Search results

Suggested Title for this tennis novel: The Need for S - The story of a player in search for his holy grail of the perfect grip

This original release (not the re-issue) came with a Tofu throat bridge... You can literally feel the excessive bend on it -- what I called BAD FLEX -- In contrast to the HM 200G 95 with the "Tour Bridge" (probably also used on the re-issue) that fixed this issue and made it feel a bit more...

... Actually Todd Martin had Agassi tried this for a brief time back then.

Todd Martin

Re-watch this:

Not only less effort needed for depth, I feel like less effort needed for spin too.

I couldn't imagine I'd like it two years ago... But now my crosses are 18-19.5 lbs (mains remain 22-24 lbs depends on weather conditions) You'll have to TRY IT to know if it fits you or not.

Now a Dure Drive is probably not a good candidate for this... Then again Mannarino does that on the APD. I am no 6.0 either... Just playing up to keep myself in-form. :)

Either hit topspin WITH pace (aka Fed style flat-trajectory topspin non-flat drive) OR Loop it like Nadal with crazy buggy-whip brush-ups !! I also tried hitting Medvedev style slap-smack FHs, and it will somehow stay in court like you said. I did all of the above against a 6.0+ guy with...

50s -> 40s -> 30s -> 20s. At first I was curious but doubtful about the Mannarino low, but is now evangelizing it after using it for a year and half plus.

You have to trial and error on your own. Mileage varies. Then again, I'd never imagined I'd gone Mannarino low two years ago myself. :)

You can go even lower for a POG mid! Go Adrian Mannarino low in lower 20lbs! (I did it with Hyper G soft 1.20 / 1.25) Super comfortable and pop while didn't feel like losing much control anyway

DEFINE your OHBH first -- As it determines head size, string pattern, and stiffness needs Do you slice more than hitting topspin like Graf? Or, do you drive flat shots more than hitting loopy topspins? -- both may lead to denser pattern or smaller head size choices) Who do you mostly hit...

Even better if they can release the Mauresmo MW paintjob in 16X19 pattern. Though I personally prefer the Revelation 200G all black glossy paintjob. (which I already have both 100G and 200G in 18X20 patterns)

Who else wish there is a 97/98 headsize 16X19 POG MP (but NOT Phantom Noodles) in its original RA of 66/67, 19mm thin beam and in its original glossy paintjob?

Compared to big circular take-back guys like Gasquet, Almagro etc (like swinging a big whip with a BH)... His BH takeback is definitely more compact AND energy efficient, like pulling back a slingshot, and let the string release the ROCK !! His follow-thru though, is much more complete, not...

Concur re: shape affects the measurement. I put Lynx 1.20 cross (round) on Hyper G 1.20 main vs Eruption 1.18 cross (shaped) on Hyper G 1.20 main with same tension on same/similar frames ... The Lynx 1.20 looks true to gauge (or even looks slightly thinner like a 1.18), but the Eruption looks...

May be... but I got the Eruption 1.18 from 2 different vendors, 1 in US, the other in UK.

Eruption 1.18 Green is as thick as or thicker than 1.25 or even 1.30 of other brands. (But Blackforce 1.14 seems to be more or less the same as 1.15 of other brands)

13 inches X 9.5 inches at the centers. It's now a true 98+ since the Graphene iterations (no longer a true 95 like the LM Radicals)

Yet another update regarding the naked eye measurement: I can fit the entire hoop of the Trisys 270 into a Head Graphene Radical Pro 98 string bed... AND THEN SOME space left between the 2 bridges (3mm or so) So the Graphene Radical Pro may be bigger than a true 98 ??

Shhh....... need to find something better for the reps to explain the "change in measurement protocol". Then again, the 630 or 600 round-up thing is not sounding too bad. :)

Wow! 110... that's a little unexpected! Let me also share my low-tech tape measurement updates for my Head Prestiges etc: -- I tried again to fit a smaller Trisys 270 (same size as PC 600, 89.5 sqi, roughly 90 hitting area) into the string-bed of the Blade 98, and this time it seems fit right...

Yea, I heard about that one... Then again, for me these are all just theories. So if these are all just marketing ploys, their sales team simply picked whatever they think its handy for their purposes... Then their "official" explanation is just that: Whatever THEY say is THEIR official...

Sounds reasonable when you put it this way, I must say! Then again, now this whole measurement deal drive my curiosity to the max to put a true 98 Blade to compare side-by-side with my IG PP (94 or 95): I'd say the difference of their stringbed is probably add up 2 to 3 sqi, looking at the...

Partly but yes. If the outer edge of stringbed (include grommets) is 97 then include the frame will add another 2-3 won't be that far off, isn't it? "Its a really odd coincidence that the PC 600 was listed as 93 sqi in US markets 90s-2000s, while originally printed 89.5 sqi on those racquets...

Read thru Jacks later postings... He did indeed listed the OUTSIDE measurement: 97+ so the difference is indeed roughly 3. (I do understand your doubt, but it was already answered by Jack 13+ years ago) BTW, what I really don't understand is: why the 3 sqi difference is ridiculous? -- Even...

Interesting calculations! Then again, just some food for thought: 1. We don't know the EXACT MEASUREMENT METHOD that Head was using. -- What if its indeed CAD-based, then Jack and Radicalized demonstrations will be close. 2. Its a really odd coincidence that the PC 600 was listed as 93...

Thanks for the old thread, Radicalized! It is interesting to add that Jack actually listed the outside edge Vs inside measurements later on, which is 97+ from outside for PT 280.

Fair enough... if you think you know even more than those in this business (EVEN TW folks who is the ultimate authority in this business !!) :oops: But just an FYI and for the sake of clarifying the COUNTER-MYTH that you're now engaged in: I believe it was either Jack and Coke (or Chicago...