Prince Official - Racquets

vanworth

Rookie
This new Phantom X line looks interesting, I liked the Phantom Pro but craved a little more power. When will these be released in Europe?
 
A question about recommended stringing tension.

I was looking at both the Prince Phantom 100X 290 and the 305, and see stringing tensions of 45-55 lbs. Is that what the racquet wants, regardless of string material? Like so many people, I'm used to living in a world where your racquet may say 55 lbs, and then for a poly you might do 45 (or lower). Are you now starting with an assumed poly string, and for syn gut we should go up? Or would that harm a racquet? Or, again, should we ratchet those specs downward if using a poly? (35, anyone?)

Do we now live in a world we we need two tension ranges on a racquet, or is the range the range, period? Making 45 the lowest recommended for poly (for best results, based on your research) and 55 the highest for a syn gut or multi?

Your answers have been incredible. You do your company proud!
Hey Trinity110,

Honestly, I kind of loathe the idea of recommended string tension on the racquets the way that we have always done them. That practice was born during a time where the amount of variety in strings was 1/100 of what it is today. So you are correct that it's virtually impossible to create a standard recommendation for the exact points that you are making.

Generally speaking, yes, we are expecting a MAJORITY of Phantom users to be using poly which is why the range is lower. Truthfully, racquets today are designed to withstand tensions that are just not practical in today's terms so it's really not about protecting the frames integrity. So, the long answer to a simple question is it's better to follow a tension strategy that aligns with your string choice more so than your racquet choice. Given the low flex and control oriented nature of the Phantom line, our experience tells us that a poly with a lower tension is a really nice pairing. However if you are a multi or a nylon user you'll likely need to bump it up as going too low might alter the launch angle in such a way that it will require you to change your strokes to keep the ball in play.

Remember this, tennis is a game of consistency not winners. The goal should be to find a set up that allows you to swing the same way all the time. Don't fall in love with a racquet because you love the way it feels on one shot. That one shot might be amazing, but it's unforced errors and not winners that generally lead to who's on the right side of the scoreboard at the end of the day.

Tyler
 

n8dawg6

Legend
Hey Trinity110,

Honestly, I kind of loathe the idea of recommended string tension on the racquets the way that we have always done them. That practice was born during a time where the amount of variety in strings was 1/100 of what it is today. So you are correct that it's virtually impossible to create a standard recommendation for the exact points that you are making.

Generally speaking, yes, we are expecting a MAJORITY of Phantom users to be using poly which is why the range is lower. Truthfully, racquets today are designed to withstand tensions that are just not practical in today's terms so it's really not about protecting the frames integrity. So, the long answer to a simple question is it's better to follow a tension strategy that aligns with your string choice more so than your racquet choice. Given the low flex and control oriented nature of the Phantom line, our experience tells us that a poly with a lower tension is a really nice pairing. However if you are a multi or a nylon user you'll likely need to bump it up as going too low might alter the launch angle in such a way that it will require you to change your strokes to keep the ball in play.

Remember this, tennis is a game of consistency not winners. The goal should be to find a set up that allows you to swing the same way all the time. Don't fall in love with a racquet because you love the way it feels on one shot. That one shot might be amazing, but it's unforced errors and not winners that generally lead to who's on the right side of the scoreboard at the end of the day.

Tyler
if you keep talking like this youre gonna dispel all of the rumors and wives tales that keep this board alive
 

jklos

Professional
I love the phantom pro line. I use the 100p, switched to it last year and havent looked back. Thin, buttery frames all day. But i want to touch on something not too many people are giving enough props to–

I really dig the new visual design of the 2020 phantom line. It’s a great iteration of the look. Forgive me while i talk shop about the visual design:

With the first Phantom Pros, the look was refreshingly minimal but at the same time a little lifeless. They looked great in an old school, black racquet, no-nonsense way. It even included the classic prince logos on both sides of the yoke, albeit bigger and greener. However, while paint looked fine from afar, it lacked in the visual details. Even bland compared to other “blacked-out” racquets on the market, to be frank.

With this 2020 line, the direction still captures that no-nonsense black silhouette, especially from a far. IMO this is important to the Phantom Pro brand. However the details add a lot more character to the phantom this year. The subtle use of clean typography, indigo sheen and accents, and topographic texture give the look a lot more life than the original Phantoms. Limiting the Prince logo to just one per side is a welcome change as well. Hats off to the visual design team. Best looking minimal/subtle visuals of the last 12 months.

Please release a bag [emoji56]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm looking at the 100P as well. Is it fairly easy to handle? I normally use 12 ounce frames with about 325 SW. What do you like about it?
 

rd0707

Rookie
@Prince Tennis Official

You mentioned earlier in the thread you have licences that countries have to sell the product. Do countries have a minimal order size on each item they want to carry? Where I am, they seem to carry only certain Prince items vs the USA.
 
Hey Trinity110,

Honestly, I kind of loathe the idea of recommended string tension on the racquets the way that we have always done them. That practice was born during a time where the amount of variety in strings was 1/100 of what it is today. So you are correct that it's virtually impossible to create a standard recommendation for the exact points that you are making.

Generally speaking, yes, we are expecting a MAJORITY of Phantom users to be using poly which is why the range is lower. Truthfully, racquets today are designed to withstand tensions that are just not practical in today's terms so it's really not about protecting the frames integrity. So, the long answer to a simple question is it's better to follow a tension strategy that aligns with your string choice more so than your racquet choice. Given the low flex and control oriented nature of the Phantom line, our experience tells us that a poly with a lower tension is a really nice pairing. However if you are a multi or a nylon user you'll likely need to bump it up as going too low might alter the launch angle in such a way that it will require you to change your strokes to keep the ball in play.

Remember this, tennis is a game of consistency not winners. The goal should be to find a set up that allows you to swing the same way all the time. Don't fall in love with a racquet because you love the way it feels on one shot. That one shot might be amazing, but it's unforced errors and not winners that generally lead to who's on the right side of the scoreboard at the end of the day.

Tyler
Tyler, thank you. That was so freakin' well answered! I worried the question might seem off the wall, when in fact it was pertinent. I am eventually going to demo, and I will try a few tensions of syn gut and of my fave multi, and see how things feel. (And I love how, in general, your replies avoid the typical "old wives' tales" mentioned here; I'm thinking about comments where you conveyed that poly can be nice for those whose swings are able to take advantage of the snapback - a very important caveat- and instead deal with the real data you guys see in R & D. (I edited this response for clarity, I hope)

Keep it up! (If you have the stamina!)
 
Last edited:
I'm looking at the 100P as well. Is it fairly easy to handle? I normally use 12 ounce frames with about 325 SW. What do you like about it?
I have played a couple of sets of Doubles with the new Phantom 100P, it’s a great racket for forecourt play- slicing and dicing- volleys and overheads. Much like other phantoms it is fairly maneuverable for a 100 inch head size and does cut through the air nicely. In my experience it lacks the mass I need to handle heavy balls from the baseline, it gets pushed around in stock form so I went back to my blades. I don’t think phantoms are meant to be a tour level frames, most active Prince pros play with thicker beams and I am starting to understand why. I am a former Textreme Tour 100P user and I felt that provided greater stability and mass than any of the Phantoms. The Phantom 100P is a fun frame that encourages attacking play but not one I could take into competition. Different strokes for different folks ! Still a lifelong Prince fan!
 
Last edited:

bleno567

Semi-Pro
In my experience it lacks the mass I need to handle heavy balls from the baseline, it gets pushed around in stock form so I went back to my blades.
Did you try leading it up? The blades have a pretty low static weight with a lot of the mass up top. Perhaps some lead up at 12 would help you out?
 

AceyMan

Semi-Pro
Re: LB sticks

I'd be interested in a XL length Phantom 97/100, tho I tend to prefer denser string beds. A 16/20 might be a nice fit here?

fwiw, I'm not sold that for me, I need a *whole* 1/2" extra. A 27.25" frame feels different enough to change performance without having to retrain my swing; just my 2¢. Maybe a LB "tweener" at 695mm or so?

/Acey

[edit] Me: I'm a former 5.0 getting back into the the game. I'm average height (176cm) and have been testing out a change from one to two handed on my weaker side. A little extra length should help both of those aspects and I recently picked up two Youtek era 690mm Speed MP to test that theory.

I started before the graphite era, so I like a stick around 340 (doubles) to 365 (singles) gm static wt., ~9 pts HL, SW 330—340. (The last frame in my bag until recently is an i.Prestige MP/PT57E.) Previously, it was a Prince Pro 90 (black/gold alloy). I had it restrung recently (58/56 Biphase-X 16) and the it cratered in the low holes (first ones after the throat), just sitting in my room <sad_face>. @Prince Tennis Official , LMK if you want it for the archives. And it's got the og head cover, with working zipper <sly_grin>.

[edit.2] clarity
 
Last edited:

tennis347

Hall of Fame
I bought the new Prince Phantom 100X 305 due to the favorable TW review. When I heard that the stability and power were improved that was the selling point for me. I had played with the original Phantom Pro and thought it lacked alot of stability and was a bit too low powered.

I played today with the new Phantom 100x 305 which does have improved stability and a little bit more power from the original. It also plays a firmer and did not feel like a 58 RA. I was hitting with my usual partner as well. Compared to my current racquet of choice the Blade 98 v7 16 x19, the Phantom lacked the feel or pop of the Blade. The control is also not quite as good. The spin potential was fair and not any better than the Blade.

I do think that the Phantom 100x 305 is a bit string sensitive and needs a little more weight to get some additional power. Maybe a couple of grams added at 12 will offer more pop on ground strokes and improve the sweet spot. I did use my goat string Gosen Micro at 53lbs.

I think additional time is needed with frame along with some customization that could help enhance the playability. I will say that new Phantom 100x 305 is an improvement from the original.
 

ProRadTour

Semi-Pro
@tennis347 In what areas would you say the 305X is an improvement over the original? Does it feel a lot firmer than the original? If it doesn't feel like 58RA, what do you think it actually feels like?

With the original, I added around 5-6 grams under the bumper to bring the swing-weight to around 330 strung. Once I did that the frame performed a whole lot better. Before the mod, it would be pushed around a little and didn't really have any pop behind it. The Phantom Pros I had were a very low spec, with a strung swing-weight of 305 with the factory string.

Also the mods at 12 really helped wip the racket through the contact zone and generate spin. It really transformed the frame and I loved it with the mods.
 

tennis347

Hall of Fame
@tennis347 In what areas would you say the 305X is an improvement over the original? Does it feel a lot firmer than the original? If it doesn't feel like 58RA, what do you think it actually feels like?

With the original, I added around 5-6 grams under the bumper to bring the swing-weight to around 330 strung. Once I did that the frame performed a whole lot better. Before the mod, it would be pushed around a little and didn't really have any pop behind it. The Phantom Pros I had were a very low spec, with a strung swing-weight of 305 with the factory string.

Also the mods at 12 really helped wip the racket through the contact zone and generate spin. It really transformed the frame and I loved it with the mods.
[/QUOTE

I would say that the main difference with new Phantom 100x 305 is much improved stability over the original. I would say that the RA feels like something in the low 60's. The upper portion of the hoop feels alot crisper than the original. There's a tad more power over last year's model. I still think that the Phantom 100x 305 is a bit string sensitive. It probably would play well with a poly strung around 45 lbs. I don't use poly due to some arm issues. Maybe a lower tension will help open up the sweet spot and improve the feel. If I were to restring it again, I would drop to 2 lbs to 51.

The swing weight is a tad low to dish out heavy pace but the stability in the upper hoop is much improved due to the increase in stiffness. IMO this frame will benefit with a couple of grams added at 12 only.

I found when I tried to swing hard for lack of easy pop, the control would suffer a bit.

I am going to hit tomorrow with 2 grams at 12 and report back.
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
I'm looking at the 100P as well. Is it fairly easy to handle? I normally use 12 ounce frames with about 325 SW. What do you like about it?
Fast through the air. I weigh it up to 365g static weight around 9pts hl, same with my Rf97a. For point if reference, the 100p just cuts the air much more easily than the rf97a.

It also has plush soft feel at contact which i like. Reliable launch angle too, lower than you’d expect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ccmtennis

Rookie
Hi Prince official. Thank you for joining the boards here and providing valuable input. I have been using the TXT tour 310 for the last 2 years and I'm loving most aspects of it except for 1 or 2 things and I want to compare my experience thus far with the beautiful new Phantom 100 X 305. I am a 4.0 singles at my age and play 4.5 doubles.

The TXT 310 is simply one of the best all round rackets out there when it comes to returns, volleys and groundies to some extent. I string my own rackets and have settled on OGSM 16 g main with a cyclone 17g cross at 52 lbs. The only thing that I struggle with it at times is serve accuracy. I get a lot of pop and have struggled to place it well on a first serve in a tight match. I was looking to see if the Phantom X 305 was going to change it. To my surprise I am absolutely loving this from the back of the court and my serve has never been better. I believe the combination of the weight with such a thin beam and head light balance allows me to snap a serve with easy and top of spin. I was amazed and the accuracy I could hit with it strung in a full bed of cyclone 16g at 52 lbs. I have played 2 sets with it and I struggle with only 2 things to make this a real winner for me. Given the thin beam I am used to serving and volleying and half volleys are rather challenging due to the lack of heft in the upper hoop. Volleying while on top of the net is also a breeze but a mid court volley is going to take some adjustment for me. It does not seem to give to heft, put away power at mid court the that TXT 310 truly excels at. Overall it is very intriguing update and kudos to your team. I am going to add some weight at 10' and 2' to see if I can make those adjustments then it is a keeper for me.
 

tennis347

Hall of Fame
@tennis347 In what areas would you say the 305X is an improvement over the original? Does it feel a lot firmer than the original? If it doesn't feel like 58RA, what do you think it actually feels like?

With the original, I added around 5-6 grams under the bumper to bring the swing-weight to around 330 strung. Once I did that the frame performed a whole lot better. Before the mod, it would be pushed around a little and didn't really have any pop behind it. The Phantom Pros I had were a very low spec, with a strung swing-weight of 305 with the factory string.

Also the mods at 12 really helped wip the racket through the contact zone and generate spin. It really transformed the frame and I loved it with the mods.
I had my 2nd hitting session which the Phantom 100x 305 and to make a long story short it was almost a complete 360 from my initial impression. The 2 grams at 12 really brought this frame alive! Alot more pop, spin, feel and better comfort. The strings dropped tension which also helped. I could really feel the real soft plush of the 100X. The feel is quite muted and there's no jarring on off center hits. Compared to my Blade v7 98 16 x19, the 100X 305 has a more forgiving feel and the power level is pretty close. I definitely had ample power and weight with the added 2 grams at 12, I was able to generate nice heavy ball that penetrated the court nicely. The slice on the backhand was staying low and biting the court. I have not served with 100x 305 but believe that it will be a success in that area due to the 100 sq inch frame and open 16 x 18 pattern. The RA is 58 and would say with second session and the added weight that this frame is very flexible!!
The only slight negative might be with the control but it was hard to tell with the windy conditions. I used Gosen Micro 16 at 53lbs but I think would try a 15 gauge synthetic string for better durability and control with the Gosen 16 on the crosses. I have had some arm issues that are under control now so I don't know if I want to explore with a poly/hybrid set up. Also a great frame for anyone with any sort of arm issue. Overall, the new Phantom 100x 305 is an upgrade in all areas.

For poly users, I would recommend a tension in the high 40's to 50 depending if you add weight to the hoop. For a low 11 ounce frame, the stability is quite good. Definitely an upgrade across the board to the original PP 100 Pro. I have to say that the 100x 305 is a nice offering from Prince for a player that's 3.5 and above. If you are big hitter, weight is needed for more plow and pop. I am 4.0-4.5 player. Very easy to use.

Overall, I can say that the Phantom 100x 305 is an upgrade across the board in all areas over the original PP 100 Pro.
 
Last edited:

ProRadTour

Semi-Pro
Nice, good to hear the frame performed more to your liking with the weight at 12.

Will eventually grab one to compare with the original. With the original I thought it was probably to flexy or to thin of a beam but awesome feeling frame. If the new one feels a bit firmer/stable and has a bit more pop while retaining that awesome plush feel it should be a very popular frame for Prince.
 
Last edited:

stephenclown

Professional
Yep 97P with lead at 12 exact same feeling, frame plays better, feels better and offers an unreal all round playability. Players frame with 320 base swing weight can be a little light. I am surprised that no one in the review bothered putting weight on it while stringing it in the 50s when they have added weight previously...

I put Alu Power in it with a 15% prestretch at 50lbs and it might need a little more weight to handle this tension although I just put back a second over grip on the frame which I think suits my stroke, feels more solid. Really enjoying 44lbs 15%. there might be a sweet spot around 48lbs.



@Prince Tennis Official what would be the likelihood of producing a stiff ported phantom to add some power and rigidity to the ported option? If tour players gravitated toward that option is there any benefit from your testing for a stiff phantom? I felt the ported phantom was the best of the previous generation 100s as well, the solid beam came close but missing the spin.

Was Mitsui using an off the shelf JDM ported phantom? He has moved to blades so looks like he was potentially after control or power.
 

tennis347

Hall of Fame
Nice, good to hear the frame performed more to your liking with the weight at 12.

Will eventually grab one to compare with the original. With the original I thought it was probably to flexy or to thin of a beam but awesome feeling frame. If the new one feels a bit firmer/stable and has a bit more pop while retaining that awesome plush feel it should be a very popular frame for Prince.
If you liked the original Phantom Pro you will like the new version even better. For a lower 11 ounce racquet it may be one of the best options for an all around player's frame that gives the new Blade v7 line a run for the money. Just needs a little more weight at 12 to give the frame more power and plow. I was almost going to buy the new PP 100P but the original one was too jarring on off center hits. The Phantom 100x 305 is really super flexible and plush. I would say it's a tad firmer than the original which definitely helps with the stability and more pop.

It definitely stays in the bag and I will tamper around with some other strings and the tension. IMO the 100X 305 is little more user friendly than the Blade. Don't need to be quite as precise with the strokes probably due to the more open pattern and the 100 sq inch head. Its a good racquet for middle age players who can't handle the weight any longer of a heavier players frame.
 
Last edited:

tennis347

Hall of Fame
Yep 97P with lead at 12 exact same feeling, frame plays better, feels better and offers an unreal all round playability. Players frame with 320 base swing weight can be a little light. I am surprised that no one in the review bothered putting weight on it while stringing it in the 50s when they have added weight previously...

I put Alu Power in it with a 15% prestretch at 50lbs and it might need a little more weight to handle this tension although I just put back a second over grip on the frame which I think suits my stroke, feels more solid. Really enjoying 44lbs 15%. there might be a sweet spot around 48lbs.



@Prince Tennis Official what would be the likelihood of producing a stiff ported phantom to add some power and rigidity to the ported option? If tour players gravitated toward that option is there any benefit from your testing for a stiff phantom? I felt the ported phantom was the best of the previous generation 100s as well, the solid beam came close but missing the spin.

Was Mitsui using an off the shelf JDM ported phantom? He has moved to blades so looks like he was potentially after control or power.
I wanted to play with the 100X 305 in stock form first before any modifications. I agree that the swing weight is too low at 320 in stock form for player 4.0 and above. With the 2 grams at 12 and my Wilson Contour grip, I would now estimate a swing weight of 326-328 which is right in my wheelhouse and enough weight for heavy hitting.
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
FWIW, I enjoy a traditional heavy / head-light frame and I’m not big into racquet modification, but I’ve still put a couple grams of lead at 12 on almost every Phantom I’ve tried. The exception is the 93P, which is already stable and powerful enough. I have not tried any of the new releases yet.
 
Hi Prince Official,

One area that I am happy to see an improvement in is the graphic design of the racquets as exemplified by the new Phantom line which has a really great look. The current line up was really lacking in terms of the typography and use of colors and graphic placements, which is where other brands were doing a much better job. I think this visual refresh should be extended to all of the other lines. Currently the Beast line is the worst looking with that Blade-Runner typeface and the use of Gold on the number at the hoop, but I hear some new ones are coming out and I hope they look better. Prince is a fantastic brand, I am a long-time user and love your products.
 

ccmtennis

Rookie
Great question and I hear this a lot....

Think of our power level as simply a silent salesmen. It's really a measure of relative power and not absolute power (i.e. TW's power rating), and honestly is not intended to be the end all be all of how we judge any particular racquet. From our research, the majority of players who are in the market for a racquet are not necessarily well versed in testing equipment and can't always articulate why they like or don't like a racquet. In fact one of the few things that almost ALL players CAN tell you is whether a racquet has too much power (ball sailing all over the place) or not enough power (ball falling in the net or too short in the court). Therefore the Prince Power Level system was put in place to simply assist people in the demo process.

You tried the Beast 100 (Power Level 1000) and though it was too powerful...go try the 875 (Beast 98). You don't even need to remember the model name or head size. With something like 50-75 new racquets coming out each year from all the brands...navigating a brands range while demoing can be a lot to take in if you don't know every model name. Our approach was to simply try to make it easier.

Now, for folks on this board....it's not really as helpful as there are a lot of nuances that can not easily be explained through a simple set of #'s. For that, there's no substitute for a good old fashioned demo session to make up your own mind.

Tyler

Hi Tyler
Thank you for your efforts here. As I posted a few days ago I'm making the transition from the TXT tour 310 to the 100X 305 but struggled with the volleys esp mid court and groundies higher up in the frame esp a slice. This appears much better after adding lead to 10' and 2' overall 2g. One question that confuses me about the power level is the 100X 305 appears lower that the thinner beam new phantom 100P and with the same string pattern, almost identical weight but higher SW on the 100P. I am waiting "impatiently" to demo this along side the 100X 305 but it seems odd to be relatively higher power for a thinner beam frame....
 

jmc3367

Rookie
I too am glad to see you guys on the board. I have always hoped Prince would be able to give the other mfg a run. I personally started with a Price classic (which I still have) I then went to the Prince Pro. When I came back to the game several years ago I ended up playing several frames and the played the Textreme Tour 95 (2015) I have tried others but I can not seem to find one that works for me the way the TT95 2015 does. It has now been my go to for 4 years. one of the best Prince frames ever. One day I may try one of the newer frames.
 

Ben42

Semi-Pro
Not a racket question, but you didn't post a thread in "Shoes."

What's happening with the T-22 lites? Selection looks likes it's getting limited. Are they being discontinued?
 

Arzivu

Rookie
Dear Prince, another question regarding the stringing of your ported rackets: Do you suggest applying a particular method like the 50/50 pattern or using the boomerang tools you offer?
 

408tennisguy

Semi-Pro
@Prince Tennis Official Welcome to the forum! I am playing with the Phantom Pro 100 (non ported) and recently bought the 100x 305g and experimenting with it right now. Thanks for taking the time to answer all the questions that the forum users are bombarding you with haha. I have been waiting for the right tennis backpack to purchase and the Prince Tour Backpack/Dufflepack looks like it would be it., except...... I really wish there was some kind of thermal lining to protect the racquets. I have never seen any manufacturer make a backpack/dufflebag that covers the entire racquet and has thermal lining. Are there any upcoming new backpacks that prince is releasing? Maybe this is a good suggestion to your R&D team and would definitely differentiate your backpack/dufflebag from all the others in the market.
 
Hi Tyler
Thank you for your efforts here. As I posted a few days ago I'm making the transition from the TXT tour 310 to the 100X 305 but struggled with the volleys esp mid court and groundies higher up in the frame esp a slice. This appears much better after adding lead to 10' and 2' overall 2g. One question that confuses me about the power level is the 100X 305 appears lower that the thinner beam new phantom 100P and with the same string pattern, almost identical weight but higher SW on the 100P. I am waiting "impatiently" to demo this along side the 100X 305 but it seems odd to be relatively higher power for a thinner beam frame....
I think Tyler may have already discussed this earlier in the thread but the power level, as it exists now, is certainly a lot more of a subjective reference than an absolute value for the power of the racquet. It used to be created with a formula but in reality this would give some strange looking results as racquets with higher static weight and swing weight might actually produce higher power ratings than racquets that would normally be selected by players needing more power (that actually couldn't swing the heavier racquet fast enough to generate the power from the extra mass). The huge number of string options also negated the need for such an exact value.

We really use this more as a reference in playtest or demo sets where you can go up or down the power rating scale to find a relatively more or less powerful option, or as in the case of the Phantom 100X rating we keep the same rating as on a previous version of a racquet, particularly when we change names so that a player can find which is most closely related in the new range. So there are certainly some issues with the system as it stands as the new Phantom 100X is definitely more powerful than the previous Phantom Pro 100 but hopefully its still easy enough to navigate in general.

I'm definitely interested to know how you all use the power level scale. Does it influence your decisions on certain racquets? Do you have preconceived ideas about certain racquets based on the power level? Is it just used as a loose reference or do you not take any notice of it at all?
 
I too am glad to see you guys on the board. I have always hoped Prince would be able to give the other mfg a run. I personally started with a Price classic (which I still have) I then went to the Prince Pro. When I came back to the game several years ago I ended up playing several frames and the played the Textreme Tour 95 (2015) I have tried others but I can not seem to find one that works for me the way the TT95 2015 does. It has now been my go to for 4 years. one of the best Prince frames ever. One day I may try one of the newer frames.
One of my personal favorites too. It's just different to a lot of racquets that are out there.
 
@Prince Tennis Official Welcome to the forum! I am playing with the Phantom Pro 100 (non ported) and recently bought the 100x 305g and experimenting with it right now. Thanks for taking the time to answer all the questions that the forum users are bombarding you with haha. I have been waiting for the right tennis backpack to purchase and the Prince Tour Backpack/Dufflepack looks like it would be it., except...... I really wish there was some kind of thermal lining to protect the racquets. I have never seen any manufacturer make a backpack/dufflebag that covers the entire racquet and has thermal lining. Are there any upcoming new backpacks that prince is releasing? Maybe this is a good suggestion to your R&D team and would definitely differentiate your backpack/dufflebag from all the others in the market.
It's an interesting idea but I'm not totally sure of the benefit of the thermal lining on a backpack compartment. While on a racquet bag it makes more sense as racquets tend to be stored permanently in the bag and therefore there is a need to protect against the elements and for string maintenance, I'm not sure this is the normal use case for a backpack. Additionally when you have a racquet in a backpack compartment, that compartment is never completely closed and so the effect of the thermal is really limited.
 
  • From a marketing perspective, is it advantageous to have so many options in a product line? Phantom 93, 97, 100, P, X, O3, 18x20, 305, 290, etc.? Many variations would seem to create confusion - or at least it did when I was working in shops and selling 20+ years ago. But perhaps the game has changed with online sales and the demand for more tailoring from the customer? Or is it more conducive to manufacturing efficiency? Would love to hear your thoughts.
  • Is a 93 head size viable commercially? Obviously there are vocal proponents on the boards here, but I've always been suspicious that sub 95 frames are a bit like blade irons in a golf shop - sexy to look at, but tough for most players to handle in the modern game. Do you actually sell a lot of 93s?
Great to see the Prince name on the comeback trail and really rooting for you to have a lot of success!
In general I would agree about the number of models, usually I'd tend to suggest that fewer options is better and easier to navigate, however with the Phantom line in particular I think that the type if player playing this type of racquet knows more precisely what they are looking for and so it allows us to be able to have more nuance in the line.

The Phantom Pro 93P has certainly been commercially viable. I think it filled a hole for a small group of players but as more people tried it and talked about it, it became less of a niche product and more of an accepted option. We've had a lot of comments that it is surprisingly easy to play.
 
Hi Stephen, sorry if I sounded defensive in the previous comment. I think you might be onto something regarding the beam section, and the combination of a round, very wide head and a box beam affecting flexibility and causing this harshness on off center hits. Maybe this is something that @Prince Tennis Official can comment on?

In any event, I have managed to source a PCG 100 (there's a couple of online retailers that still carry it), and the specs are quite close to the PP100P: 100 sq. in. / box beam / 16x18, only a slight variation in weight (+5g) and balance (+1pt HL, I believe). I will hit with the same set-up I am using for the PP100P (Hyper G 16 @ 48/50) and share my impressions. I think that the pattern is more evenly distributed, though, so it will be interesting to compare.
This is certainly and interesting conversation. RA is often discussed as a measure of stiffness and one racquet is compared to another in terms of its RA but I can design two racquets with the same frame shape, string pattern, weight, balance, swingweight and RA, that can play quite differently. RA is just a measurement of the overall racquet deflection under load, with the less overall deflection at the tip producing a higher RA. However much like we all accept that there can be two racquets of 300g with massively different mass distribution (balance, swingweight, PMOI etc.) we can also have very different stiffness profiles for the same RA. In fact we measure the localized deformation under load at various different stiffness zones along the length of the racquet, for example the Phantom 100P and Phantom 100X 305 have the same RA, however the stiffness profiles are different:

Phantom 100P
ZoneDeflection
I70
II63
III63
IV49
TORSION148

Phantom 100X
ZoneDeflection
I82
II69
III52
IV61
TORSION183

Note here that these numbers are deflection, so the higher the number the more flexible it is in that zone (opposite to RA). Zone I is close to the tip, zone II is middle of hoop, Zone III is lower hoop and top of shaft, zone IV is lower shaft and top of handle. So in this example the Phantom 100X is actually stiffer in the lower hoop and shaft than the Phantom 100P but softer higher in the hoop, however they still have the same overall RA. Then we still have torsional stiffness values and in plane "twitch" stiffness which measure the stiffness of the hoop (imagine squeezing the frame between 3 and 9 or between 12 and 6 as examples, although we measure these in plane stiffness profiles across more zones also). These in plane stiffness also can make a dramatic difference to the response and feel of the frame.

All of this can be controlled through layup design, material choices, fiber angles etc. and we do tailor different racquets to have different stiffness profiles by design based on what we are trying to achieve in terms of racquet performance and feel.

I hope this helps, but I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.

Tim
 

gazz1

Semi-Pro
This is certainly and interesting conversation. RA is often discussed as a measure of stiffness and one racquet is compared to another in terms of its RA but I can design two racquets with the same frame shape, string pattern, weight, balance, swingweight and RA, that can play quite differently. RA is just a measurement of the overall racquet deflection under load, with the less overall deflection at the tip producing a higher RA. However much like we all accept that there can be two racquets of 300g with massively different mass distribution (balance, swingweight, PMOI etc.) we can also have very different stiffness profiles for the same RA. In fact we measure the localized deformation under load at various different stiffness zones along the length of the racquet, for example the Phantom 100P and Phantom 100X 305 have the same RA, however the stiffness profiles are different:

Phantom 100P
ZoneDeflection
I70
II63
III63
IV49
TORSION148

Phantom 100X
ZoneDeflection
I82
II69
III52
IV61
TORSION183

Note here that these numbers are deflection, so the higher the number the more flexible it is in that zone (opposite to RA). Zone I is close to the tip, zone II is middle of hoop, Zone III is lower hoop and top of shaft, zone IV is lower shaft and top of handle. So in this example the Phantom 100X is actually stiffer in the lower hoop and shaft than the Phantom 100P but softer higher in the hoop, however they still have the same overall RA. Then we still have torsional stiffness values and in plane "twitch" stiffness which measure the stiffness of the hoop (imagine squeezing the frame between 3 and 9 or between 12 and 6 as examples, although we measure these in plane stiffness profiles across more zones also). These in plane stiffness also can make a dramatic difference to the response and feel of the frame.

All of this can be controlled through layup design, material choices, fiber angles etc. and we do tailor different racquets to have different stiffness profiles by design based on what we are trying to achieve in terms of racquet performance and feel.

I hope this helps, but I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.

Tim
That certainly helps to explain some of the confusion that I have experienced testing rackets with similar RA (and other specs) that feel significantly different. Anything with babolat written on it comes to mind.
 
Hi Prince Official,

One area that I am happy to see an improvement in is the graphic design of the racquets as exemplified by the new Phantom line which has a really great look. The current line up was really lacking in terms of the typography and use of colors and graphic placements, which is where other brands were doing a much better job. I think this visual refresh should be extended to all of the other lines. Currently the Beast line is the worst looking with that Blade-Runner typeface and the use of Gold on the number at the hoop, but I hear some new ones are coming out and I hope they look better. Prince is a fantastic brand, I am a long-time user and love your products.
I'll let our designer Ramon know, he'll be happy to hear the positive feedback on the new Phantom cosmetics. We are pretty excited about some of the new stuff in the pipeline that he has been working on.
 

ccmtennis

Rookie
I think Tyler may have already discussed this earlier in the thread but the power level, as it exists now, is certainly a lot more of a subjective reference than an absolute value for the power of the racquet. It used to be created with a formula but in reality this would give some strange looking results as racquets with higher static weight and swing weight might actually produce higher power ratings than racquets that would normally be selected by players needing more power (that actually couldn't swing the heavier racquet fast enough to generate the power from the extra mass). The huge number of string options also negated the need for such an exact value.

We really use this more as a reference in playtest or demo sets where you can go up or down the power rating scale to find a relatively more or less powerful option, or as in the case of the Phantom 100X rating we keep the same rating as on a previous version of a racquet, particularly when we change names so that a player can find which is most closely related in the new range. So there are certainly some issues with the system as it stands as the new Phantom 100X is definitely more powerful than the previous Phantom Pro 100 but hopefully its still easy enough to navigate in general.

I'm definitely interested to know how you all use the power level scale. Does it influence your decisions on certain racquets? Do you have preconceived ideas about certain racquets based on the power level? Is it just used as a loose reference or do you not take any notice of it at all?
For me personally it's more about product segmentation in the marketplace. I have found I do well with a certain spec range that is also not too demanding. Specifically, TW has done an excellent job with this. I use their webpage and look for rackets with "medium- full" stroke style only. If you look at a lot of rackets on TW, there is a surprising number of rackets that might be out of traditional mindset of a "demanding spec range" such as a 16x20 string pattern but is still forgiving and these are the sticks with the medium-full stroke style. On the other hand I found rackets with an open string pattern (16x19) that require a full stroke style and I try to stay away from those. I was curious how Prince defines it that's all. Just my 2 cents
 

ProRadTour

Semi-Pro
This is certainly and interesting conversation. RA is often discussed as a measure of stiffness and one racquet is compared to another in terms of its RA but I can design two racquets with the same frame shape, string pattern, weight, balance, swingweight and RA, that can play quite differently. RA is just a measurement of the overall racquet deflection under load, with the less overall deflection at the tip producing a higher RA. However much like we all accept that there can be two racquets of 300g with massively different mass distribution (balance, swingweight, PMOI etc.) we can also have very different stiffness profiles for the same RA. In fact we measure the localized deformation under load at various different stiffness zones along the length of the racquet, for example the Phantom 100P and Phantom 100X 305 have the same RA, however the stiffness profiles are different:

Phantom 100P
ZoneDeflection
I70
II63
III63
IV49
TORSION148

Phantom 100X
ZoneDeflection
I82
II69
III52
IV61
TORSION183

Note here that these numbers are deflection, so the higher the number the more flexible it is in that zone (opposite to RA). Zone I is close to the tip, zone II is middle of hoop, Zone III is lower hoop and top of shaft, zone IV is lower shaft and top of handle. So in this example the Phantom 100X is actually stiffer in the lower hoop and shaft than the Phantom 100P but softer higher in the hoop, however they still have the same overall RA. Then we still have torsional stiffness values and in plane "twitch" stiffness which measure the stiffness of the hoop (imagine squeezing the frame between 3 and 9 or between 12 and 6 as examples, although we measure these in plane stiffness profiles across more zones also). These in plane stiffness also can make a dramatic difference to the response and feel of the frame.

All of this can be controlled through layup design, material choices, fiber angles etc. and we do tailor different racquets to have different stiffness profiles by design based on what we are trying to achieve in terms of racquet performance and feel.

I hope this helps, but I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.

Tim
Wow that's awesome information, could we get the same numbers for the 93p models and the 97p models. This information would be very helpful when selecting a new frame as it provides a much clearer picture of which frame aligns best to a players preferences in how a frame reponds.
 

CosmosMpower

Hall of Fame
Hey Trinity110,

Honestly, I kind of loathe the idea of recommended string tension on the racquets the way that we have always done them. That practice was born during a time where the amount of variety in strings was 1/100 of what it is today. So you are correct that it's virtually impossible to create a standard recommendation for the exact points that you are making.

Generally speaking, yes, we are expecting a MAJORITY of Phantom users to be using poly which is why the range is lower. Truthfully, racquets today are designed to withstand tensions that are just not practical in today's terms so it's really not about protecting the frames integrity. So, the long answer to a simple question is it's better to follow a tension strategy that aligns with your string choice more so than your racquet choice. Given the low flex and control oriented nature of the Phantom line, our experience tells us that a poly with a lower tension is a really nice pairing. However if you are a multi or a nylon user you'll likely need to bump it up as going too low might alter the launch angle in such a way that it will require you to change your strokes to keep the ball in play.

Remember this, tennis is a game of consistency not winners. The goal should be to find a set up that allows you to swing the same way all the time. Don't fall in love with a racquet because you love the way it feels on one shot. That one shot might be amazing, but it's unforced errors and not winners that generally lead to who's on the right side of the scoreboard at the end of the day.

Tyler
Man all this practical advice is just not gonna sell racquets. People always dream of how that one perfect shot feels and forget about the 50 ugly ones they hit before on their way to an 1-6, 1-6 beating ;)
 

tennis347

Hall of Fame
My third outing on har-tru was quite positive. I am starting to get more dialed in with my strokes with the 100x 305. It's a frame that is really easy to use and generate power. The control is decent and playing under controlled conditions indoors helped me get a better feel for the control aspect.It appears to be an upgrade in that respect from the Blade 98 v7 16 x 19. It is a flexible frame and seems to play better with a lower tension. After about 5-6 hours of play on the Gosen Micro 16 the 53lb tension has dropped a bit improving the feel. I probably won't get more than a couple more hours before the string breaks.

I would probably go a 15l synthetic on the mains for better durability. It appears to be a racquet I could switch to after a few more outings.

I can also definitively say that the 100x 305 is a nice upgrade from the original Phantom Pro. Prince has definitely done their homework with the upgrade and it could be a racquet of the year for 2020.
 

Zoolander

Hall of Fame
This is certainly and interesting conversation. RA is often discussed as a measure of stiffness and one racquet is compared to another in terms of its RA but I can design two racquets with the same frame shape, string pattern, weight, balance, swingweight and RA, that can play quite differently. RA is just a measurement of the overall racquet deflection under load, with the less overall deflection at the tip producing a higher RA. However much like we all accept that there can be two racquets of 300g with massively different mass distribution (balance, swingweight, PMOI etc.) we can also have very different stiffness profiles for the same RA. In fact we measure the localized deformation under load at various different stiffness zones along the length of the racquet, for example the Phantom 100P and Phantom 100X 305 have the same RA, however the stiffness profiles are different:

Phantom 100P
ZoneDeflection
I70
II63
III63
IV49
TORSION148

Phantom 100X
ZoneDeflection
I82
II69
III52
IV61
TORSION183

Note here that these numbers are deflection, so the higher the number the more flexible it is in that zone (opposite to RA). Zone I is close to the tip, zone II is middle of hoop, Zone III is lower hoop and top of shaft, zone IV is lower shaft and top of handle. So in this example the Phantom 100X is actually stiffer in the lower hoop and shaft than the Phantom 100P but softer higher in the hoop, however they still have the same overall RA. Then we still have torsional stiffness values and in plane "twitch" stiffness which measure the stiffness of the hoop (imagine squeezing the frame between 3 and 9 or between 12 and 6 as examples, although we measure these in plane stiffness profiles across more zones also). These in plane stiffness also can make a dramatic difference to the response and feel of the frame.

All of this can be controlled through layup design, material choices, fiber angles etc. and we do tailor different racquets to have different stiffness profiles by design based on what we are trying to achieve in terms of racquet performance and feel.

I hope this helps, but I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.

Tim
Damn this is good info! Wish all racquet manufacturers could provide this for their racquets.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
This is certainly and interesting conversation. RA is often discussed as a measure of stiffness and one racquet is compared to another in terms of its RA but I can design two racquets with the same frame shape, string pattern, weight, balance, swingweight and RA, that can play quite differently. RA is just a measurement of the overall racquet deflection under load, with the less overall deflection at the tip producing a higher RA. However much like we all accept that there can be two racquets of 300g with massively different mass distribution (balance, swingweight, PMOI etc.) we can also have very different stiffness profiles for the same RA. In fact we measure the localized deformation under load at various different stiffness zones along the length of the racquet, for example the Phantom 100P and Phantom 100X 305 have the same RA, however the stiffness profiles are different:

Phantom 100P
ZoneDeflection
I70
II63
III63
IV49
TORSION148

Phantom 100X
ZoneDeflection
I82
II69
III52
IV61
TORSION183

Note here that these numbers are deflection, so the higher the number the more flexible it is in that zone (opposite to RA). Zone I is close to the tip, zone II is middle of hoop, Zone III is lower hoop and top of shaft, zone IV is lower shaft and top of handle. So in this example the Phantom 100X is actually stiffer in the lower hoop and shaft than the Phantom 100P but softer higher in the hoop, however they still have the same overall RA. Then we still have torsional stiffness values and in plane "twitch" stiffness which measure the stiffness of the hoop (imagine squeezing the frame between 3 and 9 or between 12 and 6 as examples, although we measure these in plane stiffness profiles across more zones also). These in plane stiffness also can make a dramatic difference to the response and feel of the frame.

All of this can be controlled through layup design, material choices, fiber angles etc. and we do tailor different racquets to have different stiffness profiles by design based on what we are trying to achieve in terms of racquet performance and feel.

I hope this helps, but I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.

Tim
Very interesting... I'm learning stuff every day. Thanks
 
This is certainly and interesting conversation. RA is often discussed as a measure of stiffness and one racquet is compared to another in terms of its RA but I can design two racquets with the same frame shape, string pattern, weight, balance, swingweight and RA, that can play quite differently. RA is just a measurement of the overall racquet deflection under load, with the less overall deflection at the tip producing a higher RA. However much like we all accept that there can be two racquets of 300g with massively different mass distribution (balance, swingweight, PMOI etc.) we can also have very different stiffness profiles for the same RA. In fact we measure the localized deformation under load at various different stiffness zones along the length of the racquet, for example the Phantom 100P and Phantom 100X 305 have the same RA, however the stiffness profiles are different:

Phantom 100P
ZoneDeflection
I70
II63
III63
IV49
TORSION148

Phantom 100X
ZoneDeflection
I82
II69
III52
IV61
TORSION183

Note here that these numbers are deflection, so the higher the number the more flexible it is in that zone (opposite to RA). Zone I is close to the tip, zone II is middle of hoop, Zone III is lower hoop and top of shaft, zone IV is lower shaft and top of handle. So in this example the Phantom 100X is actually stiffer in the lower hoop and shaft than the Phantom 100P but softer higher in the hoop, however they still have the same overall RA. Then we still have torsional stiffness values and in plane "twitch" stiffness which measure the stiffness of the hoop (imagine squeezing the frame between 3 and 9 or between 12 and 6 as examples, although we measure these in plane stiffness profiles across more zones also). These in plane stiffness also can make a dramatic difference to the response and feel of the frame.

All of this can be controlled through layup design, material choices, fiber angles etc. and we do tailor different racquets to have different stiffness profiles by design based on what we are trying to achieve in terms of racquet performance and feel.

I hope this helps, but I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.

Tim
I was shamed 10 years ago on TTW for basically making this assertion about RA. [emoji56]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:

tata

Hall of Fame
Question on the open pattern 93p: the product description and TW review references it as the modern successor to the pog mid and diablo mid. Does the open pattern 93p play closer to the diablo mid or the dense pattern? I would assume by string pattern difference the denser one would play closer. Extra 2 mains vs less 2 mains and 2 crosses.
 
Yep 97P with lead at 12 exact same feeling, frame plays better, feels better and offers an unreal all round playability. Players frame with 320 base swing weight can be a little light. I am surprised that no one in the review bothered putting weight on it while stringing it in the 50s when they have added weight previously...

I put Alu Power in it with a 15% prestretch at 50lbs and it might need a little more weight to handle this tension although I just put back a second over grip on the frame which I think suits my stroke, feels more solid. Really enjoying 44lbs 15%. there might be a sweet spot around 48lbs.



@Prince Tennis Official what would be the likelihood of producing a stiff ported phantom to add some power and rigidity to the ported option? If tour players gravitated toward that option is there any benefit from your testing for a stiff phantom? I felt the ported phantom was the best of the previous generation 100s as well, the solid beam came close but missing the spin.

Was Mitsui using an off the shelf JDM ported phantom? He has moved to blades so looks like he was potentially after control or power.
It's not on our immediate radar to produce another ported Phantom frame, but we appreciate the input here. I'm not entirely sure what Mitsui was using, but chances are that he was playing a stock O3 Phantom frame since we don't really do pro-stock lay-ups or molds for that racquet.
 
@Prince Tennis Official

You mentioned earlier in the thread you have licences that countries have to sell the product. Do countries have a minimal order size on each item they want to carry? Where I am, they seem to carry only certain Prince items vs the USA.
The simple answer is yes, anytime you are purchasing item's directly from the supplier there are always minimum order requirements. However, we have systems in place where they can combine orders with other territories to meet those minimums. Ultimately, it's the local licensee decision on which of the in-line models to stock for their market, so if there's something that you don't see you need to make sure that your local retailer knows that you're looking for it! Also happy to share this feedback directly if you want to drop us a private message and let us know where you are from.
 
Top