Head Prestige - only really good for hip level hitting on a slick low bouncing surface, like carpet or synth grass maybe. You need a flat fast incoming ball, long linear swing around or ideally below hip level. It's a racquet that has died in the 90s basically, as soon as the spin game, poly strings and the first Babolat Pure Drive appeared. If a player has an overabundance of fitness and pure strength then go for it, otherwise you'll get beaten by a 16yo junior with slightly high spinny crosses pushing you around with floaters that you can't bend properly into the court with nice drive, as it's not a racquet that bends the ball easily. You also lose time with it because you need an extra step to line up every shot with a nice long linear swing etc you get my point. Slightly lighter 16x19 315g Prestige is the better choice compared to 18x20 320g 98 but not by much. If you put gut in mains to lift the launch angle, together with a metric ton of lead to get skyhigh sw then you could somewhat get away with it, as it would allow blocking and shorter takeback. A typical error would be to go hit with it agains a nice hitter, hit nicely through the middle and conclude oh yeah it's great, I'll take it. Play points with all kinds of players who walk you around the court etc, and you'll get a different picture.
Racket to transition to modern game
- Thread starter tazz
- Start date
On the other extreme you have thin elyptical profiles like Ezone 98, or Ez98Tour, Aero 100 etc, where the racquet is light and stable but the launch angle isn't easy to control on every shot, depending on where you get the ball on the strings, so you compensate either with full flat blocking or with constant brush spin - eg Kyrgios, Ruud, Rafa etc
So most, especially younger players with good advice, choose either flat beam but wider, heavier, both sw and tw, and very torsionally stable, and 16x19 like RF97A, VCP97H etc, or lighter semielyptical beam but tailored for control like Speed, Blade, Pure Aero VS or Extreme Tour, for high level play. Softer with more lead or mass or lighter but stiffer, perhaps for the younger gen
So most, especially younger players with good advice, choose either flat beam but wider, heavier, both sw and tw, and very torsionally stable, and 16x19 like RF97A, VCP97H etc, or lighter semielyptical beam but tailored for control like Speed, Blade, Pure Aero VS or Extreme Tour, for high level play. Softer with more lead or mass or lighter but stiffer, perhaps for the younger gen
Last edited:
@Mischko - What about the 99" TK334 Prestige mold, used for the G360+ Tour 18x19 305g / S 16x19 300g and Auxetic MP 18x19 310g / MP-L 16x19 300g? Those make for great platform sticks, are much easier to play with in general, including the ability to create much more variety than their 98" and 95" brethren. All-in-all, though, yes, the Prestige for Head is somewhat akin to the Pro Staff for Wilson -- a byproduct from another era that has largely left us altogether.
That said, I do agree that the more modernized beams are overall a better choice for developing today's updated game, while still retaining more classic elements, which I see as making a bit of a comeback. Just like mixed martial arts in a way, I see the most effective players of the future requiring a more complete skill set in order to stay at the top -- not just baseline bashing with high spin and power, but also all-court and even a bit of serve-and-volley mixed into their repertoire. The player/tweener hybrid frames, most of which you mentioned, allow for all of that probably better than anything else at this point (21-24mm beams, 4-8pts HL balance strung, most weighted up to a spec just under what would slow down RHS).
That said, I do agree that the more modernized beams are overall a better choice for developing today's updated game, while still retaining more classic elements, which I see as making a bit of a comeback. Just like mixed martial arts in a way, I see the most effective players of the future requiring a more complete skill set in order to stay at the top -- not just baseline bashing with high spin and power, but also all-court and even a bit of serve-and-volley mixed into their repertoire. The player/tweener hybrid frames, most of which you mentioned, allow for all of that probably better than anything else at this point (21-24mm beams, 4-8pts HL balance strung, most weighted up to a spec just under what would slow down RHS).
I haven't tried any of those, just the Aux Prestige 18x20 320g, I think it's Pro now. Completely unusable for me, I tried it against a young competitor on hard court who was blowing me away with his Gravity Pro, and against a spin player on clay, and as soon as the ball bounced a bit it was system shutdown for me with the Prestige. But I shouldn't generalize too much, Head is definitely aware how their frames play, and they are probably doing something to better adapt them to modern game. Or they are just making lighter frames for the aging Prestige player to maintain their sales numbers..
Well I've read so many times that Prestiges are akin to Pro Staffs but I never agreed. Played with Pro Staff since college days, but regularly tried Prestige 600, Pro Tour 630, my brother played some Prestige L as a junior competitor etc. Pro Staff was always a punchy racquet, and even the outlier 18x20 330g 95 PS bends the ball easily, for example from shoulder height, has a medium wide beam, and you can play with a short takeback, blocking slices etc. None of that applies for any of the comparable 18x20 95 Prestiges who were always underpowered for me, and required a lot of energy on every super long swing, while still not providing the adequate punch and drive through the court, even with lead added. No surprise that some Head players - Andy and Marin - reduce the density and go with 16x19, huge amounts of lead, and gut in mains to get extra zip, lift and bend, and that e.g. Karatsev plays well with super low trajectory and bounce Dunlop AO ball, on a slick surface, but is beaten much more easily as soon as the ball jumps up a bit. He plays a 18x20 but with eastern grips, and is a bit of an outlier also, but you get the picture.
Well I've read so many times that Prestiges are akin to Pro Staffs but I never agreed. Played with Pro Staff since college days, but regularly tried Prestige 600, Pro Tour 630, my brother played some Prestige L as a junior competitor etc. Pro Staff was always a punchy racquet, and even the outlier 18x20 330g 95 PS bends the ball easily, for example from shoulder height, has a medium wide beam, and you can play with a short takeback, blocking slices etc. None of that applies for any of the comparable 18x20 95 Prestiges who were always underpowered for me, and required a lot of energy on every super long swing, while still not providing the adequate punch and drive through the court, even with lead added. No surprise that some Head players - Andy and Marin - reduce the density and go with 16x19, huge amounts of lead, and gut in mains to get extra zip, lift and bend, and that e.g. Karatsev plays well with super low trajectory and bounce Dunlop AO ball, on a slick surface, but is beaten much more easily as soon as the ball jumps up a bit. He plays a 18x20 but with eastern grips, and is a bit of an outlier also, but you get the picture.
Very good points again. One main important difference between the Pro Staff and most Prestiges, at least historically on average, is the higher stiffness of the Pro Staff. This gave it a thuddier impact feel and more natural counter-punching, penetration and spin generation abilities as a result. We see this quality persisting in most modern-day frames, so perhaps that has made it a bit more naturally relevant.
Nonetheless, perhaps the best of all worlds is the more modern head shape and hybrid box/multi-sided/elliptical beam but with a more beefy ProStaff-like layup -- FX 500 Tour, VCP 97H, etc.
Nonetheless, perhaps the best of all worlds is the more modern head shape and hybrid box/multi-sided/elliptical beam but with a more beefy ProStaff-like layup -- FX 500 Tour, VCP 97H, etc.
And while I'm on a rant, I also think that underpowered ultracontrolled 18x20 frames are/were not the best choice for many pros who either underachieved or got used/injured because of the ultraslugfest needed to win just a single point. Guga, Safin, Murray, and now we have Thiem who grew up with a 18x20 Prestige and plays a board of a racquet requiring swings around the equator, Tsitsi also insists on 18x20 and also loses with a small margin etc you get my point. Now with new balls engineered to be slow or super slow - yesterday Sinner and Huessler served 160-185kmh first and 120-135kmh second serves with new Head Tour XT balls, but Dunlop AO aren't much better either..
Last edited:
