I think that this means that, ceteris paribus, tip awareness is inversely proportional to recoil weight...?
Which would also mean that, ceteris paribus, tip awareness is directly proportional to the balance point distance...?
Who Cares about Recoil Weight?
- Thread starter Brando
- Start date
I think that this means that, ceteris paribus, tip awareness is inversely proportional to recoil weight...?
Which would also mean that, ceteris paribus, tip awareness is directly proportional to the balance point distance...?
forzmr_b
Rookie
Yes, SW was at the upper limit of my preference!
Brando
Professional
No. What I was saying was simply that if we want to increase RW without increasing SW, tail-weighting (like you did) is the most effective way to do it. But this lowers the balance point, which at a certain point, can cost you tip awareness. If you want to get that back, then you can do some combination of decreasing the tailweight and/or adding tip weight. The tip weight, of course, will add swingweight, which might defeat the original purpose, but a very little tip weight (or weight at 9&3) can significantly increase balance and restore lost hoop awareness. ‘Make sense?
Yes, that makes sense. Thank you.
If I was trying to evaluate the effect that RW has on my tennis strokes, then minimizing changes in other racquet parameters makes sense to me.
I want to end my quest for the "best racquet/setup" for me, as it is exhausting and stress inducing. I am seeking "reproducible" results that I can repeatedly rely on for comparing one racquet to another.
@Brando I am not trying to troll you, and I am very thankful for the work that you and others have put into trying to figure out what exactly makes people "gel" with a racquet. If you are ultimately successful, this would be the biggest advancement in tennis racquet science since composite racquets, IMHO.
For example, imagine if a youtube racquet reviewer had the same "specs" as you, and he only reviewed the new racquet’s tuned to "your specs"...
Brando
Professional
Sweet of you to say so, @Klitz. If my table turns out to be accurate (or adjusted to be accurate) for a statistically large enough sample of players, it really could be something. But without players like you, who make a leap of faith to try if for themselves, it’ll fade like a fart in the wind. All to say, thank you for having the vision to see what could be…
workerONE
New User
I'm new to racket customization and I've spent 20-30 hours reading in the last couple of weeks. Recoil weight as described in this thread really pulled everything else together for me. I think it's the key that will let you relax your arm and stop muscling the ball. After reading this thread I increased my RW and am now playing a few % below my ideal RW (170 vs 176). I don't know that you need to play exactly at your ideal RW (edit: I now think you will benefit by playing at your ideal RW), but I think the closer you are the more relaxed and natural your swing will feel. I think it is part of the puzzle that needs to be considered by everyone when they pick up a racket.
Edit: don't sacrifice other aspects like balance when trying to hit your ideal RW. I did that and my game suffered.
Edit: don't sacrifice other aspects like balance when trying to hit your ideal RW. I did that and my game suffered.
Last edited:
Tranqville
Professional
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
I've been reading up on RW, and am still confounded why RW should be more relevant than SW in the context of the double pendulum model and the notion of racquet lagging relative to an accelerating arm. Consider the following thought exercise. Does the RW of a hammer change if you swing it by the head versus the handle? It doesn't, because RW is calculated by integrating the mass distribution along the long axis, and with the balance point as the origin; it is not affected by whether you grip it at the top or bottom of the stick. And to follow, what do you think will be more laggy to swing, gripping a hammer by the handle or the head? It should be obvious that gripping a hammer the normal way will be more difficult to swing because most of the inertia is concentrated at the tip, creating lag. So here we have the problem that even though the RW of a hammer doesn't change regardless of how you hold it, the ease of swinging the tool is a drastically different experience if you grip it by the head. But do you know what does change in the hammer analogy? Yup, you guessed it; it's SW. The SW of a hammer when gripped normally is WAY, WAY higher than the SW held by the head. Just as Rod Cross concluded in his published article on the double pendulum problem, RHS is primarily sensitive to SW.
Conclusion and hot take: RW matters, but not in the way suggested by many in this thread. RW is relevant to recoil stability, and hence recoil weight. It is a measure of the resistance of a racquet to rotate around its balance point when a force is applied. When discussing swing mechanics, the SW is still the primary spec of relevance.
Conclusion and hot take: RW matters, but not in the way suggested by many in this thread. RW is relevant to recoil stability, and hence recoil weight. It is a measure of the resistance of a racquet to rotate around its balance point when a force is applied. When discussing swing mechanics, the SW is still the primary spec of relevance.
Last edited:
Here we go again...Lol
SW is just one spec amongst the others, but they're all important. Balance, static weight, swing weight, twist weight, RW, MGR/I all create a marriage for a racket that a player can feel confident in.
Saying one spec is more important than other is just taking a step back, why do this when we have more knowledge than say 10-20 years ago?
The need to just be a contrarian for contrarian's sake is unnecessary.
SW is just one spec amongst the others, but they're all important. Balance, static weight, swing weight, twist weight, RW, MGR/I all create a marriage for a racket that a player can feel confident in.
Saying one spec is more important than other is just taking a step back, why do this when we have more knowledge than say 10-20 years ago?
The need to just be a contrarian for contrarian's sake is unnecessary.
tennisplayinggolfer
New User
See, you almost have it! That’s the idea! When an object is thrown it pivots around its balance point. The loose, properly sequenced swing and especially serve is essentially a throw of the racket without letting it go so the fact that RW is measured around the balance point is precisely why it’s one of the most important, if not the, specs to know. A higher RW resists the rotation more than a lower RW as you stated. That’s why a taller person’s longer and SLOWER arm wants a higher RW so that the frame doesn’t release too early when swung loose and free, as a swing is meant to be. Similarly a shorter person’s shorter and FASTER arm wants a lower RW to release at the proper moment for their length of arm. Having the right RW for your arm length really opens up a player’s ability to have serve pop and reliability as well as a heavy ball that jumps off the court on groundstrokes. It takes some understanding of physics and proper loose, well sequenced technique to fully appreciate this idea.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
I like different specs for horizontal motions like groundstrokes/volleys and overhead motions like overheads/serves. Rare for me when comparing two racquets to like them to the same extent for horizontal and vertical shots. Generally the racquet I pick will be a compromise where maybe I hit groundstrokes/volleys better with it, but don’t serve as well or vice versa. Sometimes even the racquet that is best for kick serves (a bit more of a sideways swing) is different from the one that is best for flat serves (more of a forward swing). Even flat groundstrokes can feel different with a racquet than a heavy topspin shot with much more vertical momentum rather than forward momentum.
When you are swinging the racquet in different axes, it makes sense that different specs are more or less important in each situation.
When you are swinging the racquet in different axes, it makes sense that different specs are more or less important in each situation.
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
Alright, your argument is the first that makes sense to me, that there are elements of the modern swing path where the racquet, held and swung loosely, is rotating around its balance point. I hadn't considered this angle before, so thanks. No thanks to the other poster who can't tolerate disagreement for a topic that's controversial to begin with.
Last edited:
Except this was already explained several times in this thread and even in the OP. Is it really that hard to go back and read a few pages of this thread? and do your own experimenting? If you want to debunk the theory that a lot of time was spent on, its going to take more than some bad math calculations. Do your due diligence like @Brando if you want to come up with a new theory.
What is so controversial about this topic? You take some lead tape and try it out, if it works awesome, if it doesn't then discard the information. Who's making money off Recoil Weight?
Last edited:
tennisplayinggolfer
New User
Please believe me when I say was extremely skeptical when I first discovered this concept. Also, your point about the hammer makes sense intuitively but in practice may not work. Try this similar experiment. Take a golf club and flip it upside down, holding it by the head. When swung this way it is very difficult to get the club to “release” or pivot around its balance point. Held the standard way it is much easier, often a problem amateur golfers struggle with, to “release” or pivot around the balance point.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
I have a problem with equating swing speed with arm length. If you take two theoretical players with exactly the same technique, skill level and experience, maybe it is true. In reality, swing speed depends on the technique and skill level of the player including how well they use their body coil/kinetic chain etc. A tall college/pro player is going to have a hell of a lot of swing speed compared to a short beginner/low level rec player. Also what about how strong or muscular the arm is - does it not matter whether it is a 12-year old’s scrawny arm or Nadal’s muscular arm as long as they are the same arm length? I questioned this earlier in this thread whether swing speed based on technical expertise/athletic skill, power/muscularity/weight of the arm matters as much as length and I don’t know why arm length is being isolated.
Last edited:
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
I read the OP several times. Where does it state that the racquet sometimes rotates around its balance point in the swing path?
I made some bad arithmetic several pages ago because I plugged in the wrong numbers into the correct equation; it was embarrassing but it happens to everyone. I'm not a mathematician, but I'd venture to say that my ability to reason mathematically and understand physics is probably not nearly as bad as you think.
I used to attend academic conferences during my PhD program. After every talk, people in the audience ask questions, often challenging the results presented by the researchers. Imagine if they responded, "I put in a ton of work into this research, so don't challenge me or ask questions until you have done the experiments yourself!" If I had done that, after spending 7 years researching in a lab, I'm pretty sure my thesis committee wouldn't have let me earn the degree.
The topic in this thread is technical, invoking discussions on physics. A theory was proposed without a clear "technical" argument for its validity; and when perfectly valid questions were asked by myself and others who are skeptical of the theory, satisfactory answers were not given. I'm not surprised that the inventor of the Briffidi is unconvinced; I'm still not convinced either but am trying to keep an open mind. What will convince me is not anecdotal evidence; it'll have to be sound argument based on physics, because physics is not susceptible to placebo.
No one here cares if you're convinced or not which is what you're not getting, RW is just another racket spec to be aware of (alongside SW, static wt, etc...) so that we consumers can make educated purchasing decisions when buying rackets. It has helped people and also hasn't helped others. Why you need it to be black and white so badly is weird.
I don't fully understand/comrephend MGR/I tuning or SW2 fully but I don't go around spamming in that thread saying "CONVINCE ME THIS WORKS".
Last edited:
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
The thing is, the golf club's RW doesn't change regardless of how you hold it. So what's changing?
Also, I really can't envision a golf club's swing path ever involving a rotation around its balance point. That would look really weird. Here is Tiger swinging:tennisplayinggolfer
New User
I do not fully disagree with you here. I think a big part of it is we, as humans, can adapt to different ones but the RW theory helps get us close without needing to adapt to something that may be unnatural and require more practice that a player like Nadal does but us Rec players do not. Very valid point imo
How about you just try it and report back instead of just trying to debunk the theory without trying it. SMHThe thing is, the golf club's RW doesn't change regardless of how you hold it. So what's changing?
Less reading and more testing on court. Then report back to us. Thanks
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
Says the guy on a forum (where people read stuff) who told me to not be lazy and read 14 pages of "stuff," a lot of which actually comprises him telling other people to read the thread as a response to their questions. Also, who's us? Is this an exclusive club now?
bananavanman
New User
but why not just test it out? all this discussion from you on theory, but 0 experiments. theory is great, experience is better. go feel the difference, if you don't think RW makes a difference in your swing you can torch this thread.
we amateurs in the dark can try to unravel the mysteries of a tennis swing all day, but the proof is in the experience. I appreciate anyone putting forth ideas to help us reach greater understanding, with full knowledge that we are mere mortals and make mistakes. RW, TW, SW, MGRi, bring them all out into the light.
I don't think it's useful to try and poke holes in these ideas (repeatedly) because you simply don't agree theoretically. if you put as much time into debunking this as you would into testing it, you would already have beaten Sinner.
Lmao
workerONE
New User
The original post says "The longer your arm, the faster it’ll bring the racquet head through..."
Some of you are speculating as to why that would be, or missing the point.
If a short person and a tall person swing their arms at the same speed measured at the shoulder, the taller person's hand will move faster than the shorter person's hand even though their arms are moving at exactly the same speed.
Similarly, a tall person's hand will be moving faster than their forearm.
Some of you are speculating as to why that would be, or missing the point.
If a short person and a tall person swing their arms at the same speed measured at the shoulder, the taller person's hand will move faster than the shorter person's hand even though their arms are moving at exactly the same speed.
Similarly, a tall person's hand will be moving faster than their forearm.
Last edited:
This model does not seem to apply to Western grip. What is the noticeable effect I'm supposed to have?
Also can any formula experts tell me why my swing speed increases with higher swing weight?
I think most "common" knowledge is outdated and based on eastern strokes, so it's good that people are trying new things.
Also can any formula experts tell me why my swing speed increases with higher swing weight?
I think most "common" knowledge is outdated and based on eastern strokes, so it's good that people are trying new things.
Last edited:
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Not meant as a look at me, but here is a video breakdown of my broken down forehand lol, well, it's actually decently reliable and not a liability, but there is room for improvement. Anyway, I have an eastern FH so maybe it will add to the murmers of discussing eastern forehands. Unfortunately, I am often pushing and not pulling, but I plan to evolve into a pulling forehand. I've always been able to make changes quickly in my strokes if given roadmap. Anyway, feel free to ignore if it's not flowing with the discussion.
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
I'm testing out "the theory" today on my Prestige Classic 2.0. Adding 6 g of lead to both the tip and tail will bring the RW to 176 (I'm 6'4") and SW to a monstrous 350. Will share a video of before and after.
I would think taller people would prefer a higher twist weight...
I also don't see how one can attribute preferences from such a large difference in spec to recoil weight directly...
I have 3 different rackets with the same recoil weight (at what is supposed to be good for me) and I like or dislike each for different reasons... what is the commonality I am supposed to find in them?
Last edited:
Women use higher twistweights than men and they're shorter on average.
Higher twistweight is just better for stability and taking the ball on the rise, nothing to do with height. Lol
Can you post before and after full specs so we can get a full picture
Women's have higher twist weight for the nature of the game (eastern, flat) and weaker arm, which I'd imagine taller guys also have due to lower swing speed and flatter play. Maybe I'm wrong
Taller players can actually get away with a lower twistweight IMO, because its easier to pronate on the serve with a low twistweight. If you serve big and play the net then lower twistweight can be benefical. Doubles players use lower twistweight and headlight balance. Steve Johnson, Jack Sock, Maxime Cressy appear to be using this set-up. It's good for hard courts, not so much for clay where you have to hit a lot of ground strokes.
Yes I play like this and I'm short so I understand those benefits. It is almost impossible for me to hit a powerful flat serve with a racket that has low swing weight or high twist weight with my height.
Last edited:
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
Before: 349 g static strung, 31.8 mm balance, 328 SW, RW 162
After: 361 g static strung, 32.0 mm balance, 349 SW, RW 176
Just holding the stick already feels super heavy lol; hopefully I don't injure myself
You mean cm for balance right?
What's funny is that your before spec is nearly identical to mine. I'm 344g, 328 SW, 32.1 cm balance, RW 160. However I'm 5'7
I'm worried that you changed too many variables at once. For example static weight and SW went up significantly...balance stayed almost the same which is nice.
If there was a way for you to try 176 RW with the same static weight that would your best option
Last edited:
This spec would work better for you IMO.
350g, 31.6 cm balance, 340 SW, 176 RW
The static weight is the same, balance is similar, SW is slightly heavier at 340 but still more maneuverable than 350.
I know you are used to 21 MGR/I but it's impossible to combine that with 176 RW without going ridiculously heavy in static weight.
I'm starting to think theres some relationship between higher RW and lower MGR/I and vice versa that @Brando can expound upon.
@travlerajm theory back in the day was that shorter players should use higher MGR/I > 21 which also correlates with lower RW (assuming a 330g-350g static weight racket) and taller players should use lower MGR/I < 21 which correlates with a higher RW, assuming the static weight is in a reasonable range.
Last edited:
We are the same. For our "suggested" recoil weight after overgrip, I have demoed Radical Pro, Blade 18x20, Prince ATS 95, Pure Strike 98. These rackets are so different from each other. What playability characteristic am I supposed to be seeing that I like as a result of the recoil weight, or what do you see that has benefited you? I liked 2 of these but could have guessed which based on my preferences.
I'm finding that weight to swing weight ratio is for the most part, what matters most for me. Not sure what formula that falls into. My grip is western though.
Oh yeah rackets play differently for sure. I have the SV 95 and Ezone 98 spec'd to similar RW and they play differently because they are different rackets. Recoil weight isn't going to turn a Wilson Clash into a Pro Staff. When the recoil weight is within range I personally notice a bit extra consistency on groundstrokes and more accuracy with less effort which translates into winning a few extra points per match, I don't really notice any difference on serve. Obviously you still have to match the racket you pick to compliment your game style and how you want to play.
I still don't know if i can attribute the added consistency/ease of swing solely to RW or if MGR/I is playing some role...but I'm happy with the on court performance which is what matters in the end.
Are you not sensitive to balance at all?
With my technique, my consistency drops with head heavy rackets, so I try to stay around 6-7 pts HL.
I'm not sensitive to SW at all, and could play with a range of anything from 318-332. Anything below 315 gets to be underpowered and too light.
Last edited:
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
I have a limited number of racquets I can test this theory out with. So I'm going to stick with what I have and provide feedback. If 176 RW is ideal, I shouldn't have to tweak a bunch of other specs to make the racquet feel comfortable to swing. The fact that both the setup you suggested and the setup I made have RW of 176 is indicative that anecdotal evidence won't validate the theory, because in practice you'll almost always be confounding one spec with other specs. After customizing, how do you know that it's the increase in RW that you like or dislike? It could be the static weight increase, SW increase, or balance that also causes the difference in experience.
Last edited:
RW as a spec doesn't exist in a vacuum, sure 176 RW may be ideal but if 350 SW is too high for you or, 361g is past your static weight limit then it negates any benefit IMO. But I hope im wrong and it works for you.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try out what you already have, but if you could demo a racket and spec it out to something similar to the specs you're already using then that would be a better experiment.
I'm sure you know all about minimizing variables mr academia
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
If I do end up beating Jannik Sinner, maybe somebody should tell him that his RW of 163 is too low for his height.
PistolPete23
Hall of Fame
RW as a spec doesn't exist in a vacuum, sure 176 RW may be ideal but if 350 SW is too high for you or, 361g is past your static weight limit then it negates any benefit IMO. But I hope im wrong and it works for you.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try out what you already have, but if you could demo a racket and spec it out to something similar to the specs you're already using then that would be a better experiment.
I'm sure you know all about minimizing variables mr academia
I'm really wondering how it is that you subscribe so strongly to a theory just because it's "worked out" for you. It must have been quite a revelatory experience hitting with your ideal RW setup. I'm genuinely curious to see some before/after video footage of you hitting.
Looks like you haven't been reading my posts at all. It's hard for me to believe you're as educated as you say you are. I already explained to you just 2 replies ago that other specs need to be within your range for the "ideal RW" to even make difference and you took that as me "subscribing so strongly to this theory" I've dabbled in customization for 7 years and I enjoy learning about all racket specs not just RW.
Last edited:
I'm not sensitive to swing weight unless it's too low. I am finding I can play with lighter rackets at different balance as long as the swing weight is equal to weight or higher. What kind of grip do you use? Spin player? My preferred balance is around 7-9 hl for heavier spec rackets.
I actually use an eastern grip and one hand backhand. All court player.
Not really spin oriented I would say. I use a 95 and round poly so not looking for max spin but I like it to be there when needed.
I think that's the difference. The grip. We have same height, preferences like balance and head size, and all court oriented. I play western grip with heavy spin.
Do you use briffi TW adapter to measure twistweight? I'm curious what TW value you like
I like TW DB low to mid 14's. I know it's not the same as the briffidi measurement, but the DB gives me a general idea pretty consistently.
