Prince Phantom 93P

Power Player

Talk Tennis Guru
Damn, this is cool. I have no business using a 93 18x20 with my topspin game and extreme grip, but they are so much fun to hit with.

The POG is one of the greatest feeling frames out there, so if they are doing a hybrid of that plus the Twaron Head feel, it could really blow people away in terms of being an easily available, feel-based racquet.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
This might be my next doubles racket. My Phantom 100 is better suited to my singles game with oodles of topspin and knifing approach slices. But the 93 might give me better touch on volleys and drop shots and more control over serve direction which I find more important in doubles.
 

Kozzy

Semi-Pro
Thanks Kozzy. So March is the month?
That's what I've seen from the TW folks - they said sometime around Indian Wells, I think. I hope it's true! But I will not be buying one for a while probably, since I have too many racquets, and actually like what I have (for now ;). I do plan to demo them and probably pick up a pair next fall.
 

jacob22

Professional
Because i like smaller frames more. And coming from ps85 this will feel like an oversize. Who cares what pros use. Btw Robin Haase use a 89.5 sq.in
Because this obsession with small frames probably kept Sampras and Federer from being even more successful. It's psychological thing. There's no way playing with a smaller frame doesn't increase mishits compared to a slightly larger frame.
 

Kozzy

Semi-Pro
This is an age old debate, but you could argue the psychological thing cuts both ways. If you mis-hit regularly with a 93 inch frame, chances are you'll do the same with a 98 inch frame. That's not to say the extra inches are insignificant, but they may not be as significant as they seem, at least at the recreational level. Personally, I like more options vs. less, so I think it's great that they keep making 93's. And if Head would just re-issue the PC600, they'd keep selling, I'm sure.
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
Because this obsession with small frames probably kept Sampras and Federer from being even more successful. It's psychological thing. There's no way playing with a smaller frame doesn't increase mishits compared to a slightly larger frame.
I agree that small frames are obsolete but mishits aren’t the reason why. If you are off center far enough to have a major impact on the shot on a 93 then you won’t get a clean ball from a 100. The 100 will give you a lot more power and/or spin with less effort on every swing however.
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
Because this obsession with small frames probably kept Sampras and Federer from being even more successful. It's psychological thing. There's no way playing with a smaller frame doesn't increase mishits compared to a slightly larger frame.
90" and smaller racquets dominated professional tennis right up through about 2010.

The day amateur groundstrokes get better than pro groundstrokes were in 2010, I'll move to a midplus. Until then, since I'm not facing Nadal and Sock on a day to day basis, I'll use the sticks that were the dominant force in the world when tennis was played below 5000 RPM. (Since it still is, everywhere but the ATP.)
 

El_Yotamo

Hall of Fame
90" and smaller racquets dominated professional tennis right up through about 2010.
Actually the only player in the top 8 in the 2010 year-end rankings with a mid was Federer. Probably was right up until 1995, even that year the year-end rankings point to a majority of midplus racquets at the top
 
Last edited:

scotus

G.O.A.T.
90" and smaller racquets dominated professional tennis right up through about 2010.

The day amateur groundstrokes get better than pro groundstrokes were in 2010, I'll move to a midplus. Until then, since I'm not facing Nadal and Sock on a day to day basis, I'll use the sticks that were the dominant force in the world when tennis was played below 5000 RPM. (Since it still is, everywhere but the ATP.)
Agreed with your argument, except for the year.

Rather than 2010, I would move that down to about 2000 or maybe even 1990 ... unless by «dominating», you only have Federer in mind.
 
Last edited:

OnyxZ28

Hall of Fame
1999 year end rankings:

  1. Agassi -- 107
  2. Kafelnikov -- 98
  3. Sampras -- 85
  4. Enqvist -- 95
  5. Kuerten -- 95
  6. Kiefer -- 95
  7. Martin -- 95
  8. Lapentti -- 100
  9. Rios -- 95
  10. Krajicek -- 90
  11. Haas -- 95
  12. Henman -- 95
  13. Pioline -- 95
  14. Rusedski -- 95?
  15. Norman -- 95
  16. Rafter -- 97
  17. Kucera -- ???
  18. Costa -- 100
  19. Scud -- 89.5
  20. Spadea -- 107

Then you had Goran further down, but in the top 20 it looks like 6.1 and PT57 land in 1999.

1990 YER:
  1. Edberg - 85
  2. Becker - 92
  3. Lendl - 80
  4. Agassi - 107
  5. Sampras - 85
  6. Gomez - 89.5
  7. Muster - 89.5
  8. Sanchez - 89.5
  9. Ivanisevic - 89.5
  10. GIlbert - 90
  11. Svensson -
  12. Chesnokov
  13. Mcenroe -- 81
  14. Roldan ???
  15. Chang -- 107
  16. Forget
  17. Hlasek ???
  18. Berger -- 107
  19. Aguilera ???
  20. Krickstein -- 90
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
Agreed with your argument, except for the year.

Rather than 2010, I would move that down to about 2000 or maybe even 1990 ... unless by «dominating», you only have Federer in mind.
I dunno. Let's look up "dominating" and see if it says anything about 20 slams.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Why do people keep drooling over 93 sq in racquets when even the pros don't even play with them anymore?
Pros have very different needs from the 3.5-4.5 tennis crowd that dominates the rec world. Ball speeds are slower, spin is far less, control and consistency win many matches. And elbows aren't made of steel as people age.

Rec games look no better than pro tennis played in the early 80's when a lot of pros had sub 85 inch frames.
 

jacob22

Professional
Pros have very different needs from the 3.5-4.5 tennis crowd that dominates the rec world. Ball speeds are slower, spin is far less, control and consistency win many matches. And elbows aren't made of steel as people age.

Rec games look no better than pro tennis played in the early 80's when a lot of pros had sub 85 inch frames.
And hitting accuracy is worse. Why use a smaller frame with smaller sweetspot?
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
And hitting accuracy is worse. Why use a smaller frame with smaller sweetspot?
Because frame shots are probably 50-50 between being a detriment or an outright winner lol.

Why doesn't everyone use a 120 inch frame? Biggest sweetpsots ever! Same reason good golfers don't use oversize game improvement irons. You lose feel, control and accuracy as the sweetspot enlarges. Sometimes twist weight is a more important factor than sweet spot size. A higher twistweight racket will keep a ball on target on off center hits. A big sweet spot with a lower twistweight will hit the ball further on off center hits but with less directional control.

No one is suggesting we go back to 85 inch mids. 93 inches isn't that much smaller than a lot of 97-98 inch frames out there right now. If it provides good amateurs with some additional control and feel, it might suit their game better than the modern 100 inch sticks that benefit the baseline power top spin hitter.

Demo and see is my answer to anyone that states a certain stick is awful without ever trying it. It often is surprising.
 

PaulC

Semi-Pro
Not sure it's fake news or not from an Asian board:

Headsize: 93 sq. inch
Weight unstrung: 330 gram
Balance: 30.5
String pattern: 18*20
Cross section (tip-shaft): 20-17 mm.
Unstrung RA: 64
RDC: 300
 
Last edited:

coolschreiber

Hall of Fame
If you have Easternish grips you can still rock 90s I think. My theory is the amount of racquet face you present to the ball. With 100 sq racquets you have to close the face a little..... go extreme eastern or semi western to hit effectively. So in the end the amount of racquet face meeting the ball is somewhat similar. Anyway, just go out there and hit with whatever's comfortable for you.
 

El_Yotamo

Hall of Fame
Probably this will be a 93sq that feels more like a 95? like the Volkl Power Bridge 10 Mid... i hope so
Anyway, i hope that when this racquet will be ready to production it will came with a lower than 60's stiffness ra, and a string pattern 16x18, it would be just the perfect racquet, but i doubt that will be released close to this specs, anyway, Prince and Yonex are the only brands that stil release quality stuff, other companies are dead in quality, at leats you can get a C10 Pro and Power Bridge from Volkl.. RIP HEAD :D
If you're talking about the racquet itself and not a future version it's already confirmed that it'll be an 18x20 with a 62 strung RA. Sorry to disappoint.
 

LuchoVena

Rookie
didnt Dimitrov return to the 93 last year? and look at his recent success

and I actually frame more with a 95 than the 90. I imagine head drag is the culprit or that I may be more active on my footwork with the smaller one and thus pays off. smaller form factor also helps in guiding the swing better, more precise.

anyways, looking forward to this model. the changes in beam width bother me a bit (reminds of wedged racquets), I think I rather have it backwards or just constant beam, but lets try it out and see
 

IOMLS

New User
didnt Dimitrov return to the 93 last year? and look at his recent success

and I actually frame more with a 95 than the 90. I imagine head drag is the culprit or that I may be more active on my footwork with the smaller one and thus pays off. smaller form factor also helps in guiding the swing better, more precise.

anyways, looking forward to this model. the changes in beam width bother me a bit (reminds of wedged racquets), I think I rather have it backwards or just constant beam, but lets try it out and see
I don't think the change in width is as dramatic as you'd think. The thinner shaft feels great when you hold it and allows for a really nice flex but the transition to thicker beam in the tip of the racquet prevents it from become to flexible and provides a bit more pop. I don't think you'd want it the other way round on this frame.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
If you have Easternish grips you can still rock 90s I think. My theory is the amount of racquet face you present to the ball. With 100 sq racquets you have to close the face a little..... go extreme eastern or semi western to hit effectively. So in the end the amount of racquet face meeting the ball is somewhat similar. Anyway, just go out there and hit with whatever's comfortable for you.
I completely agree. It's all a bit of marketing and hoopla... the fact is if you don't get to the ball in time as a result of decreasing fitness or poor footwork, no head size will be sufficient. People just look for excuses... oh it's the small head size... no, it's not... you just didn't get there in time... It's all about fitness, footwork, and technique on your shots...

If you (read that as one) hit the ball in front, then your racquet face will be flat at contact (or maybe a bit closed). It's the racquet head speed and action before that point that puts work on the ball. I have a Volkl PB10 Mid and even when I use a semi-western or western grip (depending on the height of the ball when struck), I have no problem hitting the ball provided that I am in place for the shot (footwork) and that my technique is correct (early preparation and awareness of racquet head and it's positioning at the point of impact). I produce enough spin to cause the ball to bounce over peoples heads, provided that the previously mentioned criteria have been met, and that that is the type of shot I am looking to produce... The same goes for my other Mids... string pattern makes a bit of difference... but even that is not that important... Look at the Pros... many of them have 18x20 string pattern racquets and they can hit any shot that is required... all they need is the correct preparation and enough time to execute the shot...
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
For me, I think 90 sq inch in a thin beam racket and 100 sq inch in a thick beam racket are all that's required for consistency. I grew up with woodies, so every racket currently available seems more than adequate to hit the ball on the sweetspot. I'm sure a day will come when my vision and speed will fail me and I'll be into the 115 sq inch seniors frames. But not yet.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
I think there's a lot of pros, famous or not, that in fact, they real frames bellow the paint jobs about the racquet models they endorse by contract with the manufacturers, are 95 sq, probably you can find on the tour some players with 93, don't know about that with certain, but definitely you will find losts of 95 sq on the tour.

I think Dimitrov was using a 93 on 2016, and probably a 95 this days..

http://tennisnerd.net/gear/racquets/grigor-dimitrovs-tennis-racquet/3551
Well known on here that Grigor swings a 93 and that many at the top of the game swing Prestiges and Six.Ones - both of which are 95. You're preaching to the choir, not that it's incredibly relevant for rec play anyways.
 

GreenClay

Rookie
Well known on here that Grigor swings a 93 and that many at the top of the game swing Prestiges and Six.Ones - both of which are 95. You're preaching to the choir, not that it's incredibly relevant for rec play anyways.
Why wouldn’t it be relevant to recreational players? Seems like pretty much anyone 5.0 and below struggles with control more so than with power, right?
 

Zodd

Hall of Fame
I don’t even care, GOAT Chris said it’s a better Prestige Classic;buckle your seatbelts and secure your wallets folks, splurging times are ahead.
Those are some pretty big words spoken by Chris there, bettering the feel of a classic prestige is a pretty high ask, but if they even come close that's still way better than 99,2986478357% of all racquets released since the early 2000's. I'll demo this one for sure!
 
Last edited:

Power Player

Talk Tennis Guru
I am curious what the power level will be like. I don't expect a ton, but I am wondering if it will have a little more pop than the old Heads.
 
Top