Extreme Pro 24 vs Extreme MP vs Radical MP

[TheNadural]

Would love to hear more takes on the extreme pro and radical mp.

I’ve been wanting to like the extreme pro (love the bright yellow )but find it to lack consistency some time in that a similar strike seems to get a different result and it appears somewhat launchy on occasion which hurts my confidence. This is both FH and on slices. When going after it though it is a fun racket to play with.

I feel it is a racket that requires commitment and confidence (and probably more skill) to be effective with and maybe 3.5+ level for that. I was hitting it back to back with my v9 blade 98 16M and the EP is definitely more powerful than the Blade IMO.

For those that really like the EP, what age & level are you?

For those that have tried both and had a similar inconsistent experience with the EP, does the Rad MP fix some of that?

 

[Vlad M]

I was

Would love to hear more takes on the extreme pro and radical mp.

I’ve been wanting to like the extreme pro (love the bright yellow )but find it to lack consistency some time in that a similar strike seems to get a different result and it appears somewhat launchy on occasion which hurts my confidence. This is both FH and on slices. When going after it though it is a fun racket to play with.

I feel it is a racket that requires commitment and confidence (and probably more skill) to be effective with and maybe 3.5+ level for that. I was hitting it back to back with my v9 blade 98 16M and the EP is definitely more powerful than the Blade IMO.

For those that really like the EP, what age & level are you?

For those that have tried both and had a similar inconsistent experience with the EP, does the Rad MP fix some of that?

I got extreme pro last summer for a test , it was a 31.9 balance and a 289 unstrung sw, with 308g , but even with this hi specs for this frame it was kinda light in the hand and super easy head speed , way way to easy to drive the head, i had to adjust my swing because i was in front of the ball early, so for me it was a no because of lack of weight in the hoop (in stock form of course) i recomend to you radical pro 2023 or even boom pro 22 or 24.

 

[lazywombat]

For those that really like the EP, what age & level are you?

For those that have tried both and had a similar inconsistent experience with the EP, does the Rad MP fix some of that?

I'm 46 and probably around 4.0/4.5 nowadays.
EP feels rather consistent to me, definately has higher launch angle and slightly livelier stringbed than Radical though - maybie for someone like you that creates the feeling of "inconsistency". Radical feels more direct, solid and lower powered. It performed well but I didn't like it due to a bit harsh feel on impact and launch angle was to low for my game (I tend to hit the net way to often with low launch angle frames, especially on defence).

 

[AgressiveBaseliner89]

Guys, I'd like to share my general thoughts on Head rackets. Head certainly has a strong lineup of rackets now, but the subtle differences between them are so confusing! Speed, Extreme, Boom, Radical, Gravity—try to figure out all these subtle nuances.
Albert Einstein would have racked his brains and couldn't figure it out!

Wilson is a different story. Look how clearly they have it all:
old classic - ProStaff
modern classic - Blade
progressive racket - coming in October (?) Don't buy Wilson, lol

Or what Babolat has:
- stiff racket for spin
- very stiff for power
- stiff for control
Also clear. Take any one if you're not afraid of breaking your arm, lol

What about Yonex?
It's also perfectly fine.
- racquet with a poor feel for power
- racquet with a poor feel for spin -
- racquet with a decent feel for control. You know what to expect.

And how do the different Head models perform? How much research and testing do you have to do to get completely confused, lol

 

[extreme_western]

Would love to hear more takes on the extreme pro and radical mp.

I’ve been wanting to like the extreme pro (love the bright yellow )but find it to lack consistency some time in that a similar strike seems to get a different result and it appears somewhat launchy on occasion which hurts my confidence. This is both FH and on slices. When going after it though it is a fun racket to play with.

I feel it is a racket that requires commitment and confidence (and probably more skill) to be effective with and maybe 3.5+ level for that. I was hitting it back to back with my v9 blade 98 16M and the EP is definitely more powerful than the Blade IMO.

For those that really like the EP, what age & level are you?

For those that have tried both and had a similar inconsistent experience with the EP, does the Rad MP fix some of that?

I demoed both of these last week. Much preferred the Radical MP. For me it's the perfect middle ground between a thin-beam control racket and thicker beam power racket, as it has a 21mm throat but then 23mm beam at the midsection which means its more manouverable than the Extreme, which has a slightly thicker beam in the throat and tip, while also having good stability and decent power. In addition to being more manouverable, it has more precise control than the extreme and is stiffer which compensates some of the loss of power from the thinner beam, while also having a crisper, more connected stringbed.

Over the last year I have tested:

all three yonex 97/8 rackets (vcore, ezone, percept 97), vcore and ezone 100s
wilson blade 98 (both string patterns), shift (both versions), blade pro 16/19, ultra pro 16/19
head speed mp, extreme pro, radical mp and pro, gravity tour and pro
techifibre tfight 300s
babolat pure aero 98, aero 100, pure drive 98, strike 97

Radical MP is the only racket of these which doesn't fall below a 7/10 in any category (eg manouverability, control, stability, power, spin, versatility, touch, comfort, feel). For this reason I'm going to change to it from the Technifibre 300s as I find if there is one area which is below a 7/10 in the racket then it's hard to have full confidence and enjoyment from playing with it.

For this reason I think the Radical MP is currently a massively underrated racket in terms of where it comes in the conversation about rackets, though the number of club and tour players using it is still a huge testament to its enduring quality.

 

[extreme_western]

Guys, I'd like to share my general thoughts on Head rackets. Head certainly has a strong lineup of rackets now, but the subtle differences between them are so confusing! Speed, Extreme, Boom, Radical, Gravity—try to figure out all these subtle nuances.
Albert Einstein would have racked his brains and couldn't figure it out!

Wilson is a different story. Look how clearly they have it all:
old classic - ProStaff
modern classic - Blade
progressive racket - coming in October (?) Don't buy Wilson, lol

Or what Babolat has:
- stiff racket for spin
- very stiff for power
- stiff for control
Also clear. Take any one if you're not afraid of breaking your arm, lol

What about Yonex?
It's also perfectly fine.
- racquet with a poor feel for power
- racquet with a poor feel for spin -
- racquet with a decent feel for control. You know what to expect.

And how do the different Head models perform? How much research and testing do you have to do to get completely confused, lol

People complain about the clutter in Head's lineup but I actually think the amount of variations they offer is a real strength because often there are nuances between two different rackets of a broadly similar profile which appeal to different types of players. The radical and extreme are a good example of this - some people say 'what's the point of having both' but in practice the radical appeals to someone with whippier mechanics who has developed their game with a thin beam control racket and/or wants a stiffer response from the stringbed, whereas the extreme is for someone who is more comfortable with a thicker beam and either wants more easy depth or more comfort. If Head were to remove one of these rackets from the lineup it would narrow their consumer base and further reduce options for people looking for modern control rackets, which for the most part are already pretty thin on the ground.

 

[TheNadural]

I demoed both of these last week. Much preferred the Radical MP. For me it's the perfect middle ground between a thin-beam control racket and thicker beam power racket, as it has a 21mm throat but then 23mm beam at the midsection which means its more manouverable than the Extreme, which has a slightly thicker beam in the throat and tip, while also having good stability and decent power. In addition to being more manouverable, it has more precise control than the extreme and is stiffer which compensates some of the loss of power from the thinner beam, while also having a crisper, more connected stringbed.

Over the last year I have tested:

all three yonex 97/8 rackets (vcore, ezone, percept 97), vcore and ezone 100s
wilson blade 98 (both string patterns), shift (both versions), blade pro 16/19, ultra pro 16/19
head speed mp, extreme pro, radical mp and pro, gravity tour and pro
techifibre tfight 300s
babolat pure aero 98, aero 100, pure drive 98, strike 97

Radical MP is the only racket of these which doesn't fall below a 7/10 in any category (eg manouverability, control, stability, power, spin, versatility, touch, comfort, feel). For this reason I'm going to change to it from the Technifibre 300s as I find if there is one area which is below a 7/10 in the racket then it's hard to have full confidence and enjoyment from playing with it.

For this reason I think the Radical MP is currently a massively underrated racket in terms of where it comes in the conversation about rackets, though the number of club and tour players using it is still a huge testament to its enduring quality.

Thanks for your thoughts here.

I would love to hear what categories you thought the Blade 98 16M, Extreme Pro, PA98, and EZ100 fell below a 7 and how you would compare them in general to each other and the Radical MP. Those 4 + the Clash v3 Pro are my current shortlist rackets after also trying several - Whiteout v1 18M, Gravity Pro, Speed MP, EZ98, and a little time with TF40 16M, TFight300, Speed Pro, PD98.

 

[JasonAlb]

I demoed both of these last week. Much preferred the Radical MP. For me it's the perfect middle ground between a thin-beam control racket and thicker beam power racket, as it has a 21mm throat but then 23mm beam at the midsection which means its more manouverable than the Extreme, which has a slightly thicker beam in the throat and tip, while also having good stability and decent power. In addition to being more manouverable, it has more precise control than the extreme and is stiffer which compensates some of the loss of power from the thinner beam, while also having a crisper, more connected stringbed.

Over the last year I have tested:

all three yonex 97/8 rackets (vcore, ezone, percept 97), vcore and ezone 100s
wilson blade 98 (both string patterns), shift (both versions), blade pro 16/19, ultra pro 16/19
head speed mp, extreme pro, radical mp and pro, gravity tour and pro
techifibre tfight 300s
babolat pure aero 98, aero 100, pure drive 98, strike 97

Radical MP is the only racket of these which doesn't fall below a 7/10 in any category (eg manouverability, control, stability, power, spin, versatility, touch, comfort, feel). For this reason I'm going to change to it from the Technifibre 300s as I find if there is one area which is below a 7/10 in the racket then it's hard to have full confidence and enjoyment from playing with it.

For this reason I think the Radical MP is currently a massively underrated racket in terms of where it comes in the conversation about rackets, though the number of club and tour players using it is still a huge testament to its enduring quality.

In what area did the TFight 300s fall short?

 

[extreme_western]

Thanks for your thoughts here.

I would love to hear what categories you thought the Blade 98 16M, Extreme Pro, PA98, and EZ100 fell below a 7 and how you would compare them in general to each other and the Radical MP. Those 4 + the Clash v3 Pro are my current shortlist rackets after also trying several - Whiteout v1 18M, Gravity Pro, Speed MP, EZ98, and a little time with TF40 16M, TFight300, Speed Pro, PD98.

No problem at all.

Blade 16m - very solid racket no doubt but a bit disconnected in feel and lacking in stability, Radical MP is more powerful, stable and has a crisper more connected feel. Feel, power and stability less than 7. By feel I mean connection to the ball and feedback on the interaction between the racket and ball at and after contact.

Extreme pro - same on both counts, also less manouverable than Radical MP. Feel, stability and manouverability less than 7.

PA 98 - great performing racket in pretty much all areas but hollow and unrewarding feel, less versatile (ie ease of switching between different types of shots) than Radical MP, also slightly less manouverable. Feel less than 7.

EZ 100 - outstanding racket in pretty much all areas but less manouverable than Radical MP, also worse control and feel, less versatile. Manouverability would be less than 7 imo, possibly control and feel too.

My basis for these marks and impressions is basically how conscious I was of these things when playing with the rackets - ie when playing with them I was conscious of 'this racket is a bit lacking in this respect' - Radical MP is the first racket I haven't had these thoughts of there being any 'lack' when playing with it. Closest thing to a lack with the Radical MP would be feel, it's not classic which was a reservation I had with the racket given that feel has always been v important to me which is why I have spent the last 18 months trying to make the wilson pro labs rackets and technifibre tfight 300s work. But I would still say the feel of the Radical MP is rewarding in the sense of being crisp, solid, connected, comfortable even if not the same purity as a blade pro, ultra pro or technifibre tfight.

Caveat that my views of manouverability are influenced by the fact I developed my game with a thin beam 98 sq inch racket (babolat pure control tour), have an extremely wristy and whippy forehand technique ala fritz, tiafoe etc, also have been a full time tennis player meaning my game is hard-wired and I am likely constitutionally unsuited to thick beam and 100 sq inch rackets and generally very inflexible in my preferences where people whose games are less hard-wired might be less sensitive and able to adapt more. But still think there's something in my experience of how the Radical is the only racket I haven't felt something missing from.

Hope that's all clear and any qs just let me know.

 

[extreme_western]

In what area did the TFight 300s fall short?

manouverability due to relatively thick beam at throat (eg 22.5mm vs 21mm), arguably control too. See last paragraph in my post above for context for how this was specific to me given forehand technique and hard wired game etc, thus making my perspective on this issue highly particular.

 

[Alwaysout88]

My take on head rackets is they are stock easy to swing and awesome on serve minus the 2024 speed and gravity pro 2023.

I love head for serving, all of them too. I can never serve as well with Babalots and something to do with the way they feel in flat serves. Also babs after a while always screw my elbow up.

I have also realized strings really affect head rackets. Lynx tour for instance can really make the racket hard to use since it makes your shots lower and head rackets already give me a lower launch besides the 100s so depth can’t be challenging to get down. Solinco strings seem to work well and grapple snake for me m8.

Only issue I have to head rackets is they really punish me more then pd98 and aero 98 on off center shots. The racket buckle more and requires more sw where stiff Babalots do not.

But other then that all head rackets have been better oj my arm for sure!

I have a love hate relationship with head rackets

 

[TheNadural]

No problem at all.

Blade 16m - very solid racket no doubt but a bit disconnected in feel and lacking in stability, Radical MP is more powerful, stable and has a crisper more connected feel. Feel, power and stability less than 7. By feel I mean connection to the ball and feedback on the interaction between the racket and ball at and after contact.

Extreme pro - same on both counts, also less manouverable than Radical MP. Feel, stability and manouverability less than 7.

PA 98 - great performing racket in pretty much all areas but hollow and unrewarding feel, less versatile (ie ease of switching between different types of shots) than Radical MP, also slightly less manouverable. Feel less than 7.

EZ 100 - outstanding racket in pretty much all areas but less manouverable than Radical MP, also worse control and feel, less versatile. Manouverability would be less than 7 imo, possibly control and feel too.

My basis for these marks and impressions is basically how conscious I was of these things when playing with the rackets - ie when playing with them I was conscious of 'this racket is a bit lacking in this respect' - Radical MP is the first racket I haven't had these thoughts of there being any 'lack' when playing with it. Closest thing to a lack with the Radical MP would be feel, it's not classic which was a reservation I had with the racket given that feel has always been v important to me which is why I have spent the last 18 months trying to make the wilson pro labs rackets and technifibre tfight 300s work. But I would still say the feel of the Radical MP is rewarding in the sense of being crisp, solid, connected, comfortable even if not the same purity as a blade pro, ultra pro or technifibre tfight.

Caveat that my views of manouverability are influenced by the fact I developed my game with a thin beam 98 sq inch racket (babolat pure control tour), have an extremely wristy and whippy forehand technique ala fritz, tiafoe etc, also have been a full time tennis player meaning my game is hard-wired and I am likely constitutionally unsuited to thick beam and 100 sq inch rackets and generally very inflexible in my preferences where people whose games are less hard-wired might be less sensitive and able to adapt more. But still think there's something in my experience of how the Radical is the only racket I haven't felt something missing from.

Hope that's all clear and any qs just let me know.

Thank you for taking the time on that detailed reply.

How would you compare the Radical MPs spin to some of the above?
Some people including the head map show it as a spin racket but reviews are all over the place saying it has good spin and has terrible spin.
I personally find all the rackets I mentioned above to have very good spin and have heard the same re: the TFight 300s.

Sorry to keep bugging you but as a holic, 90% of my posts are me trying to be talked into purchasing a new racket.

 

[extreme_western]

Thank you for taking the time on that detailed reply.

How would you compare the Radical MPs spin to some of the above?
Some people including the head map show it as a spin racket but reviews are all over the place saying it has good spin and has terrible spin.
I personally find all the rackets I mentioned above to have very good spin and have heard the same re: the TFight 300s.

Sorry to keep bugging you but as a holic, 90% of my posts are me trying to be talked into purchasing a new racket.

No problem at all, it's a pleasure to help.

I personally find it very easy to generate spin with the Radical MP. It allows me to whip heavy spin on my forehand because the manouverability of the racket facilitates a lot of wrist action through the ball which inherently creates spin because of the rotations on the ball created by the wrist movement.

Obviously this is partly individual to my technique but I definitely haven't recognised the criticism of it as being a racket which has bad spin in my experience with it, quite the contrary, and it's not the case that all thin beam control rackets have given me the same experience, for example with the blade 18/20 I had a distinct sense it being inadequate in terms of its ability to help me generate topspin on my forehand.

I think where the Radical might differ from rackets like the ezones, tfight 300s and aeros is it doesn't produce as much life on the ball from the frame as it leaves the stringbed because of the thinner throat compared to these rackets, which means in some ways it feels like you are getting less spin than these rackets because there is less pop out of the stringbed which then becomes spin as the ball travels through the court, but this can also be balanced out by the radical fizzing the racket through the ball more because of the greater manouverability from the thinner beam.

Again, this brings it back to technique, so I think the main point really is that the spin on the Radical is definitely not inadequate as it is on a lot of 18/20 string pattern rackets - hope that makes sense and any qs just let me know.

 

[TheNadural]

No problem at all, it's a pleasure to help.

I personally find it very easy to generate spin with the Radical MP. It allows me to whip heavy spin on my forehand because the manouverability of the racket facilitates a lot of wrist action through the ball which inherently creates spin because of the rotations on the ball created by the wrist movement.

Obviously this is partly individual to my technique but I definitely haven't recognised the criticism of it as being a racket which has bad spin in my experience with it, quite the contrary, and it's not the case that all thin beam control rackets have given me the same experience, for example with the blade 18/20 I had a distinct sense it being inadequate in terms of its ability to help me generate topspin on my forehand.

I think where the Radical might differ from rackets like the ezones, tfight 300s and aeros is it doesn't produce as much life on the ball from the frame as it leaves the stringbed because of the thinner throat compared to these rackets, which means in some ways it feels like you are getting less spin than these rackets because there is less pop out of the stringbed which then becomes spin as the ball travels through the court, but this can also be balanced out by the radical fizzing the racket through the ball more because of the greater manouverability from the thinner beam.

Again, this brings it back to technique, so I think the main point really is that the spin on the Radical is definitely not inadequate as it is on a lot of 18/20 string pattern rackets - hope that makes sense and any qs just let me know.

Thanks again. Last question for clarity - Do you play these all stock or mod to a general spec range?

 

[extreme_western]

Thanks again. Last question for clarity - Do you play these all stock or mod to a general spec range?

No prob.

All modded. Target spec is always 332g 33.5cm strung.

 

[Otinis]

No problem at all.

Blade 16m - very solid racket no doubt but a bit disconnected in feel and lacking in stability, Radical MP is more powerful, stable and has a crisper more connected feel. Feel, power and stability less than 7. By feel I mean connection to the ball and feedback on the interaction between the racket and ball at and after contact.

Extreme pro - same on both counts, also less manouverable than Radical MP. Feel, stability and manouverability less than 7.

PA 98 - great performing racket in pretty much all areas but hollow and unrewarding feel, less versatile (ie ease of switching between different types of shots) than Radical MP, also slightly less manouverable. Feel less than 7.

EZ 100 - outstanding racket in pretty much all areas but less manouverable than Radical MP, also worse control and feel, less versatile. Manouverability would be less than 7 imo, possibly control and feel too.

My basis for these marks and impressions is basically how conscious I was of these things when playing with the rackets - ie when playing with them I was conscious of 'this racket is a bit lacking in this respect' - Radical MP is the first racket I haven't had these thoughts of there being any 'lack' when playing with it. Closest thing to a lack with the Radical MP would be feel, it's not classic which was a reservation I had with the racket given that feel has always been v important to me which is why I have spent the last 18 months trying to make the wilson pro labs rackets and technifibre tfight 300s work. But I would still say the feel of the Radical MP is rewarding in the sense of being crisp, solid, connected, comfortable even if not the same purity as a blade pro, ultra pro or technifibre tfight.

Caveat that my views of manouverability are influenced by the fact I developed my game with a thin beam 98 sq inch racket (babolat pure control tour), have an extremely wristy and whippy forehand technique ala fritz, tiafoe etc, also have been a full time tennis player meaning my game is hard-wired and I am likely constitutionally unsuited to thick beam and 100 sq inch rackets and generally very inflexible in my preferences where people whose games are less hard-wired might be less sensitive and able to adapt more. But still think there's something in my experience of how the Radical is the only racket I haven't felt something missing from.

Hope that's all clear and any qs just let me know.

It’s crazy how reviews differ if you watch ACtennis he did a comparing of gt98 vs radical MP vs eEP and he gave around 6 points more for stability for extreme pro..you say otherwise so it’s just hard to believe what is what after all

 

[extreme_western]

It’s crazy how reviews differ if you watch ACtennis he did a comparing of gt98 vs radical MP vs eEP and he gave around 6 points more for stability for extreme pro..you say otherwise so it’s just hard to believe what is what after all

Definitely - I think this is where technique and swing style play a big part, for one person the way they swing means one racket feels more stable whereas complete opposite for someone else. Which is reason why rackets are so personal and ultimately it's all about trying stuff out and finding what feels right for you.

 

[julianokay]

I think this is where technique and swing style play a big part, for one person the way they swing means one racket feels more stable whereas complete opposite for someone else

Having played with both the EP and Rad MP extensively, this was my takeaway.

EP is for a player that has a much more whippy and vertical (brush up) swingpath, usually more of a grinder, that is how you get performance and control from that frame.
Rad MP is for driving horizontal (through) swingpath, players that have more oldschool mechanics, benefits attacking playstyle.

If you are lacking depth and penetration, Rad MP will be your friend.
If you are lacking spin and angles, EP will be your friend.

 

[mmazzini1]

Definitely - I think this is where technique and swing style play a big part, for one person the way they swing means one racket feels more stable whereas complete opposite for someone else. Which is reason why rackets are so personal and ultimately it's all about trying stuff out and finding what feels right for you.

Not personal, but I disagree. In my view, one of the 2 reviewer simply has it wrong.... Stability is not a subjective parameter...a racquet is more or less stable based on objective data. A less stable racquet is not necessarily a better or worse racquet, as it might bring to the table more mneuvrability, easier to get higher head speed, whippiness, etc. But it is either stable or not...

For instance, I own a PK Ki15 300 and a Babolat PD2012. The higher stability of the PK Ki is simply objective....does not matter who the reviewer is....

 

[flanker2000fr]

Not personal, but I disagree. In my view, one of the 2 reviewer simply has it wrong.... Stability is not a subjective parameter...a racquet is more or less stable based on objective data. A less stable racquet is not necessarily a better or worse racquet, as it might bring to the table more mneuvrability, easier to get higher head speed, whippiness, etc. But it is either stable or not...

For instance, I own a PK Ki15 300 and a Babolat PD2012. The higher stability of the PK Ki is simply objective....does not matter who the reviewer is....

This would be the case if stability was tested in a lab, where a ball is dropped exactly from the same height at exactly the same distance from the longitudinal axis of the racquet. The racquet with the highest twist weight will twist less. Maths. Facts.

But in a dynamic environment, where no two players have the same swing path, and do not hit the ball in the same part of string bed, the impression of stability might be quite different.

 

[flanker2000fr]

For this reason I think the Radical MP is currently a massively underrated racket in terms of where it comes in the conversation about rackets, though the number of club and tour players using it is still a huge testament to its enduring quality.

I feel the same as you in terms of the Radical MP being underrated. I am not familiar with the Extreme and Boom lines, as they are at the polar opposite of what I traditionally use, i.e. thin beam / control / players' racquets. For Head, I'd be a Prestige guy through and through, and I have played a lot with Angell frames, which borrow heavily from old Prestige models.

But I'm now in my mid 50's (aournd 4.5, eastern grips with a OHBH, hitting through the court and using a decent amount of slice) and the Prestige are just too hard to play as they give you nothing in defensive situations. So, I've been looking to find a frame that's easier to play: lower static and SW whilst maintaining decent power and stability BUT maneuverable enough that it doesn't impede my timing on the BH or my ability to accelerate the racquet head on serve. This is a surprisingly difficult mix to achieve. I've tried several models in the Speed and Gravity lines, but all of them felt clunky. The Speed's because of the 23mm straight beam. The Gravity's (including the Tour 98) because of the tear drop head shape.

But then I tried the Radical MP and had a bit of a light bulb moment, as it ticked the boxes I was describing above, and has probably the most consistent, predictable 16x19 string bed I've ever tried. Now, it was still a bit light in stock form, and the SW too low, but this can easily be fixed. I'm having TW customize and match a pair of them by adding a Fairway grip, and a couple of grams of lead at the tip to get the SW around 324-325. Should be interesting. I'll come back on this board to report how this goes.

 

[mmazzini1]

This would be the case if stability was tested in a lab, where a ball is dropped exactly from the same height at exactly the same distance from the longitudinal axis of the racquet. The racquet with the highest twist weight will twist less. Maths. Facts.

But in a dynamic environment, where no two players have the same swing path, and do not hit the ball in the same part of string bed, the impression of stability might be quite different.

As said, a racquet with more mass, higher SW, higher TW and more polarised is also more stable. Then based on the stroke dynamic, fitness condition, etc. it can create a less effective hitting experience, but it is more stable full stop.... When variables are mixed up, things can get a bit more complicated, but, in most cases, it is a no brainer. That is at least my opinion . This is also how Racketpedia build the scoring criteria for stability and other parameters. Something has to be objectivised, otherwise it will be complete chaos and we will make the exception the rule....

 

[flanker2000fr]

As said, a racquet with more mass, higher SW, higher TW and more polarised is also more stable. Then based on the stroke dynamic, fitness condition, etc. it can create a less effective hitting experience, but it is more stable full stop.... When variables are mixed up, things can get a bit more complicated, but, in most cases, it is a no brainer. That is at least my opinion . This is also how Racketpedia build the scoring criteria for stability and other parameters. Something has to be objectivised, otherwise it will be complete chaos and we will make the exception the rule....

I don't disagree that such a set up is more stable, but of what use is it if it causes one to systematically mis-time his shots and hit outside of the sweet spot? As opposed to using a frame that is less stable, where one can consistently hit the sweet spot. I can guarantee you that the former will feel a lot less stable than the latter.