Pro Staff 97 315g Discussion

estigma2001

Hall of Fame
Very similar:
PS 97
Head Size:
97 sq. in. / 625.81 sq. cm.
Length: 27in / 68.58cm
Strung Weight: 11.6oz / 328.85g
Balance: 12.6in / 32cm / 7 pts HL
Swingweight: 314
Stiffness: 66
Beam Width: 21.5mm / 21.5mm / 21.5mm /
Composition: Braided Kevlar & Graphite / Basalt Fibers
Power Level: Low
Stroke Style: Full
Swing Speed: Fast
Blade 98
Head Size:
98 sq. in. / 632.26 sq. cm.
Length: 27in / 68.58cm
Strung Weight: 11.2oz / 317.51g
Balance: 1 pts HL
Swingweight: 331
Stiffness: 66
Beam Width: 21.5mm / 21.5mm / 21.5mm /
Composition: Basalt
Power Level: Medium
Stroke Style: Full
Swing Speed: Fast
 
Last edited:

estigma2001

Hall of Fame
besides the weight how the difference in balance would affect the maneuverability?or the balance made the change in the sw?
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Very similar:
PS 97
Head Size:
97 sq. in. / 625.81 sq. cm.
Length: 27in / 68.58cm
Strung Weight: 11.6oz / 328.85g
Balance: 12.6in / 32cm / 7 pts HL
Swingweight: 314
Stiffness: 66
Beam Width: 21.5mm / 21.5mm / 21.5mm /
Composition: Braided Kevlar & Graphite / Basalt Fibers
Power Level: Low
Stroke Style: Full
Swing Speed: Fast
Blade 98
Head Size:
98 sq. in. / 632.26 sq. cm.
Length: 27in / 68.58cm
Strung Weight: 11.2oz / 317.51g
Balance: 1 pts HL
Swingweight: 331
Stiffness: 66
Beam Width: 21.5mm / 21.5mm / 21.5mm /
Composition: Basalt
Power Level: Medium
Stroke Style: Full
Swing Speed: Fast

How are they similar?
 
M

Mementi

Guest
My 3 rackets are all exactly 332 gr strung (with overgrip and no dampener).
 

realplayer

Semi-Pro
essentially, yes.

Not quite. When I remove my overgrip which makes my racket more head heavy and lighter the racket becomes more maneuverable on groundstrokes. It is quite noticeable.
Obviously it is a different story when the rackets keep having the same static weight and when you volley a lot.
 
Last edited:

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Not quite. When I remove my overgrip which makes my racket more head heavy and lighter the racket becomes more maneuverable on groundstrokes. It is quite noticeable.
Obviously it is a different story when the rackets keep having the same static weight and when you volley a lot.

on fast swings I find HL racquets to be more maneuverable and the balance greatly affects the timing of my swing. More HH racquets lag behind more than HL racquets IME.
 

realplayer

Semi-Pro
on fast swings I find HL racquets to be more maneuverable and the balance greatly affects the timing of my swing. More HH racquets lag behind more than HL racquets IME.

This is a quote of Rod Cross and also what I experience when adding weight in the handle:

"Weight in the handle slows down the forward motion of the handle and the backward motion"

"Extra weight in the handle will make it slightly harder to rotate the racquet because the extra weight is swung around in an arc centered beyond the end of the handle".
 
Last edited:

BodegaBay

Rookie
Video review is up. Nice Job!
It's a good review but I didn't feel it was a glowing one, especially after the intro of "Could this be the racquet we've all been waiting for?"

The consistency of the sweetspot is concerning and I was surprised to hear from Andy that it had more power than the Blade 98 16x19. I remember that Blade had an erratic sweetspot and sprayed the ball too much during my demo.
 

endbegin

Rookie
I like that there is more power in the upper part of the hoop (I added some lead at 12 to the PS 95 when I demoed it recently), but it seemed like the review was lukewarm - comparisons with the Blade 16x19 and Ai 98 are not favorable (in terms of my preferences).
 
I think they made a mistake offering a 97" in a 16x19 pattern. It is probably not going to have the amount of control I would want, but still going to demo it.
 

anubis

Hall of Fame
I think they made a mistake offering a 97" in a 16x19 pattern. It is probably not going to have the amount of control I would want, but still going to demo it.

They're just sticking with tradition. The 6.0 Pro Staff line has almost always been an open 16x19 string pattern.
 
I think they made a mistake offering a 97" in a 16x19 pattern. It is probably not going to have the amount of control I would want, but still going to demo it.

They're just sticking with tradition. The 6.0 Pro Staff line has almost always been an open 16x19 string pattern.

No, they made the mistake when they abandoned the box beam design. So they're not really sticking to tradition.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Am I the only one who found the review to not be as negative as you all are suggesting!??! :shock:

Andy says the racquet has more control than the Blade 98 16x19 (and more power). Carly had a problem with lacking power outside the sweetspot the way I understood it, which always is the case with any player's style racquet. The only one who really gave what I would call negative feedback is Michelle and that was because she was comparing it to the RF97, which suits her more.

Go figure :roll:
 
Am I the only one who found the review to not be as negative as you all are suggesting!??! :shock:

Andy says the racquet has more control than the Blade 98 16x19 (and more power). Carly had a problem with lacking power outside the sweetspot the way I understood it, which always is the case with any player's style racquet. The only one who really gave what I would call negative feedback is Michelle and that was because she was comparing it to the RF97, which suits her more.

Go figure :roll:

One theme was brought up on a consistent basis, across different playtesters: "The sweetspot is inconsistent". :shock:

I don't know man, that's kind of a big negative...
 

Automatix

Legend
One theme was brought up on a consistent basis, across different playtesters: "The sweetspot is inconsistent". :shock:
Take it for what it's worth...

The sweetspot is just pretty big on this frame.
You get good amount of power from most of the stringbed making the sweetspot seem really big. For other racquets similar offcentre shots would just hit the the net, not with this frame. That's how I see it.

That being said demoing is the only way to go with the 97s for various reasons...
One thing is that we have some diehard purists who will discard anything which is not a box beam or kept below 20mm or even 19mm. They don't need to even play it, they hunt for any negative feedback and spread it around.
Another thing is that these racquets are "connected" to Federer and I think I don't have to tell an experienced poster like you how this ends up?

And finally the most important thing, our own opinion is what's really important especially when the reviews and opinions differ as much (partly due to the named reasons). For example I read somewhere that a fellow poster describes the RF97 as stiffer than a PSC6.1. I'm not judging, I'm not commenting, it's his experience but I found the RF/PS97 to be no where near that level of stiffness, heck for me the frame feels slightly softer maintaining that firm kevlar-graphite feel. Well, to each his own...

So I repeat: DEMO.
 

smirker

Hall of Fame
Despite the lukewarm response I predict the score given will be at least 86. They all said the RF97 was too heavy but still gave it 88!:)
 

snoflewis

Legend
One theme was brought up on a consistent basis, across different playtesters: "The sweetspot is inconsistent". :shock:

I don't know man, that's kind of a big negative...

when's the last time a pro staff had an inconsistent sweetspot? that's pretty surprising to me at least. i guess that's one more reason for you to hate the ps97 haha

but on the flipside, i guess some people will say the pro staff models finally have some power :shock:
 

Federerkblade

Hall of Fame
when's the last time a pro staff had an inconsistent sweetspot? that's pretty surprising to me at least. i guess that's one more reason for you to hate the ps97 haha

but on the flipside, i guess some people will say the pro staff models finally have some power :shock:

the pro staff classic in k factor made in my opinion had a weird sweetpsot
 

estigma2001

Hall of Fame
well after reading all the gurus said, i must try it to decide for myself, finally that is all that matters.
May be an awfull racquet for the experts is the best for me!
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
when's the last time a pro staff had an inconsistent sweetspot? that's pretty surprising to me at least. i guess that's one more reason for you to hate the ps97 haha

but on the flipside, i guess some people will say the pro staff models finally have some power :shock:

Yeah I thought it was interesting that they were complaining about the sweet spot. I would've thought the ball reaction across the string bed would've been about the same for the PS97 and PS/RF97, and they didn't mention any such problem with the heavier version.
 

EasternRocks

Hall of Fame
Am I the only one who found the review to not be as negative as you all are suggesting!??! :shock:

Andy says the racquet has more control than the Blade 98 16x19 (and more power). Carly had a problem with lacking power outside the sweetspot the way I understood it, which always is the case with any player's style racquet. The only one who really gave what I would call negative feedback is Michelle and that was because she was comparing it to the RF97, which suits her more.

Go figure :roll:

Thank you for this post. Everything you said I agree with.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
You have to take the TW reviews with a grain of salt. They vary greatly depending on who reviews them. My old Volkl o10 295 got a relatively low review score but I think it is one of the better rackets I have owned especially as a platform for adding lead.
 

ian27

New User
You have to take the TW reviews with a grain of salt. They vary greatly depending on who reviews them.

That being said demoing is the only way to go with the 97s for various reasons...
.
..
...
So I repeat: DEMO.

Yep, yep, yep.....Demo, demo, demo. For various reasons...

A tennis store I bought rackets from before posted this....:lol: Strung specs for a PS97 315g:

10352820_10152656639344373_885866005389705679_n.jpg


:roll:
 

snoflewis

Legend
the pro staff classic in k factor made in my opinion had a weird sweetpsot

i think powerful and inconsistent are different.

PSC and k6.1 95 are definitely powerful but they weren't inconsistent. i guess by tradition, pro staffs are supposed to be like scalpels, something precise.

but at the same time, you dont really see too many rackets w/ awesome power and awesome control, otherwise we'd all be using it.
 

ian27

New User
This is the singpore shop posted those specs and the swingweight is way over r

Yep, that's them. :roll: Quality control issues aside....Sometimes it doesn't hurt to demo more rackets. A little off-spec weight here and balance over there and suddenly you may just have found something you like.
 
Top