Pure Aero 98 Club

myke232

Semi-Pro
Mine is 324 sw with the same static weight (unstrung) and balance (strung) as you. The unstrung balance is 9 HL. This is a very polarized stick which explains why it packs such a punch while remaining relatively light and maneuverable.
Actaully I don't have one yet! Just looking at the specs on TW. I think they used to have the SW listed at 330 but now it's 327. It's just weird to me because others raquets with 300-305 static weight and 5-6 pts HL and usually 317- 323 SW, so I don't get the higher SW of the PA98.

I did demo one briefly and I did notice the high SW.
 

JOSHL

Hall of Fame
Actaully I don't have one yet! Just looking at the specs on TW. I think they used to have the SW listed at 330 but now it's 327. It's just weird to me because others raquets with 300-305 static weight and 5-6 pts HL and usually 317- 323 SW, so I don't get the higher SW of the PA98.

I did demo one briefly and I did notice the high SW.
I dug through the entire TW playtest thread for this frame and all the specs that people posted in there were SW above 325, I think 325 was the lowest if I recall, so probably 295 unstrung.
 

Alcawrath

Semi-Pro
The specs on this are confusing to me, it's 305 gr static weight and 6 pts HL, but the swingweight is 327? That swing weight seems quite high to me based on the 305 and 6 pts HL...
Yeah I know it doesn't seem to make sense but that is how it feels. It feels both whippy and headlight but also with a 320-330 swing weight.

Maybe a specs-pert can weigh in and explain how those things can both be true.
 

Trip

Hall of Fame
The higher swing weight in the PA98 (versus the preceding PAVS) was done by polarizing the mass distribution, ie. redistributing weight towards the top and bottom of the racquet. What this has done is essentially turned the frame into more of a natural "see-saw", making it easier to produce a looping, spinny ball, but also making it harder to play in general, for by increasing the swing weight while keeping the balance point and static weight constant, Babolat have lowered the MGR/i from 20.7 to 20.4 (and .3 difference is not trivial), requiring more focused physical effort and timing to take ground strokes with the same level of acuity as the PAVS. Per this educational primer on MGR/i by Impacting Tennis, here are the playability differences between a higher and lower MGR/i:

The weight, swing weight and balance all play a certain role, but when it comes to swing path, stroke mechanics and timing the ball, MGR/I is the most determinental.

High MGR/I

  1. Stroke mechanics feel like you are pushing the racket through the contact point instead of pulling it,
  2. Racket offers better depth control and feel for the ball,
  3. It is easier to hit the ball early and in front of the body.
  4. The balls penetrate the court more and don’t have a loopy trajectory, and if the mass is sufficient, the shots still have a lot of spin,
  5. Players with more »open« forehand grip (like eastern or even continental), can benefit more from a high MGR/I on the forehand side,
  6. It’s easier to time the ball well, especially in high-pressure situations and when you tighten up.
Low MGR/I
  1. Stroke mechanics feel like you are pulling the racket through the contact point instead of pushing it,
  2. Racket offers better feel for curving around the ball instead of hitting through it (think Zverev forehand),
  3. It is harder to hit the ball early and in front of the body.
  4. It’s easier to play »safe tennis« with just looping and spinning the ball, but harder to control direction and depth,
  5. In contrast to high MGR/I – harder to time the ball in high pressure situations and when you tighten up.
The overall ceiling of the racket might be higher with a lower MGR/I, but that doesn’t really help you to win matches if you can’t execute.

That last underlined part is important -- while the lowered MGR/i of the PA98 may create the ideal spec for a default-ultra-aggressive player like Alcaraz, it may not (likely won't) be the best for most rec players. IMHO, the PA98 probably has a skill-level floor of about a 4.5, or at least a 4.0-ish player with a healthy amount of brute strength, in order to really get the most from it by default.
 

tim-ay

Hall of Fame
I’m considering jumping ship from the Whiteout 18x20.

Aero 98 gives so much extra forgiveness against players who are better than me and I don’t lose anything against players who are at my level or below. It’s just less of a treat to use due to some mild clunkiness and less connected feel. But the off centre stability is just so good it really helps me stay in the point for a few extra shots.
Wout 18/20 needs some weight at 3 and 9 to get the TW up in the high 13’s. I haven’t measured a PA98 but i’d guess it is already there if not hovering around 14
 

Trip

Hall of Fame
Wout 18/20 needs some weight at 3 and 9 to get the TW up in the high 13’s. I haven’t measured a PA98 but i’d guess it is already there if not hovering around 14
I presume you're talking unstrung twist weight (which tends to be .75-1.5 pts lower than strung), as the strung twist weights appear to be higher than that:

WO18x20-PA98-TW.png

Or are you in the camp that thinks TWU's twist weights are suspect, and/or at least routinely coming out too high?

Genuinely curious, as it's tough to tell what's "accurate" across all the different ways to measure.
 

tim-ay

Hall of Fame
I presume you're talking unstrung twist weight (which tends to be .75-1.5 pts lower than strung), as the strung twist weights appear to be higher than that:

WO18x20-PA98-TW.png

Or are you in the camp that thinks TWU's twist weights are suspect, and/or at least routinely coming out too high?

Genuinely curious, as it's tough to tell what's "accurate" across all the different ways to measure.
their numbers are BS. i’ve measured myself with the briffidi TW adapter. there is a massive difference between mid 13,s and mid 14’s. like 10 g at 3/9
 

tim-ay

Hall of Fame
their numbers are BS. i’ve measured myself with the briffidi TW adapter. there is a massive difference between mid 13,s and mid 14’s. like 10 g at 3/9
note - they are showing a relative difference that I would expect however. it’s just that their raw numbers are crazy. maybe they use an adapter and they forgot to subtract the adapter impact. maybe they use SW and horizontal SW and subtract. but their raw numbers are nonsensical.
 

tim-ay

Hall of Fame
I presume you're talking unstrung twist weight (which tends to be .75-1.5 pts lower than strung), as the strung twist weights appear to be higher than that:

WO18x20-PA98-TW.png

Or are you in the camp that thinks TWU's twist weights are suspect, and/or at least routinely coming out too high?

Genuinely curious, as it's tough to tell what's "accurate" across all the different ways to measure.
something else I just noticed in that data. TWU says the same static, higher TW and SW for the PA, lower balance? er…. yeah.
 

myke232

Semi-Pro
The higher swing weight in the PA98 (versus the preceding PAVS) was done by polarizing the mass distribution, ie. redistributing weight towards the top and bottom of the racquet.
How is it 6 pts HL though with the weight moved to top (hoop)?
 

Underdog

Professional
The higher swing weight in the PA98 (versus the preceding PAVS) was done by polarizing the mass distribution, ie. redistributing weight towards the top and bottom of the racquet. What this has done is essentially turned the frame into more of a natural "see-saw", making it easier to produce a looping, spinny ball, but also making it harder to play in general, for by increasing the swing weight while keeping the balance point and static weight constant, Babolat have lowered the MGR/i from 20.7 to 20.4 (and .3 difference is not trivial), requiring more focused physical effort and timing to take ground strokes with the same level of acuity as the PAVS. Per this educational primer on MGR/i by Impacting Tennis, here are the playability differences between a higher and lower MGR/i:

The weight, swing weight and balance all play a certain role, but when it comes to swing path, stroke mechanics and timing the ball, MGR/I is the most determinental.

High MGR/I

  1. Stroke mechanics feel like you are pushing the racket through the contact point instead of pulling it,
  2. Racket offers better depth control and feel for the ball,
  3. It is easier to hit the ball early and in front of the body.
  4. The balls penetrate the court more and don’t have a loopy trajectory, and if the mass is sufficient, the shots still have a lot of spin,
  5. Players with more »open« forehand grip (like eastern or even continental), can benefit more from a high MGR/I on the forehand side,
  6. It’s easier to time the ball well, especially in high-pressure situations and when you tighten up.
Low MGR/I
  1. Stroke mechanics feel like you are pulling the racket through the contact point instead of pushing it,
  2. Racket offers better feel for curving around the ball instead of hitting through it (think Zverev forehand),
  3. It is harder to hit the ball early and in front of the body.
  4. It’s easier to play »safe tennis« with just looping and spinning the ball, but harder to control direction and depth,
  5. In contrast to high MGR/I – harder to time the ball in high pressure situations and when you tighten up.
The overall ceiling of the racket might be higher with a lower MGR/I, but that doesn’t really help you to win matches if you can’t execute.

That last underlined part is important -- while the lowered MGR/i of the PA98 may create the ideal spec for a default-ultra-aggressive player like Alcaraz, it may not (likely won't) be the best for most rec players. IMHO, the PA98 probably has a skill-level floor of about a 4.5, or at least a 4.0-ish player with a healthy amount of brute strength, in order to really get the most from it by default.
Very, very interesting info. Didn’t know much about MGR/i. I reckon it’d play a very interesting role for, say, customizing a Gravity MP.
What are other 98sq frames similar to the Aero (spinny, good counter-punching possibilities, but good to play all-court, offensive and try to dictate play) that may have lower MGR/i?
 

Trip

Hall of Fame
Very, very interesting info. Didn’t know much about MGR/i. I reckon it’d play a very interesting role for, say, customizing a Gravity MP.
What are other 98sq frames similar to the Aero (spinny, good counter-punching possibilities, but good to play all-court, offensive and try to dictate play) that may have lower MGR/i?
Yes, MGR/i is very interesting, but if you're really going to go down that rabbit hole and make use of it, you need to have enough first-hand experience with what manipulating the numbers means for how the racquet actually plays on court. Just having a low MGR/i is very far from the total picture of how playable a racquet is, for you and your level, and/or that of anyone else. I'll prove it by first simply answering your question. Here are all the current mainstream 98's with a stock MGR/i of <= 20.5, rounded at 2 decimal places:

Babolat Pure Aero 98 (323g/32.5cm/327sw) - 20.40 MGR/i
Dunlop SX 300 Tour (323g/32.5cm/325sw)- 20.52
Head Auxetic Radical MP (318g/33cm/323sw) - 20.53
Prince ATS Tour 98 (323g/32.5cm/325sw) - 20.47
ProKennex Ki Q+ Tour (318g/32.5cm/328sw) - 20.15
Tecnifibre ISO 305 (323g/33.3cm/338sw) - 20.13
Yonex EZone Game (283g/34cm/299sw) - 20.37

Let's take two racquets whose MGR/i values are very low and very close -- the ProKennex Ki Q+ Tour and the Tecnifibre ISO 305. Without knowing one iota about MGR/i, anyone who simply looks at the stock swing weight of both would know that the PK would be eminently more playable in stock form for a vast amount more players than the ISO. And that's just taking one single spec into account. Looking at just static weight, consider this as well: as long as you start with a light enough stock static weight, you can pretty much tune almost any racquet to almost any MGR/i (provided, of course, you know how much weight to put in which location(s)), which means something like the EZone Game would be the most tunable of any in the entire list above. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that a 260g racquet with a tight central string bed and an overall "clubby" behavior is the right base platform for a given player, either. So you need to think about many more aspects than just the stock MGR/i of a frame, when it comes to how much of a match it would or wouldn't be for your game.

Or, you could approach it like most players, and don't think about any of the above stuff at all, but rather just find a frame that agrees with you and your game as much as possible in stock form, then simply work on tuning it for more performance from there. That's how I would encourage the average person approach it, anyways.

Hope some of that helps.
 
Last edited:

y0035215

Rookie
I am very happy with my PA98 (bought the 2-/twin-pack). SW is around 325 depending on string.
Played almost the hole time with Tour Hex, but switched now to Wasabi, which has livier feel.
I am more of a slim build guy. I don´t like heavier racquets. They always feel like I have to carry and swing a lot at some point. With the specs of the PA98 I can leave is stock and still have a enought SW. With many other racquets I had to add a good amount of weight too reach such a SW and keep the same balance point. So the specs and the polarization suits me, even though I'm certainly not a 5.0er.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
I’m considering switching from the Pure Strike 16x19 for a bit of extra spin. Currently using the Strike with lead tape at 12 at 340 SW, and strung with Confidential 17G @ 54 lbs.

Any thoughts? I may use it stock initially because I’ve found my serve suffers from higher SWs because of wrist issues unrelated to the Strike but will slowly add tape back on as needed.

Heavy spin on the forehand, flatter driving backhand but can add spin whenever I want. Very aggressive on the return although typically flat off both wings. On serves I want a bit more spin, and easier spin on the forehand. I already have plenty of spin on the forehand but feel like I need to consciously add it at times.
 

Alcawrath

Semi-Pro
I’m considering switching from the Pure Strike 16x19 for a bit of extra spin. Currently using the Strike with lead tape at 12 at 340 SW, and strung with Confidential 17G @ 54 lbs.

Any thoughts?
I switched from the v7 blade for similar reasons. I wanted more power and more spin. So far it's been exactly what I wanted and any issues I've had are technique problems on my end.

It has been an absolute spin monster for me and it is the best serving racquet I've ever owned. You may have more difficulty flattening out your shots than you did with the strike, so I would definitely demo first to make sure you like the feel.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
I switched from the v7 blade for similar reasons. I wanted more power and more spin. So far it's been exactly what I wanted and any issues I've had are technique problems on my end.

It has been an absolute spin monster for me and it is the best serving racquet I've ever owned. You may have more difficulty flattening out your shots than you did with the strike, so I would definitely demo first to make sure you like the feel.
Thanks!

Unfortunately demos aren’t possible where I’m from so it’s a gamble I’ll have to take.
 

iceman_dl6

Professional
I have been playing with the PA98 since its release. Though it is comfortable enough, I am always wishing for more though. I am currently using one with Confidential 16 and the other with Tourbite Soft 17 at 45 lbs for both. Any string suggestions for maximum bite and comfort at the same time?
 
I have been playing with the PA98 since its release. Though it is comfortable enough, I am always wishing for more though. I am currently using one with Confidential 16 and the other with Tourbite Soft 17 at 45 lbs for both. Any string suggestions for maximum bite and comfort at the same time?
Toroline Wasabi is comfortable but with good bite and spin. Loving it in this racquet, also really like Toroline Caviar or one of their poly/poly hybrid offerings.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
My PA98 specs (strung): 366g (silicone in the handle and added weight in the head), very HL (haven't measured exactly, but at least 9 pts HL - if not 12 pts HL), and increased SW (as I added weight in the head as well as the handle.

I'm still dialling in the strings, tension, gauge, and assessing how I play with it... but liking it so far... and I can definitely see the upside potential.

Love the look of it.
 

Underdog

Professional
Hi, guys.
So, I’ve ditched the leather grip for a syn grip (Gamma Ultra Cushion). Right now, strung and carrying an overgrip and a dampener, my racquet weights 327g and when hanging, the handle falls about 45°. I don’t have the means to measure SW and I don’t have the racquet with me right now to measure the BP (sorry, I’m in a long trip to apply for internship).
So, that said, and considering the polarized profile of the Aero 98 as stated before by gurus like @Trip and @dr. godmode , I was wondering if I could add some lead at 3 and 9, keeping a HL balance, not exaggerating the SW (going over 330), but increasing forgiveness. Does that make sense? If so, how would you recommend this customization?
 
Agree with @Fighting phoenix, not necessary but just depends on the feel for you. I switched to leather for additional feel on the ball and to make the frame a little more head-light. I also bought the racquet after loving my demo with the babolat syntec grip on it.
Yeah, plus I’m left handed so I sometimes like to get a new overgrip to put on lefty style, and leather has a solid feel that adds to a more head light balance
 

numbyumlewis

New User
Thanks for the feedback!
Lastly, are the pure Aeros in 2023 grip sizing true to size?
I remember in the past reading Babolat’s grip sizes tend to run one size up?
 

numbyumlewis

New User
I’m excited to hit with these stick soon . I’m coming off a Aero VS 2020 but was a 4 1/4. I’m hoping the transition to 4 3/8 will be okay.
 

Underdog

Professional
Hi, guys.
So, I’ve ditched the leather grip for a syn grip (Gamma Ultra Cushion). Right now, strung and carrying an overgrip and a dampener, my racquet weights 327g and when hanging, the handle falls about 45°. I don’t have the means to measure SW and I don’t have the racquet with me right now to measure the BP (sorry, I’m in a long trip to apply for internship).
So, that said, and considering the polarized profile of the Aero 98 as stated before by gurus like @Trip and @dr. godmode , I was wondering if I could add some lead at 3 and 9, keeping a HL balance, not exaggerating the SW (going over 330), but increasing forgiveness. Does that make sense? If so, how would you recommend this customization?
Anyone? :giggle:
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame

The racquet has quite a high TW value so adding weight at 3 and 9 might not be necessary.

I did add weight in these (and other areas)... and am now trying to see how the racquet plays, but sometimes it feels a bit less manoeuvrable. If this persists, and I am not able to adjust... I may look to take the weight off in the 3 and 9 positions (or lower it from the current set up).

Some of these things are trial and error. Alternatively, you could try to add small amounts of weight at 2, 4, 8, and 10 o'clock (what I call the Liquidmetal treatment). This would expand the sweet spot towards all of these areas/locations... and therefore increase the comfort of the racquet.

Hope that helps.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
UPDATE

I did end up taking the vast majority of the weight I placed at 3 and 9 off, and I added it to the 2 and 10 positions (in addition to what I already had - so I added another 0.5g in each location). Therefore the static weight is still the same, but the placement has changed.

I have had one hitting session with the racquet, and it is much better (or at least closer to what I like). The racquet is still very stable, but the manoeuvrability has improved significantly, as has the ability to hit a bit flatter. I do feel quite a bit of weight at the tip (something that I will give several hitting sessions to adjust to), but the racquet is still super HL thanks to the silicone in the handle. It is a definite improvement on the previous setup, the comfort has also improved (as has the ball "cupping" sensation), and depth is now super easy (in fact, it is quite deep all the time, and so I may need to remove just a smidge from the 2 and 10 positions if I can not adjust - maybe half of what I added, which was not much so we're talking very small adjustments).

I did not serve with this new setup, therefore this is something I still need to do and see how it goes (in addition to a match setting). So, there will be a further update once this happens.

However, the PA98 has now gotten closer to my modified G360+ Extreme Tours (and even my modified VC95 2023 - although this racquet is much lighter overall than the PA98).
 

Underdog

Professional
UPDATE

I did end up taking the vast majority of the weight I placed at 3 and 9 off, and I added it to the 2 and 10 positions (in addition to what I already had - so I added another 0.5g in each location). Therefore the static weight is still the same, but the placement has changed.

I have had one hitting session with the racquet, and it is much better (or at least closer to what I like). The racquet is still very stable, but the manoeuvrability has improved significantly, as has the ability to hit a bit flatter. I do feel quite a bit of weight at the tip (something that I will give several hitting sessions to adjust to), but the racquet is still super HL thanks to the silicone in the handle. It is a definite improvement on the previous setup, the comfort has also improved (as has the ball "cupping" sensation), and depth is now super easy (in fact, it is quite deep all the time, and so I may need to remove just a smidge from the 2 and 10 positions if I can not adjust - maybe half of what I added, which was not much so we're talking very small adjustments).

I did not serve with this new setup, therefore this is something I still need to do and see how it goes (in addition to a match setting). So, there will be a further update once this happens.

However, the PA98 has now gotten closer to my modified G360+ Extreme Tours (and even my modified VC95 2023 - although this racquet is much lighter overall than the PA98).
Were you aiming to increase the SW? I’d be afraid adding weight over at 2-10 or 12 would hamper the maneuverability.
According to a fellow forum member, mine is perfect Recoil Weight for my height right now (stock plus Gamma Ultra Cushion replacement grip, Head Super Comp overgrip and Prine The Silencer dampener), so I shouldn’t consider adding weight high on the hoop. I am still trying to find out if weight at 3-9 would enhance the sweetspot, though.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
Were you aiming to increase the SW? I’d be afraid adding weight over at 2-10 or 12 would hamper the maneuverability.
According to a fellow forum member, mine is perfect Recoil Weight for my height right now (stock plus Gamma Ultra Cushion replacement grip, Head Super Comp overgrip and Prine The Silencer dampener), so I shouldn’t consider adding weight high on the hoop. I am still trying to find out if weight at 3-9 would enhance the sweetspot, though.

Yeah, I initially wanted to increase the SW from stock. Adding what I took off 3 and 9 to the 2 and 10 o'clock positions was an experiment to see how it would play (plus wanted to remove the weight from 3 and 9, but didn't want to waist the tungsten tape... so gave it a go).
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Yeah, I initially wanted to increase the SW from stock. Adding what I took off 3 and 9 to the 2 and 10 o'clock positions was an experiment to see how it would play (plus wanted to remove the weight from 3 and 9, but didn't want to waist the tungsten tape... so gave it a go).
does alcarez really use stock version ? with no weight added ?
 

Underdog

Professional
Yeah, I initially wanted to increase the SW from stock. Adding what I took off 3 and 9 to the 2 and 10 o'clock positions was an experiment to see how it would play (plus wanted to remove the weight from 3 and 9, but didn't want to waist the tungsten tape... so gave it a go).
Why did you dislike the weight mid-hoop?
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
Why did you dislike the weight mid-hoop?
Well... I think that since the PA98 has a high Twist weight already in stock form, adding weight there makes the racquet feel more sluggish and clubby. Or a better way of saying it would be that with the weight I added (and I think it was 0.75g at 3 and 9 respectively - so 1.5g in total), it was too much for me, and I was having problems with the BH side getting the racquet face to the ball in time. On the FH side, I could manage, serving was OK, the racquet was stable, but the feel was a little firmer and there was less "ball cupping" than I would have preferred (and my timing of the BH wing was off).

The racquet felt too clunky and club-like... and I just wasn't adjusting fast enough and I was not happy with the feel... so something had to change... and removing the majority of the weight from 3 and 9 was the first step in trying to find a "better" feel and performance. It may not be the end of the journey, but time will tell. The first hit was very good... and now I just have to see whether subsequent hitting sessions are as good, getting better, or getting worse. Then we will decide whether we have reached our ideal setup, or if more changes need to be made.

Hope that explains things a little better.
 

Alcawrath

Semi-Pro
For those that have been playing it for a little while. How do you all feel it plays with stiff vs. soft strings? I've tried a number of different strings in mine so far (RPM Blast, Hyper G, Confidential, Black Widow, and whereas my blade seems to play best for me with a little stiffer string setup due to the relatively soft frame, I'm looking back at the strings I've tried in my PA98 and am starting to think I generally prefer softer strings in it. Thoughts?
 
For those that have been playing it for a little while. How do you all feel it plays with stiff vs. soft strings? I've tried a number of different strings in mine so far (RPM Blast, Hyper G, Confidential, Black Widow, and whereas my blade seems to play best for me with a little stiffer string setup due to the relatively soft frame, I'm looking back at the strings I've tried in my PA98 and am starting to think I generally prefer softer strings in it. Thoughts?
Yeah I think it plays better with a softer poly, like a toroline hybrid or caviar in particular. Poly tour pro would be great for some, I just don’t like that string particularly as it’s too muted for me
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
For those that have been playing it for a little while. How do you all feel it plays with stiff vs. soft strings? I've tried a number of different strings in mine so far (RPM Blast, Hyper G, Confidential, Black Widow, and whereas my blade seems to play best for me with a little stiffer string setup due to the relatively soft frame, I'm looking back at the strings I've tried in my PA98 and am starting to think I generally prefer softer strings in it. Thoughts?

I haven't tried too many strings, but judging by the feel of the string bed, I'd concur with your findings. In fact, the softer the better... and hybridising would be a great idea too.

I might look to use Babolat Origin (now known as Babolat RPM Soft) in the Crosses in the next string job for that very reason.
 

Underdog

Professional
Would you guys say it'd be a good idea to hybrid a Gamma Moto on mains and Head Sonic Pro on crosses?
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
Would you guys say it'd be a good idea to hybrid a Gamma Moto on mains and Head Sonic Pro on crosses?

I would choose Gamma Moto Soft 1.24mm in the Mains if I were going for that string choice and brand (more spin and softer than Gamma Moto).

I see no reason not to try than combo.
 

Yongsan

New User
I play my PA98 with leather grip and 1g lead each at 3 and 9. I played it stock (other than the leather grip added) for a month or two but personally find it to be more forgiving and 'solid' on off center hits after adding the small amount of lead at 3 and 9 - hope that helps.
 

Underdog

Professional
I would choose Gamma Moto Soft 1.24mm in the Mains if I were going for that string choice and brand (more spin and softer than Gamma Moto).

I see no reason not to try than combo.
My issue with soft polys is the subpar tension maintenance. As an intermediate, I don’t restring often, so I keep my spendings low. I mostly use a string until it breaks.
I much prefer the feeling of softer polys these days, honestly, but the stiffer polys help me with longer performance stability, I think.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
My issue with soft polys is the subpar tension maintenance. As an intermediate, I don’t restring often, so I keep my spendings low. I mostly use a string until it breaks.
I much prefer the feeling of softer polys these days, honestly, but the stiffer polys help me with longer performance stability, I think.

Fair enough
 

flyhome

Rookie
I would choose Gamma Moto Soft 1.24mm in the Mains if I were going for that string choice and brand (more spin and softer than Gamma Moto).

I see no reason not to try than combo.
Just got a demo of the PA98 strung with RPM blast 1.25, the first hour of play was pretty cool, my main stick is thr GP ProStock (lighter than the retail version), of couse I'm missing that precision and control of the GP but it's a pretty fun racquet to play with.

I'll test it with Gamma Moto 17 too, my experience with Gamma Moto and Moto Soft is the second has less control and drops tension more quickly compared to the non soft version, I really like the hybrid with Gamma Moto 17 on the mains and Gamma IO Soft 17 on the crosses
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
Just got a demo of the PA98 strung with RPM blast 1.25, the first hour of play was pretty cool, my main stick is thr GP ProStock (lighter than the retail version), of couse I'm missing that precision and control of the GP but it's a pretty fun racquet to play with.

I'll test it with Gamma Moto 17 too, my experience with Gamma Moto and Moto Soft is the second has less control and drops tension more quickly compared to the non soft version, I really like the hybrid with Gamma Moto 17 on the mains and Gamma IO Soft 17 on the crosses

I finally have the set up figured out and the racquet is now better at flattening out shots (or should I say it another way... I am able to flatten out my shots better with the latest set up).

Since the latest re-tune, the racquet also feels plusher, it has more pocketing, and is more manoeuvrable. Precision is good but not excellent (at least compared to some of my other racquets), power is good, and there is plenty of potential to be explored.

However, I think I still prefer the PSVS over the PA98 (both will be keepers though).
 

Holic

Rookie
I ll maybe switch back to Rad Mp after a year. While I dominate my opponents with heavy top spin and get short service line balls, the put aways have to be perfect or the ball will sail. If the arm isnt fast enough, if the footwork isnt superb, if the wind slightly take the ball away from you, if you hesistate etc etc, the ball will 100% sail long, with rad mp it wouldnt. Also, while heavy spin is good, the majority of players that play tournaments in my country are super fit and quick. That results in returning the ball even though i make them run from corner to corner, so a spinny yet flater ball with the lowish launch angle Rad Mp would make it drastically more difficult for them to get to the ball, as the ball is penetrating the court more and "dying" at the same time. Any thoughts on my reasoning?
 
Top