Well if you approach things from physics, then there is substantive evidence to say it's wrong.
Those specs produce a frame with less power than the old ps90 whatever fed used to use, functionally.
Lower balance point, shifts the sweet spot of the frame down, meaning the upper hoop (which fed uses frequently) has less trampoline.
Less swing weight means less hitting weight, and less inertia. Less plow through, less force.
The logical step next is to say, well this is a 97 which has way more power than a mid!
Manufacturers and retailers a like love to drown you in the myth that a bigger head size yields more power. But they don't explain how. Because it suits the narrative that if you want more power, you need the bigger frame, which means you need to buy that bigger frame.
But, if you can hold the actual effective string tension constant, the two frames will have the same power, all other things held equal. That means that you have to find what tension/string would have the same stiffness as the 47~lbs in the mid. And we see that same sort of change in fed's tension. He went from 44-48lbs in his 90, to 57-59lbs in his 97. A marked and significant tension increase around 15-23%.
Bigger head size makes for lower effective tension. Meaning 55lbs in a 90 has way less trampoline than 55lbs in a 100. So the 100 has more "power" when they're both strung the same way. But you can compensate for that by stringing at different tension.
But don't take my word for a larger head size not providing more power:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/specsandspeed.php:
So, Federer has found a way to
hit harder on all his shots (because producing the same pace/spin while taking the ball on average earlier means putting in more force). Which means he has to be swinging significantly faster to compensate for the loss of mass (which is laughable considering how fast he swung already, and that he's using more compact technique if anything), and then faster more to add the necessary extra power to hit harder. Which combined with taking the ball earlier, means a dramatically higher degree of difficulty in regards to timing. So at the age of 36, with his receding hairline (signs of decreased testosterone/aging), federer has either actually broken human nature and found a way to have better hand eye coordination/timing/racquet head speed than he did during what are considered peak performance years (in terms of muscle strength, recovery, hand eye coordination, neural response times etc etc). OR the specs aren't right.
What seems rational to you? Combine that with the freakish number of majors won with heavier racquets on all different surface types and game styles. Or just fed's 17 with 350+. Moya, guga, sampras, agassi, safin, wawrinka, djokovic, murray, cilic, delpotro, nadal...
Is it possible that the industry just doubled down, to buttress a pillar of profit that if proven wrong could be a marketing catastrophe? Is that so hard to imagine a possibility? That this was a match used racquet that p1 spent less than 10 minutes changing the weight of? Or someone else did? Or numbers posted were off? Or that a machine wasn't calibrated correctly? Or a slew of other things that could cause these numbers to be off?
