The Official Angell Users Club

J

joohan

Guest
Another session with 18x20 TC97. After two weeks on an indoor clay with 18x20 TC95 and Yonex Tour G 330, I took my TC97 to concrete public courts in balmy London. 15 degree Celsius but quite windy, played in shorts for the first time this year anyway. I met a tennis buddy at the courts who plays a bit like Alexander Dolgopolov - all kinds of funky slices and spin off both wings - but is tall and strongly built, plus at the same time fast and appears to desperately enjoy chasing every ball...even lost causes.

We did just practice so no switching sides and I happened to play against the wind. It took me about 30 mins to get used to the surface, the racquet and overall conditions (low floodlights, people on other courts etc...). With the wind blowing against me and my hitting partner fully exploiting that fact with deep, heavy slices and tops, I started longing for my Tour G. I simply struggled to hit through the wind and the player at the other side of the net...I thought I'd start leading the TC97 up right after I get home. First I took two steps behind the baseline, then I started to examine my whole performance - from footwork through core rotation, preparation, timing and, most importantly, properly leaning into my shots. Once I improved my performance, the racquet started to do what she (yes, it's a lady for me) does best. Laser like accuracy, deadly slices and immaculate touch. In the last 30 mins I don't recall losing a point.

Conclusion? I would have probably hit the guy off the court with my Tour G or even TC95 (I've done it with my heavily leaded Vcore 89Tour some two months ago) but I've realized that, paradoxically, heavy racquets let me get away with under-par technique/footwork and that "stock" TC97, on top of every other quality it possesses, keeps me honest and brings the best tennis there is in me. Interesting revelation...

I will do one change, though. With an Angell synthetic grip, I dearly missed a better definition of grip bevels I'm so used to with leather replacement grips. Fairways are on the way already...
 
Backhanded Compliment

Backhanded Compliment

Legend
joohan said:
Another session with 18x20 TC97. After two weeks on an indoor clay with 18x20 TC95 and Yonex Tour G 330, I took my TC97 to concrete public courts in balmy London. 15 degree Celsius but quite windy, played in shorts for the first time this year anyway. I met a tennis buddy at the courts who plays a bit like Alexander Dolgopolov - all kinds of funky slices and spin off both wings - but is tall and strongly built, plus at the same time fast and appears to desperately enjoy chasing every ball...even lost causes.

We did just practice so no switching sides and I happened to play against the wind. It took me about 30 mins to get used to the surface, the racquet and overall conditions (low floodlights, people on other courts etc...). With the wind blowing against me and my hitting partner fully exploiting that fact with deep, heavy slices and tops, I started longing for my Tour G. I simply struggled to hit through the wind and the player at the other side of the net...I thought I'd start leading the TC97 up right after I get home. First I took two steps behind the baseline, then I started to examine my whole performance - from footwork through core rotation, preparation, timing and, most importantly, properly leaning into my shots. Once I improved my performance, the racquet started to do what she (yes, it's a lady for me) does best. Laser like accuracy, deadly slices and immaculate touch. In the last 30 mins I don't recall losing a point.

Conclusion? I would have probably hit the guy off the court with my Tour G or even TC95 (I've done it with my heavily leaded Vcore 89Tour some two months ago) but I've realized that, paradoxically, heavy racquets let me get away with under-par technique/footwork and that "stock" TC97, on top of every other quality it possesses, keeps me honest and brings the best tennis there is in me. Interesting revelation...

I will do one change, though. With an Angell synthetic grip, I dearly missed a better definition of grip bevels I'm so used to with leather replacement grips. Fairways are on the way already...
Click to expand...
That was the thing playing with the x feel pro 95 for me... absolutely everything had to be working to get good penetration... core kinetic chain etc. 3.5 years with that stick was nothing but good for my form and I still use it for hitting around or the wall for that reason. Perhaps its my exotic backhand that keeps me honest overall too... big coil and unload, so much so that one teaching pro kept mentioning that my shoulder turned during the stroke (actually a bit of an illusion since I make contact so far in front of me that right after contact the uncoiling and follow through turn my shoulders...very Wawrinka-esque. Basically if my timing goes off Im screwed... but like the time I was playing that teaching pro I was painting the baseline with deep backhands... won that set 6-3.

My point is I think it is important to choose gear that encourages, even rewards good form. I was hitting into the wind in my first outdoor shorts hit of the year too and I loved the easy depth the TC95 made available that isnt with the Pacific x Feel pro 95 unless everything clicks perfectly. I think people who like Fischer frames like that sense of "demanding" from a frame.

Also I agree... those bevels are the devil... leather all the way on both my old and new TC95 and I really can feel the A style grip on my new one (old one was B) Picking up my IGPMP and my new TC95 the handles feel the same.. which is great since its my favorite feeling grip of all time.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
joohan said:
Conclusion? I would have probably hit the guy off the court with my Tour G or even TC95 (I've done it with my heavily leaded Vcore 89Tour some two months ago) but I've realized that, paradoxically, heavy racquets let me get away with under-par technique/footwork and that "stock" TC97, on top of every other quality it possesses, keeps me honest and brings the best tennis there is in me. Interesting revelation...
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with you more. Though I make more errors and it requires greater concentration I always felt like the heft of the PS85 allowed me to get away with improper footwork. All you need to do is just take the ball in front and and let gravity do its pendulum thing. I think after a few years I've gotten my upper body/rhythm/timing/sweet spot grooved nicely with the 85, but my lower body isn't exactly efficient.

Backhanded Compliment said:
My point is I think it is important to choose gear that encourages, even rewards good form. I was hitting into the wind in my first outdoor shorts hit of the year too and I loved the easy depth the TC95 made available that isnt with the Pacific x Feel pro 95 unless everything clicks perfectly. I think people who like Fischer frames like that sense of "demanding" from a frame.

Also I agree... those bevels are the devil... leather all the way on both my old and new TC95 and I really can feel the A style grip on my new one (old one was B) Picking up my IGPMP and my new TC95 the handles feel the same.. which is great since its my favorite feeling grip of all time.
Click to expand...

Also agree. Demanding rackets are wonderful. Perhaps its the sadomasochist in some of us tennis people, we don't necessarily play to win but also in pursuit of perfection. I know that when I hit a good stroke with the 85 a variety of things are happening in the way they need to [top half - see remark to joohan above] and it's a sense of accomplishment/achievement.
 
zalive

zalive

Hall of Fame
Backhanded Compliment said:
That was the thing playing with the x feel pro 95 for me... absolutely everything had to be working to get good penetration... core kinetic chain etc. 3.5 years with that stick was nothing but good for my form and I still use it for hitting around or the wall for that reason. Perhaps its my exotic backhand that keeps me honest overall too... big coil and unload, so much so that one teaching pro kept mentioning that my shoulder turned during the stroke (actually a bit of an illusion since I make contact so far in front of me that right after contact the uncoiling and follow through turn my shoulders...very Wawrinka-esque. Basically if my timing goes off Im screwed... but like the time I was playing that teaching pro I was painting the baseline with deep backhands... won that set 6-3.

My point is I think it is important to choose gear that encourages, even rewards good form. I was hitting into the wind in my first outdoor shorts hit of the year too and I loved the easy depth the TC95 made available that isnt with the Pacific x Feel pro 95 unless everything clicks perfectly. I think people who like Fischer frames like that sense of "demanding" from a frame.

Also I agree... those bevels are the devil... leather all the way on both my old and new TC95 and I really can feel the A style grip on my new one (old one was B) Picking up my IGPMP and my new TC95 the handles feel the same.. which is great since its my favorite feeling grip of all time.
Click to expand...

Pacific XFP 95...never played with it...I have Pacific XFL which has 98'' and a wider beam, and is also a graphite/basalt racquet; and I have had experience with another graphite/basalt but thinner beam, which is PS95...anyway, the point: much of it is basalt, which lowers energy return, and it will especially be felt if hitting spot is not at the very sweet spot centre. I can feel this effect much less on a thicker beam of Pacific, which is still decent though flexier closer to the frame, than on a thin 18 mm beam of a PS95; Wilson later 'escaped' to the 21.5 mm beam 'safe zone' with PS97 design to avoid obvious weakness of a basalt as a material for racquets...funny, with PS95 you don't feel it as a flex, but rather as a structural weakness when hitting gets harder, which limits the power (energy return).

Now, Pacifix XFP is a 20 mm constant beam design using basalt, and I don't think some negative effects of basalt can be avoided in such a design. It' surely better than in 18 mm PS95 design, but they must be felt neverhteless. Resulting in energy return when hitting seriously, lower power off the centre etc. Resulting in a more demanding stick, which XFP is, right?

What I don't know because absolutely no experience is how was with Fischers in this particular respect. Were materials they used (ceramics, fiberglass) better in this respect? All these materials will be good on the arm because those dampening properties mute vibrations, help flex etc. But when playability is on the line, I'm not sure...that is, I am now sure for basalt it's nothing but trading quality for some hitting comfort. Anyway, traditional Fischer designs were tapered beam, which I guess helped compensate the effect of those composites since you make the beam in the upper hoop stronger, at least.

Anyway, since reading Paul's explanation about how to make a layup soft even when using HM (stiff) graphite sheets, I'm pretty much sure now that no material aside of pure graphite and possibly a bit of kevlar (which is a dampening material too, but a stiffer one) is needed. Perhaps ceramics to an extent (for which I may have a belief it might be better than basalt or fiberglass), and depending on a design - might be Pro Kennex still use ceramics because their layup is different. All the other stuff, either just marketing, or if used for real in a layup, better be out of technology when making serious racquets, because it's downgrading them.
 
Last edited:
Backhanded Compliment

Backhanded Compliment

Legend
zalive said:
Pacific XFP 95...never played with it...I have Pacific XFL which has 98'' and a wider beam, and is also a graphite/basalt racquet; and I have had experience with another graphite/basalt but thinner beam, which is PS95...anyway, the point: much of it is basalt, which lowers energy return, and it will especially be felt if hitting spot is not at the very sweet spot centre. I can feel this effect much less on a thicker beam of Pacific, which is still decent though flexier closer to the frame, than on a thin 18 mm beam of a PS95; Wilson later 'escaped' to the 21.5 mm beam 'safe zone' with PS97 design to avoid obvious weakness of a basalt as a material for racquets...funny, with PS95 you don't feel it as a flex, but rather as a structural weakness when hitting gets harder, which limits the power (energy return).

What I don't know because absolutely no experience is how was with Fischers in this particular respect. Were materials they used (ceramics, fiberglass) better in this respect? All these materials will be good on the arm because those dampening properties mute vibrations, help flex etc. But when playability is on the line, I'm not sure...that is, I am now sure for basalt it's nothing but trading quality for some hitting comfort. Anyway, traditional Fischer designs were tapered beam, which I guess helped compensate the effect of those composites since you make the beam in the upper hoop stronger, at least.

Anyway, since reading Paul's explanation about how to make a layup soft even when using HM (stiff) graphite sheets, I'm pretty much sure now that no material aside of pure graphite and possibly a bit of kevlar (which is a dampening material too, but a stiffer one) is needed. Perhaps ceramics to an extent (for which I may have a belief it might be better than basalt or fiberglass), and depending on a design - might be Pro Kennex still use ceramics because their layup is different. All the other stuff, either just marketing, or if used for real in a layup, better be out of technology when making serious racquets, because it's downgrading them.
Click to expand...
It wasn't low power because it had basalt. it was low powered because it was a Fischer designed racquet and they just tend to be lower powered. in fact i have a fischer version without basalt and its even lower powered than the slightly stiffer pacific (both had no dead zone in the upper hoop despite being straight, thin beams). Also basalt is a form of ceramic it's just a naturally occurring one. Basically the basalt isn't the issue it is the overall layup ( for the wilsons they cheaped out on layers in the hoop). the Pacific frames that i used were actually very high quality and consistently so... I had multiple frames so I could compare them to one another to see if they were degrading... they were fine. Wilson simply value engineered those ps95 frames which lead to having instability in the upper hoop.

The point is Angell doesnt skimp and tend to have extra power... rather than the lower power of fischers. It took some adjustment but was worth it since i use full poly and it tames the power.
 
Last edited:
saleem

saleem

Semi-Pro
zalive said:
Pacific XFP 95...never played with it...I have Pacific XFL which has 98'' and a wider beam, and is also a graphite/basalt racquet; and I have had experience with another graphite/basalt but thinner beam, which is PS95...anyway, the point: much of it is basalt, which lowers energy return, and it will especially be felt if hitting spot is not at the very sweet spot centre. I can feel this effect much less on a thicker beam of Pacific, which is still decent though flexier closer to the frame, than on a thin 18 mm beam of a PS95; Wilson later 'escaped' to the 21.5 mm beam 'safe zone' with PS97 design to avoid obvious weakness of a basalt as a material for racquets...funny, with PS95 you don't feel it as a flex, but rather as a structural weakness when hitting gets harder, which limits the power (energy return).

Now, Pacifix XFP is a 20 mm constant beam design using basalt, and I don't think some negative effects of basalt can be avoided in such a design. It' surely better than in 18 mm PS95 design, but they must be felt neverhteless. Resulting in energy return when hitting seriously, lower power off the centre etc. Resulting in a more demanding stick, which XFP is, right?

What I don't know because absolutely no experience is how was with Fischers in this particular respect. Were materials they used (ceramics, fiberglass) better in this respect? All these materials will be good on the arm because those dampening properties mute vibrations, help flex etc. But when playability is on the line, I'm not sure...that is, I am now sure for basalt it's nothing but trading quality for some hitting comfort. Anyway, traditional Fischer designs were tapered beam, which I guess helped compensate the effect of those composites since you make the beam in the upper hoop stronger, at least.

Anyway, since reading Paul's explanation about how to make a layup soft even when using HM (stiff) graphite sheets, I'm pretty much sure now that no material aside of pure graphite and possibly a bit of kevlar (which is a dampening material too, but a stiffer one) is needed. Perhaps ceramics to an extent (for which I may have a belief it might be better than basalt or fiberglass), and depending on a design - might be Pro Kennex still use ceramics because their layup is different. All the other stuff, either just marketing, or if used for real in a layup, better be out of technology when making serious racquets, because it's downgrading them.
Click to expand...
I have 3 Fischer racket all 3 are graphite and fiberglass and those frames feel wonderful to hit with, I have twin tec, ecliptic and vacuum pro 98 all 3 are great frames and I also love playing with my Angells (tc97 and tc95)
 
zalive

zalive

Hall of Fame
Backhanded Compliment said:
It wasn't low power because it had basalt. it was low powered because it was a Fischer designed racquet and they just tend to be lower powered. in fact i have a fischer version without basalt and its even lower powered than the slightly stiffer pacific (both had no dead zone in the upper hoop despite being straight, thin beams). Also basalt is a form of ceramic it's just a naturally occurring one. Basically the basalt isn't the issue it is the overall layup ( for the wilsons they cheaped out on layers in the hoop). the Pacific frames that i used were actually very high quality and consistently so... I had multiple frames so I could compare them to one another to see if they were degrading... they were fine. Wilson simply value engineered those ps95 frames which lead to having instability in the upper hoop.

The point is Angell doesnt skimp and tend to have extra power... rather than the lower power of fischers. It took some adjustment but was worth it since i use full poly and it tames the power.
Click to expand...

saleem said:
I have 3 Fischer racket all 3 are graphite and fiberglass and those frames feel wonderful to hit with, I have twin tec, ecliptic and vacuum pro 98 all 3 are great frames and I also love playing with my Angells (tc97 and tc95)
Click to expand...

Even Pacific feels really good to hit with because of flex and comfort, because even if Pacific used a different material, their obvious intention was to recreate the feel of Fischers as well. And by the comments it seems they succeeded a lot in this. But my comment was not about feel, it was about playability.

It's quite possible that materials Fischer used (ceramics, fiberglass) were similar in terms of playability to basalt. Or perhaps they were some better - it's possible too. BC mentions basalt is a natural ceramics too. Well yes, but I've also read it is not quite the same as ceramics used in the past as a racquet manufacturing material. However there might be similarities.

Anyway, I try to look at it a bit from a designers point of view. @Backhanded Compliment I'm sure basalt effects power because I'm pretty sure there's no difference between PS95 and PS95s 2015 in layup construction, aside they replaced graphite/basalt sheets with pure graphite, leaving kevlar content in braid (it's present in both). And it effected energy return. Basalt has a poor energy return because it doesn't produce the same firmness in a layup as a graphite sandwich.

It's just that when basalt is done in a thicker beam, it has less negative effects than when used in a thin beam.

I was told Paul Angell doesn't hold high about basalt. He considers it being a cheap material, and obviously he didn't want to use it in his racquets. So someone who talks to him can ask him more about basalt.
 
Last edited:
chiapants226

chiapants226

Professional
Backhanded Compliment said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Perhaps I will order a 320g TC97 16x19 to get the feel of the PT630 with a more open string pattern. Then I could play around with some different lead tape placements of total 5 grams at 3 and 9 for a bit more stability?
The main issue with my speed MPs at the moment is the stability - even with added weight at 3 and 9. I feel this could be more of the 100inch headsize though, so perhaps the TC97 will make the difference!
 
Backhanded Compliment

Backhanded Compliment

Legend
zalive said:
Even Pacific feels really good to hit with because of flex and comfort, because even if Pacific used a different material, their obvious intention was to recreate the feel of Fischers as well. And by the comments it seems they succeeded a lot in this. But my comment was not about feel, it was about playability.

It's quite possible that materials Fischer used (ceramics, fiberglass) were similar in terms of playability to basalt. Or perhaps they were some better - it's possible too. BC mentions basalt is a natural ceramics too. Well yes, but I've also read it is not quite the same as ceramics used in the past as a racquet manufacturing material. However there might be similarities.

Anyway, I try to look at it a bit from a designers point of view. @Backhanded Compliment I'm sure basalt effects power because I'm pretty sure there's no difference between PS95 and PS95s 2015 in layup construction, aside they replaced graphite/basalt sheets with pure graphite, leaving kevlar content in braid (it's present in both). And it effected energy return. Basalt has a poor energy return because it doesn't produce the same firmness in a layup as a graphite sandwich.

It's just that when basalt is done in a thicker beam, it has less negative effects than when used in a thin beam.

I was told Paul Angell doesn't hold high about basalt. He considers it being a cheap material, and obviously he didn't want to use it in his racquets. So someone who talks to him can ask him more about basalt.
Click to expand...
one thing Fischer used basalt first... in european released frames, including a version of what pacific then called the x feel pro 95. I agree, by and large the fischers play really well but just because they're really well made and designed.... Basalt really doesn't contribute a lot to the structural Integrity of any particular frame, its a dampening material... at the same time I don't know how much basalt was in these things. miniscule? I've never performed an autopsy on either the Wilsons or the Pacifics. Fisher was notorious for using name only Tech... with Angell we dont have to worry. i know the ps85 actually had a lot of kevlar. Also the layups for those 2012-15 wilsons could differ from year to year... batch to batch... another thing Paul oversees closely.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Oh, I forgot to mention this earlier. But Angell not only has some of the finest made rackets available to us common folk, but also some of the best accessories. I'm one of the few that moved production from China > Taiwan over the years, precisely because "made in Taiwan" is a whole load better than "made in China". While I don't know where the rackets are made, the little accessories like towels and wrist bands are made in Taiwan [printed on packaging].

For years I've hated practically all the junk from the big brands that for one reason or another have moved to China. In fact I routinely purchase my socks and tennis attire directly in Taiwan from factories there.

Angell wrist bands and towels are the best. Honestly, you can wash and wash and wash them with minimal issue. And when you've laundered them to the point where a little bleach needs to be added into the wash to brighten them up, from underneath the steel grey "A" logo emerges a lovely gold.

Paul knows his sources well. Top notch quality across a variety of equipment/accessories.

Image%20uploaded%20from%20iOS.jpeg
 
Backhanded Compliment

Backhanded Compliment

Legend
zalive said:
Don't be so sure about this. PS95 's cracked a lot.
Click to expand...
that actually supports my thesis

and of course there's been very few reports of angells cracking

chiapants226 said:
Thanks for that. Perhaps I will order a 320g TC97 16x19 to get the feel of the PT630 with a more open string pattern. Then I could play around with some different lead tape placements of total 5 grams at 3 and 9 for a bit more stability?

The main issue with my speed MPs at the moment is the stability - even with added weight at 3 and 9. I feel this could be more of the 100inch headsize though, so perhaps the TC97 will make the difference!
Click to expand...
if you want the PT 630 feel I would go for the TC 97 18 by 20 it has a different layup than the 16 by 19... it has a slightly larger head than the prestiges and more open string pattern anyway so you will still get more spin and free power
 
Last edited:
bkfinch

bkfinch

Semi-Pro
This is some thread everybody.

Gonna go out on a limb and ask if anyone could make a recommendation-

I'm playing also with PT630s, I've brought the swingweight up to about 350, the weight anywhere around 358-362g. I love the racket but basically what I 'miss' is some more free power and spin, especially on OHBH. The TC95 sounds great in this respect, also for the higher swingweight. But I read a lot that the TC97 18x20 is basically the closest to the PT630/PT57A. Basically if a new racket would not be a little different than the one I play now, I'm not interested to replicate it, but to go for something which is still as close while offering more of what I feel is 'missing' in my current setup. I tried already lower tension/spin strings but this for me doesn't seem to go very far, it's more artificial IMO than having a racket which is just structurally optimized for more spin. I also like too much the feel of higher tensions (60-65 depending on time of year) to let myself string too loose.

Greetings from snow covered Canada
 
J

joohan

Guest
Backhanded Compliment said:
That was the thing playing with the x feel pro 95 for me... absolutely everything had to be working to get good penetration... core kinetic chain etc. 3.5 years with that stick was nothing but good for my form and I still use it for hitting around or the wall for that reason. Perhaps its my exotic backhand that keeps me honest overall too... big coil and unload, so much so that one teaching pro kept mentioning that my shoulder turned during the stroke (actually a bit of an illusion since I make contact so far in front of me that right after contact the uncoiling and follow through turn my shoulders...very Wawrinka-esque. Basically if my timing goes off Im screwed... but like the time I was playing that teaching pro I was painting the baseline with deep backhands... won that set 6-3.

My point is I think it is important to choose gear that encourages, even rewards good form. I was hitting into the wind in my first outdoor shorts hit of the year too and I loved the easy depth the TC95 made available that isnt with the Pacific x Feel pro 95 unless everything clicks perfectly. I think people who like Fischer frames like that sense of "demanding" from a frame.

Also I agree... those bevels are the devil... leather all the way on both my old and new TC95 and I really can feel the A style grip on my new one (old one was B) Picking up my IGPMP and my new TC95 the handles feel the same.. which is great since its my favorite feeling grip of all time.
Click to expand...

It's not that underpowered. Take away the wind element and I'm more than ok. I noticed that if I mistime my wrist lag, the hoop with no lead won't help one bit (talking about yesterday's windy conditions). I might add a bit of lead, eventually, but for now it's an interesting experience for me. I will restring the racquet with gut/poly combination sooner rather than later. Touch and feel are sublime even with 16L shaped Poly, I can't wait for that gut feeling.

One thing to consider is me playing 100% technique with TC95 or Tour G 330. I'm not saying I'm slacking below-par when I'm not playing with the TC97 but there most certainly is room for improvement (as demonstrated yesterday). All in all - I'm in good place right now. I like all the racquets I switch between and I'm playing good tennis with all of them, too. Win win combination.
 
J

joohan

Guest
bkfinch said:
This is some thread everybody.

Gonna go out on a limb and ask if anyone could make a recommendation-

I'm playing also with PT630s, I've brought the swingweight up to about 350, the weight anywhere around 358-362g. I love the racket but basically what I 'miss' is some more free power and spin, especially on OHBH. The TC95 sounds great in this respect, also for the higher swingweight. But I read a lot that the TC97 18x20 is basically the closest to the PT630/PT57A. Basically if a new racket would not be a little different than the one I play now, I'm not interested to replicate it, but to go for something which is still as close while offering more of what I feel is 'missing' in my current setup. I tried already lower tension/spin strings but this for me doesn't seem to go very far, it's more artificial IMO than having a racket which is just structurally optimized for more spin. I also like too much the feel of higher tensions (60-65 depending on time of year) to let myself string too loose.

Greetings from snow covered Canada
Click to expand...

You can read my last few contributions to this thread. My TC97 18x20 is 320g/310mm unstrung (around 340 strung) so you have some 20g room to tune up plow and power. Heavier options won't help because the only weight that changes between weight options is in the handle. With some lead at 3/9 it should be more than ok in power department (or if you can wait a month or so, I can provide a direct comment on that). If it's free power you're after, TC95 might be a better option in the end.
 
J

joohan

Guest
Hydrocella said:
Oh, I forgot to mention this earlier. But Angell not only has some of the finest made rackets available to us common folk, but also some of the best accessories. I'm one of the few that moved production from China > Taiwan over the years, precisely because "made in Taiwan" is a whole load better than "made in China". While I don't know where the rackets are made, the little accessories like towels and wrist bands are made in Taiwan [printed on packaging].

For years I've hated practically all the junk from the big brands that for one reason or another have moved to China. In fact I routinely purchase my socks and tennis attire directly in Taiwan from factories there.

Angell wrist bands and towels are the best. Honestly, you can wash and wash and wash them with minimal issue. And when you've laundered them to the point where a little bleach needs to be added into the wash to brighten them up, from underneath the steel grey "A" logo emerges a lovely gold.

Paul knows his sources well. Top notch quality across a variety of equipment/accessories.

Image%20uploaded%20from%20iOS.jpeg
Click to expand...

White and gold. So Federer at Wimbledon.
 
saleem

saleem

Semi-Pro
bkfinch said:
This is some thread everybody.

Gonna go out on a limb and ask if anyone could make a recommendation-

I'm playing also with PT630s, I've brought the swingweight up to about 350, the weight anywhere around 358-362g. I love the racket but basically what I 'miss' is some more free power and spin, especially on OHBH. The TC95 sounds great in this respect, also for the higher swingweight. But I read a lot that the TC97 18x20 is basically the closest to the PT630/PT57A. Basically if a new racket would not be a little different than the one I play now, I'm not interested to replicate it, but to go for something which is still as close while offering more of what I feel is 'missing' in my current setup. I tried already lower tension/spin strings but this for me doesn't seem to go very far, it's more artificial IMO than having a racket which is just structurally optimized for more spin. I also like too much the feel of higher tensions (60-65 depending on time of year) to let myself string too loose.

Greetings from snow covered Canada
Click to expand...
I have 2 TC97 and 2 TC95 both 16x19 TC95 has 15%-20% more power than TC97s in stock forum and same specs, TC97 was easier to get use to of coming from DR98 but TC95 took long time (it was well worth it), I mainly use my TC97 for doubles and TC95 for singles but if I need to take big gun to double's game I switch it over to TC95
 
A

alexdoro

New User
saleem said:
I have 2 TC97 and 2 TC95 both 16x19 TC95 has 15%-20% more power than TC97s in stock forum and same specs, TC97 was easier to get use to of coming from DR98 but TC95 took long time (it was well worth it), I mainly use my TC97 for doubles and TC95 for singles but if I need to take big gun to double's game I switch it over to TC95
Click to expand...
You got both 330/305 unstrung?
 
S

Subaruvich

Semi-Pro
Noticed today, that Halo 2 is available now on Angell website. I know many of you guys have tried it out already.
I had a chance to test it last summer, liked the feel, but it broke in 2 hours. Not sure why.
 
P

Purist

Rookie
Maybe I'm missing something here... I talked to Paul last week. I told him I'm using the newer ProStaff 97 (and am not that happy with it), he said the TC97 is closer to that than the TC95. He said he built the TC97 to give a feel more like today's modern rackets as opposed to the TC95 being akin to older rackets. So, at least for me, I knew I did NOT want the TC97 because I've not been that happy with the PS97. After reading about the TC95 and talking to Paul I realized that what I have probably been missing from my racket in this latest attempt to come back to tennis was that old school racket feel. Me being a guy that used the ProStaff original 6.0, Prince Graphite, Yonex R-7, and ProKennex Silver Ace etc. back in the 80's as a junior (lol, not in that order per se).

So, when I bought the PS97 it was after I'd been away from the game since basically 2001 and wasn't all caught up with all of you racket experts about this stuff, the feel of this and that racket and how they compare to each other etc.

bkfinch said:
This is some thread everybody.

Gonna go out on a limb and ask if anyone could make a recommendation-

I'm playing also with PT630s, I've brought the swingweight up to about 350, the weight anywhere around 358-362g. I love the racket but basically what I 'miss' is some more free power and spin, especially on OHBH. The TC95 sounds great in this respect, also for the higher swingweight. But I read a lot that the TC97 18x20 is basically the closest to the PT630/PT57A. Basically if a new racket would not be a little different than the one I play now, I'm not interested to replicate it, but to go for something which is still as close while offering more of what I feel is 'missing' in my current setup. I tried already lower tension/spin strings but this for me doesn't seem to go very far, it's more artificial IMO than having a racket which is just structurally optimized for more spin. I also like too much the feel of higher tensions (60-65 depending on time of year) to let myself string too loose.

Greetings from snow covered Canada
Click to expand...
 
P

Purist

Rookie
saleem said:
I have 2 TC97 and 2 TC95 both 16x19 TC95 has 15%-20% more power than TC97s in stock forum and same specs, TC97 was easier to get use to of coming from DR98 but TC95 took long time (it was well worth it), I mainly use my TC97 for doubles and TC95 for singles but if I need to take big gun to double's game I switch it over to TC95
Click to expand...

BAH! All you TW frequent posters and your acronyms. I swear, reading all your guys' posts I have to keep a separate browser window open on my 2nd monitor to google all these damn acronyms. Okay, the Yonex DR98? LOL, in your case you're only missing the brand so it's not that bad but still... The worst are the string acronyms, jeez.
 
saleem

saleem

Semi-Pro
Purist said:
BAH! All you TW frequent posters and your acronyms. I swear, reading all your guys' posts I have to keep a separate browser window open on my 2nd monitor to google all these damn acronyms. Okay, the Yonex DR98? LOL, in your case you're only missing the brand so it's not that bad but still... The worst are the string acronyms, jeez.
Click to expand...
if you really want to see my collection (I am a racketholic) {missing 2 TC97 and a Volkl organix 9, loaned to friends for trying) look at here https://goo.gl/photos/5tXm7ydX9u8rySuU8
 
E

ed70

Professional
saleem said:
I have 2 TC97 and 2 TC95 both 16x19 TC95 has 15%-20% more power than TC97s in stock forum and same specs, TC97 was easier to get use to of coming from DR98 but TC95 took long time (it was well worth it), I mainly use my TC97 for doubles and TC95 for singles but if I need to take big gun to double's game I switch it over to TC95
Click to expand...

I have both too, I think 15/20% is way too much!! Yes the tc95 has some extra power, but the tc97 hits a heavy ball too. Maybe theres 5% in it, that's more than enough extra power to make a difference on court.
 
saleem

saleem

Semi-Pro
Purist said:
BAH! All you TW frequent posters and your acronyms. I swear, reading all your guys' posts I have to keep a separate browser window open on my 2nd monitor to google all these damn acronyms. Okay, the Yonex DR98? LOL, in your case you're only missing the brand so it's not that bad but still... The worst are the string acronyms, jeez.
Click to expand...
these are the evil twins
 
zalive

zalive

Hall of Fame
Purist said:
He said he built the TC97 to give a feel more like today's modern rackets as opposed to the TC95 being akin to older rackets.
Click to expand...

As for flex and swing weight, it's just like Paul said. Older players racquets were usually both flexier and had higher swing weights. In this respect TC97 is similar to newer player racquets: middle flex and moderate SW.

However all Angells stand out with their layup. Which is being done in the old style, no-nonsense way. In this respect they're all 'the old style'.
 
Last edited:
Backhanded Compliment

Backhanded Compliment

Legend
ed70 said:
I have both too, I think 15/20% is way too much!! Yes the tc95 has some extra power, but the tc97 hits a heavy ball too. Maybe theres 5% in it, that's more than enough extra power to make a difference on court.
Click to expand...
yeah 15% is actually a massive difference... its more like 2% at max but I think its the way that power is acessed... The TC95 is very dynamic. It has a lot of amplitude whereas, I suspect the TC97 has easier to access power as a median level with its slightly larger head (and its very slight). Lets call the Tc97 more even keeled and the Tc95 more dynamic. Both predictably so...
 
D

DanF1961

Rookie
saleem said:
I have 2 TC97 and 2 TC95 both 16x19 TC95 has 15%-20% more power than TC97s in stock forum and same specs, TC97 was easier to get use to of coming from DR98 but TC95 took long time (it was well worth it), I mainly use my TC97 for doubles and TC95 for singles but if I need to take big gun to double's game I switch it over to TC95
Click to expand...
Saleem, I'm thinking about a TC95 or a TC97, so I appreciate reading your posts. Can I ask you what RA are your 95s, 63 or 70? Thanks Saleem.
 
Backhanded Compliment

Backhanded Compliment

Legend
saleem said:
TC97 is easier to use and get use to of it than TC95, mine are 63s
Click to expand...
Yeah the TC95 is a very idiomatic stick, it is like nothing else in the way it encompases extremes of power, control and spin while still being great on flat balls. It is really completed with the right bed of full poly too. I think the Tc97 might respond better to gut/poly or other hybrids like poly/syngut than it does in the TC95.
 
graycrait

graycrait

Legend
Anyone play with a TC100 28"? If so comments? Just wondering because I have recently become enamored with the Prince Classic 100LB.
 
bkfinch

bkfinch

Semi-Pro
joohan said:
You can read my last few contributions to this thread. My TC97 18x20 is 320g/310mm unstrung (around 340 strung) so you have some 20g room to tune up plow and power. Heavier options won't help because the only weight that changes between weight options is in the handle. With some lead at 3/9 it should be more than ok in power department (or if you can wait a month or so, I can provide a direct comment on that). If it's free power you're after, TC95 might be a better option in the end.
Click to expand...

Thanks joohan!! And saleem!!

I take it as well that on the 95 it would be better to back off on a heavier spec and do something like 320g/310mm so that there is enough room to add more weight. I suppose due to the foam in the handle even if the buttcap had a trap door one wouldn't want to be putting weight inside the handle, rather using lead tape under the grip?

A coach brought an old PC600 XL to tonight's session. That was kind of unreal. I don't even think I want to ask if anybody has tried longer versions of these rackets. What's so crazy is that the reaction to every one of the Angell rackets is so consistently positive, even in cases where the racket is finally not the best fit.
 
saleem

saleem

Semi-Pro
bkfinch said:
Thanks joohan!! And saleem!!

I take it as well that on the 95 it would be better to back off on a heavier spec and do something like 320g/310mm so that there is enough room to add more weight. I suppose due to the foam in the handle even if the buttcap had a trap door one wouldn't want to be putting weight inside the handle, rather using lead tape under the grip?

A coach brought an old PC600 XL to tonight's session. That was kind of unreal. I don't even think I want to ask if anybody has tried longer versions of these rackets. What's so crazy is that the reaction to every one of the Angell rackets is so consistently positive, even in cases where the racket is finally not the best fit.
Click to expand...
if needed you can add lead under the replacement grip or there is a trap door to add blu tack, you can open the pallet also and add weights inside (which I have done) this is what Angell looks like when you remove the grip and open the pallet https://goo.gl/photos/gweBvuTNak5uWAoW8
 
Backhanded Compliment

Backhanded Compliment

Legend
bkfinch said:
Thanks joohan!! And saleem!!

I take it as well that on the 95 it would be better to back off on a heavier spec and do something like 320g/310mm so that there is enough room to add more weight. I suppose due to the foam in the handle even if the buttcap had a trap door one wouldn't want to be putting weight inside the handle, rather using lead tape under the grip?.
Click to expand...
i do both, under the trap door for fine adjustments and under the grip to rough out the specs
 
bkfinch

bkfinch

Semi-Pro
saleem said:
if needed you can add lead under the replacement grip or there is a trap door to add blu tack, you can open the pallet also and add weights inside (which I have done) this is what Angell looks like when you remove the grip and open the pallet https://goo.gl/photos/gweBvuTNak5uWAoW8
Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks a bunch for the pic. That's good to know. I changed pallets on my Heads recently but I admit I'm always afraid of breaking the pallets which need to be taken out.
Your TC95 specs in your signature are fairly close to what I play now(!)

Backhanded Compliment said:
i do both, under the trap door for fine adjustments and under the grip to rough out the specs
Click to expand...

Adding the compensatory weight into the handle is always such a pain, good to know it's still possible to do.

I used to play with the Prestige Mid before the PT630s and seeing/playing with one tonight just reminded me how much I like(d) mid rackets. Would be curious to know how the swingweight of the TC90 is in comparison to the 95. Basically the biggest turn on about the 95 is the apparent generous swingweight and its... apparent unique versatility. I usually serve bigger and more consistent 1st serve with more power oriented rackets, but have to hold back on everything else. The PT630 was the biggest change of racket for me since my mid teens- since I was 16 or so I was always playing mids, went so well with OHBH. Anyway big digression. Thanks everybody for the responses!
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
bkfinch said:
Wow. Thanks a bunch for the pic. That's good to know. I changed pallets on my Heads recently but I admit I'm always afraid of breaking the pallets which need to be taken out.
Your TC95 specs in your signature are fairly close to what I play now(!)



Adding the compensatory weight into the handle is always such a pain, good to know it's still possible to do.

I used to play with the Prestige Mid before the PT630s and seeing/playing with one tonight just reminded me how much I like(d) mid rackets. Would be curious to know how the swingweight of the TC90 is in comparison to the 95. Basically the biggest turn on about the 95 is the apparent generous swingweight and its... apparent unique versatility. I usually serve bigger and more consistent 1st serve with more power oriented rackets, but have to hold back on everything else. The PT630 was the biggest change of racket for me since my mid teens- since I was 16 or so I was always playing mids, went so well with OHBH. Anyway big digression. Thanks everybody for the responses!
Click to expand...

One thing I can say is there's always going to be a tendency to stick with what you believe works best for you, sure that's natural. In my case I had three Angell's sitting with me for months as I continued to use my PS 85, I reckon I just didn't want to go through the adjustment. The very best way, truly the best, is to hit against the wall with your new racket for a couple of days You'll have massive amounts of stable and consistent repetition, you can go ahead and try that different grip, or perhaps swing path. A few days against the wall with your new racket will give you a lot of feedback without the pressure/expectation of results with a person across.

There is definitely something to these Angells, I just took a long time getting around to giving something unfamiliar an honest chance. Personally, off my PS85 background I think I would be drawn to the TC95/330/12HL, but somehow because I had the TC97/320/10HL - and yeah the wall - I think I've transitioned quite nicely to it. The 16/19 pattern with an added 0.25" length are welcomed surprises. Sheer quality rackets.

What I enjoy a lot about the TC97 is the slice, honestly I've never had the luxury of a long runaway/putaway with the 85 on a FH slice. Those defensive squash shots or heck, a sidewinder FH slice out of nowhere was not something I had the skill set to pull off with the PS85. It's a welcomed dimension to my game and opened up whole new aspects of the court for me.

I'll be trying that TC95 when I next have it, but I can see that if I stick with the TC97 for another month there's a high possibility this might be my racket of choice.

For me the customization offered:
  • whippiness/relatively thin beam/balance/solidness of the PS85 for flat and slice [think WILSON classic mids]
  • grip A [think HEAD]
  • safety margin of modern rackets to blend in crazy topspin [think BABOLAT]
  • length, flex, and string pattern being customizable are added lovely perks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
E

ed70

Professional
Backhanded Compliment said:
yeah 15% is actually a massive difference... its more like 2% at max but I think its the way that power is acessed... The TC95 is very dynamic. It has a lot of amplitude whereas, I suspect the TC97 has easier to access power as a median level with its slightly larger head (and its very slight). Lets call the Tc97 more even keeled and the Tc95 more dynamic. Both predictably so...
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, I'm still getting used to the tc95 which has an extra 7g of static weight to my TC97 so I'm not comparing like for like weight and swingweight wise. I like to have over 30 hours with a frame that obviously works well for me to make a full review. But at the moment I feel the tc 95 is offering me exactly what I expected, a little extra power in reserve, it kind of allows you to turn up the heat when you need to win key points. I'm a leftie who hits a lot of angles off my service and ground strokes, the tc95 just carves the ball effortlessly with real accuracy. Where the 97 seems better is touch shots, you get that little extra flex in the head that helps you to feel the ball on your strings that bit longer.
The only thing that slightly surprised me was that I thought the 95 63ra would feel a little more flexy than it does, in fact the 97 feels like the lower flex frame.
What I would say is that if your looking to buy a tc95 63ra, you need to make sure you can swing it if you want to find it's hidden treasures!
 
Gee

Gee

Hall of Fame
saleem said:
TC97 is easier to use and get use to of it than TC95, mine are 63s
Click to expand...
I hardly notice a difference in forgiveness between the TC95 and TC97. Besides I doubt there is a difference in headsize between these ones as I can't see the difference while they are stapled on each other and they even share the same bumpers and grommets.
 
E

ed70

Professional
Gee said:
I hardly notice a difference in forgiveness between the TC95 and TC97. Besides I doubt there is a difference in headsize between these ones as I can't see the difference while they are stapled on each other and they even share the same bumpers and grommets.
Click to expand...

Yeh agree to the eye they are almost identical, just the boxier beam of the 97 the slight difference in appearance. They play fairly similar too, just they flex differently. Both slice great low and heavy, and for me in the 16x19 pattern they both hit similar levels of topspin. The extra swingweight of the 95 over the 97 obviously can have an effect either way. However I cant imagine how anyone could really like one and not the other. For me it's more a case of slight preferences.
 
R

realplayer

Semi-Pro
I always use a multifilament in my tc95 63 which plays great only if it is a real soft multi(like rip control) it feels a bit mushy but I now use the pacific txt futura string and it works great. I would like to know if the tc97 is suited for a full bed of multi?
 
Last edited:
J

joohan

Guest
realplayer said:
I always use a multifilament in my tc95 63 which plays great only if it is a real soft multi(like rip control) it feels a bit mushy but I now use the pacific txt futura string and it works great. I would like to know if the tc97 is suited for a full bed of multi?
Click to expand...

Most definitely yes (at least 18x20).
 
Backhanded Compliment

Backhanded Compliment

Legend
ed70 said:
Yes I agree, I'm still getting used to the tc95 which has an extra 7g of static weight to my TC97 so I'm not comparing like for like weight and swingweight wise. I like to have over 30 hours with a frame that obviously works well for me to make a full review. But at the moment I feel the tc 95 is offering me exactly what I expected, a little extra power in reserve, it kind of allows you to turn up the heat when you need to win key points. I'm a leftie who hits a lot of angles off my service and ground strokes, the tc95 just carves the ball effortlessly with real accuracy. Where the 97 seems better is touch shots, you get that little extra flex in the head that helps you to feel the ball on your strings that bit longer.
The only thing that slightly surprised me was that I thought the 95 63ra would feel a little more flexy than it does, in fact the 97 feels like the lower flex frame.
What I would say is that if your looking to buy a tc95 63ra, you need to make sure you can swing it if you want to find it's hidden treasures!
Click to expand...
yeah a lot of people judge flex by how it flexes in the head. The tc95 ra63 is designed to flex in the shaft... which suits my taste. Its dwell time is great, especially on heavier shots like the return... the only modern frame with more dwell time that ive used recently in serious match play is the x feel pro 95... which is lower powered than many mids. On the tc95 i can very much feel the flex in the throat, but not too much.

i do use a very minimal #33 rubber band as the tc95 is quite muted... that helps the feedback.


realplayer said:
I always use a multifilament in my tc95 63 which plays great only if it is a real soft multi(like rip control) it feels a bit mushy but I now use the pacific txt futura string and it works great. I would like to know if the tc97 is suited for a full bed of multi?
Click to expand...
good to hear it responds well to the right multis... options
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top