Discussion in 'Classic Racquet Talk' started by Lavs, Mar 28, 2012.
who played with both?
what would you prefer and why?
Very very different racquets. PT 280 is much softer, much lower powered due to denser pattern, lighter weight(not much lighter) and more flex. psc 6.1 is very solid, firm, and has ample power if you can swing it. I prefer the 280 because I like a more flexible feel and nothing I've hit with feels as good.
Might come down to whether or not you're a bit more all court. In which case PSC is the slightly better fit. Whereas for out and out b-line play the PT630 shades it, for me anyhow. The Wilson is more powerful. Both are real quality in terms of build etc. Both are ultra solid and stable. Not sure if I could actually choose one over the other as the PSC and Pro Tour are two of my personal fave frames ever.
I like the prostaff way more. More power, more stable and it just thumps the ball. Serving monster too. The pt630 is just too low powered for me. Its super comfy, has pinpoint accuracy and a very plush feel. It just isn't a good fit for me. I just like how wilsons feel more.
I currently really enjoy stability and rock solid feel of PSC with 18x20 pattern(Euro release).
And good control + effortless power...
yes lack of comfort but.... I will try soon PT630 and will have a chance to compare.
The PT 280/630 and the PS Classic 6.1 are night and day for me.
The Classic is a very stiff frame with an RDC flex of around 72. I did not like it at all, way too stiff for me. No feel at all.
Always liked the PT 280/630, very playable frame. RDC flex around 58. Not as flexy as a Rossi F200 Carbon but it has a decent amount of flex and I like the 18x20 pattern. I think the PSC 6.1 is a 16x18.
Both are relatively hefty, 12 ounces+ frames and head light. Head size is about the same for both, the PSC is listed as a 95, the PT as a 97/98. I think if you held them side by side, the head size would be the same.
You have the Yin and Yang of frames in this comparison. There's not a lot more to add to what has already been said - the PSC is stiff, powerful and can give the ball a mighty thump. I found it to play less headlight than the 630 - it was harder to get around for me.
The 630 is soft, plush and has control for miles but not as much oomph. I can see how both would be at the top of the lists for the players that are designed to use these racquets - but they're very different animals.
I'd always choose the 630 - it works so well for me. I think the PS 6.0 95 would be a closer comparison.
What is the difference between Pro Tour 280 and the Radical bloodlines? They were both available simultaneous with Agassi's twin tube zebra models, but the 280 specs seem almost identical to the current Radical midplus of the liquid metal, microgel, Youtek varieties (mold shape, 18*20 pattern, 98 sq in, RA 58-62).
Unfortunately, the industry trend has been toward lighter and stiffer rackets. Head size remains the same but that later versions you mentioned tend to be slightly lighter, slightly more stiff which means if you like heavier and flexier, you aren't going to like them so much. They may have a similar feel but if you are used to a 280 or a Radical 630/98, or an old red Prestige mid for that matter, you probably won't like the newer rackets as much. Materials, resin systems, etc, all slightly different.
If I hit with any racket less than 12 ounces, it feels like a Wiffle Bat.
I've played with both and prefer the PSC 6.1 Tour. Both are hefty frames, but for me, the PSC swung lighter. The PT630 was a log and I had issues hitting groundies unless I was 10 feet behind the baseline with ample time to set up. The PT630 also felt like it had more weight in the head, likely due to the CAP grommets, which caused it to be sluggish at the net. The PSC definitely has more pop, but the PT has a more plush feel.
I feel that the PSC 6.1 Tour is more of an all court racket while the PT630 is more of a baseliner's frame.
The difference between the PT630 and the Radical series is the weight, flex, balance, CAP grommets, and material makeup - the PT's had some Twaron which contributed to a dampened feel.
First, the 280 and the radicals were the same mold, including the 2nd gen radical, the zebra. The later radicals, starting with the Ti rad, started using a slightly different mold. Though the specs are close, the radicals have always been a bit less headlight, a bit stiffer (even though the rdc spec is similar) and ultimately, more powerful.
Specs generally matter but this is a time it is totally off. Actually some of the later rads (lm, fxp) were much stiffer spec wise but even the ones with low flex feel nothing like the 280 and older rads. Maybe it's the lack of twaron.
^ Twaron has nothing to due with flexibility. It is an aramid fiber (like Kevlar) and is high modulus/very stiff. It is a damping additive that Head used in some rackets for about 10 years (roughly the late 1980's to late 1990's).
I have plenty of very flexible player's rackets none of which have Twaron. A racket's flexibility has much more to do with the composite mix (carbon and fiberglass mix including the resin system) than with whatever branded additive a given racket company is using to differentiate its product from the rest of the pack for marketing reasons (which changes almost every year; boron, titanium, kevlar, microgel, liquidmetal, hypercarbon, nano, et al.)
Of late, rackets have been designed to be lighter and stiffer. If you prefer an old school feel, you are SOL with the vast majority (perhaps all) of the flagship rackets available now.
I agree about the subjectivity of specs in terms of feel. I have picked up modern 60-ish flex rackets that feel world's stiffer than an older 58 flex (to the point of being unplayable for me unless I really back off my FH. I can't take a full swing and keep it in the court and the rackets have virtually no flex/feel which impacts spin serves, volleys, etc. ) Not a fan of the stiffer/lighter frames that are common now. I suppose if you grow up with stiff/light rackets, old school rackets feel mushy and low powered and you would hate them immediately the same way I hate the more modern rackets.
I was commenting on the feel Twaron gives, not stiffness. I agree with what you say though. Prince's exo3 tour is incredibly flexible and there's no twaron in them. The PS 85 was kevlar (same as twaron I suppose) but is vastly stiffer than a PT 280.
Yes, I miss the old feel. The yonex ezone xi 98 seems to have that feel, though a bit stiffer.
Modern day old school frame = Yonex Vcore 95D.
280 is like rigatoni
Very different frames. I personally prefer the PSC 6.1 because of its balance and string pattern.
My preference is the PSC 6.1 because of its crispness and stability even though it is stiff with a RA rating of 72 (the Tour version is lower), which seems high. The PT280 has the comfort but is low powered. Both racquets are hefty, however.
The PSC 6.1Tour version, I think, has a 18x20 string pattern.
Separate names with a comma.