Serving capability of rackets – help, opinions wanted

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by NLBwell, Mar 10, 2008.

  1. NLBwell

    NLBwell Legend

    Jun 18, 2004
    OK, from the limited help I got from my previous thread, searching around a while, and my own experience, I came up with a ranking of serving capability of some players rackets:

    1 Pro Staff 85
    2 K 6-1 95
    3 K 6-1 Tour (90)
    4 Volkl C10 Pro
    5 Techni Tfight 335
    6 Yonex RQis Tour 1 (weighted)
    7 …(spot held for my personal rackets for comparison)
    8 Head Pro Tour 280
    9 Head MicroGel Prestige 98
    10 Head MicroGel Prestige Pro
    11 Fischer M Pro #1 98
    12 Fischer M Comp 95
    13 Yonex RDS 001 Mid
    14 Yonex RDS 002 Tour
    15 Yonex RQis Tour 1
    16 Dunlop AeroGel 200
    17 Yonex RDX-500 Mid

    Then I compared these rackets power rating using the method given in the 2005 racket selection map. ( ) I adjusted the advertised head sizes versus what is believed to be the actual inside area (ie. Head 98 = 95, POG 93 = 90, etc.) to make them consistent and adjusted the racket length some to make up for the higher sweetspot of midsize rackets.

    This gave me these results:
    Wilson K6-1 95 2229
    Yonex RDS 002 Tour 2102
    Prince Response Ti 2081
    Wilson K6-1 Tour 90 2049
    Prince Graphite Mid 20th (weighted) 2018
    Volkl C10 Pro 1994
    Yonex RD Ti-70 (88) 1989
    Yonex RQis Tour 1 (weighted) 1970
    Prince Graphite Mid 1970
    Kennex Black Ace 1964
    Technifibre Tfight 335 1956
    Dunlop AeroGel 200 1918
    Head MicroGel Prestige 98 1915
    Yonex RDS 001 Mid 1911
    Wilson Pro Staff (85) 1900
    Head MicroGel Prestige Pro 1891
    Prince Tour Diablo Mid 1890
    Yonex RQis Tour 1 1883
    Fischer M Comp 95 1872
    Fischer M Pro #1 98 1802
    Head Pro Tour 280 1802
    Yonex RDX-500 Mid 1741

    Yonexes appear to be rated too high, as well as the POG unweighted and Dunlop. The Pro Staff 85 and the Head Pro Tour 280 are calculated too low based on my personal experience and the M Pro #1 98 seems to be too low based on other’s comments and the TW racket review since no one seems to make a big deal about how weak it is on serve, which they do on the also low scoring RDX-500. Likely two things are going on, the flexibility of the head of the racket is not taken into account in RDC measurements; the more flexible heads of the POG and Yonexes are not penalized for this; and the head size of Yonexes includes the widened corners, so the length of the strings is shorter for the given head area. I don’t know how to adjust for head flexibility, but I changed head size to center main string length. Also, the racket selection power rankings use racket length (to give more power to extra-long rackets based on the distance from the hand). I changed this to distance to the center of the stringbed which is further for a midsize racket than an oversize. The results are here:

    Wilson K6-1 95 227
    Wilson K6-1 Tour 90 217
    Prince Graphite Mid 20th (weighted) 213
    Kennex Black Ace 208
    Yonex RDS 002 Tour 208
    Prince Response Ti 208
    Prince Graphite Mid 208
    Wilson Pro Staff (85) 204
    Yonex RD Ti-70 (88 ) 201
    Technifibre Tfight 335 199
    Volkl C10 Pro 199
    Prince Tour Diablo Mid 197
    Yonex RQis Tour 1 (weighted) 197
    Yonex RDS 001 Mid 196
    Dunlop AeroGel 200 195
    Head MicroGel Prestige 98 195
    Head MicroGel Prestige Pro 193
    Fischer M Comp 95 191
    Yonex RQis Tour 1 188
    Head Pro Tour 280 184
    Yonex RDX-500 Mid 180
    Fischer M Pro #1 98 180

    The Yonexes are more in-line, though still possibly a bit high and the PS 85 moves up to a more reasonable number, though I’m still not sure I’ve got these adjusted right. The primary outliers are the RDS002Tour and Aerogel 200 for being too high, and the Pro Tour 280 and M Pro #1 for being too low.

    Any feedback would be appreciated, especially your experiences serving with these rackets and how it compares to the numbers.
  2. NLBwell

    NLBwell Legend

    Jun 18, 2004
    Any opinions on how the Pro Tour 280, Fischer M Pro #1, RDS 002 Tour and Aerogel 200 compare to other rackets?

Share This Page