Does modern racket models exceed older ones?

[avatar12341]

For the last month I played with Babolat Pure Aero. Sometimes I really liked it, sometimes I really didn't. I find it being too erratic, launch angles are often unpredictable for my flattish game. And eventually my elbow started to hurt badly, so I decided to look for a new model, focusing on control and comfort for the arm.

After reaserch I was almost convinced to go for Head Graphene 360+ Gravity, either Tour or Pro version. But then I found Prince Exo3 Tour 100 18x20 on sale for equivalent of 40$. I decided to give it a go, if I don't like I don't lose much money, and it seems to be really good racket both in terms of comfort and control.

But comparing TW reviews of both rackets raises a question. In those reviews Head Gravity Pro scores 89 in comfort department and Prince Exo3 Tour only 85. I take those scores with a grain of salt, but still I would expect Prince to score higher in this department - it's sub 60 RA (different sources give it 52 or 57 RA, don't know which one is accurate but still both means really low stiffness).

May that be due to modern technologies really improves comfort that much and Prince Exo3 Tour lacking them is really less comfortable? Even while having much lower RA? I feel like racket technologies invented in last 20 years are lowkey insignificant. It's more a matter of preference than really objectively improving performance of a racket. If you like how it works - great, but they are not necesarry for racket to play better. Let's take a look at Babolat's Aero line. In reviews of every new iteration you can hear "We like those changes, producent improved spin/comfort/power/whatever whitout sacrificing the control and keeping it's unique feel". You can find this sentence in virtually every review of new iteration of popular line. But if you compare the original Babolat Aeropro Drive 2005 with the newest 2023 model, it's hard to say that 2023 model is much better and it's the result of couple iterations improving everytime on it's predecessors. They are different, but it's a matter of prefference more than one being "objectively" better than the other. And it's not always prefference obviously - as much as you may like wooden rackets, modern graphite racket will always be performing objectively better.

We had some "revolutions" in those 20 years - Wilson Clash was called game changer, Wilson Steam 99S did huge "wow" at the beggining. Steam ended up as just a gimmick, Clash is a solid line but nothing more - not a revolution in tennis equipment industry. So my question is: can one play it's best tennis with 10 or 15 years old racket? Or new technologies really work and as much as you may like oldies, modern sticks just help you so much that you end up playing better with them?

 

[Grafil Injection]

Modern headsize and beam width were essentially optimised by 1992 - 6.1 95 Classic and Prince Graphite II (95-97sqi, 21.5mm). Main difference since then is poly strings increasing spin in the late 90s, and then the Babs optimising beam width and stiffness for the spin game in the 00s. So, yep, anything from the last 30 years should be good, which is why some Pros still use ancient sticks, but we shouldn't complain about having a big selection of feels / colour schemes around that basic formulation today.

 

[Tronco20]

I have a Prince Tour Pro 100 16x18 (dense though) and with leather grip and 3grams lead from 11 to 1 it's by far the best racquet I've ever played. And I've tried many. I think I hit the optimal Mgr/l there by chance and can't replicate it in any other racquet. I play with different sticks now but when I take it for fun I immediately play well with it, no adjustment period.
I think those older Prince racquets from 2013-2016 are great. Stick to it if it feels good. There's nothing in the market now that is superior

 

[Crocodile]

My thoughts on the matter are as follows - for about 80 percent of frames a 2023 frame is a better product in terms of power, comfort and sensation. The other 20 percent is what I refer to as the exception to the rule and they are those special classic racquets that were so ahead of their time when they were released that they are still excellent now. One such racquet is the Volkl C10 Pro and the other the Pacific X Force Pro. These 2 frames were so well engineered in the feel and comfort department that you can still buy them today and they perform brilliantly. The TW play testers scores in 2022 gave the C10 an overall score of 85 and comfort 92 which is exceptional for a 25 year old frame.
Pro Kennex Q Tour 325’s which haven’t had too much change over the years also stands the test of time.
As far as the Clash is concerned I think it’s an excellent introduction to the market that will help
players of many levels. In fact I wouldn’t mind seeing how that technology would work in something like a Pro Staff or C10 style and weight of racquet. The interesting thing is that part of that idea has been done before but many missed it and that was once again found in a company like Volkl when they released the Catapult 10 tour with its 59RA and slightly thicker variable beam and big grommets. Volkl were really innovative back in the late 90’s and then they backed it up when they released their original Organix V1 Pro which sort of bridged the gap between player and tweener style frame.

 

[Crocodile]

As a supplementary comment I think some brands go through high periods or purple patches and then decline for a while and then come back while the opposite can occur as well.
For example with Head, they were on to a great feel when they had twin tube technology in their frames. They then tried to make their frames faster and lighter and tried the Ti series and then tried to add power with the graphene tech but many didn’t like the stiff feel. Now with the current auxetic and 360 ranges they have mostly fixed what was missing in their frames.

 

[Hansen]

prince exo tour 18x20 is the goat frame in regards to comfort, because you can use soft strings and still have enough control, plus the low flex and exo ports make it extrenely comfortable by itself

 

[ryushen21]

So my question is: can one play it's best tennis with 10 or 15 years old racket? Or new technologies really work and as much as you may like oldies, modern sticks just help you so much that you end up playing better with them?

Some can. Some can't. That's really what it comes down to. The biggest change in frames that I've seen is that there is a concentrated focus on ease of use. The easier it is for a person to use a racquet, the more they will like it, and the more likely they will be to buy more of those racquets. And that's what companies want...sales.

You will have no trouble finding a healthy population of players on this forum who are using 10, 20, or 30-year-old frames. It can be done. I have an nCode 6.1 95 18x20 that I refuse to let go of because I love it. I only play with it maybe once a month because it's too demanding and not suited for my game anymore. But sometimes I like to have that trip down memory lane.

 

[TwinCinema]

But comparing TW reviews of both rackets raises a question. In those reviews Head Gravity Pro scores 89 in comfort department and Prince Exo3 Tour only 85. I take those scores with a grain of salt, but still I would expect Prince to score higher in this department - it's sub 60 RA (different sources give it 52 or 57 RA, don't know which one is accurate but still both means really low stiffness).

May that be due to modern technologies really improves comfort that much and Prince Exo3 Tour lacking them is really less comfortable? Even while having much lower RA?

It should be noted that lower RA doesn't always equate to more comfort. If it did, TW reviews wouldn't need to score or critique any racket for comfort -- they'd just list the RA as they do. It's often correlated, sure, but you can definitely find lower-RA rackets that are less comfortable to play with than higher ones that still have better flex points, balance, and feel.

 

[Tranqville]

Now with the current auxetic and 360 ranges they have mostly fixed what was missing in their frames.

Which generation is closest to the original feel: 360+, Aux 1.0 or Aux 2.0?

 

[Tranqville]

I believe some frames from the past, like Fischer, had higher quality of manufacturing than today's market average. The modern racquets, obvioulsy, work better for the modern topspin game - lighter, thicker, bigger headsizes.

With modern racquets, manufacturers have to solve more problems to find the perfect balance than they had to in the past. Comfort vs feel. Power vs control. Stability vs spin generation. Some recent racquets have great modern balance - Whiteout 18x20, Percept, Shift, etc. They are usually white colored! I believe "white" is the latest racquet trend, the ultra-modern balanced racquets.

 

[Crocodile]

Which generation is closest to the original feel: 360+, Aux 1.0 or Aux 2.0?

Good question, but I would have to rule out the radical line altogether but rule in the prestige line 360+ and then this was further refined with each iteration of the Aux.
The radical is nothing like the radicals of old,

 

[Crocodile]

With the comfort ratings that TW put out on their reviews I would say that the comparative value of them would be with other racquets that are currently available and being reviewed. Comfort wise probably the highest score was given to both the PK Black Ace 300 and Prince Phantom Pro 100 16/18 and probably then the Volkl C10 Pro. They haven’t yet reviewed the current PK Q Tour 315 but I think it would have come close to being at the top,
Going back a decade I would say that the burnt orange Prince Speed Port 97 Tour would have to be up there in comfort, the PK 5G and that light blue Wilson Pro staff 6.7 that not many people know about - it would have to be the Clash’s great great grandfather,

 

[Crocodile]

I think with a 2023 racquet, the really good ones are ergonomically better designed - they are easier to use and one area where the frames have really improved is how much more power you can get from a flexible racquet today than the past in critical areas like the serve. A few months ago I had the chance to restore and hit with a light purple Yonex Rexking R1. It must have been a 90 head with a strung mass close to 360g and RA extremely low and while it volleyed beautifully, extracting power for serving over an extended period was hard work. If you compare that to a Prince Phantom 100 Pro it’s quite a step up and a Phantom 100P or even 93P it’s night and day,

 

[Dunlop300g]

As an old dude that still uses the Dunlop 300g (which evidently was re-issued at some point (maybe around 2014) ... I guess I'm a living example (Dinosaur) of someone that's resisted up to this point in getting a new frame for the better part of 20 years; and actually purchases a very well-cared for additional 300g a couple of years ago as a backup (now have two 3/8 and one 1/2 grip sizes). https://tennisnerd.net/gear/racquets/racquet-reviews/dunlop-hotmelt-300g-review/10604 is a good article on this frame. Ya I've considered the 200g or once the FX 500 over the years and sometimes even some Wilson, Head or Prince frames but ya it's not compelling enough yet; none of those would have been a bad choice necessarily just couldn't come to convince myself it would make a huge difference. I'm still having a great time with what I have. A friend of mine, years ago, probably poisoned my thinking on this issue ... he tells me that it's the swordsman ... not the sword. I'm like ok, I get it, Bob.

 

[Crocodile]

I also learnt a very important lesson with comparing old with new by going out and purchasing the old racquets I used to like and comparing them to my new ones,
Yes I’m a bit older now than the 1990’s but what I have learnt is that most of the old racquets that I thought were great are still good but not as I remember, now that I have the new stuff, with the exception of a few racquets. It’s up to us racquet experts to pick the gems from the past.
Even if you hit with the Head Pro Tour 2.0, yes it feels more organic than the later toy prestige’s, but the 2.0 feels more like a log now and the game has moved on.
Here’s another way of looking at it. Imagine you turn up with your Head Pro Tour 2.0 or Dunlop Biomimetic 200 to a hard court tournament and it’s a windy day and your first match is against an elite 18 year old with a pure drive strung in a shaped poly, you are going to be in for a tough day trying to contend with balls rising above your shoulder at end range.
Btw my strategy will be to serve and destroy and not give the young guy a chance to get into the game,

 

[Crocodile]

I think it would be interesting for the team at TW to do a generational review of a particular marque or model of a racquet. In one of the latest podcasts Chris Williams talked about the variety of prestige’s that he owns and how they compared to the latest 2,0 prestige tour mid.
Also I guess you could recognise the molds of frames to pick the heritage. I wonder for example how many times Prince may have used the TT warrior MP 97 ( Rafter) both before and after to produce its frames. Interesting to compare a 2023 Pure Drive to a Pk Destiny series frame or Laver Heritage Type S:

 

[Anton]

For the last month I played with Babolat Pure Aero. Sometimes I really liked it, sometimes I really didn't. I find it being too erratic, launch angles are often unpredictable for my flattish game. And eventually my elbow started to hurt badly, so I decided to look for a new model, focusing on control and comfort for the arm.

After reaserch I was almost convinced to go for Head Graphene 360+ Gravity, either Tour or Pro version. But then I found Prince Exo3 Tour 100 18x20 on sale for equivalent of 40$. I decided to give it a go, if I don't like I don't lose much money, and it seems to be really good racket both in terms of comfort and control.

But comparing TW reviews of both rackets raises a question. In those reviews Head Gravity Pro scores 89 in comfort department and Prince Exo3 Tour only 85. I take those scores with a grain of salt, but still I would expect Prince to score higher in this department - it's sub 60 RA (different sources give it 52 or 57 RA, don't know which one is accurate but still both means really low stiffness).

May that be due to modern technologies really improves comfort that much and Prince Exo3 Tour lacking them is really less comfortable? Even while having much lower RA? I feel like racket technologies invented in last 20 years are lowkey insignificant. It's more a matter of preference than really objectively improving performance of a racket. If you like how it works - great, but they are not necesarry for racket to play better. Let's take a look at Babolat's Aero line. In reviews of every new iteration you can hear "We like those changes, producent improved spin/comfort/power/whatever whitout sacrificing the control and keeping it's unique feel". You can find this sentence in virtually every review of new iteration of popular line. But if you compare the original Babolat Aeropro Drive 2005 with the newest 2023 model, it's hard to say that 2023 model is much better and it's the result of couple iterations improving everytime on it's predecessors. They are different, but it's a matter of prefference more than one being "objectively" better than the other. And it's not always prefference obviously - as much as you may like wooden rackets, modern graphite racket will always be performing objectively better.

We had some "revolutions" in those 20 years - Wilson Clash was called game changer, Wilson Steam 99S did huge "wow" at the beggining. Steam ended up as just a gimmick, Clash is a solid line but nothing more - not a revolution in tennis equipment industry. So my question is: can one play it's best tennis with 10 or 15 years old racket? Or new technologies really work and as much as you may like oldies, modern sticks just help you so much that you end up playing better with them?

Gravity has higher swing weight.

Very old comfort tech.