BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
Technical Data
(not actuals) Head Pro Tour 280
Head Pro Tour 630 Head PC 600
Head i Prestige PJ
Head Size (sq. cm.) 626 600
Construction (mm) 20 19
Strung weight (g) 340 330
Babolat Racquet Diagnostic
Center (RDC) Data:
Stiffness:
Inertia:
Power:
Control:
Maneuverability:
58 (0-100)
320 (200-400)
B, 40 (0-100)
B, 60 (0-100)
A, 73 (0-100)
58 (0-100)
332 (200-400)
B, 49 (0-100)
B, 49 (0-1 00)
B, 45 (0-100)
Balance 8 points head light 320mm
Power Level Low Medium Low
String Pattern 18 Mains / 20 Crosses
Mains skip: 9T,8H,10H
Two Piece
No shared holes 18 Mains / 20 Crosses
Midsize - One Piece
Mains skip: 8T,10T,8H,10H No Shared Holes
Specs from TW
Notes from PT 630
iPrestige Mid is the stiffest of the bunch it is over 61, PC 600 flex at 60, the PT280 is 58 and the PT630 56
As for the Swing weight (SW) they are all over the place, but the highest stock unstrung SW would be the PT280 followed by PT630 then PC600 then iPrestige Mid,
PC600 is 11.7oz. or 331.689grams 32cm
PT280 is 325grams. 32cm
i.Prestige Mid is 330grams or 11.6oz. 31cm
PT630 is 325 with 32cm
Not all these are actual stock unstrung published specs, there are many variants to the above
Megareview III
For Megareview III we tested 4 frames that can be grouped into 2 separate distinctions. They are the Head PT 280 and Head PT 630 along with the Head PC 600 and a Head PC 600 with an i Prestige paint job. The specs are included for reference in this review.
Geoff:
The Head PT 280 and the Head PT 630 were strung differently which produced dramatic differences in playability feedback. The PT 630 was strung with a hybrid of Gosen Kevlar in the mains and Gosen Synthetic in the crosses at 55 lbs. The PT 280 was strung with Luxilon Big Banger Ace 18 at 52 lbs. Although the rackets are virtually the same racket this contributed to quite a difference. The obvious results occurred. The PT 630 was more demanding overall on all shots. Both rackets delivered a solid feel. The biggest conclusion from hitting the PT 280 and PT 630 is not so much the playability but just the realization of how much string type and tension really matters in the overall feel of a racket. I would like to play test the two rackets again with identical setups to see if this hypothesis holds true.
In regards to the personal feedback from the two frames I preferred the overall feel of the PT 280. The set up suited my personal preferences overall. The PT 630 was a very harsh feel with the Kevlar/Synthetic set up. I may have liked it better with a lower tension. Ground strokes were solid at impact with both rackets. It was easier to generate spin with the Big Banger Ace 18 set up. Both rackets were solid and accurate at the net. Overheads and serves had more pop once again with the PT 280. Both frames felt solid on returns. During point play it was very difficult to have confidence with the PT 630 due to the firmer string bed and my personal concern with having to generate the pace on my own. Both frames felt very accurate on direction of any shots. In other words even off center shots could still be relied on for intended direction. The common theme in my personal review of these two frames is obviously string type and tension. As many have stated this is in my opinion the most important aspect of the racket. Finding the right type of string and tension range is the true “Holy Grail” in my book.
Craig once again adapted to the two frames like he had played with them his whole life. I have yet to see a racket that truly brings down his game! His shots off the ground were very penetrating and carried good depth. They were not as “spinny” as they are with his day to day rackets, but still extremely effective. His pace and control were equally matched. There was no noticeable difference in Craig’s game with either racket. Volleys and overheads were well controlled with excellent pace. His serves were very consistent but once again lacked the usual spin of his racket of choice (KPS 88). During point play Craig played very aggressively with both frames. He was able to dictate play with a high level of confidence in all aspects of his game (maybe he needed stiffer competition!). My conclusion is that Craig could play with either frame quite effectively. He does very well with mid size rackets with thin beams with a firm string bed.
Craig on the PT 280 and PT 630
I won’t belabor the technical data. Geoff has nicely summarized it for you.
I was excited to hit with the PT 280/630. Here we have two ‘classic’ players frames with which I have virtually no experience. Time to get down to learning!
When I first held the frames and inspected them, the only immediate difference I could identify was in the ‘cap’ grommets the PT 630 sported in contrast with the 280’s smaller, crescent shaped grommet that sat atop the hoop. The PJ’s are almost identical, as are the ‘pick up’ and ‘dry swing’ weights. Little did I know how differently they might play.
First I hit the 280 and Geoff wielded the 630. From the first ball struck I was reminded of the HPS 6.0 95. I suspect the static weight, SW, and balance of these two frames (at least the samples I’ve used) are VERY similar. I got the same sense of effortless power I love so much about the HPS 6.0 95, and quickly found good depth, pace, and placement off the ground. I was NOT, however, getting the same ‘bite’ or spin off the bounce I am able to achieve with the K90 or KPS 88. The result was I had the sense Geoff had more time to ‘set up’ and step ‘into’ his replies. The ball moved FASTER with the PT 280, but didn’t spin or ‘penetrate’ the court as aggressively. Transition shots were good. I had to ‘tone it down’ a bit, because the 280 is more powerful than my K90’s or KPS 88. I couldn’t’ quite ‘knife’ my 1HBH approach with the same aggression I typically like to employ, but once I got the ‘hang’ of it the approaches I hit were deep and skidded nicely. At net, and on overheads, ‘manuverability’ is the word that comes to mind. The 280 is exceptionally nimble at net, and allows a player with good technique to hit aggressive, well controlled volleys and overheads with excellent placement. The serve was very good, but again a premium was placed here on power and placement over spin. I couldn’t generate the same ‘nasty’ (to quote Bolt!) spin serves that flow naturally from my Wilson mids. The heater was there, but again didn’t seem to produce as much ‘damage’, causing me to face more aggressive returns. Speaking of returns, the frame was very stable and inspired confidence in this department. Overall, an excellent frame I would compare favorably to the HPS 6.0 95. If you WANT a HPS 6.0 95 but can’t find one, try this frame (if you can find it!)
The PT 630 was next up for me. I took to it immediately, even though the Kevlar/synthetic hybrid was not to my usual tastes. The first thing I noticed was that the frame played surprisingly ‘softly’ in comparison to its seemingly almost identical brother, the 280. This quality surprised me, because I don’t’ associate ‘soft’ and ‘kevlar string’. It inspired me to ‘hit out’ on groundstrokes, and Geoff commented that they were some of the most aggressive, difficult to handle shots he’s seen me produce. The frame also has AMAZING touch. On two different occasions I was able to carve off acutely angled, cross court drop volley winners even though I was dealing with Geoff’s well struck, spinny passes. I also hit one of my best drop shots of the day with the 630 in hand. Routine volleys were equally well served, w/ excellent touch and placement, as well as nice ‘skid’. The serve is where this frame shone, IMO, especially the hard, flat first ball. During our point play I several serves at the outer limits of my ability that proved to be aces or unreturnable. At one point, I think I made 9-10 aggressively struck first serves in a row. The second serve was also good, but I did not see (not unlike my experience with the 280) the kind of ‘bite’ or ‘kick’ I am accustomed to when using my K90, or even more so KPS 88.
To summarize, I really enjoyed playing BOTH these frames. If I were compelled to change to a different frame than my own beloved Pro Staffs, I’d have to give the PT 630 a long, hard look (assuming I could find some!)
(not actuals) Head Pro Tour 280
Head Pro Tour 630 Head PC 600
Head i Prestige PJ
Head Size (sq. cm.) 626 600
Construction (mm) 20 19
Strung weight (g) 340 330
Babolat Racquet Diagnostic
Center (RDC) Data:
Stiffness:
Inertia:
Power:
Control:
Maneuverability:
58 (0-100)
320 (200-400)
B, 40 (0-100)
B, 60 (0-100)
A, 73 (0-100)
58 (0-100)
332 (200-400)
B, 49 (0-100)
B, 49 (0-1 00)
B, 45 (0-100)
Balance 8 points head light 320mm
Power Level Low Medium Low
String Pattern 18 Mains / 20 Crosses
Mains skip: 9T,8H,10H
Two Piece
No shared holes 18 Mains / 20 Crosses
Midsize - One Piece
Mains skip: 8T,10T,8H,10H No Shared Holes
Specs from TW
Notes from PT 630
iPrestige Mid is the stiffest of the bunch it is over 61, PC 600 flex at 60, the PT280 is 58 and the PT630 56
As for the Swing weight (SW) they are all over the place, but the highest stock unstrung SW would be the PT280 followed by PT630 then PC600 then iPrestige Mid,
PC600 is 11.7oz. or 331.689grams 32cm
PT280 is 325grams. 32cm
i.Prestige Mid is 330grams or 11.6oz. 31cm
PT630 is 325 with 32cm
Not all these are actual stock unstrung published specs, there are many variants to the above
Megareview III
For Megareview III we tested 4 frames that can be grouped into 2 separate distinctions. They are the Head PT 280 and Head PT 630 along with the Head PC 600 and a Head PC 600 with an i Prestige paint job. The specs are included for reference in this review.
Geoff:
The Head PT 280 and the Head PT 630 were strung differently which produced dramatic differences in playability feedback. The PT 630 was strung with a hybrid of Gosen Kevlar in the mains and Gosen Synthetic in the crosses at 55 lbs. The PT 280 was strung with Luxilon Big Banger Ace 18 at 52 lbs. Although the rackets are virtually the same racket this contributed to quite a difference. The obvious results occurred. The PT 630 was more demanding overall on all shots. Both rackets delivered a solid feel. The biggest conclusion from hitting the PT 280 and PT 630 is not so much the playability but just the realization of how much string type and tension really matters in the overall feel of a racket. I would like to play test the two rackets again with identical setups to see if this hypothesis holds true.
In regards to the personal feedback from the two frames I preferred the overall feel of the PT 280. The set up suited my personal preferences overall. The PT 630 was a very harsh feel with the Kevlar/Synthetic set up. I may have liked it better with a lower tension. Ground strokes were solid at impact with both rackets. It was easier to generate spin with the Big Banger Ace 18 set up. Both rackets were solid and accurate at the net. Overheads and serves had more pop once again with the PT 280. Both frames felt solid on returns. During point play it was very difficult to have confidence with the PT 630 due to the firmer string bed and my personal concern with having to generate the pace on my own. Both frames felt very accurate on direction of any shots. In other words even off center shots could still be relied on for intended direction. The common theme in my personal review of these two frames is obviously string type and tension. As many have stated this is in my opinion the most important aspect of the racket. Finding the right type of string and tension range is the true “Holy Grail” in my book.
Craig once again adapted to the two frames like he had played with them his whole life. I have yet to see a racket that truly brings down his game! His shots off the ground were very penetrating and carried good depth. They were not as “spinny” as they are with his day to day rackets, but still extremely effective. His pace and control were equally matched. There was no noticeable difference in Craig’s game with either racket. Volleys and overheads were well controlled with excellent pace. His serves were very consistent but once again lacked the usual spin of his racket of choice (KPS 88). During point play Craig played very aggressively with both frames. He was able to dictate play with a high level of confidence in all aspects of his game (maybe he needed stiffer competition!). My conclusion is that Craig could play with either frame quite effectively. He does very well with mid size rackets with thin beams with a firm string bed.
Craig on the PT 280 and PT 630
I won’t belabor the technical data. Geoff has nicely summarized it for you.
I was excited to hit with the PT 280/630. Here we have two ‘classic’ players frames with which I have virtually no experience. Time to get down to learning!
When I first held the frames and inspected them, the only immediate difference I could identify was in the ‘cap’ grommets the PT 630 sported in contrast with the 280’s smaller, crescent shaped grommet that sat atop the hoop. The PJ’s are almost identical, as are the ‘pick up’ and ‘dry swing’ weights. Little did I know how differently they might play.
First I hit the 280 and Geoff wielded the 630. From the first ball struck I was reminded of the HPS 6.0 95. I suspect the static weight, SW, and balance of these two frames (at least the samples I’ve used) are VERY similar. I got the same sense of effortless power I love so much about the HPS 6.0 95, and quickly found good depth, pace, and placement off the ground. I was NOT, however, getting the same ‘bite’ or spin off the bounce I am able to achieve with the K90 or KPS 88. The result was I had the sense Geoff had more time to ‘set up’ and step ‘into’ his replies. The ball moved FASTER with the PT 280, but didn’t spin or ‘penetrate’ the court as aggressively. Transition shots were good. I had to ‘tone it down’ a bit, because the 280 is more powerful than my K90’s or KPS 88. I couldn’t’ quite ‘knife’ my 1HBH approach with the same aggression I typically like to employ, but once I got the ‘hang’ of it the approaches I hit were deep and skidded nicely. At net, and on overheads, ‘manuverability’ is the word that comes to mind. The 280 is exceptionally nimble at net, and allows a player with good technique to hit aggressive, well controlled volleys and overheads with excellent placement. The serve was very good, but again a premium was placed here on power and placement over spin. I couldn’t generate the same ‘nasty’ (to quote Bolt!) spin serves that flow naturally from my Wilson mids. The heater was there, but again didn’t seem to produce as much ‘damage’, causing me to face more aggressive returns. Speaking of returns, the frame was very stable and inspired confidence in this department. Overall, an excellent frame I would compare favorably to the HPS 6.0 95. If you WANT a HPS 6.0 95 but can’t find one, try this frame (if you can find it!)
The PT 630 was next up for me. I took to it immediately, even though the Kevlar/synthetic hybrid was not to my usual tastes. The first thing I noticed was that the frame played surprisingly ‘softly’ in comparison to its seemingly almost identical brother, the 280. This quality surprised me, because I don’t’ associate ‘soft’ and ‘kevlar string’. It inspired me to ‘hit out’ on groundstrokes, and Geoff commented that they were some of the most aggressive, difficult to handle shots he’s seen me produce. The frame also has AMAZING touch. On two different occasions I was able to carve off acutely angled, cross court drop volley winners even though I was dealing with Geoff’s well struck, spinny passes. I also hit one of my best drop shots of the day with the 630 in hand. Routine volleys were equally well served, w/ excellent touch and placement, as well as nice ‘skid’. The serve is where this frame shone, IMO, especially the hard, flat first ball. During our point play I several serves at the outer limits of my ability that proved to be aces or unreturnable. At one point, I think I made 9-10 aggressively struck first serves in a row. The second serve was also good, but I did not see (not unlike my experience with the 280) the kind of ‘bite’ or ‘kick’ I am accustomed to when using my K90, or even more so KPS 88.
To summarize, I really enjoyed playing BOTH these frames. If I were compelled to change to a different frame than my own beloved Pro Staffs, I’d have to give the PT 630 a long, hard look (assuming I could find some!)
) matter, and they matter a lot! 
