View Full Version : The 28" head light dinosaur

03-22-2004, 05:30 AM
Has anyone noticed that the 28" head light racquet is extinct ?
With all the racquets being made, why isn't anyone making these ? There seems to be a whole slew of them from the 80's, so I'm trying some of them.
Which are the best ?
I've been using a Head tour XL for a couple weeks and really like it especially for groundstrokes.. In fact, 27" feels like a junior racquet
after the big stick.

03-22-2004, 10:37 AM
i think the increase in swingweight was too much w/ the extra length, and manueverability was low. tough especially for volleys imo. it seems the trends are getting more moderate with 27.5" and 27.25" for slight leverage, but more manageable.

it was big in the 90's i remember b/c it did give extra power and leverage to those who could handle it. i've heard that the head tour xl is a good stick, basically an extended pro tour 280. how do you feel w/ it on volleys? :wink: some others to try in this catagory are the prince chang original, prince chang ti., ps 6.1 stretch, hps 6.1 stretch, hammer 6.2 "original skunk" stretch.

03-22-2004, 11:25 AM
Didn't this trend start with the Prince Chang? My experience is the longbodies/widebodies waned along with aging joints. If you have tennis elbow, let me give you a long, stiff racquet to finish it off. Have a Tour XL and it is great for every stroke except volleys. Rather use a PT 280 anyday.

03-22-2004, 03:01 PM
yep, supposedly the prince chang original revolutionized extended length "players" racquets. it wasn't the first extended length racquet thou.

Gaines Hillix
03-22-2004, 04:28 PM
Yep, the Prince Graphite Chang popularized the 28" frame. It was not unfriendly to the arm. It was very flexible with an RDC rating around 59. It's still a good frame for a baseliner with a two handed backhand, IMO. I think Wilson and Yonex each have at least one 28" frame in their line-up.

03-22-2004, 09:06 PM
I played with the Wilson PS Classic 6.1 95 28" stretch -- 18x20 pattern -- for about a year. It was my second racquet; I didn't know any better.

The specs are probably lurking out there somewhere. It is heavy, head-light, and has a high swingweight. It produced very big serves and was pretty accurate, if you could get it around. That's why I switched. As I faced better players with more pace, I was over-matched with that lumbering stick. I switched to the HPS 5.0 95 stretch (27.5 "), then to the Triad 6.0 PS 95 (27.25") before finally moving on to standard-length timber. My technique also improved, and now I'm more of a fast-ball hitter, occasionally thrown off by the lack of pace. The one thing I miss about those long racquets was the big serves, and higher ace counts, they produced. I also understand they can favor players with two-hand backhands. The biggest drawback, in my view, is maneuverability at the net. If you don't S & V or charge that much, a stretch stick may work for you. By the way, I never had any arm problems with any of my racquets.

03-22-2004, 10:14 PM
classic 6.1 had lower flex (66) than the std length, 14 points headlight, and swingweight around 336.

one thing about extended length racquets that i like is the extended handle length. feels better to hold for my 2 hander. sluggish at the net thou, so it tends to favor baseliners rather than net players.