It is over the average spec reported by TW, but the numbers are still useful because the ACOR numbers can be pretty easily adjusted if you want to see how a 95 with lower swingweight would perform. If that adjustment is made, the 16x18 is roughly as powerful, and with roughly as large a sweetzone, as both the new Pro One and the new Pure Drive Roddick, according to this data.
So why does everyone say the Roddick is so powerful? I think it's a very interesting question. One explanation suggested by Cross and Lindsey in "Technical Tennis" and "The Physics and Technology of Tennis" is that stiff racquets, because they have shorter dwell times than flexible ones, give the player the impression that the ball is coming off the strings at a faster speed. And it is: stiff racquets have shorter dwell time - the ball is on the strings for a shorter time than it is on a flexible frame. But the resulting speed of shot might be the same. The time the ball is on the strings is a different thing than the rebound speed, but most players don't realize this and interpret a short dwell time, with its accompanying greater shock to the hand, as evidence that their shot was very "powerful". It feels powerful, the ball comes off the strings quicker than they are used to, the shock to the hand feels very impressive, and they conclude that the resulting shot is much more powerful than with their normal racquet. This is just a hypothesis, so please lets not turn this into some big hubbub.
In reality, all evidence provided to date shows that stiffness differences between racquets resulting pretty pretty trivial differences in racquet power (rebound speed), except at the top of the hoop. One recent paper showed that you'd have to triple the stiffness of a racquet (from say 60 RDC to 180 RDC!) to get the same rebound speed gains you could get by increasing your swingweight by 35 units (from, say, 305 to 340). Of course, you can't swing a 340 swingweight frame as fast as a 305 swingweight frame, whereas stiffness doesn't influence swingspeed, and so stiffness does offer "free" power. (If you tripled the stiffness of your frame, though, your elbow would tell you differently.)
Similarly, I've analyzed lots of this power potential data and when comparing frames with the same swingweight, headsize, string pattern and twistweight, the stiffest frames (~76RDC) offer the player only about 1-2 more miles per hour on a given shot than the most flexible ones (~54 RDC). I know this contradicts the conventional wisdom of thousands of players, salesmen and admen, but there it is. I don't know what to make of it. The scientific data could be wrong, but I'm inclined to doubt my perceptions (and especially other people's impressions

) more than empirical data.
Once I demo those frames - with the same string at the same stringbed stiffness, on the same day - I might have something different to say (not that anyone would or should care).