Angell TC95: 63 vs. 70 RA (stiffness)

FranzS

Rookie
Btw my current stick is a (weighted up) 2012 Wilson BLX Pro Staff 95 and I'm really enjoying it. I would like to try something even flexier, but I'm afraid about sacrifying power (specially on serves).
 

gino

Hall of Fame
Would also love to hear from TC95 users how the stiffness ratings feel

Considering the 63, I have had elbow problems for years and need a soft, comfortable frame
 

topspn

Legend
No, I don't have both RAs of 63 and 70. I have 1 TC100 and 2 TC95s both with the Angell rating of 70RA. However allow me to explain the rating as I discussed this topic with Paul Angell. They measure the RA rating prior to the handle and grip go on the racquet. A typical racquet once handle/grip is on drops 3-4 points. Then again once strung drops another 3 points. This means the 70 RA is rally a 63 or 64. The racquet does not feel too stiff at all and the comfort is a joy. It's not just an issue of stiffness with these racquets, the foam filled frames seem to absorb both impact and vibration extremely well. The comfort and feel is outstanding!
 
Last edited:

PigPen

Semi-Pro
I agree with topspn. I have tried both the 63 and 70. Both are extremely comfortable as the foam definitely absorbs most of the vibration and makes the frame feel and sound like a pro stock stick. To me, the 70 compared to the 63, feels like it does not flex as much on impact. I seriously doubt arm issues would arise from either one, but preference depends on the feel one desires.
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
I had a hard time choosing between the 70 and 63RA as well. 70 (-6) was still a bit high for my taste but 63 (-6) was definitely on low side...
But Angell is launching the TC97 next week and has a RA of 66! Perfect (for me)!
 

Surion

Hall of Fame
I had a hard time choosing between the 70 and 63RA as well. 70 (-6) was still a bit high for my taste but 63 (-6) was definitely on low side...
But Angell is launching the TC97 next week and has a RA of 66! Perfect (for me)!
Same problem for me. Golfer arm, so I need a very very comfortable frame, but 63-6 would be too soft, so 66-6 might do the trick. I just hope the TC97 is quick through the air, since I heard the TC95 is a beast for serves.
 

JohnBPittsburgh

Hall of Fame
I have a 63 RA, 100 and 95. I can tell you, neither one is "low powered" by any means!! I have not tried the 70 RA yet, and that is why I didn't comment on the initial question. But I can assure you, that the 63 RA feels awesome!! I have a Microgel Radical, and that feels significantly lower powered to me, than my 95. I don't know if it is the quality of materials or the lay up, but the 63 RA doesn't sap power away like it does in other frames. It is literally just how flexy it feels. (Initially when deciding, I was scared of the 70 RA because of all the bad experiences I heard about with Babolat frames. But since I have hit with these frames, I imagine it would feel very comfortable) I have had an epiphany, and I think I am going to sell off my remaining frames, and just go all Angell. They just have so many things going for them. The fact that Grommets are always available (a HUGE problem with one of my old frames I love. The only grommets I can find are being sold for $50!!!), the fact that you can adjust them easily (the weight system is relatively easy to adjust), they look awesome, you can get matching frames whenever you want, they are made extremely well, and most importantly, they play fantastic.
 

FranzS

Rookie
I have a 63 RA, 100 and 95. I can tell you, neither one is "low powered" by any means!! I have not tried the 70 RA yet, and that is why I didn't comment on the initial question. But I can assure you, that the 63 RA feels awesome!! I have a Microgel Radical, and that feels significantly lower powered to me, than my 95. I don't know if it is the quality of materials or the lay up, but the 63 RA doesn't sap power away like it does in other frames. It is literally just how flexy it feels. (Initially when deciding, I was scared of the 70 RA because of all the bad experiences I heard about with Babolat frames. But since I have hit with these frames, I imagine it would feel very comfortable) I have had an epiphany, and I think I am going to sell off my remaining frames, and just go all Angell. They just have so many things going for them. The fact that Grommets are always available (a HUGE problem with one of my old frames I love. The only grommets I can find are being sold for $50!!!), the fact that you can adjust them easily (the weight system is relatively easy to adjust), they look awesome, you can get matching frames whenever you want, they are made extremely well, and most importantly, they play fantastic.
Hi JohnBPittsburg, how do you like your 95 for serves? Do you get good pace with flat serves (could you compare with some other retail racquets you owned?)? And regarding kick serves, does it provide poor/decent/good/extreme spin?
 

maxpotapov

Hall of Fame
I have a 63 RA, 100 and 95. I can tell you, neither one is "low powered" by any means!! I have not tried the 70 RA yet, and that is why I didn't comment on the initial question. But I can assure you, that the 63 RA feels awesome!! I have a Microgel Radical, and that feels significantly lower powered to me, than my 95. I don't know if it is the quality of materials or the lay up, but the 63 RA doesn't sap power away like it does in other frames. It is literally just how flexy it feels. (Initially when deciding, I was scared of the 70 RA because of all the bad experiences I heard about with Babolat frames. But since I have hit with these frames, I imagine it would feel very comfortable) I have had an epiphany, and I think I am going to sell off my remaining frames, and just go all Angell. They just have so many things going for them. The fact that Grommets are always available (a HUGE problem with one of my old frames I love. The only grommets I can find are being sold for $50!!!), the fact that you can adjust them easily (the weight system is relatively easy to adjust), they look awesome, you can get matching frames whenever you want, they are made extremely well, and most importantly, they play fantastic.
Wow, just wow. I know how it feels when those flexible racquets sap power (like IG Prestige MP in stock form), so that's an outstanding achievement to produce an "energizing" racquet with sub-60 flex (strung).
 

topspn

Legend
I have a 63 RA, 100 and 95. I can tell you, neither one is "low powered" by any means!! I have not tried the 70 RA yet, and that is why I didn't comment on the initial question. But I can assure you, that the 63 RA feels awesome!! I have a Microgel Radical, and that feels significantly lower powered to me, than my 95. I don't know if it is the quality of materials or the lay up, but the 63 RA doesn't sap power away like it does in other frames. It is literally just how flexy it feels. (Initially when deciding, I was scared of the 70 RA because of all the bad experiences I heard about with Babolat frames. But since I have hit with these frames, I imagine it would feel very comfortable) I have had an epiphany, and I think I am going to sell off my remaining frames, and just go all Angell. They just have so many things going for them. The fact that Grommets are always available (a HUGE problem with one of my old frames I love. The only grommets I can find are being sold for $50!!!), the fact that you can adjust them easily (the weight system is relatively easy to adjust), they look awesome, you can get matching frames whenever you want, they are made extremely well, and most importantly, they play fantastic.
Mine are all 70RA and I did in fact sell all my other racquets except my wooden Dunlop Maxply tournament. I have zero desire to touch a different racquet after playing with my Angell frames. I have zero regret cleaning up.
 
Ahhh I love this... Getting set to place my order for a 63RA TC95 because I grew up playing with a Max 200G, now that was flexy... (RA48 I think) and in generally I serve better with RA below 60. Most people are going to prefer a strung RA of 64-63 that's prestige PS85 range. One question I have is if the strung RA for a 16x19 TC95 is higher than a 18x20 version ... given both start with the same prestrung RA. I could see myself having a 16x19 RA 63 TC95 asa a main stick and an 18x20 RA70 as an alternate and perhaps for doubles? Im always trying to tame power and currently play with the rather extra low powered Pacific X Feel 95 (which is the most mid-like MP out there, it has a strung RA of 61 and I wish it was 59-58 execpt then it would really be insanely low powered, I have big strokes but its hard to casually play with it... because anything that isnt a full swing just goes into the net).

The other thing with sub 60 strung RA sticks is there is a technique to generating lots of topspin with them... if youve never played with a 58 or 57 strung RA flex there will be an adjustment period that may or may not work for you. My favorite serving racquet of all time is my Becker London Tour and that is a RA of 55... perhaps a little too noodle-ish but man is it sweet on serve. Im looking to the TC95 RA 63 16x19 because nobody is making anything even remotely similar... ok the Pacific x force pro 98 but that is a 98 and I like 95's.
 

skeeter

Professional
I had a hard time choosing between the 70 and 63RA as well. 70 (-6) was still a bit high for my taste but 63 (-6) was definitely on low side...
But Angell is launching the TC97 next week and has a RA of 66! Perfect (for me)!
In talking to Paul about the TC97, he noted that the drop in RA from 66 after the racquet is built will only be about 2 points due to the 97 being more of a box beam construction. So not as drastic a drop as with the 100 or 95.

Ordered a 97 and will hopefully arrive next week. Will post my thoughts.
 

Anton

Legend
I had a hard time choosing between the 70 and 63RA as well. 70 (-6) was still a bit high for my taste but 63 (-6) was definitely on low side...
But Angell is launching the TC97 next week and has a RA of 66! Perfect (for me)!
Ordering a pair TC97 as well. 66 flex seems strange departure...but given more boxy frame compared to TC95 Angell probably just took 63RA lay up structure and applied to thicker mold.

I love my RF97 because it feels so one-piece solid, like the way TC95 70RA is decribed. I hope TC97 replicates that.
 

topspn

Legend
Ordering a pair TC97 as well. 66 flex seems strange departure...but given more boxy frame compared to TC95 Angell probably just took 63RA lay up structure and applied to thicker mold.

I love my RF97 because it feels so one-piece solid, like the way TC95 70RA is decribed. I hope TC97 replicates that.
Gosh, RF97A and my 70RA TC95 could not play any more different which for me is a great thing. Sorry, not bashing the RF, just for me they are not in the same league at all
 

Anton

Legend
Gosh, RF97A and my 70RA TC95 could not play any more different which for me is a great thing. Sorry, not bashing the RF, just for me they are not in the same league at all
Yea ok, that's why Wilson is releasing a TC95-like mold soon, to get into same league and all....oh no wait that's not how it went.
 

Soundbyte

Professional
Yea ok, that's why Wilson is releasing a TC95-like mold soon, to get into same league and all....oh no wait that's not how it went.
I think Paul is just cashing in on Federers marketing power. You can't argue with how popular Federer is. If he switches to a bigger racket, you're going to have a heck of a lot of people wanting to as well.
 

Anton

Legend
I think Paul is just cashing in on Federers marketing power. You can't argue with how popular Federer is. If he switches to a bigger racket, you're going to have a heck of a lot of people wanting to as well.
Well anyway, I did at one point briefly own a Vintage 95 63RA and I don't recall being all that impressed, although that was a while ago. I "sold it" for $45 to a very nice, very christian guy who neglected the part of the transaction where he pays me. One of very few regrets in my tennis racket history.
 
Why has Angell gone to a different construction for the 97?
I think target marketing wise a box beam true 97 inch foam filled frame that is customizable to most balance specs is a no brainer.

Im sure the layup is different than the TC95's and 100's, Paul is an engineer... its what he does. My dad is an engineer too btw... Basically if you give people like that an opportunity to design a new structure, they will. The simple fact that the RA 63 and 70 frames have different layups tells me the TC97 will have its own layup as well for its 66RA. Basically Paul is measuring these as a hairpin.
 

topspn

Legend
Yea ok, that's why Wilson is releasing a TC95-like mold soon, to get into same league and all....oh no wait that's not how it went.
I don't mean it in the manner you have understood it. TC95 is not in playing characteristics a racquet close to the RF. I used to play with an RF and once I played with the Angell frames, there was never any looking back as they are far superior in quality, feel and other playing charateristics. They do not play similar! As to a new size, I don't get your point unless you think that Wilson just imitated Yonex with the 97 size? Anyway, good luck with your new 97s, hopefully you'll enjoy them
 

PigPen

Semi-Pro
Also should be receiving the TC97 shortly. Can't wait to try it. What color grommets/grip did each of you order for the TC97?
 

skeeter

Professional
Paul mentioned something about working on a new website that will include it, so not there yet. But if you email him or contact him directly, I'm sure he'll set you up.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Wow, just wow. I know how it feels when those flexible racquets sap power (like IG Prestige MP in stock form), so that's an outstanding achievement to produce an "energizing" racquet with sub-60 flex (strung).
That's because the 63 RA feels stiffer than its rating even when strung. It feels more like 65+ to me. It definitely feels stiffer to me than any of the Tour 90s, which are rated around 65-67 RA. Thus, it has plenty of power due to both the weight and the stiffness. BTW, I'm referring to a Vantage 90, which I believe is the same as the Angell?

Several other people have also mentioned that the 63 RA feels stiffer than its rating.
 

Anton

Legend
That's because the 63 RA feels stiffer than its rating even when strung. It feels more like 65+ to me. It definitely feels stiffer to me than any of the Tour 90s, which are rated around 65-67 RA. Thus, it has plenty of power due to both the weight and the stiffness. BTW, I'm referring to a Vantage 90, which I believe is the same as the Angell?

Several other people have also mentioned that the 63 RA feels stiffer than its rating.
...But it is not.

Aside from people's feely touchy wishy washy it ACTUALLY is under 60.

Stiffer than Tour 90? Objectively NO.
 

oble

Hall of Fame
No, I don't have both RAs of 63 and 70. I have 1 TC100 and 2 TC95s both with the Angell rating of 70RA. However allow me to explain the rating as I discussed this topic with Paul Angell. They measure the RA rating prior to the handle and grip go on the racquet. A typical racquet once handle/grip is on drops 3-4 points. Then again once strung drops another 3 points. This means the 70 RA is rally a 63 or 64. The racquet does not feel too stiff at all and the comfort is a joy. It's not just an issue of stiffness with these racquets, the foam filled frames seem to absorb both impact and vibration extremely well. The comfort and feel is outstanding!
I'm still confused as to how the stiffness of the racquet as measured by the RDC can be changed by adding grip and strings to it.

That's because the 63 RA feels stiffer than its rating even when strung. It feels more like 65+ to me. It definitely feels stiffer to me than any of the Tour 90s, which are rated around 65-67 RA. Thus, it has plenty of power due to both the weight and the stiffness. BTW, I'm referring to a Vantage 90, which I believe is the same as the Angell?

Several other people have also mentioned that the 63 RA feels stiffer than its rating.
I think the difference in beam thickness is why the perceived stiffness is different. TC90 is thicker than Wilson Tour 90's, and has 19mm taper beam vs 17.5mm constant thickness box beam. I'd assume that Vantage 90 is the same as Angell TC90 since they're the same company and Angell doesn't do any fancy stuff or make fancy changes to their racquets.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
...But it is not.

Aside from people's feely touchy wishy washy it ACTUALLY is under 60.

Stiffer than Tour 90? Objectively NO.
Have you played with both the Vantage 90 and the Tour 90s for over 10 years like I have? Yes, the Vantage 90 with 63 RA definitely feels and plays stiffer and is thus more powerful. And how a racquet feels and plays is what matters, not its RDC rating. In fact, I find RDC ratings to be pretty meaningless in many cases. How a racquet plays is based upon how it feels and how stiff it plays, not upon its RDC rating. The RDC rating is taken at a single point on the frame, not along the entire length of the frame, and many frames flex differently along different points on the frame, e.g., stiff throat but flexible hoop, flexible throat but stiff hoop, etc.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I
I think the difference in beam thickness is why the perceived stiffness is different. TC90 is thicker than Wilson Tour 90's, and has 19mm taper beam vs 17.5mm constant thickness box beam. I'd assume that Vantage 90 is the same as Angell TC90 since they're the same company and Angell doesn't do any fancy stuff or make fancy changes to their racquets.
Yes, but perceived stiffness is the only one that matters because how you play is based solely upon how stiff the frame feels and plays to you. You don't play an RDC rating, you play how stiff you perceive the racquet to be. For example, say you're looking for a flexible, low-powered racquet so you try a racquet with a RDC rating of 40 RA, but it plays stiff and very powerful, more like 80 RA. Well, of course, you're not going to choose that racquet, right? A RDC rating matters little out on a tennis court.

And, yes, the thicker "semi-circle" beam of the Vantage is one of the things that makes it stiffer than the thinner box beam of the Tour 90s, and the 100% high-modulus graphite layup probably also adds to the stiffness of the Vantage.
 
Last edited:

oble

Hall of Fame
Yes, but perceived stiffness is the only one that matters because how you play is based solely upon how stiff the frame feels and plays to you. You don't play an RDC rating, you play how stiff you perceive the racquet to be. For example, say you're looking for a flexible, low-powered racquet so you try a racquet with a RDC rating of 40 RA, but it plays stiff and very powerful, more like 80 RA. Well, of course, you're not going to choose that racquet, right? A RDC rating matters little out on a tennis court.

And, yes, the thicker "semi-circle" beam of the Vantage is one of the things that makes it stiffer than the thinner box beam of the Tour 90s, and the 100% high-modulus graphite layup probably also adds to the stiffness of the Vantage.
Agreed. The RDC stiffness is a guide but it's not absolute.
 

topspn

Legend
I'm still confused as to how the stiffness of the racquet as measured by the RDC can be changed by adding grip and strings to it.
They would still be adding the actual handle so there is a difference in flex once added. Adding strings and with the tension on the frame does affect the RDC reading. Look at all the manufacturer RA ratings vs the strung measurement TW provides.
 

sma1001

Hall of Fame
I think target marketing wise a box beam true 97 inch foam filled frame that is customizable to most balance specs is a no brainer.

Im sure the layup is different than the TC95's and 100's, Paul is an engineer... its what he does. My dad is an engineer too btw... Basically if you give people like that an opportunity to design a new structure, they will. The simple fact that the RA 63 and 70 frames have different layups tells me the TC97 will have its own layup as well for its 66RA. Basically Paul is measuring these as a hairpin.
I get it. My concern with now having the TC95 and TC97 is the absence of demos. It's difficult, not having hit either, to determine which is likely to be more suitable when there is so little difference in head size. I get that the 97 will feel more like a box beam pro staff which i've hit - but what does the 95 feel like? In essence i'd want to hit 2 racquets with the characteristics of each before determining which is likely to suit better. So if one is the Pro Staff 97 (or PS95), which is the other?
 

Hansen

Semi-Pro
I get it. My concern with now having the TC95 and TC97 is the absence of demos. It's difficult, not having hit either, to determine which is likely to be more suitable when there is so little difference in head size. I get that the 97 will feel more like a box beam pro staff which i've hit - but what does the 95 feel like? In essence i'd want to hit 2 racquets with the characteristics of each before determining which is likely to suit better. So if one is the Pro Staff 97 (or PS95), which is the other?
thats the same problem that i have. you have to buy it without demo, so you don´t know how it feels exactly.
what i would like to know is the power level of the tc 16x19 63ra in general (i know that the swingweight depends on the balance)
johnbpittsburgh wrote that it has more power than the head microgel mp, but that is without lead a really low powered racquet. so how does it compare to a prince 100p, yonex ai 98 or prestige pro for example?
 

topspn

Legend
I get it. My concern with now having the TC95 and TC97 is the absence of demos. It's difficult, not having hit either, to determine which is likely to be more suitable when there is so little difference in head size. I get that the 97 will feel more like a box beam pro staff which i've hit - but what does the 95 feel like? In essence i'd want to hit 2 racquets with the characteristics of each before determining which is likely to suit better. So if one is the Pro Staff 97 (or PS95), which is the other?
I'm not sure where any of us get this idea that the 97 will be like a box beam pro staff???? Again, these racquets don't have any similar characteristics to the pro staff line. Paul simply recognizes that a lot of people were asking for a racquet head size in between 95-100 so he is providing one. However this link to the RF or pro staff or any other racquet for that matter has zero basis
 
Last edited:

rlau

Hall of Fame
I'm not sure where any of us get this idea that the 97 will be like a box beam pro staff???? Again, these racquets don't have any similar characteristics to the pro staff line. Paul simply recognizes that a lot of people were asking for a racquet head size in between 95-100 so he is providing one. However this link to the RF or pro staff or any other racquet for that matter has zero basis
Paul announced that the new TC97 will have a new beam design that is more like a box beam. Perhaps you missed that...?
 

topspn

Legend
Paul announced that the new TC97 will have a new beam design that is more like a box beam. Perhaps you missed that...?
No, I did not miss that at all. That is just a design of a beam and zero to do with direct comparison to any other racquet. You really have to play with an Angell to understand how truly different they are from anything out in the market.
 

Anton

Legend
Have you played with both the Vantage 90 and the Tour 90s for over 10 years like I have? Yes, the Vantage 90 with 63 RA definitely feels and plays stiffer and is thus more powerful.
I played with nCode90, K90 and Vantage 95 63 RA.

Did you match the two rackets and string them comparatively?

Just because something "feels" stiffer doesn't mean it is more powerful. For example tighter stringbed will make the racket feel stiffer, but not only will not be more powerful it probably will be LESS powerful. Same thing with weight - lighter racket can feel stiffer on impacts while giving you less power than same racket with more weight.
 

veecee

Rookie
The TC97 is not a true box beam like the traditional Pro Staff line. It is more of a rectangular flat beam like the RF97.
 

sma1001

Hall of Fame
No, I did not miss that at all. That is just a design of a beam and zero to do with direct comparison to any other racquet. You really have to play with an Angell to understand how truly different they are from anything out in the market.
This is what i am getting at. If it does feel unique the absence of demos mean that you can't know whether you will like it until you buy it. I do think that limits the potential market as it feels like a big risk.
 

topspn

Legend
This is what i am getting at. If it does feel unique the absence of demos mean that you can't know whether you will like it until you buy it. I do think that limits the potential market as it feels like a big risk.
I totally understand what you mean. I certainly took a calculated risk when I purchased my first TC95. Two things helped me with my decision the first was feedback from people on feel and comfort as well as bugging Paul with questions I had. Feel and comfort were a very big deal to me and I was assured both were top notch. After hitting with the TC95 for a while, I'm a total believer. The second was weight, balance, SW, etc which I already had a very good idea of what I wanted due to the many years of experimenting and understanding what I liked. If you want to be happy with your TC racquet, you do need to know what specs work for you. If you don't then the customize concept doesn't work well for you. Just my two cents
 

pfrischmann

Professional
I totally understand what you mean. I certainly took a calculated risk when I purchased my first TC95. Two things helped me with my decision the first was feedback from people on feel and comfort as well as bugging Paul with questions I had. Feel and comfort were a very big deal to me and I was assured both were top notch. After hitting with the TC95 for a while, I'm a total believer. The second was weight, balance, SW, etc which I already had a very good idea of what I wanted due to the many years of experimenting and understanding what I liked. If you want to be happy with your TC racquet, you do need to know what specs work for you. If you don't then the customize concept doesn't work well for you. Just my two cents
How do you get Paul to respond. I am really close to pulling the trigger but I need to finalize a few things, especially with the 97 out. I've tried to email him a few times to no avail.
 

topspn

Legend
How do you get Paul to respond. I am really close to pulling the trigger but I need to finalize a few things, especially with the 97 out. I've tried to email him a few times to no avail.
Lool..I have no trick to get him to respond. He sometimes responds at weird hours so his work hours are all over the place. He is probably up to his neck so will respond when he has time.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I played with nCode90, K90 and Vantage 95 63 RA.

Did you match the two rackets and string them comparatively?

Just because something "feels" stiffer doesn't mean it is more powerful. For example tighter stringbed will make the racket feel stiffer, but not only will not be more powerful it probably will be LESS powerful. Same thing with weight - lighter racket can feel stiffer on impacts while giving you less power than same racket with more weight.
Yes, I've strung them with the same string and I've strung both of them with many different strings so I know the difference between the frames' stiffness and the stringbeds' stiffness. They both also weigh about the same with about the same swingweight (the Vantage might be slightly lower). Despite that, the Vantage is definitely both stiffer and more powerful. When I want to really crush the ball, I put the Tour 90 back in the bag and pull out the Vantage.
 

The_Racketeer

Professional
He'll definitely get back to you but it seems Angell's popularity is rising and he's been very busy. He and I went back and forth a number of times in Aug before I ordered my TC95. Sometimes he got back to me the next day. Sometimes a week later.
 
Top