Polarizing The Lead Weight On Racquets- a post from Tennis-Warehouse talk

[uspta146749877]

Polarizing The Lead Weight On Racquets

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was recently asked to start a new thread based on a post I wrote over in the 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' forum. It was a thread based on an interview with Nate Ferguson. 'larry10s' kindly asked me to explain what I had discussed with Warren Bosworth.

First, let me say that I am a self-stringer and very picky about my gear. I've always done my own racquet mods and I've tried just about everything at one time or another, but this whole mess started when I decided to look into what it would take to have some lead weight molded into the handles of my sticks. This, in and of itself, occurred after a largely frustrating effort to get a new frame that could do what I wanted it to do. Long story short, I was asking Warren Bosworth about the cost of this (and maybe custom molded pallets in the process) when he asked what I was trying to accomplish. The following is my impression of his viewpoint.

The main principle is this: everyone has their own preferences in terms of swingweight, balance, etc. That being said, the most effective means to modify a racquet is to add the weight where it alters the playing charictistics the most. This would be at 12 o'clock and under the butt cap, the poles of the frame.
For example, say you started with two identical frames. One, you modify one by adding X amount of weight exactly on the balance point. The other, you split the same weight between the poles in a proportion that keeps the balance point the same. (This will only be 50/50 if you have racquets with even balance, not HH or HL) These two frames will then have the same weight and balance, but will play very differently. The mass in or near the center of the one frame will add to the swingweight, but will do little to 'work' on the ball. The racquet with the mass at the poles is a completely different story. Just look at what so many pros' are doing these days.

Personally, I wanted to keep the balance of my racquets stock at 7 pts HL, but to make them more stable with more plowthrough to help combat opponents who hit a heavy ball. I went from lead at 3/9 o'clock and near the top of the handle (a la John Cauthern) to the polarized method and I'm beyond thrilled. For the record, Bosworth clearly admitted that weight at 3/9 o'clock DOES have some benefits (matter of preference) but that any lead I was putting in the handle is best served under the butt cap.

There was a lot more depth to the conversation, but this was the basis of it. Also, for the record, I do not consider the Cauthern method to be completely without merit, just inferior for the MODERN game of tennis.

Cheers!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=253722

A poster by lefty78

[llll]

could you give a link to "the cauthern method". putting lead at 12 oclock is the most effective way to increase swingweight and make the balance point less headlight. why is increasing swingweight the best thing you can do to a racquet?

[uspta146749877]

Cauthern method

could you give a link to "the cauthern method". putting lead at 12 oclock is the most effective way to increase swingweight and make the balance point less headlight. why is increasing swingweight the best thing you can do to a racquet?

Hi,
1.I do NOT have a link right now.
I may try to spend some time searching
but NOT soon.
2.you may try to search using a search engine on the talk forum
of www.tennis-warehouse.com
3.you may try to go to www.google.com
and search looking for ""Cauthern method" via a search engine
julian

https://www.julianmielniczuk.usptapro.com

[llll]

how about answering my other question. also are you lefty78?

[llll]

i did search on the tw site and googled it via aol before i posted .so dont be so sarcastic. if you spent the time searching instead of the time bieng less than helpful you may have been able to help.

[oliensis]

From what I gather, Cauthen (or Cauthern?) method is to add weight at 3:00 and 9:00 on the head of the racket, and to add weight near the top of the grip to put the balance of the racket where you want it. Added weight gives the racket better "plow through."

Polarizing the racket is adding weight at 12:00 on the head and at the butt cap. The balance point and swing weight may remain the same because the weights at each end counter-weight each other. But the increased weight adds to longitudinal stability.

There exist proponents of both methods. The racket will perform differently depending on where weight is added, even if balance point and swing weight are the same, because of differeing distribution of that weight. E.g. adding weight at 3 and 9 will add torsional stability, not just longitudinal stability, but will require more absolute weight to move the balance relatively higher. Likewise, adding weight near the top of the girp will require a greater increase in weight to balance the racket relaitively more in the head light direction (compared to adding weight at the butt cap).

There are as many ways of customizing a racket as there are ways to imagine it. In general it sounds like those with more extremely "modern" swings (fast whip through hitting zone) may prefer a polarized racket, where those with more "classical" (long swings with relatively more linear than angular momentum) may prefer the "Cauthen" (Cauthern?) method. But, that's not an absolute, just an impressions/tendency in what I've seen reported.

[uspta146749877]

I am NOT lefty78

how about answering my other question. also are you lefty78?

Lefty78 is an author of a post at tennis-warehouse.com talk forum
julian
Bedford,MA,US

https://www.julianmielniczuk.usptapro.com

[uspta146749877]

I did NOT do any searching

i did search on the tw site and googled it via aol before i posted .so dont be so sarcastic. if you spent the time searching instead of the time bieng less than helpful you may have been able to help.

I did NOT do any searching

[llll]

Hi,
1.I do NOT have a link right now.
I may try to spend some time searching
but NOT soon.
2.you may try to search using a search engine on the talk forum
of www.tennis-warehouse.com
3.you may try to go to www.google.com
and search looking for ""Cauthern method" via a search engine
julian
www.julianmielniczuk.usptapro.com

no you did not search you just took the time to tell me about google and tw search engine. if this was meant as constructive suggestions then i apologize. since most people know about goople and im familiar with the tw search engine i took your responce as you being a smart-ss

[llll]

From what I gather, Cauthen (or Cauthern?) method is to add weight at 3:00 and 9:00 on the head of the racket, and to add weight near the top of the grip to put the balance of the racket where you want it. Added weight gives the racket better "plow through."

Polarizing the racket is adding weight at 12:00 on the head and at the butt cap. The balance point and swing weight may remain the same because the weights at each end counter-weight each other. But the increased weight adds to longitudinal stability.

There exist proponents of both methods. The racket will perform differently depending on where weight is added, even if balance point and swing weight are the same, because of differeing distribution of that weight. E.g. adding weight at 3 and 9 will add torsional stability, not just longitudinal stability, but will require more absolute weight to move the balance relatively higher. Likewise, adding weight near the top of the girp will require a greater increase in weight to balance the racket relaitively more in the head light direction (compared to adding weight at the butt cap).

There are as many ways of customizing a racket as there are ways to imagine it. In general it sounds like those with more extremely "modern" swings (fast whip through hitting zone) may prefer a polarized racket, where those with more "classical" (long swings with relatively more linear than angular momentum) may prefer the "Cauthen" (Cauthern?) method. But, that's not an absolute, just an impressions/tendency in what I've seen reported.

not sure if counterbalancing weight at the buttcap offsets the relative large increase in swingweight for weight added by putting the lead at 12 oclock. when you add alot of weight at the buttcap the swing weight does not change much so i would think the weight at 12 would not be offset by much

[stumphges]

not sure if counterbalancing weight at the buttcap offsets the relative large increase in swingweight for weight added by putting the lead at 12 oclock. when you add alot of weight at the buttcap the swing weight does not change much so i would think the weight at 12 would not be offset by much

I think offset in terms of balance, not swingweight, was meant.


On the TW boards two customization gurus have emerged in past couple years.

John Cauthen is a poster easily seen as a little off. His 'method' involves, as another poster said, large amounts of lead at the top of the handle, around 7" from the butt. He claims that adding weight here, an idea inspired by pondering the Roman short sword, allows a racquet to be heavy, "but feel light". He also advocated some additional lead at 12 o'clock to get the swingweight right, but not nearly as much as at 7".

Mr. Cauthen experimented with custom shaped pieces of lead sheet metal that he taped on the handle at 7". He claimed that getting the amount, shape and location of the lead sheeting just right allowed the racquet to be solid, maneuverable, powerful - heavy and light at the same time. He claimed that pros such as Sampras had racquets that were 'tuned' in similar ways, ways that were hidden and kept from the public.

Despite the element of wingnut paranoia, his posts were popular at Talk Tennis, with some posters trying out his ideas. Cauthen said that even moderate amounts (10g.) of lead applied to 7" could yield good, but not great results.


Another poster, 'Travlerajm', a PhD engineer, said he had experimented with Cauthen's handle weighting, claiming that adding weight at the top of the handle had a unique effect compared to adding weight at other locations: it increased swingweight (and thus power), but also increased swingspeed.

However, Travlerajm, through a series of public extreme customization experiments, became a champion of polarization - that is, adding weight near the poles of the racquet. His most recent experimental racquet has gobs of lead tape added to a very light stock frame at four locations: 12 o'clock (to increase swingweight and thus power), at 3 and 9 o'clock (to increase twistweight, which improves stability - ala Sampras), at the top of the grip and in the buttcap (to counterweight the weight at 12 o'clock). The result is a racquet weighing about 13 ounces, with a swingweight of about 360 and being about 9 points headlight. Important stability measurements, such as recoil weight and twistweight are off the charts. Travlerajm claims this frame is more powerful and far more stable than retail racquets, yet its polarized weighting makes it surprisingly maneuverable and easy to swing, despite its weight.


Travlerajm also experimented with 'depolarized' racquets - with extra weight near the throat. He claimed that these depolarized frames played stiffer, with less spin, but more power and stability, especially on volleys.

John Cauthen claimed that wood racquets were depolarized, adding to the difficulty of hitting accurate and powerful groundstrokes, and especially service returns - inviting the era of serve and volley tennis.


But for the modern baseline game, Travlerajm said polarized frames were ideal: having higher weight to power ratios and being more spin friendly.

What Bosworth told the OP is backed up by recent pro racquet specs collected by Greg Raven and posted on his website here:

http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html

Rafael Nadal's racquet is a good example of a polarized setup, with the swingweight being higher (350) than the static weight (334 grams), while still being slightly headlight. This is almost the opposite of a traditionally weighted player's racquet used in the 1990s, such as the Wilson Pro Staff - which was heavier (360 grams), had a lower swingweight (325) and wasmore headlight.

Travlerajm claimed that polarized racquets such as Nadal's allowed for a lighter racquet to be more powerful and more spin friendly. Clay court specialists have favored highly polarized frames for some time, with Carlos Moya swinging an extremely light, but very high-swingweight frame, for example.

Serve and volley players traditionally favored depolarized racquets, and even today, players with one-handed backhands seem to prefer racquets with more traditional weighting.

Finally, Roger Federer uses a modified version of the Wilson Pro Staff that has been slightly polarized to accomodate his baseline game. Federer adds additional lead at 12 o'cock on slower surfaces, such as clay, polarizing it further.

I post this stuff only because I've spent too much time reading about racquets on those boards, and figure I should pass on what I think is useful. My primary interest with this is figuring out what type of racquets suit particular playing styles.

If you don't think this information is useful, or the whole topic annoys you, please refrain from posting any venom or vitriole. Instead, "Take what's useful and discard the rest."

[oliensis]

Stumphges,
Thanks for the great summary, including the history of the TTW discussion. That clarifies some fine points for me.

I think offset in terms of balance, not swingweight, was meant.


On the TW boards two customization gurus have emerged in past couple years.

John Cauthen is a poster easily seen as a little off. His 'method' involves, as another poster said, large amounts of lead at the top of the handle, around 7" from the butt. He claims that adding weight here, an idea inspired by pondering the Roman short sword, allows a racquet to be heavy, "but feel light". He also advocated some additional lead at 12 o'clock to get the swingweight right, but not nearly as much as at 7".

Mr. Cauthen experimented with custom shaped pieces of lead sheet metal that he taped on the handle at 7". He claimed that getting the amount, shape and location of the lead sheeting just right allowed the racquet to be solid, maneuverable, powerful - heavy and light at the same time. He claimed that pros such as Sampras had racquets that were 'tuned' in similar ways, ways that were hidden and kept from the public.

Despite the element of wingnut paranoia, his posts were popular at Talk Tennis, with some posters trying out his ideas. Cauthen said that even moderate amounts (10g.) of lead applied to 7" could yield good, but not great results.


Another poster, 'Travlerajm', a PhD engineer, said he had experimented with Cauthen's handle weighting, claiming that adding weight at the top of the handle had a unique effect compared to adding weight at other locations: it increased swingweight (and thus power), but also increased swingspeed.

However, Travlerajm, through a series of public extreme customization experiments, became a champion of polarization - that is, adding weight near the poles of the racquet. His most recent experimental racquet has gobs of lead tape added to a very light stock frame at four locations: 12 o'clock (to increase swingweight and thus power), at 3 and 9 o'clock (to increase twistweight, which improves stability - ala Sampras), at the top of the grip and in the buttcap (to counterweight the weight at 12 o'clock). The result is a racquet weighing about 13 ounces, with a swingweight of about 360 and being about 9 points headlight. Important stability measurements, such as recoil weight and twistweight are off the charts. Travlerajm claims this frame is more powerful and far more stable than retail racquets, yet its polarized weighting makes it surprisingly maneuverable and easy to swing, despite its weight.


Travlerajm also experimented with 'depolarized' racquets - with extra weight near the throat. He claimed that these depolarized frames played stiffer, with less spin, but more power and stability, especially on volleys.

John Cauthen claimed that wood racquets were depolarized, adding to the difficulty of hitting accurate and powerful groundstrokes, and especially service returns - inviting the era of serve and volley tennis.


But for the modern baseline game, Travlerajm said polarized frames were ideal: having higher weight to power ratios and being more spin friendly.

What Bosworth told the OP is backed up by recent pro racquet specs collected by Greg Raven and posted on his website here:

http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html

Rafael Nadal's racquet is a good example of a polarized setup, with the swingweight being higher (350) than the static weight (334 grams), while still being slightly headlight. This is almost the opposite of a traditionally weighted player's racquet used in the 1990s, such as the Wilson Pro Staff - which was heavier (360 grams), had a lower swingweight (325) and wasmore headlight.

Travlerajm claimed that polarized racquets such as Nadal's allowed for a lighter racquet to be more powerful and more spin friendly. Clay court specialists have favored highly polarized frames for some time, with Carlos Moya swinging an extremely light, but very high-swingweight frame, for example.

Serve and volley players traditionally favored depolarized racquets, and even today, players with one-handed backhands seem to prefer racquets with more traditional weighting.

Finally, Roger Federer uses a modified version of the Wilson Pro Staff that has been slightly polarized to accomodate his baseline game. Federer adds additional lead at 12 o'cock on slower surfaces, such as clay, polarizing it further.

I post this stuff only because I've spent too much time reading about racquets on those boards, and figure I should pass on what I think is useful. My primary interest with this is figuring out what type of racquets suit particular playing styles.

If you don't think this information is useful, or the whole topic annoys you, please refrain from posting any venom or vitriole. Instead, "Take what's useful and discard the rest."

[uspta146749877]

Racket customization tools

http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/customizationReverse.html

[llll]

stumphges great summary thanks. would you say as is true for most things one way is not better than another. i will try to polarize a racquet to feel how it plays. my concern and reason for my thread is since i had to give up tennis for one year to tennis elbow i am nervous with that setup. dont know if i should be.

[stumphges]

would you say as is true for most things one way is not better than another. i will try to polarize a racquet to feel how it plays. my concern and reason for my thread is since i had to give up tennis for one year to tennis elbow i am nervous with that setup. dont know if i should be.

See other thread. One way to experiment is to find a relatively flexible and super light frame, then buy a role of lead tape and try out the Cauthen way, then the polarization way, etc. Going to extremes would be pretty interesting.

As I mentioned, Travlerajm ended up cutting off an inch of a Prince Original Graphite Longbody to get a very light and low swingweight platform for customization. The POG is also a very respectable players frame, which, interestingly, got top marks for arm health on the site racquetresearch.com (in stock form).