PDA

View Full Version : Big difference between 95 and 93?


perfmode
06-02-2004, 02:58 PM
I currently play with 95in racquets and I've always played at that size. Is there a big difference between 95in and 93in racquets? I never really shank balls with a 95 unless I completely take my eye off the ball but I've never played with anything smaller.

**edit**

I'm only worried about the head size. I am talking strictly about framing/shanking the ball with the smaller head, not flex, weight or other characteristics.

ragnaROK
06-02-2004, 03:44 PM
Honestly I don't feel any difference between a 95 and a 92.
Shanks about the same :D But a 90 does feel different in comparison.

dje31
06-02-2004, 05:30 PM
Well, if you lay the Volkl Tour 10 Mid (93) on top of the Tour 10 M+ (98 ), there ain't a ton of difference...maybe the thickness of the frame itself...that's about it.

perfmode
06-02-2004, 07:34 PM
I thinking about trying the POG93 but I wasn't sure if 93 would be a lot smaller. I guess not so maybe I'll demo.

BigboyDan
06-02-2004, 09:07 PM
Yes.

Especially if you serve and volley, half-volley, hit drop shots, slice off either side, lob, or hit flat shots.


No.

If you play baseline.

sandro
06-03-2004, 12:22 AM
IMO the biggest difference is the head shape and related pattern. The 93sqi of a Prestige is very different from the 93sqi of a POG. Even with the same number of mains, more circular head shapes play "larger". Just my 2 cents.

perfmode
06-03-2004, 03:43 AM
Yes.

Especially if you serve and volley, half-volley, hit drop shots, slice off either side, lob, or hit flat shots.


No.

If you play baseline.

What about the 93 makes those shots different?

**edit**

Btw, I am an all-court player.

PrestigeClassic
06-03-2004, 04:01 AM
Read the following comment made by sandro. The difference is the head shape, not to mention string pattern and flex--not 3 sq. in.

perfmode
06-03-2004, 07:47 AM
Read the following comment made by sandro. The difference is the head shape, not to mention string pattern and flex--not 3 sq. in.

The only difference I'm concerned about s shanking. Since 3sq in isnt much, I prolly won't shank it at all.

@wright
06-03-2004, 08:59 AM
93's and 95's often look identical. 98's are hardly bigger than 95's, if bigger at all. Head measuring is very subjective. 5 inches will be noticeable, but 3 or 2 won't. Not even for a S&Ver, a racquet juggler, or anyone else besides pros.

perfmode
06-03-2004, 04:20 PM
93's and 95's often look identical. 98's are hardly bigger than 95's, if bigger at all. Head measuring is very subjective. 5 inches will be noticeable, but 3 or 2 won't. Not even for a S&Ver, a racquet juggler, or anyone else besides pros.

Okey doke.

galain
06-03-2004, 10:52 PM
I'd respectfully disagree with Big Boy Dan. I've gone from a 98 (my Volkl C7) to an 85 (my F200) in the same set with no real difference in hitting performance. For me it's the balance point that seems to make more of a difference than the head size.

BigboyDan
06-03-2004, 11:10 PM
galain,

Then I would respectfully say that you are an exception. Or, the particular game that you play doesn't require much in differing tactics. I can not serve/volley well with any type of racquet that has 98 sq/in in surface area - on it's face, one just CAN NOT get a larger head-size racquet through the hitting zone faster than can one with a smaller head-size racquet. From the baseline, fine; but when standing at the net against a 100mph passing shot, good luck with that fishing net...

Steve Huff
06-03-2004, 11:34 PM
I play with a PK 5g, which is 100 sq in. I've hit with the ROK, and I didn't notice the head size being smaller. It played differently, obviously, but like someone said, it had more to do with the dense string pattern and more flexible shaft.

A comment to the last poster--what difference does head size have with how fast you can swing through the hitting zone. If they were weighted exactly alike, the larger racket might feel like its in the way of itself sometimes, but it shouldn't be any slower when swinging.

BigboyDan
06-04-2004, 12:45 AM
The surface area, and mass, of a 98 is greater than that of an 85 by a factor of 30%, the resistance to air is also greater.

It's a bigger racquet. It is a bigger thing.


What makes it workable is that a 98 is intentionally built lighter in weight-ratio to is size than that of an 85. The trade-off is that while a bigger racquet is more stable, it is less maneuverable. This problem has been the crux of racquet design for the last thirty years. Power versus control.

------

By the way, it might be easier early in one's tennis developement to use a 98 from the baseline, and win, than it is to play serve and volley, and win.

But only to a point.

McEnroe over Borg. Edberg over Wilander. Becker over Lendl. Sampras over Agassi. Federer over whomever...

perfmode
06-04-2004, 03:50 AM
The surface area, and mass, of a 98 is greater than that of an 85 by a factor of 30%, the resistance to air is also greater.

It's a bigger racquet. It is a bigger thing.


What makes it workable is that a 98 is intentionally built lighter in weight-ratio to is size than that of an 85. The trade-off is that while a bigger racquet is more stable, it is less maneuverable. This problem has been the crux of racquet design for the last thirty years. Power versus control.

------

By the way, it might be easier early in one's tennis developement to use a 98 from the baseline, and win, than it is to play serve and volley, and win.

But only to a point.

McEnroe over Borg. Edberg over Wilander. Becker over Lendl. Sampras over Agassi. Federer over whomever...

That's not correct. A 12oz 85 racquet and a 12oz 100 frame have the same mass.

@wright
06-04-2004, 06:28 AM
Which weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?

BigboyDan
06-04-2004, 09:35 AM
Which is bigger: an 85 or 98?


Like talking to chimps.

perfmode
06-04-2004, 09:54 AM
Which is bigger: an 85 or 98?


Like talking to chimps.

Different surface area but same mass. You should have listened in Physics 101.

perfmode
06-04-2004, 09:55 AM
Which is bigger: an 85 or 98?


Like talking to chimps.

Different surface area but same mass. You should have listened in Physics 101.

BigboyDan
06-04-2004, 10:08 AM
No, you should have taken Physics 101.


Two objects that weigh the same do not react the same (given the same action) if one has its weight spread over a larger area than the other. The larger racquet in this case offers more drag when swung through the air than the smaller racquet. Drag and weight distribution ARE what I'm talking about.


What are you talking about?

@wright
06-04-2004, 12:07 PM
Dan is definitely right about the bigger head being harder to swing. Think about swinging an outer limits hammer 2.0 or whatever weighted to as heavy as an 85. The 85 would cut through the air like a hot knife through butter.

stevewcosta
06-04-2004, 01:02 PM
Sandro is right. Depends on various factors and of course, personal preference. For instance, I find the 6.0 85 much easier to use than either the Tour 90 (due to balance) or Head Classic 93 sq. in. (hate everything about it...string pattern, horrible grip etc.).

perfmode
06-04-2004, 07:31 PM
you said this...

mass, of a 98 is greater than that of an 85 by a factor of 30%


that is not true. i pointed that out.

Morpheus
06-04-2004, 07:41 PM
BigBoy, you must be a highly skilled player and, by definition, the exception. Most 4.0/4.5s wouldn't have a hard time switching head size, but they might if the beam width was significantly different AND they used lots of spin.

Perf, I say go for it, you won't notice a thing, except that the POG is a real gem of a racket, and one that will mark you as a true player.

perfmode
06-04-2004, 07:45 PM
BigBoy, you must be a highly skilled player and, by definition, the exception. Most 4.0/4.5s wouldn't have a hard time switching head size, but they might if the beam width was significantly different AND they used lots of spin.

Perf, I say go for it, you won't notice a thing, except that the POG is a real gem of a racket, and one that will mark you as a true player.

I'm going from a 26mm dual taper to a 19mm flat. That might be a little weird at first but I'll see. Also, these auctions on **** that have the old POG like this ( http://cgi.*********/ws/****ISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3680352258&sspagename= STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1 ). Are these racquets the same as the current POG?

Morpheus
06-04-2004, 07:55 PM
I don't believe they've changed much over the years, if at all, but don't quote me on that.

Where's Benjamin when you need him? He'd know for certain.

Robert Jones
06-07-2004, 10:40 PM
Its hard to do apples to apples since the specs of 93s vs 100s is not the same. The 100s are made lighter with low swing weights. Even if they were made with the same specs there would be a "feel"difference. The string tension on the smaller frame should vary less for a given tension. Plus you factor in a small amount of wind resistance increase and you have a difference in the way the racquet feels.

It seems that 60 is too small for consistance topspin but 120 is too large and harder to control.

85-95 range is seems to be the best for control and give enough surface area for net.