So I bought an Angell 28" Custom

[time410s]

It's a 97 and 28" 18x20. I hear the pattern by Angell is generally pretty open so I decided to close it up with 18x20 a bit. I seem to do fine with either and I break 16x19 every few hits. Yes, I hit with poly and yes I hit with 16g...I just hit hard and as much as reasonably possible.

So maybe 18x20 will get me an extra hit or two and save me strings in the long run. Use more initially to get more hits? We'll see.
But I can report back here to review the racket a bit. I got it as light as possible since that is quite long at 28 and I want room to customize the balance and twistweight to my liking, whatever that'll be for this frame.

I hope I like it. I hear the two beam patterns or flex patterns are very different on some of these TC models and it's hard to say which I will prefer, but I hope I like the racket.

I'm a fan of XL frames and I wish more companies offered it. Maybe everyone should just sell 29" rackets and you can cut it down yourself to the length you like? That'd be sweet.

 

[jmacdaununder2]

Been thinking about buying a 28" Angell TC97 for years; I've also been worried about the SW getting to be too much, even though my main racquets are 28" Prince Midplus Equipes. Also curious about how the reported hoop flex of the TC97 feels in a 28" version. Be interested to read how it works out for you.

 

[Booger]

28" is a weapon, especially since I don't think you're vertically challenged. I will look for videos of you swatting huge serves and groundies.

 

[time410s]

Been thinking about buying a 28" Angell TC97 for years; I've also been worried about the SW getting to be too much, even though my main racquets are 28" Prince Midplus Equipes. Also curious about how the reported hoop flex of the TC97 feels in a 28" version. Be interested to read how it works out for you.

I'll comment on it but I won't have the more throat flexy Angells to compare to. However I think it's mostly something people think about because he mentions it. No racket manufacturer really describes flex outside of that RA number but he goes into describing the character of it.

 

[time410s]

28" is a weapon, especially since I don't think you're vertically challenged. I will look for videos of you swatting huge serves and groundies.

Haha thanks! I asked for 29 but they don't do it. I want to feel the legal limit just for fun. If 6'3" is not vertically challenged, then indeed, I am not.

 

[time410s]

Been thinking about buying a 28" Angell TC97 for years; I've also been worried about the SW getting to be too much, even though my main racquets are 28" Prince Midplus Equipes. Also curious about how the reported hoop flex of the TC97 feels in a 28" version. Be interested to read how it works out for you.

Oh hey I really addressed the SW anxiety by getting the 290 gram. That's 10-20 grams under weight of a typical tweener frame so for me that's calming. Also I'm hitting with a modified pure drive that's 351 grams and 28". I wonder if the SW is in the 360's or not. I'll probably try to measure it but I hit with it just fine. It's right around the limit though.

 

[esm]

Oh hey I really addressed the SW anxiety by getting the 290 gram. That's 10-20 grams under weight of a typical tweener frame so for me that's calming. Also I'm hitting with a modified pure drive that's 351 grams and 28". I wonder if the SW is in the 360's or not. I'll probably try to measure it but I hit with it just fine. It's right around the limit though.

the Angell TCs have various weight piece(s) under the pallet (unto 10 cm locations from the butt cap), so the SW should be the same for all weights and balances.
a typical TC97 unstrung SW is around 295 for the standard 27", add 10SW per 1/4", so your 28" should have around 335SW unstrung... then around 365SW strung.... me thinks..

 

[topspn]

Mama Mia 28! No clue how people like extended. Tried some over the years but didn’t care for them. Just liked them on serve

 

[ed70]

It's a 97 and 28" 18x20. I hear the pattern by Angell is generally pretty open so I decided to close it up with 18x20 a bit. I seem to do fine with either and I break 16x19 every few hits. Yes, I hit with poly and yes I hit with 16g...I just hit hard and as much as reasonably possible.

So maybe 18x20 will get me an extra hit or two and save me strings in the long run. Use more initially to get more hits? We'll see.
But I can report back here to review the racket a bit. I got it as light as possible since that is quite long at 28 and I want room to customize the balance and twistweight to my liking, whatever that'll be for this frame.

I hope I like it. I hear the two beam patterns or flex patterns are very different on some of these TC models and it's hard to say which I will prefer, but I hope I like the racket.

I'm a fan of XL frames and I wish more companies offered it. Maybe everyone should just sell 29" rackets and you can cut it down yourself to the length you like? That'd be sweet.

The 16x19 TC97 doesn’t play “open” has a pretty low launch angle, 18x20 is pretty closed & even lower launch. Good luck with new frame.

 

[time410s]

Mama Mia 28! No clue how people like extended. Tried some over the years but didn’t care for them. Just liked them on serve

Maybe the only reason you don't is because standard is 27 for some reason. What if standard was 28? And that's what you started with.

I always wanted to try extended because I thought length was an obvious advantage but most handles are too small anyway for my rather large hands and I hate running out of handle and grabbing the throat on the two-handed backhand.

 

[time410s]

The 16x19 TC97 doesn’t play “open” has a pretty low launch angle, 18x20 is pretty closed & even lower launch. Good luck with new frame.

Angell says differently. Says the 97 has more spin potential. I hope they play with their rackets and are providing feedback based on that and not just the paper specs.

 

[esm]

Angell says differently. Says the 97 has more spin potential. I hope they play with their rackets and are providing feedback based on that and not just the paper specs.

is that as in the TC97 has more spin potential than the TC95 of the (both) same string pattern?

 

[jmacdaununder2]

the Angell TCs have various weight piece(s) under the pallet (unto 10 cm locations from the butt cap), so the SW should be the same for all weights and balances.
a typical TC97 unstrung SW is around 295 for the standard 27", add 10SW per 1/4", so your 28" should have around 335SW unstrung... then around 365SW strung.... me thinks..

Yeah, that's what I gathered; most of my 28" EquipeM/Ps are in the mid/high 350s static, but very headlight.

 

[topspn]

Angell says differently. Says the 97 has more spin potential. I hope they play with their rackets and are providing feedback based on that and not just the paper specs.

TC95 has bigger spin actually and a ****** ball for that matter. Of course you're getting an extended so you'll have plenty of plough

 

[time410s]

TC95 has bigger spin actually and a ****** ball for that matter. Of course you're getting an extended so you'll have plenty of plough

A what ball? Whatever you said just looks like ******* to me so probably a banned word. Try another word haha

 

[time410s]

Yeah, that's what I gathered; most of my 28" EquipeM/Ps are in the mid/high 350s static, but very headlight.

interesting but adding weight always adds swingweight, it's just less if in the handle but still affects swingweight.

 

[time410s]

is that as in the TC97 has more spin potential than the TC95 of the (both) same string pattern?

Yeah that is what they say, the 97 having more spin potential also because of the thinner beam. Like it might move through the air faster? I thought this was a little funny to say like they are basically identital in spin production except the thinner beam might favor faster head speed.

 

[topspn]

A what ball? Whatever you said just looks like ******* to me so probably a banned word. Try another word haha

Yeah, no clue what autofill might have conjured here but i was just writing a bigger ball

 

[time410s]

is that as in the TC97 has more spin potential than the TC95 of the (both) same string pattern?

Actually more so that there's really no difference. But I feel like they don't express anything on the page about rackets and spin friendly qualities. Which is frustrating. They should crowd source data from higher level players to help determine this kinda thing. I would if it were my company.

 

[time410s]

Yeah, no clue what autofill might have conjured here but i was just writing a bigger ball

Do you think the lower flex softens the racket too much?

 

[CosmosMpower]

Good luck, the swing weight will be massive. My first Angell was a 330 gram unstrung 27.5" TC95 18x20 63RA, I think it was around 370SW.

 

[topspn]

Do you think the lower flex softens the racket too much?

TC97? It is not super flexy, just has more head flex built into the design vs the TC95/100 which have the D beam

 

[time410s]

Good luck, the swing weight will be massive. My first Angell was a 330 gram unstrung 27.5" TC95 18x20 63RA, I think it was around 370SW.

I have a 28 inch babolat that is much higher static. 325g unstrung so I'm not worried but we will see

 

[time410s]

TC97? It is not super flexy, just has more head flex built into the design vs the TC95/100 which have the D beam

why do you think the 95 is so much more conducive to spin?

 

[topspn]

why do you think the 95 is so much more conducive to spin?

I have used both and hands down the D beam ones just have a different gear and better action on the ball

 

[time410s]

I have used both and hands down the D beam ones just have a different gear and better action on the ball

Does it feel more flexy than the 97?

 

[topspn]

Does it feel more flexy than the 97?

I assume you mean the 63RA. No not noodly or too flexy in the least

 

[time410s]

I assume you mean the 63RA. No not noodly or too flexy in the least

I meant specifically compared to the 97 at 66 RA

 

[topspn]

I meant specifically compared to the 97 at 66 RA

No does not feel more flexy than the 97. Again the flex is very uniform so not pronounced. I feel flex and catapult on the 97 more then TC95 due to the head flex of the 97. I admit it is not a feel i like so perhaps i am more sensitive to it.

 

[time410s]

No does not feel more flexy than the 97. Again the flex is very uniform so not pronounced. I feel flex and catapult on the 97 more then TC95 due to the head flex of the 97. I admit it is not a feel i like so perhaps i am more sensitive to it.

Gotcha, I think. They say the 95 is more old school feeling and I'm not sure I like the idea of that so it's funny to consider this as a truth but also to hear it's the more spin friendly racket.

I find those two things to be hard to believe together but I imagine it isn't impossible.

I really wish Angell was more direct or decisive with how they market the frames. I feel like they don't say much about the differences and just stick to the very basic ideas of "more open pattern means more spin" and same with "bigger head means more power more spin"

And those are things that are just not true on their own.

So I really don't feel any sense of clear direction when looking at their selection of rackets and there's no third party source that talks about them besides tennisnerd and these forums.

Maybe I can be that source. But until then, I find myself pretty lost feeling when trying to pick the racket I think I'll like most. And if I don't like it I still don't think I'll feel like I'll know which one to try next.

Does it make sense why I feel this way? I know I overthink things but I don't struggle like this with other brands but that's partly due to being able to demo or at least have way more info online about them.

 

[esm]

Gotcha, I think. They say the 95 is more old school feeling and I'm not sure I like the idea of that so it's funny to consider this as a truth but also to hear it's the more spin friendly racket.

I find those two things to be hard to believe together but I imagine it isn't impossible.

I really wish Angell was more direct or decisive with how they market the frames. I feel like they don't say much about the differences and just stick to the very basic ideas of "more open pattern means more spin" and same with "bigger head means more power more spin"

And those are things that are just not true on their own.

So I really don't feel any sense of clear direction when looking at their selection of rackets and there's no third party source that talks about them besides tennisnerd and these forums.

Maybe I can be that source. But until then, I find myself pretty lost feeling when trying to pick the racket I think I'll like most. And if I don't like it I still don't think I'll feel like I'll know which one to try next.

Does it make sense why I feel this way? I know I overthink things but I don't struggle like this with other brands but that's partly due to being able to demo or at least have way more info online about them.

Valid points. However, did you get all of your info from the website or have you spoken to Paul for more in-depth info you were looking for?

 

[topspn]

Gotcha, I think. They say the 95 is more old school feeling and I'm not sure I like the idea of that so it's funny to consider this as a truth but also to hear it's the more spin friendly racket.

I find those two things to be hard to believe together but I imagine it isn't impossible.

I really wish Angell was more direct or decisive with how they market the frames. I feel like they don't say much about the differences and just stick to the very basic ideas of "more open pattern means more spin" and same with "bigger head means more power more spin"

And those are things that are just not true on their own.

So I really don't feel any sense of clear direction when looking at their selection of rackets and there's no third party source that talks about them besides tennisnerd and these forums.

Maybe I can be that source. But until then, I find myself pretty lost feeling when trying to pick the racket I think I'll like most. And if I don't like it I still don't think I'll feel like I'll know which one to try next.

Does it make sense why I feel this way? I know I overthink things but I don't struggle like this with other brands but that's partly due to being able to demo or at least have way more info online about them.

I don’t find the comment that TC95 is somehow old school feel compared to TC97 is true. I find it very random and doesn’t make sense. The difference really seems to come from beam design. The D beam design is very uniform and really seems to punish the ball. TC97 if anything is a box beam a bit old school and a bit throat flex. It isn’t a huge difference but the D beam just adds a little more on the ball

 

[time410s]

Valid points. However, did you get all of your info from the website or have you spoken to Paul for more in-depth info you were looking for?

Both. Paul mostly just reflects the vague direction of the website but did offer some deeper insight, however, for me it didn't inspire much direction. I just find it hard to believe that there isn't more separation between rackets and their spin friendly attributes. He mostly just stands by the idea of more open patterns mean more spin friendly but that's just tennis 101 stuff that did nothing for me. Because if this were really the case, all the 97" 16x19 rackets out there would be about equal in spin production but we know that is very far from the case.

So I wish they were more forward about the type of racket each is. But he's hesitant because he doesn't want to mislead and doesn't know what variables will go into the experience for the player. Like what strings and tension haha, it was hard to get a straight answer out of Paul, to be honest. But I respect his hesitancy to be really clear but maybe he doesn't feel very strongly about the spin differences. But if that is also true, I feel like the differences were not explored enough and the fact the website really does nothing to mention spin at all, is a sign of this for me. Even though he is probably a master of his craft and owns/makes these rackets, it doesn't necessarily mean there was much put into the side of understanding the playability characteristics and the strengths to which each racket might play to.

I asked him "what's the most spin friendly racket between the 97 and 95?" And he's like "it depends on the string and tension" and I'm thinking...ok then what about if those things are the same? So I had to ask things in such a way that removed the chance to be vague and then he told me the 105 would be the most spin friendly racket. But is it really, or is he just saying that because it's the biggest head size?? So I had to say, "I was asking specifically about the 97 vs the 95" and he said the difference is subtle, if any. So, still, I didn't get a real answer, didn't get told if one was better than the other and that if there is a difference, it was subtle.

So honestly, it's been difficult to get much confidence in a decision going to Paul, even.

 

[esm]

Both. Paul mostly just reflects the vague direction of the website but did offer some deeper insight, however, for me it didn't inspire much direction. I just find it hard to believe that there isn't more separation between rackets and their spin friendly attributes. He mostly just stands by the idea of more open patterns mean more spin friendly but that's just tennis 101 stuff that did nothing for me. Because if this were really the case, all the 97" 16x19 rackets out there would be about equal in spin production but we know that is very far from the case.

So I wish they were more forward about the type of racket each is. But he's hesitant because he doesn't want to mislead and doesn't know what variables will go into the experience for the player. Like what strings and tension haha, it was hard to get a straight answer out of Paul, to be honest. But I respect his hesitancy to be really clear but maybe he doesn't feel very strongly about the spin differences. But if that is also true, I feel like the differences were not explored enough and the fact the website really does nothing to mention spin at all, is a sign of this for me. Even though he is probably a master of his craft and owns/makes these rackets, it doesn't necessarily mean there was much put into the side of understanding the playability characteristics and the strengths to which each racket might play to.

I asked him "what's the most spin friendly racket between the 97 and 95?" And he's like "it depends on the string and tension" and I'm thinking...ok then what about if those things are the same? So I had to ask things in such a way that removed the chance to be vague and then he told me the 105 would be the most spin friendly racket. But is it really, or is he just saying that because it's the biggest head size?? So I had to say, "I was asking specifically about the 97 vs the 95" and he said the difference is subtle, if any. So, still, I didn't get a real answer, didn't get told if one was better than the other and that if there is a difference, it was subtle.

So honestly, it's been difficult to get much confidence in a decision going to Paul, even.

Fair enough. Reading between the lines, I think he has provide as much as he could prior to the customer/user experience.
i think is is rather nice for us to have access to someone like him, but at the end of the day, he has a business to run.
can you imaging trying to get anywhere close to these types of info from other independent brands, (for an example - Tenx) and even the big boys, such as Wilson, Babolat, Yonex… etc.

when will you get your Angell?

 

[time410s]

I don’t find the comment that TC95 is somehow old school feel compared to TC97 is true. I find it very random and doesn’t make sense. The difference really seems to come from beam design. The D beam design is very uniform and really seems to punish the ball. TC97 if anything is a box beam a bit old school and a bit throat flex. It isn’t a huge difference but the D beam just adds a little more on the ball

Interesting, I wonder if his awareness of something regarding manufacturing means he is more aware or sensitive to details that don't correleate to our experience as much. Like, for me, I can quickly tell if a racket is spin friendly or not. I hit with a lot of spin and can instantly tell if a racket is for that type of play or not. Maybe he's coming at it from the manufacturer's perspective and focused more so on beam shape/flex and specs and how those generally translate. Where as I am not as aware as he is and my perspective will purely come from playing with the racket.

I'm glad someone out here is able to have a strong opinion of some kind. I assume I will have a strong opinion as well but for me to really have perspective on the 95 vs the 97, or whatever, I will really need to have both.

So, thank you. You've been more helpful to me in picking a racket than even paul himself haha. But together, it has been helpful and confusing. I wonder if I just end up getting both.

Currently hitting with a pure drive but I don't love it in every way, I just modified it to be 28" so I can adjust to the spacing but I do like the stiffness (sometimes) and the easy spin production. And I don't want to give up too much of that easy spin production and heavy hitting/ball direction dictating play I can do with this. But I would like a little more feel/touch. But the pure drive is like 71RA and the 95 Angell is 63. Biiig change and on paper, you'd think I'm giving all that up, you know?

 

[time410s]

Fair enough. Reading between the lines, I think he has provide as much as he could prior to the customer/user experience.
i think is is rather nice for us to have access to someone like him, but at the end of the day, he has a business to run.
can you imaging trying to get anywhere close to these types of info from other independent brands, (for an example - Tenx) and even the big boys, such as Wilson, Babolat, Yonex… etc.

when will you get your Angell?

I just cancelled my order because I think I'm more comfortable getting the 95 so I will reorder it today, I guess. I might end up getting both, just so I can compare. However, I don't want to be stuck with one or both and getting them in 28" might just narrow the market down to nobody haha. We'll see.

And you are right but also, the other brands market their rackets with more intention. I can't see much intention from these rackets at all except the fact that they can be customized, but it's really hard to tell how meaningful these customizations are when I don't know what type of racket I am getting. All I can really assume is the 18/20 version of the same frame will maybe be a little more control oriented. That's really...it.

But you get a babolat or yonex, you kinda have an idea of the playstyle they favor. They are marketed a certain way and you can at least go to TW and see what the various playtesters say. The pool of people and data for Angell is comparatively super small and unprofessional.

So I really find it ironic, actually, that a brand offering custom specs is so hesitant to give more defined descriptions to separate the rackets from one another in how they play. That part makes no sense to me and on top of that, there is no real way to demo them so you can't answer that question yourself until you buy a few.

 

[ed70]

Angell says differently. Says the 97 has more spin potential. I hope they play with their rackets and are providing feedback based on that and not just the paper specs.

Well if your style of play is hitting heavy topspin on both sides you won’t have any problems with 18x20 tc97. Was just saying after hitting all the TC line apart from the 105 that the 97’s have low launch & you need to brush up on ball to get action. As for power it’s been debated for years, personally found by using speed mechanism at club that they hit the same pace balls but the 95 has a noticeably higher launch angle. Feel wise the 95’s even in 63RA are quite crisp, the 97’s have a very slight head flex - it’s nice to feel the ball on the strings briefly though! Good luck with the 28 length though you must be pretty strong.

 

[time410s]

Well if your style of play is hitting heavy topspin on both sides you won’t have any problems with 18x20 tc97. Was just saying after hitting all the TC line apart from the 105 that the 97’s have low launch & you need to brush up on ball to get action. As for power it’s been debated for years, personally found by using speed mechanism at club that they hit the same pace balls but the 95 has a noticeably higher launch angle. Feel wise the 95’s even in 63RA are quite crisp, the 97’s have a very slight head flex - it’s nice to feel the ball on the strings briefly though! Good luck with the 28 length though you must be pretty strong.

Thanks! So by higher launch angle, this kinda implies more spin, no? That's how I took it.

My pure drive modified is at 351 grams and 28 inches. Pretty hefty so I think I'll be ok getting the lightest config possible of whatever Angell. I'm really not worried about it and I'd get 29 if I could just to try it for a while.

I'm decently strong and in my prime and my. I'm tall so I feel longer is more proportional to my body. Stroke mechanics and take back have gotten better and better allowing for the weight to work with me as opposed to against me.

Do you think I'll lose a bit of spin potential between the 95 or 97? I haven't gotten many answers on this specifically but you touched on a few things that were helpful to hear.

 

[thanu]

Interesting, I wonder if his awareness of something regarding manufacturing means he is more aware or sensitive to details that don't correleate to our experience as much. Like, for me, I can quickly tell if a racket is spin friendly or not. I hit with a lot of spin and can instantly tell if a racket is for that type of play or not. Maybe he's coming at it from the manufacturer's perspective and focused more so on beam shape/flex and specs and how those generally translate. Where as I am not as aware as he is and my perspective will purely come from playing with the racket.

I'm glad someone out here is able to have a strong opinion of some kind. I assume I will have a strong opinion as well but for me to really have perspective on the 95 vs the 97, or whatever, I will really need to have both.

So, thank you. You've been more helpful to me in picking a racket than even paul himself haha. But together, it has been helpful and confusing. I wonder if I just end up getting both.

Currently hitting with a pure drive but I don't love it in every way, I just modified it to be 28" so I can adjust to the spacing but I do like the stiffness (sometimes) and the easy spin production. And I don't want to give up too much of that easy spin production and heavy hitting/ball direction dictating play I can do with this. But I would like a little more feel/touch. But the pure drive is like 71RA and the 95 Angell is 63. Biiig change and on paper, you'd think I'm giving all that up, you know?

Is your Pure Drive the 2021 plus with an xtp buttcap?

 

[time410s]

Is your Pure Drive the 2021 plus with an xtp buttcap?

It's the 2015 plus tour, actually. 315 static and 27.5 before my changes. Mostly just leather overgrip and the xtp cap. Both of which probably total about 15g additional weight each, explaining the 351 weight.