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)!
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?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).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.
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.
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.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)!
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)!
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 allOrdering 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
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.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.
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.Why has Angell gone to a different construction for the 97?
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.
Is it ready to order online then? I could not find it yet..I'm looking forward to my TC97 arriving from Paul next week. Should be shipping out Friday per Paul.
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?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.
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.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 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.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.
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....But it is not.
Aside from people's feely touchy wishy washy it ACTUALLY is under 60.
Stiffer than Tour 90? Objectively NO.
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.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.
Agreed. The RDC stiffness is a guide but it's not absolute.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.
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.
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.
thats the same problem that i have. you have to buy it without demo, so you don´t know how it feels exactly.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 basisI 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?
Paul announced that the new TC97 will have a new beam design that is more like a box beam. Perhaps you missed that...?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...?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Just keep trying; he will get back to you and is very helpful.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.
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.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.