The Official Angell Users Club
- Thread starter The_Racketeer
- Start date
Belgiantennisfan
New User
I got my custom TC97 18x20 27.5" A 320gr/315mm.
Everything comes fairly easy with this racquet.
It's like the Aston Martin of racquets...
I might order a second one or try the TC95 RA63.
Everything comes fairly easy with this racquet.
It's like the Aston Martin of racquets...
I might order a second one or try the TC95 RA63.
AMGF
Hall of Fame
Sorry to hear this. The SW might possibly be in the 370s the way it is built. You could still try to cut .5in and bring it back to 27in. Combined with lighter and thinner strings you could lower SW in the <350 zone which is more playable.
CosmosMpower
Hall of Fame
If it doesn't sell I may give that a shot. The 16 gauge poly definitely weighed more than the Angell Halo string that came in it (I think it was 17 or 18 gauge but can't find info on their site).
SW ~350 is still absolutely enormous imo, very few non-pro play with above 335, i personally don't like anything above 330. If you put multi or syntgut in there it will significantly drop the SW relative to RPM 16g. A heavier replacement grip would also likely help the maneuverability of that beast of yours.
Backhanded Compliment
Legend
J
joohan
Guest
Don't know. Seems like there's quite a bit of people on these forums who like higher SW.
You are right, but ironically i don't know many of these guys myself; i know dozens of competitive players in both USA and Canada, many of which have played D1/D2/D3 in their prime... so i can't help but to find irony in the fact that many guys here like 340+ SW, which in my experience is pretty hard to swing. Anyways, that's just my experience.
EDIT: i guess there might be an age/technique influence there, given that some players learned to play with extremely heavy wood frames for example, and i assume their technique is adapted to such demanding rackets. My 2 cents.
EDIT: i guess there might be an age/technique influence there, given that some players learned to play with extremely heavy wood frames for example, and i assume their technique is adapted to such demanding rackets. My 2 cents.
Last edited:
topspn
Legend
I did till i played the new PS one7 and said wholly ****! It is silly easy to play with and just does everything brilliantly with a simply addition of a fairway and OG. Honestly I am shocked as i always enjoyed heavier racquets.
Backhanded Compliment
Legend
I always enjoy lower swingweight when just hitting around but for matchplay Im uncomfortable with anything below 340. The difference on serve returns and directional control is just too important for my game.
topspn
Legend
So far I’ve played with the PS one7 4 matches and it has been way beyond my expectations. I know what you mean with hitting vs match play but I am seriously shocked how easy it is to play with this lighter frame and in matches. In fact, my serve returns are pretty darned good. I’m being a lot more aggressive and taking the ball so early. Trust me I am still shacking my head wondering what the heck is happening.
AMGF
Hall of Fame
I might just be one if these guys, I started playing some 30 years ago on a wooden frame that was, I assume, ~13oz. At around 14yo I was playing the PSC 6.1si. To me, anything under 340sw is too light and I need to add weight. My current TC97s 18M are 355sw and it is pretty good but obviously not for everyone.
I don't think 340sw was that high or unusual. But it seems like in recent years, many people switched from soft heavy frames to lightweight stiff ones. Making 340sw+ stock frames something less common. I guess when in time someone started playing will have an influence on its preferred SW.
Backhanded Compliment
Legend
actually most of the racket manufacturers stoped making flexible frames that one could lead up to those high swing weights. So it wasn't so much the people switched just that they were forced or herded to change to cheaper to produce frames that didn't suit their strokes developed over several decades.
It's also significant that so many top pros still use flexible high swing weight frames
Angell just happened to be producing exactly what all these other manufacturers decided didn't have a high enough profit margin for. My arm thanks Paul Angell.
J
joohan
Guest
Angell TC97 18x20 > Yonex Tour G 330 > Yonex Vcore 89 Tour > Angell TC95
J
joohan
Guest
That's cool. Whatever works. I've gone from 360+g strung frames to 320g/310mm unstrung TC97 and I'm enjoying the unusually low SW quite a lot. As long as everything I need works, I don't need to play a heavy racquet just for the sake of it. Btw those raving reviews of PSOne7 got me thinking, too.
12 sets of doubles now with my 63ra tc 95 16x19. Racquet weighs 333g strung. So far I haven't lost a set or service game or served a double fault! This thing is accurate and serves are nasty with a capital N. Still dialling in on ground strikes and volleys, its strange because at the moment I still feel I play better with my tc97, however this thing is really hurting opponents. Extra swingweight has helped with a few big hitters I've played against, its great when you hit a winner and they are still going through their service follow through!!
zalive
Hall of Fame
Didn't you swear by the Fischer Vacuum 90 mid not that long ago as being the best stick for you?
On this board there's a good deal of players from long ago, who learned tennis with solid sticks. SW around 330 used to be pretty much basic back then, and around 340-350 in stock form was nothing unusual, no rarity.
But the thing is, I can understand how some players are used the best with the lower SW - ok, this is what they played with, built their own games on such sticks and that's fine. But it's still hard for me to understand how someone far more athletic than I am can say SW around, say, 330-340 is too much for him. I'm not much athletic (I'm not overweight, around 80 kg at 181 cm is I guess still ok, but I'm not athletic in any other sense really, and footwork represents a hard time to me still), but trouble wielding a stick? C'mon...unless too heavy polarizes, above 365 grams and completely not compensated for MgR/I, there isn't and cannot be an issue).
My guess is some players are simply not used to use their core as much. And the other thing I guess is having experience with sticks with a lot of lead at 12 o'clock and none at the 7'' or at the throat, which indeed creates a lagging setup harder to swing. So experience with such setups can indeed lead to false conclusions.
Funny, I spoke to a long time Radical player. He used Radicals from the Twin Tube age, but frequently updated them so he basically played with all or almost all of them. He said that Radicals always gave some easy power and were easy to play with. But he told me previously how handling a 340+g is too much for him, or handling a SW of 330+ too. So I reminded him that he once played with such sticks (Tours), and he's having a memory of playing with them easily as well. He didn't have a comment on this. Anyway, it really shows how much of this is a mind game.
Anyway, Angells
I think I broke down and I'll be ordering a new custom TC 95 63 RA 18x20 soonish. I gave it a lot of thought and I think this one has my name on it. Test for me was playing with modded i.Radical (customized to a very high SW - could be around 360?) and since I play very well with it, I've no least doubt this is the right choice. TC95 63 RA is the one that has something special, but I want a bit more control for the launch angle and precision, hence 18x20.
J
joohan
Guest
Didn't you swear by the Fischer Vacuum 90 mid not that long ago as being the best stick for you?
On this board there's a good deal of players from long ago, who learned tennis with solid sticks. SW around 330 used to be pretty much basic back then, and around 340-350 in stock form was nothing unusual, no rarity.
But the thing is, I can understand how some players are used the best with the lower SW - ok, this is what they played with, built their own games on such sticks and that's fine. But it's still hard for me to understand how someone far more athletic than I am can say SW around, say, 330-340 is too much for him. I'm not much athletic (I'm not overweight, around 80 kg at 181 cm is I guess still ok, but I'm not athletic in any other sense really, and footwork represents a hard time to me still), but trouble wielding a stick? C'mon...unless too heavy polarizes, above 365 grams and completely not compensated for MgR/I, there isn't and cannot be an issue).
My guess is some players are simply not used to use their core as much. And the other thing I guess is having experience with sticks with a lot of lead at 12 o'clock and none at the 7'' or at the throat, which indeed creates a lagging setup harder to swing. So experience with such setups can indeed lead to false conclusions.
Funny, I spoke to a long time Radical player. He used Radicals from the Twin Tube age, but frequently updated them so he basically played with all or almost all of them. He said that Radicals always gave some easy power and were easy to play with. But he told me previously how handling a 340+g is too much for him, or handling a SW of 330+ too. So I reminded him that he once played with such sticks (Tours), and he's having a memory of playing with them easily as well. He didn't have a comment on this. Anyway, it really shows how much of this is a mind game.
Anyway, Angells
Vacuum Mid is the best racquet ever made in my book. Of course I play better with larger head and more forgiving sweet spot. I'm not using it that much at the moment as it needs restringing plus in winter it's exclusively clay courts back home in Slovakia which is not the best surface for attacking, S&V tactics. I don't take it with me when I go to U.K. Once outdoor season starts, I'll use it more often.
I can't really picture the level of players discussing on these forums. I'm not a former pro, I've learned basics at university and from that on it's been mostly trial and error for me. The "core" remark is spot on, I guess...plus legs and footwork are probably bigger issue than I can imagine. I'm a natural ball sports talent, I've played football at national level from 5 to 18 and competitive futsal in a non professional league against pro football and futsal player for next ten years...core/leg strength and fast footwork is very easy for me once I understand what and why. That's why 360+ grams frames are not an issue for me (provided that they are reasonably HL). That being said, I am appreciating the fast feeling and lower SW enabling me to have an absolute control over every single shot that my TC97 18x20 provides. We evolve all the time, I guess.
Congrats on your decision. Will be interesting to read what you think of it once you try it out.
This is one that hasn't had a huge amount of comment on this forum. But over recent few days has been getting some love. Let us know how you go with it.
Spooky! How did they (or should i say "we") live so long? Have we been on a life enhancement programme I wonder? Or was it not that long ago after all...
zalive
Hall of Fame
My level is not great, it's mere 4.0. Not many tennis hours behind me either, also, I'm not a huge sports talent either, just an average rec player who loves to play tennis (and to discuss it too). But, funny, best control for me comes from a decent SW but setups that are otherwise controlled by string bed, head size, and when design is control oriented by its predictability...there's a certain stillness I get when hitting with such racquets...
Thanks. Well it will still take a bit of time to order it (I must settle the financial part, 170 GBP with delivery is not just like that...I never paid more than 100 EUR delivered for any racquet), get it and test it out. I'll be ordering a 300 grams 4 pts HL one. I want some good margin for customization, the easiest part is to make the handle heavier. At the same time I've nothing against a decent stock SW, I will add some lead on the hoop anyway lol
I'll be more than happy to share observations, however these will not likely be for the stock form...currently anything below 340 SW is out of question for me...
zalive
Hall of Fame
You got me confused by listing VCore 89 Tour mid. Does this mean it's more forgiving than Vacuum Mid?
J
joohan
Guest
Yes. Like 30%. Isometric head makes it play like 93-95, Vacuum Mid is 90 and plays closer to 85.
galapagos
Hall of Fame
If you mean the 16x19 version then its not worth it ;p From all my racquets. Blade,Dr 98, Prestige mp, pure strike is imo the worst. Its not bad. Its good, solid, fun to hit. But others are just much better imo.
Didn't you swear by the Fischer Vacuum 90 mid not that long ago as being the best stick for you?
On this board there's a good deal of players from long ago, who learned tennis with solid sticks. SW around 330 used to be pretty much basic back then, and around 340-350 in stock form was nothing unusual, no rarity.
But the thing is, I can understand how some players are used the best with the lower SW - ok, this is what they played with, built their own games on such sticks and that's fine. But it's still hard for me to understand how someone far more athletic than I am can say SW around, say, 330-340 is too much for him. I'm not much athletic (I'm not overweight, around 80 kg at 181 cm is I guess still ok, but I'm not athletic in any other sense really, and footwork represents a hard time to me still), but trouble wielding a stick? C'mon...unless too heavy polarizes, above 365 grams and completely not compensated for MgR/I, there isn't and cannot be an issue).
My guess is some players are simply not used to use their core as much. And the other thing I guess is having experience with sticks with a lot of lead at 12 o'clock and none at the 7'' or at the throat, which indeed creates a lagging setup harder to swing. So experience with such setups can indeed lead to false conclusions.
Funny, I spoke to a long time Radical player. He used Radicals from the Twin Tube age, but frequently updated them so he basically played with all or almost all of them. He said that Radicals always gave some easy power and were easy to play with. But he told me previously how handling a 340+g is too much for him, or handling a SW of 330+ too. So I reminded him that he once played with such sticks (Tours), and he's having a memory of playing with them easily as well. He didn't have a comment on this. Anyway, it really shows how much of this is a mind game.
Anyway, Angells
Didn't notice a "high launch angle on my tc95 16x19"
As for higher swingweight sticks, I think a lot of people could handle it if they actually persevered with racquets, rather than making up their minds after a few hits. One thing I notice with my tc95 is that you don't have to play flat out to crush the ball, if you have good technique and decent footwork your going to hurt your opponents.
zalive
Hall of Fame
I've no experience with Angell's so far, but I can share my thoughts about high launch angle and predictability of launch angle in general.
For me personally, higher launch angle is less problem. Dispersion of launch angle is problem to me.
It's what can happen if the upper hoop has much more open pattern than string bed middle, so it produces a much higher launch angle as well. If you're not consistent in hitting your usual baseline hitting spot on the string bed, you're in trouble, especially if upper hoop is still powerful. Because when you go for a big shot it can easily sail long, if this is not a very low powered racquet.
On the other hand, I recently played with PS95s, 16x15 racquet. It's a very open pattern racquet. Yet, the difference between centre string bed and the upper hoop is less. Result: the difference in hitting with a different spot on a string bed is less damaging, because there is not much launch angle dispersion. Once you compensate it with racquet face tilt and swing path, there's no huge surprises. So again it shows launch angle is not the problem by itself...it's the dispersion of launch angle.
I customize my racs to high SW, nothing under 340, and up to 355-360. With such racquets, launch angle predictability has a huge meaning because spin won't correct if you clear the net too high. Such a rac is typically too powerful to forgive.
For me, 18x20 pattern meaning is about making a hitting with the centre of the string bed or with the upper hoop less different.
AMGF
Hall of Fame
I agree to a point. In all these years the "stiffest/lightest" frame I played with was the Head Graphene Prestige Pro. It is a 63ra strung, close to 12oz and ~335sw stock. So these frames always existed. But I admit, choice was scarce. Thanks to Paul indeed, but also thanks to this thread, or I would have never heard of Angell frames.
J
joohan
Guest
Thank you, good to know. It's only the racquetaholic in me...but the next frame will be another TC97 18x20. I'll be scanning for sale sections for some good deals for a DR98 for my mom and a 16x19 63RA TC95 just to try that spin monster with my own hands. 16x19 might actually fix the issues I have with 18x20 version.
It's no spin monster, put this racquet in a flat hitters hands and it's going to launch the ball flat and low. If you hit heavy topspin then you will be able to get the ball up and down with nice pace. It is what it is.. a 16x19 in a 95/6 head.
I don't know about all that stuff, I just crack it in the middle.
SinjinCooper
Hall of Fame
I do agree that in the brief time I got to hit with one of the newer Vacuum Mids, I would have been hard pressed to find much difference in size and ease of use between it and my old PS85's.
zalive
Hall of Fame
AFAIK typical volleying contact spot is string bed centre, while typical baseline contact spot is not the string bed centre but more towards the upper hoop.
But no problem with this; problem arises when one is less precise in hitting with the same contact spot. I am not very precise, so I'm pretty selective about racquet design too.
zalive
Hall of Fame
Do you ever play with 27'' sticks as well?
This 0.5'' additional length increases SW significantly. The same racquet with 0.5'' shorter pallets is a different stick. If you're ok with 27'' you can shorten your pellets, then try it. It will be even less problem to sell a 27'' stick afterwards, in case you still don't like it, and you won't hurt the stick if you shorten the pellets.
There's another thing you can try instead of shortening it, or at least before: adding some lead at 7'' from the butt cap, under the grip. Because this racquet of yours is most probably polarized, as TC95's are, so being even longer you may be late to the ball because it swings slower than you like. Adding some grams at 7'' will compensate this and you will find your stick easier to swing with.
Also, a leather grip can make things harder, as it can make a racquet more lagging for some strange reasons (yet it can happen). In terms of playability (let alone the feel of a grip) I get the best results with a light basic grip, then adding some lead to 7'' until I compensate the swing speed (pendulum period, MgR/I), then if needed I add more lead to the butt to get the balance of the stick right. The result is whippiest and fastest achievable for the given static weight and swingweight.
Last edited:
chiapants226
Professional
Is there a big difference between the TC95 and TC97 in terms of stability and feel? I'm considering ordering 2 Angell's when I move to London next month.
Currently I'm using Head Youtek IG Speed MP 316 16x19 with a leather and 3 grams added at 3 and 9 o'clock. I also own a PT630 which I like the stability of.
I was thinking of getting an Angell at 325g either TC95 or 97 to try and mimic the feel of the PT630 with a more open 16x19 string pattern. Any comments from people who have tried both the TC95 and TC97?
Currently I'm using Head Youtek IG Speed MP 316 16x19 with a leather and 3 grams added at 3 and 9 o'clock. I also own a PT630 which I like the stability of.
I was thinking of getting an Angell at 325g either TC95 or 97 to try and mimic the feel of the PT630 with a more open 16x19 string pattern. Any comments from people who have tried both the TC95 and TC97?
New member here
Specs: tc100, 27.25", 300gram (modded to 345grams all in) 70ra, b handle, 3/8" leather with 2 tourna over grips. Lead from 8:30- 10:30/ 1:30-3:30 Estimated mod specs: 345 SW and 7pts HL. Solinco revolution 1.30 46/44 lbs (constant pull)
Had my first hit, wow this thing is a canon. Might need to go 49/47 lbs. I have never served so big in my life. Needed a toss adjustment (a little farther into the court) and just pounded flat servers. Biggest change for me was flat wide and short in the box on ad court (I am a righty) never hit this serve so big. Kickers need a little adjustment as well.
Still working on dialing in FH and BH. But I only played for 1 hour.
Specs: tc100, 27.25", 300gram (modded to 345grams all in) 70ra, b handle, 3/8" leather with 2 tourna over grips. Lead from 8:30- 10:30/ 1:30-3:30 Estimated mod specs: 345 SW and 7pts HL. Solinco revolution 1.30 46/44 lbs (constant pull)
Had my first hit, wow this thing is a canon. Might need to go 49/47 lbs. I have never served so big in my life. Needed a toss adjustment (a little farther into the court) and just pounded flat servers. Biggest change for me was flat wide and short in the box on ad court (I am a righty) never hit this serve so big. Kickers need a little adjustment as well.
Still working on dialing in FH and BH. But I only played for 1 hour.
J
joohan
Guest
I do fine with 18x20 version, it's just that some angles on serve and short cross court angles off both wings are way easier with Tour G 330 and even Yonex 89 Tour. If I can access them with 16x19 TC95 it would be a tough call between that and 18x20 TC97.
zalive
Hall of Fame
I gave myself some time last week and I browsed through some of Paul's posts present on this board. It was a truly educational and a worthwhile spent time.
One thing I learned is that Paul believes (and values) that a player should choose his custom stick rather than conform to stock specs. Because choice of a setup is deeply personal.
Angell racquet custom offer is all about this. But the concept is even wider than his current offer, because out of practical reasons, he cannot offer as much standard custom options as variety of players may need.
It can never be enough. But luckily you can further customize even a custom racquet. And I think I won't be wrong if I say that I think Paul himself believes this is the right approach.
So, @chiapants226 : TC97 has a significantly lower average SW than TC95, as I understand. But that does not mean one can't customize TC97 to a SW similar to TC95's. Or even go beyond, both with TC95 or TC97. Also, there's no reason to fear possible stability issues of TC97, as you can easily add few grams of lead at 3+9 o'clock, or at 2+10 o'clock, if you feel you'd like it a bit more stable. Doing this works every time.
One thing I learned is that Paul believes (and values) that a player should choose his custom stick rather than conform to stock specs. Because choice of a setup is deeply personal.
Angell racquet custom offer is all about this. But the concept is even wider than his current offer, because out of practical reasons, he cannot offer as much standard custom options as variety of players may need.
It can never be enough. But luckily you can further customize even a custom racquet. And I think I won't be wrong if I say that I think Paul himself believes this is the right approach.
So, @chiapants226 : TC97 has a significantly lower average SW than TC95, as I understand. But that does not mean one can't customize TC97 to a SW similar to TC95's. Or even go beyond, both with TC95 or TC97. Also, there's no reason to fear possible stability issues of TC97, as you can easily add few grams of lead at 3+9 o'clock, or at 2+10 o'clock, if you feel you'd like it a bit more stable. Doing this works every time.
Subaruvich
Semi-Pro
Haven't hit with PT630, but with PT57A and all custom Angells except TC105.
If you want to mimic PT630, TC97 is the way to go, I would say.
Fine margins with those short cross court angles, maybe you need more time with the 18x20 tc97. When I play these I up my racquet head speed, I think id suffer more with a racquet that's too heavy rather than the string pattern.
CosmosMpower
Hall of Fame
I don't have a problem with longer racquets, my primary doubles stick is a blade 104 which is 27.5 bit it's also about 30 grams lighter. I'm done fiddling with racquets, not going to cut or anything and mess with it in hopes it will work, just going to try and find something off the rack that works for my game and be done with it.
D
Deleted member 742196
Guest
HOT DAMN!
Pro Staff 85 user here. My coach sort of buggered her arm so I was left without anything to do here in Thailand for the month of February. I took to hitting against a wall, except well, the Pro Staff 85 gets exhausting with this kind of repetition. In all honestly I'd been toting a TC97 [320 10HL] but hadn't really given it a fair chance since last October.
That is until I met the wall. Holy moly! Breakpoint, all I can say is thank you thank you, and thank you. I'm a convert. Unfortunately I left my TC95 [330 12HL] back in Taiwan, for sure, that is on the agenda. After 2 years I've finally, FINALLY, gotten away from the PS 85 6.0. I can see the light (Angells, light, get it? Bwrrrahaha - okay it wasn't that funny)
Anyway. These rackets are a bomb. If you're craving for the solid thwack and response of a classic without wanting the pancake modern junk, Angells' are it.
TC97 320/10 HL, 27.25" 16/19 - Type A Leather grip.
Mains - Pacific Classic Gut @ 53
Crosses - RS Lyon @ 51
"pelting the living yellow fuzz off that ball with my new stick"
Pro Staff 85 user here. My coach sort of buggered her arm so I was left without anything to do here in Thailand for the month of February. I took to hitting against a wall, except well, the Pro Staff 85 gets exhausting with this kind of repetition. In all honestly I'd been toting a TC97 [320 10HL] but hadn't really given it a fair chance since last October.
That is until I met the wall. Holy moly! Breakpoint, all I can say is thank you thank you, and thank you. I'm a convert. Unfortunately I left my TC95 [330 12HL] back in Taiwan, for sure, that is on the agenda. After 2 years I've finally, FINALLY, gotten away from the PS 85 6.0. I can see the light (Angells, light, get it? Bwrrrahaha - okay it wasn't that funny)
Anyway. These rackets are a bomb. If you're craving for the solid thwack and response of a classic without wanting the pancake modern junk, Angells' are it.
TC97 320/10 HL, 27.25" 16/19 - Type A Leather grip.
Mains - Pacific Classic Gut @ 53
Crosses - RS Lyon @ 51
"pelting the living yellow fuzz off that ball with my new stick"
zalive
Hall of Fame
No no, I think we didn't understand each other...
1. Do you have a problem with standard length racs?
2. Modern 'longbodies' are intentionally made with lighter hairpins to have a lower SW; Angell racquets share I believe the same hairpins for different lengths, so if you get them (custom) longer, SW will increase above what modern 'longbodies' usually offer; so it has little to do with how you handle modern 'longbody' racs;
3. My recommendation to you in my best intention is to do fiddle with this one rather than sell it right away, because it might really pay off; however if you'd rather give up then give it a real chance, hey, it's your rac
Backhanded Compliment
Legend
The Tc97 18x19 has more PT630 characteristics than any of the frames but if you want an open pattern and pt630 like flex the TC95 63ra (58 strung) 16x19 is a stick of impressive firepower and control. If you want the more tempered Pt630 feel get the 97 but if you like higher swingweights and want to be surprised with the sheer heavyness of the ball either flat and with heavy spin the Tc95 63 ra 16x19 is unlike anything Ive ever come across. I guess it just matters how traditional a feel you want (trad = Tc97) and lever of pin potential (spin = TC95). Tc95 feels more dampened due to its eccentric D beam cross section geometry (breaks up vibrations). Ive had no stability issues with the Tc95 and they all seem to respond well to a little lead at 6 and 9.
No no, I think we didn't understand each other...
1. Do you have a problem with standard length racs?
2. Modern 'longbodies' are intentionally made with lighter hairpins to have a lower SW; Angell racquets share I believe the same hairpins for different lengths, so if you get them (custom) longer, SW will increase above what modern 'longbodies' usually offer; so it has little to do with how you handle modern 'longbody' racs;
3. My recommendation to you in my best intention is to do fiddle with this one rather than sell it right away, because it might really pay off; however if you'd rather give up then give it a real chance, hey, it's your rac
Im almost certain that the extended Angells are indeed full length hairpins. This was discussed somewhere before.
Yeah they really do have the modern spin too in addition to the old school feel.
Last edited:
CosmosMpower
Hall of Fame
No no, I think we didn't understand each other...
1. Do you have a problem with standard length racs?
2. Modern 'longbodies' are intentionally made with lighter hairpins to have a lower SW; Angell racquets share I believe the same hairpins for different lengths, so if you get them (custom) longer, SW will increase above what modern 'longbodies' usually offer; so it has little to do with how you handle modern 'longbody' racs;
3. My recommendation to you in my best intention is to do fiddle with this one rather than sell it right away, because it might really pay off; however if you'd rather give up then give it a real chance, hey, it's your rac
Sorry must have read your post wrong. No I'm fine playing with 27" standard length, was just pointing out that my Blade 104 is 27.5 so I'm ok with both lengths. I'm most likely going to trade for a TC97 or TC100 Pro model which has a much lower starting weight and see how that goes.
How do the TC97 Pro and TC100 Pro compare? The weights are similar (290 vs 300 grams) but the TC97 is 2 pts head light which will become even balanced or slightly head heavy after strings. However it also has the more comfortable 63RA vs the TC100's 67 RA. I do prefer the 6 points head light balance of the TC100 Pro though.
D
Deleted member 742196
Guest
Also, I can't be absolutely sure but it feels like I can flick desperate-reach backhand/forehand slices better with the Angells then I ever could with the 90. I've primarily stayed with the PS85 because its thin/svelte beam sort of inspired the reach slices/squash shots over the 90. The TC97 320/10HL allows me to go on for hours, is wicked on the FH and slices. About the only adjustment I need to tweak is the BH, I may need to employ more of a topspin type swing path (and grip) because I haven't yet figured out how to swing for the fences with my usual flat continental. Having so much fun slicing with this racket, even on serve.
I can't thank you enough. It's too bad I only had the 97 320/10HL with me, gosh damn I'm carrying 2 x 85 and a 90 which haven't been used in a week. The other Angells are sitting brand new in Taiwan. Would have loved to start with the 95 330/12HL first because I feel while the 97 may be awesome for extended wall and practice sessions, the 95 330 would probably be better for matches. Oh well, at least I've taken the first baby steps away from the 85. I hated the fact I loved it so much.
Gee
Hall of Fame
Backhanded Compliment
Legend
I was thinking the same thing but I knew I didn't have to mention it to you.
I agree... I love mids but my defensive game is simply better with a 95... the angell TC95 has a lot of the PS85's legendary shotmaking versatility though... it comes up with special stuff when asked for. Good maneuverability too.
I just weighed all of my fames my New Angell Tc95 unstrung is 331g
PS85 (Taiwan) 363g
Max 200g 382g
My modded TC95 is 359g
IGPMP 364g
Xfeel pro 95 is 360g
Last edited: