K90 vs k95

Hello,
I couldn't find anything about K90 vs k95 (16x18).
So I would like to know some comments about it.
Thanks a lot.
E.

I would say that the K90 is better than the K95. It's just that the K95 is more user forgiving so it may seem better to you. But if you think you could handle it, K90's the way to go. And maybe you should try demoing?

One is a power racquet and one is a control racquet. It depends on what you like and how good you are.

k90 is for people who can generate a lot of power
k95 is for the rest of us.

A couple of weeks ago, I played with a guy using a k90 who could generate a lot of power. It was amazing the power behind his shots because I know the k90 is quite low power, i own one.

the k90 is abit harder to use but it feels alot better IMO. the k95 is not bad but it felt abit stiffer but its more user friendly

I use a PC600, I guess the k90 has more power than PC600.

Mick said:

k90 is for people who can generate a lot of power
k95 is for the rest of us.

Click to expand...

I don't quite understand why people continue to say things about the low power level of the K90, especially in comparison to sticks with nearly the exact same power level. At a decent playing level with decent technique, the K90 is not a low powered frame. It's not even close.

If you take a big swing at a ball with the K90 and the exact same swing with the K95, both are going to produce a ball with a lot of pace. In many situations, the K90 is a more powerful racket - the ball is going to come off the strings with a higher velocity.

Its basic physics... Both rackets are relatively stiff, both have a fairly open string pattern. Both have high stock swingweights with the K90 having a higher static weight. The difference in headsize is the only difference, but if you compensate with string tensions, its all about the same.

An interesting link from the TW University for comparison:

http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/totalperformance.html

The main difference between these sticks is the static weight of the K90. It is just a heavy frame, especially since most all of them seem to come out weighing more and swinging heavier than the published specs. This weight just simply means the K90 is more demanding. For most people, it just isn't worth it. The K95 is lighter, swings lighter, and has a larger headsize going for it... In the case of these two frames, I think the specs are very revealing. You get what you would expect.

Bottle Rocket said:

I don't quite understand why people continue to say things about the low power level of the K90, especially in comparison to sticks with nearly the exact same power level. At a decent playing level with decent technique, the K90 is not a low powered frame. It's not even close.

Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.
I play with both the K90 and K95 and that's my opinion.

TW Reviewer Granville: "This one offered slightly lower power than the 95"
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/K61T90/K61T90Review.html



http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCWILSON-K61T90.html

howd you make a screen shot of the website?

BullDogTennis said:

howd you make a screen shot of the website?

Click to expand...

1- press the key "print scr" to capture the screen shot
2- use a picture editing program to crop the area of the screen shot that you want to use
3- upload your edited image to tinypic.com
4- add the img code from tinypic.com to your post here

TW also says the K95 (and K95 "X") are low powered as well as a good portion of sticks that most don't regard as being low powered - such as the majority of the midplus Babolats. I have no idea where they come up with those ratings, but their own "TW Professor" disagrees with many of them.

As far as referencing their reviews, I guess you're willing to read more into those than I am. Their reviews are very inconsistent, with the scores of recent reviews bordering on ridiculous. Either way, he said "slightly" less power, and I can buy that.

I didn't mean to attack you personally or anything like that, I was just using your post as an example to make my point. Sorry.

Bottle Rocket said:

TW also says the K95 (and K95 "X") are low powered as well as a good portion of sticks that most don't regard as being low powered - such as the majority of the midplus Babolats. I have no idea where they come up with those ratings, but their own "TW Professor" disagrees with many of them.

As far as referencing their reviews, I guess you're willing to read more into those than I am. Their reviews are very inconsistent, with the scores of recent reviews bordering on ridiculous. Either way, he said "slightly" less power, and I can buy that.

I didn't mean to attack you personally or anything like that, I was just using your post as an example to make my point. Sorry.

Click to expand...

no problem. Granville says it's slightly less powerful but I think it's a lot less based upon my own experience. I believe if you can hit powerful shots with a k90, you can hit powerful shots with any racquet. Thus, for such a person, the power levels of the K90 and K95 probably would feel very close or the same (Granville is a 5.5 player)

2nd_Serve said:

I would say that the K90 is better than the K95. It's just that the K95 is more user forgiving so it may seem better to you. But if you think you could handle it, K90's the way to go. And maybe you should try demoing?

Click to expand...

I purchased a used K95 with the intention of buying 2 new frames to go along with it. I played with it for a while (along with other racquets) and liked it. I had made up my mind to purchase the next two until I made a trip to a local chain tennis/golf store. My son is a golfer, so I mainly took him to demo some new drivers. The store had an inside court so I had my son come over and hit some with me. I picked up the K90 out of curiosity mainly and IMO it just felt so much better to me in every respect, that I ended up buying two.

I have a couple of thoughts on the power of this racquet. It is a low power racquet, but if you can generate a good amount of racquet head speed, you can smoke it with this racquet. A couple of recommendations are to string with a multifillament with a descent drop in tension from mid plus or oversize racquets. I first strung my racquets with natural gut at 65 lbs. and was having some problems with pace. I now have these strung with gut at around 54 lbs. and this helped quite a bit. Also, I hit the ball rather flat. If you hit with a great deal of topspin, it is much tougher to create pace.

If you are young and strong, you may be able to use a poly in half of the racquet or the entire thing. Just keep in mind, you may have to experiment a bit.

I don't feel the K95 is much less forgiving if any. You really have to pay attention with both racquets. Both are demanding racquets, but I truly believe each can help your game if you have the time and dedication to work. By that I mean, the K90 especially is one of the most accurate racquets I have ever used. I can definatly serve to certain areas in the box and come reasonably close consistently. You can also place groundstrokes closer to your target without worrying too much about hitting long, however if you have to really overswing to get the racquet around, the control will probably not be of much benefit. You need to decide. Also, there is better touch around the net with the K90. As I said, I feel the K90 does everything slightly better.

With all this said, I have made a switch to the K Blade Tour. I did this because I am no longer a young buck and the K Blade gives me close to the same performance with a weight savings of about 3/4 of an ounce. When I played people that could consistently create depth, it was difficult to get through it quickly enough. If I have time to set up for a shot, I can usually crush the ball with the K90. Good Luck.

But, Is the PC600 more demanding than K90-95?

emmanuel said:

I use a PC600, I guess the k90 has more power than PC600.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more ...

Thanks, Bozo.

Its as simple as this:

K90: If you want more control, and I mean REAL pinpoint control, this is the way to go. If you find the sweetspot, you can generate a lot of power with this too contrary to popular belief, however, that is only IF you find the sweetspot.
Also the feel of this racquet is outstanding.

K95: Raw Power, but within a players racquet. Heavy but not as heavy as the K90. Some control but not as much as the K90.

I tried both the k90 and the k95...

Both are player racquets due to the heft of the frame, swing weight, headsize, etc...

Statistically, you'd be talking about very very little differences here. I mean, the small differences between swing weights, static weight, and head size will not be much of a debate because it satisfies different playing styles. As much as it satisfies different players and how they perceive a racquet as comfortable.

You might think that a heavier racquet is comfortable because of the plow.

You might think that a lighter racquet is comfortable because it swings easier.

You might think that a stiff racquet is great for feel and vice versa.

What is your perception of a comfortable racquet? Make your own deduction after trying it.

To me, I went for the K95.

Not that it's a less demanding racquet, or gives more power, or gives better playability...

Cause I like it... it suits my version of a better racquet.

Rated as a 4.5
6'2" 180

I held intentions of making the move from the n95 16x18 to the k factor line. i started with the k95 and found the rackets to be too powerful. next was the k90. sweet spot felt minuscule and my depth on groundstrokes suffered. i guess i'm stuck with the 3 ncodes i have left until wilson releases their next line.

I mean they are both very solid racquets. K90 is heavier and its a smaller headsize. Do the math its kinda obvious. When you get is just amazing control and great feel.

MP. bigger larger and in charge...

I owned both (Asian version). Overall, k90 gives a special feel and extraordinary level of commanding the ball, and k95 has larger sweet spot (translated to less frequent mishit and more consistent "as expected" results). With slight tweaks and strategic stringing, the two play similar enough that I can easily switch from one to the other at any moment.

you still own that asian k90? if you want to sell it can you email me m1stuhxsp4rk5@yahoo.com

I have to agree with Bottle Rocket, as I don't consider either k90 or k95s as low powered and am surprised by all the comments of them being considered low powered. They are considered control frames but neither is what I consider low powered. Stiffness of 68 or 69 is not low power in my book. If you want a low powered racquet, you are talking like a prestige with a stiffness down around 63 or lower, that is low powered.

I also consider the k90 and k95 essentially equal overall for the same reasons suggested above. They are pretty similar and with string adjustments play equally in my book. I also don't consider the head size difference as meaning much either. You choose between them if you want a higher static weight (k90) or a higher swingweight (k95). We are splitting hairs here but for anyone skilled enough to use either frame AND play their best tennis (which most do not) they are close enough that unless you are a 6.0+ you are not going to notice much difference.

They are all phenomenal racquets and I do use a k95 18x20 myself so I have hit with all of them quite a bit (and am a prestige fan having used a LM prestige for years). The k racquets have nowhere near the control of a prestige and that is due entirely to being stiffer (again my opinion). Everything is a bit of compromise so you just have to decide on your priorities and go from there.

Good tennis

TM