RF97 way better than the PS97S

Being a longtime K90 user and having switched to the RF97 i was intrigued by the thinner beamed PS97S. Today I finally got to demo it. My initial reaction is that the PS97S isn't even good enough to carry water for the RF97's matches.

Even balanced and with a swingweight higher than the RF97, the PS97 felt heavier and slower, not as solid, with less feel and control. This is all in stock form. So perhaps adding some weight under the grip to make it more headlight, and some lead in the hoop to make it more solid will pay dividends. As for now, the RF97 is in no danger of ever being replaced in my bag.

I also hit with my K90's today. An amazing as it is, the RF97 just does so many things better. Of course it isn't going to be as quick, you couldn't expect any thicker beam mp to compete with a thin beamed mid in terms of speed. The RF hits more outright winners, is more forgiving, better at defense, has more power, and is certainly the best choice for Roger.

I believe as does Roger and most pros and analyst, the RF97 has helped his game stay near the very top. A 90 frame would not be an improvement over the RF97 at this point in his career.

asifallasleep said:

Being a longtime K90 user and having switched to the RF97 i was intrigued by the thinner beamed PS97S. Today I finally got to demo it. My initial reaction is that the PS97S isn't even good enough to carry water for the RF97's matches.

Even balanced and with a swingweight close to that of the RF97, the PS97 felt heavier and slower, not as solid, with less feel and control. This is all in stock form. So perhaps adding some weight under the grip to make it more headlight, and some lead in the hoop to make it more solid will pay dividends. As for now, the RF97 is in no danger of ever being replaced in my bag.

I also hit with my K90's today. An amazing as it is, the RF97 just does so many things better. Of course it isn't going to be as quick, you couldn't expect any thicker beam mp to compete with a thin beamed mid in terms of speed. The RF hits more outright winners, is more forgiving, better at defense, has more power, and is certainly the best choice for Roger.

I believe as does Roger and most pros and analyst, the RF97 has helped his game stay near the very top. A 90 frame would not be an improvement over the RF97 at this point in his career.

Click to expand...

Boom!,,,,,,,just like that. Breakpoint???
I agree with you about the RF97 though, its like cheating playing with this thing.

BP will be here in no time to tell you that you need prescription eyeglasses and bjorn borg hair

Yup, a 1st round loss in Shanghai and a 2nd round loss in Paris must mean that the RF97A is the perfect racquet for Federer at this point in his career.

Oh, and I hear Dimitrov's results have really skyrocketed after he switched to the larger PS97S this year. LOL

BreakPoint said:

Yup, a 1st round loss in Shanghai and a 2nd round loss in Paris must mean that the RF97A is the perfect racquet for Federer at this point in his career.

Oh, and I hear Dimitrov's results have really skyrocketed after he switched to the larger PS97S this year. LOL

Click to expand...

haha knew you wouldn't disappoint

Funnily enough, I ran into one of the guys that I sometimes play league against. Big, strong feller, looks more like a NFL jock than a tennis player. Anyway, he used to play with the PS90 for a long time, and switched to the RF97 a couple of months ago. He added 12g lead tape at 12 , and says now its starting to feel like the PS90. Thing felt like a sledgehammer....lol

BreakPoint said:

Yup, a 1st round loss in Shanghai and a 2nd round loss in Paris must mean that the RF97A is the perfect racquet for Federer at this point in his career.

Click to expand...

Six singles titles this year, which is one more than 2014 - a year which itself is widely recognised as marking Federer's resurgence after a terrible 2013 (where he only won one singles title).

I have a hitting buddy that is really interested in the 97S. Can anyone compare it to the APD or,the Pure Aero? I know they are different, but those are the frames he uses but wants some thing that provides more precision without losing the spin.

I'm sure Roger Federer will be thrilled to finally have it confirmed that he's using the best racquet for him.

BreakPoint said:

Yup, a 1st round loss in Shanghai and a 2nd round loss in Paris must mean that the RF97A is the perfect racquet for Federer at this point in his career.

Oh, and I hear Dimitrov's results have really skyrocketed after he switched to the larger PS97S this year. LOL

Click to expand...

I currently play with the Pro Staff Original Midsize (both Chicago and St. Vincent) and agree that they are the most rewarding frames to play with, but I don't see why the RF97 is looked down upon by some people. It is a great frame, imo. I just prefer the original Pro Staff for its varying playability, but hitting cleanly with the RF97 is something special, too, just like the APD is a special frame. I don't see why there should be hate towards any frames.

Adam1985 said:

Six singles titles this year, which is one more than 2014 - a year which itself is widely recognised as marking Federer's resurgence after a terrible 2013 (where he only won one singles title).

Click to expand...

So how many Slams and Masters has Federer won since switching to the RF97A? How many did he win with the Tour 90?

You do know he had a debilitating back injury in 2013, right?

n8dawg6 said:

BP will be here in no time to tell you that you need prescription eyeglasses and bjorn borg hair

Click to expand...

Hilarious!

I just love that Dimitrov's racquet has Federer in full swing on it

Edit: My local shop has Fed on the PS97s. I see on the net that there's a picture with Dimitrov on a similar frame on the shelf...

Ugh again with the blanket statements...

Some here would say the exact opposite (particularly former PS 95 users seem to really like the PS97S).

By the way, you used the demo for how long exactly? And with demo strings I suppose?... And you're comparing that with the RF97 that you have tampered with for ages before you even came to like it??

Look, not trying to bash you or anything, but I hope you see how your comments now are slightly unfair towards the frame.

Sooo Wilson has created two different racquets that different people will like and buy for different reasons? Outrageous!

The RF97A is an over hyped marketing machine at it's very best. My transition from the BLX90 to the RF97A is a well documented transition on this board, and after a year of forcing myself to use and adjust to the RF97A, I'm very close to giving up and the 97S is a contender as far as replacement goes. I just HATE the thick beam, it turns the racquet into an overpowered rocket launcher that lacks finesse and maneuverability. It does some stuff well, but I think this isn't for me. I gave it a lot of chances and even had great matches with it, but I would lie if I said I liked the frame. I forced myself to like it because I invested a lot of $$ in it and wanted it to work like the 90 but it never will.

Now I'm sure some people have genuine love for this frame, every one has different taste. However, remove Federer's name from the racquet and this would probably drop in sales by at least 50%.

RF97A saved Federer's career? I think not. Back injuries and an overall bad year in 2013 ensured he had pretty much nowhere to go but up when he got healthy in 2014. Federer traded finesse for power and a better chance at grinding, which were never his strength even in his prime and clearly not what he should be going for at 34 years of age.

Roddick85 said:

The RF97A is an over hyped marketing machine at it's very best. My transition from the BLX90 to the RF97A is a well documented transition on this board, and after a year of forcing myself to use and adjust to the RF97A, I'm very close to giving up and the 97S is a contender as far as replacement goes. I just HATE the thick beam, it turns the racquet into an overpowered rocket launcher that lacks finesse and maneuverability. It does some stuff well, but I think this isn't for me. I gave it a lot of chances and even had great matches with it, but I would lie if I said I liked the frame. I forced myself to like it because I invested a lot of $$ in it and wanted it to work like the 90 but it never will.

Now I'm sure some people have genuine love for this frame, every one has different taste. However, remove Federer's name from the racquet and this would probably drop in sales by at least 50%.

RF97A saved Federer's career? I think not. Back injuries and an overall bad year in 2013 ensured he had pretty much nowhere to go but up when he got healthy in 2014. Federer traded finesse for power and a better chance at grinding, which were never his strength even in his prime and clearly not what he should be going for at 34 years of age.

Click to expand...

As far as stiff heavy rackets go RF97 has a very unique mix of power and control and well deserves the hype.

Your problem with it probably had more to do with your less than smooth form rather than beam thickness.

Anton said:

As far as stiff heavy rackets go RF97 has a very unique mix of power and control and well deserves the hype.

You problem with it probably had more to do with your less than smooth form rather than beam thickness.

Click to expand...

Yea I had exactly the same feeling. The control is ridiculously good for the stiffness level and how open the string pattern is, crazy.

Roddick85 said:

The RF97A is an over hyped marketing machine at it's very best. My transition from the BLX90 to the RF97A is a well documented transition on this board, and after a year of forcing myself to use and adjust to the RF97A, I'm very close to giving up and the 97S is a contender as far as replacement goes. I just HATE the thick beam, it turns the racquet into an overpowered rocket launcher that lacks finesse and maneuverability. It does some stuff well, but I think this isn't for me. I gave it a lot of chances and even had great matches with it, but I would lie if I said I liked the frame. I forced myself to like it because I invested a lot of $$ in it and wanted it to work like the 90 but it never will.

Now I'm sure some people have genuine love for this frame, every one has different taste. However, remove Federer's name from the racquet and this would probably drop in sales by at least 50%.

RF97A saved Federer's career? I think not. Back injuries and an overall bad year in 2013 ensured he had pretty much nowhere to go but up when he got healthy in 2014. Federer traded finesse for power and a better chance at grinding, which were never his strength even in his prime and clearly not what he should be going for at 34 years of age.

Click to expand...

I agree that Fed's name on the stick accounts for a huge % of sales. A lot of those folks aren't good enough to use a pro stick and just want to use the stick that their favorite player uses --- nothing wrong with that either.

IMO the RF97 is a rarity with power, control, touch and finesse. Points can either be ended quickly or rallies can be varied with spins and finesse. Fed changed his game, the racquet didn't change his game. His team put forth a different strategy - we can debate those strategies until pigs fly.

Seems a lot of folks love the PS97S which I think is great. The RF97 is probably the most polarizing loved and hated frame of all time, lol. When someone bashing the RF97, doesn't bother me one bit. It's all subjective.

Anton said:

As far as stiff heavy rackets go RF97 has a very unique mix of power and control and well deserves the hype.

Your problem with it probably had more to do with your less than smooth form rather than beam thickness.

Click to expand...

My form may not be perfect, but then again, when you see how Federer struggled with the extra power last year, I think ANYONE will struggle at some point. Just look at Federer's ground game in the summer last year at the Rogers Cup and even at times in Cincinnati, he couldn't keep the ball inside the court and had to S&V to win.

asifallasleep said:

IMO the RF97 is a rarity with power, control, touch and finesse.

Click to expand...

We all have our opinion, but I can't fully agree on that as far as I'm concerned. It does provide reasonable touch for a frame this thick/powerful, but it felt way short of my expectations for control. To have any sort of control, I had to go from stringing @50lbs to 60lbs and even then, it's shaky after a few hours of play. The biggest mistake I think everyone did, and I will include myself in this, is to think that the RF97A was a 97 sqin 90 with the same qualities, when in reality, it's far from that. Now would I see myself going back to the 90? For many reasons, I wouldn't. But one thing that I will definitely go back to is a thin/stiff beam with no power and a more head light balance.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the OP here.

I have a pair of matched RF97s which I’ve been playing with ever since I switched from the 6.1 95 line just over a year ago and for the most part, I have really enjoyed the racquet. My forehands (my biggest strength) have never been more penetrating and I’ve found effortless power on the serves. It’s also amazingly stable and solid – even more so than the 6.1 95.

As you’d expect, at the net the racquet it remains super solid but the lack of manoeuvrability (for me at least) can be an issue – a real problem seeing as I have to play a lot of doubles for my club but also because I like to finish points at the net in singles. This lack of manoeuvrability is also evident on return of serves and can also be an issue when on the defence and don’t have time to set up properly or are late on the ball (although I must admit you can often just block or just punch the ball back with the racket and send it back with interest).

Furthermore, it lacks feel compared to the Pro Staffs of old and I just don’t have the same level of control as I did when I was playing with the 6.1 95 and especially with the Pro Staff line.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great racquet when you’re on it and there are few racquets (if any) that offer the same level of firepower and weight of shot but there is a reason why none of the people in the first team at my club or at other clubs use it – it’s simply a very demanding stick, even for advanced players, that requires 100% commitment, 100% of the time. If you’re having even a remotely bad day, this thing will punish you.

This is where the PS97 was supposed to come into the picture. However, after trying it for a few weeks, I just couldn’t gel with it, I found it too light, not stable enough and I just couldn’t get the same weight of shot. Even by adding weight at both ends didn’t help. It just didn’t feel right and always felt somewhat hollow compared to the RF97.

The PS97S on the other hand seems to address the shortfalls of both the RF97 and PS97 while retaining the best characteristics of the RF97, especially when gently customised with a bit of weight in the tail (I’ve tail weighted mine to bring it to 6 pts headlight).
I will admit that in stock form, it’s a little cumbersome to weild but with some weight in the handle/butt cap, it really does make a huge difference.

With my set up, I’ve found that it offers great plowthrough and stability (though not quite as much as the RF97 but certainly more than the PS97) but also is incredibly manoeuvrable, which is most likely as a result of the lower static weight but also the thinner beam. The thinner beam also contributes to far more feel than the RF97 or PS97 which I really appreciate.

While put away power, as noted above, isn’t quite on par with the RF97 (though it isn’t far off), it offers much better control and for me, I’d take more control over power any day of the week. In summary, I think Wilson have really nailed it with this racquet and I think it will appeal to a good proportion of higher level club players.

I'm not sure about the 97s as I haven't tried it yet, but the RFA is the best racquet I've ever had the pleasure to use. Even if everyone says it's too difficult for a non pro hitter, it's the racquet I had the best results with.

Roddick85 said:

. But one thing that I will definitely go back to is a thin/stiff beam with no power and a more head light balance.

Click to expand...

At the risk of repeating myself: I, personally, prefer the BLX 6.1 95 over the RFA97: less vibrations and also feels like a larger sweet spot (albeit smaller head size), due to parallel drilling.

Most people give up on the RF too early. It takes a few weeks to get used to the weight and the power, and improvement continues well past that.

The real hype is "you're too old to handle a racquet above a tweener." And "all Open Class players use tweeners."

Roddick85 said:

My form may not be perfect, but then again, when you see how Federer struggled with the extra power last year, I think ANYONE will struggle at some point. Just look at Federer's ground game in the summer last year at the Rogers Cup and even at times in Cincinnati, he couldn't keep the ball inside the court and had to S&V to win.




We all have our opinion, but I can't fully agree on that as far as I'm concerned. It does provide reasonable touch for a frame this thick/powerful, but it felt way short of my expectations for control. To have any sort of control, I had to go from stringing @50lbs to 60lbs and even then, it's shaky after a few hours of play. The biggest mistake I think everyone did, and I will include myself in this, is to think that the RF97A was a 97 sqin 90 with the same qualities, when in reality, it's far from that. Now would I see myself going back to the 90? For many reasons, I wouldn't. But one thing that I will definitely go back to is a thin/stiff beam with no power and a more head light balance.

Click to expand...

By sheer virtue of size, it's impossible for any 97 to have the same control and maneuverability of a 90. Also the RF97 is no thicker than the majority of frames sold today. Thicker then a thin box beam, for sure, but it's not some sort of aberration in terms of frame thickness. I felt the virtues i mentioned were amazing for thicker modern frame.

Roddick85 said:

My form may not be perfect, but then again, when you see how Federer struggled with the extra power last year, I think ANYONE will struggle at some point. Just look at Federer's ground game in the summer last year at the Rogers Cup and even at times in Cincinnati, he couldn't keep the ball inside the court and had to S&V to win.

Click to expand...

The RF does have more power than the 90 and is a different racquet. I'm not sure if Fed's game plan good or bad is all on the racquet.

LiquidWhip said:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the OP here.

I have a pair of matched RF97s which I’ve been playing with ever since I switched from the 6.1 95 line just over a year ago and for the most part, I have really enjoyed the racquet. My forehands (my biggest strength) have never been more penetrating and I’ve found effortless power on the serves. It’s also amazingly stable and solid – even more so than the 6.1 95.

As you’d expect, at the net the racquet it remains super solid but the lack of manoeuvrability (for me at least) can be an issue – a real problem seeing as I have to play a lot of doubles for my club but also because I like to finish points at the net in singles. This lack of manoeuvrability is also evident on return of serves and can also be an issue when on the defence and don’t have time to set up properly or are late on the ball (although I must admit you can often just block or just punch the ball back with the racket and send it back with interest).

Furthermore, it lacks feel compared to the Pro Staffs of old and I just don’t have the same level of control as I did when I was playing with the 6.1 95 and especially with the Pro Staff line.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great racquet when you’re on it and there are few racquets (if any) that offer the same level of firepower and weight of shot but there is a reason why none of the people in the first team at my club or at other clubs use it – it’s simply a very demanding stick, even for advanced players, that requires 100% commitment, 100% of the time. If you’re having even a remotely bad day, this thing will punish you.
This is where the PS97 was supposed to come into the picture. However, after trying it for a few weeks, I just couldn’t gel with it, I found it too light, not stable enough and I just couldn’t get the same weight of shot. Even by adding weight at both ends didn’t help. It just didn’t feel right and always felt somewhat hollow compared to the RF97.

The PS97S on the other hand seems to address the shortfalls of both the RF97 and PS97 while retaining the best characteristics of the RF97, especially when gently customised with a bit of weight in the tail (I’ve tail weighted mine to bring it to 6 pts headlight).
I will admit that in stock form, it’s a little cumbersome to weild but with some weight in the handle/butt cap, it really does make a huge difference.
With my set up, I’ve found that it offers great plowthrough and stability (though not quite as much as the RF97 but certainly more than the PS97) but also is incredibly manoeuvrable, which is most likely as a result of the lower static weight but also the thinner beam. The thinner beam also contributes to far more feel than the RF97 or PS97 which I really appreciate.

While put away power, as noted above, isn’t quite on par with the RF97 (though it isn’t far off), it offers much better control and for me, I’d take more control over power any day of the week. In summary, I think Wilson have really nailed it with this racquet and I think it will appeal to a good proportion of higher level club players.

Click to expand...

My comparison was with both frames stock and I did suggest that perhaps tail weighting the PS97S would make it shine more. I really wanted to like the PS97S as i immediately liked the 95S. Different stick i know as the 95S was hl with a low sw and static weight vs even balanced with a high sw. So playing with the PS97S stock, just really disappointed me. I'm sure with mods I would have enjoyed it more, but i'm enjoying the RF97 too much to start modding and tinkering with a new stick.

Are you finding the same precision with the 97S as you had the the RF97? I think the 97S reminded me of the new Blade line. I preferred the earlier Blade line.

By the time you get the PS97S to some HL balance (playable to me), it would be in RF97 weight territory.

So adding 31 grams of lead 1.6 inches from the 97S buttcap will make it a thinner beamed RF97S. Same hl balance (9pts), same weight (12.6) and near identical sw (335 vs 337).

Different player's like different racket characteristics, and none are bad or worse. Depends on player preference.
Obviously, SOME player's like a mid weight racket with lots of SW, maybe Dimitrov and Shroud.
Obviously, lots of players like a heavy weight racket (12+ oz) with a medium SW.
That's why they make different spec'd rackets, and I'm not talking about colors. And that's why someone discovered lead tape.
Use what you want, you will soon change as your tennis game changes.

coolschreiber said:

Yea I had exactly the same feeling. The control is ridiculously good for the stiffness level and how open the string pattern is, crazy.

Click to expand...

But do you have to string it with poly to get that control with that huge headsize and open string pattern?

I can string my 85 or 90 with a soft multi and still have very good control.

The stiff RF97A strung with poly would be an arm killer for many people.

BreakPoint said:

But do you have to string it with poly to get that control with that huge headsize and open string pattern?

I can string my 85 or 90 with a soft multi and still have very good control.

The stiff RF97A strung with poly would be an arm killer for many people.

Click to expand...

Listen BP, did you ever even try RF97?

I had a little arm fatigue at first with the RF97 (Lux 4G Rough at 48lbs), but after a month my tennis elbow went away and I have never had it again (had it off and on for about 2 yrs).

Anton said:

Listen BP, did you ever even try RF97?

Click to expand...

God damn it WHY did you have to ask.

BreakPoint said:

But do you have to string it with poly to get that control with that huge headsize and open string pattern?

I can string my 85 or 90 with a soft multi and still have very good control.

The stiff RF97A strung with poly would be an arm killer for many people.

Click to expand...

No man .. not poly.. mine's strung with gut/head hawk at 54/50.

asifallasleep said:

So adding 31 grams of lead 1.6 inches from the 97S buttcap will make it a thinner beamed RF97S. Same hl balance (9pts), same weight (12.6) and near identical sw (335 vs 337).

Click to expand...

How would you do that so precisely? Nails?

TennisHound said:

I had a little arm fatigue at first with the RF97 (Lux 4G Rough at 48lbs), but after a month my tennis elbow went away and I have never had it again (had it off and on for about 2 yrs).

Click to expand...

That is surprised. I have never had tennis elbow over my 35 years plus of playing tennis but the rf97a give me some aching pain (not tennis elbow). I Strung it low 48main 38cross with champion choice. I went back to my kps88 and it went away. Rf97a is stiff. I wish someone have a chance to measure Roger's racket stiffness. There is no way a conservative perfectionist guy like him just jump from a touch and feel k90 to a stiff and less feel rf97a. Still rf97a is a much much better racket than the 97s. Rf97a is designed for advanced players with sounded technical strokes. If you can get to the ball, setup, relax and hit the ball up from the racket will be a great weapon otherwise it will hurt your game more.

My arm did have some achiness for a couple of weeks but it went away. It is a stiff racquet, there is always a chance of tennis elbow, but mine was more arm fatigue than anything else.

I haven't tried the 97S and don't plan to. I already have a racquet that is about 0-1pt HL (Steam 96). I added a Wilson cushion grip and blue tac in the handle and now it's 8pts HL, but is up to 12.2oz strung. Again this is RF97 weight without the leather grip.

courtking said:

That is surprised. I have never had tennis elbow over my 35 years plus of playing tennis but the rf97a give me some aching pain (not tennis elbow). I Strung it low 48main 38cross with champion choice. I went back to my kps88 and it went away. Rf97a is stiff. I wish someone have a chance to measure Roger's racket stiffness. There is no way a conservative perfectionist guy like him just jump from a touch and feel k90 to a stiff and less feel rf97a. Still rf97a is a much much better racket than the 97s. Rf97a is designed for advanced players with sounded technical strokes. If you can get to the ball, setup, relax and hit the ball up from the racket will be a great weapon otherwise it will hurt your game more.

Click to expand...

Similar experience. About a year ago I went back to my PS88 to hit with it and it was butter for all balls struck out in front. I was raving until I hit a ball late and then a mishit, and bam..........the same pain I get when I'm late with my RF97. I think the pain most get from the RF97 is from hitting the ball late. If you are late, aren't loose, and don't have good racquet head speed, ur asking for trouble. Loose, contact out in front with good racquet head speed = butter!!!

I feel the touch "vs." (well deserved inverted commas here) stiffness "debate" is massively overblown. Bahrami can curve balls in a way you've never seen with anything in his hand, including a stiff, hollow and brassy Pure Drive. The last powerless, almost touch-only, crafty player I know is Radwanska. She uses a Pure Drive. I'm fairly sure Federer can handle it... And that every one here can find their racquet too.

BreakPoint said:

So how many Slams and Masters has Federer won since switching to the RF97A? How many did he win with the Tour 90?

You do know he had a debilitating back injury in 2013, right?

Click to expand...

The same racquet that he was using that he hurt his back with.

Oh boy, here we go...

Anton said:

Listen BP, did you ever even try RF97?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course I've tried it. That's how I've been able to talk about it on here for a year now.

Sander001 said:

The same racquet that he was using that he hurt his back with.

Click to expand...

You mean like how Agassi hurt his back using his 107 sq. in. racquet? And how Nadal hurt his back using his 100 sq. in. racquet? And how Murray hurt his back using his 95 sq. in. racquet? And how every tennis player has hurt their backs using whatever size racquet they were using? OK, got it!

BreakPoint said:

You mean like how Agassi hurt his back using his 107 sq. in. racquet? And how Nadal hurt his back using his 100 sq. in. racquet? And how Murray hurt his back using his 95 sq. in. racquet? And how every tennis player has hurt their backs using whatever size racquet they were using? OK, got it!

Click to expand...

Not every tennis player hurt their back on their own though like Federer did.

Sander001 said:

Not every tennis player hurt their back on their own though like Federer did.

Click to expand...

Huh? If they didn't hurt it on their own, then how did they hurt it?

Oh, maybe you're right. Maybe Agassi didn't hurt his back on his own. Maybe it was from when Sampras smacked him in the back with his PS 85? So you were right all along, a small racquet does hurt backs....just not your own!

coolschreiber said:

No man .. not poly.. mine's strung with gut/head hawk at 54/50.

Click to expand...

Huh? Head Hawk IS a poly string. That's how it produces "massive spin".

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Head_Hawk_16_Strings/descpageACHEAD-HAWK16.html

BreakPoint said:

Huh? Head Hawk IS a poly string. That's how it produces "massive spin".

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Head_Hawk_16_Strings/descpageACHEAD-HAWK16.html

Click to expand...

In your replying frenzy to 500 people a day you overlooked hawks in crosses, gut mains haha.
P.s: but thats ok we appreciate all the hard work you're putting in lol

Sampras hurt his back with the 85"

BreakPoint said:

Huh? If they didn't hurt it on their own, then how did they hurt it?

Oh, maybe you're right. Maybe Agassi didn't hurt his back on his own. Maybe it was from when Sampras smacked him in the back with his PS 85? So you were right all along, a small racquet does hurt backs....just not your own!

Click to expand...

You're the one who keeps on bringing up other players without proof of how they hurt their back.