Confused regarding EZONE 98 2022 vs PS97 v13 power

[InTheValley]

It seems like there is a general consensus that PS97 v13 is a control oriented low-powered racquet while Ezone 98 2022 is a more powerful racquet but still has a control to it.
TW reviewers describe PS97 v13 as "definitely lacks power", "low-powered nature", "low powered and unforgiving", etc. and Ezone 98 2022 as "easy power", "controllable power"...
The "Power Rating" on their reviews is also PS=79 and EZ=81
BUT, it also seems like in all the measurements PS is actually a more powerful, or should I say with more power potential, racquet than the EZ - the power potential measured on the stringbed is higher, the sweetzone is larger, the plow-through is higher, as a result of that the power index is higher as well.
So how come everyone says that EZ is more powerful?
One thing that obviously comes to mind is that possibly a higher SW/Weight of PS slows down the RHS and in turn dials down the power for someone who can't swing it as fast as a 10g lighter EZ but I'd expect experienced players / reviewers to understand that, it's like nobody is calling the RF97 low-powered...

 

[SupahMan5000]

simple answer is dont get tied up in the numbers

take them out and see how each one suits your swing and play style and you can make an assessment about power

 

[Rally]

simple answer is dont get tied up in the numbers

take them out and see how each one suits your swing and play style and you can make an assessment about power

And bring some lead tape to your playtest too so that you can get around bad quality control on an otherwise good frame.

 

[Curtennis]

The PS13 is every bit as powerful as the Ezone. I’ve played both a fair amount. (The Ezone probably 500 hours worth heh).

 

[aaron_h27]

It seems like there is a general consensus that PS97 v13 is a control oriented low-powered racquet while Ezone 98 2022 is a more powerful racquet but still has a control to it.
TW reviewers describe PS97 v13 as "definitely lacks power", "low-powered nature", "low powered and unforgiving", etc. and Ezone 98 2022 as "easy power", "controllable power"...
The "Power Rating" on their reviews is also PS=79 and EZ=81
BUT, it also seems like in all the measurements PS is actually a more powerful, or should I say with more power potential, racquet than the EZ - the power potential measured on the stringbed is higher, the sweetzone is larger, the plow-through is higher, as a result of that the power index is higher as well.
So how come everyone says that EZ is more powerful?
One thing that obviously comes to mind is that possibly a higher SW/Weight of PS slows down the RHS and in turn dials down the power for someone who can't swing it as fast as a 10g lighter EZ but I'd expect experienced players / reviewers to understand that, it's like nobody is calling the RF97 low-powered...

They have similar specs but I'm assuming the larger head size of the ezone gives it a bit more free power. It should be fairly close in power level though.

Something like the RF97 I believe is more powerful than the Ezone due to the stiffness, open pattern and SW.

 

[InTheValley]

The PS13 is every bit as powerful as the Ezone. I’ve played both a fair amount. (The Ezone probably 500 hours worth heh).

They have similar specs but I'm assuming the larger head size of the ezone gives it a bit more free power. It should be fairly close in power level though.

Something like the RF97 I believe is more powerful than the Ezone due to the stiffness, open pattern and SW.

I agree with you both, I just don't understand why so many people, including an experienced playtesters come to a different conclusion

 

[InTheValley]

simple answer is dont get tied up in the numbers

take them out and see how each one suits your swing and play style and you can make an assessment about power

I tend to believe you're right, seems like a good portion of "numbers" on TWU don't provide accurate meaning, unfortunately.
I'm not saying that they aren't calculated correctly or that their formulas doesn't make sense, it's just that they can't take all the existing parameters into account.
For example, calculating power index I don't think takes into account things like: throat/lateral bending regardless of the general RA, head shape, string spacing differences in the same string pattern, etc. which all can affect more or less a power potential of a racquet.

 

[Curtennis]

I agree with you both, I just don't understand why so many people, including an experienced playtesters come to a different conclusion

cause all play testers do the same lazy crap. The see the name and or specs and just make the review off of that. Oh a pro staff? Lower powered attacking frame. Ezone? Higher power baseliner frame.

16x19 version of a racquet? More spin. 18x20? Better for flatter hitters.

While these things might be true it just seems so many playtesters on YouTube and TW just parrot crap. The big guy on YT is one of my least favorites.

Tenncom, AC, maybe a couple others im forgetting really seem to give a crap about getting it right even if it angers people.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

I have played both these racquets and they are about the same in terms of power.

 

[Mischko]

Power on this forum means mainly two different things. For low level players it's how can I simply bunt the ball and have it go deep at low swing speeds. For high level players it's how can I have a full flat blast at the ball and have an Alcaraz like forehand.

So when a lower intermediate player, or just someone who doesn't really like hitting at full power, likes soft strings, old balls etc, plays a PS97 v13 - there's no "easy power" at lower swing speeds. But it's a frame very comparable to Alcaraz' Aero VS, and Carlos would produce very similar results with it at a high racquet head speeds.

Pro Staffs have never ever been low powered, that's completely fake. Since the Edberg days, then Courier, then Sampras, Federer etc Pro Staff 85/90 and KPS88 they have always been stiff (67-69), heavy, and very powerful, with an open string pattern

And already in early 90s a 22mm beam 6.1 95 was introduced, at 68 stiffness and 340 swingweight. And then remember that they strung gut in them, Sampras at 34kg 1.22 Babolat VS gut, in a heavily leaded already heavy and stiff PS85.

RF97A at 68 stiffness and 340g, along with the KPS88 at 69 stiffness and 345g from 2007 are both very very powerful frames, difficult to keep the ball in court

So again, Pro Staffs have never ever been low powered. Whoever launched that idea is an .. clueless.

PS97 315g is maybe the first at a lower swingweight, around 320, so that perhaps seems a low powered frame, but it's stiff and crispy, with a fairly open string pattern, and it's not low powered, not even for beginners. Obviously if you bring the swingweight up, it can become much more powerful, and it keeps the stiffness and stability

You described it very well, people just don't swing it nicely and fully, so at a slower rhs and short swings it might seem lower powered

 

[TennisCJC]

I played the Ez 98 version prior to 2022 and I currently play with PS97 v13. I added 2 grams to 3/9 o'clock on the Ez98 and I have 2 grams at noon on the PS97 v13. There's very little difference in power. I think a lot of opinions are swayed by what's trending. If it is a thin beam racket, people assume under powered. Personally, I think you should look at the TW numbers on power and sweet zone size AND play test the frames. For me, the Ez98 had the slightest touch more power and the PS97 has better feel and control.

 

[Ryebread]

I would say that the sweet spot is much smaller on the PS. Perhaps that translates to being less powerful in the wrong person’s hands.

 

[TysonMcMuffin]

It seems like there is a general consensus that PS97 v13 is a control oriented low-powered racquet while Ezone 98 2022 is a more powerful racquet but still has a control to it.
TW reviewers describe PS97 v13 as "definitely lacks power", "low-powered nature", "low powered and unforgiving", etc. and Ezone 98 2022 as "easy power", "controllable power"...
The "Power Rating" on their reviews is also PS=79 and EZ=81
BUT, it also seems like in all the measurements PS is actually a more powerful, or should I say with more power potential, racquet than the EZ - the power potential measured on the stringbed is higher, the sweetzone is larger, the plow-through is higher, as a result of that the power index is higher as well.
So how come everyone says that EZ is more powerful?
One thing that obviously comes to mind is that possibly a higher SW/Weight of PS slows down the RHS and in turn dials down the power for someone who can't swing it as fast as a 10g lighter EZ but I'd expect experienced players / reviewers to understand that, it's like nobody is calling the RF97 low-powered...

The possible difference could be in beam thickness, since the zone has a thicker beam is has more "free" power while not having that much absolute power because its sw is low and its static weight is low. Pro staff has a much thinner beam which leads to higher racquet head speed + higher stiffness rating + a little bit higher sw. (ezone about 314 prostaff about 320). One thing I haven't measured on the prostaff is TW which I think is one of the biggest element of free "power". Ezone is not that powerful of a racquet, idk why tennis warehouse reviewers and YouTubers compare it to super powerful racquets. If you watch Karue Sell (MyTennisHQ) review on the 2022 ezone 98 he says its super underpowered and you need to swing all out. Thats because the "absolute power" which is sw --> stiffness --> twistweight --> weight in that order is all pretty low on the ezone.