Who Cares about Recoil Weight?

[Tranqville]

I feel that we need to find a magic model "golden ratio" between static weight, SW and RW. I use a simplified approach - I start with a low healthy static weight (for me it's 315g unstrung), my minimal SW 330, and minimal balance of 5HL. Next I try to find a minimal weight that I can add to that setup to get to my RW of 172, while keeping SW under 340. I actually use the same set of tools as @Brando for calculations.

 

[Brando]

When I started customizing, I used TW’s Racquet Customization Tool all the time to figure out exactly where to add weight to achieve the Big-3 spec combo I was trying to reach. I still use it today on occasion. You too, @Tranqville?

 

[Tranqville]

When I started customizing, I used TW’s Racquet Customization Tool all the time to figure out exactly where to add weight to achieve the Big-3 spec combo I was trying to reach. I still use it today on occasion. You too, @Tranqville?

Yes, same here

 

[Tehpoch]

Hey guys,
Interesting topic this Recoil Weight. It's a tricky calculation as values depend on weight distributions, so everything is a bit linked.
I performed a few tests and felt much better with a RW closer to my height.
Though, I would like to increase a bit the SW (by 10points) without impacting the RW, what is the process here? I tried to add some weight at the balance point but RW was increasing by 50% of the SW increase, so not super efficient here.

 

[Brando]

Hey @Tehpoch. A 10-point increase in SW is quite a bit. Put simply, you can't add SW without adding RW. If you do it most efficiently, then it's about adding tip weight, where RW increases in proportion with SW. ANY weight you add will add RW, even if you add it at the balance point, where it most minimally increases RW-- as you've discovered.

This means that the process of achieving such a big increase in SW without increasing RW becomes finding a racquet that starts with a higher built-in SW than you're using now while having enough of a lower RW than what your targeting to allow you room to experiment with customizations without drifting too far from your target. Make sense?

Reach out to me in Conversation with the naked Big-3 specs of your frame and the RW you're looking to reach, and I'd be happy to give you some suggestions.

 

[Tehpoch]

Yes makes total sense. Quite challenging knowing potential differences in weight between retail racket. ^^. Either pro stock, Yonex or pray.

 

[tele]

Though, I would like to increase a bit the SW (by 10points) without impacting the RW, what is the process here? I tried to add some weight at the balance point but RW was increasing by 50% of the SW increase, so not super efficient here.

Hey @Tehpoch. A 10-point increase in SW is quite a bit. Put simply, you can't add SW without adding RW. If you do it most efficiently, then it's about adding tip weight, where RW increases in proportion with SW. ANY weight you add will add RW, even if you add it at the balance point, where it most minimally increases RW-- as you've discovered.

Technically, weight placed precisely at the balance point will increase swingweight and not increase recoilweight. For example, if I place 50 grams at 32 cm on a racquet with a 32 cm balance, swingweight goes up by around 24 points, but recoil weight remains the same. You can verify using the customization worksheet tool and a RW calculator.

The problem is that strips of lead tape will go outside of the precise balance point, causing a minor increase in recoil weight.

 

[Tehpoch]

Thanks Tele, yes I understand that is why I tried to add weight at the balance point, but as you mentioned, lead tape has volume hence not perfectly at the balance point. I was more interested in the actual implementation, i.e. accounting for the actual increase in RW.
Plus, adding 50g to add 24 SW is a bit crazy, I was wondering if a process to increase SW while maintaining RW was accessible e.g. remove one overgrip and add equivalent weight to the tip.

 

[tele]

Thanks Tele, yes I understand that is why I tried to add weight at the balance point, but as you mentioned, lead tape has volume hence not perfectly at the balance point. I was more interested in the actual implementation, i.e. accounting for the actual increase in RW.
Plus, adding 50g to add 24 SW is a bit crazy, I was wondering if a process to increase SW while maintaining RW was accessible e.g. remove one overgrip and add equivalent weight to the tip.

I was not suggesting you add 50g at the balance point but was just using an example to illustrate the point about RW not increasing.

i think you would need to remove a little more from the handle than you add at 12, but moving weight from handle to tip is an option to consider if you want to keep the same RW. the swingweight and balance will both change in that case, though.

 

[Donmikan]

@Brando how does RW affect the serve?

 

[Donmikan]

Specifically, i wanna know will the racket head lag behind more than desired if, to the already optimal RW, i add 5 grams in the buttcap, increasing the RW around 5 points?What are the pros and cons of playing with higher than prescribed RW?

 

[Brando]

Assuming that you’ve played your recommended RW and found it to feel optimal or at least a significant improvement, @Donmikan, a 5 point increase from weight added under the endcap means you won’t be changing MgR/I. So you won’t feel this change nearly as much as if, say, you were adding weight to the hoop. Instead, the handle will come through a bit sluggish, making the hoop come through a bit whippier.

Depending on your service swing, this will have different consequences. So I’ll let you fill in the blanks. I’ll only add that the more advanced your serve, the better it is at helping the player evaluate their best RW because the constant of a correctly teed-up ball frees the swing up to be more loose and unguided than groundstrokes, which have to adjust to changing incoming ball trajectories and speeds. This also means a racquet's weight distribution tends to affect the serve more than any other stroke. At least, that’s my take on it.

 

[Donmikan]

@Brando i dont know how you did it, but your RW theory works. Yes, especially on the serve, every minute adjustment to the racket is very much felt. As a 6 1 male, i am currently using a 171 RW. I am a lefty too, play with an eastern forehand and a 2hbh. specs 352 weight, 32.7 balance and 352 sw, so my mgri is 20.63. i tried both lower and higher, didnt work for me. Could you please share with me how did you settle on your mgri of 20.45? which factors determine a players mgri in your opinion?

 

[Tranqville]

@Brando What do you think about the difference between classical and modern forehands (I attach a video that elaborates on the difference) as relates to your RW concept? In summary, classical forehand is more shoulder-dominant, and modern is wrist dominant. Lighter modern racquets allow for more violent acceleration around the wrist as pivot. In summary, how do we adjust RW for forehand style: classical (Sampras), modern (Kyrgios), or something in between?

 

[Josaya]

Oh. My. God. What did I stumble into here. My life will literally never be the same again (throws in figures) erm.. have been using RW of someone 7" taller than me for most of my tennis life
I thought replacing the pallet and removing all lead to to shave off 20g (and 10gSW) was going to be good enough, but am still 6RW higher. If I don't like the feel, this is going to drive me crazy trying to balance my racket to +/1 1RW hahaha

 

[Brando]

Hi, @Josaya. If you've stripped 20g of lead off your frame and it's still 6rw higher than your target, then you might want to take another route and demo a racquet that's on or just under target (such that it can be easily customized up to target) instead; of course, not just any frame but one with your preferred beam width, hoop size, string pattern, and MgR/I (as a measure of whether weight is more generally distributed toward the handle or the hoop).

But before you go to all that trouble, were you happy with the frame you've been playing with as it was? Did it swing naturally for you? If so, I say stick with it.

My table isn't for everyone. It's for players who sense that there's something "off" about their frame and they can't quite put their finger on it. It's for those looking for a frame that'll come through more effortlessly, and in so doing, enable you to swing more loosely. If you're any version of these players, start a Conversation with me, and I'll help you find an apt demo.

@Brando i dont know how you did it, but your RW theory works. Yes, especially on the serve, every minute adjustment to the racket is very much felt. As a 6 1 male, i am currently using a 171 RW. I am a lefty too, play with an eastern forehand and a 2hbh. specs 352 weight, 32.7 balance and 352 sw, so my mgri is 20.63. i tried both lower and higher, didnt work for me. Could you please share with me how did you settle on your mgri of 20.45? which factors determine a players mgri in your opinion?

I did it, @Donmikan, by measuring specs of the racquets of the best players I observed in the areas I've lived over a period of more than ten years. I reasoned that some part of these players' performance was the racquet they'd chosen. Not that it made them play better per se, but that it enabled them to swing more naturally (or at least didn't get in their way).

Meanwhile, as a fan of Racquet Tech's videos about recoil weight and travlerajm's early writings correlating arm length with MgR/I, I began to see a correlation between the height of these adept amateurs and the recoil weights of their preferred frames. When this tracked for around 70 players, I reported my findings on this forum and asked if some here would be willing to help confirm, disprove, or adjust my table toward my gaining a statistically significant sample of players.

All to say, thank you for trying it out for yourself. I'll reach out to you in Conversation toward adding your data to my database, anonymously of course, if you'd not mind sharing. In the meantime, I'm happy to share my own preferences particular to your MgR/I question.

I don't have an MgR/I in mind when approaching a racquet like I do a recoil weight. (But this doesn't make MgR/I any less important to me.) There are many different combos of Big-3 specs that apply to a given RW range. So many that most of them won't work for a given player. To narrow it down, I go by the general principle that the heavier the frame, the more weight I'll want distributed toward the handle.

All racquets, except a few beginner frames, are weighted head-light. While there’s also an almost endless variety of racquet weights, I see the ways in which mass can be distributed as falling into two general categories. Which one you’re likely to prefer often depends upon your backhand, which is why I love that you brought up yours.

If you swing a 2HBH, the higher pinch-point means you’ll want as high a swingweight as your forehand (with its lower pinch point) can effectively swing. In terms of the ratio of Big-3 specs that arrive at any particular recoil weight, this means you’ll get there via a lighter but higher swing-weighted frame. On the other hand, if you have a 1HBH, you’ll more likely want to arrive at your apt RW via a heavier but lower swing-weighted frame.

While we're both 6'1" lefties with 2HBHs, I've always preferred lighter, more Sinner-like specs like those of my Radical MPs tabled below, modded up to 171 recoil weight via a quite-low 20.19 MgR/I. The only problem? You guessed it-- my 2HBH. Not only could I swing it too fast for my own good, but it felt jarring as hell on impact. There just wasn't enough mass behind it. That's when @Djinn contacted me for customizing advice on his newly purchased Prestige Tour 2021s. When I crunched the numbers, I knew I had to try this frame for myself.

Frames w/ OG:​	Weight [g]	Balance [cm]	SW	RW	MgR/I	Polarization
360 Radical MP	325​	32.4​	333​	170.9​	20.19​	0.53​
Prestige Tour 2021	333​	32​	331​	170.2​	20.45​	0.51​

The funny thing is how, with a mere 8-grams more weight than the Radical, the Tour feels like a completely different beast. And the difference can be seen in MgR/I. I didn't go for 20.45. My intent was to play with just a bit more mass than I was playing at the time. And I knew that mass would have to be placed closer to the handle if I was to maintain my preferred recoil weight. What I didn't know was how much an improvement this would provide my game, turning my backhand from defense to a mainly offensive weapon. The higher MgR/I has also helped my serve consistency, which was predictable. What wasn't was that it improved my forehand consistency by preventing me from muscling the ball (as I've tended to do my whole tennis career). Seems that just 8 grams is enough to slow my roll, and in so doing, improve the looseness (power) of my swing.

Anyway, I can't swing nearly the kind of weight you can, nor the kind of SW. But it goes to show that there are more ways to reach one's apt recoil weight than you can shake a stick at, and MgR/I tells much of the story. That you can feel the difference between even minute changes in MgR/I also indicates to me that you've indeed found your apt RW. This hyper-sensitivity to tiny weight changes is a phenomenon I've not only experienced for myself but heard from several others when they found their ah-hah! recoil weight.

 

[esm]

@Brando
Thanks for this thread. Interesting read.

So I have “recently” moved acrossed the ocean and found my previous spec didn’t really work for me anymore.

According to your height vs RW chart on the earlier posts, I should be using around 164RW, which is pretty much what I have specced all my racquets previously, when I played pretty much all on hard court surfaces in the UK (London).

Now that i am in the land of Oz (Sydney), where I “had” to play on “faster” syn grass courts, I found my previous spec didn’t really work for me…. and I was puzzling why… (I think it was the bounce, invoking speed of the ball and the slipperyness of the court vs. Footwork… lol)

Then one day, I was tinkering with another racquet… and I moved the SW1 to another bench and forgot to recalibrate…. I did what I did and realised I came up with a different spec, after recalibrated the SW1.

As I ran out of time, took this one for a training session, used it on the 2nd half of the session…. My oh my… what a difference.

My previous setup for the UK:
337g/32.6/338sw (RW= 165)

The “mistaken” setup for Oz:
339g/32.5/342sw (RW= 171)

I felt the new spec swung easier and I was able to hit the targets much easier (& serve more effortless) on the syn grass court. Maybe it is in my head, will keep trying…..

 

[Brando]

Thank you for the kind comment, @esm. Do you by any chance swing an eastern forehand? If so, it might help explain why you prefer a higher RW than recommended now that you're playing far faster courts. As discussed in post #636:

Players who swing bent-armed (often being those with an eastern forehand) may shorten the length of their double pendulum enough to make my table inaccurate for them. After consulting with a couple of advanced players who’re both versed in biomechanics and swing an eastern FH, I’ve concluded that tele is probably right because the more bent the arm, the stiffer it becomes; in the extreme, the shoulder joint is tucking the elbow in against the player’s ribs.

Interestingly, one bent-armed eastern forehander posited that this may be why he prefers his recoil weight around 5 points higher than my table recommends. As he explained it, with his elbow tucked into his ribs, the loose part of his swing was halved down to forearm to wrist (vs. shoulder joint to wrist), which reduced his racquet lag. So it feels like he needs the extra RW to get back the hoop-lag stolen by his shortened double pendulum.

I'd be interested to hear from others who swing an eastern forehand if this makes sense to them and/or if they've gotten a sense of this in their own swing...

Does ring true for you?

@Brando What do you think about the difference between classical and modern forehands (I attach a video that elaborates on the difference) as relates to your RW concept? In summary, classical forehand is more shoulder-dominant, and modern is wrist dominant. Lighter modern racquets allow for more violent acceleration around the wrist as pivot. In summary, how do we adjust RW for forehand style: classical (Sampras), modern (Kyrgios), or something in between?

I don't agree with everything in this 15 Points of Tennis vid about the classic swing, @Tranqville, but the essence of it is definitely relevant to recoil weight. The stiff-armed form of the classic swing was necessitated by the much higher weights of the old woodie racquets and their swingweights into the 450's. As coincidentally discussed in post # 636, too, a stiff-armed swing renders recoil weight far less important than it is for a loose, modern swing because...

With a tight-armed swing, shoulder rotation reverses, and depending on the tightness, some degree of forearm and wrist rotation may happen, but the racquet’s path is significantly more linear. Here the racquet is less pulled in three different directions than manually forced into one.

The upshot is that we all have to swing tight-armed at first, if only to time the swing of a racquet to meet an incoming ball. At this beginner stage, a frame’s weight distribution is all but inconsequential. And even for intermediates, there’s nothing wrong with a tight-armed swing. It can be consistent and predictable and is used effectively by counterpunchers and spinmeisters everywhere. It’s just not a loose modern swing.

Indeed have before wondered if those most skeptical of my theory might, themselves, swing more in a classic style. It would explain a lot.

 

[esm]

Thank you for the kind comment, @esm. Do you by any chance swing an eastern forehand? If so, it might help explain why you prefer a higher RW than recommended now that you're playing far faster courts. As discussed in post #636:

Does ring true for you?


I don't agree with everything in this 15 Points of Tennis vid about the classic swing, @Tranqville, but the essence of it is definitely relevant to recoil weight. The stiff-armed form of the classic swing was necessitated by the much higher weights of the old woodie racquets and their swingweights into the 450's. As coincidentally discussed in post # 636, too, a stiff-armed swing renders recoil weight far less important than it is for a loose, modern swing because...

Indeed have before wondered if those most skeptical of my theory might, themselves, swing more in a classic style. It would explain a lot.

Thank you for this @Brando.
The above relates as I am old school so I play with a grip that is more of an eastern than (semi) western forehand grip. Definitely less wristy shots.
So your explanations makes sense… how interesting though!
I will keep this 171RW spec and see how I fare with it…. and I shall report back…. Once I can get more court time and use to this faster surface. Lol

 

[Tranqville]

I don't agree with everything in this 15 Points of Tennis vid about the classic swing, @Tranqville, but the essence of it is definitely relevant to recoil weight.

I think 15 points of tennis are not talking about conventional old-fashioned classical swing, but just slightly less modern swing of Sampras. And their modern is "next-gen". So the difference is subltle between shoulder and wrist activation. Next-gen has a bit more range of motion in shoulder internatal rotation and wrist activation, shorter and more violent forward phase of the swing. So I wonder about this subtle difference: to me, it's the difference between 305g and 315g frames, 325 and 340 SW.

 

[Brando]

What with the footage of Rod (the Rocket) Laver and Jimmy Connors, I didn't think of it that way, @Tranqville. But I think you're right. And your conclusion cuts right to the point: the more one adopts the more volatile and violent triple-rotations of the modern swing, the lower the weight and/or SW you'll be drawn to. What we're talking about here is a seemingly subtle weight difference that feels huge; like the difference between mass-based and speed-based power. And the direction the tennis world is going is definitely toward speed-based power.

 

[esm]

@Brando
Thanks for this thread. Interesting read.

So I have “recently” moved acrossed the ocean and found my previous spec didn’t really work for me anymore.

According to your height vs RW chart on the earlier posts, I should be using around 164RW, which is pretty much what I have specced all my racquets previously, when I played pretty much all on hard court surfaces in the UK (London).

Now that i am in the land of Oz (Sydney), where I “had” to play on “faster” syn grass courts, I found my previous spec didn’t really work for me…. and I was puzzling why… (I think it was the bounce, invoking speed of the ball and the slipperyness of the court vs. Footwork… lol)

Then one day, I was tinkering with another racquet… and I moved the SW1 to another bench and forgot to recalibrate…. I did what I did and realised I came up with a different spec, after recalibrated the SW1.

As I ran out of time, took this one for a training session, used it on the 2nd half of the session…. My oh my… what a difference.

My previous setup for the UK:
337g/32.6/338sw (RW= 165)

The “mistaken” setup for Oz:
339g/32.5/342sw (RW= 171)

I felt the new spec swung easier and I was able to hit the targets much easier (& serve more effortless) on the syn grass court. Maybe it is in my head, will keep trying…..

@Brando

I have now read the entire thread, and thought why not make the other racquet to “my” RW of 164… so started tinkering this arvo.

I took all previously added weights off racquet #2 and used the TW customisation sheet to get to what I needed, and with further minor adjustments, I got to RW of 164 and managed to keep the same static weight as the #1 racquet (which now has a RW of 170).

Both racquets have same string, same DT, same stringing method, same handle pallet, same replacement base grip, same full length OG (for this experiment, I used the Yonex finishing tapes so I can’t tell which is which at a glance..).

I shall have a social/training session in the next couple of days, so I will try to give both a whirl and see what is what…. I have even printed the same colour/size label for the throat area too.

This should be a closer comparison, as I will be using the same make/model of racquets and setup etc, except for the lead tape placements to get to both 164 and 170RW specs. Lol

IMG-4700 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-4700 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

 

[devoker]

Hey guys,
Interesting topic this Recoil Weight. It's a tricky calculation as values depend on weight distributions, so everything is a bit linked.
I performed a few tests and felt much better with a RW closer to my height.
Though, I would like to increase a bit the SW (by 10points) without impacting the RW, what is the process here? I tried to add some weight at the balance point but RW was increasing by 50% of the SW increase, so not super efficient here.

Polarization, Recoil Weight & MgR/I demystified?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ioQKuyRchUZWpPTmgrDR5o2G2ou8ezvikPqpjoeynk/edit?usp=sharing I created a spreadsheet to calculate SW,RW,PI, and MgR/I after customizations. All the cells except the ones in borders are locked to protect the formulas. Feel free to use it.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

See the tool I shared in the other thread.

 

[Brando]

@Brando

I have now read the entire thread, and thought why not make the other racquet to “my” RW of 164… so started tinkering this arvo.

I took all previously added weights off racquet #2 and used the TW customisation sheet to get to what I needed, and with further minor adjustments, I got to RW of 164 and managed to keep the same static weight as the #1 racquet (which now has a RW of 170).

Both racquets have same string, same DT, same stringing method, same handle pallet, same replacement base grip, same full length OG (for this experiment, I used the Yonex finishing tapes so I can’t tell which is which at a glance..).

I shall have a social/training session in the next couple of days, so I will try to give both a whirl and see what is what…. I have even printed the same colour/size label for the throat area too.

This should be a closer comparison, as I will be using the same make/model of racquets and setup etc, except for the lead tape placements to get to both 164 and 170RW specs. Lol

IMG-4700 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-4700 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

I dig this test, @esm.

6rw points is definitely a 'feelable' difference, especially for advanced players because the looser your swing, the more the racquet's weight distribution affects your swing path. May I suggest performing this test in more than one session? While you'll feel the differences between the frames immediately, it takes a bit more time for the body to adjust to these changes, and you may not know which is truly better for your game until at least a couple of hours of (rigorous) play have gone by.

 

[esm]

I dig this test, @esm.

6rw points is definitely a 'feelable' difference, especially for advanced players because the looser your swing, the more the racquet's weight distribution affects your swing path. May I suggest performing this test in more than one session? While you'll feel the differences between the frames immediately, it takes a bit more time for the body to adjust to these changes, and you may not know which is truly better for your game until at least a couple of hours of (rigorous) play have gone by.

Yep. Will definitely do a few sessions.
Quick q - if I don’t to a “blind test”, then. which one do you think I should start with first? Lol

 

[devoker]

Before I saw this threads I was testing adding lead tape to the hoop (4 g 10-2) and adding putty to the buttcap (5g) to make it more maneuverable and I realized it was easier to swing despite the extra weight. I am still an advanced beginner, I don't play any rated matches but I have weekly lessons and I keep practising 6-8 hours at least each week.
Now I modified it to increase RW even more while reducing swing weight a bit to 330. I still have less than my ideal RW which would be 166 and it is 162 but I am worried it is getting too heavy (340 g). The problem is that I am very lean (66 kg) and I had previous wrist and shoulder injuries and swinging a heavier racquet might make these injuries occur again. Should I be concerned about the weight might cause me get injured again? My form is a lot better than it used to be from time to time I end up arming the ball. The biggest issue is that to increase the recoil weight I need to add another 3 g to the buttcap which there is already 8 g and I am running out of space to put more putty. I have a vcore 100 and the vdm inside the handle is blocking putting more putty.

https://imgur.com/a/3msfm6G

 

[Brando]

@devoker, your instincts are right. 340g is too heavy for an advanced beginner with injuries. Instead weight your VCORE 100 only as close as you can comfortably get to 166. It's a good stick. 160 or so is fine for where you are. And I say keep the frame medium light for now; somewhere between323g and 333g, max. Your swing isn't likely loose enough yet for recoil weight to help you as much as it will as your form progresses.

Along the way you can make a project out of searching for a replacement frame that will get you to 166 more naturally and easily. By then you'll know more about the beam widths and shapes and string patterns and swingweights, etc. you prefer than you can possibly know now. You'll make a great choice and be thankful you waited for this intel.

 

[Brando]

Yep. Will definitely do a few sessions.
Quick q - if I don’t to a “blind test”, then. which one do you think I should start with first? Lol

Inspired idea! How's about you have a pal label the frames A and B and not tell you which one's which. Then you go out and play with 'em-- yes, for days without knowing? A true blind test with no chance of bias!

 

[devoker]

@devoker, your instincts are right. 340g is too heavy for an advanced beginner with injuries. Instead weight your VCORE 100 only as close as you can comfortably get to 166. It's a good stick. 160 or so is fine for where you are. And I say keep the frame medium light for now; somewhere between323g and 333g, max. Your swing isn't likely loose enough yet for recoil weight to help you as much as it will as your form progresses.

Along the way you can make a project out of searching for a replacement frame that will get you to 166 more naturally and easily. By then you'll know more about the beam widths and shapes and string patterns and swingweights, etc. you prefer than you can possibly know now. You'll make a great choice and be thankful you waited for this intel.

I played for around 3 hours doubles today and the weight didn't seem to hurt or slow me down. I was actually getting injured more frequentyly when I was playing with a 265 g racquet. It is much much better since I switched to 300-310 g frames.
However, I feel like I was playing better with higher swingweight but I have concerns about adding more weight. I think my vcore is very close to twu specs except the balance which is more close to the head and it makes increasing rw harder. I might get a speed mp which might be easier to get close to the specs I want but it is still a QC gamble

 

[esm]

Inspired idea! How's about you have a pal label the frames A and B and not tell you which one's which. Then you go out and play with 'em-- yes, for days without knowing? A true blind test with no chance of bias!

Yeah, but I’d know which is which if I focus around the face of the racquet, cos of the various lead locations….. so… what I did also was to “paint” the lead tapes with red sharpie, so at a distance/glance, I “shouldn’t” be able to tell straight away. don’t judge me…. lol

Normally, have a habit of distinguishing my racquet one and racquet two with blue and green finishing tape and sticker dot on the butt cap. For this experiment I have left the blue and green dots on the butt caps… just so I can refer to the RW170 and the RW164… if I really need to. I will try not to look at the butt caps when I take them out of the racquet bag.

Can’t really be a blind test if I am doing it myself, but I will give it a go and “be blind” for abit. lol

Pics for entertainment!!!

IMG-4704 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-4704 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

IMG-4707 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-4707 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

 

[Josaya]

But before you go to all that trouble, were you happy with the frame you've been playing with as it was? Did it swing naturally for you? If so, I say stick with it.

That was my initial thought, but after a decade hiatus it takes a warmup + 3-4 games to get loose enough to swing it properly, which is nearly never when playing doubles. Rackets were customised for a friend who preferred his previous setup, but were easy to use in my 20s.

Spec wise (SW is a guestimate based on TW calculator using 3x20/6 swings):
New Static: 346g, BP: 32 SW: 333g, RW: 165.54, MgR/I 20.884, PI 0.478, which is closer to my arm span (180cm). Will be testing this as soon as my forearm heals (not TE or wrist, but connected), at week 1 of rest and it's already driving me insane (hence my racket\string search).

As I'm entering mid-40s, I did look for "more free power" (but really just need to build my body back up) so I tested some lighter bigger head rackets (best to worst: head boom MP, ezone 100SL, ezone 110). Opponents commonly mentioned less velocity\depth\weight, less bite\acceleration after bounce (thus more balls they can attack), but better defense and initial consistency. Most of these are strung 58 +/- 2lbs, so I should be able to recoup at least ball velocity and depth from looser strings. None of the tested rackets are near my "height ideal" spec of 162RW though we may need a sliding scale for age post prime. I didn't hate any of the rackets, but touch volleys and return blocks were substantially harder/jarring to perform. I settled back on my old rackets

Going through "values" on TW, current rackets close to 5'8-5'9 ideals are all low powered: Prestige Pro, then Prostaff X, then Phantom 100G, but thinking Speed Pro\MP, Blade or Ezone100 may be OK as well. Also wary of the current QC issues, reading forum posts about deviations with horror. New racket is probably my last resort unless I snap another frame.

 

[Brando]

Yeah, but I’d know which is which if I focus around the face of the racquet, cos of the various lead locations….. so… what I did also was to “paint” the lead tapes with red sharpie, so at a distance/glance, I “shouldn’t” be able to tell straight away. don’t judge me…. lol

Normally, have a habit of distinguishing my racquet one and racquet two with blue and green finishing tape and sticker dot on the butt cap. For this experiment I have left the blue and green dots on the butt caps… just so I can refer to the RW170 and the RW164… if I really need to. I will try not to look at the butt caps when I take them out of the racquet bag.

Can’t really be a blind test if I am doing it myself, but I will give it a go and “be blind” for abit. lol

Pics for entertainment!!!

IMG-4704 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-4704 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

IMG-4707 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-4707 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

The last of the Prestige 93s! A precision instrument not unlike the last of the V8 Interceptors...

Given your locale and frame choice for this experiment, @esm, you're like my personal Mad Max.

 

[Brando]

...As I'm entering mid-40s, I did look for "more free power" (but really just need to build my body back up) ... I didn't hate any of the rackets, but touch volleys and return blocks were substantially harder/jarring to perform. I settled back on my old rackets ... Going through "values" on TW, current rackets close to 5'8-5'9 ideals are all low powered: Prestige Pro, then Prostaff X, then Phantom 100G, but thinking Speed Pro\MP, Blade or Ezone100 may be OK as well. Also wary of the current QC issues, reading forum posts about deviations with horror. New racket is probably my last resort unless I snap another frame.

At the risk of hawking a frame I play, @Josaya, it sounds like what you're looking for is the Prestige Tour 2023
332g, 32.5cm, 330sw, 162rw, 20.64 MgR/I, 62 RA, 22mm box beam, 16x19 strings

Yes it's a 95, but one with a particular set of skills, combining the biggest sweet zone (110cm²) and the highest power potential (42%) of any sub-330g (unstrung) 95 in² since 2015’s Wilson Burn 95. So power's not a problem. And neither is jarring impact, given how buttery its full CAP grommets play. The problem? It currently costs over $270 at TW. Still, you can currently get a barely-used 2021 version [L3] on 'the-bay' by outbidding someone's $51 bid in the next 3 days. All to say, other such opportunities are likely to come up if this sounds like something in your wheelhouse.

 

[devoker]

@devoker And I say keep the frame medium light for now; somewhere between323g and 333g, max.

I forgot to mention that whatever 300 g frame I use, they will end up at least 330 g with overgrip, dampener, grip ring combo and those won't leave any room to fiddle with. The only option would be starting with light version frames but they are not head light to begin with.

 

[Josaya]

I forgot to mention that whatever 300 g frame I use, they will end up at least 330 g with overgrip, dampener, grip ring combo and those won't leave any room to fiddle with. The only option would be starting with light version frames but they are not head light to begin with.

How many overgrips? Grip ring 2g, dampener 2-6g, overgrips ~5-7g each. This sounds like my issue where 4 overgrips added ~ 25g, and by replacing the pallet I shaved off 3 overgrips, but about 10-15g taking into account pallet weight and more base grip. Could have reduced further weight if I swapped out the leather base grip in favour of a lighter base grip..

When my racket went extremely HL (removal of lead in the hoop), it hurt my arm more, pity I didn't know about SW and RW calculations then, but I assume RW would have shot through the roof?

 

[devoker]

How many overgrips? Grip ring 2g, dampener 2-6g, overgrips ~5-7g each. This sounds like my issue where 4 overgrips added ~ 25g, and by replacing the pallet I shaved off 3 overgrips, but about 10-15g taking into account pallet weight and more base grip. Could have reduced further weight if I swapped out the leather base grip in favour of a lighter base grip..

When my racket went extremely HL (removal of lead in the hoop), it hurt my arm more, pity I didn't know about SW and RW calculations then, but I assume RW would have shot through the roof?

Only 1 overgrip.
Frame+ strings = 318.5
Dampener 4 + grip ring 1.5 + overgrip 6 = 11.5
Total 330 g

 

[arsen]

plaers ..... heigh rw(table) rw(real)
Andy Murray6.4 166 175
K. Khachanov6.8 182 169
G. Dimitrov 6.4 176 172
F. Auger-Alias6.5 178 165
D. Medvedev 6.8 178 174
S. Tsitsipas 6.5 178 168
A. Karatsev 6.2 172 175
A. Rublev 6.3 174 176
A. Popyrin 6.6 180 194 ( +14) for top spin or better stability??
How can you explain it????Why amateurs don't play Spanish style (Nadal)Do you need fast legs and a lot of strength?Better control with heavy rackets?? .

 

[aaron_h27]

is Felix really 6'5? Some of those heights seem wrong

 

[devoker]

Sinner's is also in low 160s (163?) while he is 188 6'2"?

 

[arsen]

Brando let comment please

 

[Superchoo]

Just looking at the new Gravity MP XL specs:

Static: 323
Balance: 32.5
SW: 333
RW: 169.5
MGR/I: 20.16
Polarisation: 0.52

That is an unusually low balance for an XL, also one of the most polarised retail rackets I've seen in stock form.

Naturally the RW is unusually high too which leads me to wonder how well this racket will sell.

It would be interesting if there was a relationship between this racket selling well with taller players.
Suspect the moderately light weight might make it popular with doubles players.

 

[Brando]

Brando let comment please

I've said it before, @arsen, and I'll say it again. We amateurs emulate the pros at our own peril. Firstly, they're superhuman in ability and physicality compared to us; any one of them could beat us with a frying pan. Secondly, a superstitious bunch, they tend to 'stick with the horse that brung em,' playing with whatever racquet and customizations they got used to playing as a junior. Finally, they play against other superhumans, which gives them a whole other universe of contingencies to deal with to play their best. The data behind my table was gathered from a population of talented 4.0 to 6.0 amateurs. It's appropriate for these players, but they're not pros.

Do I believe that the table would be useful for up and coming juniors to use? Yes, I do, useful if only to point them in the right direction. But it's equally possible, (if not more likely) that they'd outgrow the table as they approach the full potential of their talent.

 

[Tranqville]

We amateurs emulate the pros at our own peril.

I completely agree with you, @Brando ! The pros are so far removed from us mere mortals, we cannot fully comprehend it. We are wowed by a 163 mp/h serve, but we have no capacity to gauge pro skill level in movement, anticipation, shot production, and many other facets of the game. But please don't blame only us, the amateurs, for the industry keeps making the pros our reference point.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

for the industry keeps making the pros our reference point.

What makes you think this? I just ask because the rackets pros endorse that are sold to the public are very vanilla spec-wise and relatively not the actual preference for 95% of the pros. Do you feel the industry is suggesting player's copy the specs of the pros, I am not sure that happens often.

 

[Tranqville]

What makes you think this? I just ask because the rackets pros endorse that are sold to the public are very vanilla spec-wise and relatively not the actual preference for 95% of the pros. Do you feel the industry is suggesting player's copy the specs of the pros, I am not sure that happens often.

The industry tells amateurs that if they get a racquet endorsed by a famous pro, they will play a bit better and a bit more like that pro. To see how delusional amateurs are:

U.S Tennis Survey says that 71% of players believe they could win a game against a Top 250 Pro.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

The industry tells amateurs that if they get a racquet endorsed by a famous pro, they will play a bit better and a bit more like that pro. To see how delusional amateurs are:

U.S Tennis Survey says that 71% of players believe they could win a game against a Top 250 Pro.

Oh, I think I understand kind of, but it's hard to really connect the dots there.

 

[Brando]

plaers ..... heigh rw(table) rw(real)
Andy Murray6.4 166 175
K. Khachanov6.8 182 169
G. Dimitrov 6.4 176 172
F. Auger-Alias6.5 178 165
D. Medvedev 6.8 178 174
S. Tsitsipas 6.5 178 168
A. Karatsev 6.2 172 175
A. Rublev 6.3 174 176
A. Popyrin 6.6 180 194 ( +14) for top spin or better stability??
How can you explain it????Why amateurs don't play Spanish style (Nadal)Do you need fast legs and a lot of strength?Better control with heavy rackets?? .

My post #792 reply to your post disclaimed comparing pro with amateur specs. But it occurs to me that I failed to address some interesting intel you revealed, @arsen.

Before we get there, I apologize that I have to correct a couple height inaccuracies. (I see that you got your real racquet spec #s from ImpactingTennis, so no issues there.) The corrected #s are:
Height: rw (table) rw (real)
Andy Murray 6’3” 174 166
K. Khachanov 6’6” 180 169
G. Dimitrov 6’3” 174 172
F. Auger-Aliassime 6’4” 176 165
D. Medvedev 6’6” 180 174
S. Tsitsipas 6’4” 176 168
A. Karatsev 6’1” 170 175
A. Rublev 6’2” 172 176
A. Popyrin 6’5” 178 194
A. Zverev 6’6” 180 179

While only half of the recoil weights correspond (within 5-points) to my table (Dimitrov, Karatzev, Rublev, and Zverev’s), it’s telling that the other half of these pro RWs are within 10-points lower than my table (with the exception of Popyrin, who swings over 10-points higher). I wonder if this might be the product of what I mentioned in my other post, that players tend to swing the setups that worked for them as juniors, when they were shorter; and, having gotten used to that feel, they’re suspicious of change.

Of course, my RW Theory is new, so I have no illusion that top pro coaches are paying any attention to it (let alone most readers on this forum). But it’s notable to see so many top player racquet setups so coincidentally close to my table. I hadn’t realized this, and thanks for bringing it to our attention, @arsen.

 

[devoker]

I customized two rackets with my ideal RW (174-175) and a third racket below my ideal RW @ 168.
I went to hit today and I noticed immediately when using the correct RW that I didn't need to hold my wrist in the hitting position, that when swinging my wrist went into the correct position without any effort. By "correct position" I mean that I normally bend my wrist back a little to keep the racket face pointed down court and get good contact, and with the correct RW the weight of the racket bent my wrist.
In fact I could literally let my arm hang loose, and swing the racket and get good results. I didn't need to guide the racket through the swing path as much by using my wrist, if that makes sense. So I really believe now. It lets you focus on on other aspects.

@Brando I wonder if this was due to recoil weight or mgr/I though.

 

[Brando]

I'd like to hear your thinking on that, @devoker.

IMO, the two measures work best when used together. So it's not an either/or thing. Either way, I and others have experienced the phenomenon @workerONE so eloquently describes: Most of my tennis life, I felt forced to hold my wrist open on takeback to reach a sweet hitting angle at contact. But when I hit my apt recoil weight, I no longer needed to. My wrist almost-magically opened on it's own, perfectly lagging my forearm on the way to contact. This enabled me to shorten up my swing from WTA to a more ATP-style, pretty much adopting Tommy Paul's inverted gullwing.

 

[devoker]

I have yet to experiment enough with different setups to compare the effects of both. Unfortunately, I have only 1 racquet right now and it is hard to compare the specs on different days.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is recoil weight and mgr/I are inversely proportioned if I want to keep the same swingweight. I can't increase both at the same time if I don't want to increase the swingweight.
Let's say I want to keep the swingweight at 335 and recoil weight around 162.
Then I have two options

Static	SW	RW	MGR/I
343.7037​	335​	161​	20.90033​
338.99408​	335​	162​	20.74964​

Assume the ideal rw is 162. Which one will be more natural to swing?