Shroud
Talk Tennis Guru
Ok. Good to know. Mine is straight on contact but a light stick can sometimes have me over extend or just not win the collision…but I still do ok
Who Cares about Recoil Weight?
- Thread starter Brando
- Start date
@Brando
I’m interested in contributing some specs and experience to your study. I’m 6’5” with a 6’7” wingspan, 190 lbs, which, according to your table, puts me around 178 RW. I play at a 4.5 level with a weak semi-western grip and a two-handed backhand.
I’ve got two rackets right now, both strung with a synthetic base grip and an overgrip. I’m kind of using Racket #2 as a control—not because I love the specs, but because I haven’t made any modifications to it, and it stands in contrast to my modded racket.
I’m curious if you’d suggest any other iterations. I previously made a ~174 RW version by heavily tail-weighting and removing weight at 12, but since I’m switching to a two-handed backhand, the 9 pt HL balance felt too whippy on that side.
I love training and working on technique, but when the legs are tired and its 20 degrees outside, it’s kind of fun to go down this rabbit hole in pursuit of the holy grail of personal specs!
I’m interested in contributing some specs and experience to your study. I’m 6’5” with a 6’7” wingspan, 190 lbs, which, according to your table, puts me around 178 RW. I play at a 4.5 level with a weak semi-western grip and a two-handed backhand.
I’ve got two rackets right now, both strung with a synthetic base grip and an overgrip. I’m kind of using Racket #2 as a control—not because I love the specs, but because I haven’t made any modifications to it, and it stands in contrast to my modded racket.
| Static Weight | Balance (cm) | Balance (pts) | Swingweight | Recoil Weight | PI | MGR/I | Mods | |
| Racket #1 | 347.5 | 32.4 | 6 | 350 | 175 | .50 | 20.45 | 10g butt cap, 5g @ 12 |
| Racket #2 | 332.4 | 32.9 | 4 | 333 | 159 | .48 | 20.69 | none |
I’m curious if you’d suggest any other iterations. I previously made a ~174 RW version by heavily tail-weighting and removing weight at 12, but since I’m switching to a two-handed backhand, the 9 pt HL balance felt too whippy on that side.
I love training and working on technique, but when the legs are tired and its 20 degrees outside, it’s kind of fun to go down this rabbit hole in pursuit of the holy grail of personal specs!
Last edited:
Brando
Professional
Hi @mionske. Thanks for contributing your specs. I'll indeed include them in my study. I'm not big on suggesting spec configurations for players I haven't seen play, but your instincts sound right to me.
A 2HBH begs more swingweight than a one-hander and, yes, 9 HL is a bit on the whippy side for your purposes. I also like how you've added tip and tail weight to polarize one of your frames while keeping the other one stock for comparison. That you've added more weight to the tail than the tip also makes good sense. It seems like you're making the frame as maneuverable through the slot as you can at such a high swingweight (which I wouldn't make any higher).
All told, I can't think of a thing you're doing wrong. The only thing I'd suggest is that if you want to tweak your mods, I'd make the tweaks on Racket #2 so that you can truly compare the new specs to the old. But then, I'm sure you've already thought of that.
A 2HBH begs more swingweight than a one-hander and, yes, 9 HL is a bit on the whippy side for your purposes. I also like how you've added tip and tail weight to polarize one of your frames while keeping the other one stock for comparison. That you've added more weight to the tail than the tip also makes good sense. It seems like you're making the frame as maneuverable through the slot as you can at such a high swingweight (which I wouldn't make any higher).
All told, I can't think of a thing you're doing wrong. The only thing I'd suggest is that if you want to tweak your mods, I'd make the tweaks on Racket #2 so that you can truly compare the new specs to the old. But then, I'm sure you've already thought of that.
Brando
Professional
Wingspan is what essentially changes what weight distributions work best for you, @Conrado85. But I have to stress that my recoil weight table should be treated more as a compass that guides you in the right direction than as some exact destination. There are many reasons that recoil weights as much as five points higher or lower than the one recommended could work for a player. What counts is to understand the principles at work and follow your instincts from there (and not some number on a table). From the wording in your question, I think you get this. But it bears my repeating it for the thread.
Polaroid 63
New User
Hello @Brando
So I basically only created an account, since I was fascinated with your thread "MgR/I demystified?".
I've been planning on modifying my Racket [Babolat Pure Aero 98 (2023)] for a while now, but I really like it's overall playability. Especially on slices and volleys, I have no complaints at all, but my groundstrokes can be erratic at times. Despite it being pretty much on spec, it feels insanely light and fast through the air. On my one handed backhand, I hit close to the sweet spot and my crosscourt shots land close to the line, despite missing my rally balls and down the lines long in an inexplicable, erratic fashion. On the forehand however, I really have to concentrate on modifying my swing path as to not hit it far out front, I hit the frame quite often and have to use an insane amount of spin to keep the ball from going wide on crosscourt shots. Additionally, I have to artificially flex the wrist backward a bit to maintain wrist lag at contact. Inside out tends to go much further towards the middle than how I aimed. Inside in forehands are really dialed in and how I hit most winners. I am 6"7 (202cm) tall with long lanky limbs, so it makes sense, that 163 RW on a standard length frame could be suboptimal, biomechanically. My plan was to add 4g of tape to the 12 o' clock position, bumping the swingweight up to about 340. I figured, that since the frame's twistweight already being plentiful, I don't need added weight at 3 and 9. The question I am pondering continuously, is how to best proceed in regards to counterbalancing. With 4g at twelve, the RW would rise to around 175-177 but the MgR/I would drop below 20,2 because of the stock weight's being distributed in the hoop and near the butt of the handle. That much polarization might be a bit extreme and I don't want to lose too much feel for the one hander and volleys. So I thought about placing 8g of weight at 7" to counterbalance, bump RW an additional couple of points and regain Some 0,2ish Points of MgR/I. From what I understand, Recoil Weight is more significant than the former in terms of matching the racket to a player's wingspan. So does my plan seem sensible, are the 8g at 7" enough to balance out the 4g at 12, and will the RW come out around 180?
I'd be much obliged if you shared your knowledge with me, if you so please, since I am hesitant to go through with it and order potentially superfluous stuff.
Thanks for everything you've been sharing so far and kind regards!
So I basically only created an account, since I was fascinated with your thread "MgR/I demystified?".
I've been planning on modifying my Racket [Babolat Pure Aero 98 (2023)] for a while now, but I really like it's overall playability. Especially on slices and volleys, I have no complaints at all, but my groundstrokes can be erratic at times. Despite it being pretty much on spec, it feels insanely light and fast through the air. On my one handed backhand, I hit close to the sweet spot and my crosscourt shots land close to the line, despite missing my rally balls and down the lines long in an inexplicable, erratic fashion. On the forehand however, I really have to concentrate on modifying my swing path as to not hit it far out front, I hit the frame quite often and have to use an insane amount of spin to keep the ball from going wide on crosscourt shots. Additionally, I have to artificially flex the wrist backward a bit to maintain wrist lag at contact. Inside out tends to go much further towards the middle than how I aimed. Inside in forehands are really dialed in and how I hit most winners. I am 6"7 (202cm) tall with long lanky limbs, so it makes sense, that 163 RW on a standard length frame could be suboptimal, biomechanically. My plan was to add 4g of tape to the 12 o' clock position, bumping the swingweight up to about 340. I figured, that since the frame's twistweight already being plentiful, I don't need added weight at 3 and 9. The question I am pondering continuously, is how to best proceed in regards to counterbalancing. With 4g at twelve, the RW would rise to around 175-177 but the MgR/I would drop below 20,2 because of the stock weight's being distributed in the hoop and near the butt of the handle. That much polarization might be a bit extreme and I don't want to lose too much feel for the one hander and volleys. So I thought about placing 8g of weight at 7" to counterbalance, bump RW an additional couple of points and regain Some 0,2ish Points of MgR/I. From what I understand, Recoil Weight is more significant than the former in terms of matching the racket to a player's wingspan. So does my plan seem sensible, are the 8g at 7" enough to balance out the 4g at 12, and will the RW come out around 180?
I'd be much obliged if you shared your knowledge with me, if you so please, since I am hesitant to go through with it and order potentially superfluous stuff.
Thanks for everything you've been sharing so far and kind regards!
Brando
Professional
Hi, @Polaroid 63. Thank you for the kind word. I'm glad you've found my theory useful. I'll be working on some answers for you this evening and will edit this post accordingly. In the meantime, I wanted you to know I'm on it.
Polaroid 63
New User
Thanks for the reply! I really appreciate you taking the time to help so many people out who share a mutual love for this sport.
I already know I got some numbers messed up...
I grasp physical concepts on a more visual level, I'm not so good with formulas/algebra and get confused easily by variables. My original plan would bring me a bit closer to my desired specs, but not quite, since the 4 grams at 12 would roughly bump up RW by 4 points. And since weighting double at 7" would restore the balance, but add more static weight than half the amount on the butt, the RW would only rise about two points so I'd only come out at 170-171 RW I think
Last edited:
Polaroid 63
New User
Accidentally hit reply and don't know how to delete my post. So I edited it to say that I accidentally hit reply and don't know how to delete my post instead of the letter "T".
Brando
Professional
Hey, @Polaroid 63, we all accidentally hit reply at one time or another. The way many of us handle it is to simply post an ellipsis, as in a '...'
The short answer to your question (assuming your Aero 98 is on-spec) is that counterbalancing with 8g at 7" isn’t enough to aptly counterbalance the 4g at 12 because your RW will come in around 170 (via 335g, 32.6cm 341sw). Instead, I’d place that 8g under the buttcap to reach 176rw (via 335g, 32.1cm 341sw), which is more than close enough (as a starting point or maybe an end point) to the 182rw my table would recommend for you as a 6'7" player.
The longer answer is, yes, this gives you a lower MgR/I (20.21 vs. 20.37) but then that’s part of the deal with higher weight and swingweight combos. In this territory, what counts more is a higher polarization index (0.526 vs. 0.507) because the more mass, the more efficiently you want it distributed, to the hitting point and under the hand as the arm’s pivot point with the racquet.
Meanwhile, the more mass you’re dealing with, the lower you want your balance point (within reason) because it lowers your racquet's moment of inertia; which is physics for, ‘It makes the racquet more maneuverable in the slot.’ Indeed, a 32.1cm balance is going to swing that 341sw much more lightly through the slot than 32.6cm.
I haven’t really gotten into this in the forum yet, but recoil weight most affects maneuverability in the slot where the velocity of the arm is greater than that of the racquet. Swingweight, on the other hand, mostly affects whip-through into contact, where the velocity of the racquet has become greater than that of the forearm. The higher the SW, the greater that difference. So when you say…
Anyway, do let us know how it all turns out...
The short answer to your question (assuming your Aero 98 is on-spec) is that counterbalancing with 8g at 7" isn’t enough to aptly counterbalance the 4g at 12 because your RW will come in around 170 (via 335g, 32.6cm 341sw). Instead, I’d place that 8g under the buttcap to reach 176rw (via 335g, 32.1cm 341sw), which is more than close enough (as a starting point or maybe an end point) to the 182rw my table would recommend for you as a 6'7" player.
The longer answer is, yes, this gives you a lower MgR/I (20.21 vs. 20.37) but then that’s part of the deal with higher weight and swingweight combos. In this territory, what counts more is a higher polarization index (0.526 vs. 0.507) because the more mass, the more efficiently you want it distributed, to the hitting point and under the hand as the arm’s pivot point with the racquet.
Meanwhile, the more mass you’re dealing with, the lower you want your balance point (within reason) because it lowers your racquet's moment of inertia; which is physics for, ‘It makes the racquet more maneuverable in the slot.’ Indeed, a 32.1cm balance is going to swing that 341sw much more lightly through the slot than 32.6cm.
I haven’t really gotten into this in the forum yet, but recoil weight most affects maneuverability in the slot where the velocity of the arm is greater than that of the racquet. Swingweight, on the other hand, mostly affects whip-through into contact, where the velocity of the racquet has become greater than that of the forearm. The higher the SW, the greater that difference. So when you say…
…it’s the #1 tell that a player isn’t swinging enough swingweight. But if you swing too much SW, it makes for a sluggish slot. The trick, then, is balancing between the two by, yes, using balance: lower balances with high swingweights and vice versa.
Anyway, do let us know how it all turns out...
I stumbled upon a racket that's 21.2 MGR/I and 158 RW and my height is 5'7. Swings really easy for me even though it's higher in static weight than I normally use (350g) want to play with it more and see how it holds up.
I tried a 168 RW, 20.85 MGR/I frame recently that was lighter in static weight, more HL and less Sw but it just felt sluggish for some reason. For me personally I'm finding that anything more HL than 32 cm (7 pts HL) is just dead weight carrying around for mostly singles play.
I tried a 168 RW, 20.85 MGR/I frame recently that was lighter in static weight, more HL and less Sw but it just felt sluggish for some reason. For me personally I'm finding that anything more HL than 32 cm (7 pts HL) is just dead weight carrying around for mostly singles play.
Last edited:
Brando
Professional
That's a heavyweight, indeed @aaron_h27. What's its balance point? I'm guessing it's in the low 31cm range...?
Yes, this makes sense. One would think that, lighter in weight and swingweight and higher in MgR/I, it'd feel nimble in the slot. But that 168rw reveals a polarization that's high enough to make it sluggish for your arm.
Last edited:
Brando
Professional
Yes. Your source is ImpactingTennis.com's ATP Tour racquet specifications page, right? He's expanded it since I've last visited this page. Much to absorb here. Thanks, @arsen!
It's actually 32.2 cm.
Brando
Professional
Wow, @aaron_h27. That means its got a ~330 swingweight. That's a far beefier frame than I can swing. One look at my signature and you'll see that my ideal weight is about 25 grams less. You're obviously much stronger than me. Still, this Big-3 combo does help reveal why it's a bit sluggish in the slot.
Yep 331 SW
It's a 95 with a thinner beam so it's still pretty maneuverable despite the weight
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Brando
Professional
Holy Hannah, Fuzzy, I had no idea of this! Thanks so much for sharing. Beckett's talking about "whip through." I'd shared with him Crawford Lindsey’s paper, Tennis Racquet Customization, where he develops the term in the paper's Point 6:
"As swingweight increases, the speed of the racquet increases relative to that of the forearm. As another term of art, we will call this ratio of racquet speed to forearm speed just before impact as 'whip-through': Whip-through = Vr1 / VFA1"
I'm not surprised Beckett forgot the term (in the heat of an interview) because we discussed it more than a couple of months ago. Prof. Lindsey's research into whip-through suggests that it's one of the least known and least understood consequences of adding swingweight. In a nutshell, it means that, " “Varying the amount and location of added mass affects swingweight, which in turn affects the relative speed of the forearm and racquet. As a result, the angle at which the racquet will make contact with the ball will vary.” This, IMO, is huge because most people think of swingweight as changing the power and speed of racquet, but it turns out that it also affects hitting angle, which, if you swing with a loose modern swing, will significantly affect your consistency.
"As swingweight increases, the speed of the racquet increases relative to that of the forearm. As another term of art, we will call this ratio of racquet speed to forearm speed just before impact as 'whip-through': Whip-through = Vr1 / VFA1"
I'm not surprised Beckett forgot the term (in the heat of an interview) because we discussed it more than a couple of months ago. Prof. Lindsey's research into whip-through suggests that it's one of the least known and least understood consequences of adding swingweight. In a nutshell, it means that, " “Varying the amount and location of added mass affects swingweight, which in turn affects the relative speed of the forearm and racquet. As a result, the angle at which the racquet will make contact with the ball will vary.” This, IMO, is huge because most people think of swingweight as changing the power and speed of racquet, but it turns out that it also affects hitting angle, which, if you swing with a loose modern swing, will significantly affect your consistency.
amarg
New User
@Brando
When I first read about Recoil Weight, the formula was: SW - (wt. in kg × (balance [in cm] - 10.16)²), instead of "-10" I see now.
I guess it came from converting inches to cm (4in = 10.16cm, 1in=2,54cm).
Is the latter formula used for accuracy or ease of calculation (1in=2,5cm)? Asking because the old one results in almost 2.4 units more, which is a lot, given the target values.
By the way, thanks for your time and effort
When I first read about Recoil Weight, the formula was: SW - (wt. in kg × (balance [in cm] - 10.16)²), instead of "-10" I see now.
I guess it came from converting inches to cm (4in = 10.16cm, 1in=2,54cm).
Is the latter formula used for accuracy or ease of calculation (1in=2,5cm)? Asking because the old one results in almost 2.4 units more, which is a lot, given the target values.
By the way, thanks for your time and effort
Player Height (as an indicator of arm length)If the arm is\ - 70cm\ - what is the RW .Thank you
Brando
Professional
The answer depends on how you're measuring arm length, @arsen. Since there are different ways to do it, my table links RW with height, which is only measured one way.
For instance, one standard of arm length measurement goes from the inside of the shoulder blade to the tip of the middle finger while the arm is extended horizontally away from the body and to the side of it. Another standard, the tailor's standard, is to measure from the arm pit to the wrist bone. So, without more intel, I can't rightly tell you what RW my table would suggest. May I then suggest that you stick with the player's height as guide to their apt RW?
I suggest this, too, because my table is best used to guide players toward a realm of recoil weights that will likely work well for them, and not some exact number. The most important thing is to use the weight distributions one finds in their zone to begin to truly swing loosely, using their arm like a whip instead of a board, giving control over to a racquet that consistently meets the ball at the right angle.
And even if my table is accurate for a wider group of players, it's just the beginning. The real task is homing in on a weight and swingweight combo in your recoil weight range that works for you. This can be fairly easy to find bc the racquet makers know what they're doing, but then you have to think about the dimensional specs too: head size, string pattern, beam width, and flex. Anyway, these are the things I'd focus on...
For instance, one standard of arm length measurement goes from the inside of the shoulder blade to the tip of the middle finger while the arm is extended horizontally away from the body and to the side of it. Another standard, the tailor's standard, is to measure from the arm pit to the wrist bone. So, without more intel, I can't rightly tell you what RW my table would suggest. May I then suggest that you stick with the player's height as guide to their apt RW?
I suggest this, too, because my table is best used to guide players toward a realm of recoil weights that will likely work well for them, and not some exact number. The most important thing is to use the weight distributions one finds in their zone to begin to truly swing loosely, using their arm like a whip instead of a board, giving control over to a racquet that consistently meets the ball at the right angle.
And even if my table is accurate for a wider group of players, it's just the beginning. The real task is homing in on a weight and swingweight combo in your recoil weight range that works for you. This can be fairly easy to find bc the racquet makers know what they're doing, but then you have to think about the dimensional specs too: head size, string pattern, beam width, and flex. Anyway, these are the things I'd focus on...
174.I've been playing with this setup for 5 hours ,so I haven't decided yet.I'm not moving well right now so Sharapova's style is Williams \ (Blaster)
73kg, muscles, age(knees) I play 2 sets \ - single Opponents \ - strong level 55+ITF(senior) or 4 sets \ - double.Therefore, we need such a racket Technique\ - good\ - Forehand flat / topspin.I've been playing for 50 years
this racket is only available for baselineplay(Voley-bad)
20gr#3-a lot(maybe I'll remove 5gr.)
I've been used to heavy rackets since childhood
this racket is only available for baselineplay(Voley-bad)
20gr#3-a lot(maybe I'll remove 5gr.)
I've been used to heavy rackets since childhood
Last edited:
