PDA

View Full Version : Why not a 16 x 19 MG Prestige Mid Pro?


DavaiMarat
01-09-2008, 09:52 AM
I'm excited to try the new MG line but I'm just a tad curious why not make the MG Pro in a mid size? I see it's available in a Midplus.

I'm going to try it but I'll probably end up leading up a MG Prest Mid, I demoed the Radical Pro, you could will cut the ball up with that thing.

Any comments?

quest01
01-09-2008, 10:29 AM
Its probably because Head realizes that mids dont sell as well as midplus frames. There arent to many people that use midsize frames unless some of the people on these discussion boards, 5.0 plus players, or diehard Federer fans.

Nellie
01-09-2008, 12:06 PM
If you hold the Prestige Pro and the MP next to each other, the strings spacings in the middle are almost identical, with the MP having extra holes in the very periphery. So the difference in the frame is more than the stringing, but likely the weight balance. I noticed, at least according to TW, the Pro has a much lower SW.

DavaiMarat
01-10-2008, 08:29 AM
If you hold the Prestige Pro and the MP next to each other, the strings spacings in the middle are almost identical, with the MP having extra holes in the very periphery. So the difference in the frame is more than the stringing, but likely the weight balance. I noticed, at least according to TW, the Pro has a much lower SW.

Yes but why not a open string pattern with a smaller head. Just open the bed of the Mid and add some weight to the middle.

quest01
01-10-2008, 08:40 AM
I don't know why Head didn't release a 100 square inch Prestige model.

vsbabolat
01-10-2008, 08:45 AM
I don't know why Head didn't release a 100 square inch Prestige model.

I am sure HEAD will release a Microgel Prestige Team version in a 102 square inch head size just like they did with the Flexpoint. But if want a thin beam, 100 square inch, and about 11.8oz. players racquet with a open string pattern I suggest you look into the Microgel Radical Pro.