Prince Official - Racquets

Prince Official,

What do the letters P and X designate?
OK, time to rip the bandaid off here and spit some truth.....

There's no real magical answer to this question :) . We knew that we wanted to expand the range to include a 97" model and that starting with the 93P as the inspiration made more sense than the previous Phantom Pro 100. Additionally, when we embarked on the design of the new Phantom 100X design we realized that we needed a way to segment the line so that we could clearly identify the "boxy" style from the "round" style cross sections. With the success of the 93P and 100P, it made sense to just continue the "P" modifier to denote the boxy versions and then simply chose "X" as a companion modifier to describe the round versions.

We said we weren't going to pull any punches here....:-D
 

mistapooh

Semi-Pro
OK, time to rip the bandaid off here and spit some truth.....

There's no real magical answer to this question :) . We knew that we wanted to expand the range to include a 97" model and that starting with the 93P as the inspiration made more sense than the previous Phantom Pro 100. Additionally, when we embarked on the design of the new Phantom 100X design we realized that we needed a way to segment the line so that we could clearly identify the "boxy" style from the "round" style cross sections. With the success of the 93P and 100P, it made sense to just continue the "P" modifier to denote the boxy versions and then simply chose "X" as a companion modifier to describe the round versions.

We said we weren't going to pull any punches here....:-D
P for polygonal!
 

n8dawg6

Legend
OK, time to rip the bandaid off here and spit some truth.....

There's no real magical answer to this question :) . We knew that we wanted to expand the range to include a 97" model and that starting with the 93P as the inspiration made more sense than the previous Phantom Pro 100. Additionally, when we embarked on the design of the new Phantom 100X design we realized that we needed a way to segment the line so that we could clearly identify the "boxy" style from the "round" style cross sections. With the success of the 93P and 100P, it made sense to just continue the "P" modifier to denote the boxy versions and then simply chose "X" as a companion modifier to describe the round versions.

We said we weren't going to pull any punches here....:-D
hard to go wrong w “x.” always a good choice when faced w an alphabetical conundrum
 

ron schaap

Hall of Fame
Hey Beach,

The Mono.....where should I start.....

In it’s time it was truly a leap forward in racquet design and was the stepping stone to one of the most important improvements to racquet design....the long body. You have to remember that the mono shaft was incredibly maneuverable and really cut through the the air...but what it wasn’t.....was stable. I’m not sure there’s enough Textreme in the world to fix that one.

I do admit that it would be fun to make a small run of them again, but alas the mold for the racquet is long since passed it’s useable state and is probably not worth reproducing for such a limited audience.

I love the thought though. Are there any other Prince heritage frames that you would like to see again?

Tyler
I ve still the famous Ripstick from my dad. :)
It doesnt feel cumbersome despite its 29 lenght. I ve the feeling that after the famous extended Chang frames that were also sold of the shelves only pros were able to get extended Prince frames like Ferrer and Isner. So there are still extended frames but not for the amateur player, or i am wrong?
 
That's because the overwhelming majority of tennis players are not interested in the stuff that we are...if Prince implement all of our ideas, we would end up with the Tennis equivalent of the Homer Simpson Car and Prince would end up broke.
Completely agree with this....and for the record the goal is not to please everyone...but rather to focus on delivering a clearly identified promise to the player. Our mindset is narrowly focused on solutions....I don't think the way forward is to design and build "generic" frames that try to be everything to everyone.

You can trust that we take all of this great input into account, but ultimately the performance objective defines our decisions not specific feature requests.
 

ron schaap

Hall of Fame
Hey gazz1,

Thanks for the kind words and welcome to the Prince family!

Could you help me understand the 8 mains in the throat? I've seen that a lot on the boards and can't quite wrap my head around it's popularity. Is it simply about pattern density and trajectory control? At the end of the day from an engineering perspective there's a lot of things we can do to the frame that provide way more variation than simply designing an 8 main throat design. I appreciate anything you can share here. After all, what I'm hoping to get out of this whole experience is to better understand what tennis players want and why they want it.
You Prince official are quite sharp. I dont understand these remarks about 8 strings throug the throat myself. I d say leave that to your R & D only. For us it dont matter.
Furthermore Prince is historically known for its larger frames than competitors so hopefully they arent going to make them too flexible because bigger frames need more stiffness in order to be stable otherwise you get the wet noodle feeling.
 
Looking back at the last few days, I feel sorry for @Prince Tennis Official. I don't think they realized what they were getting into when they created the account. Less than a week in and we're already up to 6 pages...
Don't feel bad for us....this is EXACTLY what we signed up for :)

We might not have as much time as we would like to answer EVERYONE...but if everyone is patient we will get to it.
 

ron schaap

Hall of Fame
@Prince Tennis Official
While I am wishing for an update based on the molds you are producing
A possible LongBody O3 100 could be an update of the TX141P-100;TK2E 27.5, I think you would have a winner.
It was a European release Oliver Marach used .
Isnt Marach now playing with them discount brand Decathlon tennis racquets? lol lol Why are you constantly writing in BOLD?
 
@Prince Tennis Official Yo, I think there's a lot of merit to the idea of a system that'll allow easy customization of grip length and size. Imagine you had 27" racquet and you can easily swap out the pallets and make it a 26", 27.5", or 28". I'm thinking a locking mechanism where you can simply slide and lock the hairpin into a desired single-piece pallet, click and voila.
I'll echo a lot of the comments from the rest of the board on this. I think the idea is interesting for those of us who love to tinker...but the hard truth is this....

Once you land on the length that you like...the likelihood of ever changing the length again is virtually zero. Therefore, you're creating complexity in the manufacturing as well as adding cost to the manufacturing process without really "solving" a problem. We went though the same issue with our interchangeable O3 grommet system (Ports vs. Holes) that was introduced originally with the Speedport Tour and Speedport Black. What we found is that once a player picked an option the "customization" stopped. Even when we made all of the different colors, we found that virtually zero customers ever changed the colors more than once. They bought the red ones...then never tried anything else. It ends up being a personalization thing rather than a customization thing.
 

McLovin

Legend
I'll echo a lot of the comments from the rest of the board on this. I think the idea is interesting for those of us who love to tinker...but the hard truth is this....

Once you land on the length that you like...the likelihood of ever changing the length again is virtually zero. Therefore, you're creating complexity in the manufacturing as well as adding cost to the manufacturing process without really "solving" a problem. We went though the same issue with our interchangeable O3 grommet system (Ports vs. Holes) that was introduced originally with the Speedport Tour and Speedport Black. What we found is that once a player picked an option the "customization" stopped. Even when we made all of the different colors, we found that virtually zero customers ever changed the colors more than once. They bought the red ones...then never tried anything else. It ends up being a personalization thing rather than a customization thing.
I agree that once we land on something, the likelihood of us changing is extremely slim. The only advantage I can really see in this is in the aftermarket arena: Selling a used 27.5" Phantom 97P is no longer limited to people who want an extended frame (or who are fine chopping it).

Is there enough need for this 'feature' that the sales of pallets will overtake the R&D costs? I guess that's the $64,000 question...
 

PBODY99

Legend
@ron schaap

Poor eyesight. Sorry if it bothers you.
Yes Oliver is using Decatholon, along with Steve Darcis last I checked. Viktor Troicki switch to a Babolat.
Their current frames has nothing to do with the former frame
 
Last edited:

PistolPete23

Professional
I'll echo a lot of the comments from the rest of the board on this. I think the idea is interesting for those of us who love to tinker...but the hard truth is this....

Once you land on the length that you like...the likelihood of ever changing the length again is virtually zero. Therefore, you're creating complexity in the manufacturing as well as adding cost to the manufacturing process without really "solving" a problem. We went though the same issue with our interchangeable O3 grommet system (Ports vs. Holes) that was introduced originally with the Speedport Tour and Speedport Black. What we found is that once a player picked an option the "customization" stopped. Even when we made all of the different colors, we found that virtually zero customers ever changed the colors more than once. They bought the red ones...then never tried anything else. It ends up being a personalization thing rather than a customization thing.
Your reasoning makes sense, thanks for your response. I guess my perspective has changed ever since becoming a dad and family man. My son is several years too young to wield a junior racquet, but I would love to be able to take one of my backup sticks, slip on a 26" pallet in a size 2 grip, and give it to him instead of having to buy a new racquet that he'll grow out of in several years. I also like the idea that he could use a true players' racquet like the Phantom instead of one of those super-light junior racquets that parents usually ask for. But from a business standpoint, I can see this kind of modularity not working to a manufacturer's advantage, since you end up potentially selling less racquets and more pallets in the long run. And yes, gear heads like us on TTW do reflect the minority of tennis players ...

On the flip side, I think having grip modularity might also help a racquet manufacturer sell more racquets because you wouldn't have to run the risk of having racquets with certain grip sizes underselling or overselling. When you sell the racquet, the customer chooses the preferred grip size, ensuring that people who want to buy a particular model will never be deterred due to unavailability of certain size. I remember being interested in PK Type C Redondo a while ago, but there were only size 4-1/4 left in stock, so I went with another racquet.
 

AJvR

Rookie
I ve still the famous Ripstick from my dad. :)
It doesnt feel cumbersome despite its 29 lenght. I ve the feeling that after the famous extended Chang frames that were also sold of the shelves only pros were able to get extended Prince frames like Ferrer and Isner. So there are still extended frames but not for the amateur player, or i am wrong?
I have had a good experience with Ring & Roll Germany ( https://www.ringroll.de ) for extending my TecnifibreTF40 315, high quality as far as I can judge (it feels very solid). They customize for pro- and recreational players and offer some extended versions from off-the-shelf racquets as well ( www.longbodies.com ). Of course it's more expensive but might be worth it, for me it was, but it's good to know your prefered specs first.
 
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
More really interesting stuff! I wondered if the racquet's "in plane 'twitch' stiffness" is measured strung or unstrung. Because variability in that quality would affect hoop shape in reaction to stringing forces, which would then give a different in plane "twitch" stiffness, I suppose.
 

tata

Hall of Fame
+1 ...the best looking racket on the market right now IMO
Simple, sleek and elegant, and the detailing is subtle. Let the racquet do the talking.

Since the first gen textreme line the cosmetics have really improved. They used to try do too much with the look with colours that stand out or we're distracting. Remember the original exo3 rebel 95 in yellow with the scribble design?
 
Honest question for you all. It seems as though the Phantoms/Tours are well liked and the Premier models have a decent following for that type of player and has historically been an area of strength for Prince, however our "Tweener" frames like the Beast franchise don't seem to be discussed much or have a particularly strong following. Would love to know what you all think of the Beast racquets, why you like or don't like them?
 

GeoffHYL

Professional
I demo tested the Beast 98 and the TT 100P about 18 months ago. My racquet at the time was a Volkl V-Sense 10 Tour, which I still use from time-to-time. Both Prince racquets have similar specs to the Volkl, except the 18x20 string pattern on the TT 100P. The Beast 98 was okay, but didn't do anything better than the Volkl. I didn't get the feedback from the Beast 98 that I like. The TT 100P played better for me, so at that time I would have picked it over the Beast.
 

tennis347

Hall of Fame
Honest question for you all. It seems as though the Phantoms/Tours are well liked and the Premier models have a decent following for that type of player and has historically been an area of strength for Prince, however our "Tweener" frames like the Beast franchise don't seem to be discussed much or have a particularly strong following. Would love to know what you all think of the Beast racquets, why you like or don't like them?
The Beast 98 was a nice racquet but the thick beam was a bit bulky and it was a little too firm for my arm. Otherwise, nice feel, spin and power. I currently use the 100x 305.
 

McLovin

Legend
Honest question for you all. It seems as though the Phantoms/Tours are well liked and the Premier models have a decent following for that type of player and has historically been an area of strength for Prince, however our "Tweener" frames like the Beast franchise don't seem to be discussed much or have a particularly strong following. Would love to know what you all think of the Beast racquets, why you like or don't like them?
On paper, I should have liked the Beast 98: 98 sq in, 16x20, 21-23-25mm beam, 64 RA. Essentially, my Fischer Black Granite Pro No 1s. However, when it came out I was trying to get back to a thinner beamed frame. The Pro No 1s were an anomaly for me. Since the mid 90s, my frame history has been:
  • Yonex RD Power 10 Long
  • Hyper Pro Staff 6.1+
  • Pure Control 'Swirly' +
  • C-10 Pro
  • Fischer M-Comp 95
  • Yonex Tour 97
  • Pro No 1/X Force Pro/Black Granite Pro No 1 (on & off for over 6 years...and they were extended 1/2")
  • X Tour 97 (again, extended 1/2")
  • Yonex VCORE 98 +
If you look at my list, all except the Pro No 1 line were thinner (< 22mm beam) frames, most of them extended. I realize its all in my head, but something about a thinner profile works best for me.

Note that while there aren't any Prince frames on that list, I did demo them at the time when I was changing. I was extremely close to going w/ the Diablo XP, liked the Rebel 98, and was also considering the 'Savage Banana' (aka Tour 98 ESP), but ultimately in each case I went in another direction.

I keep saying that eventually I'll have to convert to a 'tweener' type frame (I'm in my early 50s), but so long as I can play at an acceptable level with them, I'll stick w/ thinner beamed frames.
 

tata

Hall of Fame
Honest question for you all. It seems as though the Phantoms/Tours are well liked and the Premier models have a decent following for that type of player and has historically been an area of strength for Prince, however our "Tweener" frames like the Beast franchise don't seem to be discussed much or have a particularly strong following. Would love to know what you all think of the Beast racquets, why you like or don't like them?
The Phantoms have successfully established themselves as the line for classic feeling, low flex and thin beam player racquets. The tour line has emerged as the modern player racquet with control and power on tap, but not overwhelming. Perhaps those who have demoed a beast and tour side by side ended going with a tour? Not to mention it probably is more competitive in the tweener market and harder to stand out.
 

jmc3367

Rookie
One of my personal favorites too. It's just different to a lot of racquets that are out there.
Do any of the newer frames play close to the TT95 (2105)? I know it's discontinued so I need to find something to replace it with. How else can Prince afford you guys if we don't buy rackets. Suggestions?
 

d wayne

Rookie
I love the Beast 100- I am 61 yo male that needs the extra pop this racquet gives. Still have 2 Warrior 100 Pro racquets that I use also(virtually the same spec). For anyone interested in a racquet in this spec, you won't find a nicer stick- I had previously demo'd the Pure Drive- the Beast performs just as well and has nicer feel. Great mix of power & control. So glad Prince offers the Beast line
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
Honest question for you all. It seems as though the Phantoms/Tours are well liked and the Premier models have a decent following for that type of player and has historically been an area of strength for Prince, however our "Tweener" frames like the Beast franchise don't seem to be discussed much or have a particularly strong following. Would love to know what you all think of the Beast racquets, why you like or don't like them?
I played the Beast 98 as my regular frame for about 6 months. I enjoyed it for doubles. I found it stable on volleys and it had a good balance of power and control. The thicker hoop didn't bother me as much as some other players, and I felt that the throat had enough flex to give me some feel. Compared to most other racquets I had used previously, it felt fairly stiff but not uncomfortable. I would not have wanted to add more power or stiffness, so I never checked out the Beast 100. The main issue I had with the Beast 98 was probably the string pattern. I use a semi-western grip and hit with a fair amount of topspin. I really ate through the main strings fast. At the same time, maybe because of the 20 cross strings, the launch angle seemed low for a spin-friendly racquet. My forehand had a tendency to dip pretty hard over the net. In doubles it was a feature, but in singles when hitting from behind the baseline I would tend to have balls dipping a bit short and hopping up, making them easier to attack. Frames like the Phantom Pro 100 (18x20) or Pro 93P take enough of my spin away that the balls flatten out and land deeper; frames like the regular Phantom 100 have more spin but also enough launch angle that the balls go higher over the net and land deeper. Somehow the Beast 98 setup landed between those two and didn't work as well for my forehand, which is why I moved on.
 

tata

Hall of Fame
Perhaps the beast 98 struggled to define itself as a tweener or modern player racquet. It had a thick beam like a tweener but string pattern of a player oriented frame. It might have been better off being shoved across to the tour line and be the tour 97/98 with the same beam thickness as the tour 100p and 310. With that slimmer beam I rekon I'd dig it.
 
Last edited:

Lukhas

Legend
Honest question for you all. It seems as though the Phantoms/Tours are well liked and the Premier models have a decent following for that type of player and has historically been an area of strength for Prince, however our "Tweener" frames like the Beast franchise don't seem to be discussed much or have a particularly strong following. Would love to know what you all think of the Beast racquets, why you like or don't like them?
I had demoed the Beast O3 98. It had a niche as a more polarized 98in² racquet, which I appreciate as something in-between a tweener and a modern player's racquet with a generously HL balance. Had huge amounts of spin but still remained stable and predictable. That said, if the strings aren't fresh and tight (like on my demo), the response can be pretty vague. I find that the modern player's racquet category is filled to the brim with very similar frames, and the Beast 98 is pretty different. It's a cool option, even if I can imagine that it's not popular. When I demoed both, I did prefer the Beast O3 98 to the (old) TT Tour 95: the 95 felt way more boardy than its RA rating suggested, a bit more jarring on off centre hits, and adding weight to it made it unwieldy quicker than the Beast despite the rather conservative SW.

EDIT: The only other two current racquets that have similar specs to the Beast 98/O3 98 while sharing a similarly HL balance are the Head Radical MP and the Yonex VCore 95. I haven't played with the former, but I tried the latter. The Yonex felt like it's sweetspot was at the bottom of the stringbed; that said I make no secret that I really dislike RPM Blast, especially strung tight... and that's what the Yonex demo came with. :confused:
 
Last edited:

pow

Hall of Fame
Honest question for you all. It seems as though the Phantoms/Tours are well liked and the Premier models have a decent following for that type of player and has historically been an area of strength for Prince, however our "Tweener" frames like the Beast franchise don't seem to be discussed much or have a particularly strong following. Would love to know what you all think of the Beast racquets, why you like or don't like them?
I own a Textreme Tour 310, Beast 98 and Beast O3 98.
They are all great sticks but my preference is for the Tour 310. The main difference for me is the feel. I like the Tour 310's feel, control, and spin. The racquets all play great and I can trust them all in match play but the better feel is where I find myself gravitating to when I pull these racquets out of my bag. I agree with tata poster above that the Beast 98 seems to have mixed qualities that blend a thick oval hoop and beam with control-oriented string pattern and mid range RA which doesn't have a clear player demographic as far as I know. I actually prefer it over the Pure Drive but not the Tour 310. Preferred the 310's feel and spin.

Are thinner beams more difficult or expensive to manufacture? I am curious what the drawbacks are for a thinner beam (such as on the Tour 310)? If it's less stiffness and power I feel that the layup stiffness has been enough to compensate and without negatively affecting the racquet's feel.
 

WCB

New User
I am playing with the Prince Beast 100 03 right now and recently purchased the Beast 100 (couldn't pass up the price on TW). I posted earlier that I was coming from the speedport black. I like (need) my racquets a bit more on the power side / with a bit of pop, so the Beast line is probably my best fit. I like the pop on the serve and the backhand with the Beast, but the 03 is a bit more controlled and comfortable and, in my view, a bit better of an overall feel, so I am a bit back and forth. I do think the 03 is a bit more forgiving on off center. Candidly, I also have been hitting with the Pure Aero and like that frame a good bit as well.
 

gazz1

Semi-Pro
The Beast series sits In a very competitive space. It’s probably not possible to compete with the marketing budgets of Wilson, Babolat, etc, so you need to find someway to differentiate the Beast from the competition in that market segment. You need to meet customer needs better than the competition.

I think that the Wilson Clash series is an innovative product in this segment. It is powerful, light and produces plenty of spin (like every other product in the segment), but it’s innovative because it’s exceptionally comfortable - it brought something new to the table. Unfortunately it also took something away because it plays like crap (it’s like a loose canon). Personally I would have been happier seeing the RA up from 55 to the low 60’s if that allowed a thinner frame and better control. Low 60s is still miles better than anything else in that segment.

How could Prince make a powerful, spin friendly racket that moves the needle on on or more of the following?:
- comfort: your earlier post on RA and flex at different sections of the racket?; advanced dampening...foam filled? (the Angel TC100 70RA is comfortable)
- thinner beam: not sure if the science is against you here, but it would be nice?
- better looking: the new Phantom line looks stunning.
- String patterns: although Prince already seems to have this covered.
- I actually don’t like the name ”Beast”. Not sure why...that’s probably just me.
I‘m just brainstorming really.

I would ask others here for their ideas on what Prince could do to capture market share in this segment? We all want you guys to succeed.
 
Last edited:

flanker2000fr

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
Tim, thank you so much for elaborating. This is amazing information. This helps explain why the perception of stiffness is so different for 2 different racquets with the same RA. This might also be the reason why me (and others) find the Phantom Pro 100P a bit brassy outside the sweet spot, which would typically occur in the upper hoop.

Out of curiosity, do you still have this data for the Classic Graphite 100? I just got mine yesterday, played last night and tonight again, and it is the sweetest hitting frame I have ever played with. I had never played the Original Graphite in any iteration, so this is not just nostalgia talking. I have played a lot of racquets over the past 3 years (Wilson RF97, Yonex DR98, PP93P 18x20, PP100P, PP93P 14x18, Dunlop CX 200 Tour 16x19), but nothing comes close to this in terms of feeling, and I thought that the performance was terrific.

In your current line, the Phantom 100P is the closest in terms of specs, and I haven't played the latest version. But comparing to the previous PP100P, there isn't any area where I think the PCG100 doesn't come on top. And the PP100P is a good frame to start with. Interestingly, despite the RA of 62, I found it the PCG 100 softer that the PP100P and its RA of 59. They must have quite a different a different profile on this measure, like you demonstrated above. Also, the PP100P must be significantly more polarized, to achieve a higher swing weight despite the 5g less static weight.

As you guys keep producing the Classic Graphite Oversized 107, you could do a lot worse than bringing back the PCG100. The only change I'd make is adding a trap on the butt cap to allow for easier customisation.
 
Last edited:

Automatix

Hall of Fame
Prince Official... could you give us some non-Japanese speaking people some insight?

Probably a Japan only release though. The Textreme Graphite was also Japan only. My Prince Graphite phase is over so not an issue for me though. ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DJ-

Sinner

Professional
Wow, just discovered this thread!

Great seeing the official Prince folks in there chatting with the Prince-masses... as well as all the Prince-fans in there.

Another lifetime Prince users here too... since the late 80's. Been using the POS OS for many years until the dreamstick POS 100 was released!

Came in here to post that vid, but looks like someone beat me to it already.
I haven't been this excited with tennis gear in a while... till I saw those 3 words... Prince Phantom Graphite.
I understand that the Japanese market get their own spec, but I'd really be interested to see this stick on a more international level.
 
Prince Official... could you give us some non-Japanese speaking people some insight?

I can't translate everything that is being said here because I am not fluent in Japanese. I can say that this is a racquet that we have been developing for some time (along with another headsize version). As already stated earlier in this discussion, the Japanese market and introduction timings can be different and usually earlier than the global markets. In the case of this particular model it is unlikely to exist globally in this exact execution but it is scheduled for a global release later in the year.
 

BHold81

Semi-Pro
I can't translate everything that is being said here because I am not fluent in Japanese. I can say that this is a racquet that we have been developing for some time (along with another headsize version). As already stated earlier in this discussion, the Japanese market and introduction timings can be different and usually earlier than the global markets. In the case of this particular model it is unlikely to exist globally in this exact execution but it is scheduled for a global release later in the year.
Oh yes, this! This is what I want!
 

Sinner

Professional
Most definitely. Leather grips are standard on all my sticks!

I don't know Japanese either, but from what I can deduce from that video is that there are...
2 headsizes on display... the 107 (drops in March) and the 100 (drops in May).
17.5mm at the throat... CTS'd to 21.5mm.
Flexpoints (Textreme?) at 5 and 7 o'clock.
ATS at 2 and 10 o'clock... Textreme and Twaron?
107 weighs 305g.
 

Addxyz

Professional
Tim, thank you so much for elaborating. This is amazing information. This helps explain why the perception of stiffness is so different for 2 different racquets with the same RA. This might also be the reason why me (and others) find the Phantom Pro 100P a bit brass outside the sweet spot, which would typically occur in the upper hoop.

Out of curiosity, do you still have this data for the Classic Graphite 100? I just got mine yesterday, played last night and tonight again, and it is the sweetest hitting frame I have ever hit with. I hadnever played the Original Graphite in any iteration, so this is not just nostalgia talking. I have played a lot of frames over the past 2 years (Wilson RF97, Yonex DR98, PP93P 18x20, PP100P, PP93P 14x18, Dunlop CX 200 Tour 16x19), but nothing comes close to this in terms of feeling, and I thought that the performance was terrific.

In your current line, the Phantom 100P is the closest in terms of specs, and I haven't played the latest version. But comparing to the previous PP100P, there isn't any area where I think the PCG100 doesn't come on top. And the PP100P is a good frame to start with. Interestingly, despite the RA of 62, I found it the PCG 100 softer that the PP100P and its RA of 59. They must have quite a different a different profile on this measure. Also, the PP100P must be significantly more polarized, to achieve a much higher swing weight despite the 5g less static weight.

As you guys keep producing the Classic Graphite Oversized 107, you could do a lot worse than bringing back the PCG100. The only change I'd make is adding a trap on the butt cap to allow for easier customisation.
Hm... I picked up a few PCG100 from TWE 2 years ago, but did not get a chance to try them out. I also picked up a PP100P and did not get a chance to try it out. This is really piquing my interesting in doing the same comparison.
 

BHold81

Semi-Pro
Hm... I picked up a few PCG100 from TWE 2 years ago, but did not get a chance to try them out. I also picked up a PP100P and did not get a chance to try it out. This is really piquing my interesting in doing the same comparison.
If you’re looking to unload either of them dm me.
 

dode

Rookie
I will say that I am intrigued by some of your new offerings. I like some of the things you have done but I still have a bad tasted in my mouth with Prince from 20 years ago. When I was in college, I got into a bad batch of frames that I broke several in the same spot. These were high end frames (some of the most expensive at the time, Prince Extender Vortex). All of them broke in the same spot with only a couple of months of play, yet even with barely a scratch on them my warranty claims were denied for abuse (twice no less). I do admittedly have a pair of POG OS frames in my bag because they are fun to hit with, but I am safe with those I think. Every time I think about giving something from Prince a try, I go back to that bad experience. I am looking for some replacements for my worn out Yonex Si 98 frames but I just can't get past my previous experience. How can you help me get past this?

John
 
Tim, thank you so much for elaborating. This is amazing information. This helps explain why the perception of stiffness is so different for 2 different racquets with the same RA. This might also be the reason why me (and others) find the Phantom Pro 100P a bit brass outside the sweet spot, which would typically occur in the upper hoop.

Out of curiosity, do you still have this data for the Classic Graphite 100? I just got mine yesterday, played last night and tonight again, and it is the sweetest hitting frame I have ever hit with. I hadnever played the Original Graphite in any iteration, so this is not just nostalgia talking. I have played a lot of frames over the past 2 years (Wilson RF97, Yonex DR98, PP93P 18x20, PP100P, PP93P 14x18, Dunlop CX 200 Tour 16x19), but nothing comes close to this in terms of feeling, and I thought that the performance was terrific.

In your current line, the Phantom 100P is the closest in terms of specs, and I haven't played the latest version. But comparing to the previous PP100P, there isn't any area where I think the PCG100 doesn't come on top. And the PP100P is a good frame to start with. Interestingly, despite the RA of 62, I found it the PCG 100 softer that the PP100P and its RA of 59. They must have quite a different a different profile on this measure. Also, the PP100P must be significantly more polarized, to achieve a much higher swing weight despite the 5g less static weight.

As you guys keep producing the Classic Graphite Oversized 107, you could do a lot worse than bringing back the PCG100. The only change I'd make is adding a trap on the butt cap to allow for easier customisation.
Hi Flanker, I do have the data for all of those older racquets. Interestingly the Classic Graphite 100 is very similar in frame deflection to the new Phantom 100X, it's a closer match than the Phantom 100P.
 

Addxyz

Professional
Most definitely. Leather grips are standard on all my sticks!

I don't know Japanese either, but from what I can deduce from that video is that there are...
2 headsizes on display... the 107 (drops in March) and the 100 (drops in May).
17.5mm at the throat... CTS'd to 21.5mm.
Flexpoints (Textreme?) at 5 and 7 o'clock.
ATS at 2 and 10 o'clock... Textreme and Twaron?
107 weighs 305g.
Yeah, pretty much spot on with the information from the video. It'll definitely be interesting to see how the CTS compares with the straight beam. I played with the POG 107 back when I was young and I snapped up a few of the TW rerelease, but didn't compare them (same as the PCG100 vs PP100P). But I'm pretty sure I'll snag a few of the new 107 and 100 when they come out.

Did you see that white racquet to the right? The one that looked like a Tecnifibre?
 

ProRadTour

Semi-Pro
@Prince Tennis Official
Would there be any chance of releasing the Prince Rebel 95 mold as a solid beam/traditional grommet offering? Owned the frame in the past and always wished there was a version without the ports i.e. like the Phantom Pro 100 without the ports.

I think there is a gap in the market for a softer playing 95, many have described the frame to have similar playing characteristics to the Head Pro 630. There is a massive following for the Head Pro Tour 630 and no frame on the market that addresses that following. If the 93p has been a success, don't see why a re-worked Rebel 95 couldn't be successful.

Seeing how the Prestige line has lost a lot of loyal Head fans, seems like the an opportunity.
 
Top