Is there any reason to pick 90 square inch over 95?
- Thread starter yescomeon
- Start date
- Status
ARKustom93
Professional
Just to address your first point, not really. A wider racquet face will provide more stability, particularly on off-axis/center hits.
One of the factors in Fed's decision to go 'bigger' ...
Lukhas
Legend
If we're talking about the PS90 against the PS95, the 90 is more stable. The PS95 lacks weight on the hoop, and already has a pretty high static weight. So you indeed could mod it to be more stable, but that's mostly if you like heavier racquets. If you don't wish to mod it and perform decently with the 90 I'd pick the latter.
Sander001
Hall of Fame
If you're having trouble finding the sweetspot; possibly better feedback. If you have trouble hitting center, the 90 will better let you know where you're hitting on the stringbed so you can subsequently adjust your stroke.
are you advising that I get the 90?
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
If you can modify racquets well and you prefer a more forgiving stringbed, take the 95. If you do not want to modify and you prefer a more solid racquet, get the 90. At the same specs, the 90 will offer more precision and control, whereas the 95 will offer more forgiveness and spin.
pshulam
Hall of Fame
seems that way.
Lukhas
Legend
If you're in love with the feel of these racquets, the way they play, then yes. If not, I'd playtest a bunch more frames.
I don't want to modify it, mainly because I don't know enough about these things. But I would like a more forgiving frame that comes from the larger head size, but with the difference being only 5 square inches, is the extra margin of error that the 95 provides good enough to pick that instead of the 90?
Lukhas
Legend
You should open up to other racquet lines IMO, not only "older" ProStaff.
Chico
Banned
They are not the similar racquets at all. The 90 is 25g heavier and at least 2 points more HL. Different SW's. Different beams. Different stiffens. Quite different feel and play quite different.
I demoed ProStaff 95 and didn't like it at all. It needs to be customized as some said. I still play with BLX ProStaff 90, didn't find a racquet that suits me better and I am not exceptional/unique player in any way.
Pro Staff 95:
Head Size: 95 sq. in. / 612.9 sq. cm.
Length: 27in / 68.58cm
Strung Weight: 11.6oz / 328.85g
Balance: 12.75in / 32.39cm / 6 pts HL
Swingweight: 308
Stiffness: 62
Beam Width: 18mm / 18mm / 18mm /
Composition: Graphite/Kevlar/BLX
Power Level: Low
Stroke Style: Full
Swing Speed: Fast
Racquet Colors: White/ Red
Grip Type: Wilson Sublime Grip
String Pattern: 16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 7T,9T,7H,9H
One Piece No Shared Holes
String Tension: 49-59 pounds
Pro Staff 90:
Head Size: 90 sq. in. / 580.64 sq. cm.
Length: 27in / 68.58cm
Strung Weight: 12.5oz / 354.37g
Balance: 12.5in / 31.75cm / 8 pts HL
Swingweight: 325
Stiffness: 66
Beam Width: 17.5mm / 17.5mm / 17.5mm /
Composition: Graphite/Kevlar/BLX
Power Level: Low
Stroke Style: Full
Swing Speed: Fast
Racquet Colors: White/ Red
Grip Type: Wilson Leather(!)
String Pattern: 16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 7T,9T,7H,9H
One Piece
No Shared Holes
String Tension: 48-58 pounds
Everything else being the same as 90 I could consider 95 head, but ProStaff 95 is not that racquet. RF97 signature could be though, but still didn't try it.
Last edited:
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
In stock the Pro Staff 95 is very hard to play and is less forgiving than the 90 IMHO. I would never play the 95 stock (due to lack of power, forgiveness, stability, plow, etc.) and hence must recommend the PS 90.
Say Chi Sin Lo
G.O.A.T.
Weight and balance aside, one can't "mod" for the compact headsize.
This particular 2014 Pro Staff 90 has the best feel of all Tour/Pro Staff 90. In fact, Wilson got this one right because this is an almost exact replica of the Pro Staff 6.0 85 in terms of fee.
This particular 2014 Pro Staff 90 has the best feel of all Tour/Pro Staff 90. In fact, Wilson got this one right because this is an almost exact replica of the Pro Staff 6.0 85 in terms of fee.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
As others have already mentioned, the 90 is much more solid and stable than the 95, and swung at the same speed is much more powerful.
Frankly, I don't see why any decent player needs a racquet bigger than a 90. Look at how small a tennis ball is. Why would you need something so big to hit something so small? :shock:
The head on a Wilson T-2000 was even smaller than that of a standard 65 sq. in. wood racquet but I don't recall ever seeing Jimmy Connors shanking a ball.
Frankly, I don't see why any decent player needs a racquet bigger than a 90. Look at how small a tennis ball is. Why would you need something so big to hit something so small? :shock:
The head on a Wilson T-2000 was even smaller than that of a standard 65 sq. in. wood racquet but I don't recall ever seeing Jimmy Connors shanking a ball.
I'm no expert, but doesn't a bigger racquet mean less 'framing' of the ball and is more forgiving for off-centre hits of the ball?
Seems to make sense to me. The closer the ball (on impact) is to the frame, the more likely it is to go off in an unintended direction and cause more vibration on the racquet.
Also, when you and others here mention that the 90 is more stable, do you mean that there's less vibration when you hit the ball? And is this true for off-centre hits as well?
Chico
Banned
Disagree. It is still a good option if you have modern strokes, use poly strings and hit with spin.
ARKustom93
Professional
Please, disregard #15(in its entirety) ... All pulled straight out of thin air ...
BTW, what is your level? Both the 90 and 95 are considered 'players frames', meaning proper technique and you better hit the ball clean, or else ...
Not advanced by any means. I'm a low-mid intermediate.
I'm serious about trying to improve though and I was thinking that if I get one of these racquets, then I should develop proper techniques rather than get away with bad practices which other racquets may allow.
Pretty simple. Because you have people on the other side of the net trying to not let you hit with the sweet spot all the time :twisted:
Just a clarification to above, the RF97 and the PS90 play nothing alike despite the specs and materials being much closer in resemblance than the PS90 to a PS95.
After playing with a PS90 for a week I'm loving the 2014 model, but I'm going to demo both variations PS95 and PS95S this week and see how it goes. I'm hoping after adding some weight to the PS95 to bring it closer to PS90 specs it would be somewhat similar. I've only held the PS95 in store and it felt like a solid racquet just like the PS90 so we'll see.
kingcheetah
Hall of Fame
Unmodified, the Pro Staff 95 is too flimsy and unstable for my liking. The Pro Staff 90 is about as good as it gets as long as you're in the sweet spot, so you still won't have very many issues with it unless it's Shanksgiving day every time you play. The 95 is a struggle because of the lack of mass... for most posters on TT it's just too flimsy and underpowered in stock form, so the 90 is your best bet.
ARKustom93
Professional
Good perspective ... Regardless of level, I don't recommend anything above Midplus to my students ... My three 'NOs': no oversize, stretch, or lightweight, for pretty much the reasons you mentioned. You should be able to feel what you're doing with the ball ...
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Ceteris paribus (all else being equal), yes, but that is not the case. The PS 95 is lighter and thus has less plowthrough and stability, which makes off centre hits less forgiving than on the Pro Staff 90.
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/contours.php
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/poweruniverse.cgi
Insert the two racquets into the comparison tools above and you'll see that the sweetspot of the 90 is larger in stock form, in other words, it is more forgiving (also it is more powerful).
Again, that is only if all else is equal. Weight and swingweight (plowthrough) are more significant factors than head size actually.
Heavier racquets absorb more shock, so that may be the case, but it is not what we are referring to. A stable racquet does not flutter at contact outside the sweetspot. The Pro Staff 90 is stable, but the Pro Staff 95 twists and turns if you do not hit the ball smack in the sweetspot with relatively high racquet head speed.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Interesting that you say that, when my students have a clear problem with their fundamentals, I give them one of my player's racquets for a session so that they are forced to swing the racquet correctly (these modern light racquets really promote bad technique/fundamentals unfortunately).
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
If you're framing the ball, then it's a problem with your technique, stroke, and footwork. The problem isn't with your racquet.
Even Nadal and Federer frame the ball with their 100 sq. in. and 97 sq. in. racquets, respectively. The racquet is not going to make you frame less.
More "stable" means that the racquet twists less regardless of where on the stringbed you hit the ball, which increases the accuracy of your shot.
I think the OP should just demo both racquets and see which one fits his play style more.
TW Learning Center argues that larger racquets are more resistant to twisting than smaller racquets.
The PS90 has a much larger sweet spot than a PS85, and the PS95 should have a larger sweetspot than a PS90. I would check up the Pro Staff 95S Fan Club thread in this forum and see why they like that racquet. The PS90 may or may not fit your swing style or stroke speed and also you were asking specifically about a more forgiving racquet. Everyone does off-center hits and if you do a lot of it, maybe you need to go bigger. But i definitely would never use an oversize racquet. Stick to 100 sq.in. and below.
TW Learning Center argues that larger racquets are more resistant to twisting than smaller racquets.
The PS90 has a much larger sweet spot than a PS85, and the PS95 should have a larger sweetspot than a PS90. I would check up the Pro Staff 95S Fan Club thread in this forum and see why they like that racquet. The PS90 may or may not fit your swing style or stroke speed and also you were asking specifically about a more forgiving racquet. Everyone does off-center hits and if you do a lot of it, maybe you need to go bigger. But i definitely would never use an oversize racquet. Stick to 100 sq.in. and below.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
If you're a decent player, you do not allow your opponent to do that to you.
In the 7th game of the World Series, the Royals pitchers were trying to make Pablo Sandoval miss the ball with his bat. Yet, he got a hit every time he came up to the plate. And the width of his bat is about the same as the diameter of the baseball! That's like using a 6 sq. in. tennis racquet! And he had to hit 90mph fastballs! In tennis, even a 90mph ripper from a pro slows down to only 45mph after the bounce. In recreational tennis, you're hitting balls that are moving at only a few mph at the apex after the bounce. :shock:
Thanks, that's a really helpful guide. I think I'll go for the 90 square inch version.
Sander001
Hall of Fame
can't untangle this
If you're a decent player, you do not allow your opponent to do that to you.
In the 7th game of the World Series, the Royals pitchers were trying to make Pablo Sandoval miss the ball with his bat. Yet, he got a hit every time he came up to the plate. And the width of his bat is about the same as the diameter of the baseball! That's like using a 6 sq. in. tennis racquet! And he had to hit 90mph fastballs! In tennis, even a 90mph ripper from a pro slows down to only 45mph after the bounce. In recreational tennis, you're hitting balls that are moving at only a few mph at the apex after the bounce. :shock:
Topspin Shot
Legend
OP, ignore BreakPoint. He is a troll. If you like 90 sq in better than 95, then go with it, but very few good players use midsize frames anymore for good reason. They are simply less forgiving.
ARKustom93
Professional
Lukhas
Legend
Actually, bunkers get more out of heavier racquets because at lower swing speeds, the racquet does most of the work. As well as those who like blocked return of serves out of big serves... that you're not going to face at rec level for the most part.
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/racquetcontribution.php
So yeah, use as heavy and forgiving as you can master. Proper technique comes with proper teaching, be it from teaching pros or close look at pro player technique especially in slow motion. Don't block yourself on one or two racquet possibilities, the market is big and so are your playtesting possibilities.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Those who think you need a racquet bigger than 90 sq. in. to hit a tennis ball have never seen Jimmy Connors play with his 63 sq. in. T-2000. And he was playing against massive topspin from the likes of Borg and Vilas, and with the bad bounces of the old, skidding grass. And he won 109 singles tournaments. Not even Federer will ever come close to that. :shock:Good advice, ... on all counts
unorthodox stringing
Rookie
The only reason I keep missing my 85-90 sq inch frames is their higher sweet spot compared to larger head sizes.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
And the fact that Connors abandoned the T-2000 says it all
Um...how many Slams did Connors win with anything other than a T-2000?
He was forced to abandon the T-2000 because Wilson stopped making them almost a decade earlier so he couldn't get them anymore. He was so desperate at one point that he appealed to the general public to send him any T-2000s that they were no longer using.
frinton
Professional
I do not know the 95 much, but I came from very different frames to the BLX 90 (black/red/gold) which I love. By now I switch between K90, BLX90, sometimes N90, PS90 (and all kind of frames for the fun of fooling around).
I do think that playing the 90s has had improving effects on my technique! The 90 does not let you get away with sloppy footwork, positioning and poor execution... In other words, I think it will make you make you better, if you play with it for a longer time! But you have to work for it.
And you might consider the PS85 as well... ;-) for both, if not used to that kind of heavy racket, you might want to consider working your arm strength a bit to avoid tennis arm or another arm injury.
And try to stay sane, 'cause with the 90 and this forum my tennis racket mania has actually started ;-)
Enjoy the ride
I do think that playing the 90s has had improving effects on my technique! The 90 does not let you get away with sloppy footwork, positioning and poor execution... In other words, I think it will make you make you better, if you play with it for a longer time! But you have to work for it.
And you might consider the PS85 as well... ;-) for both, if not used to that kind of heavy racket, you might want to consider working your arm strength a bit to avoid tennis arm or another arm injury.
And try to stay sane, 'cause with the 90 and this forum my tennis racket mania has actually started ;-)
Enjoy the ride
Most people agree that the 2014 PS90 is the best iteration so far. Braided graphite back to being reinforced with kevlar and Basalt matrix is added into the 14' PS90 as well. It's like 30 yrs of Pro Staff technology coming full circle all into one final cheer. And it's on sale right now due to it being phased out. So pick some up while you can...
Last edited:
I assumed there was little-no difference between the 2012 and 2014 version, I prefer the paint job on the 2012 which was why I was leaning towards it. I've checked around, there doesn't seem to be much of a reduction in price for the 2014 version. On the other hand, the 2012 version is much cheaper. I live in the UK by the way, so maybe I'm just not seeing the sale going on in the US.
Say Chi Sin Lo
G.O.A.T.
Big difference between the 2012 and the 2014 versions.
2012 Pro Staff 90 ~ 2010 BLX 6.1 Tour 90
2014 Pro Staff 90 ~ Pro Staff 6.0 85
Povl Carstensen
Legend
No one has said so.
Last edited:
Why is the 2014 version better than the 2012? and is it worth paying about 40% more in price to get the 2014 version?
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
The 89/90 head size also whips through the hitting zone faster on my backhands(both one & two hander) for me but I need a 95 to return more consistently.
Last edited:
Say Chi Sin Lo
G.O.A.T.
I wouldn't say one is better than another. But for a lot of people, the Pro Staff 6.0 85 was the gold standard, and possibly the greatest racquet ever made. And this 2014 version is as close as it gets to that iconic racquet. So much so that, I decided to transition from the 6.0 85, to the 2014 Pro Staff 90.
None of these racquets are better than another, the feel of my Pro Staff 6.0 85 became a requirement for me, and the 2014 Pro Staff 90 is very very very close to that racquet in terms of feel. That's why I switched and think the 2014 Pro Staff 90 is the best of all Tour/Pro Staff 90.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Have you read this whole thread? It's about justifying a 90 over a 95.
Where have you seen improvement in your game - going from 85 to 90?
Say Chi Sin Lo
G.O.A.T.
Ummm, it lets me play one days when I'm less than perfect. And it allows me to win points without being absolutely perfect.
With the 6.0 85, I felt like I had to be perfect, on everything. The 90 is a whole lot easier to play with, it's like going to an oversize.
But if you want me to break it down for you, I see the biggest benefits in serves and returns.
Why is it easier? Less shanking? Easier to swing? More power? More spin?
- Status
