Head Pro Tour 2.0 vs Graphene 360+ Prestige MP

tribesmen

Professional
I would love to have one in my bag, but I'm not a guy who likes many different rackets in my bag.

Feeling is important to me, but even more so which is easier to use. I ask for your opinion when you will have opportunity to test the new/old Prestige.

For reference, I really like Tecnifibre TF40 and Gravity Pro (also Tour), but still looking for IG MP precison that I don't get with TF40 (it is very close) and Gravity line.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
My G360+ Prestige MP is easier to handle than my GPro. It's my go-to racket now. That being said, the GPro has the best feel I've come accross in a long while, esp on volleys. I really enjoyed the feel of the TF40 as well, but that was a bit firmer; not uncomfortable in any way though.

I play / played these rackets stock, but one factor is balance for sure, as both the TF40 and GPro are more head heavy than the G360+ Prestige MP, which prob accounts for a lot of the diff in feel when it comes to manoeuvrability.

Another thing to consider is how to like the oval shape of the new Prestige mold. Ime, whilst the teardrop shape of the GPro is not to everyone's liking, it's a very user friendly shape. The super ellipse / oval shape of the Prestige, is narrower, so that might be detrimental to your gamestyle perhaps. I've had no issues with it so far though.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
I would love to have one in my bag, but I'm not a guy who likes many different rackets in my bag.

Feeling is important to me, but even more so which is easier to use. I ask for your opinion when you will have opportunity to test the new/old Prestige.

For reference, I really like Tecnifibre TF40 and Gravity Pro (also Tour), but still looking for IG MP precison that I don't get with TF40 (it is very close) and Gravity line.
That’s a tough one. I like them both
 

sanister

Professional
My 2.0 is on the way but I'm being pragmatic and keeping expectations low. Have access to a calibrated RDC at home. Will post specs when I receive mine. My RDC numbers are usually in line with TW and find their RA is accurate. Off course that is all on paper because I find RA doesn't portray the whole picture. I have a 69 RA Ezone 100 that plays absolutely nothing like its on-paper RA. And I have a low 60s TC95 that plays crisper than it's number. Many other examples. I would recommend hitting and checking. But that said, I truly don't expect 65RA to play like mid to low 50s RA. That just isn't possible in my experience.

The G360+ Prestige MP that I hit with was pretty on par with its paper spec. If both of these play like what their specs indicate, I would go the G360+ MP route.
 
Last edited:

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
My 2.0 is on the way but I'm being pragmatic and keeping expectations low. Have access to a calibrated RDC at home. Will post specs when I receive mine. My RDC numbers are usually in line with TW and find their RA is accurate. Off course that is all on paper because I find RA doesn't portray the whole picture. I have a 69 RA Ezone 100 that plays absolutely nothing like its on-paper RA. And I have a low 60s TC95 that plays crisper than it's number. Many other examples. I would recommend hitting and checking. But that said, I truly don't expect 65RA to play like mid to low 50s RA. That just isn't possible in my experience.
My Babolat RDC machine is always lower than TW by a couple of points. My Pro Tour 2.0 is 63 RA strung with a leather grip.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
My 2.0 is on the way but I'm being pragmatic and keeping expectations low. Have access to a calibrated RDC at home. Will post specs when I receive mine. My RDC numbers are usually in line with TW and find their RA is accurate. Off course that is all on paper because I find RA doesn't portray the whole picture. I have a 69 RA Ezone 100 that plays absolutely nothing like its on-paper RA. And I have a low 60s TC95 that plays crisper than it's number. Many other examples. I would recommend hitting and checking. But that said, I truly don't expect 65RA to play like mid to low 50s RA. That just isn't possible in my experience.

The G360+ Prestige MP that I hit with was pretty on par with its paper spec. If both of these play like what their specs indicate, I would go the G360+ MP route.
I find vibration frequency to be a better indicator/metric of perceived stiffness. The G360+ Prestige MP has a vibr. freq. of 135 hz which is pretty low. The new PT 2.0 measures 136 hz. Another factor ime, is the SW. At higher SW, ime, the feel becomes plusher. I can remember playing a low SW IGMP stock and that felt like a board. I also remember at PT 600 that felt almost as board-like, that had low SW.
 

sanister

Professional
I find vibration frequency to be a better indicator/metric of perceived stiffness. The G360+ Prestige MP has a vibr. freq. of 135 hz which is pretty low. The new PT 2.0 measures 136 hz. Another factor ime, is the SW. At higher SW, ime, the feel becomes plusher. I can remember playing a low SW IGMP stock and that felt like a board. I also remember at PT 600 that felt almost as board-like, that had low SW.
Yes, swingweight is a good factor as well. I never thought that much about the vibration frequency. By conventional wisdom (and a study I read as well) the stiffer the racquet the less it's vibration frequency. So as the stiffness goes up the vibration frequency goes down. What was the vibration frequency of original PT280?
 

sanister

Professional
A couple of years ago. All I know is my numbers are in-line with HEAD’s
Ok. Mine was done less than a couple months ago by certified technician. Babolat does not officially do RDC calibration anymore so you have to find someone who has done it in the past and knows what he is doing. Where did HEAD officially post their RA number for 2.0? Please share.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
I find vibration frequency to be a better indicator/metric of perceived stiffness. The G360+ Prestige MP has a vibr. freq. of 135 hz which is pretty low. The new PT 2.0 measures 136 hz. Another factor ime, is the SW. At higher SW, ime, the feel becomes plusher. I can remember playing a low SW IGMP stock and that felt like a board. I also remember at PT 600 that felt almost as board-like, that had low SW.
Vibration frequency is very important and so is the duration
 
Last edited:
J

joohan

Guest
By conventional wisdom (and a study I read as well) the stiffer the racquet the less it's vibration frequency. So as the stiffness goes up the vibration frequency goes down.
Can you explain why? I would say it should be the other way round so it got me curious.
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame
I'm not a fan of either, but if I had to, I'd take the Prestige. The PT 2.0 looks like a mess and underpowered for its weight.
I dont think there is anything underpowering in pt2.0 I always found above average power even with older flexed out pt630. This one is even better in power dpt if that is your thing.
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame

Quoting from article:

"Simply put, stiff racquets bend less than flexible racquets and that stiffness reduces the frame's vibration".
It would make sense if it was not for an extensive TW racquet database contradicting this with a positive correlation between RA and Vib. Freq
 

sanister

Professional
It would make sense if it was not for an extensive TW racquet database contradicting this with a positive correlation between RA and Vib. Freq
How many cases show a positive correlation in TW database? You're saying as the RA increases, so does the vibration frequency? Is that just a case of outliers or is it a statistical norm?
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Yes, swingweight is a good factor as well. I never thought that much about the vibration frequency. By conventional wisdom (and a study I read as well) the stiffer the racquet the less it's vibration frequency. So as the stiffness goes up the vibration frequency goes down. What was the vibration frequency of original PT280?
Excerpt form http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/vibfrequency.cgi

What Does Vibration Frequency Mean To You?
When a ball hits a racquet, the racquet bends. The elastic force force acts to restore the bent racquet to its original position. But in doing so, the racquet builds up momentum and overshoots its starting position. This action continues back and forth and is what we know as vibration. The vibration will continue until the racquet loses energy through internal friction and the damping effect of squashing into the hand.

Vibration is a wonderful indicator of dynamic racquet stiffness. The usual stiffness measurement is performed while supporting the racquet at the handle and in the throat while a force is applied to the tip. The stiffness index is a measurement of how much the racquet tip is deflected. This is a static measurement (performed over a much longer time than the impact of a ball) and depends only on the intrinsic forces holding the racquet together and is what we commonly refer to as static racquet stiffness. However, when the ball impacts the racquet it is a dynamic, instantaneous event, and the amount of racquet deflection depends on both its stiffness (elastic restorative force) and mass distribution. Bending is directly proportional to the degree of stiffness, for the obvious reason that stiffness is, by definition, resistance to bending. And bending depends inversely on mass because a heavy mass is more difficult to accelerate (and decelerate) into bending motion than is a lighter mass.

The combined influence of stiffness and mass is measured by the racquet's vibration frequency. This is the number of back-and-forth cycles that the racquet completes in one second. Frequency is measured in Hertz (Hz), where 1 Hz = 1 cycle per second. The time it takes for one back-and-forth (one cycle or one oscillation) is known as the period of the vibration. And the maximum distance a point on the racquet travels back-and-forth from its equilibrium positon is the amplitude of the vibration.

The stiffer and lighter the racquet, the greater (faster) the frequency, shorter the period, and less the amplitude. And the softer and heavier the racquet, the slower the frequency, the longer the period and the greater the amplitude. Every other combination falls somewhere in-between.
 
J

joohan

Guest

Quoting from article:

"Simply put, stiff racquets bend less than flexible racquets and that stiffness reduces the frame's vibration".
Yeah but this quote does not say anything about frequency that's in question.

"Racquet vibration frequency is measured in hertz (Hz). One hertz is equal to one cycle a second. The stiffer the racquet is, the higher the frequency for a given system state. A flexible racquet may vibrate at about 140 Hz and a stiff one at 200 Hz. As a point of reference strings vibrate at about 500 Hz. "

This is from the same article two paragraphs down. If you hit with a Pure Drive or an APD, you get different spectrum of frequencies compared to when hitting with 63RA TC100 precisely because of different stiffness.

Funny thing, my elbow doesn't care for Angells low frequency vibrations...
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame

Quoting from article:

"Simply put, stiff racquets bend less than flexible racquets and that stiffness reduces the frame's vibration".
But that's referring to static stiffness, and if you continue to read from the same, second paragraph:

"When a racquet is bent or flexed, it will attempt to restore itself to its original shape. However, typically it will overshoot that original neutral (unbent) position in the opposite direction, and then rapidly move back and forth, back and forth with smaller and smaller deviations until the original unbent position is restored. This back and forth fluctuating motion is the vibration. When vibration is quantified or we want to determine "how much" vibration there is, we look at the vibration's frequency and amplitude.

Racquet vibration frequency is measured in hertz (Hz). One hertz is equal to one cycle a second. The stiffer the racquet is, the higher the frequency for a given system state. A flexible racquet may vibrate at about 140 Hz and a stiff one at 200 Hz. As a point of reference strings vibrate at about 500 Hz."
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Even with these two metrics stiffness metrics, RA (static) and vibr. freq (dynamic), you can still get unexpected results.

I agree f.inst. the DR 100 plays way more plush than the 70 RA and 158 hz would let you believe.
At the same time, the Clash 100 Tour plays firmer than 55 RA and 118 hz lets on.

One outlier from the TWU list is:
WilsonBurn FST 9912672
I never tried it, but maybe this is a reason why it was never that popular?

But for most high RA rackets (above 70) there seems to be a high correlation with a high VF numbers:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/vibfrequency.cgi (chose "sort order" "stiffness RDC" and look the end of the table)
It looks that way for the low RA rackets as well (i.e. for all rackets).

This Prince Rebel EXO3 95 is the plushest frame I've played with, and the numbers back it:
PrinceEXO3 Rebel 9512961
Doesn't mean it's the best racket I've owned :))

Clearly, materials, layup and tech (in the handle f.inst.) have a big impact on how we perceive stiffness.
 
Last edited:
J

joohan

Guest
Ah, I see what you guys are saying. I'm an accountant, you guys would definitely know more about physics than me. I was just going by conventional wisdom (which obviously doesn't apply here). Thanks @joohan and @smalahove
No probs... If you'd indulge me, what conventional wisdom do you have in mind? It's not my intention to grill you or anything so feel free not to react. Just curious.
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame
How many cases show a positive correlation in TW database? You're saying as the RA increases, so does the vibration frequency? Is that just a case of outliers or is it a statistical norm?
I am sure there are outliers supporting your claim but the vast majority of data points are showing a high positive correlation.

Give me a min ill plot it for you
 

Kal-El 34

Hall of Fame
Picked up 3 and if they are awesome I’m sure there will be a couple in for sale section soon enough
 

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
Picked up 3 and if they are awesome I’m sure there will be a couple in for sale section soon enough
I see some 93Ps hitting the for sale section ;)
My stringer uses the 93P and has tried the PT2.0 last week and really loved it (power, control, launch angle (lower), layup balance...) but has pointed out that is more crisp than his 93P
 

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
First, I do not think the TW RA number is accurate, however, s few points here or there is possible (it is hand made anyway)
Second, the RA is measured at one point of the stick and more important is how the layup weight is distributed. The PT2.0 has a nicely balanced layup in my opinion, giving it great power (especially for the thin frame) and excellent control and spin (for tight 18x20)

I always use the Novak (PT346/113) example -- measured unstrung flex is 64RA. I could not believe it because when hitting with it, it feels like 56RA of my PT57A's. The layup is simply amazing....
 

sanister

Professional
Even with these two metrics stiffness metrics, RA (static) and vibr. freq (dynamic), you can still get unexpected results.

I agree f.inst. the DR 100 plays way more plush than the 70 RA and 158 hz would let you believe.
At the same time, the Clash 100 Tour plays firmer than 55 RA and 118 hz lets on.

One outlier from the TWU list is:
WilsonBurn FST 9912672
I never tried it, but maybe this is a reason why it was never that popular?

But for most high RA rackets (above 70) there seems to be a high correlation with a high VF numbers:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/vibfrequency.cgi (chose "sort order" "stiffness RDC" and look the end of the table)
It looks that way for the low RA rackets as well (i.e. for all rackets).

This Prince Rebel EXO3 95 is the plushest frame I've played with, and the numbers back it:
PrinceEXO3 Rebel 9512961
Doesn't mean it's the best racket I've owned :))

Clearly, materials, layup and tech (in the handle f.inst.) have a big impact on how we perceive stiffness.
Very good post. I just mentioned somewhere similar experience with my TC95 63RA Angell's and the newest EZONE 100 which is 69 RA. Both play very very differently than indicated RA on paper. RA is just part of the picture. Layup, materials frame geometry etc play a big role as well.
 

tribesmen

Professional
I couldn't help myself and just ordered PT 2.0. Given that SW 330-340 suits me, I'll try PT 2.0 first. I will probably also try 360+ MP when the prices drop a bit.
 

2nd Serve Ace

Hall of Fame
On paper this new frame is closer to the i.prestige MP, which is not a bad thing at all.

It almost seems to be begging for a leather grip. Get it closer to RF specs.
 
Last edited:

Thiem's 1HB

Rookie
And how do you know that???
Look at how slow and floaty their shots are:


My stringer uses the 93P and has tried the PT2.0 last week and really loved it (power, control, launch angle (lower), layup balance...)
Hardly a reliable indicator. I know people who think the Ti S6 is the best racquet ever released.

I do not think the TW RA number is accurate
Because it doesn't match what you hoped for? They got a load, RDC'd them and produced the average. TW don't have an agenda. More like a case of cognitive dissonance on your part. Also RA doesn't vary massively - maybe within a range of +/-1 points out of the numerous Head racquets that I've measured.
 
Last edited:

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
Hardly a reliable indicator. I know people who think the Ti S6 is the best racquet ever released.



Because it doesn't match what you hoped for? They got a load, RDC'd them and produced the average. TW don't have an agenda. More like a case of cognitive dissonance on your part. Also RA doesn't vary massively - maybe within a range of +/-1 points out of the numerous Head racquets that I've measured.
Ah, you are one of those smart ones...
Let me NOT waste my time with you...

PS. you have no idea what you're talking about.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Just finished a couple of hours of hitting with the Pro Tour 2.0. The first one was a session with a pro, and he likes to rip the ball. I'll start of by saying that I got out the Gravity Pro in the middle of the hitting session, and for the first time, I could actually feel some flutter in the frame. It held up against the pace though. I also got the 360+ Prestige MP out, and the PMP lacks the sheer plow of the two other rackets.

Ok, over to the Pro Tour 2.0. It's the most solid racket I've tried. It didn't flinch or twist against the hardest of FHs. Granted it doesn't have a big sweet zone, but I find it easier to play competitive tennis than the PMP+. I can only recall how the IGPMP felt, but afaicr, the Pro Tour 2.0 is a clear level or two above it. To be fair to the PMP+, it needs lead to beef up the SW and plow, to be a fair comparison.

This racket is demanding though, if you want to get the best out of it. You have to work on every shot, put weight into each shot and working relentlessly on the footwork. Based on that, a racket like Vcore Pro 330g f.inst. might be an easier choice. Or if the PMP+ came in a more open string pattern. The PT 2.0 rewards effort and technique.
 

tribesmen

Professional
So a racket for 5+, but it can also be for level 2 if you just enjoy the feeling and you don’t care about the points or how funny you look with an unfinished technique.

So a racket for all generations and every level of knowledge of the game of tennis
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
So a racket for 5+, but it can also be for level 2 if you just enjoy the feeling and you don’t care about the points or how funny you look with an unfinished technique.

So a racket for all generations and every level of knowledge of the game of tennis
I wouldn't go that far :)

If you're used to the weight and heft of old school rackets, then yes. You can play this racket at all levels, but it does require you to use your legs in the shots, just as you would with a wooden racket f.inst. You can have long, slow swings and make it work. However, most top, old players I've seen over the age of 65+, (prev. national champions aso) use grandpa sticks. And their touch and precision is still uncanny. So if you want to let the arm do the work instead of the legs, go for lighter, bigger frames :)
 

Wheelz

Professional
However, most top, old players I've seen over the age of 65+, (prev. national champions aso) use grandpa sticks. And their touch and precision is still uncanny. So if you want to let the arm do the work instead of the legs, go for lighter, bigger frames :)
Ha ... sounds like injury vs no injury when I read that.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Ha ... sounds like injury vs no injury when I read that.
Not that I know of. Most of them want the easy power you get from modern sticks. Most coaches opt for bigger and lighter frames than their match sticks. One pro around 60 uses an Ultra 107, and his touch is uncanny, and even though his movement looks slow, he's always on point, with flawless technique. But he wants to play effortless tennis, and to get the most out of a frame like the PT 2.0 you need to put in a lot of effort, i.e. actual energy (watts).
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Can you list some good grandpa sticks ?
I don't pay that much attention unfortunately, but I've seen 107 Pure Drives, Ultras and Ezones (105?). Grandpa sticks is perhaps a bit derogatory ;-)
Many also play with your run-of-the-mill 100 sq inch versions as well, often strung with (powerful) multis or gut. Tbc, I'm talking about 65-90 yr olds, and I really hope to keep as mobile and fast as some of them tbh.
 
Top