Head Atlantis 660 and Head Polaris 660

Brad1981

Rookie
Hi, for anybody who has played with these racquets from the early 90s, which has the thicker beam at the tip, the Head Atlantis 660 or Head Polaris 660? I just bought a Ventoris 660, and it is 28mm at the tip, and don't want to go to much thicker than that, but would like to try either of the above.
 

Bolt

Semi-Pro
Hi, for anybody who has played with these racquets from the early 90s, which has the thicker beam at the tip, the Head Atlantis 660 or Head Polaris 660? I just bought a Ventoris 660, and it is 28mm at the tip, and don't want to go to much thicker than that, but would like to try either of the above.

Atlantis was an absolute monster for serving and breaking strings.
 

esgee48

G.O.A.T.
In terms of 'power', the lineup would be Discovery - Genesis - Atlantis - Polaris - Ventoris. Each step being a little less though how they arrived at this is strange, because you can adjust using strings and tension. Beams were variable from handle to throat to mid hoop to hoop tip.
 

Rezmund13

New User
Out of interest, do those older made in austria wide profile frames like the Atlantis and Genesis come with a pallet type system or foam moulded handles? Anyone know? Thanks
 

NickJ

Professional
Recently (within the last 3mths) I've acquired an Atlantis & a Genesis off the auction place but not actually hit with them yet. I got them as I'm trying to get all the Head rackets from that range/time period. Still on the look out for a Ventoris, Polaris, Discovery, Elektra & Elite Pro. Please let me know if there's any I'm missing.
Can't say I've studied them enough to offer any directly useful input here, but thought I'd make a comment!
 

Rezmund13

New User
^^Yes, that would be the one to swap with bottom. The TK82 is on the top.



For sake of reference, shot of the hairpin on these.

Thanks, will try to pick an old Genesis 660 in 4 1/4 to remove it's pallet and butt cap and see if I can fit it on one of my Prestige Classic 600s.
 

d-quik

Hall of Fame
From the Head 1991 Tennis catalog -

Genesis, size and beam (max profile cross section):
720/36mm
660/33mm
600/30mm

Atlantis & Polaris:
720/33mm
660/31mm
600/29mm

Ventoris:
720/29mm
660/28mm
600/27mm


The Discovery was a Beast!
were the discovery and genesis also very stiff by modern standards then? like over 70RA or were they like the old Fischer midplusses which had a thick beam yet was flexible? Just ballpark not easing for exact numbers
 
Last edited:

d-quik

Hall of Fame
The Galaxy was a lower end racket. The Discovery was HEAD’s top of the line widebody racquet from 1991-1993
but the stiffness though. Discovery was the widest so I was wondering if it is considered stiff even when compared to modern standards
 

BumElbow

Professional
The Discovery, Genesis, Atlantis & Ventoris all used Head's "double power wedge" design that was widest at the far tip of the head, thinnest at the 3 & 9 o'clock positions and then wide again in the neck and throat. They were pretty aerodynamic as from the side view the beams were thin. The design cupped the ball upon impact and was the predecessor of the Flexpoint series; they were stable but the design made a whistle sound when swung fast. These were graphite composite frames with Twaron aramid fibers that dampened shock. I have 2 Atlantis in the 660 (102 square inch head size). All these frames also came in 720 and 600 sq. centimeter sizes. The Atlantis was very light and had an even balance. I had a friend who played very well with the Atlantis 660; as for myself, I found them to be too light and lacking in power. The Discovery was not as wide as the Genesis and featured a special mechanical handle design to dampen vibration.

In contrast, the Galaxy line was a straight beam that was slightly wide and very stiff (surprising for frames that were 50% graphite and 50% fiberglass) with a more traditional head light balance. I have 2 of these as well. The Galaxy also came in the 600, 660 and 720 head sizes. The 660 - I don't know about the other sizes - had wide string spacing and were string breakers in the days prior to poly strings. It would be interesting to string the Galaxy with a poly string to see how much spin they could generate.
 

kevin qmto

Hall of Fame
The Discovery, Genesis, Atlantis & Ventoris all used Head's "double power wedge" design that was widest at the far tip of the head, thinnest at the 3 & 9 o'clock positions and then wide again in the neck and throat. They were pretty aerodynamic as from the side view the beams were thin. The design cupped the ball upon impact and was the predecessor of the Flexpoint series; they were stable but the design made a whistle sound when swung fast. These were graphite composite frames with Twaron aramid fibers that dampened shock. I have 2 Atlantis in the 660 (102 square inch head size). All these frames also came in 720 and 600 sq. centimeter sizes. The Atlantis was very light and had an even balance. I had a friend who played very well with the Atlantis 660; as for myself, I found them to be too light and lacking in power. The Discovery was not as wide as the Genesis and featured a special mechanical handle design to dampen vibration.

In contrast, the Galaxy line was a straight beam that was slightly wide and very stiff (surprising for frames that were 50% graphite and 50% fiberglass) with a more traditional head light balance. I have 2 of these as well. The Galaxy also came in the 600, 660 and 720 head sizes. The 660 - I don't know about the other sizes - had wide string spacing and were string breakers in the days prior to poly strings. It would be interesting to string the Galaxy with a poly string to see how much spin they could generate.
Out of curiosity, why do you think Head pushed these frames so hard for half a decade, then did an about face and made most things Constant Beam? They even went as far as to write it on the frame and explain why CB was the best way to go on the packaging.
 

esgee48

G.O.A.T.
I use to hit with the Polaris and Atlantis frames. I thought they had hot spots just above their flex points and the balls would fly.
 

d-quik

Hall of Fame
I hit with my friend’s back in 1992.
Not knocking you man. Differing opinions are bound to come up. Appreciate whatever info you usually divulge here and was just pointing it how comically frustrating it gets for me sometime.
 

BumElbow

Professional
I love contradictions :-D

According to a racquet review in, I think, Tennis Magazine back in the day, the Galaxy was considered stiff for its time. Compared to modern racquets with newer technology, that may not be the case. The very open string pattern and the Galaxy's tendency to break strings and to have the strings slide shortly after being strung made the Galaxy a tough sell. For that reason, Head's suggested string tension was high. They were not a commercial success.

The double power wedge design of the Atlantis and other racquets in that line resulted in a lot of framed balls and an annoying whistling sound when the racquet was swung quickly. These frames were stable and also refined thanks to the Twaron in the graphite matrix. But frames that were thick at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions and thinner at the top of the hoop were more maneuverable and more aerodynamic.
 

d-quik

Hall of Fame
According to a racquet review in, I think, Tennis Magazine back in the day, the Galaxy was considered stiff for its time. Compared to modern racquets with newer technology, that may not be the case. The very open string pattern and the Galaxy's tendency to break strings and to have the strings slide shortly after being strung made the Galaxy a tough sell. For that reason, Head's suggested string tension was high. They were not a commercial success.

The double power wedge design of the Atlantis and other racquets in that line resulted in a lot of framed balls and an annoying whistling sound when the racquet was swung quickly. These frames were stable and also refined thanks to the Twaron in the graphite matrix. But frames that were thick at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions and thinner at the top of the hoop were more maneuverable and more aerodynamic.
were the discovery and/or genesis stiff by modern standards?
what about the Discovery and Genesis
 

BumElbow

Professional
were the discovery and/or genesis stiff by modern standards?
what about the Discovery and Genesis

I believe they were stiffer than the Atlantis and the Ventoris. But, I never hit with either; the Discovery's beam was only moderately wide. The Genesis had the most power in the double power wedge (DPW) line by far. Not too long ago, I had one of my Atlantis models re-strung. I'd put its RA at about 62-64.

The modern design that is closest to the DPW is the Volkl V-Cell V1.
 

Flair328

New User
Maybe I should take my Polaris out for a hit to remind myself the olden days..... >

doRFAzA.png
 

speedysteve

Legend
A few years ago I had an Atlantis and Genesis.
Arthur Ashe used to plug the Genesis.

I played some good tennis with them back then, particularly the Genesis.
 

d-quik

Hall of Fame
A few years ago I had an Atlantis and Genesis.
Arthur Ashe used to plug the Genesis.

I played some good tennis with them back then, particularly the Genesis.
How stiff was it? Can you compare the rigidity to something contemporary?
 

speedysteve

Legend
How stiff was it? Can you compare the rigidity to something contemporary?

I didn't find it terribly stiff.
It did measure stiff on my racquet comparison board I DIY'd. That measured deflection from the handle being held fixed. Weight hung from first cross string.
The only thing as stiff or stiffer
was my dad's Head Ti6 thing!
I'd have to check though the spreadsheet to get details.

It was a 660, which was a bit more string than I was normally used to, so more forgiving in that dept I guess.
I strung it with Head Rip Control, I remember. So again, a softer option.
Great feel and touch, as well as powerful enough for me.
 
Top