PDA

View Full Version : Head Radical and Prestige


whoster69
04-14-2007, 08:38 AM
Do the names Radical and Prestige mean anything in particular in reference to Head racquets? I've noticed that they keep these terms from generation to generation and I was wondering what, if anything this means. They also use FXP and Instict too.

Thanks.

Duzza
04-14-2007, 08:41 AM
Do the names Radical and Prestige mean anything in particular in reference to Head racquets? I've noticed that they keep these terms from generation to generation and I was wondering what, if anything this means. They also use FXP and Instict too.

Thanks.

They are the model names. From the Liquid Metal range it has become:

Instinct
Radical
Prestige

followed by other ones that come in and out such as LM 2, LM 4 and so on.

HEAD's flagship technology has been from the past:

Intelligence
LM (Liquid Metal)
Flexpoint
now Microgel

The i. Radical, LM Radical and Flexpoint Radical were all aimed for you could say 4.0+ players looking for a mid weight frame

The Prestige line is the more advanced line, weighing over 12 oz in every racquet brought out.

There's also the Instinct line, which was only with the LM and Flexpoint range. It is now gone and been replaced by the Microgel Extreme Pro.

I hope none of this is too confusing :p

whoster69
04-14-2007, 08:49 AM
Thanks that does help some. So as a generalization you could say that radical racquets are for 4.0 players and Prestige is for players above 4.0? (like 5.0 and above?). What is it that makes them more advanced besides weight or is that it?

Thanks for the information. It helps!

Duzza
04-14-2007, 09:01 AM
Thanks that does help some. So as a generalization you could say that radical racquets are for 4.0 players and Prestige is for players above 4.0? (like 5.0 and above?). What is it that makes them more advanced besides weight or is that it?

Thanks for the information. It helps!
Yeah practically. Although I find that racquets aimed for 4.0 and below are easily usable for 4.0 and above, not so much the other way around.

What more apart from the weight? Well if you look at the specs of the Flexpoint models:

Radical:
Head Size:
98 sq. in. / 632 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 11.1oz / 315g
Balance: 2pts Head Light
Swingweight: 330
Stiffness: 63
Beam Width: 21 mm Straight Beam

The Radical also comes in an OS version, and less advanced players are more inclined to go with a bigger headsize (ease of hitting the sweetspot or some junk). The OS is a bit heavier and a bit flexier (lower stiffness rating) but apart from that, they are both Radicals.

Now the Prestige:

There's 3 versions, Mid, Midplus and XL. I'll take the Mid's specs for this:

Head Size:
93 sq. in. / 600 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 12.2oz / 346g
Balance: 7pts Head Light
Swingweight: 323
Stiffness: 65
Beam Width: 19 mm Straight Beam

As you can see the differences between the Radical version and Prestige version are:

Head Size:
Radical is 5 sq. inches larger (from smallest headsize models)
Length: Same length
Strung Weight: Prestige is 1.1 oz heavier, so quite a bit
Balance: Prestige is 5 pts more HL, and more HL racquets are found in more "advanced racquets"
Swingweight: Prestige up 7 points, so a bit more racquet to swing
Stiffness: Prestige is a tad stiffer, maybe to give it a bit more power that it may need
Beam Width: Prestige is thinner

All of these differences (thinner beam, more HL, higher SW, higher static weight, smaller headsize) are the specifications that are more inclined for advanced racquets.

All this said though, I wouldn't think any less of an advanced player not using an "advanced" stick.

From TW:

Radical MP: As with previous versions of the Radical Midplus, this one is a solid choice for 4.5 + level players, and with its more forgiving feel, it should find some fans at the lower levels, too.

Prestige Mid: In the hands of advanced 5.0 to pro level players with fast, full swings, this racquet can be the perfect match.

whoster69
04-14-2007, 09:12 AM
Great info Duzza! The way you break it down really helps. I had suspected much of that all along, but as someone who is relatively new to tennis, I'm still learning a lot.

You help is greatly appreciated! :)

whoster69
04-14-2007, 09:19 AM
So with Head coming out with a Microgel Prestige and Radical, does this mean they've given up on the Flexpoint system or was it just a gimmick to begin with?

I've been thinking about getting a Flexpoint racquet. I'd guess the prices will drop when the Microgel versions come out.

Duzza
04-14-2007, 09:24 AM
So with Head coming out with a Microgel Prestige and Radical, does this mean they've given up on the Flexpoint system or was it just a gimmick to begin with?

I've been thinking about getting a Flexpoint racquet. I'd guess the prices will drop when the Microgel versions come out.

Flexpoint will soon be out for good. IMO it was a flop, I had the Flexpoint Radical for a few months and the LM Radical was just that much better. Theres some new threads on this Microgel Radical coming out, and it looks to be a solid frame as one of the guys said. The Flexpoint holes just made it too unstable for me.

You may like the Flexpoint, but if you want to try a Radical, the best bet is the LM selling at about 80 bucks now. I own the older Radical, the i. Radical, and that was a pretty solid frame. The only Radical I wasn't satisfied with was the Flexpoint, so I'd hold out on that one.

On the Flexpoint, I just went through the Feedback for it then and this is exactly what I thought.

Comments: I do not like this racquet whatsoever! I had demoed it for about 3 days. It is too flexible to the point that the ball trampolines off the stringbed. The Flexpoint technology only makes this worse. I much rather prefer the Liquidmetal Radical compared to the Flexpoint. The only redeeming quality of this racquet is the touch at the net.
From: Dave, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 11/06
Headsize: 98
NTRP Rating: 5.0

whoster69
04-14-2007, 12:25 PM
Interesting insight Duzza. I already own the Liquidmetal Radical (it's my one good racquet right now). It is one of the main reasons I'm interested in the Flexpoint. I was hoping it would help add more spin and control. I'm looking for a really good control racquet.

Duzza
04-14-2007, 06:39 PM
Interesting insight Duzza. I already own the Liquidmetal Radical (it's my one good racquet right now). It is one of the main reasons I'm interested in the Flexpoint. I was hoping it would help add more spin and control. I'm looking for a really good control racquet.

Interesting, well when you're looking at racquets remember the key thing:

Flexible racquets help for directional control, my RDX 500 Mid is rated at 60 stiffness and you can't go past it for control, although the low flex decreases the power a lot.

tennis939
04-14-2007, 06:52 PM
wow duzza
i disagree with you lol sorry
i though that flexpoint radical was just as good as the lm radical
for me flexpoint felt softer with slight increase of power, which i needed.
i don't think its that much of a trampoline, too
plus i serve faster then before with my fxp

well its all about your opinion of the racquet
its your choice ok?

Duzza
04-14-2007, 06:54 PM
wow duzza
i disagree with you lol sorry
i though that flexpoint radical was just as good as the lm radical
for me flexpoint felt softer with slight increase of power, which i needed.
i don't think its that much of a trampoline, too
plus i serve faster then before with my fxp

well its all about your opinion of the racquet
its your choice ok?
No Problem, I didn't string it many times, but when I read that comment in TW, it remind so much of what I thought. Trampoliney and good at the net.

whoster69
04-14-2007, 07:14 PM
Interesting, well when you're looking at racquets remember the key thing:

Flexible racquets help for directional control, my RDX 500 Mid is rated at 60 stiffness and you can't go past it for control, although the low flex decreases the power a lot.

So are you saying that 60 is a low number for stiffness and therefore it has better directional control?

I'm much more interested in a control racquet than a power one. I'll provide my own power.

Thanks for the information. It helps a lot!

tennis939
04-14-2007, 07:53 PM
yea its amazing at the net
maybe you need a high string tension i guess
mine is 62 and its perfect

tennis939
04-14-2007, 07:55 PM
double post im sorry
yea 60 is a low flex rate and good for placement

if you are interested go for under 65 flex rate (?)
im pretty sure that's flex enough for control but ask others too

stormholloway
04-14-2007, 08:00 PM
I was originally an endorser of the flexpoint. But the hoop is just too unpredictable. If you hit the sweetspot there's massive flex and cupping of the ball, at least for a Head racquet. Anywhere else and there was no trampoline. It's too hard to predict.

Duzza
04-14-2007, 08:05 PM
So are you saying that 60 is a low number for stiffness and therefore it has better directional control?

I'm much more interested in a control racquet than a power one. I'll provide my own power.

Thanks for the information. It helps a lot!

Yes 60 is very low in terms of stiffness compared to modern racquets. For example, the Pure Drive from Babolat is 70 and is an absolute power beast, but bad for the elbow I've heard. 60 is great in terms of low power. There are a lot of good Control racquets out there, just ask the boards.

LarougeNY
04-14-2007, 08:14 PM
wait duzza, Don't stiff rackets have better directional control? I'm not sure, but I heard it somewhere. I might be wrong, b/c I know flexible rackets have better control, but I thought stiffer rackets had better directional control?

Duzza
04-14-2007, 09:03 PM
wait duzza, Don't stiff rackets have better directional control? I'm not sure, but I heard it somewhere. I might be wrong, b/c I know flexible rackets have better control, but I thought stiffer rackets had better directional control?

I think that flexy racquets have better directional control. When I say directional control, it pretty much means all control, because string type and so on will change depth control IMO. But yeh, I'm 80% sure because of the flex, the ball will stay on the racquet for longer, just like in the old RDX ad diagrams.

I just read your last sentence and you may be right. Sorry to whoster if I've given a wrong opinion :p

But what other control aspects are considered? Directional is really the only thing I can think of. The RDX's combination of Flexibility and a fairly open string pattern makes it a spin monster, so that cancels out any problems with "depth" control.

And BTW OP, if you're looking for a control racquet, remember to demo, you may like racquets that others don't. It's all personal preference, this board is a good starting ground for a demo list.

Deuce
04-15-2007, 01:15 AM
Unfortunately, in the past 5 years, the similarities end with the name, size, and string pattern.