Prince (manufacturing and or QA?) tolerances

As I had trouble finding retailers (and up the chain, manufacturers) that would send me at least 3 true to spec racquets, I decided to try and order a bunch myself and keep the (best) fitting ones.

The last few years, I mostly played with the 2019 Prince TeXtreme Tour 100 310g. Occasionally switching back to the trusty RF97A. Had demo'd a bunch lately including the VCORE 98 but couldn't find the (next) one.

The 2019 Tour 100 310 had felt always quite harsh to me, which was a big disappointment since the previous gen of TeXtreme had one of the nicest feels I could remember. Also e.g. on stretch shots I could feel the hoop wobble. 

The successor was supposed to address both. I had a hit with it over the summer and quite liked it. Despite the visual design :) (On this overview page, note that Prince mistakenly lists this as 300g.) 

But we're starting to get into a review here...

In regards to tolerances, here's what I was able to measure for the 9 frames at home:

Serial	Weight (g)	Balance (mm)
91795236	308	313
91784919	308	314
91780027	(309?)	(314?)
91786395	(309?)	(313?)
91780171	(310?)	(312?)
91784520	(312?)	(312?)
91780461	(306?)	(312?)
91786951	(305?)	(311?)
92076020	(305?)	(316?)

These would be "grip only". Compare to the official 310 / 310 spec.

Since I didn't want to unwrap all 9 frames, I estimated the values in () based on the following findings:

Weight

Prince cardboard 12g

Plastic grip wrap incl sticker 2g

Finishing rubber 1g

(for wrap and rubber combined, the scale sometimes goes to 4g => 3-4g)

=> -15g for grip only (no board wrap rubber)

Balance

Prince cardboard ~12g moves balance up ~7mm =>  -7mm w/o cardboard

Plastic grip wrap and finishing rubber 3-4g (without cardboard on frame) move balance down ~1mm

=> -6mm for grip only (no board wrap rubber)

So based on my sample of 9, we have very high ~7g and ~5mm spread. 

The 306 / 311 combo should be much too light feeling.

The 312 / 312, especially in comparison with 306 / 311, quite heavy.

Since I couldn't measure swing weight at home, I went by the above measures and dry-swing-feel.

So far I strung up 91795236, 91784919, 91780027, which are within +/- 1g and 1mm. 

Despite this close range they so far feel quite different to me: 1 like a sharp tournament stick, another one like a tweener power racquet, and 1 in between. Maybe that's partially due to where the weight ended up distributed in the frame. 

Once I get the chance of course I'll measure swing weight...

 

So far not enjoying this try-out, and not loving one of the racquets - but we'll see.

Again, in an ideal racquet world, one wouldn't even have to do all this work, but would get true-to-spec and/or "same-playing" racquets straight from the source. 

What do do? Looks like in terms of trusted specs, Yonex seems to have fallen too...

P.S.: Reminder that the player's goal is to find a racquet including specs that work for them, not (only) that the specs between racquets match :)

Yonex VCORE 98 review

Bought 6, sent 5 back...

But let's start at the beginning. As quickly mentioned before, I felt drawn back to the 2023 VCORE 98 when demoing racquets. 

Mostly I liked how fast it moved through the air. The frame felt like a natural match for my longer swings. 

For some time, I'd been wondering if I should move from my quite balanced 310g / 310mm Prince frame to something that would be a bit more polarized, on one end, for a bit more of a self-accelerating swing. 

On the TeXtreme Tour 100, I had put a leather grip for a while, but that ended being slightly too much of a good thing.

Also, the VCORE having that wider hoop up in the racquet and the sweet spot further up there makes sense to me, considering most people seem to hit the ball higher up in the frame. Reminds me e.g. of the Pro Kennex and Wilson tear shaped frames, just not as extreme and maybe wobbly as a result.

Although I had chosen the Wilson SixOne series for many years, I disliked that the sweet spot sat so low in the hoop. Even below the center. So most shots felt like mishits really. 

(Using an X frame could counter that, though with an extra half inch in the case of the KFactor that stick was a little too long to get around quickly and or on the run.)

For the VCORE 98, there was one particular early warning sign - already after a few shots, I felt pain shooting and building up along the whole arm. After hundreds and maybe even 1,000+ racquets that I hit with over the decades, that has only happened a handful of time. Last I remember was maybe ~15 years ago, with a set of quite harsh and metallic-feeling Tecnifibre demos.

But since I liked so much how it swung, and I had been looking for a while, and I'm used to playing with low tension, I thought I'd be able to sort this out with the string job.

As I had recently found quite high deviations between Yonex frames, and couldn't find anyone / -shop to find me 3 true-to-spec ones, I ended up ordering 6 to measure them myself. 3 turned out alright.

I strung up one frame a few times and kept going lower and lower, eventually below 20 kgs. The string bed got quite soft, but I *still* could feel the pain going up my arm.

That does not gel at all why other reviewers thought the frame was quite comfortable... Who even had likely strung the frame more tightly. So not sure what's going on there.

What also became more apparent was that the hoop didn't seem as stable on impact and would quite easily twist.

In both cases, a good amount of the energy built up by the player seemed to get misdirected...

So unfortunately, 2 no-go's for extended and / or competitive play. 

A tennis buddy has 2 VCORE 100s, and while I think that one is a bit too much of a racquet (mostly due to the wide beam), it might be the better buy. More stable, a real ripper, just not much of a finesse frame, and might do a little too much of its own thing.

Warming up against the 100 during a tournament this summer, I had to take a few steps back because the (new) balls were coming in so high hard and heavy. That has also not happened very often. So probably quite an effective frame for the modern game.

Maybe for the next gen of VCORES, something between the current 98 and 100 would be good. 

Other than that, I'm not sure why Yonex decided to make the string bed tighter in the middle section and lower down the hoop. When the racquet was designed for hitting further up in the first place. Then surely you don't need more control (and a change) further and especially far down. 

(Or reversely, why open it up further up when the frame was designed to make contact there?)

I suppose there's even a (at least) double impact then, as the head gets narrower towards the handle and with that the strings shorter, likely pulled at the same tension with constant pull against what's already strung. So the string bed should get much stiffer towards the handle, thus likely leading to a big diff in power response vertically. 

In addition, the last cross string sits very low, and in combination of all the density right above, I'm not sure if it still serves a purpose. Maybe Big Foe thought similarly on his frame, when he just kept that open...

Maybe I still have a few gaps in racquet science, so there's a chance I'm off and being unjust to Yonex here. I suppose in general I just like simple even string spacing, as e.g. on the Prince 100 16 x 18 frames. Assume I'd like that in a VCORE 98 as well - though that of course would have to get tried out.

All in all I still really want to like the frame, and kept one for testing and the collection. Def one of the more interesting racquets put together. Hope the next iteration will be it! 

P.S.: I still don't like the Yonex grip shape, plus seem to be fall between their L2 and L3 sizing. But with the right frame I'd probably manage. Or maybe put a Wilson-shape L3 pallet on it...

Yonex tolerances (e.g. VCORE 98)

Word on the courts has been that Yonex was pretty much the only brand from which you can pick up sticks off the shelf and they'd be very close to spec. Meaning also one would not have to worry about matching between them. 

I was looking at the Percept 97H, as that's pretty much the only heavy racquet on the market since the RF97A had left the show. Measured a few and was surprised and disappointed to find all of then a few grams too light and a few mm too head heavy. Sure you can get close to the 330 / 310 spec again with a slightly heavier grip, but then the fiddling around begins again...

Demoing a few other pre-selected sticks, I did like the VCORE 98 and felt drawn back to it. Although even at low tension I could feel pain in and along the whole arm, which has happened close to never in >40 years of playing at least hundreds of racquets. So not sure what's going on and why a good part of the energy needs to go in that direction...

Anyways, back to spec - in a store that only had 2 VCORE 98s, there was already a 6 (!) gram diff between them. 

Struggling still and again to find an online retailer in Europe that would find me at least 3 matching sticks, I ended up ordering 6 myself, in the hope that 3 would be closer to spec and each other. 

Turned out weight and balance were pretty close between all of them, however with 1 outlier each in weight and balance, respectively. 1 more frame that seemed close to the remaining 3 did feel a bit heavier to move around (3384900 below), despite just maybe 1 mm more head heavy balance:

Serial	Weight (g)	Balance (mm)
3384900	305	315
3384899	304	317
3384898	304	314
3384897	305	314
3384905	305	314
3384908	307	314

(Still can't measure swingweight at home, so trying to at least develop a feel for it - thinking since only feeling a diff later on court as well would be a problem....)

Also worth noting that without the ~2g plastic wrap around the handle, 5/6 racquets were moving from the 305g VCORE 98 spec towards 300 grams, which at least in terms of weight is the VCORE 100 spec... 

I do wonder a bit, why as a manufacturer, one wouldn't just put thin weight strips under the grip, to make final tweaks to get the racquets to fit.

Bottom line:

I think for players who care, one currently can not (no longer?) just go and buy Yonex off the shelf and expect true to spec material. 

(I feel somewhat comfortable making that claim as at max, 1 of the 10+ racquets I measured recently seemed true to spec, and most others were quite far off. Maybe Y has fallen victim to its own success, in that regard?)

Based on my limited samples, I'd say one would have to roughly double-purchase, to then possibly end up with half the racquets to one's liking. 

However as in my VCORE batch, one would still have to tinker around with the grip and / or handle - if one wanted to get to the spec that the racquets where developed and are advertised for. 

Still not there in 2024!

P.S.: FWIW, the cardboard and rubber bands holding it that come on Yonex racquets seem to weigh ~14 grams. So with the ~2g plastic wrap around the handle, what you pick up in the store weighs about as much as a strung VCORE 98. Though obviously, compared to a string job, with that weight distributed. String would add an extra ~2g in the head (~16g total), and removing the wrap would take ~2g off the handle. In other words, you'd have ~4g more in the head, affecting balance and swingweight.

Thinking differently about gear

Some of us, myself included, are always trying to find the perfect racquet and setup. Getting that right to the gram and kps. Then put much effort into ending up with additional racquets that match, including the frame itself, the string jobs, the grip feel, and so on.

However, part of the fun of playing tennis can also be experiencing different gear. Just as we can appreciate multiple stadium rock bands rather than choosing one over the other, it's OK to play with different racquets!

That experience can help us

* become more versatile by forcing us to adjust

* better understand the different characteristics

* confirm and/or re-appreciate our preferred setup, and/or 

* give us insight how to tweak that a little

Or maybe find something very different that surprisingly fits us better.

I also wouldn't shy away from trying the extremes, even if just to experience the whole spectrum. While of course being conscious of and avoiding the risk of injury.

Maybe just don't do all that on matchday or leading up to it!

Between grip sizes?

Personally I really like the shape of the classic Wilson pallets, however I (currently?) seem to fall right between sizes 2 and 3 (4 1/4 and 4 3/8).

2 options: 1) make the thicker one thinner, or 2) make the thinner one thicker.

Assuming one uses overgrips, the easiest thing is to apply them with different pull and overlap, and try different kinds brands and models there (e.g. different thickness and/or material that would stretch more or less). Obviously that again can affect the overall feel and, well, grip.

Additional options for sizing down: 

* Use a thinner replacement grip (note that leather comes in different thicknesses too). 

* Try to rewrap the existing base grip while pulling it more tightly 

* Rewrap the base it with less overlap, without introducing grooves.

The Babolat Skin feel has worked great for me in the past. Note that it's quite light, so if you replace a leather grip as I have on my RF 97, you will drop ~10 grams. This also alters balance quite a bit and does have a impact on plow through and stability.

With a thinner grip, you'll have a more direct feel, but also less dampening / comfort.

For sizing up: 

* As a quick fix, you can add an extra overgrip. If 2 of the one you're using is too much, maybe something thin like the Wilson Sensation in the middle.

* Use a thicker base grip.

* For a more permanent solution, you can also apply a heat shrink sleeve. They come in 2 sizes, to go up 1/2 or a full grip size. Note that in both cases you'll lose the edginess of the bevels a bit.

Note that you also have the option to replace the butt cap. For example, Wilson had equipped their white SixOne 95 BLX (parallel drilling) with a thicker, rounder butt cap. Well-intentioned I'm sure, but it kept me from getting the racquet around as a sized it up. So I went back to the classic edgy shape. 

Before messing around too much, maybe take a step back and see if other pallets (Babolat, Prince, Yonex, etc) suit you better, and a stock grip size works there. You can even use customization shops to put say a Wilson pallet on a Head racquet.

And/or see if you're "gripping" (in terms of holding) the racquet in the optimal-for-you way in the first place. Depending on where in the hand you make contact and if you change that, you may like different grip shapes and sizes. In other words, maybe your current discomfort is due to user error :)

Good gripping!

Maximizing court time

Time is always precious, but in places like New York where people queue up at Central Park before 6am or pay ~$140/hour just for the court, you quickly start to wonder how to make the most out of a session. 

Of course one would want to make sure the gear is in top shape, to fuel up beforehand, and arrive with time for prep and a off-court warm-up.

As for the actual hit, here's a sample plan for a 8pm session: 

7:30 Get ready (change, restroom)

7:40 Warm up off-court (move everything)

7:55 Get close to court

8:00 Mini tennis

8:05 Volley to volley

8:10 Baseline-baseline (freestyle, targets, crosscourt, longline, longline-cross, ...)

8:20 Baseline-net (add directions, in motion)

8:30 Serves & returns (targeted)

8:35 5-point TieBreaks, 1 serve only (for more rallies)

8:45 5-point TieBreaks, 2 serves, 1st serve all-out

8:55 Relaxed baseline exchange

9:00 Cool down off-court

I'd definitely bring a bunch of quality balls (min 6?), so that more time is spent on hitting and less on picking up. Especially in the US where a new can costs about as much as a minute of court time in NYC :)

Conviction

... is probably the opposite of second guessing oneself.

From personal experience, I can say if we'd like to e.g. hit that crazy high risk drop shot, then go for it all the way. Any second thoughts and we'll probably mess it up. Putting that doubt into the middle of stroke.

Even though I'm conscious of this self-sabotage, it still happens. Hopefully less so over time.

Same with anything we do on court really. Maybe not as critical for 1 out of 200 high topspin moonballs into the middle of court. But then again, for those shots, we're probably already pretty "convinced" of being able to make them.

I remember Davis Cup champ and captain Patrick Kühnen telling us during a clinic how crucial it is to be really clear what you want to do.

Seems straight forward - but to what percentage of our actions including the shots does that actually apply? In the middle of a rally, we e.g. tend to switch to "System 1" of more automated thinking and thus actions. There's not much time and many other variables kick in (this is where trained cue and habit kick in).

Put together, one should probably make a clear and concise resolution before a point, and then go for it. If things are going another way, adjust. Then review, improve, retry.

The trying part then, with conviction :)

P.S.: Another interesting aspect may be that even if we make an objectively "stupid" decision (shot selection, positioning), there's still a chance to win the point. Mostly, there's still how the opponent reacts. And again, conviction should increase the odds of staying in the point. vs drawing back because of embarrassment or even disgust. We can make the whole thing right next time. 

Play to win (esp on match point)

I see this quite often and have of course experienced myself: backing off on match point. 

That might still win the point and hence the match, but if it doesn't a few things tend to happen: 

Getting even tighter from then on. Handing over control to the opponent. And if the match does slip away, regrets: why didn't I go for it?

In a 2x2 of won / lost, and having taken  / given charge, it's probably always better to have taken charge. No or at least less "what if's". 

This might be another good tennis match - life analogy: if there's a seldom and important opportunity to grab something, go for it. We can still fail, but this way less to our own fault.

Of course other factors can be at play, like the overall strategy, what worked to get us to match point in the first place, the match-up with the opponent, our own abilities, etc. 

Either way, backing off compared even to previous points seems the wrong and less courageous way to go. (When on the other side of the net or down in a match, "backing off" might be strategy worth trying.)  

As a general guideline for matches though, I like the approach of taking fate into one's own hands, trying to decide what happens on court. So even when there's a loss on paper, we can count that part as a win for ourselves. Which may win us more matches down the road. 

Maybe in real life, as well :) 

Light or heavy racquet?

Think this has been covered quite a few times by now, but I'm still seeing and hearing even better players talk about light or heavy racquets, and with that referring to static weight.

However, except for block volleys the racquet is usually in motion, and the measure for how heavy that feels is swing weight - one could argue the most important spec! Tennis-Warehouse e.g. measures and then lists this on their racquet pages (e.g. 2019 Head Radical Pro @ 325). This key measure has been MIA on other prominent tennis websites such as Tennis-Point, but I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see this popping up soon...

To get a quick sense for values and range here, check out my post about the racquet spectrum. You'll also see that lightweight racquets are usually head-heavier, which brings the swingweight back closer to the heavyweights.

It is true that heavier racquets are harder to get into position and to get going - you're basically lifting more weight. For example I still sometimes struggle with the RF97 when pushed around and/or having to quickly change direction. Comparably, I also sometimes feel like lugging around 350+ grams slightly changes the way I move, even compared to 330 or so.

But once in motion those heavier racquets can actually feel easy to swing. Examples would be Wilson's heavy Pro Staffs over the years, especially the stock versions of the small head / thin beam 85 that Sampras, Courier, and Fed used as a base frame. If you pick up a true to spec (or even lighter and/or head-lighter version) of a SixOne or even an RF97 and start swinging you can still sense that just describing them as "heavy" is not sufficient.

There are also flipsides to having a light and maneuverable racquet, e.g. what happens to the swing paths. Your racquet should both support and guide your natural swing paths, in other words help and develop your strokes. If it feels like there's next to nothing in your hand there won't be much support or guidance!

In addition, if you fiddle the racquet around too much there's increased risk of repetitive stress injuries. Plus lighter racquets are usually stiffer and lose most of the impact battle with the ball, so extra shock occurs.

I'm a big proponent of playing with all sorts of racquets, balls etc - to make things easy, interesting, and/or build skill. However for your "normal" play, I would strongly advice against just going out and getting the lightest racquet that you can find.

As an experiment and experience, these days I would actually try to find the heaviest stick possible, get loose and start swinging, and see what happens to strokes and the resulting shots...

In general, try a few different options along the spectrum, and take along a few dampeners to play around with weight, balance, and thus swing weight, as suggested here.

For some guidance on how to choose a tennis racquet, there's also a post for that!

New balls, please!

[BETA POST to get the content out there, will brush up if there's interest]

TL;DR: In 2019, still can't go wrong with the Wilson US Open Extra Duty or Slazenger Wimbledon. You know how to shop...

Since a friend asked me about this the other day, here are some quick thoughts on the state of tennis balls in 2019. There surely are a lot of options on the market - but subjectively, tennis balls seemed to have been getting worse for some time...

Mainly, I'm thinking this because of my fond memories playing with the original Dunlop Tournament ball in Germany, e.g. back in the 90s. It felt and still feels like the only "normal" ball you needed. It played great and lasted pretty long. Size, weight, felt, and pressure felt just right.

Overall it had a very solid but still comfortable feel to it. It took on spin (i.e. it would land in the court when it should), you could hit winners with it, and after a short break in during warmup in wouldn't degrade much over the course of a long match. In other words, it wasn't limiting your play and experience.

In comparison, apart from different feel, I thought some other recent kinds of balls would consistently fly long. And these days, you often need to pop open a new can for the 3rd set! In some tournaments that's even mandatory... Other balls are so hard, it literally hurts.

As for the Dunlop Tournament, it was just unfortunate that it was so expensive. In your local sports shop it would cost the equivalent of up to $5 / 5€... per ball! When assessed in "cost per enjoyable contact" the ball would get a bit more price-competitive, but still you really had to think hard about when and how many to purchase. One of the successors, the Dunlop Fort Tournament, has gotten a tad cheaper for all the common reasons (e.g. online, competition), but it's still expensive.

It's worth a quick mention that there are also some regional (continental?) differences. While balls in Europe seemed to have been built to last, most balls in the US would be OK for one hit. Pricing was set accordingly - 1 ball in Europe = 1 can of 3 in the US. (So when your US court time is expensive, don't show up with just 3 balls!)

So now, how to pick a ball in 2019? First, thinking of the main use cases, I guess those would be match practice, live-ball practice, dead-ball practice (with partner / coach or ball machine. The more hits, the more wear of course, with a ball machine adding a multiplier there. Ideally there'd be one ball for everything, same or similar to the ones you'll be handed at competitions.

Especially for practice, the more balls the better. Well - at around 200 it might get a bit crowded on court... But still, apart from being enjoyable to hit, they'd need to be somewhat affordable and lasting. Even though I'm still reminiscent of the Dunlops, the better ones are still twice as expensive as pretty good alternatives.

In the US, my favorite ball after trying most used to be the Pro Penn ATP Extra Duty. Another 5.0 tennis friend used to describe them as "friendly", which stuck with me as fitting. You could have a great hit and still put them in a basket for a few more practice sessions. Currently it's not clear to me if they have an official successor after losing the ATP sponsorship to Dunlop. Haven't done much research here since the following 2 meet my current needs:

I've also always liked the Wilson US Open Extra Duty. They're not as light and shaven as some of the other hard court balls. While they can be a bit rocky for the first ~100 contacts, they become enjoyable and stay that way for a comparably long long time. PBI for example uses that one as worldwide practice ball, even on clay, which inspired me to follow suit. I tried them for ball machine use as well, and they seem to manage that much better than the mix of other balls in there. Even though they're officially designed for hard court, they've worked well for me not only on clay, but also on carpet. Guess for cross-surface compatibility it mostly comes down to having enough friction, so that the ball doesn't slide as much on bounce...

In addition I've been enjoying the Slazenger Wimbledon, which is a similar-playing half-priced alternative to the good Dunlops. For ~3 sets they hold up pretty well. Then they turn a bit slow-playing but maintain their size and felt, so generally still good and comfortable for practice. At times these characteristics could actually be exactly what you want - for example for practicing longer rallies at the beginning of the clay season. Or making things more comfortable for beginners. I've also found the Slazengers very if not most enjoyable on hard court - which goes counter the Wimbledon branding's association with grass.

Other balls I had recently tried after shortlisting were

• 2019 Dunlop ATP balls - seemed a bit too soft, at least in Europe.
• Balls Unlimited Black Code - liked them for a while too - initially somewhat comparable to the Slazenger, however they went flat pretty quick.
• Head Championship - hard as stone at first, then become OK for X months / hours, then suddenly die. They smell really bad, so don't leave them in your car or in a room where you spend a lot of time.
• Tennis-Point branded Premium - felt a little harsh and are not really playable after their first use

Bottom line, the above-mentioned Wilson and Slazenger balls seem like good all-around options. If money is less of a consideration, you could also try the high-priced Dunlops or the second-grade Dunlop Trainers (1 out of 4 tends to go flat pretty quickly). 

Finally, if you're about to play competitively, don't forget to pick up the kind they'll be using there for at least one hit before your first match!

Prince Phantom 100 line roundup

Alright, so I've put on record before that subjectively, TeXtreme is so far the nicest playing material of the millennium. Well done Prince!

Also, I felt the last couple generations of Prince's lineup were well thought out - nice specs, good range of racquets. Personally I've just been missing a replacement for the somewhat hefty but friendly Speedport Tour that I've played for a few years. The racquets in the current Tour series are all a bit too light for that (see e.g. my review of the heaviest Tour 95).

While the Tour racquets already addressed the - what would you call it - maybe "classic competitive player" market, the Phantoms took a step further by offering even more a) of a classic design (at least at first sight), b) plusher feel. So how did that line turn out then?

(I know there's a Phantom missing here, didn't test in one go...)

Over the course of 2018, I've spent some court time with all the Phantom 100s. Most recently I had a chance to try number 3 of 3, the Pro. After the playing impressions, I think the line deserves a shot at a roundup...

Here's what I think all Phantoms have in common:

* Simple design (in a good sense)
* Thin and flexible beam
* Plush feeling (due to flex and material)
* Straight forward string pattern
* Proven spec combos

So what sets them apart?

1) Phantom (310g, 310mm unstrung) - friendly playing, but relatively low power ceiling. The swallowing effect of the relatively light, thin, flexy beam gets a multiplier with the big Speedport grommets. (Put a loosely strung Cyclone Tour in there and the ball will probably just drop off the racquet after impact... :P) I had enjoyed these wide grommets for a while in my Speedport Tours, but ended up replacing them with traditional grommets for more power and a more direct response. This Phantom could be for you though if you're after comfort first - coming back after injury could be one scenario. Think it would be a good coaching stick as well.

2) Phantom Pro (305, 315) - slight difference in spec, but almost the Phantom with normal grommets. Still very plush. If you're looking to compete, attempt to rip a winner here and there, and are looking for more precision, this might be the better buy of the two.

3) Phantom Pro 100P (315, 315) - specs and the boxy design are even more of a nod towards a traditional player stick, with a tad more weight and a more head light balance compared to the other two. I had expected to like this one best, but somehow the Pro felt a bit better. The Pro was also nicer to touch for the supporting (!) hand. Players who are missing "the good old frames", or those who are curious to try something other than a Babolat power racquet, would likely enjoy a demo. Even just as an experience, and/or for comparison.

Overall, all Phantom 100s are very nice racquets, of which any come with the potential to help most folks play better AND improve their craft (e.g. play more creatively, or generate power by hitting all out but doing so cleanly).

My one knock about the lineup, and what's keeping me from switching, is that there's not a hefty option, let's say in the 330 swingweight range. That could make quite a nice combo with the current design and plush feel, also getting closer to the way that pros like to set up their racquets. Maybe that's a gap in Prince's lineup? How about a more solid Phantom 100 with a straight 20 or 21 mm beam and 16 x 18 pattern? I guess I'm really asking for a TeXtreme version of the Speedport Tour :)

Regardless of this request, the Prince's Phantom and Tour racquets do deserve to sell a lot and be seen more at amateur and pro tournaments. Should be good for the industry to have Prince re-emerge and make some money to build on the advances in lineup and products. But please Prince, build them on-spec...

My latest 2 demos, the Pro and the 100P, were both relatively far off in terms of weight. The 100P stood out by being 9 grams too light. Even though I don't have access to a representative sample to determine whether Prince has lowered its manufacturing bar, IMO that's already way out of bounds. After finding what e.g. Wilson's seemingly +/- 5 tolerance can do to a racquet, I'd say you want to be as close to what's printed on the frame as possible.

When testing the racquets I tried to factor this in - and yes I think even with almost 10 grams more you won't end up producing a heavy ball with the Phantoms. The upside is that they're all so easy to play, they can get away with being off-spec much easier than most other racquets that come to mind.

The demos came from Tennis Warehouse Europe. Though I'm obviously thankful that they're offering the program, they currently seem to run it as if they don't care about the racquets (and the folks trying them). Apart from not picking representative (i.e. true-to-spec) demos in the first place, the frames were simply tossed in the box, no overgrips provided, base grips were quite worn out, one racquet came with a rubber band and the other didn't, no dampeners included, sloppy string jobs (very different tension on very similar racquets, strings not straightened, cutoffs long, uneven, and sharp), and their own tags not affixed well. That doesn't leave much positive to say, unfortunately!

While some folks believe in the "don't be gentle it's a rental" mantra, you'll find me in the opposite camp - respect and all that. So I was quite disappointed there, and it makes one wonder how other things are run at the shop. From TWE's perspective, it's also a missed sales and marketing opportunity. Probably better to spend some money and care there than in some other places...

Either way, the Phantoms thankfully got away with all that as well, and were still fun to hit :)

Solinco Hyper-G review

I've now used the Hyper-G for the last couple of seasons in practice and 100+ competitive matches, so I thought a quick long-term review is in order:

I remember at first, I didn't believe the hype. Supposedly Andre Agassi, Steffi Graf, and active pros like Sam Querrey, Donald Young were quite excited about the Hyper-G and were using it voluntarily.

Initially, when I tried the string short after its launch, it felt like a mixture of muted and plasticky. After a few more tries later on I started getting used to it, and gave it a go at a clay court season prep tournament. Despite slow, uncomfortable conditions (wet, cold, windy), the string produced good pop and pretty sound all-around results.

Switching back and forth with the Tour Bite for a while, it was apparent that the Hyper-G by couldn't get close to the Bite's grab on the ball, but was much more powerful. Over the years, I've tried stringing up the Tour Bite very loosely to make up for its lack of power, but always felt I had trouble getting the ball through the court.

Also, the Tour Bite reaches a point where it gets tough on the arm - maybe over 22 kgs string bed tension (so ~ >24 kgs pulled). The Hyper-G stiffens up too, but maybe around 1 lbs higher, but does not hurt as much :)

Compared to the average string, the Hyper-G can produce a good amount of spin, so that ended up being the compromise for the last year.



The biggest positive surprise came when I picked up Hyper-G racquets that I hadn't used for months. They still played very nicely, subjectively sometimes even better than fresher string jobs. So while I cut out any other poly after 5 hits max, the Hyper-G can probably stay in twice as long. If you don't play as much and/or are not as picky, you might be happy getting it restrung once per season (so 4 times a year).

Bottom line, the Hyper-G is still in my top 3, along with the Cyclone and the Tour Bite. At the end, the orange Cyclone still wins for me since it grabs the ball better. When it comes to matchplay, you trade that off with a quickly degrading life span, both in terms of tension and ball grab. So after 2 competitive matches, it's due for a match-day restring.

How to think about price? Well, depending on the market, there seems to be a ~20 - ~50% premium compared to the Cyclone or comparable strings like the Gamma Moto. Its priced similarly to comparable Tecnifibre strings and the oldie (and for some goldie) RPM Blast... unless you're e.g. in the US. If you intend to keep the Hyper-G in your racquet for a while, your "cost per decent-feeling hit" might come out cheaper than most of the competition.

For more thoughts around strings, click the "string" label below.

You can also dive into my string jobs over the last ~10 years, including ratings and impressions, here.

Yonex Ezone DR 98 racquet review

(2018 update: added quick EZONE 98 comparison below)

(2024 update: since there's no more DR 98, here's a review of the 2023 VCORE 98)

I did quite enjoy hitting with the Ai 98, so have really been looking forward to try its successor. Let's jump right into it:

Specs

Length: 69 cm (measured on demo)
Frame width: 23 / 24 / 19 mm (Yonex)
Head size: 98 in² / 632 cm² (Yonex)
String pattern: 16 x 19
Strung weight: 325 g (measured on demo)
Strung balance: 322 mm (measured)
Swing weight: 324 (TW)

 

Thoughts on specs

Classic unstrung weight / balance combo of 310 grams / 310 mm. Otherwise harmonic package of head size, string pattern, and frame width (though the max part @ 24 mm starts to get a bit thick for a player's stick). Note the extra ~0.4 cm in length compared to the standard 68.58 cm.

Playing impressions

Not a flimsy racquet, nicely weighted and pretty stable. Frame is quite powerful. String bed is on the denser side, but still produced OK spin. Enjoyed the extra bit of length.

Benchmarking

Had a little bit of a plank-like feel similar to the Wilson SixOne's, though obviously not as hefty. Little surprised about that given the pretty whippy specs. The Yonex Tour F 97 specs are almost identical, however that racquet zips through the air noticeably faster, but is less powerful and has a denser string bed.

2018 update: the new version, EZONE 98, has become a tad lighter (5 grams) and a tad less headlight (5 mm). When I tried it, it felt less planky, a bit more whippy, and more comfortable. While the DR98 nicely bordered on being a player's racquet (maybe except for the 24 mm part of the frame), the EZONE I played moved another step away from that, most of all because it felt less stable. So between the 2, it depends on what you're looking for.

Here's a visual that indicates where the DR 98 fits into the current spectrum:



Recommendations

Player type: Good modern all-court racquet, probably geared towards aggressive baseliners. Should work well for both long or short swings.

String: Would probably put a control oriented, grippy poly in there, strung at around 24 kgs / 52 lbs. Maybe something like the Tour Bite or Black Code 4S. Hybrid should work well too, would put poly in the mains - a) for spin, and b) since the frame is already quite powerful.

Closing thoughts

Really nice racquet that'll work for a lot of players, subjectively one of the 5 most interesting ones currently on the market. Unless you'd like any of the specs much different, it's definitely worth a demo. Gotta have to like or at least get along with the Yonex head shape though.

To get a better idea how this (or any other racquet) compares to what's on the market today, check out the racquet spectrum.

Völkl Cyclone color comparsion (2018 update)

Opinions seem differ on this, but I found that string color can significantly affect string performance. For example, the Kirschbaum Pro Line 2 feels nice and plush in red, but pretty stiff in black. So how about the Völkl Cyclone, one of the most popular polys out there, and (again) my current string of choice?

In general, the Cyclone has been considered a great half-priced alternative to the (overpriced?) Babolat RPM Blast. You probably came across this post since you appreciate its spin to price ratio, while being pretty well rounded otherwise as well (as opposed to the spin chart topping Ultra Cable, for example).

Ironically, despite making a gear shaped string, that's been on the market for years, while most players have been looking for spin strings... Volkl is still not saying anything in regards to spin on the packaging!

The Cyclone is still available in black, yellow, and orange. Serious players would probably choose by playing characteristics, but then there's also aesthetics, and price.

Between the different colors, I found that prices can differ up to about 30%. So for example, should one just buy the cheapest one?



Here's a quick comparison of playing characteristics of the available colors - but first, the setup:

Racquet: Wilson Pro Staff RF97 Autograph

Tension: 23/22 kgs (~51 / 49 lbs) via a Wise Tension Head, constant pull

Gauge: 1.25mm / 17, which has always been my top choice.

Black Cyclone - Surprisingly the softest of the bunch. Playing-feel-wise, it's probably the most similar to the RPM Blast, even though the Blast is much stiffer. Does not snap back as loudly as the other 2. Seemed like the most powerful too.

Yellow Cyclone - To me, the most generic feeling - I remember nothing really stood out to me. When I tested, it seemed to sit right between the comfort and power of the black and the spin of the orange Cyclone. If you want an allrounder, this might be worth a try.

Orange Cyclone - Most audible snapback, suggesting it's the most spin friendly, and feels like it to. Still appears somewhat plasticky to me, maybe the least powerful of the 3. Combined, that makes it the most predictable, which is why I stuck with orange for a while (and came back to it in 2018 after playing the Hyper-G for a couple of seasons).

Price-wise, around $100 / €100 for a 200m reel seems fair. I've seen some colors offered for as low as €90. In the US, the current market price seems to be ~$120. That's still only half of what the RPM costs over there, however starts to creep up on other popular choices such as the Solinco Tour Bite
or Hyper-G (~ $160). So if I was Völkl I'd probably make sure to keep that gap...

Compared to some of the competition, I'd say less spin but more power and comfort than the Tour Bite, a bit more spin but less pop and worse long-time playability compared to the Hyper-G, and softer playing than the black Moto and certainly the Black Widow.

Finally, quick note that a review and comparison of the V-Torque, V-Torque Tour, and V-Star is next on the list, probably happening sometime later this summer (2018). Also, I had already tried the Cyclone Tour a few times, and found it softer, less spinny, but mostly sucking a bunch of power on impact!

More regarding other stings in this comparison.

If you'd like to dig into the Cyclone topic some more, you can take a look at my 50+ Cyclone stringjobs with ratings and commentary...

Wilson Pro Overgrip color comparison

aka "the best overgrip" for tennis (and maybe other racquet sports like badminton too...):

This can be short one - at the end of the day, the white grips packaged as 2 x 15 rolls seem to be much grippier than the other colors. And in my experience, even white grips in other packaging such as individual wraps or rolls (e.g. in the 60 box).

It's still my favorite overgrip, despite having to replace it every couple of sets or hours.

If you want to save some money here, and not cause quite as much waste, you can regrip it starting with the used top part. That way, what overlapped before and is not overlapping now will still be nice and white. Overall, it doesn't feel or look as good as new, but for practice it'll do.

Out of curiosity, I had also tried putting the grips in the washing machine, held together by a mesh bag. That worked surprisingly well, though you do not get the slight initial tackiness when you pull the plastic layer off a new one. Plus if the detergent doesn't fully wash off it can get a bit slippery...

Other brands have been putting out pretty nice overgrips over the last years as well, but after sampling ~10 alternatives, I think the white Wilson Pro Overgrip still has the nicest feel to it.

The "Champions Choice" string job

Just a few lines about the popular (and quite expensive!) "Champions Choice" string job - a hybrid of Wilson's own gut and Luxilon's Alu Power Rough.

Of course Roger made it famous. Like a few other top pros like Novak and Andy, he has the gut put in the mains for power. If you want to prioritize spin, you'd put the Rough there (since the racquet head mostly brushes up on the ball sideways).

I've had a few hits with it, mains in the crosses, and can confirm that it gives a bit of a power premium over a full bed of a poly. Maybe 10-20% based on your poly? Other playing characteristics were alright. Didn't get the impression that it could keep up in spin production with the likes of the Hyper-G, Cyclone, and surely not the Tour Bite.

While these days, you usually cut out polys before they break, the Champions Choice job says goodbye somewhat quickly, especially on surfaces like clay or HarTru. Would give it somewhere in the range of 5-10 hours. So that adds to the expense.

If you'd like to mimic Roger's setup, note that he still uses Power Pads (leather inserts) on the throat grommets and even puts in a few string savers slightly north of the sweet spot...

You can probably save a bit of money and get similar results by buying another proven gut and pair it with the Tour Bite. I read somewhere that Ana played a setup like this for a while.

Personally, I've tried and tried, but putting 2 different strings in a racquet is just not for me! 

Warm up & cool down routines

[BETA POST to get the content out there, will build out if there's interest]

A friend asked me the other day for some pointers regarding stretching for tennis, so I might as well publish what I sent him. Disclaimer that I'm not a physio - the below are exercises that have worked well for me over the last decades, maybe some of them work for you as well!

First and foremost, cold-stretching before play probably does more harm than good, so first I usually do some light off-court warm-up, then some dynamic stretching, and after the hit some static stretching for recovery, injury prevention, and flexibility.

The basic warmup

I first like to do some light jogging or cycling, then go "through the motions". That involves jogging backwards, heel tappings, knee lifts, sidesteps, crossovers, shoulder / arm rolls, self-hugs (alternating the top-arm), maybe some careful upper body rotations (standing twists?), and shaking out arms and wrists, and bending the fingers (e.g. making and releasing a fist). I also like taking 2 racquets and swinging through the main swings. You could also put a weight on one racquet.

That's the warm-up-the-body-part, maybe 5 easy minutes if you don't rush it. That can already get the body ready for a mid-intensity hit. If you feel ready to get started, you can then adjust the warm-up hitting on court to your light pre-hit regime, e.g. by starting more slowly and consciously adding motions that you haven't warmed up - maybe take a few bigger last steps towards the ball or gently exaggerate your upper body rotation.

If you want to prep better and also want to do your body some good, and/or your on-court endeavor is about to get intense quickly (e.g. matchplay after those allotted 5 minutes of warmup hitting), it's probably a good idea to also add some...

Dynamic stretching

For dynamic stretching (after warmup and before the hit), the most important exercises are probably lunges, knee hugs, Frankensteins (straight leg up, carefully), mobilizing the hip, and gently pre-stretching shoulders as well as forearms and wrists. A deep squat has become my favorite stretch to create some mobility and breathing room for the lower back - that one stretches a bunch of stuff at the same time, e.g. the glutes.

If you worry about your heels (e.g. if that's your weak spot, and/or you're over 30, and/or you play on hard court etc), you can do a few slow heel lifts and stretches, on a step or similar. For those, I found that there's a thin line between warming up and 1) strength-building (takes away energy and tightens calf muscle / increases pull on the tendon), and 2) deep stretching (relaxes and thus tires muscle). You'll get a feel for it - maybe try 5 on each side first. Another option could be going into a downward facing dog pose,  and alternately pushing your heels backwards - that actually feels quite good after a few reps. Good to do at home too...

Serious folks also like to do resistance tube stuff for the upper body. If you measure resistance and reps right, you'll get a bit of a workout without tiring your muscles too much - so that's some toning and more importantly stability you can feel. Might be fun to have one tube to grab onto in the house? I like the orange-level resistance, burgundy might be good for warm-up too. And you can always adjust the level (i.e. length) of pull.

Update: here's a fitting video that the USTA came out with at the beginning of 2018:




After the hit is before the hit

Afterwards, you have the opportunity to speed up recovery and increase flexibility, thus also prevent injury and improve performance for next time. Plus you're already out there and warmed up, so might as well make use of that flowing energy...

You can do some static stretches, maybe as you chat or grab a drink so that the whole program doesn't feel too heavy. If you've been exposed to hard court impact, the lower body might be a tad more important, especially calves / heels, maybe also glutes.

For the calves, you can step onto something elevated and carefully let the heels drop and stay there for 5 breaths or so. Then repeat once or twice.

For glutes, holding that deep squat I mentioned earlier feels good to me (make sure the knees are positioned comfortably), or doing some variation of the pigeon stretch.

I usually go through a whole top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top routine, sometimes in the shower. You can probably first pick a few stretches for whatever tends to get tight and go from there...

To soften tight muscles, electrolytes and that massage stick I have been using come to mind.

Closing thoughts and some more visuals

Over the last decade or so, I've started to see this kind of work more of an opportunity to maintain, improve, and future proof the body, so it's great when it's anchored on a fun activity and some social interaction!

Here are some videos I found, for inspiration:

Novak (very advanced and a lot of static stretching in there, so you probably don't need / want to do the whole thing before playing!)

Maria (gets into those heavy medicine ball stuff pretty quickly)

Some good dynamic stretches, for me warming up only with those would probably not get the blood flowing / sweat going enough - you can skip around to get a visual for some of the exercises I've mentioned above. Exercises start at 1:06:

Playing with seeing aids

[BETA POST to get the content out there, will build out if there's interest]

Some of the questions addressed below

* What happens to my tennis game if seeing / vision improves?
* Reversely, if I don't see well, what happens to my game?
* Should I play tennis with glasses or contact lenses?
* What happens when I start playing tennis with glasses?
* How does the magnifying effect affect my game?
* How do I go about finding the right seeing aid?

Seeing & tennis

For most of my tennis life, I have felt that 1) I had more of a "global perception" (is that an infinite extension of triple vision?), and 2) never really looked at (picked up?) the ball. After a bunch of thinking and research on that topic, I'm still not really sure if those are skills or deficits - or maybe a bit of both? But, when I recently found out that I'm farsighted (i.e. I can use some help seeing near), I thought I should try playing with seeing aids and see what would happen.

Up to this point, I've adjusted with "accommodation" - basically using eye muscle power to bend the lens. That's quite exhausting over time, and tends to get harder as you get older. Also, on court you probably want to keep your eyes relaxed and put that energy elsewhere...

To improve as a player, I'm constantly trying to assess elements of my game and benchmark it against others. In more recent years, I've been trying harder to demystify skills and find out why people have become good at something. For example, here are some things I've been wondering about that might relate to eyesight:

• How do some other players put away balls with much more assurance, even though I have the determination, technique and practice to do so?
• Why do some seem much more balanced?
• Why do some appear much calmer, and why does the timing seem so much better?
• Why do they seem more consistent in general, day in, day out?
• Why do they seem to handle misbounces much better?
• How do others pick up what the opponent is doing, e.g. for poaching?
• Why do I seem to have a more of that "global perception" on court, and subjectively 0 focus on the ball?

Trying out seeing aids seemed like a good way to get some answers. I though I'd give both of the usual suspects a try, glasses and contact lenses.

Playing with glasses

Being far-sighted, the biggest change playing with glasses was the magnifying effect. Everything was suddenly nice and sharp, but also huge! For my values of roundabout +3 dioptrics, everything seemed 20-30% bigger. On court, that was the biggest adjustment to make, probably because brain & body were trained for decades to measure & react to distance of oncoming objects without that magnifying effect.

After a few practice sessions I did feel it would be net positive to play matches with glasses, rather than without a seeing aid. In the matches, I found that I was handling normal-pace balls pretty well, but often when I had to react quickly I'd make contact too early. The magnifying effect made my brain think that the ball was already there. There were a few frustrating and outcome-affecting situations, such as putting sitters on top of the net straight to the bottom. Returning fast first serves was tricky too. What helped me was triangulating the distance to the ball with other objects in my field of vision - such as my other hand, my neon-colored string, and maybe even the tip of my cap's visor. And of course a lot of repetition, especially where reflexes where needed (e.g. volley-volley).

Things people warn about in regards to playing with glasses are limited field of vision, the frame obstructing that field, and the glasses fogging up. The first two I didn't have problems with - probably because my head does keep turning towards the ball until its trajectory is locked in, and when the ball gets very close you can't really see it anyways. For months I never had a problem with fog, until of course I played the National Championships on indoor HarTru. That surface needs a lot of water, so humidity was pretty high. Every 10 seconds or so the glasses would fog up, and I could not see much at all - not fun. To counter, people seem to recommend anti-fog spray or keeping a layer of liquid soap on the glasses, which I haven't tried yet.

A positive experience of playing with glasses was being able to see really well what the other player was doing, even from one baseline to the other. So that meant earlier prep, improved anticipation, and with that better movement, timing, and balance. I felt how most of the microadjustments I had made over the years started to go away. I probably got looser overall too.

Bottom line, the brain does adjust over time and it's been nice feeling more stable and hitting the ball very cleanly. I find that magnifying effect bothersome though, and also would not like to get into another situation where the glasses fog up during an important match.

Outside of tennis, the magnifying effect bothered me too. For example, I did not like that the car gauges, a basketball, or even people's faces suddenly looked so huge. For working on the computer or watching TV it was pretty nice though, since everything was sharp, and in a sense you get a screen size upgrade.

Playing with contact lenses

Out of the gate, most people would recommend contacts for sports. I wanted to experience both though - out of curiosity, and to see what works better for me.

At first, I had trouble putting the contacts in, probably because our natural and often reinforced instinct is to protect our eye from foreign objects. In addition, the first couple of lenses I tried were not that comfortable.

The biggest problem though was that my local optometrist, part of a major chain, gave me weaker lenses compared to my glasses. After talking to a few others and doing research, you're supposed to do that for nearsighted folks. So those contacts helped a little bit, but neither felt effective nor natural. If you're far-sighted (again, you can see well into the distance and need help closer up), you'll at least need the same dioptrics numbers as you do for glasses.

A different optometrist gave me a demo pack of Bausch & Lomb's PureVision 2 in the right strength - in my case same as the glasses. I immediately saw great, and after a few seconds did not even notice wearing them anymore.

If optometrist and/or eye doctor agree, you can leave those 30 lenses in for 30 days straight, day and night. Looks like experts recommend taking them out for activities like sauna, swimming, or anything else that could affect hygiene, oxygen exchange, tear fluid etc. I'm surely not an expert here, just pointing out a few things to be cautious about.

Being on court felt pretty natural again, will have to play some more and see what happens. Jumping into a match right after playing with glasses for a few months was a bit tricky though. I expect the readjustment to take some time, however less than adjusting to playing with glasses :)

Takeaways, for now

In hindsight, I should have gone straight to (the right) contact lenses. Maybe go to 3 optometrists, see what they recommend, compare, and try things out. Demo packs seem pretty common too, so it probably won't hurt to pick up a few different contacts and see which ones work best.

Before playing with a seeing aid, it looks like I had taken on a bit of a Dare Devil challenge. Since vision was handicapped, I had to amplify my other senses. For example, I think I triangulated ball position and point of contact by picking up that oncoming trail of yellow, by sound and rhythm, and by building up a lot of experience over the years. Maybe that's also one of the main reasons why I can tell if a racquet 1 mm or 1 gram off, if the grip is 1 mm too thick, or if the string job did not turn out perfectly.

Tennis (and the rest of life) is definitely a lot more fun when you can see well. My hypothesis is that most players on top of their respective game have great vision - as seems to be the case with Roger Federer or Timo Boll.

Overall, playing without and with different seeing aids were valuable experiences. In theory those should have added some differentiated learning for brain & body, and will hopefully pay dividends in the long run. I'm curious and cautiously excited about feeling more comfortable on court, especially in matches. Will provide updates here once I learn more...

The tennis racquet spectrum

These days, it's thankfully easy to look up specs for individual mainstream racquets. One good resource is Tennis Warehouse (RF 97 example), who also offer their Racquet Finder to find racquets within custom ranges.

However, I haven't found a nice overview showing the current spectrum of what you can buy, so I took a first pass at creating one. The below charts are derived from roughly 250 frames that have been on the market over the last couple of years. The list is not comprehensive, but the decent sample size should give us a good idea of how the world of tennis racquets looks like.

Weight & balance (mm)

This scatter plot nicely shows the correlation between weight and balance. Generally, the lighter a racquet, the more head-heavily balanced, and the heavier, the more head-light. The general correlation here is that for every increase of 10 grams, the balance point moves down by about 5 mm.

On the heavy, more head-light end we find some classic-spec frames, such as the Wilson SixOne 95 or Roger's RF 97. Fully loaded, the stock RF 97 can come in over 360 grams. The lightest racquet I found on the market is the Donnay Superlite 114 at 238g, which is the outlier in the bottom left. So the spread here is about 120g, or a possible weight increase of up to ~50%.

In regards to balance, the most head light racquets are classic player's sticks like Pete's Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 85, the Völkl Power Bridge 10 Mid, and the Vantage BC20, all balanced at around 310mm. At the other end of the spectrum we mostly find game improvement / comfort racquets, such as the Head Titanium Ti.S5 Comfort Zone or Wilson Hyper Hammers, balanced at and even above 385mm. So we're seeing more than a 75mm range, or about 10% of total racquet length.

In the chart, we find the biggest cluster at around 325g and 325mm - probably a proven combo for players who have developed sound technique, and would like a versatile racquet allowing them to hit any shot in their repertoire. Good examples here are the Wilson Burn 95 FST, the Head Prestige Pro, or the Yonex Ezone Ai 98.

There's also a bit of a cluster around 280g and 350mm, where we find racquets such as the Dunlop Biomimetic S 3.0 Lite, the Head Graphene XT Speed REV PRO, and the Wilson Burn 100 ULS. Easy-playing racquets that should help develop more fluid swings and/or get the ball into the court.

Again, the biggest takeaway here is the correlation between weight and balance. The combination of the 2 lead to swing weight:

Swing weight (kg cm²)

The max value at 412 is the Gamma RZR Bubba. If you look again at the weight / balance scatter plot above, you'll find it out on its own at roughly 300g and 390 mm. This combo leads to the highest swingweight of any mainstream racquet I found.

Min: 282 - Völkl Team Speed Orange, 283g and ~334mm.

Average: 317 (e.g. Babolat Pure Drive, Dunlop Biomimetic F5.0 Tour, Prince Textreme Tour 100T)

Median: 316 (e.g. Yonex Vcore Tour 97 310g, Wilson Steam 105S)

Note: You can even go deeper here by looking at twist weight and recoil weight. Those measures are harder to get and may be more interesting for high end players who also care about optimizing their racquets.

Length (inches)

The standard length of 27 inches / 68.58cm is still the most popular, represented in ~3/4 of the racquets on the market.

The 27.0 - 27.5 range is somewhat popular too, mostly for game improvement racquets. Examples for 27.5 are the Babolat Pure Drive 110, or the Wilson Blade 104 that could be interesting for two-handers.

Notables in terms of length are the Head Graphene XT Instinct Rev Pro that is a bit shorter at 26.8 inches / 68.07cm, and at the other end again the Gamma RZR Bubba @ 29 inches.

Head size (in²)

Max: 137 - again the huge Gamma RZR Bubba.

Min: 85 - that's the Wilson Pro Staff 85 you can still buy today. Followed by more recent frames such as the Yonex VCORE Tour F 93 (=> 93 in²) or the Head Graphene XT Prestige Rev Pro (also 93).

Average: 101 (e.g. Völkl V1 Classic, Donnay Pro One 102, Head Graphene Radical S).

Median: 100, such as the Babolat Pure Drive, Dunlop Biomimetic M 4.0, Head Graphene XT Speed MP A, Wilson Juice 100 / 100 S, Pacific X Fast Pro, the Prince 100 racquets, and many others. Probably the "sweet spot" in terms of head size these days.

Stiffness / flex (RDC)

Max: 75, e.g. the Asics racquets, such as the 109 or the Head Titanium Ti.S6. The Wilson Juice 100S is up there too, at 74.

Min: 45. Vantage frames come in pretty soft below or around 50. Some of the softer mainstream frames are the Head MicroGEL Radicals (~56), the Donnay Pro One GT 18x20 (57), the Babolat Pure Control 95 (58), or the Wilson Blade 104 at 59.

Related note: Wilson Triad racquets feature gel inserts between the head and handle, resulting in a very low stiffness measures (around 17).

Average: 66 (e.g. Wilson Six One 97 and 97S, Yonex VCORE Tour F 97 (290g), Head Graphene XT Instinct MP.

Median: 67 (e.g. Babolat Pure Strike 16x19 (Project One7), Volkl Super G V1 Midplus, Prince Textreme Warrior 107).

Other racquet properties

... to think of are frame width, string pattern, grommets, and price. So some quick thoughts for now:

Width: 22mm beam width seems is pretty standard these days. More classic frames can be as thin as 18mm (e.g. the Pro Staff 95S or Roger's "old" Tour 90). Donnay made a comeback a few years ago with frames that were 15mm thin in some places. The Asics 125 or the Wilson Hyper Hammer 5.3 Stretch OS come in at 28mm, and the Prince Textreme Premier 120 marks the high end at 30mm.

String pattern: Recently, more open patterns have emerged to promote spin generation - if you see a 16x16 combo, or even less strings in any direction, you've probably found one. Classic patterns like 16x18, 16x19, or 18x20 are probably still the most prominent. PowerAngle racquets are somewhat interesting in this context, since they're strung diagonally.

Grommets: Over the years, many manufacturers have played around with grommets too, mostly aiming to increase the sweet spot. This has been done e.g. by trying to reduce friction, giving the string more room to move, or inserting some elastic material. In the last racquet generation, Wilson drilled the holes parallel into the frame, which seems to have worked well for the SixOne 95 that I had played for a while.

Price: New top brand racquets usually cost around $200, last gen racquets tend to be reduced to around $100, and current discounted or 2nd tier brand racquets are around $150.

So there you go, for now. Maybe this can help you find the right racquet, save some money by buying a previous generation, and push the industry to innovate beyond the usual variables...

Happy to rework or tweak this based on feedback and interest. Cheers!

Solinco Tour Bite gauge comparison

After playing the Tour Bite 1.25 for a good while and occasionally ending up with arm pain, I started looking at the 1.20 and 1.15 mm versions, as they are significantly softer / less stiff. I ended up ordering all 3, and strung up my 3 SixOnes @ 21/20 kg for a direct comparison:

My playing impression was that both thinner gauges are playable, even for someone like me who's been committed to 1.25 mm. I was mostly concerned, but also curious about the 1.15 mm. That one surprised me by not feeling as tinny as I had expected. Overall, the 1.15 immediately appeared familiar and quite predictable to me. The only noticeable downside was that it swallowed a good amount of power, which I first noticed by watching my overheads dying off a bit, versus going though the court.

As one would expect, the 1.2 mm does fit between the 1.25 and 1.15, however it doesn't sit straight in the middle. Compared to the 1.25 you get an over-proportionate drop in stiffness, but in terms of feel it seems to stay closer to the 1.25 than move towards the 1.15. This is confirmed by TW's string data:

Gauge (mm)	Stiffness (lb/in)	Spin Potential
1.15	161.7	5.8
1.20	181.2	6.3
1.25	237.7	5.9
1.30	202.9	6.7

According to TW, the 1.15 is actually 1.18 mm thick, the 1.2 is 1.23 mm, and the 1.3 is 1.34 mm. That also helps to explain why the 1.2 felt close to the 1.25, and the 1.15 didn't feel too thin.

So how to choose a gauge? Some thoughts:

* If you *are* looking for stiffness, the 1.25 is clearly for you. Subjectively, the ball grab is the strongest I've experienced so far, producing not only vicious spin, but also providing confidence in match play.

* If you like thicker gauges, the 1.3 can give you a boost of spin, and I would assume power too. I could see the 1.3 doing well in a Pure Drive, or some other >= 22 mm beam frame with an open pattern.

* The 1.2 now seems like a compelling all-around option, and thus maybe the best Tour Bite to try first. It's probably most interesting for all-court players wielding a player's stick, for example a current Prestige Pro, Blade, Pro Staff.

* The 1.15 might be an interesting option for finesse players - it might do well in a 18x20 control frame such as a classic Prestige or - loosely strung - in control-oriented Yonex like the VCORE Tour F 97.

So that's some directional info. I have been blasted off the court by a 1.15 a couple of times, meaning other combos are surely possible as well. My takeaway from this comparison is that I'll likely give the 1.2 another go sometime in the near future...

Related: Comparison of interesting strings in 2016