Prince Official - Racquets

Humble_Bear

New User
And the 107 A.A

Looks like Prince remade two 80's classic style oversized 107 graphite rackets one weighs 12.2 oz & the other 12.9 oz. Wish they make one in 97-100 headsize. I don't understand the manufacturer's (Prince & Wilson) design philosophy back in the 80's, they either make one that is too small (85-90) or too big (107-110) but did not make one in between (97-100).

For example, I had the Wilson Sting 85 & 110 back in the 80's. I love both rackets and I still prefer the feel and control of the classic thin beam design over today's modern design. Even though the 85 was accurate but was unforgiving and the 110 was too big and not too accurate. I really wished that I had a 98 size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ-

flanker2000fr

Professional
Looks like Prince remade two 80's classic style oversized 107 graphite rackets one weighs 12.2 oz & the other 12.9 oz. Wish they make one in 97-100 headsize. I don't understand the manufacturer's (Prince & Wilson) design philosophy back in the 80's, they either make one that is too small (85-90) or too big (107-110) but did not make one in between (97-100).

For example, I had the Wilson Sting 85 & 110 back in the 80's. I love both rackets and I still prefer the feel and control of the classic thin beam design over today's modern design. Even though the 85 was accurate but was unforgiving and the 110 was too big and not too accurate. I really wished that I had a 98 size.
Let me sit myself comfortably in a leather club chair, prepare a pipe, and pour myself a good brandy.

Back in those days, the size of a racquet head was expressed in % of increase vs. the 68 sq.in. of a traditional wood frame. You generally had two types of frames:
- the +25% to +35%, translation into 85 sq.in. and 90 sq.in., which were considered the "new normal" for players' frames
- the +50% and above, translating into > 102 sq. in., which were considered game improvement racquets. There, Prince was dominating as they came out with this concept to start with, and it just happened so that they had gone for a +60% being around 110 sq.in.

Prince eventually decided to cater also for the players' frame market and produced a line of 90 sq.in. frame.

You have to remember that, in those days, many people had been educated with wooden racquets, and anything more than 90 sq.in. would be considered huge and unwieldy. Those 110 sq.in. were really considered by most either as a beginner's racquet or a granny stick.

The irony, of course, is that some of these racquets, more specifically the Prince Graphite and the eye wateringly expensive Prince Boron were so good that a number of pros decided to play them. Especially younger pros who were starting to take big cuts at the ball such as Agassi, Sabatini, Kent Carlsson, Seles.

If you like a bit of history, check out this article:

Secret weapon or barn door?
 

Humble_Bear

New User
I happened to witness the tennis racket size revolution and used all of the size categories in different eras.

I started playing recreational tennis in high school during 1977. My first racket was a standard size wooden Wilson racket, then a Donnay wooden composite and then a Yamaha fiberglass racket YFG30 & etc; all of them were the tiny and frail standard size rackets which I broke in a matter of months.

Then came the Prince Pro, an all aluminum 110 oversize racket in the late 70's. It was very easy to hit and became a revolution! My brother had that racket for quite a while then he later got the Prince Original Graphite Oversize until today. Seeing the immense success of the Prince Pro (110), many manufacturers started making 110 oversized rackets as an effort to steal the market share. That's when I bought my Wilson Sting 110 around 1980.

After the debut of the oversize rackets, the standard size became obsolete and hence were replaced by midsize rackets. That's when the Wilson Sting Midsize came and I bought that one too. But Wilson never make the thin box beam Midplus version for Sting, they did however manufactured a 95 size much later with a high beam design. For Prince, the midsize 90 graphite came several years after the 110, and the midplus came much later I don't remember the exact timeline.

So in summary the standard size (73?) came first, then the oversize (107-110), then the midsize(85-90), lastly the midplus(93-102).
 

flanker2000fr

Professional
I happened to witness the tennis racket size revolution and used all of the size categories in different eras.

I started playing recreational tennis in high school during 1977. My first racket was a standard size wooden Wilson racket, then a Donnay wooden composite and then a Yamaha fiberglass racket YFG30 & etc; all of them were the tiny and frail standard size rackets which I broke in a matter of months.

Then came the Prince Pro, an all aluminum 110 oversize racket in the late 70's. It was very easy to hit and became a revolution! My brother had that racket for quite a while then he later got the Prince Original Graphite Oversize until today. Seeing the immense success of the Prince Pro (110), many manufacturers started making 110 oversized rackets as an effort to steal the market share. That's when I bought my Wilson Sting 110 around 1980.

After the debut of the oversize rackets, the standard size became obsolete and hence were replaced by midsize rackets. That's when the Wilson Sting Midsize came and I bought that one too. But Wilson never make the thin box beam Midplus version for Sting, they did however manufactured a 95 size much later with a high beam design. For Prince, the midsize 90 graphite came several years after the 110, and the midplus came much later I don't remember the exact timeline.

So in summary the standard size (73?) came first, then the oversize (107-110), then the midsize(85-90), lastly the midplus(93-102).
Your recollection mirrors mine. Interestingly, I too started tennis in 1977, one year after starting primary school. My first racquet was a traditional wooden frame, a sports store branded frame - Sport 2000. Then came a Donnay Mid 25 wood / graphite composite, perhaps 3-4 years later. And then my first full graphite, around 1983, a Donnay Pro 25. What is interesting is that the word "Midsize" is printed on the side of this frame, which was given as a "+25%" expanded frame vs. a traditional wooden frame. But they were also making the Donnay Pro 35 on the same design at that time, and there they had "Midsize+" printed on the size. Which gives a good insight to how those racquets were thought of at the time, given that +35% would have been 90 sq.in.

I believe the standard size is about 66-68 sq.in. For instance, one of the frames I played a lot with in the mid 80's was the Adidas GTX Pro (the Lendl racquet), which was given as a +10% over traditional frame and was 75 sq.in.

Regarding Prince, my first one was a Graphite Pro 90, probably around 1986-87. I would have loved an Original Graphite, but these were far too expensive at the time. My tennis club was in a really working class neighbourhood, and the only Prince's to be found there were the Pro and the Classic originally, then maybe a few Graphite Comp or Graphite Pro. It's only when I was going to play a tournament to a nearby city, where the tennis club was really upper class, that I would see Original Graphite's either in oversize or mid, though the latter were only found in the late 80's if my memory serves. I think there was even a guy playing a Boron, and I just couldn't comprehend how anyone could have enough money to spend that much in a tennis racquet (that thing was around FRF 3,000 / USD 450 at the time).

As for midplus frames, I think one would have had to wait until the mid 90's to see frames around the 95 sq.in. mark dominate the market.
 

thorcyar

New User
Hi, maybe that's an easy one, but could somebody explain me something ? I'm wondering what is the "obvious" difference between prince phantom 100x(305) and prince phantom 100p ... I mean, 5g difference, 5 SW difference, beam a little thiner but same stringing pattern, same head size, same racquet lenght, same balance, they seem very similar to me, is there something that I'm missing please ?
 

t_pac

Semi-Pro
In addition to the differences you've mentioned (and they are fairly different there) it's a different layup with Twaron added plus Textreme added at 10/2 (ATS).
 

tennis347

Professional
Hi, maybe that's an easy one, but could somebody explain me something ? I'm wondering what is the "obvious" difference between prince phantom 100x(305) and prince phantom 100p ... I mean, 5g difference, 5 SW difference, beam a little thiner but same stringing pattern, same head size, same racquet lenght, same balance, they seem very similar to me, is there something that I'm missing please ?
They are actually very different racquets. The 100P has much higher SW, better stability, power, control and plays a bit firmer than the 100x. The 100P is a real player's frame and is geared towards a stronger player who can handle the 330 SW.
 

Papa Mango

Semi-Pro
Hi, maybe that's an easy one, but could somebody explain me something ? I'm wondering what is the "obvious" difference between prince phantom 100x(305) and prince phantom 100p ... I mean, 5g difference, 5 SW difference, beam a little thiner but same stringing pattern, same head size, same racquet lenght, same balance, they seem very similar to me, is there something that I'm missing please ?
In addition what @t_pac and @tennis347 said, different beams, so they swing a little differently. The rackets are very similar in specs but IMHO suit different playing styles.
100X is more of a counterpuncher's racket and is great at defense while the 100P is more suited for an attacking game.
I liked/loved both the rackets but ended up going with the 100X as it was better suited for my game.
 

t_pac

Semi-Pro
Falling in love with my Tours all over again...earlier in the week I beat a really tough opponent (who I play a lot and he's probably up on our H2H) 2&4 and smashed a league game tonight 0&2 in 45 minutes against a player that beat me over three tight sets last time we met.

Just such easy to use, well balanced frames with essentially zero weaknesses.

Waiting to see if the new ones make it to Europe before stocking up!
 
Is anyone playing with the Prince Phantom O3 100X. I don't see any posting about it. I have the original Phantom 100 ports. I am considering taking it out for a demo.
 

thorcyar

New User
In addition to the differences you've mentioned (and they are fairly different there) it's a different layup with Twaron added plus Textreme added at 10/2 (ATS).
Hi, on prince tennis website, both sticks are listed having ATS, and both sticks are listed having textreme+twaron.
 
I have both the 100X 305 and the 100P. Can't say a bad word against either. I'm leaning heavier toward the 100P, but the 100 gives me faster racquet head speed, harder flat serves due to the RHS, and better kick serves. (which really have no real world applications for me. Both racquets suit my serve, firm, but not overpowering, based on spin and placement. And the kick serve I just enjoy practicing, I rarely use it playing sets. And actually, it hurts my back, lol!)

The 100P gives me a better slice (which I do mix in when playing sets.) Both racquets give me a ton of control. I just hit and do lessons, more than I play sets, and when my goal is to give clean feeds to someone, I can put my shots in a two foot circle ten time in a row no matter where that person is sending me. If you want to demo both for fun, go for it, but if you only demo the 100X, and like it, you will not have made the "wrong" decision.
 

baowow

New User
Zvonareva got herself a Grand Slam (doubles) title with a Prince stick. Possibly o3 phantom 100x. Hard to tell. About time for her and Prince.
 

Papa Mango

Semi-Pro
Zvonareva got herself a Grand Slam (doubles) title with a Prince stick. Possibly o3 phantom 100x. Hard to tell. About time for her and Prince.
I just saw that. Unusual stencil, too. Anyone know for sure what the racquet is?

Nice match!
Looks like the O3...
Edit: And the O stencil probably Solinco. or what @fed1 said below.

Siegemund was a beast!
 
Last edited:

ryushen21

Hall of Fame
Can't imagine that they do. It's not really a fit for the modern pro game of defending from behind the baseline until you get the short ball.
Wowing everyone with your impressive tennis acumen once again. Not that I've looked or anything, but I'd safely assume that any number of pros could use a mid-size frame in the modern game and be successful with it.

Still waiting for you to give us a demonstration of your considerable tennis prowess to validate your baseless BS opinions.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Wowing everyone with your impressive tennis acumen once again. Not that I've looked or anything, but I'd safely assume that any number of pros could use a mid-size frame in the modern game and be successful with it.

Still waiting for you to give us a demonstration of your considerable tennis prowess to validate your baseless BS opinions.
Even Roger went to a 97 from his 90. Mids are a dying breed. When a pro shows up with a mid on the tour I'll defer to your impressive tennis acumen.

Not sure what my abilities have to do with whether a pro wants to use a mid or not.
 

ryushen21

Hall of Fame
Even Roger went to a 97 from his 90. Mids are a dying breed. When a pro shows up with a mid on the tour I'll defer to your impressive tennis acumen.

Not sure what my abilities have to do with whether a pro wants to use a mid or not.
Sorry, how many slams did Roger win with his mids?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pow

jonestim

Hall of Fame
The 93P has a wide face and a thin beam. It's not a shank monster. If you are going to shank with it, you are going to shank with just about any frame that isn't an oversized.

The spin window is bigger than the RF97

MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Pro Staff RF97 Autograph 2018Difference
Spin Window (in)5.745.560.18

Bigger than the Blade 98

MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Blade 98 (18x20) CVDifference
Spin Window (in)5.745.560.18

Just a tiny, tiny bit smaller (.06" - 1.5mm) than the Pure Drive.

MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Pure Drive 2017Difference
Spin Window (in)5.745.8-0.06

Even less of a difference (.03") to the Speed Pro

MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Graphene 360 Speed ProDifference
Spin Window (in)5.745.77-0.03

Tiny bit bigger than the Pro Tour 2.0
MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Pro Tour 2.0Difference
Spin Window (in)5.745.670.07

And pretty much identical to the Prince Textreme Tour 100s
MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Textreme Tour 100 (310) (2019)Difference
Spin Window (in)5.745.76-0.02
 

ryushen21

Hall of Fame
The 93P has a wide face and a thin beam. It's not a shank monster. If you are going to shank with it, you are going to shank with just about any frame that isn't an oversized.

The spin window is bigger than the RF97

MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Pro Staff RF97 Autograph 2018Difference
Spin Window (in)5.745.560.18

Bigger than the Blade 98

MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Blade 98 (18x20) CVDifference
Spin Window (in)5.745.560.18

Just a tiny, tiny bit smaller (.06" - 1.5mm) than the Pure Drive.

MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Pure Drive 2017Difference
Spin Window (in)5.745.8-0.06

Even less of a difference (.03") to the Speed Pro

MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Graphene 360 Speed ProDifference
Spin Window (in)5.745.77-0.03

Tiny bit bigger than the Pro Tour 2.0
MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Pro Tour 2.0Difference
Spin Window (in)5.745.670.07

And pretty much identical to the Prince Textreme Tour 100s
MeasurementPhantom 93P (18x20)Textreme Tour 100 (310) (2019)Difference
Spin Window (in)5.745.76-0.02
Applause for your application of science.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
IMO the 93P 18 x 20 is very underated frame. I think it could be used by a pro with success along with some modifications.
Completely agree. I can use my 93P 18x20 interchangeably with any MP (95 or 98) offering from other manufacturers. I modified mine with a bit of weight at 3 and 9 and 7" above the butt cap, put on an overgrip and I was good to go. The feedback from my hitting partner was that the ball had good weight and good power. It is not the most powerful racquet I have, but it is certainly one of the most precise. What it "lacks" in power, it certainly makes up for in creativity and variety and opens up a whole new facet to one's game.

I think someone like Roger would have created havoc with this beast... might even have won more Slams as the racquet is wider (as mentioned and scientifically proven by @jonestim) and therefore he wouldn't have shanked as many shots. Just my 2 cents.
 

tennis347

Professional
Completely agree. I can use my 93P 18x20 interchangeably with any MP (95 or 98) offering from other manufacturers. I modified mine with a bit of weight at 3 and 9 and 7" above the butt cap, put on an overgrip and I was good to go. The feedback from my hitting partner was that the ball had good weight and good power. It is not the most powerful racquet I have, but it is certainly one of the most precise. What it "lacks" in power, it certainly makes up for in creativity and variety and opens up a whole new facet to one's game.
I have not hit with the 93P but have heard that it has a huge sweetspot for a midsize frame and has a hefty swingweight to enhance the plow through which will give you some nice pop on your strokes. Certainly a pro can generate plenty of racquet head speed with modifications to make this a viable stick on the tour. There is so much precision which can't be duplicated by many other players frames.

Prince really hit their mark with the Phantom line. I really love the 100P in the original or the new version. It's the first 100 sq inch racquet that I have played where I can get the precision of a midsize frame even using a synthetic string!!
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Sorry, how many slams did Roger win with his mids?
Different era. Borg won a bunch of slams with a woodie.

And Roger is one of the few remaining all court attackers on the pro tour which is being increasingly dominated by defenders and counter-punchers.

But I'll believe a pro can be as successful with a mid when a pro plays with a mid and is successful. I certainly can play just as well with my 93p as any of my other frames from 100-107. But as has been pointed out, I'm a crappy tennis player. At the highest levels, it's yet to be proven in the 2020's that you can be successful with a mid. I'd personally love to see it.

I have not hit with the 93P but have heard that it has a huge sweetspot for a midsize frame and has a hefty swingweight to enhance the plow through which will give you some nice pop on your strokes.
I'd agree it has a generous sweetspot for a mid but not really "huge". I like it for it's feel and precision. When I play with it, I can move my opponent around and go for tighter windows which makes up for some of the lower power and more demanding contact. So in the end I play as well with it as any stick. In fact it's my go to frame for hard court singles. I just have to tailor my game differently. I'm not going to push with my 93P. I'm going to go to deep corners, get a short ball and come in.
 

ryushen21

Hall of Fame
Different era. Borg won a bunch of slams with a woodie.

And Roger is one of the few remaining all court attackers on the pro tour which is being increasingly dominated by defenders and counter-punchers.

But I'll believe a pro can be as successful with a mid when a pro plays with a mid and is successful. I certainly can play just as well with my 93p as any of my other frames from 100-107. But as has been pointed out, I'm a crappy tennis player. At the highest levels, it's yet to be proven in the 2020's that you can be successful with a mid. I'd personally love to see it.



I'd agree it has a generous sweetspot for a mid but not really "huge". I like it for it's feel and precision. When I play with it, I can move my opponent around and go for tighter windows which makes up for some of the lower power and more demanding contact. So in the end I play as well with it as any stick. In fact it's my go to frame for hard court singles. I just have to tailor my game differently. I'm not going to push with my 93P. I'm going to go to deep corners, get a short ball and come in.
Please post a video. I'd love to see you hitting with the 93P.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
@Dartagnan64, I agree with what you wrote above (in your response to tennis347). The 93P forces you to play a different style of game and because of the degree of precision and the ability to hit the "tighter widows" and move your opponent around, as you put it, this creates openings which then need to be utilized to win the point. It definitely is a racquet that demands the user to stay on the front foot and be the aggressor... it is not a stick with which you can sit back and absorb the opponents' onslaught... you need to create and tailor the point.

With respect to the sweet spot size, I found it to be decent (especially for a 93" head size), but I added Tungsten Tape at 3 and 9 (maybe some at 12 as well - can't check now or remember from the top of my head) and I counter-balanced with weight at 7" above the butt cap. This increased the sweet spot and the TW, improved the racquet on defense, yet still kept the balance and maneuverability of the original setup.

This racquet is more demanding and requires a higher work rate, but will reward anyone that puts the effort in. If I just want to absorb my opponents' pace and then pound them into submission at the first instance of an opening, I will use the Angell TC95 63RA 18x20. However, the experience is entirely different and somewhat more clinical. What it comes down to is whether I want to use a scalpel or meat clever to carve up my opponent. Both get the job done but the experience and the journey are different. With one, you're a surgeon, with the other more a butcher, but the opponent is carved up either way.

At least that is how I see it. Sorry if the analogy got too Dexter-ish... :rolleyes::oops:;)
 
Last edited:

jonestim

Hall of Fame
Any word out there on when they are releasing the Phantom Graphite, especially the LB? Anxiously awaiting...
I have heard "late September or early October".

I'm looking forward to the LB as well. I had the Graphite LB and shouldn't have sold them. The Phantom LB specs are pretty much identical to the Graphite LB, but it should be just a little stiffer at the tip - which will be nice. Paint job is super stealth as well. Very classy.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Please post a video. I'd love to see you hitting with the 93P.
Why do you want to see a decent 3.5 player hitting with a 93P?


With respect to the sweet spot size, I found it to be decent (especially for a 93" head size), but I added Tungsten Tape at 3 and 9 (maybe some at 12 as well - can't check now or remember from the top of my head) and I counter-balanced with weight at 7" above the butt cap. This increased the sweet spot and the TW, improved the racquet on defense, yet still kept the balance and maneuverability of the original setup.
I find the weight and balance to be pretty awesome stock so I've hesitated to add weight. I think the sweetspot is more than adequate to play solidly with. I just have to work a lot harder to avoid getting jammed. The real estate loss is all near the throat so balls that get into my body are going to get framed more often if I'm not good with my feet. That's actually why i prefer the 93P for singles since i have a little more time in singles to get my body moved. In doubles it's sometimes harder to get out of the way when you are at the net. I'm much better with my POG 107 in doubles.
 

jbdbackfan

Rookie
Specs out on LB?
I have heard "late September or early October".

I'm looking forward to the LB as well. I had the Graphite LB and shouldn't have sold them. The Phantom LB specs are pretty much identical to the Graphite LB, but it should be just a little stiffer at the tip - which will be nice. Paint job is super stealth as well. Very classy.
 

PT280 Fan

Rookie
Different era. Borg won a bunch of slams with a woodie.

And Roger is one of the few remaining all court attackers on the pro tour which is being increasingly dominated by defenders and counter-punchers.

But I'll believe a pro can be as successful with a mid when a pro plays with a mid and is successful. I certainly can play just as well with my 93p as any of my other frames from 100-107. But as has been pointed out, I'm a crappy tennis player. At the highest levels, it's yet to be proven in the 2020's that you can be successful with a mid. I'd personally love to see it.
I don't know, you may have a point. I know for myself, match situations, I need a 97 or a 98 to do my best work (100 just starts being too much torque for my one handed backhand). Still, I'm always surprised to hear how many guys are actually using smaller headsizes. I believe that Cilic uses a 93, not sure who else. According to Tennis Nerd, Djokovic actually uses a 95 along with Medvedev and possibly Rubilev as well.
 
I don't know, you may have a point. I know for myself, match situations, I need a 97 or a 98 to do my best work (100 just starts being too much torque for my one handed backhand). Still, I'm always surprised to hear how many guys are actually using smaller headsizes. I believe that Cilic uses a 93, not sure who else. According to Tennis Nerd, Djokovic actually uses a 95 along with Medvedev and possibly Rubilev as well.
He's got a point, but there are players who are successful with smallish headsize rackets. I don't know if we're considering 95's to be mids or MPs, but there's plenty of players who are using older Prestiges, Radicals, and Six.One's on tour and are doing quite well. Many of which would likely do just fine with a 93P; the newer 93P's with the ATS system have sweetspots the size of 97/98's according to TWU. Agreed on what you said in match situations; my favorite headsize for those seems to be 97/98. I can work with a 95 (my CX200 Tour works well for me) or a 100, but when 100s get over 330SW, it gets too demanding on my 1HBH. I really like my Phantom 100P's, but can't gel with them on that shot....tbh idk how Gasquet does it with his extended LM Instinct at 380SW. My Diadem Elevate should be strung soon so hopefully that's the end of racket searching for the immediate future.

From the top 20: Djoker uses a 95 PT113B, and Medvedev uses a leaded Dynacore 305 back when they were 95 headsize, but Rublev uses a blacked out Gravity Pro (he's still sponsored by Wilson). RBA has his Six.One, Shapo his SV95, Wawrinka his 95D, and Schwartzman his IG Radical of some type...by the way, can somebody tell me whether the IG radicals were actual 98's or were 95's like the "98" IG and earlier Prestiges?
 

jonestim

Hall of Fame
Specs out on LB?

Head Size: 100 sq. in. / 645 sq. cm.
Length: 28.00 inches / 71.12 cm
Strung Weight: 11.60 oz / 329 g
Balance: 9pts HL
Swing Weight: 335
Beam Width: 18.5mm
Tip/Shaft: 20.5mm / 16.5mm
Composition: Textreme/Twaron/Graphite
Power Level: Low
Stiffness: 59
String Pattern: 16 Mains/18 Crosses
Main Skip: 8T,8H
String Tension: 45-55
 
Last edited:

PT280 Fan

Rookie
He's got a point, but there are players who are successful with smallish headsize rackets. I don't know if we're considering 95's to be mids or MPs, but there's plenty of players who are using older Prestiges, Radicals, and Six.One's on tour and are doing quite well. Many of which would likely do just fine with a 93P; the newer 93P's with the ATS system have sweetspots the size of 97/98's according to TWU. Agreed on what you said in match situations; my favorite headsize for those seems to be 97/98. I can work with a 95 (my CX200 Tour works well for me) or a 100, but when 100s get over 330SW, it gets too demanding on my 1HBH. I really like my Phantom 100P's, but can't gel with them on that shot....tbh idk how Gasquet does it with his extended LM Instinct at 380SW. My Diadem Elevate should be strung soon so hopefully that's the end of racket searching for the immediate future.

From the top 20: Djoker uses a 95 PT113B, and Medvedev uses a leaded Dynacore 305 back when they were 95 headsize, but Rublev uses a blacked out Gravity Pro (he's still sponsored by Wilson). RBA has his Six.One, Shapo his SV95, Wawrinka his 95D, and Schwartzman his IG Radical of some type...by the way, can somebody tell me whether the IG radicals were actual 98's or were 95's like the "98" IG and earlier Prestiges?
Nice research!
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
He's got a point, but there are players who are successful with smallish headsize rackets. I don't know if we're considering 95's to be mids or MPs, but there's plenty of players who are using older Prestiges, Radicals, and Six.One's on tour and are doing quite well. Many of which would likely do just fine with a 93P; the newer 93P's with the ATS system have sweetspots the size of 97/98's according to TWU. Agreed on what you said in match situations; my favorite headsize for those seems to be 97/98. I can work with a 95 (my CX200 Tour works well for me) or a 100, but when 100s get over 330SW, it gets too demanding on my 1HBH. I really like my Phantom 100P's, but can't gel with them on that shot....tbh idk how Gasquet does it with his extended LM Instinct at 380SW. My Diadem Elevate should be strung soon so hopefully that's the end of racket searching for the immediate future.

From the top 20: Djoker uses a 95 PT113B, and Medvedev uses a leaded Dynacore 305 back when they were 95 headsize, but Rublev uses a blacked out Gravity Pro (he's still sponsored by Wilson). RBA has his Six.One, Shapo his SV95, Wawrinka his 95D, and Schwartzman his IG Radical of some type...by the way, can somebody tell me whether the IG radicals were actual 98's or were 95's like the "98" IG and earlier Prestiges?
Yes I imagine when it comes down to it there isn't much difference between a 93 and a 95. One wonders why a few more 93's aren't seen on the tour. Mental hurdle to use something less than a 95?
 
Top