Discussion in 'Racquets' started by dima, Jun 7, 2008.
Besides size that is.
the k95 feels like trash compared to the k90, but the k90 is more demanding. i hated the feel of the k95 and prefer the n95 over the k95.
Not much difference in my opinion. Do you like a bit higher static weight (if so the K90) or do you like a bit more swing weight (either K95). We are splitting hairs but if you can play with one, you can play with the others. It comes down to preference. I play mostly doubles and use the K95 18x20. If you are a singles specialist, you may prefer the K90.
With string adjustment, they are all essentially the same. You really can't go wrong with any of them if you can handle the weight.
Give them both a hit and you'll see.
They are night and day...
The feel is totally different...(e.g pure drive like feel vs PS 85 like feel)..
The SWs are different...
Beam is thinner...K90 is low powered...K95 has a load of power..
Beam shape...box beam vs rounded...
I could go on all day...they are nothing like each other.
So a few people have elaborated and others have just given no constructive comments on this but just a "yes"
I'll add to the constructive portion.
I demo'ed both simultaneously to compare them. I play only singles and I'm roughly a 3.5 - 4.0 player.
The K6.1 Tour was hands down the claer winner for me, and the racquest I ended up buying.
Compared to the K6.1 95, the K6.1 Tour is a lot more stable and much more controllable. I could hit nicely angled shots with topspin much more easily with the 6.1 Tour. With the 6.1 95, I found it generated a little more power and less control, and I often found myself hitting wide or long. I did use the 16 x 18 pattern on the 6.1 95, so it was a little closer to the Tour than the 18 x 20.
The stiffness of both is tremendously different, and the K6.1 Tour is much more demanding to hit with. However, if you can handle the demand, you will find dramatic improvement on your shots. Strung with a poly hybrid, the control and spin is just beautiful. I can't imagine the 6.1 95 giving the same results with a poly hybrid, though I think it would add a little bit of control
What really set the two apart for me was the feel of the racquets. The K6.1 Tour felt almost like a natural extension of the arm on strokes compared to the K6.1 95. The Tour was just really smooth in hitting. The 95 was nowhere near as fluid as the Tour was in swings.
Personally the 90 and 95 headsize difference aren't tremendous. If you think about it, it's square inches, meaning that by being a few millimeters smaller here and there, the overall area is exponentially smaller by a power of 2. Largely I found the difference had to do with the beam design of the K6.1 Tour. The beam was only 18mm but it was boxed rather than rounded. That was probably what contributed most significantly to the smaller headsize since the beam cuts out a couple of millimeters across the entire frame.
Hope that helps!
WTF?!?! They feel completely different, they are totally different racquets, one is a solid box beam frame, the other is a hollow oval beam frame.
They have almost nothing in common aside from the paint job.
One feels like a bat, the other feels like a tinker toy.
Nicely said. That person was obviously making something up. He never actually tried the frames.
Not much love here. Opinions vary I guess. But let's start with the numbers. The head size difference is irrelevant to me. K90/K95s: 12.5 vs. 12.3
336 vs 340 but feels like a bigger difference to me
9 pts HL vs 8 pts HL
67 vs 69 both have more than enough power (too much if you ask me)
I have never actually weighed or measured them but these are the specs.
Yes, there are differences in feel as the k90 is a bit more demanding but at the end of the day if you play with string, they are pretty similar to me. I don't care about the construction. They are both constant beams so will respond consistently in my book. Anyone who can use one, can use the others. You may disagree and that is fine but I stand by my assessment. There are not BIG differences to me. Another opinion, but a 3.5 using the K90 will not be playing there best tennis with it in my opinion. But they have every right to use whatever they like.
I would think a player of jo11yroger's level would have no trouble playing with any of them. Put the same string and play around a little and I would think your game would not suffer or know the difference. Again, a different feel for sure and you may prefer one over the other, but a BIG difference as the OP is saying just isn't there, TO ME.
And for the record, I use the k95 18x20 version and have hit with them all extensively. I play mostly doubles so maybe if I was a singles player, I might like the others better (ie. the k90). I just found the k90 a bit too sluggish for doubles play (for me), but it is a great stick. Another factor may be that I have used racquets in the prestige family for years and so to me, the k90 and k95s are awfully stiff compared to my point of reference.
if you are good enough to find the sweetspot on the 90 on a consistent basis, there is no better racket on the market....hands down
dude, they are nothing alike. I am a veteran 6.1 classic user who recently switched to the k90 and can honestly tell you the similarities are miles away. the k95 comes from the 6.1 family while the k90 comes from the 6.0. What is your NRTP level?
I totally agree. The 6.1 family (PS 6.1 Classic, HPS 6.1, nCode 95, K95) and the 6.0 family (PS 6.0 85/95, PS Tour 90, nCode 90, K90) are two completely different lines of racquets and they play and feel very differently.
the 90 feels alot better than the 95. power and spin go to the 95 of course
Obviously, most think I am in the nut house which is fine. What you are saying is that you can honestly give your opinion, they are very different. You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am. I haven't hit with a k90 for about six months so I guess I will have to take one out again for a while. Obviously I am in the minority and that is fine. But after playing with prestiges for a long time (very flexible by comparision as you all know), the k90/k95 are pretty darn stiff to me, much more stiff than I have ever played with before consistently. That stiffness makes touch shots much harder to me and require some adjustment. Yes, they have different feels and differences, but are in the same ballpark to me (or at least zip code). Just my opinion only and being in the minority is fine by me. I guess that makes me nonconformist in this neighborhood. Let the flames continue.
As far as level, I am a 4.5-5.0, ex college player.
^^^ I just don't understand how you can possibly have played both and thought that they were at all similar. IMO a prestiege is closer to the 90, than the 95 is, and I certainly wouldn't say that the 90 or the prestiege were similar at all.
I remember when I was narrowing down my racquet choices and was down to the N90 or the LM Prestiege, and decided that it would be smart to try the N95 aswell.
I hit about 4 balls with the N95 and said WTF is this thing?!?!
They are not even close to being similar at all.
Not like we are talking about the PS 6.0 85 and 95 for which an argument would have a leg to stand on.
I'm another one who is using both racquets. Normally, I can switch from one to the other between points.
They are surely different (otherwise I won't use both). But they also have certain things in common (otherwise I can't use both). To me, they're like siblings. They don't feel the same, but I don't need different ways of stroking the ball. The adjustment, if any, is subtle, and doesn't need a conscious awareness.
My criterion for switching the racquets is on the sweet spot size. If I feel that my timing is good and I won't mishit much, I will go with k90 for more shot variety. But when my timing is occasionally off, I switch to k95 for more consistent hits.
And when I laid one racquet on the other, their head size difference, though noticeable, is very little. But the sweet spot sizes are very different.
Separate names with a comma.