Prince Shark LongBody MP Racquet

monologuist

Hall of Fame
hornet mp? naw...it weighs and swings quite a bit heavier...much more solid...also less stiff and more dampened because of the Prince Cushion Grip ...and has Sweetspot Expansion grommets...similar to Volkl Catapult or what have you...if you can swing it as fast as the Hornet, you're gonna get more power out of it too...
 

Michelangelo

Professional
Prince Shark has really solid feel (one of the best solid feel I've tried recently). However, the 27" midplus one already gave me too much power. So none of 3 of the Shark family I'll pick.
 

tennissavy

Hall of Fame
Having played extensively with the shark mp and hornet mp, the hornet mp has more power which is noticeable on serves. This might be due to the higher stiffness rating (75 on the babolat scale!!!). Let me say that I liked both racquets a lot and won a lot of matches with each but the serve was so much better with the hornet that I bought a few of them and did not purchase the shark, which I demoed.

For anyone who doesn't yet know, Sharapova does not use the Shark mp. She uses the Hornet mp, though it is painted like the shark. Just do a search on this messageboard for Sharapova's racquets or paintjob threads. If you really want to experience to some degree what it is like to play with her frame, find yourself a hornet mp and add weight to it. It is a nice racquet, especially when you add the weight.
 

krnboijunsung

Semi-Pro
The Hornet OS was way too light for me. Adding weight helps alot.

I didn't like the Shark OS, maybe because I've shyed away from OS racquets, but I still felt it was too huge a racquet. I've always wanted to try the MP version of it, and the longbody.
 

cheecl

New User
monologuist, so u think it plays better than the hornet? so the only thing similar is the 27.5" frame?
 

monologuist

Hall of Fame
depends on how strong a player you are...if you can handle the swingweight, the Shark MP to me is a much better racquet. It is far more comfortable and substantial feeling racquet...I think it will be more friendly to your arm as well. It will give you just as much power if not more than the Hornet , provided that you can swing it as fast. If you get one, I would suggest stringing it at 60-62 lbs. with a control-oriented string : Head RIP Control would be a good option...or maybe even a hybrid with poly mains/gut crosses.
 

tennissavy

Hall of Fame
monologuist said:
depends on how strong a player you are...if you can handle the swingweight, the Shark MP to me is a much better racquet. It is far more comfortable and substantial feeling racquet...I think it will be more friendly to your arm as well. It will give you just as much power if not more than the Hornet , provided that you can swing it as fast. If you get one, I would suggest stringing it at 60-62 lbs. with a control-oriented string : Head RIP Control would be a good option...or maybe even a hybrid with poly mains/gut crosses.
The hornet mp is considerably more powerful than the shark. This is probably due to it's higher stiffness. I've played with both.
 

monologuist

Hall of Fame
the Hornet is most defintely not significantly more powerful than the Shark....just look at the Prince Power ratings...the Shark Longbody MP which is the racquet in question is rated at 950....the Hornet MP is 925...

although the Shark is less stiff, it has a higher swingweight as well as static weight, so if you can swing it as fast as the Hornet, you'll get more power from the Shark....for some, the Hornet may feel more powerful, if they can swing it considerably faster (it swings A LOT lighter and faster) as the racquethead speed will make up for the lower swingweight, in terms of the power. But for players with medium to fast, full strokes, the Shark's gonna hit a heavier and faster ball.

btw, I have owned both the Hornet AND the Shark and compared them with the same string and tension...although mine was the standard Shark, not LB...the standard Shark was already more powerful, so the LB is gonna be even more.
 

tennissavy

Hall of Fame
monologuist said:
the Hornet is most defintely not significantly more powerful than the Shark....just look at the Prince Power ratings...the Shark Longbody MP which is the racquet in question is rated at 950....the Hornet MP is 925...

although the Shark is less stiff, it has a higher swingweight as well as static weight, so if you can swing it as fast as the Hornet, you'll get more power from the Shark....for some, the Hornet may feel more powerful, if they can swing it considerably faster (it swings A LOT lighter and faster) as the racquethead speed will make up for the lower swingweight, in terms of the power. But for players with medium to fast, full strokes, the Shark's gonna hit a heavier and faster ball.

btw, I have owned both the Hornet AND the Shark and compared them with the same string and tension...although mine was the standard Shark, not LB...the standard Shark was already more powerful, so the LB is gonna be even more.
Yeah, ok right, uh huh. I customize all my racquets and let me say that without a doubt, the hornet is more powerful than the shark yet it has all the control that the shark has. This is probably the reason Sharapova has not switched. Why give up the power for the same level control with less power. That wouldn't make any sense for her or anyone else. I gave the shark back to the store and bought several hornets and I know I made the good decision. My serve is a weapon with the my sharp red hornet.
 

monologuist

Hall of Fame
well..there you go...if your Hornets are customized, that doesn't provide a very scientific comparison of power levels with a Shark does it?...to compare, you'd have to have them both stock, with the same string and tension, which I actually have done... if you customized your Hornet it would be more powerful than a Shark LB, since they start off about the same amount of power, but of course, if you added lead to the Hornet it would more powerful than it was stock....but stock it has a power rating of 925, as stated by Prince....hate to repeat myself, but the Shark LB is rated at 950 stock....doesn't take a genius to see how it's impossible that the Hornet is "considerably more powerful" than the Shark then does it?

Point is, even if Prince's power ratings are not 100% accurate( and personally I find that while they are not 100% measurable ratings, they are accurate enough to give you a pretty good idea of the power level), and let's say the Hornet WAS actually more powerful, these are two racquets in very much a similar level of power...they are both tweeners...Prince's control racquets are usually around 600-800 in power level...game improvement racquets are in the 1100+ range. These 2 are in the tweener range : around 800-1000. Therefore, one is MOST CERTAINLY not "considerably more powerful" than the other as you claimed....that is very misleading information...could one be a LITTLE more powerful? maybe...The Shark I think is a LITTLE more powerful....not rocket science here.

This is all, once again, assuming the player can swing the heavier Shark about as fast as the Hornet.
 

monologuist

Hall of Fame
"another tt hornet mp I have performs well with 2.5 ozs. in the handle but needs lead tape on the head or the sweetspot moves quite low in the head creating unwanted vibration and mishits.

yet another tt hornet mp performs absolutely ideally with 2.5 oz. of lead weights in the handle but no lead tape on the head! Sweetspot is large and it is the most maneuverable. Unfortunately, this customization does not work on the other 2 frames I have- bizarre!!!

It is a really good racquet but if you need to improve the sweetspot on it, you will have to do a lot of experimenting. Prince made a good racquet but not at all uniform and I can't figure out what they did differently with these frames..........

So far they all play well but not alike. I am still trying to make them uniform but it hasn't happened. I just kept tinkering until each performed well."


I just read this post you made about the Hornet...if there is so much variation from one Hornet to the next, one would imagine it would be a little difficult to really pinpoint the power level, huh?... let alone compare it to another racquet....not exactly credibility-building.
 

tennissavy

Hall of Fame
monologuist said:
well..there you go...if your Hornets are customized, that doesn't provide a very scientific comparison of power levels with a Shark does it?...to compare, you'd have to have them both stock, with the same string and tension, which I actually have done... if you customized your Hornet it would be more powerful than a Shark LB, since they start off about the same amount of power, but of course, if you added lead to the Hornet it would more powerful than it was stock....but stock it has a power rating of 925, as stated by Prince....hate to repeat myself, but the Shark LB is rated at 950 stock....doesn't take a genius to see how it's impossible that the Hornet is "considerably more powerful" than the Shark then does it?

Point is, even if Prince's power ratings are not 100% accurate( and personally I find that while they are not 100% measurable ratings, they are accurate enough to give you a pretty good idea of the power level), and let's say the Hornet WAS actually more powerful, these are two racquets in very much a similar level of power...they are both tweeners...Prince's control racquets are usually around 600-800 in power level...game improvement racquets are in the 1100+ range. These 2 are in the tweener range : around 800-1000. Therefore, one is MOST CERTAINLY not "considerably more powerful" than the other as you claimed....that is very misleading information...could one be a LITTLE more powerful? maybe...The Shark I think is a LITTLE more powerful....not rocket science here.

This is all, once again, assuming the player can swing the heavier Shark about as fast as the Hornet.
You sound so stupid trying to find holes in my posts. I customized all my racquets and can tell you without a doubt the hornet is more powerful, especially on the serve. I customized A L L my racquets, which includes the shark demo.
You have a problem. Don't attack me because I have found out something with which you don't agree. You like the shark and it's power level more than the hornet. Good for you. Enjoy it. I prefer the power of the hornet. Sharapova won't change from the hornet, she insists on only having prince repaint it. She and I prefer the hornet mp. Good for us.
Goodbye. Have a nice life.

The info I have given about the hornet mp is for the others on the board who wanted feedback on the racquet. Hopefully, it will help them.
 

monologuist

Hall of Fame
wahoah..someone's getting a little defensive! Got a pertty...err...personal connection to those racquets eh? Must be some sort of Sharapova fantatic..hehe... I actually don't like either the Hornet or the Shark, so I have no bias one way or another...I guess they could be OK for one dimensioanl baseline bashing types (like Sharpaova)...and I do think the Shark would be a better choice if only for the fact that it would be healthier for the arm...but in the world of control-oriented tweeners, there are better choices out there than either.

point is...anyone reading this thread will hopefully not be misinformed and mislead by this apparent PRince Hornet/MAria Sharapova fanatic about the relative power levels of the Hornet vs. the Shark....I hate it when uniformed or ignorant posters funnel information that is clearly just WRONG onto these boards...waste of everone's time and potentially a waste of someone's hard-earned cash.

Final word on the subject :pOwer level of PRince Shark MP vs. Hornet MP ? Somewhat similar, although apparently open to debate and personal opinion...THere is defintiely not a "considerable difference" one way or another...the published Prince power levels support this, as do the specs.
 
monologuist said:
wahoah..someone's getting a little defensive! Got a pertty...err...personal connection to those racquets eh? Must be some sort of Sharapova fantatic..hehe... I actually don't like either the Hornet or the Shark, so I have no bias one way or another...I guess they could be OK for one dimensioanl baseline bashing types (like Sharpaova)...and I do think the Shark would be a better choice if only for the fact that it would be healthier for the arm...but in the world of control-oriented tweeners, there are better choices out there than either.

point is...anyone reading this thread will hopefully not be misinformed and mislead by this apparent PRince Hornet/MAria Sharapova fanatic about the relative power levels of the Hornet vs. the Shark....I hate it when uniformed or ignorant posters funnel information that is clearly just WRONG onto these boards...waste of everone's time and potentially a waste of someone's hard-earned cash.

Final word on the subject :pOwer level of PRince Shark MP vs. Hornet MP ? Somewhat similar, although apparently open to debate and personal opinion...THere is defintiely not a "considerable difference" one way or another...the published Prince power levels support this, as do the specs.
Get off the high horse. Tennissavy is correct regarding the power difference. The hornet is more powerful than the shark even in stock form. You should contact prince directly and they will give you the story on their own power ratings. I have called them and they give power ratings based on theories not actual tests. It's a laugh but that is what they told me. Anyway, I am the biggest Sharapova fan and I can tell you I have played with shark midplus and hornet midplus rackets. Tennissavy is right about the power greatness of the hornet. He is also correct in that Sharapova actually uses the hornet and not the shark, in reality.
 
M

milesandmiles

Guest
monologuist said:
wahoah..someone's getting a little defensive! Got a pertty...err...personal connection to those racquets eh? Must be some sort of Sharapova fantatic..hehe... I actually don't like either the Hornet or the Shark, so I have no bias one way or another...I guess they could be OK for one dimensioanl baseline bashing types (like Sharpaova)...and I do think the Shark would be a better choice if only for the fact that it would be healthier for the arm...but in the world of control-oriented tweeners, there are better choices out there than either.

point is...anyone reading this thread will hopefully not be misinformed and mislead by this apparent PRince Hornet/MAria Sharapova fanatic about the relative power levels of the Hornet vs. the Shark....I hate it when uniformed or ignorant posters funnel information that is clearly just WRONG onto these boards...waste of everone's time and potentially a waste of someone's hard-earned cash.

Final word on the subject :pOwer level of PRince Shark MP vs. Hornet MP ? Somewhat similar, although apparently open to debate and personal opinion...THere is defintiely not a "considerable difference" one way or another...the published Prince power levels support this, as do the specs.
Actually, the specs, which you can find on this site, support tennissavy and maria's lover(sorry, couldn't resist). The stiffness, which tennissavy pointed out to you, is a huge difference. That is a Babolat scale measurement and that means accuracy. Shark LB MP-63 Hornet(tungsten) LB MP-75. You can't be mindless and believe what Prince writes down. They want to sell sticks and putting a higher power rating does that. The reality is what the tests say and in this case the Hornet is clearly the more powerful of the two frames. Two frames of the same specifications but such a vast difference in stiffness will have different power quotients.

You are wrong, dude and way too harsh. Stop trollin' because that is just not right.

Did anyone know Nadia Petrova also used the hornet mp? She never had a contract with Prince so she never had it painted. She bought the hornets herself and maybe had 'em weighted or what have you. It must be a top notch stick for the pros to be using it. She has a contract with Babolat now so I wonder if she still does use the hornet but under babolat paint? It has happened with other pros. I think someone reported JC Ferrero doing that.
 

bamboo

Rookie
monologuist said:
wahoah..someone's getting a little defensive! Got a pertty...err...personal connection to those racquets eh? Must be some sort of Sharapova fantatic..hehe... I actually don't like either the Hornet or the Shark, so I have no bias one way or another...I guess they could be OK for one dimensioanl baseline bashing types (like Sharpaova)...and I do think the Shark would be a better choice if only for the fact that it would be healthier for the arm...but in the world of control-oriented tweeners, there are better choices out there than either.

point is...anyone reading this thread will hopefully not be misinformed and mislead by this apparent PRince Hornet/MAria Sharapova fanatic about the relative power levels of the Hornet vs. the Shark....I hate it when uniformed or ignorant posters funnel information that is clearly just WRONG onto these boards...waste of everone's time and potentially a waste of someone's hard-earned cash.

Final word on the subject :pOwer level of PRince Shark MP vs. Hornet MP ? Somewhat similar, although apparently open to debate and personal opinion...THere is defintiely not a "considerable difference" one way or another...the published Prince power levels support this, as do the specs.
I agree with Monolinguist all the way - and there is no way of knowing what Sharapova is currently using - the old he/she would never change game would be played with Coria and Ferrero if their changes wern't so undeniable.
 

monologuist

Hall of Fame
milesandmiles said:
Actually, the specs, which you can find on this site, support tennissavy and maria's lover(sorry, couldn't resist). The stiffness, which tennissavy pointed out to you, is a huge difference. That is a Babolat scale measurement and that means accuracy. Shark LB MP-63 Hornet(tungsten) LB MP-75. You can't be mindless and believe what Prince writes down. They want to sell sticks and putting a higher power rating does that. The reality is what the tests say and in this case the Hornet is clearly the more powerful of the two frames. Two frames of the same specifications but such a vast difference in stiffness will have different power quotients.

You are wrong, dude and way too harsh. Stop trollin' because that is just not right.

Did anyone know Nadia Petrova also used the hornet mp? She never had a contract with Prince so she never had it painted. She bought the hornets herself and maybe had 'em weighted or what have you. It must be a top notch stick for the pros to be using it. She has a contract with Babolat now so I wonder if she still does use the hornet but under babolat paint? It has happened with other pros. I think someone reported JC Ferrero doing that.

first of all, stiffness is not the only factor of detremining power level...you refer to them as "2 frames of the same specs" besides the stiffness...but you are ignoring t2 other key specs : static weight and swingweight...they are much higher on the Shark, whcih is the reason it is around the same power, despite not being as stiff...PROVIDED THAT YOU CAN SWING IT AS FAST AS THE HORNET....that is a common misonception about power levels of racquets...that lighter and stiffer means more power....how much energy you can impart on a tennis ball is dependent also on the mass of the object hitting it. Anyway I'm not gonna waste any more time trying to explain this stuff...anyone who knows anything about tennis racquets or physics understands this. Bottom line is, power ratings or not, these are 2 racquets of a siilar power level designed to be marketed towards a similar target audience of players...." a considerable difference in power" would suggest that they are of completey different classes : like "game improvement" vs. "tweener" vs. "player's racquet"....I have used both extensively and can vouch for this, as I normally play with a racquet that is significantly heavier than either of them, so swinging either of them with long fast strokes is not a problem for me....so to the original poster of this thread, just demo the 2 and decide for yourself....the opinion on power difference is obviously gonna be different from player to player, and depend on their sterngth and swing style....if you have slow to medium strokes and are of low-moderate strength, the Hornet may be a better choice, but if you have nice long and fast strokes and good technique, the Shark will probably be better.
 

tennissavy

Hall of Fame
monologuist said:
first of all, stiffness is not the only factor of detremining power level...you refer to them as "2 frames of the same specs" besides the stiffness...but you are ignoring t2 other key specs : static weight and swingweight...they are much higher on the Shark, whcih is the reason it is around the same power, despite not being as stiff...PROVIDED THAT YOU CAN SWING IT AS FAST AS THE HORNET....that is a common misonception about power levels of racquets...that lighter and stiffer means more power....how much energy you can impart on a tennis ball is dependent also on the mass of the object hitting it. Anyway I'm not gonna waste any more time trying to explain this stuff...anyone who knows anything about tennis racquets or physics understands this. Bottom line is, power ratings or not, these are 2 racquets of a siilar power level designed to be marketed towards a similar target audience of players...." a considerable difference in power" would suggest that they are of completey different classes : like "game improvement" vs. "tweener" vs. "player's racquet"....I have used both extensively and can vouch for this, as I normally play with a racquet that is significantly heavier than either of them, so swinging either of them with long fast strokes is not a problem for me....so to the original poster of this thread, just demo the 2 and decide for yourself....the opinion on power difference is obviously gonna be different from player to player, and depend on their sterngth and swing style....if you have slow to medium strokes and are of low-moderate strength, the Hornet may be a better choice, but if you have nice long and fast strokes and good technique, the Shark will probably be better.
For anyone else on this board:
The shark will have a higher swingweight, uncustomized, because it is about an ounce heavier than the hornet(uncustomized). However that one ounce does not give it a much greater swingweight. There is not such a disparity in that category. If the hornet had a sw of 285 and the shark had a sw of 345 that would be a considerable difference. However, the stiffness difference between the two frames is a vast difference. Even uncustomized, the hornet is more powerful. Add an ounce to it and, oh my, it is like comparing a hornet Infiniti G35x and a shark chevrolet cavalier
I have customized (added various amounts of weight) the shark and the hornet and the hornet is more powerful. BTW, I can swing a 15.4oz frame with no problem. Everyone should demo each racquet and see for themselves. Babolat and I agree that the hornet is more powerful. With the hornet, I hit a faster and heavier ball than the shark. However, the shark is a good racquet. Also, for the public, not mono..., Sharapova has long swings and uses the hornet not the shark. That should tell you all something.
 
B

boytoy

Guest
tennissavy said:
For anyone else on this board:
The shark will have a higher swingweight, uncustomized, because it is about an ounce heavier than the hornet(uncustomized). However that one ounce does not give it a much greater swingweight. There is not such a disparity in that category. If the hornet had a sw of 285 and the shark had a sw of 345 that would be a considerable difference. However, the stiffness difference between the two frames is a vast difference. Even uncustomized, the hornet is more powerful. Add an ounce to it and, oh my, it is like comparing a hornet Infiniti G35x and a shark chevrolet cavalier
I have customized (added various amounts of weight) the shark and the hornet and the hornet is more powerful. BTW, I can swing a 15.4oz frame with no problem. Everyone should demo each racquet and see for themselves. Babolat and I agree that the hornet is more powerful. With the hornet, I hit a faster and heavier ball than the shark. However, the shark is a good racquet. Also, for the public, not mono..., Sharapova has long swings and uses the hornet not the shark. That should tell you all something.
I work at a racquet club and we have a lot of prince racquets including the sharkmp and hornet mp. I hit with both last night after reading the posts here and the hornet serves a whole lot faster than the shark. It's like the shark had no teeth you might say. The racquets were just stock, no added weight but the difference was evident enough. Tennissavy you might not spell your name right but you are savvy about your racquets. Props to you.
 

POGO

Hall of Fame
netman said:
Now to add to the confusion, go to the Prince site www.princetennis.com/product/product_gallery.asp?categoryid=37 and check out the new frames coming in August. Two more Sharks with Double Bridge technology and more power. And something called the Air Vanquish that looks like the son of Hornet with the specs of the Hornet but a 1/2 inch shorter handle and the double taper profile of the Shark.
It also looks like the NXG Graphites are now discontinued. Expect to see those selling at half price.
 

tennissavy

Hall of Fame
boytoy said:
I work at a racquet club and we have a lot of prince racquets including the sharkmp and hornet mp. I hit with both last night after reading the posts here and the hornet serves a whole lot faster than the shark. It's like the shark had no teeth you might say. The racquets were just stock, no added weight but the difference was evident enough. Tennissavy you might not spell your name right but you are savvy about your racquets. Props to you.
Thank you. More of you should take the demo test yourselves.
 

Return_Ace

Hall of Fame
Meg said:
I lovvvved the Longbody MP Shark for everything minus the net.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, and this is coming from a S&V player? That means your game would have been screwed since I remember you saying that you were getting one, lucky you got that Soft Drive eh? :)
 
Top