I just received a brand new demo of the Flexpoint Radical Tour. But it looks huge, I believe it's almost just as big as my old I Radical OS. My current racquet is the Head Prestige Classic so maybe I'm just a little confused, thinking the racquet is really that big, but on the other side, my Pro Tour 630 was just slightly bigger than this my Prestige. Considering the difference in square inches, the Radical Tour should be much larger or both the Pro Tour and Prestige Classic are smaller. So How do I measure this?

Its tough, especially with head, they lie about their head sizes. For instance, I know for a fact Prestige Mid's are 89.5" or there about, and MP's are 95"... not the quoted 93" & 98". So, I'd guess your tour might also be not what it is quoted.... just need to compair with other makes.

I have two i.Prestige Mid and two nCode Tour 90. In specification Head's head is 600 sq.sm and ncode - 581 sq.sm. BUT when I put one racquet on top of the other to compare heads sizes, it appears that the i.Prestige Mid's head is even smaller than ncode one. @proracketeer Yes, but the racquet head is not a perfect ellipse.

1 - Take a piece of string, and cut it to the length of the inside of the racquet face. You can do this very accurately by pressing it out an inch or two at a time, carefully, and then cutting when you get back to your starting point. By the time you get the whole way around and cut your length, unless you're a sausage-fingered goof, you should have a piece of string the size of your racquet head within half an inch. 2- Take a ruler, and measure the string.

I should add -- knowing people in general, and their inability to come up with obvious solutions -- that if you have a decent soft-plastic or cloth tape measure (readily had for a buck or two at any fabric store, if you don't have one), you can use that instead of the string. That should be obvious, but you never know.

How does this help you to actually get a numerical figure on area size of the racquet? OR if it just tells you which is bigger, why not just hold the two racquets next to each other?

No offense, but you also hafta count on the beam width when you overlap 2 rackets to "compare" their headsizes by seeing which one is larger. It's not surprising that you feel the Prestige head is "smaller" than nSix-One Tour 90, but if you actually count the string bed area (by whatever mean), the factory claim may become true.

Sorry, was typing AND eating breakfast as I was writing. Had the idea firmly in head, but put too much concentration on my coffee, and too little in my post. Fudged it up a bit. Go back to the string part. Here's a more logical concluding step. Once you have the string cut, lay it out in a square/rectangle. (Use tape or thumbtacks.) The area of the square will be easy to figure, and will bound the same area as the racquet face. Not sure what I was smoking when I stopped with the circumference measurement. This, of course, will take all of about five minutes from start to finish, but I can't imagine it being worth your time unless you REALLY want to know what the area is.

Yes, upon further reflection, this clearly won't work for ####. But the good news is, you'll now have a length of string cut to precisely match the circumference of your racquet head, and how many people do you know who can say that?

I can really only think of 2 ways to do this with any sort of accuracy. Use the racquet to draw its shape on graph paper. a) count up all the squares and approximate the edges, this should not be too inaccurate. But have fun trying ... I personally wouldn't be bothered. OR b) Use half the racquet shape put it on a x-y axis graph [easy since traced on graph paper]. Pick some points [I'd say 4 - 5 evenly spaced points] and find the interpolating polynomial for these points. Then integrate to find the area. I might consider trying this sometime when I can be bothered [then I'll know the real size of the LM prestige mid ] Obviously you'll need to know some sort of maths to do this, I kept it short since if you don't know what I am talking about you probably won't know how to do the maths either ... or ever heard of MATLAB.