From Mid to Midplus: The Great midlife Migration

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by corners, Feb 22, 2013.

  1. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    I'd be happy to give you a couple customization options. So you're starting with a stock PS 6.0 95. What would be your optimal specs? Or, what other racquet that you've played with would you like to match it to?
     
    #51
  2. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    Yeah, and the new headshape they came up with for the IG Radical Pro is more like a 93. Lots of people don't know about how the Heads have smaller heads than advertised, and they play quite well with them anyway, thinking they are larger than they are. Kind of suggests that the limitations of smaller heads might be partly in our heads. :)
     
    #52
  3. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,443
    Migrating the other way... I'm moving back down from OS to midplus again.

    Falling in love with my new BLX Blade 98. Love the heavy-spin ball response at 377SW, 33.0cm, 379.8g. 3 layers of lead from 1-to-4 & 8-to-11. A lot of lead at top of handle. Kevlar 18/SPPP 17 @ 50/48 lbs.

    Had my eye on this frame for a long time, and waited patiently until the price finally dropped below $80. I even like the hot pink.

    This frame fills a niche that none of my others in my collection did. My diablo mid had too much tailweight stock to do this; my other midplus frames were too open pattern; and my OS frames can't give me this level of plow-through without going to even higher swingweight.

    Feels like I'm tapping nails with a hammer when I hit volleys against the wall. And ball bends like a banana when I give it some English. Ball goes where I expect it to. Ultimate in control. Nothing like the combo of massive swingweight/twistweight, dense pattern, a touch of flex, and slippery crosses.

    Can my 40-yr-old arm handle moving up a swingweight class to spank the ball with the specs that Boris Becker used to use? - time will tell!
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2013
    #53
  4. sansaephanh

    sansaephanh Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,166
    Location:
    Oakland
    Thanks corners. I'd actually would probably like it around 11 pts headlight strung. It's so solid in the hoop already, All i really would like out of it is to be faster through my swing. The IG prestige mid is so quick for me through the air. Just barely has enough weight so it doesn't get pushed around at all unless i shank or am just late setting up. Played a 4.0 (former 5.0) and he was hitting kicks to my backhand all day with enough pace to upset my 3.0 1hbh. I was still getting it back over with decent pace. So quick and so much feel. Loving the mid so far.

    How would I figure out what specs my PS95 is at now?


    I also believe that. The most important thing that head sizes/shapes and head shape/size technology change is the perception of feel. That's what i truly believe. The Headsize sillouette between 2 modern rackets is negligible, but the perception of "forgiveness" and "feel" is not.

    It's probably why i'm taking so much stock in using my mid.
     
    #54
  5. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    33 cm? Very long balance for you. What gives?

    This question becomes more and more important with each passing year, I find.
     
    #55
  6. Timbo's hopeless slice

    Timbo's hopeless slice Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,097
    kind of amusing in a sad way tonight

    played a younger guy, should have been a big hitter looking at his form but lots of short balls and balls with no pace.

    big, strong guy, nice technique

    but he was rocking blx 6.1 90s, with lead!

    he just didn't have the game for them (hell, who does?)

    he muttered something about a snowshoe early on in his 6-1 6-0 loss, I wonder what he meant by that?
    :)
     
    #56
  7. Gee

    Gee Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,265
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    More like a 93? Did they change the headshape with the IG version? So the IG Radical Pro has actually a smaller headsize than the IG Prestige MP? Can you explain all this more in detail?

    O,.. I understand,... You meant 98 in stead of 93!
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2013
    #57
  8. Gee

    Gee Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,265
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    This sounds like:

    - his racquet is way too heavy
    - too demanding for his game
    - his footwork wasn't well enough
    - he lost from a much better player
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2013
    #58
  9. Timbo's hopeless slice

    Timbo's hopeless slice Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,097
    it's all of the above, i guess, but that club wasn't exactly helping...
     
    #59
  10. max

    max Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,682
    For me, the question is, how much racquet weight can I swing if I'm only playing once a week for two hours?

    Back ten years ago, I was out there 3-4 times a week; makes a big difference, all that swinging, in how much lead you need.
     
    #60
  11. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    Yeah, it definitely looks to me like the IG Radical Pro is smaller now than the IG Radical MP. I don't know how it compares to the Prestige MP. They went from 100 on the Youtek Rad Pro to 98 with the IG Rad Pro. But it doesn't appear that they adopted the normal Rad MP headshape for the Pro. TW University measures heads at five locations and the IG Rad Pro is narrower than the IG Rad MP according to those measurements. I've also compared photos of them using superimposition software and the IG Rad Pro is definitely narrower in the head than the IG Rad MP, especially near the top of the hoop. So if the IG Rad MP is listed as a 98, but is really a 95, then the IG Rad Pro is smaller than that, so more like a 93, or even a 92.
     
    #61
  12. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    It depends on whether you have any mods, but let's take the specs TW listed for the 6.0 95 with the addition of an overgrip (since I assume you use one). That gives us:

    351 grams (12.4 ounces)
    30.7 cm balance (11 HL)
    317 swingweight

    So if you do use an overgrip you're already at your target specs! If you don't use an overgrip you simply need to stick 3 grams of leadtape at the very bottom of the handle. I can't remember if the 6.0 95 has a trap door.

    If 12.4 ounces is heavier than you want, you could replace the leather grip with a firm but lightweight synthetic, like Volkl's DNX grip. If you did this, then stuck 5 grams of lead at the bottom of the handle, you could achieve 11HL at about 343 grams (12.1 ounces) of total weight.

    By comparison, your IG Prestige Mid has the following listed specs.

    349 grams
    32 cm balance (7HL)
    Swingweight 317

    So your Prestige is actually very close to your 6.0 95 right now, but the Prestige is not nearly as headlight as you like. How does it swing for you? I find that if two racquets have the same static weight and swingweight, that the one with the Less Headlight balance actually comes through the hitting zone quicker, which is the opposite of what we expect.
     
    #62
  13. B.B.

    B.B. Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Södertälje, Sweden
    I have gone back and forth. When I´m in a big head face (opps) I tend to get lazy and don´t care about technique after a while.

    When I play a players frame I have more fun and play using my skills, but then suddenly that 105 sq/in Prince looks so fun again...
     
    #63
  14. Timbo's hopeless slice

    Timbo's hopeless slice Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,097
    Thing is, there is no reason not to play using your skills with any racquet..

    It isn't as if a mid plus somehow plays the shot for you or won't reward good technique, is it?
     
    #64
  15. Gee

    Gee Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,265
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    You 're right. You 'll benefit from a good technique regardless what racquet you use. However flaws 'll punish you less with a more forgiving racquet.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2013
    #65
  16. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    37,268
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    I'm 64....
    When I play bad, I can play bad with a 107 or a 95, 10 oz., 11oz., 12.5oz..
    When I play well, I can play well with all the above, but I FEEL better playing with a 95.
    When I play in between, a bigger racket get's more balls back.....but is that playing better or worse?
    First flat serves goes fastest with 95 and 12.4 oz. Fastest doesn't always win points.
    Second spin top/slices go best with any racket.
    So, let's wander between 107 to 95, and weights from 295 to 345, and SW's from 305 to 345.
     
    #66
  17. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,443
    I was inspired by your other thread on the effects of extra weight at 3-&-9 on spin. After, I posted this:

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7248204&postcount=68

    I realized that I missed the heavy-spin feel of some of my heavier setups, and wanted to experiment a little more at higher swingweights to get higher rpm ball response.

    After leading up to 377 SW and getting the ball response I wanted with the Blade, then I added lead at the top of the handle until the MgR/I felt right. 33cm is what I ended up with (MgR/I is about 20.83).


    I find I'm using a little different forehand technique with this setup - the MgR/I feels right for the gravity-drop portion of the swing to get the racquet in the right position, but something about the more 'pendular' longer-balance feel makes it more natural to really rip hard it by initiating the uppercut just after the racquet drops into position at the start of the hitting zone. I am using a little bit more arm effort than my usual relaxed stroke (and the outer side biceps can tell the next day), but partly because it feels more natural to do so.

    Also, I've always found that longer balances work better for serve, giving a more connected feel with the racquethead and little more pop.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2013
    #67
  18. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,443
    Hmm - played a match last night. Found that the balance wasn't as tuned for my forehand as it seemed against the wall. So I got too excited too soon. Really enjoyed blocking back returns with forehand punch though - really solid. Liked the precision of the stringbed.

    Serves erratic, but more due to lack of practice than racquet. But couldn't execute a full forehand stroke due to poor tuning job. When I did get a heavily ripped forehand in, my 4.5 opponent couldn't deal with how high it bounced - but the forehand sprayed too much - couldn't control the racquetface.

    So this morning I operated on my Blade - changed the specs to bring MgR/I all the way up to 21.0.

    New specs: 373 SW, 12.56" balance, 13.81 oz. Will play a match this afternoon to test. If I have time I'll swing by the racquetball court wall first to fine-tune.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2013
    #68
  19. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,443
    Nailed the specs perfectly this time.

    Had a hit indoors today at UW. Haven't felt that smooth hitting groundies... ever.
     
    #69
  20. Doubles

    Doubles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,295
    Location:
    Approaching the net
    ^And the honeymoon period begins.
     
    #70

Share This Page