Considering customizing my PS97S (Dimitrov)

MasturB

Legend
At the moment, my PS97S is just not getting the plow and stability against heavy hitting opponents.

I love the RF97, but for the most part it's brutal for serves on my shoulder, and after playing for a while there's just the fatigue. I love hitting groundstrokes with them, just the weight is too much.

I'm getting good power on the serves from my PS97s, but groundstrokes are somewhat flying and it's making me somewhat gunshy and hesitant on going for a big shot (I love unloading freely on backhands but right now they're just going out, and forehands are just spraying).

So question, I've never customized a racquet before but I'm seriously considering it.

How would I go about customizing my 97S to get more control/stability on it, without sacrificing serving racquet head speed? I'd like to add a bit more weight for stability (against players with heavy spin and power, the racket just cannot plow through the way my RF97 can), but I don't want it to lean towards the RF97 where my shoulder was killed on serves and it's a burden to swing serves. I've never added lead before, so just want to get an idea on where I should look to adding lead.

For some reference, I've previously used
6.1 90 (N-Code)
6.1 90 (K-Factor)
Babolat Pure Storm Tour GT
6.1 90 (BLX)
Back to Babs PSTGT
Pro Staff 97
Head Prestige MP
RF97 (since October 2015 until 3 weeks ago)
PS97s (currently)

I'd say the 6.1 90 BLX was one of my favorite rackets (better than KF and NCode), and the Babs Pure Storm Tour GT was the best racq I've ever had success with. I really like the 97s, I just want to slightly modify it, because I feel I'm really close to getting it where I want it.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Do you know the swingweight of your particular racquet?

I'd recommend using the swing tool app to find your swingweight first.

My specs of 345 swingweight, 335g are great IMO. The serve still is very whippy and fast through contact, but groundstrokes are incredibly stable (huge sweetspot even with stiff poly). IMO the key is to not add lead at 3/9, cause the twistweight can make the racquet feel unwieldy. Add lead at 12 and blue tack in the buttcap to achieve maximum polarisation.

As to hitting out and keeping the ball in... I've found that a fresh bed of poly makes a huge difference in this frame, and that deader, more control oriented polys work exceptionally well. You might want to give those a try.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
If the suggestions of adding weight at 12 and in the buttcap don't work you may need to try a different frame. The 97S is not a light easy frame to swing. Even balanced stock with a very healthy SW (more than the RF97), it's meant to hit a fairly heavy ball. Not quite as heavy as the RF97 (main diff is the RF has a much wider beam and is stiffer; which equals more power) but still packing a decent punch. The thin beam may help a bit with maneuverability but adding a little weight to the 97S takes you quickly into the static weight territory of the RF97. So you end up with a RF97 will a thinner beam. If that result cures the arm fatigue issues you are golden. If not, let the search begin.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
If you still have your RF97, make it lighter by swapping out the leather grip for a synthetic grip (bab skin to make it even lighter), and put in 18g strings. Should take you down to the 12.2-12.5 range. That might help.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
If you still have your RF97, make it lighter by swapping out the leather grip for a synthetic grip (bab skin to make it even lighter), and put in 18g strings. Should take you down to the 12.2-12.5 range. That might help.
Look, I get that you love your RF and hate the 97S, but don't you think you've done enough in that regard now? Wherever there is any question in regards to the 97S you're there to spout negative opinions, even though it's the frame that you gave the least chances to. Need I remind you how often gave the RF a try before it worked out for you?
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
Look, I get that you love your RF and hate the 97S, but don't you think you've done enough in that regard now? Wherever there is any question in regards to the 97S you're there to spout negative opinions, even though it's the frame that you gave the least chances to. Need I remind you how often gave the RF a try before it worked out for you?
I'm laughing as i knew you'd come to defense of your beloved 97S. Who cares Spin, get lost. I'll offer my views as long as I choose. It's an open forum. Go police someone else in all your spare time.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm laughing as i knew you'd come to defense of your beloved 97S. Who cares Spin, get lost. I'll offer my views as long as I choose. It's an open forum. Go police someone else in all your spare time.
First time I've responded to you, no need to be so touchy little princess.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
First time I've responded to you, no need to be so touchy little princess.
LOL, insecure about some comments on a tw forum, seriously, lmao. That is a good one!!! You've responded to so many of my RF97 threads i'm a bit surprised you are so clueless. I don't get angry when someone bashes the RF97. It's all subjective. You seem to get angry when someone doesn't like your frame of choice. You get very defensive. Racquets are very subjective.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
I actually suggested that the OP try your mods and then if that didn't work to try my suggestions with the RF97. I don't know what your problem is. I hope the OP finds the solution that works best for him. It doesn't matter to me what frame he ends up with as long as he likes it.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
LOL, insecure about some comments on a tw forum, seriously, lmao. That is a good one!!! You've responded to so many of my RF97 threads i'm a bit surprised you are so clueless. I don't get angry when someone bashes the RF97. It's all subjective. You seem to get angry when someone doesn't like your frame of choice. You get very defensive. Racquets are very subjective.

There's so many people disagreeing with your assessments that you're confusing me with them. This is the first time I've pointed you out in this way. Perhaps I've disagreed with your assessment before, but that's all. You really are being touchy, chill.

I actually suggested that the OP try your mods and then if that didn't work to try my suggestions with the RF97. I don't know what your problem is. I hope the OP finds the solution that works best for him. It doesn't matter to me what frame he ends up with as long as he likes it.

You first suggested he try the method I suggested and then looked for something else. You didn't say that something else is the racquet he had problems with to begin with. See, it's funny how you consider the PS97S to be heavy to swing and all, but replace the leather with a synthetic grip and use thin strings on the RF (in that wide open string pattern too) and all is dainty. The RF's real swingweight (as in a value that is representative of how players actually swing racquets) is higher, since conventional swingweight is measured about a unpractical axis (10.16cm up the handle) in regards to how we swing a racquet, and hence doesn't sufficiently account for handle weight. So no, the RF will never be as whippy as a PS97S, unless you specifically set up a PS 97S to be less maneuverable.

Reality is this: My mods would still keep him at around 11.8 oz, whereas your measures in removing weight still have him stuck in the mid 12oz range.

If the customizations of the 97S doesn't work, then the racquet likely isn't for the OP or he needs to make a compromise. All things considered, the RF is no solution either though.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
There's so many people disagreeing with your assessments that you're confusing me with them. This is the first time I've pointed you out in this way. Perhaps I've disagreed with your assessment before, but that's all. You really are being touchy, chill.



You first suggested he try the method I suggested and then looked for something else. You didn't say that something else is the racquet he had problems with to begin with. See, it's funny how you consider the PS97S to be heavy to swing and all, but replace the leather with a synthetic grip and use thin strings on the RF (in that wide open string pattern too) and all is dainty. The RF's real swingweight (as in a value that is representative of how players actually swing racquets) is higher, since conventional swingweight is measured about a unpractical axis (10.16cm up the handle) in regards to how we swing a racquet, and hence doesn't sufficiently account for handle weight. So no, the RF will never be as whippy as a PS97S, unless you specifically set up a PS 97S to be less maneuverable.

Reality is this: My mods would still keep him at around 11.8 oz, whereas your measures in removing weight still have him stuck in the mid 12oz range.

If the customizations of the 97S doesn't work, then the racquet likely isn't for the OP or he needs to make a compromise. All things considered, the RF is no solution either though.

Your calculations don't change how the even balanced 97S felt clubby and slow in my hand compared to my RF97 with a synthetic grip and thin gauge strings. The RF97 felt whippier to me moreso than the 97S. So sorry, calculations on paper don't always translate to real time usage - - which is why people demo and mod - frames are very personal. Guidelines may help, but we all need to try them all out and decide for themselves. The OP can decide for himself what the best solution is.
 

Fireball

Rookie
At the moment, my PS97S is just not getting the plow and stability against heavy hitting opponents.
Sorry for saying this but the plow and stability of the racket doesn't change with the opponents. It is what it is no matter which player you are facing.
What changing might be how well you target the sweet spot of your racket with your hits.

I don't know if this relates to you or not but sometimes when people complaining about the plow (and getting "pushed" by heavy hitters) they seem to think the racket should make it possible for them to compete with persons who play at a much higher level than them self. Often the solution actually is working more on the footwork and groundstrokes and everybody should realize that if they meet a much better player they could easily get "pushed around" no matter which racket they use.


How would I go about customizing my 97S to get more control/stability on it, without sacrificing serving racquet head speed?
That's not possible. You need to add weight to the racket head and that will make it more demanding to get the same RHS as before.
If you spend more time in the gym and practicing on court you may make up for increased weight but it will not come for free.
 

Aretium

Hall of Fame
There's so many people disagreeing with your assessments that you're confusing me with them. This is the first time I've pointed you out in this way. Perhaps I've disagreed with your assessment before, but that's all. You really are being touchy, chill.



You first suggested he try the method I suggested and then looked for something else. You didn't say that something else is the racquet he had problems with to begin with. See, it's funny how you consider the PS97S to be heavy to swing and all, but replace the leather with a synthetic grip and use thin strings on the RF (in that wide open string pattern too) and all is dainty. The RF's real swingweight (as in a value that is representative of how players actually swing racquets) is higher, since conventional swingweight is measured about a unpractical axis (10.16cm up the handle) in regards to how we swing a racquet, and hence doesn't sufficiently account for handle weight. So no, the RF will never be as whippy as a PS97S, unless you specifically set up a PS 97S to be less maneuverable.

Reality is this: My mods would still keep him at around 11.8 oz, whereas your measures in removing weight still have him stuck in the mid 12oz range.

If the customizations of the 97S doesn't work, then the racquet likely isn't for the OP or he needs to make a compromise. All things considered, the RF is no solution either though.

I agree, the problem is simple, if you cannot handle the swingweight, you can't handle it. You can't really remove weight, but you can add weight. My suggestion to the OP is to compromise, so add weight to the 97s but not too much, little at 12 and mostly in the handle. I will say though, that you should get used to heavy swingweights, especially if you want to improve. Fore serves and overheads, you should use the whole body to achieve a good serve, obviously everything has its limits, but I feel like I can still add weight to my racket and its going on 365 grams. I have used the RF97 and I have switched to the 6.1 95 (they feel very similar), and I have had to compromise a slower head speed on my forehand side (the racket makes up the work with power and spin), and they are just so solid, the beam width and stiffness really help out. Overall, it is all a tradeoff and the real skill is in the player.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
Sorry for saying this but the plow and stability of the racket doesn't change with the opponents. It is what it is no matter which player you are facing.
What changing might be how well you target the sweet spot of your racket with your hits.

I don't know if this relates to you or not but sometimes when people complaining about the plow (and getting "pushed" by heavy hitters) they seem to think the racket should make it possible for them to compete with persons who play at a much higher level than them self. Often the solution actually is working more on the footwork and groundstrokes and everybody should realize that if they meet a much better player they could easily get "pushed around" no matter which racket they use.



That's not possible. You need to add weight to the racket head and that will make it more demanding to get the same RHS as before.
If you spend more time in the gym and practicing on court you may make up for increased weight but it will not come for free.

This was my point when people wanted to make the 97S more stable and more hl. They'd have to add more weight, and thereby moving it closer into RF97 territory. The two frames aren't that far apart. If the 97S were more HL stock, it'd be a really nice stick IMO.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Your calculations don't change how the even balanced 97S felt clubby and slow in my hand compared to my RF97 with a synthetic grip and thin gauge strings. The RF97 felt whippier to me moreso than the 97S. So sorry, calculations on paper don't always translate to real time usage - - which is why people demo and mod - frames are very personal. Guidelines may help, but we all need to try them all out and decide for themselves. The OP can decide for himself what the best solution is.
Right, cause it's impossible to do the same for the PS 97S (synthetic grip and thin strings)…
 

Fxanimator1

Hall of Fame
Wondering why I'm even engaging with someone who resorts to name calling. Wow. Nice work Spin. I'm debating with an adolescent. That certainly explains a lot. Thanks!!!!
Do you want some cheese to go with that whine?
To me, this an advanced players frame. I am pretty comfortable hitting with it, but took several hitting session s to dial in string tensions. In this regard I had to be very patient and play this whole thing out until I found the tensions I liked best. After I resolved that, I then started trying to get really serious about hitting with it. I've never used the RF97, but wouldn't mind messing around with it.
 
Last edited:

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
Do you want some cheese to go with that whine?
To me, this an advanced players frame. I am pretty comfortable hitting with it, but took several hitting session s to dial in string tensions. In this regard I had to be very patient and play this whole thing out until I found the tensions I liked best. After I resolved that, I then started trying to get really serious about hitting with it. I've never used the RF97, but wouldn't mind messing around with it.

huh?
 

Sander001

Hall of Fame
Do you want some cheese to go with that whine?
To me, this an advanced players frame. I am pretty comfortable hitting with it, but took several hitting session s to dial in string tensions. In this regard I had to be very patient and play this whole thing out until I found the tensions I liked best. After I resolved that, I then started trying to get really serious about hitting with it. I've never used the RF97, but wouldn't mind messing around with it.
What's your setup?
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Let me break it down for you:

You started demoing the RF 97 and proclaimed your love to it... Soon selling it cause it was too much racquet and its beam width bothered you or something (from what I can recall).

Then you bought another one cause you liked the benefits... And you sold it again.

I think you did this like 3-4 times before you found something which seems to work with the RF 97 and that took you months.

Meanwhile you took a 97S for a spin, tried one or two setups, and then proceeded to compare your superficial knowledge of the PS 97S with your extensive knowledge of the RF 97, without even attempting to cover the racquet's "flaws" as you did with the RF.

I am saying that your assessments are biased and untrue based on you not giving the 97S a fair chance. If you experimented with the 97S as much as with the RF I wouldn't complain, but your experiences would be quite different too.

I for example had a catastrophic first outing with the Super G 10 295g. Did I abandon it and proceed to call it flimsy, inconsistent, unstable, uncomfortable, etc.? No. I went back to the drawing board, changed my customisation, and ended up liking the racquet a lot.

Does your irrationality have something to do with Roger using a RF 97? Perhaps.

In every thread I see you recommending the RF 97. You came to my thread where I clearly had criteria unachievable with the RF 97, and yet you still went on to tell me that it's the racquet for me and that I must try it.

As you said, every person is different, so just accept that your holy grail ain't the racquet for many players.

Your sensitivity when people call you out on this is highly amusing.
 

Surion

Hall of Fame
oh, plus the small sweet spot, occasional odd launch angle, and arm stiffness, otherwise it's a sweet frame Spin.
Wow, and here we go again.

The 97S possesses a massive sweet spot, it's probably the arm friendliest racquet, I've ever used (And I'm using the Prince Exo3 Tour 16/18 right now) and there is no odd launch angle.

Two possibilities:

1. Your frame is somewhat cracked or whatever.
2. You don't know anything about racquets at all.

I'd go with option 2.
 

Fxanimator1

Hall of Fame
What's your setup?
they now weighs 345 grams(strung) due to me adding 20gms of Blue-Stik into the handle. This made them 4pts HL.
s-l500.jpg

The tensions are 55 in the mains, and 53 in the crosses.
 

krnbrasha

Rookie
Hey man I was having the same issue as you... Balls would launch and I hated it. Ilove to swing my racquet really fast and with top spin, but I would be afraid of it launching my balls and slowed everything down which made me play a lot worse... I was about to sell them.

I think it's because stock form the racquet balance feels like a hammer...

I added weight to the butt cap with Blue stik and it's sooooooooo much better. The first going I had it at 350 grams strung and it felt so much better. I could swing throught it with a lot less launches.

After that I added more weight and brought it up to 372 strung. Only hit serves yesterday.. Those felt good.. Today I will hit with them and see how I like them. The static weight feels much heavier... But it is much more maneuvaerable now and a lot more HL.

Check my thread for more details..http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/pro-staff-97s-adding-weight.560351/#post-10200664

Also your 6.1 blx 90 is 10 points HL. Stock form of 97S is 2 points HL but it feels like a hammer balance.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
Let me break it down for you:

You started demoing the RF 97 and proclaimed your love to it... Soon selling it cause it was too much racquet and its beam width bothered you or something (from what I can recall).

Then you bought another one cause you liked the benefits... And you sold it again.

I think you did this like 3-4 times before you found something which seems to work with the RF 97 and that took you months.

Meanwhile you took a 97S for a spin, tried one or two setups, and then proceeded to compare your superficial knowledge of the PS 97S with your extensive knowledge of the RF 97, without even attempting to cover the racquet's "flaws" as you did with the RF.

I am saying that your assessments are biased and untrue based on you not giving the 97S a fair chance. If you experimented with the 97S as much as with the RF I wouldn't complain, but your experiences would be quite different too.

I for example had a catastrophic first outing with the Super G 10 295g. Did I abandon it and proceed to call it flimsy, inconsistent, unstable, uncomfortable, etc.? No. I went back to the drawing board, changed my customisation, and ended up liking the racquet a lot.

Does your irrationality have something to do with Roger using a RF 97? Perhaps.

In every thread I see you recommending the RF 97. You came to my thread where I clearly had criteria unachievable with the RF 97, and yet you still went on to tell me that it's the racquet for me and that I must try it.

As you said, every person is different, so just accept that your holy grail ain't the racquet for many players.

Your sensitivity when people call you out on this is highly amusing.

In my initial review of the 97S I did say my comments were based on demoing a stock version and perhaps some mods would yield a different opinion. I also said I was looking forward to the 97S based on it's specs. You seem to only focus on certain bits of my comments and then you react in an extreme sensitive matter. Something you constantly accuse me of.

Other reviewers have similar thoughts to what I've noted about the 97S after play testing it for quite a long time. It's all subjective. I actually purchased the 97S again and tried some mods and still didnt like it more than the RF97.

You are annoyed with my enthusiasm about the RF97 but your enthusiasm and love for the 97S are ok as you profess it all over this thread, defending it at every opportunity. Time to look in the mirror.

Sensitive people typically resort to name calling when they are hurt ---- something I think you are quite familiar with.

And yeah I have gone back and forth with the RF97 over and over again. I've also noted that if one has the game, I don't think there is a better frame on the market in stock form. I still believe that.

Do I quite often come up short while trying to use this pro stock frame, absolutely. Have I tried it way too many time, probably. Out of all the frames I've tried after leaving my K90's and PS88's, the RF97 seems to be the only thing I come back to. Do I wish the 97S was more HL in stock form and that I had a 16X19 string pattern, absolutely.

Do I feel the RF has a bigger sweetspot, more feel, and more power, yeah I do. Some of the TW play testers agree me with.

Have a nice day Spin.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
Wow, and here we go again.

The 97S possesses a massive sweet spot, it's probably the arm friendliest racquet, I've ever used (And I'm using the Prince Exo3 Tour 16/18 right now) and there is no odd launch angle.

Two possibilities:

1. Your frame is somewhat cracked or whatever.
2. You don't know anything about racquets at all.

I'd go with option 2.

Yeah because everyone's game and body and mind are just like yours and every one should 100 percent feel the way you feel about your racquet of choice. Sounds about right to me. Scary.

If you say the 97S has a massive sweet spot, it's probably the arm friendliest racquet you've ever used, I'd say great. I respect that and am happy for you. That's how YOU feel. How would I tell someone else how they should feel using a racquet. That's ridiculous. So thanks for telling me that I'm crazy because I have a different perspective about a racquet you love.

If this is how you live your life, you are a scary guy. Perhaps I should check with you to decide what food I should like, what movies I should like, what my political views should be?

Prince Exo3 Tour, very arm friendly frame, i agree btw.
 
Last edited:

Surion

Hall of Fame
Yeah because everyone's game and body and mind are just like yours and every one should 100 percent feel the way you feel about your racquet of choice. Sounds about right to me. Scary.

If you say the 97S has a massive sweet spot, it's probably the arm friendliest racquet you've ever used, I'd say great. I respect that and am happy for you. That's how YOU feel. How would I tell someone else how they should feel using a racquet. That's ridiculous. So thanks for telling me that I'm crazy because I have a different perspective about a racquet you love.

If this is how you live your life, you are a scary guy. Perhaps I should check with you to decide what food I should like, what movies I should like, what my political views should be?

Prince Exo3 Tour, very arm friendly frame, i agree btw.
I am sorry, but things like the sweet spot size or arm friendliness are facts and no subjective things.
Everybody here disagrees with you, doesn't that irritate you?
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
I am sorry, but things like the sweet spot size or arm friendliness are facts and no subjective things.
Everybody here disagrees with you, doesn't that irritate you?

LOL, everyone disagrees with me? Umm, what? lol. Who's irritated? You guys are funny.

If you read some of the TW play tester and customer reviews on the 97S some agree and disagree with me. If you look at a lot of my threads people agree and disagree with me.

Do you need validation of others to make you feel comfortable with your racquet choice? Hey, you love the 97S and I don't. What's the big deal?

I think the small spot is smaller than the RF97 sweetspot and you do not. So what.

Sweet spot size and arm friendliness as are all other racquet characteristics are subjective. Why do you think there are so many different types of racquets for sale? Why are people into modding frames so much. Why are there so many different types of strings types? Why do people use so many different tensions?

Use the search feature and you will find that EVERYONE does not love the 97S. In fact there is no frame that EVERYONE loves and agrees on.

Some love Babolats and some hate them. But, I guess we all should check with you first...........
 

HRC-E.B.

Rookie
IMO the key is to not add lead at 3/9, cause the twistweight can make the racquet feel unwieldy. Add lead at 12 and blue tack in the buttcap to achieve maximum polarisation.

An absolutely brilliant example of why one should be wary of asking for advice on a Web forum! Overall swingweight and total weight are what causes a racquet to feel unwieldy. Twistweight, in and of itself, only affects the rotation of the racquet. Between two racquets of the same overall weight, a racquet with a 320 swingweight and high twistweight and a racquet with a 340 swingweight and low twistweight, the second one, not the first, will feel the most sluggish of the two.

Suggesting adding weight at the furthest point from the grip and claiming that this is better to avoid an unwieldy feeling (compared to weight lower down at 3-9) is the clincher in that blatant nonsense, which goes 100% against the most basic laws of physics.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
An absolutely brilliant example of why one should be wary of asking for advice on a Web forum! Overall swingweight and total weight are what causes a racquet to feel unwieldy. Twistweight, in and of itself, only affects the rotation of the racquet. Between two racquets of the same overall weight, a racquet with a 320 swingweight and high twistweight and a racquet with a 340 swingweight and low twistweight, the second one, not the first, will feel the most sluggish of the two.

Suggesting adding weight at the furthest point from the grip and claiming that this is better to avoid an unwieldy feeling (compared to weight lower down at 3-9) is the clincher in that blatant nonsense, which goes 100% against the most basic laws of physics.
Take two racquets with the same swingweight and the one with a higher twistweight will feel considerably more unwieldy. Low twistweights and high swingweights tend to feel rather whippy IMO (the rotation of the racquet head is a part of this feeling), but I suppose that notion depends on the individual. However, when the OP wants added plowthrough, then the best way to do that without making the racquet too unwieldy is weight at 12, yes.

Indeed, asking advice on the internet is a risky undertaking, as you just proved.
 

HRC-E.B.

Rookie
Take two racquets with the same swingweight and the one with a higher twistweight will feel considerably more unwieldy. Low twistweights and high swingweights tend to feel rather whippy IMO (the rotation of the racquet head is a part of this feeling), but I suppose that notion depends on the individual. However, when the OP wants added plowthrough, then the best way to do that without making the racquet too unwieldy is weight at 12, yes.

Indeed, asking advice on the internet is a risky undertaking, as you just proved.

By all means, don't let facts, logic and science stand in the way of your impressions. May I suggest you go and erect skyscrapers and bridges based on your more-accurate-than-physics impressions? I'm sure the result would be something to behold. While it still stands of course...
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
By all means, don't let facts, logic and science stand in the way of your impressions. May I suggest you go and erect skyscrapers and bridges based on your more-accurate-than-physics impressions? I'm sure the result would be something to behold. While it still stands of course...
Are you somehow daft? The OP wants to increase plowthrough. The most efficient way to do so is lead at 12. More lead at 3/9 would be needed to achieve the same result, and the increased twistweight decreases the maneuverability around the access of rotation, which actually is significant for modern forehands and the serve.

A tennis swing is considerably more complex than your basic understanding of physics.
 

Surion

Hall of Fame
LOL, everyone disagrees with me? Umm, what? lol. Who's irritated? You guys are funny.

If you read some of the TW play tester and customer reviews on the 97S some agree and disagree with me. If you look at a lot of my threads people agree and disagree with me.

Do you need validation of others to make you feel comfortable with your racquet choice? Hey, you love the 97S and I don't. What's the big deal?

I think the small spot is smaller than the RF97 sweetspot and you do not. So what.

Sweet spot size and arm friendliness as are all other racquet characteristics are subjective. Why do you think there are so many different types of racquets for sale? Why are people into modding frames so much. Why are there so many different types of strings types? Why do people use so many different tensions?

Use the search feature and you will find that EVERYONE does not love the 97S. In fact there is no frame that EVERYONE loves and agrees on.

Some love Babolats and some hate them. But, I guess we all should check with you first...........
I am talking about reliable opinions on this board, not about comments made by guys who want to sell the frame.

The RF97 is a solid frame, but nothing more. But the review is a joke. They complain almost non stop about the racquet, but give the highest score ever?
Sure, I don't think that has anything to do with the hype around Federer and the chance to make a ton of money.


Oh, and since you don't have a goddam clou about racquets, I'll say it again:
The size of a racquet's sweet spot isn't something, that feels different between different people, it's something you can measure, so it's a fact!
 

HRC-E.B.

Rookie
Are you somehow daft? The OP wants to increase plowthrough. The most efficient way to do so is lead at 12. More lead at 3/9 would be needed to achieve the same result, and the increased twistweight decreases the maneuverability around the access of rotation, which actually is significant for modern forehands and the serve.

A tennis swing is considerably more complex than your basic understanding of physics.

If you'll forgive me, I'll still trust science instead of you. And since we are discussing feelings/impressions and not science, my interpretation of the OP's request differs from yours, even if he refers to "plowthrough" (or lack thereof) as being the culprit for his woes. In my view, when hearing such complaints, the player actually wishes for more STABILITY from his frame, which is best addressed by, you might not have guessed it, added twistweight! Especially when dealing with balls that have heavy spin, as the OP is mentioning...
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
If you'll forgive me, I'll still trust science instead of you. And since we are discussing feelings/impressions and not science, my interpretation of the OP's request differs from yours, even if he refers to "plowthrough" (or lack thereof) as being the culprit for his woes. In my view, when hearing such complaints, the player actually wishes for more STABILITY from his frame, which is best addressed by, you might not have guessed it, added twistweight! Especially when dealing with balls that have heavy spin, as the OP is mentioning...
Oh so you don't understand the difference between plowthrough and stability. That explains it.

Twistweight is indeed useful for stability. But complaints of this kind are usually like this: "the sweetspot is too small, power outside the sweetspot is lacking, the racquet twists an awful lot in my hand" etc.

If the OP asks for plowthrough then he wants plowthrough. It is more likely that the opposite is confused, as plowthrough isn't a well known term among normal tennis players.

Why do you think most everybody loves the maneuverability of mid racquets? It's the low twistweight.

It is a trend that science is most said by those who understand it the least. Not everything is as simple as it seems at first glance, especially in a complex area such as tennis.
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
I am talking about reliable opinions on this board, not about comments made by guys who want to sell the frame.

The RF97 is a solid frame, but nothing more. But the review is a joke. They complain almost non stop about the racquet, but give the highest score ever?
Sure, I don't think that has anything to do with the hype around Federer and the chance to make a ton of money.


Oh, and since you don't have a goddam clou about racquets, I'll say it again:
The size of a racquet's sweet spot isn't something, that feels different between different people, it's something you can measure, so it's a fact!

The actual size of the sweetspot can be measured. Correct. However, what matters to most is not what is stated on paper but how the racquet feels and plays in their hands. Different people will have different impressions on whether a sweespot feels large or small to them. Part of it would be based on how precise their shot makings is and their level of play.

So if the TW reviewers agree with your viewpoints it's factual but if it's different there's an ulterior motive, like selling more racquets?

Check the customer reviews of the RF97 as well. It's gotten great reviews from people who actually use it, and who don't work for Wilson or have stock in the company.

The TW reviewers said it's an amazing stick who's limitations are only on the user. So a frame should get low scores if the reviewers isn't good enough to use it in match play? Is that your point?
 
Last edited:

smalahove

Hall of Fame
The RF97 is a solid frame, but nothing more.

Ime, there is no stock frame that comes close to the RF97A. I still play my 17 mm beam Prince Graphite Pro 90s - and have gone through 50+ frames over the last couple of years. The RF97A is a 6.1 95 - on steroids. It's a PDT/PDR - beefed up, which is why I understand some call it Babolat RF97A (lol). And it's the only prostock sold to the public (since it seems GD doesn't play the retail version), used by the GOAT himself.

Of course, it's not everyone's cup of tea, and by no means is it a universal grail of rackets, but to dismiss it as "nothing more than a solid frame"?
 

Fxanimator1

Hall of Fame
Ime, there is no stock frame that comes close to the RF97A. I still play my 17 mm beam Prince Graphite Pro 90s - and have gone through 50+ frames over the last couple of years. The RF97A is a 6.1 95 - on steroids. It's a PDT/PDR - beefed up, which is why I understand some call it Babolat RF97A (lol). And it's the only prostock sold to the public (since it seems GD doesn't play the retail version), used by the GOAT himself.

Of course, it's not everyone's cup of tea, and by no means is it a universal grail of rackets, but to dismiss it as "nothing more than a solid frame"?
How many other "pro's" use this particular "pro-stock" frame? It should be the most widely seen frame on ATP tour according to TTW. I've only seen Roger using it. Why?
 

Surion

Hall of Fame
Ime, there is no stock frame that comes close to the RF97A. I still play my 17 mm beam Prince Graphite Pro 90s - and have gone through 50+ frames over the last couple of years. The RF97A is a 6.1 95 - on steroids. It's a PDT/PDR - beefed up, which is why I understand some call it Babolat RF97A (lol). And it's the only prostock sold to the public (since it seems GD doesn't play the retail version), used by the GOAT himself.

Of course, it's not everyone's cup of tea, and by no means is it a universal grail of rackets, but to dismiss it as "nothing more than a solid frame"?
Wow, seems like I have to repeat it.

The RF97A is a solid racquet for very advanced high level players who can stand that stiff feel and tame the massive power.

It's nothing more than that.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Wow, seems like I have to repeat it.

The RF97A is a solid racquet for very advanced high level players who can stand that stiff feel and tame the massive power.

It's nothing more than that.

You state your opinion. I state mine.

Difference is: you masquerade your opinion as fact - and add to that constant repetition, which does not add to the validity of your opinion.
 
Top