New Phantom Pro (18x20) (320)

Does Prince have something against a 97/98 sq in headsize frame? Don’t bring up the Beast 98 cuz I’m not a fan of it. The Tour and Phantom series are the ones that deserve a 98.
Have you played these rackets? They don't feel like 100in head, control is outstanding and they are very low powered compared to other 100in. You have 93 to try as well which apparently plays like a bigger sized head frame.
 

tribesmen

Professional
Have you played these rackets? They don't feel like 100in head, control is outstanding and they are very low powered compared to other 100in. You have 93 to try as well which apparently plays like a bigger sized head frame.
but 100in will be always slower than 97in and of course 93in is quicker than 97/98in. 97/98in will be a nice compromise. Some of us do not like 100in shovels :), on the other hand 93in is antiquated for 21st century :censored:
 

B Cubed

Semi-Pro
Demo’s on its way, looking forward to putting this through the paces vs my pp100p. I know there are general differences. Two things about my liking of the PP100P is the slightly firmer response and the touch extra in power. But I deep down prefer a slightly denser string pattern, and I’m hoping the slight extra mass of the pp100 18x20 will reward me with plow and mass-based power.
 

Dartagnan64

Legend
but 100in will be always slower than 97in and of course 93in is quicker than 97/98in. 97/98in will be a nice compromise. Some of us do not like 100in shovels :), on the other hand 93in is antiquated for 21st century :censored:
Why does a 100 always have to be slower than a 97? There are many other factors to swing speed than a few extra inches of stringbed. Beam thickness, weight, balance, throat design.

To me it’s fussing over minutiae. The Phantoms with their thin beams swing as fast as any pro staff 97 or Blade 98. The ported phantom even faster. The 93p really whips through the air with its narrow beams, smaller head and HL balance.

And it’s marketing that tells you 93 sq in is antiquated. Plenty of rec players that are still using 6.1 95s out there that have a smaller effective sweet spot than the 93p.

Some people like to eat with their eyes and brains more than their tastebuds and sense of smell. They miss out on a lot of really fantastic food experiences. Similarly making generalizations about how a racket will play without actually playing with it will lead to missing out on a lot of great frames.
 

sanister

Rookie
And it’s marketing that tells you 93 sq in is antiquated. Plenty of rec players that are still using 6.1 95s out there that have a smaller effective sweet spot than the 93p.
That is a bold claim abt Six.One 95 having a smaller sweet spot than 93P. I have both Six.One 95 and 93P, and I certainly don't feel that way. The 2014 Six Ones with parallel drilling have a very impressive sweet spot even bigger than the famed 2010 versions of Six Ones. And bigger than 93P for sure. The racquet is equally round width wise but more oval and has longer mains and larger throat area as well. Mine is the 2017 reissue of the 18x20. I can post a picture of both on top of each other too if I can figure out this new phone.
 

tribesmen

Professional
Why does a 100 always have to be slower than a 97? There are many other factors to swing speed than a few extra inches of stringbed. Beam thickness, weight, balance, throat design.

To me it’s fussing over minutiae. The Phantoms with their thin beams swing as fast as any pro staff 97 or Blade 98. The ported phantom even faster. The 93p really whips through the air with its narrow beams, smaller head and HL balance.

And it’s marketing that tells you 93 sq in is antiquated. Plenty of rec players that are still using 6.1 95s out there that have a smaller effective sweet spot than the 93p.

Some people like to eat with their eyes and brains more than their tastebuds and sense of smell. They miss out on a lot of really fantastic food experiences. Similarly making generalizations about how a racket will play without actually playing with it will lead to missing out on a lot of great frames.
I have both sticks and your statement is not true. 93P is quick for its mass, but not fast. Regular Pro Staff (not RF) is much faster than 93P. 93P has old school feeling with modern scent which I like very much, but Pro Staff 97 is much easier to play stick. Pro Staff 97 CV with Babolat VS gut and Luxilon has also great POP and the feeling is great, which I can't say for combo Pro Staff and Hyper g, too muted for me.

At the end, both sticks are great and I use Pro Staff for matches, but for friendly matches with my colleagues I pick up 93P.
 

donnayblack99

Semi-Pro
Why isn't anyone talking about the POG 107? The Prince Graphite 107 is essentially a 93P with a large head. Aside from the string pattern, the specs are much closer than a Phantom 100 in my opinion. I play, and have played with, a POG since 1991 on and off. I'm 44 and former D1 player. Don't let any of the marketing get into your head. ANYONE can play with a 93P, POG 107, or any other frame. They are all relevant in today's game. Frames don't make players, players adjust to frames. Federer, Sampras, Courier, Edberg, etc., won GRAND SLAMS using a PS 85. They hit harder and with more precision than ANYONE on this forum. Don't believe the hype. TW reviewers are trying to sell a product, otherwise they wouldn't have a job.

Don't get me wrong, I watch the TW reviews, and often enjoy them but you have to take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. I've played hundreds of tournament matches (and won many of them) in college and USTA against guys who play(ed)Pure Aero's or Pure Drives, playing with a PS 85, a POG 107 or some other "outdated" and "irrelevant" frame. I think Prince is doing great things with their "old school" frames. They're catering to a certain type of player who is interested in both nostalgia and in comfortable frames. If I didn't play with a POG or an "outdated" frame, I would have shredded my elbow. I have hit the PA+ on occasion and always come away with a little discomfort as a result. Wider and stiffer frames were invented to coincide with and support poly strings. Poly strings are so dead that the average club player wouldn't be able to use a PS 85 or POG, etc., effectively with the push of poly into the market.

It's a shame that the marketing has gotten into the tennis world the way it has. "Old school" does not make it irrelevant or "hard to play" in the 21st century. I would image that McEnroe or Borg would still be able to give me (and anyone on this forum) an ass kicking using a wood racquet...
 
Last edited:

Dartagnan64

Legend
That is a bold claim abt Six.One 95 having a smaller sweet spot than 93P. I have both Six.One 95 and 93P, and I certainly don't feel that way. The 2014 Six Ones with parallel drilling have a very impressive sweet spot even bigger than the famed 2010 versions of Six Ones. And bigger than 93P for sure. The racquet is equally round width wise but more oval and has longer mains and larger throat area as well. Mine is the 2017 reissue of the 18x20. I can post a picture of both on top of each other too if I can figure out this new phone.
Well admittedly I’ve only tried a friends 6.1 for a fun hit and he tried my 93p. We both agreed mine had the bigger sweet spot but it may have been a string tension difference since I string a bit lower than he does with thinner gauges as well. So it’s an n=2 opinion which doesn’t make it valid so I agree I shouldn’t have been so bold and should have added the IMO disclaimer.
 

Dartagnan64

Legend
I have both sticks and your statement is not true. 93P is quick for its mass, but not fast. Regular Pro Staff (not RF) is much faster than 93P. 93P has old school feeling with modern scent which I like very much, but Pro Staff 97 is much easier to play stick. Pro Staff 97 CV with Babolat VS gut and Luxilon has also great POP and the feeling is great, which I can't say for combo Pro Staff and Hyper g, too muted for me.

At the end, both sticks are great and I use Pro Staff for matches, but for friendly matches with my colleagues I pick up 93P.
Of course now we’re really talking mass and not frame size which was my point. You can’t just say a 100 is slower than a 97 is slower than a 93. The PS97 is faster than a 93p which is faster than an RF97. Clearly SW outweighs all other factors then doesn’t it?
 

donnayblack99

Semi-Pro
Of course now we’re really talking mass and not frame size which was my point. You can’t just say a 100 is slower than a 97 is slower than a 93. The PS97 is faster than a 93p which is faster than an RF97. Clearly SW outweighs all other factors then doesn’t it?
You also have to take into consideration the the swing speed of the user. For example, I was swinging a lot faster when I was 21 compared to now- I'm 44. Everyone is getting too technical with swing speeds, plow through, and other crazy millimeter adjustments that are barely noticeable to anyone other than a computer. Just test-drive the frame, if you like, play with it. Don't worry about the average swingspeed vis a vis the air temp multiplied by the humidity, subtract out the string gauge bull$%#@. None of that will make you a better player! JUST PLAY TENNIS!!!!
 

B Cubed

Semi-Pro
Why isn't anyone talking about the POG 107? The Prince Graphite 107 is essentially a 93P with a large head. Aside from the string pattern, the specs are much closer than a Phantom 100 in my opinion. I play, and have played with, a POG since 1991 on and off. I'm 44 and former D1 player. Don't let any of the marketing get into your head. ANYONE can play with a 93P, POG 107, or any other frame. They are all relevant in today's game. Frames don't make players, players adjust to frames. Federer, Sampras, Courier, Edberg, etc., won GRAND SLAMS using a PS 85. They hit harder and with more precision than ANYONE on this forum. Don't believe the hype. TW reviewers are trying to sell a product, otherwise they wouldn't have a job.

Don't get me wrong, I watch the TW reviews, and often enjoy them but you have to take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. I've played hundreds of tournament matches (and won many of them) in college and USTA against guys who play(ed)Pure Aero's or Pure Drives, playing with a PS 85, a POG 107 or some other "outdated" and "irrelevant" frame. I think Prince is doing great things with their "old school" frames. They're catering to a certain type of player who is interested in both nostalgia and in comfortable frames. If I didn't play with a POG or an "outdated" frame, I would have shredded my elbow. I have hit the PA+ on occasion and always come away with a little discomfort as a result. Wider and stiffer frames were invented to coincide with and support poly strings. Poly strings are so dead that the average club player wouldn't be able to use a PS 85 or POG, etc., effectively with the push of poly into the market.

It's a shame that the marketing has gotten into the tennis world the way it has. "Old school" does not make it irrelevant or "hard to play" in the 21st century. I would image that McEnroe or Borg would still be able to give me (and anyone on this forum) an ass kicking using a wood racquet...

I actually think the PP100P is the POG 107 comparable. I can interchange between the two almost seamlessly. Granted, I am using the 2013 POG. But control, feel, and practically power level are very similar, including weight (if the POG is slimmed down). The polarization of the PP100P also makes the head feel similar to the POGs mass in SW.
 

avocadoz

Semi-Pro
Alright, I had a go with it last night when my demo came in yesterday. I also demoed the Phantom Pro 100 side by side for better comparison. Overall, it's a super solid frame that doesn't need modding imo. Unfortunately, it wasn't suitable for my gamestyle. I'm a baseline hugger so I was often late on my groundstrokes because of the heavier static weight & sw. I started with the 18x20 and was quickly down 2-5. Then switched to 16x18 and made a mini comeback before losing the set 4-6. I obviously felt more comfortable and dialed in with the Phantom Pro 100 (16x18) so I continued using it the next 2 sets and won 6-1 7-6. The two areas where I find the 18x20 exceed is on serve and at net. Otherwise, I find the 16x18 better overall. Despite its more open pattern, the 16x18 actually had more control for me because it was easier to swing so I wasn't caught late on my shots. The spacing in the middle of both racquets are about the same to me. When you get outside of the sweetspot is where off-center hit feels dead on the 16x18 vs the 18x20. I had so much fun hitting with the 16x18 that I couldn't bother picking up the 18x20 again. Overall, I didn't have a very good experience with it as I didn't find the control to be better. Because I have an aggressive game with an eastern forehand, I tend to favor denser string pattern. I previously played with the Blade 18x20 (2015, not crapvail) and most recently Ultra Tour. So going into this demo, I was most excited about the Phanto Pro 100 (18x20) but came out liking the 16x18 version a lot more. The one knock most people have with the Phantom Pro 100 is that it lacks power, but obviously I generate my own power so I have no issue there. My only knock with the 16x18 is that my volleys were lacking depth and I was hitting the net quite a bit. I think hitting outside the sweetspot felt dead and that could be a contributing factor. I'll try adding some lead and if that solves the issue, I think I might be making the switch as I think the Phantom Pro 100 (16x18) is such a sweet racquet that's also kind to my golfer's elbow.
 
Last edited:

Dartagnan64

Legend
Alright, I had a go with it last night when my demo came in yesterday. I also demoed the Phantom Pro 100 side by side for better comparison. Overall, it's a super solid frame that doesn't need modding imo. Unfortunately, it wasn't suitable for my gamestyle. I'm a baseline hugger so I was often late on my groundstrokes because of the heavier static weight & sw. I started with the 18x20 and was quickly down 2-5. Then switched to 16x18 and made a mini comeback before losing the set 4-6. I obviously felt more comfortable and dialed in with the Phantom Pro 100 (16x18) so I continued using it the next 2 sets and won 6-1 7-6. The two areas where I find the 18x20 exceed is on serve and at net. Otherwise, I find the 16x18 better overall. Despite its more open pattern, the 16x18 actually had more control for me because it was easier to swing so I wasn't caught late on my shots. The spacing in the middle of both racquets are about the same to me. When you get outside of the sweetspot is where off-center hit feels dead on the 16x18 vs the 18x20. I had so much fun hitting with the 16x18 that I couldn't bother picking up the 18x20 again. Overall, I didn't have a very good experience with it as I didn't find the control to be better. Because I have an aggressive game with an eastern forehand, I tend to favor denser string pattern. I previously played with the Blade 18x20 (2015, not crapvail) and most recently Ultra Tour. So going into this demo, I was most excited about the Phanto Pro 100 (18x20) but came out liking the 16x18 version a lot more. The one knock most people have with the Phantom Pro 100 is that it lacks power, but obviously I generate my own power so I have no issue there. My only knock with the 16x18 is that my volleys were lacking depth and I was hitting the net quite a bit. I think hitting outside the sweetspot felt dead and that could be a contributing factor. I'll try adding some lead and if that solves the issue, I think I might be making the switch as I think the Phantom Pro 100 (16x18) is such a sweet racquet that's also kind to my golfer's elbow.
Thanks for the review. Surprised you didn’t feel the 18x20 moved quicker given it’s headlight balance. But I guess the weight and SW are a bit higher. If you are used to the Ultra Tour and Blade, you are going to feel the 18x20 is a bit sluggish for your muscle memory.

I do tend to find people used to controlled players frames review things differently than those used to tweener frames. So it’s always nice to post your previous rackets so we know what you were used to as a frame of reference.
 

haqq777

Legend
I do tend to find people used to controlled players frames review things differently than those used to tweener frames.
Yeah, that's actually a really good point. Frame of reference will give a good idea where the player is coming from and makes for a more nuanced feedback too.
 

recsoares

Rookie
This can be the perfect stick for me!!!
However,I’ve just invested money and time on TT100p for now...
Maybe in a year or two...
But I will demo for sure!!!


Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk
 

PhxRacket

Professional
WOW!! I just played three sets of 5.0 doubles with this stick strung with multi, grrrr recurring (read: not healed) TE. So I was curious if I could hang with some local guys. Before TE kicked the door in, I was sold on the new CX Tour 18/20 or the HEAD G360 Speed Pro. They are different racquets and I liked different aspects of both. I have an old school game built on big serves, bigger forehand, above average net game. I struggle with 16/19 patterns as my game is fairly linear. But this Phantom was something else. I’m icing my elbow as I type this, and am staring at a substantial layoff, but I Really enjoyed this Phantom. Power, enough spin, but the accuracy was devastating on the dubs court. If you are a fan of old school, thin beamed, 18/20 string patterns give this a try with whatever string you prefer.
 

Kal-El 34

Hall of Fame
Been gelling with the 93P 18x20 for last few weeks but have one of these coming on Thursday and will be comparing

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

tigonian02

New User
Just returned my demo of the phantom 18x20 and the 14x18. My hopes were shattered with the 18x20. It's a good racquet. It and it feels good, but I knew within the first few minutes that I would never play as well with it as I do with my current racquet (Phantom 100P 16x18). It did provide more spin on average than other 18x20s that I've tried, but I already don't have a huge natural launch angle, and so I have to stay focused on clearing the net at all times with it. The string bed was definitely more consistent than my current string bed. If I hit an erratic shot, I knew exactly why and what I did as I was doing it. Overall, it was a fun play test. Maybe they'll bring out a 16x19 version at some point.

The Phantom 93 14x18 intrigued me much more once I got it out on the court. The headsize is smaller, but the sweetspot is generous. I personally got a ton of spin out of this racquet, but still not as much as I get from the 16x18 I currently play with. If you're 4.0 plus it probably shouldn't bother you, outside of maybe a mental thing. There were two things that I didn't like about this racquet. 1). the launch angle could slip away from you and arch up pretty good at times. This can be dialed in. The other issue was that I found that the defensive play making with this racquet, but like the other 93p was lacking a little bit...not to the extent in which the 93p 18x20, but enough to be noticed. Once again, practice with the racquet would improve this. Conversely, the new 100 18x20 has great defense. Possibly my favorite part of the playtest with that racquet. I also demo'd Isner's endorsed Beast and I loved the ground strokes with it. It definitely had some heft to it, and I couldn't exactly paint lines with it, but the feel at contact was sweet. I digress...

I will say that both of these Phantoms had great control in terms of placement. I'm primarily a singles player, but I can see a doubles player swooning over these sticks. They just weren't enough for me to leave the Phantom P100P.

P.S. if anyone wanted to know, the 4th racquet I demo'd was the Wilson Ultra tour...that racquet is pretty solid...still like my Phantom better.
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
@tigonian02 I don't think Prince would make a Phantom 100 with a 16x19 pattern because the head shape is so round. That's why it's currently 16x18. I'm surprised that you didn't get good spin with the PP100 18x20 since it has a 55RA. The ball should practically stick to the strings and give ample time to brush up for imparting spin. That's why I hate stiff racquets. They are not only bad for your arm, but the ball deflects off way too fast. Please tell me more about your PP100 18x20 play test in terms of arm comfort and frame flex. Did you notice it flex more in the hoop or at the throat?
 

tigonian02

New User
@tigonian02 I don't think Prince would make a Phantom 100 with a 16x19 pattern because the head shape is so round. That's why it's currently 16x18. I'm surprised that you didn't get good spin with the PP100 18x20 since it has a 55RA. The ball should practically stick to the strings and give ample time to brush up for imparting spin. That's why I hate stiff racquets. They are not only bad for your arm, but the ball deflects off way too fast. Please tell me more about your PP100 18x20 play test in terms of arm comfort and frame flex. Did you notice it flex more in the hoop or at the throat?
In regard to the spin of the 18x20, it was still better than I would have expected from an 18x20. Comfort was probably a little better than my 16x18...pretty darn comfortable...not stiff at all (I used to play with the prince classic response 97, which I loved, but it gave me like 2 years of arm pain). The flex was in the throat.

The primary issue with this racquet for me is the launch angle. A little background on me... I create plenty of top spin from both wings while brushing across the ball, but ultimately I drive thru my forehand shots with a low-ish launch angle, I would guess between 3-6 feet on average...not to say I hit a completely flat ball. As a result I generally have issues with most 18x20 racquets on my forehand wing (the blade and new Dunlop excluded). This racquet did me no favors on my forehand wing. My launch angles were essentially cut in half (I was playing against a guy that hits deep flat shots also, which didn’t help). On the forehand side, I ultimately have to be technically dialed in at all times. If I come out to the court after a long work day and am a little off, then it could result in a bad tennis day without a quick adjustment. My 2hbh has much more of an arch, so I don’t have the same issues on that side. Actually, because of the added plow, my backhand generally gets a little boost from 18x20s and extended length racquets. I love the feel and control of 18x20 though and so I always demo them to give them another chance. These are all me issues though and everyone is different, so I’d definitely say to try it.
 
Last edited:

Dartagnan64

Legend
I don't think Prince would make a Phantom 100 with a 16x19 pattern because the head shape is so round. That's why it's currently 16x18.
I don’t think they’d make a 16x19 because they have two 16x18 already and why waste money fracturing the lineup into minutiae.

One extra cross string is not going to magically transform the racket into the perfect frame.

Instead they give you an 18x20 that would actually make a noticeable difference. Especially useful for us doubles players that prefer control and low launch angles.
 

avocadoz

Semi-Pro
I don’t think they’d make a 16x19 because they have two 16x18 already and why waste money fracturing the lineup into minutiae.

One extra cross string is not going to magically transform the racket into the perfect frame.

Instead they give you an 18x20 that would actually make a noticeable difference. Especially useful for us doubles players that prefer control and low launch angles.
I agree. Although 16x18 reads like a spin effect gimmick from Wilson, it's actually not. There's 8 mains in the throat and the sweetspot of the racquet is quite dense. I find the control of the 16x18 surprisingly good and better than a lot of the 16x19 racquets out there. The thin beam of the phantom really helps dial in control while maintaining excellent spin characteristic of the 16x18 pattern.
 
Last edited:

time_fly

Hall of Fame
So if someone generally likes the Phantom 93P (18x20) but wants a bit more power and spin, do they step to the Phantom 93P (14x18) or the Phantom Pro 100 (18x20)?
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
So if someone generally likes the Phantom 93P (18x20) but wants a bit more power and spin, do they step to the Phantom 93P (14x18) or the Phantom Pro 100 (18x20)?
I'd opt for the PP100 18x20. The 93P 18x20 is a fine stick on good days, but if I'm off, then the larger head will help as the 93P 14x18 still has the same sized head and it's stiffer too which I don't like.

@tigonian02 thanks for your feedback. The PP100 18x20 sounds like my kind of frame because I like flex at the throat and not in the hoop. I'm a baseline hugger and having a flexible racquet at the throat allows me to still catch the ball late and hold onto it a bit longer to get my swing around.
 

TennisHound

Legend
Does Prince have something against a 97/98 sq in headsize frame? Don’t bring up the Beast 98 cuz I’m not a fan of it. The Tour and Phantom series are the ones that deserve a 98.
Yep X2. Although I think the Beast 98 is better than its competitors, even if the string pattern is a little wide. Would love to see a Phantom 97.
 

Dartagnan64

Legend
So if someone generally likes the Phantom 93P (18x20) but wants a bit more power and spin, do they step to the Phantom 93P (14x18) or the Phantom Pro 100 (18x20)?
The Phantom 93P 14x 18. I'd say the Phantom 100 18x20 is more for people with the 93P that want more forgiveness or the people with the Phantom 100 16x18 models that want more control and lower launch angle. But if you like the 93P except for power and spin, the answer is the 14x18.
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
Does Prince have something against a 97/98 sq in headsize frame? Don’t bring up the Beast 98 cuz I’m not a fan of it. The Tour and Phantom series are the ones that deserve a 98.
Yeah, I happen to like the Beast 98 but in general Prince doesn’t seem to do 98s very well. I didn’t like the old Tour 98 at all. I suspect it’s cheaper and easier for them to tweak their existing lines with tweaked layups, weights, string patterns etc. than come up with a whole new frame, hence no Phantom or Textreme Tour 98 in their new lineup.
 

KickVicious

Semi-Pro
can we get a limited edition white and green phantom for Wimbledon this year? call them ghosts or something lol
Yeah, last year’s #whiteout was a total flop. I’m thinking white frame, grey grommets and green lettering. They can add a green inner paint to match the lettering for the Tour line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jacob22

Professional
This frame needs some lead at 12 o'clock. Feels very flimsy and dead when hitting serves towards the tip. The 93p 18x20 doesn't have that issue. I'm waiting for a PP100P 18x20.
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
what's the difference between "100" and "100P" ?
The 100p has a box beam and is a little less flexible.

I ordered a Phantom Pro 100 18x20 to check out. I'm such a sucker for Prince racquets. I will be sure to write up a review and compare it to the 93P (18x20) and my recollection of the regular Phantom 100, which I owned for a while then sold last year.
 

Dartagnan64

Legend
I think most of the 100 sq Phantoms need a little weight at the tip. Especially for serves and 2HBH.
I also think they likely should have dropped the poly tension to 48lbs in their play test.

Easiest thing to do with a control racket to boost power is lower string tensions. They never are in danger of becoming rocket launchers.
 

jacob22

Professional
I also demoed the updated TT95 and TT100P. Used to really like the old TT95 but lacked power/plow. Compared to the Phantoms, they felt like hollow tweener frames now. Can't go back to those kind of racquets. Now if I could just find the right set up the allow me to hit as good a 2HBH with the Phantoms as with the Clash.
 

avocadoz

Semi-Pro
I also demoed the updated TT95 and TT100P. Used to really like the old TT95 but lacked power/plow. Compared to the Phantoms, they felt like hollow tweener frames now. Can't go back to those kind of racquets. Now if I could just find the right set up the allow me to hit as good a 2HBH with the Phantoms as with the Clash.
You can't go back to the TT95/100P because they felt like hollow tweener frames but you play with the Clash? *confused*
 

jacob22

Professional
You can't go back to the TT95/100P because they felt like hollow tweener frames but you play with the Clash? *confused*
Just trying out the Clash. The only reason I haven't sold it is because it is amazing for my 2HBH, can finally get enough spin to consistent get it over the net.
 
Just trying out the Clash. The only reason I haven't sold it is because it is amazing for my 2HBH, can finally get enough spin to consistent get it over the net.
My friend and I were joking that if we could just find a way to serve with the Clash, then quickly set it down and grab the PPP100 for the rest of the point, we’d be in great shape.

Hmmmmm, how do we make that happen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jacob22

Professional
My friend and I were joking that if we could just find a way to serve with the Clash, then quickly set it down and grab the PPP100 for the rest of the point, we’d be in great shape.

Hmmmmm, how do we make that happen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Believe it or not, during a practice recently I was serving with my 93P(18x20) and returning with my Clash. Can't serve bombs with the Clash. Gonna lead it up some and see if there's any saving it.
 

avocadoz

Semi-Pro
Sounds like the TW playtesters had mixed reviews about this racquet. Michelle hits a big ball and I noticed how much slower her 2hbh was with this racquet. I also struggled generating pace with my 2hbh with this racquet as well so looks like it's not just me.
 
Last edited:

tigonian02

New User
You can't go back to the TT95/100P because they felt like hollow tweener frames but you play with the Clash? *confused*
I haven’t played with the clash, but I agree with his first statement. A few years ago I played with a TT95 and really liked it. I thought there would be a longer adjustment and so I tested it out by playing a 3.5 singles flex league and absolutely loved the control it provided (no, they didn’t let me into the league playoffs). When I played people at my level though I found that I was missing some much needed power. Then I went to the classic response 97 (elbow issues) and now the Phantom p100p. I demoed the new TT95 not too long ago and it was almost sad how much my tastes have changed over the past 4 years or so. The TT95 is a hard pass now for me.
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
Sounds the the TW playtesters had mixed reviews about this racquet. Michelle hits a big ball and I noticed how much slower her 2hbh was with this racquet. I also struggled generating pace with my 2hbh with this racquet as well so looks like it's not just me.
I thought the review was positive with the caveat that it’s a control racquet without the free power of the more typical stiff 100”. I’m surprised they didn’t compare it with the 93P though.
 
Top