as the forehand because your effective pivot point with the racquet is 10cm up the handle for both. It's the THBH that generally adds complication because its pivot point is closer to 20cm, effectively dropping both the SW and balance on the backhand vs. the forehand.
 

Brando

Professional
@Brando how important is the weigth of the arm? I read somewhere on the forum that in sports like tennis, baseball, etc the racquet (bat) should weight 6x more than the ball, and 6x less than the arm.
I have absolutely no idea, @Tranqville. Still, there's speculation that when Rolex offered Rafa a million dollars per year to wear one during play, he's alleged to have accepted because he discovered that the extra mass added whip to his already whippy THBH.

If so, this is related to my answer to @Saitamaxpunch1's last question above. A lefty, Rafa wears the watch on his right wrist for a reason; the extra weight adds back some of the effective SW and balance loss from swinging a THBH.
 
Am gratified it helps, @Saitamaxpunch1.

Generally the formula uses strung specs since that's what we play with. But it can be used with unstrung specs too, as when comparing frames for purchase; just make sure that all the specs are unstrung (or strung).

Exactly the same. If length were in the formula, it'd be different. But the effect of a racquet's length is already built into into the formula's three inputs.

The generic answer is, NO. The OHBH begs the same Big-3 specs as the forehand because your effective pivot point with the racquet is 10cm up the handle for both. It's the THBH that generally adds complication because its pivot point is closer to 20cm, effectively dropping both the SW and balance on the backhand vs. the forehand.


Thank you!

Yeah it does seem like taller players (Goran, Isner, Del Port, Venus Williams) used extended frames: https://www.perfect-tennis.com/extended-length-tennis-racquets/

I'm 6'2", a couple decades ago in high school, I used a 28.5 inch racket - a bit extreme but now makes some sense. I also recently ordered a Pure Aero Plus 2023, which seems to have a relatively high RW. Hopefully that does well for me.
 

Brando

Professional
That's an article worth adding to my database @Saitamaxpunch1. I didn't know that many taller pros use extended length racquets. From a pure physics standpoint, though for us amateurs, I'd say that sorter armed players benefit more from the extended length than taller, all other things being equal.
 

Crocodile

G.O.A.T.
My view about recoil weight is that if I buy a 350 to 360g static weight frame with a SW between 320 and 330 it’s game over and the other metrics don’t matter.
The whole recoil weight thing becomes more of an issue to the people who go out and buy the 300 and 305g frames and need to customise to get them to play right.
 
My view about recoil weight is that if I buy a 350 to 360g static weight frame with a SW between 320 and 330 it’s game over and the other metrics don’t matter.
The whole recoil weight thing becomes more of an issue to the people who go out and buy the 300 and 305g frames and need to customise to get them to play right.


Where do you get a 360G frame with 330G SW?
 

Power Player

Bionic Poster
Super interesting. Based on the chart you posted in the other thread, I am between 160-162 ideal. I threw in my modded Ezone 98 specs in there and it's at 163. I threw in specs for my more old school frames that swing how I like and it's 167. So based on my super subjective intel, this makes sense. I am a bit more muscular than the average tennis player so I am guess that is why I like it a little higher than it should be, but I am still in the ballpark.
 

Brando

Professional
Wow, @Power Player, how sweet of you to let us know!
I'm less about proving my estimates in the other thread right than about knowing IF they're right. If more players report in, like you just have, I might just be able to build up my database into a significant sample population. Wouldn't that be sumptin'?
 
Last edited:

Power Player

Bionic Poster
Wow, @Power Player, how sweet of you to let us know!
I'm not about proving my estimates in the other thread right but about knowing IF they're right. If more players report in, like you just have, I might just be able to build up my database to a significant sample population. Wouldn't that be sumptin'?

Yeah this obviously super thin data but I have always thought that there may be a correlation between height and arm length and frame spec preferences. Or not. Its quite a mystery but I think you may be on to something here.
 

Brando

Professional
...I am a bit more muscular than the average tennis player so I am guess that is why I like it a little higher than it should be, but I am still in the ballpark.
Strength would definitely contribute to your being able to swing a higher recoil weight, but more important is form; the better your kinetic chain, the higher the recoil you can swing, meaning you can swing more power because you can swing more accurately. But that higher recoil comes with a price that players experience in endurance. Would you say that your Ezone 98 is easier to swing at 163 than your old school frames at 167?
 

Power Player

Bionic Poster
Strength would definitely contribute to your being able to swing a higher recoil weight, but more important is form; the better your kinetic chain, the higher the recoil you can swing, meaning you can swing more power because you can swing more accurately. But that higher recoil comes with a price that players experience in endurance. Would you say that your Ezone 98 is easier to swing at 163 than your old school frames at 167?

I would say its a bit easier but not dramatic. I have filmed myself hitting with both back to back and it's quite similar form and racquet head speed. The Ezone has more pop and a bigger sweetspot so over the course of a long match it is easier to use probably more due to that then the slight weight difference. I am really happy with my form and use of my chain to power the swing, and I am pretty picky about that stuff. I do think that helps me use something a bit heavier than recommended, but I am still pretty light - 330 grams, 323 SW and 32.0 balance on ezone. 335/328 and 32.0 on prestige style frames.
 

Brando

Professional
For those wondering what @Power Player and I are talking about re. “the other thread,” it’s a table I developed of apt recoil weight per a player’s height. Each height listed below carries a 5 point range of deviation: as much as 2 points down for beginners, and 3 points up for advanced players.

Apt Racquet Recoil Weight per Player Height (as an indicator of arm length)
4’10”
140 RW
4’11”
142 RW
5’ 0”
144 RW
5’ 1”
146 RW
5’ 2”
148 RW
5’ 3”
150 RW
5’ 4”
152 RW
5’ 5”
154 RW
5’ 6”
156 RW
5’ 7”
158 RW
5’ 8”
160 RW
5’ 9”
162 RW
5’10”
164 RW
5’11”
166 RW
6’ 0”
168 RW
6’ 1”
170 RW
6’ 2”
172 RW
6’ 3”
174 RW
6’ 4”
176 RW
6’ 5”
178 RW
6’ 6”
180 RW
6’ 7”
182 RW

Note that the table doesn't mean every racquet that has said recoil weight(s) will work for said player height. No, too many different ratios of weight, balance, and swingweight can arrive at any single recoil. What it does posit is that your best recoil will be somewhere within range of the specified recoil weight; and from there it's about finding the right ratios of wt., b/p, and SW for you. So the table isn't some kind of end-all but instead aims to provide a good starting point.

I don't yet have a large enough sample size to be sure if my estimates are accurate. So far they seem to be, at least among players for whom I have consulted. So if anyone has any feedback about whether their own best recoil weights match these ranges (or not), I'd appreciate your posting it. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
For those wondering what @Power Player and I are talking about re. “the other thread,” it’s a table I developed of apt recoil weight per a player’s height. Each height listed below carries a 5 point range of deviation: as much as 2 points down for beginners, and 3 points up for advanced players.

Apt Racquet Recoil Weight per Player Height (as an indicator of arm length)
4’10”
140 RW
4’11”
142 RW
5’ 0”
144 RW
5’ 1”
146 RW
5’ 2”
148 RW
5’ 3”
150 RW
5’ 4”
152 RW
5’ 5”
154 RW
5’ 6”
156 RW
5’ 7”
158 RW
5’ 8”
160 RW
5’ 9”
162 RW
5’10”
164 RW
5’11”
166 RW
6’ 0”
168 RW
6’ 1”
170 RW
6’ 2”
172 RW
6’ 3”
174 RW
6’ 4”
176 RW
6’ 5”
178 RW
6’ 6”
180 RW
6’ 7”
182 RW

Note that the table doesn't mean every racquet that has said recoil weight(s) will work for said player height. No, too many different ratios of weight, balance, and swingweight can arrive at any single recoil. What it does posit is that your best recoil will be somewhere within range of the specified recoil weight; and from there it's about finding the right ratios of wt., b/p, and SW for you. So the table isn't some kind of end-all but instead aims to provide an good starting point.

I don't yet have a large enough sample size to be sure if my estimates are accurate. So far they seem to be, at least among players for whom I have consulted. So if anyone who here has any feedback about whether their own best recoil weights match these ranges (or not), I'd appreciate your posting it. Thanks!

Really great stuff. Any chance you can plot some of the most popular rackets next to to those ranges so we have a good reference point?
 

Dragy

Legend
For those wondering what @Power Player and I are talking about re. “the other thread,” it’s a table I developed of apt recoil weight per a player’s height. Each height listed below carries a 5 point range of deviation: as much as 2 points down for beginners, and 3 points up for advanced players.

Apt Racquet Recoil Weight per Player Height (as an indicator of arm length)
4’10”
140 RW
4’11”
142 RW
5’ 0”
144 RW
5’ 1”
146 RW
5’ 2”
148 RW
5’ 3”
150 RW
5’ 4”
152 RW
5’ 5”
154 RW
5’ 6”
156 RW
5’ 7”
158 RW
5’ 8”
160 RW
5’ 9”
162 RW
5’10”
164 RW
5’11”
166 RW
6’ 0”
168 RW
6’ 1”
170 RW
6’ 2”
172 RW
6’ 3”
174 RW
6’ 4”
176 RW
6’ 5”
178 RW
6’ 6”
180 RW
6’ 7”
182 RW

Note that the table doesn't mean every racquet that has said recoil weight(s) will work for said player height. No, too many different ratios of weight, balance, and swingweight can arrive at any single recoil. What it does posit is that your best recoil will be somewhere within range of the specified recoil weight; and from there it's about finding the right ratios of wt., b/p, and SW for you. So the table isn't some kind of end-all but instead aims to provide an good starting point.

I don't yet have a large enough sample size to be sure if my estimates are accurate. So far they seem to be, at least among players for whom I have consulted. So if anyone who here has any feedback about whether their own best recoil weights match these ranges (or not), I'd appreciate your posting it. Thanks!
How would you guys match it with Mgr/I? I mean, you can get a 170 RW frame and then slap 20g of lead right at the balance point. It will bump up mass quite a bit and SW (“just a bit”), generally slowing down the racquet without boosting RW. But possibly speeding up the “coming through” part around impact for those who manages to still accelerate that stick?

I mean I don’t suggest throwing in extra 20g to the throat, but more of consider how 320g vs 360g frames with same RW play differently (in connection with player’s height)
 

Wheelz

Hall of Fame
For those wondering what @Power Player and I are talking about re. “the other thread,” it’s a table I developed of apt recoil weight per a player’s height. Each height listed below carries a 5 point range of deviation: as much as 2 points down for beginners, and 3 points up for advanced players.

Apt Racquet Recoil Weight per Player Height (as an indicator of arm length)
4’10”
140 RW
4’11”
142 RW
5’ 0”
144 RW
5’ 1”
146 RW
5’ 2”
148 RW
5’ 3”
150 RW
5’ 4”
152 RW
5’ 5”
154 RW
5’ 6”
156 RW
5’ 7”
158 RW
5’ 8”
160 RW
5’ 9”
162 RW
5’10”
164 RW
5’11”
166 RW
6’ 0”
168 RW
6’ 1”
170 RW
6’ 2”
172 RW
6’ 3”
174 RW
6’ 4”
176 RW
6’ 5”
178 RW
6’ 6”
180 RW
6’ 7”
182 RW

Note that the table doesn't mean every racquet that has said recoil weight(s) will work for said player height. No, too many different ratios of weight, balance, and swingweight can arrive at any single recoil. What it does posit is that your best recoil will be somewhere within range of the specified recoil weight; and from there it's about finding the right ratios of wt., b/p, and SW for you. So the table isn't some kind of end-all but instead aims to provide an good starting point.

I don't yet have a large enough sample size to be sure if my estimates are accurate. So far they seem to be, at least among players for whom I have consulted. So if anyone who here has any feedback about whether their own best recoil weights match these ranges (or not), I'd appreciate your posting it. Thanks!
I'm 5'7... I have what I call my OG specs. Specs that I used the more often and also often come back to. 160RW... not bad ! So let's say I ended up at 166 and wanted to go lower RW, there are no other ways except to lower SW ? Or removing weight from end cap, but I have none there.

Poor Diego (schwartzman)... Isn't he at like 200rw.
 

Dragy

Legend
I'm 5'7... I have what I call my OG specs. Specs that I used the more often and also often come back to. 160RW... not bad ! So let's say I ended up at 166 and wanted to go lower RW, there are no other ways except to lower SW ? Or removing weight from end cap, but I have none there.

Poor Diego (schwartzman)... Isn't he at like 200rw.
Pick a light platform frame, build up to the SW you need and check RW with as HH balance you end up with. If RW ends up too low, counterbalance at buttcap until you get target RW (balance point will drift towards the handle during the process).

Disclaimer: this is purely technical suggestion with no assumptions on whether such a stick will play well for you!
 

Wheelz

Hall of Fame
Pick a light platform frame, build up to the SW you need and check RW with as HH balance you end up with. If RW ends up too low, counterbalance at buttcap until you get target RW (balance point will drift towards the handle during the process).

Disclaimer: this is purely technical suggestion with no assumptions on whether such a stick will play well for you!
I understand that. My statement was base in my current stick (s). RW is not easy to change unless you want to lower SW or remove weight on the end cap which I don’t have. I thought I could add weight at the 20cm mark but that doesn’t change RW
 

Dragy

Legend
I understand that. My statement was base in my current stick (s). RW is not easy to change unless you want to lower SW or remove weight on the end cap which I don’t have. I thought I could add weight at the 20cm mark but that doesn’t change RW
No, you cannot reduce RW by adding weight. Though you can improve Mgr/I, which might make RH come around faster when it goes out of the "drag" aka lag phase of the swing. But if this extra mass is too much and makes your arm slower, it would be detrimenal. Also consider "other shots" where the dynamics of racquet coming around is less important, while mass and SW is.

I believe dynamics (low RW, MgR/I high closer to 21) is most important on FH and serve. Least important on volleys, slices and block shots. BH is somewhere in the middle.
 

Brando

Professional
How would you guys match it with Mgr/I? I mean, you can get a 170 RW frame and then slap 20g of lead right at the balance point. It will bump up mass quite a bit and SW (“just a bit”), generally slowing down the racquet without boosting RW. But possibly speeding up the “coming through” part around impact for those who manages to still accelerate that stick?

I mean I don’t suggest throwing in extra 20g to the throat, but more of consider how 320g vs 360g frames with same RW play differently (in connection with player’s height)
Hi @Dragy, happy to make your acquaintance. You obviously know your stuff. If I get it, you're asking how I’d reconcile the fact that if you add a whopping 40 grams of lead near the balance point of a 320 gram racquet, you’d end up with the same recoil weight and yet the frame would play so differently as to make the equal recoil meaningless, right?

Take a racquet with specs: 320g, 32.5 cm, 320 SW = 158 RW, 20.56 MgR/I
Now add 40 grams at 30 cm (in the throat) and you get 360g, 32.22 cm, 336 SW = 158.26 RW, 21.38 MgR/I

Meanwhile, looking at this exhibition of your question, we can see that the MgR/I increases significantly, making it a far more accurate measure of weight distribution. Is that what you’re saying too?

If so, I can’t technically refute your point.

But here’s the thing. The vast majority of players on these boards don’t understand MgR/I well enough to practically use it to their benefit. Moreover, most of them don’t customize their racquets. And if they do, they’re not adding the amounts of weight the pros do, the amounts that begin to make MgR/I an essential unit of measure. (And I think you know what I mean.)

So my table isn’t meant to be useful for pros and their racquet techs. It’s meant for amateurs looking for the right retail racquets for them. Most of these frames are similar enough in weight and weight distribution that the more understandable measure of recoil weight is more useful and practical than MgR/I.

Too, I specified in post #25 that many different combinations of weight, balance, and SW can result in the same recoil weight, so it's important that one understand one's limitations and preferences in terms of these input measures. Meaning all racquets having one's target RW won't be right for you, but only the frames that aren't too heavy or heavily swing-weighted. Does that make sense?
 
Last edited:

happyandbob

Legend
Advanced players care about recoil, and here’s why. Swingweight, twist weight, and recoil weight (also called ‘hitting weight’) all measure the inertia of a racquet along different axes or planes. Recoil weight shares the same plane as swingweight but its axis is the balance point (vs. the hand), and that makes it a piece of the racquet puzzle you never knew you were missing. RW measures how close a frame’s weighting is to its poles. The higher the recoil, the more polarized it is.

Polarity matters because it very much affects a racquet’s behavior. For instance, weighting at the tip adds polarity, placing mass as close to the sweetspot as it can be, resulting in maximal increase (per gram added) in power and plow through at ball contact. The wider this weight is spread over the tip, the more twist weight it adds, meaning more stability on off center hits. Add counterweight on the handle or, most efficiently, under the butt, and you add inertial stability, enabling you to swing-through with less effort.

To any player this all sounds pretty good. So why isn’t every racquet polarized? Two reasons.

First, while polarization may make a frame swing more efficiently (as in power from effort), it also makes it harder to swing accurately. The very definition of “unwieldy,” truly polarized racquets require consistent, advanced form to bring them through because it takes more energy to get their generally weightier hoops moving. So you have to swing early, much earlier than with a depolarized frame; which is weighted more evenly, making the hoop come through faster.* Since amateurs prefer ease in their swing over efficiency, especially if it costs consistency, makers tend to make less polarized racquets.

The second reason for depolarized frames is that the length of a player’s arm can determine their preferred RW. Longer armed players tend to prefer the pulling-a-hoop feel of high RW. Shorter armed players prefer the pushing-a-handle feel of low RW. Why? The arm swings a racquet as the lever in a double-pendulum with its pivot points being the shoulder and wrist.

The longer your arm, the faster it’ll bring the racquet head through, causing it to pivot forward to meet the ball too soon and at too sharp an angle. So taller players prefer frames with more hoop-lag so as to meet the ball in front with a stable (open) wrist. Weight closer to the tip and/or tail (polarizing weight) slows down the hoop so as to increase that lag for longer arms. For shorter arms, the racquet head comes through slower, the hoop more naturally lagging the handle. These players then prefer lower recoil for increased racquet head speed with less lag.

Are there exceptions to these “rules?” Sure, and they abound among the pros, with their higher weights and swingweights. Amateurs, though, can use these principles to get an idea of where to start hunting their best recoil weight. It’s no coincidence that the height of the average player (male and female) is 5' 7" [170cm] and the average RW of the top-20 selling frames of 2022 is a middle of the road 158 (with a standard deviation of 7).

The ideal recoil weight for a polarized frame is 170 or more while ideally depolarized frames measure 150 or less. To calculate a racquet’s RW, you only need to know its weight, balance point and swingweight (SW):
SW - (wt. in kg × (balance [in cm] - 10)²) = Recoil Weight

Or you can use Impacting Tennis’ handy Customization Calculator by joining the site, which costs nothing but giving them your email address (well worth it because they won’t sell your edress; at least they haven’t sold mine.)

ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL (and exceptions assumed)

Polarized racquets (165 - 180 RW+) are recoil-stable (more forgiving of horizontally off-center hits), require more precise timing (due to lag), and produce more power. They can also produce more spin and sharper hitting angles. Heavier racquets tend to be more polarized, with more mass distributed where it's needed at the impact point and under the hand as counterbalance.

Depolarized racquets (155 - 140 RW-) tend to be lighter and more torsion-stable (higher twist weighted), hitting a flatter ball and allowing more precise tuning of depth. While easier to swing, they translate more impact shock to the arm since lacking the mass to absorb vibration. Polarized frames, having more mass near the impact point and/or under the hand, absorb more vibration. (Tecnifibre fills its mostly depolarized frames with foam to soften this shock.)

Customizer Note: increasing the SW to weight ratio increases RW, as does lowering balance via tail weighting because both increase polarization.

* Polarization’s hoop-lag effect can be understood from the analogy of swinging a plain iron rod of equal weight and length with a rod ‘barbelled’ at each end. The barbelled rod will be harder to get moving, and so will lag your swing but release more energy on whatever it hits.

interesting concept. I'm having all of the racquet data scraped from the TWU compare racquets tool and will calculate recoil weight for every racquet in the compare tool. Will put into google sheet and share here.
 

Brando

Professional
Holy Shiita, @happyandbob! What a database! Am retiring to examine it now...

And, @Saitamaxpunch1, yours is a keen observation. There are 2 reasons "it looks like tennis is for shorter people."
  1. With more women playing as a proportion of the total tennis population, the average player’s height has gradually moved down.
  2. All other things equal, lower recoil frames are easier to swing. The average player then tends to enjoy the feel of these frames, so racquet makers make more of them.
 
Last edited:

Trip

Legend
@Brando - Great work on this, and perhaps a bit fateful to stumble upon it just as I started a "spec up" experiment with my Prestige MP-L's (usually spec'd at 340g/31.5cm/327sw/170rw), but today tried 345g/31.7cm/337sw/174rw, and it played much better than anticipated. The added SW and RW did take a toll on endurance, rather noticeably after the first few games, but I hung in there with it and by the end of the first set, once I had loosened up, dialed in my timing and let the racquet's added mass and inertia take over more of the swing, I was playing quite well with it, dare I say it felt even a bit more natural. Even more interesting is that my height of 6'2" roughly lines up with your Apt RW per Height chart, once factoring in I'm a decent level, still pretty strong and fit, and also have a pretty long wing span as well.

TL;DR - Obviously, the danger here is equating correlation with causation, but it's an interesting proposed relationship nonetheless, and I'm going to look more into it as I experiment further with different weights and balances.
 

Tranqville

Professional
@Brando Even more interesting is that my height of 6'2" roughly lines up with your Apt RW per Height chart, once factoring in I'm a decent level, still pretty strong and fit, and also have a pretty long wing span as well.

Interesting, I'm also 6'2'' with long wing span, usually play with 337 SW (PST), OHBH, and interested in pretty much same class of frames (power-control). While I have no problems with endurance playing 337 SW, I found 330 SW to work better for me on the serve return and in defence situations, and my recent match results back that up.
 

Brando

Professional
Interesting indeed, @Tranqville. At 6'1" I found my huckleberry at 170 RW with 333 SW. Before I'd worked up the model but after I'd suspected a principle happening, I swung 174 with 338 and it gave me such a nice power / control combo that I didn't realize the toll in swing speed after two sets. Like @Trip's experience at 174 RW, it was a matter of endurance. The point being that dropping a mere 4 recoil weight points and 5 swingweight points made a significant difference to me, so much that it shocked me. Somewhere in my mind, I'd wondered how small change in specs could actually make a difference. 'Turns out it was smaller than I'd thought.
 
Last edited:

Power Player

Bionic Poster
Played a match with the new Pure Aero today and kept thinking how nicely it played and how I really didn't have to think about anything out there except where to place the ball. I added a little weight to the handle, and that was pretty much it. Just threw the specs into the Recoil formula and it is almost bang on where I should be for my height. Pretty wild.
 

Brando

Professional
Thanks for reporting in, @Power Player. I’ll add your result to my database. Wild indeed!

@Dragy’s post #30 above is a perfect recitation of how expert customizers (and Dragy is one) approach their craft:
Pick a light platform frame, build up to the SW you need and check RW with as HH balance you end up with. If RW ends up too low, counterbalance at buttcap until you get target RW (balance point will drift towards the handle during the process).

Disclaimer: this is purely technical suggestion with no assumptions on whether such a stick will play well for you!
What I’m proposing is a new paradigm where you pick a light platform frame with a recoil weight lower than that indicated for your height in my table in post #25 (if you’re planning to add weight). Then if SW is too low, add tip weight until you get to your target SW. Counterbalance with tail weight to significantly drop balance and raise RW (if not MgR/I). Or counterbalance with handle wt. at 20cm to significantly raise MgR/I (while more moderately dropping balance and raising RW).

Why start with RW instead of SW? Because RW directly correlates with arm length, which is not so for SW. Why? Because RW more accurately measures weight distribution at both ends, while SW is skewed toward measuring one. And it’s that ‘both ends’ part that makes a racquet come through true or false for the player.

Unlike Dr. Dragy and his wise disclaimer, I'm just stupid enough to assert that this paradigm will find you a stick that’ll play better for you. 'Wanna prove me wrong? Go for it. All I ask is that you report your setup and results here...
 
Last edited:

forzamr_b

Rookie
I've been collecting data on my tennis performance, racket specs, and string set-ups etc. the past year and thought I'll explore the impact of recoil weight on my tennis performance. My very preliminary findings have been interesting...



Methodology:

  • I referenced @Brando's RW table to derive my ideal RW range (-2 to +3 of ideal RW) based on my height.
  • I categorized racket set-ups based on their RW into "< Ideal RW", "Ideal RW", or "> Ideal RW" categories.
  • Through my year of data collection, I've also come to understand that my preferred racket specs are strung static weight of between 330g to 340g, strung swing weight of 325 to 330, and racket balance must be at least 6HL. These specs offer me the best combination of manoeuvrability, stability, plow through, power, and swing mechanics (based on how easily my racket swings through the air). Hence, I categorized racket set-ups that met my ideal RW range as well as my other preferred specs as "Ideal Specs" and categorized all others as "Others".
  • I used boxplots to chart these categories of RW and Ideal Specs against outcome metrics I had been collecting such as % points won, % games won, serve in %, matches (won vs lost) etc.
Findings:

  • Outcome metrics generally showed the same pattern, with some metrics having greater differentials than others. Note, I've only showcased my % points won metric (see graphs below) in this post.
  • I have played with my "ideal specs" and ideal RW set-ups very infrequently (see caveats for implication).
  • Interestingly, my preferred racket (PS 6.0 95) is the only racket model to have had my ideal specs set-up. Again, another instance of triangulation of data with my subjective preferences.
  • These very preliminary findings suggest that RW, particularly, when used in combination with other important racket specs (as recommended by @Brando), is associated with better performance.
  • RW and SW have been the most useful specs for performance, more so than Mgr/I, MR^2, effective mass, and polarization index.
My next steps:

  1. Tune as many of my rackets as possible to my ideal specs.
  2. Play them and collect more data to see if this observation holds.
Caveats:

  • I returned to tennis a year ago, so general progression in my tennis ability is a possible confound. Particularly because I played with different racket set-ups in different phases of my return to tennis.
  • Relatedly, as I got better, I also played with better opponents.
  • As a NTRP 4.0 player, my samples for 3.0 and 3.5 rated opponents are small.
  • I've only played with my ideal specs set-up on 4 occasions (thrice against 4.0 and once against 3.5 rated players) and they were more recent sessions (guess it is a testament to how data and my subjective experience together has helped me home in on my preferences). So, at this point, I cannot rule out that my "ideal specs" results are pure coincidence.
  • Apart of racket specs, I've also been tinkering with rackets and strings.
My charts:

 
Last edited:

aaron_h27

Hall of Fame
For those wondering what @Power Player and I are talking about re. “the other thread,” it’s a table I developed of apt recoil weight per a player’s height. Each height listed below carries a 5 point range of deviation: as much as 2 points down for beginners, and 3 points up for advanced players.

Apt Racquet Recoil Weight per Player Height (as an indicator of arm length)
4’10”
140 RW
4’11”
142 RW
5’ 0”
144 RW
5’ 1”
146 RW
5’ 2”
148 RW
5’ 3”
150 RW
5’ 4”
152 RW
5’ 5”
154 RW
5’ 6”
156 RW
5’ 7”
158 RW
5’ 8”
160 RW
5’ 9”
162 RW
5’10”
164 RW
5’11”
166 RW
6’ 0”
168 RW
6’ 1”
170 RW
6’ 2”
172 RW
6’ 3”
174 RW
6’ 4”
176 RW
6’ 5”
178 RW
6’ 6”
180 RW
6’ 7”
182 RW

Note that the table doesn't mean every racquet that has said recoil weight(s) will work for said player height. No, too many different ratios of weight, balance, and swingweight can arrive at any single recoil. What it does posit is that your best recoil will be somewhere within range of the specified recoil weight; and from there it's about finding the right ratios of wt., b/p, and SW for you. So the table isn't some kind of end-all but instead aims to provide a good starting point.

I don't yet have a large enough sample size to be sure if my estimates are accurate. So far they seem to be, at least among players for whom I have consulted. So if anyone has any feedback about whether their own best recoil weights match these ranges (or not), I'd appreciate your posting it. Thanks!

Is this also because geneally the smaller the player the less static weight they can use?
 

happyandbob

Legend
I'm 5' 9". According to your chart, my ideal RW is 162. Here are the racquets in my current rotation (measured with a briffidi). What's the recommendation to bump up the RW of one of the Ezone 100s? Where should weight be added? The racquet I currently like best is the Ezone 100+ (but I just traded for the 98+ but haven't hit with it yet).

RacquetStrung WtStrung BalStrung SWStrung RW
2020 Ezone 100
334.2​
31.6​
311​
155​
2020 Ezone 100
334.2​
31.5​
312​
157​
Blade 104 v7
333.4​
31​
315​
168​
2020 Ezone 100+
323.8​
33.4​
333​
155​
2020 Ezone 98+
322.6​
33.4​
334​
158​
Steam 99S
331​
31.9​
313​
154​
 

Dragy

Legend
I'm 5' 9". According to your chart, my ideal RW is 162. Here are the racquets in my current rotation (measured with a briffidi). What's the recommendation to bump up the RW of one of the Ezone 100s? Where should weight be added? The racquet I currently like best is the Ezone 100+ (but I just traded for the 98+ but haven't hit with it yet).

RacquetStrung WtStrung BalStrung SWStrung RW
2020 Ezone 100
334.2​
31.6​
311​
155​
2020 Ezone 100
334.2​
31.5​
312​
157​
Blade 104 v7
333.4​
31​
315​
168​
2020 Ezone 100+
323.8​
33.4​
333​
155​
2020 Ezone 98+
322.6​
33.4​
334​
158​
Steam 99S
331​
31.9​
313​
154​
Obvious suggestion will be to bump SW by adding lead to the tip. This will make it swing more like the 100+

Meanwhile you may want to consider if you need your handles weighted so much. Your favorite Ezone 100+ had significantly different balance.
 

Power Player

Bionic Poster
I'm 5' 9". According to your chart, my ideal RW is 162. Here are the racquets in my current rotation (measured with a briffidi). What's the recommendation to bump up the RW of one of the Ezone 100s? Where should weight be added? The racquet I currently like best is the Ezone 100+ (but I just traded for the 98+ but haven't hit with it yet).

RacquetStrung WtStrung BalStrung SWStrung RW
2020 Ezone 100
334.2​
31.6​
311​
155​
2020 Ezone 100
334.2​
31.5​
312​
157​
Blade 104 v7
333.4​
31​
315​
168​
2020 Ezone 100+
323.8​
33.4​
333​
155​
2020 Ezone 98+
322.6​
33.4​
334​
158​
Steam 99S
331​
31.9​
313​
154​

For the 100 you can add 4 grams to the handle. Should bring the balance to 31.0 even and your RW will be there. No need to mess with the SW at all.
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm 5' 9". According to your chart, my ideal RW is 162. Here are the racquets in my current rotation (measured with a briffidi). What's the recommendation to bump up the RW of one of the Ezone 100s? Where should weight be added? The racquet I currently like best is the Ezone 100+ (but I just traded for the 98+ but haven't hit with it yet).

RacquetStrung WtStrung BalStrung SWStrung RW
2020 Ezone 100
334.2​
31.6​
311​
155​
2020 Ezone 100
334.2​
31.5​
312​
157​
Blade 104 v7
333.4​
31​
315​
168​
2020 Ezone 100+
323.8​
33.4​
333​
155​
2020 Ezone 98+
322.6​
33.4​
334​
158​
Steam 99S
331​
31.9​
313​
154​
There are more ways to add to RW than you can shake a stick at. I would rather add the least amount of weight and not change the balance. You can do that by adding equal amounts of weight at 12 and the butt. I = mr^2 calculate the distance @ 12 and the butt from the BP. Assume it is 32 cm to make it easy. If you want to increase RW by 4 points 4 = m*32*32 or 4/(32*32) = m so mass to add is 3.9 g or 1.95 g at the butt and 12.
 

Brando

Professional
I’ll only illustrate @Irvin’s point by translating @Dragy and @Power Player's proscriptions into #s on @happyandbob's frames:
2020 Ezone 100 #1 + Dragy’s 5 grams of tip-weight →
339g, 32.13cm, 327.5 SW, 161.4 RW, 20.89 MgR/I

2020 Ezone 100 #2 + Power Player’s 4g. of tail-weight →
338g, 31.14cm, 312.3 SW, 161.2 RW, 21.11 MgR/I

Together these expert recommendations highlight how important it is to know your weight & balance preferences / limitations when it comes to ‘The Big-3’ measures, given how two TOTALLY different approaches to adding weight can result in the same recoil weight.

I can practically hear Dragy say, “Hey, that’s why I called out the importance of MgR/I in post #28!” And he’d be right to say it. (Indeed, I keep trying to keep this simple for amateur use but MgR/I keeps pulling me back in! Ha-hah!)
 
Last edited:
Top