The "most powerful" and "least powerful" racquets (and why)

[PleaseBeNicer]

I want to start by saying that power (measured in this way) isn't necessarily a good thing.
It can mean you have to swing slower to maintain accuracy, meaning less spin, less margin relative to power, and potentially even less ball speed as result of slower swings.
It can be achieved via greater stiffness, which can increase pain and injury risk, or lead people to compensate by swinging slower, ultimately getting less ball speed.
The same is true to a lesser extent if it's achieved with a greater weight or greater swingweight, which reduce shock and can prevent injuries but can also slow down the swing by intertia or fatigue.

The power obsession is driven by marketing, when most players should be focusing on using whatever allows them to swing the fastest without pain or injury.

But it's interesting.

Using the tennis warehouse compare power and compare speed tools, some of the most powerful current models I could find were these:

Racquet Name with head size | Power | Off-centre power ratio to centre power | Speed (only included for some racquets | Specs

Prince O3 Legacy 120 2024 (16.9-25.5-41.8%) (61%) (Strung weight: 285 g; Swing weight: 330; Stiffness: 69)
Wilson Ultra 108 (18.6-22.7-41.6%) (55%) (Strung weight: 294 g; Swing weight: 324; Stiffness: 73)
Wilson RF 01 Pro (16.7-22.5-42%) (54%) (70.3-86.3) (Strung weight: 337 g; Swing weight: 331; Stiffness: 67)
Yonex EZONE 100+ 300 (17.6-21.8-42.7%) (51%) (Strung weight: 318 g; Swing weight: 337; Stiffness: 70)
Dunlop 500 FX 100 2023 (17.2-22.4-41.2%) (54%) (Strung weight: 320 g; Swing weight: 321; Stiffness: 68)
Prince O3 Phantom 100X 2025 (16.6-22.4-41.2%) (54%) (Strung weight: 326 g; Swing weight: 324; Stiffness: 65)
Wilson Ultra 100 Countervail (18.6-22.1-41.4%) (53%) (Strung weight: 318 g; Swing weight: 322; Stiffness: 75)
Tecnifibre TFight 315S 98 (15.5-22.1-41.3%) (54%) (Strung weight: 332 g; Swing weight: 325; Stiffness: 65)
Babolat Pure Drive 100 2021 (16.9-21.7-41%) (53%) (69.7-85.5) (Strung weight: 318 g; Swing weight: 320; Stiffness: 71)
Wilson Ultra 95 Countervail (17.9-21.5-43%) (Strung weight: 326 g; Swing weight: 339; Stiffness: 69)
Babolat Pure Aero 98 2023 (16.2-21.5-41.6%) (52%) (69.5-86) (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 321; Stiffness: 66)
Babolat Pure Drive 98 2023 (16.1-21.5-41.3%) (52%) (69.5-85.5) (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 322; Stiffness: 67)
Tecnifibre TFight ISO 315 98 (17.6-21.4-41.4%) (69.3-86.5) (Strung weight: 329 g; Swing weight: 334; Stiffness: 69)
Tecnifibre TFight ISO 305 98 (15.9-21.3-42.3%) (50%) (69.3-86.5) (Strung weight: 320 g; Swing weight: 338; Stiffness: 64)
Prince Synergy 98 (15.5-21.3-42.1%) (51%) (69.3-86.4) (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 334; Stiffness: 60)
Prince Phantom O3 100X 2024 (14.3-21.3-41.1%) (52%) (Strung weight: 326 g; Swing weight: 325; Stiffness: 60)
Head Gravity Tour 100 (14.8-21.3-41.5%) (51%) (69.1-86.1) (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 328; Stiffness: 59)
Babolat Pure Drive 100 2025 (15.6-21.2-40.5%) (52%) (69.7-85.5) (Strung weight: 318 g; Swing weight: 317; Stiffness: 66)
Head Gravity Pro 100 (16.3-21-41.7%) (50%) (69.1-86.1) (Strung weight: 332 g; Swing weight: 329; Stiffness: 59)
Wilson Blade SW104 (16-21-42.2%) (69.1-86.6) (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 341; Stiffness: 68) (not a current model)
Wilson Blade Pro 98 (15.4-21-42.4%) (69.1-86.6) (Strung weight: 320 g; Swing weight: 336; Stiffness: 61)
Babolat Pure Aero 98 2026 (15.2-20.9-41%) (51%) (69-86.3) (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 322; Stiffness: 66)
Solinco Whiteout 305 XTD v2 98 (15.5-20.9-42%) (50%) (69-86.3) (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 345; Stiffness: 64)
Head Speed Pro 100 (15.1-20.8-42%) (68.9-86.3) (Strung weight: 329 g; Swing weight: 333; Stiffness: 60)
Yonex Vcore Pro 97 330 2019 (14.6-20.7-42%) (49%) (68.9-86.3) (Strung weight: 349 g; Swing weight: 332; Stiffness: 65)
Yonex EZONE 98 Tour (15.3-20.6-42.3%) (70.2-86.5) (Strung weight: 334 g; Swing weight: 332; Stiffness: 63)
Solinco Blackout 305 XTD 100 (17.6-20.6-41.7%) (49%) (68.8-86.1) (Strung weight: 320 g; Swing weight: 328; Stiffness: 70)
Yonex Vcore Pro 97 330 2017 (15.4-20.1-41.8%) (Strung weight: 346 g; Swing weight: 330; Stiffness: 65)
Babolat Pure Aero 100 2023 (15.8-20-41.7%) (69.2-86.1) (Strung weight: 318 g; Swing weight: 318; Stiffness: 66)
Head Gravity MP (14.1-20-41%) (49%) (69.1-86.1) (Strung weight: 312 g; Swing weight: 323; Stiffness: 57)

Presumably also very powerful but with no power potential data:

Dunlop LX1000 115 (Strung weight: 269 g; Swing weight: 305; Stiffness: 75)
Wilson Blade 100S Countervail (?) (70.3-86.3) (Strung weight: 324 g; Swing weight: 324; Stiffness: 71)
Wilson Blade SW102 (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 349; Stiffness: 69) (not a current model)
Solinco Whiteout 305 XTD+ (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 345; Stiffness: 64)

However, most of these racquets are heavy, which in practice will slow racquet speed down, and extremely stiff, which causes pain and injuries.

So here are the most powerful current models I've found with stiffness of 60 or less:

Prince Synergy 98 (15.5-21.3-42.1%) (51%) (69.3-86.4) (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 334; Stiffness: 60)
Head Gravity Pro 100 (16.3-21-41.7%) (50%) (69.1-86.1) (Strung weight: 332 g; Swing weight: 329; Stiffness: 59)

Here are the most powerful current models with stiffness between 51 and 57:

Head Gravity MP (14.1-20-41%) (49%) (Strung weight: 312 g; Swing weight: 323; Stiffness: 57)
Prince Phantom Pro 100 (12.9-19.9-40.6%) (68.2-85.2) (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 320; Stiffness: 54)
Wilson Clash 100 Pro v3 (13-19.8-41.1%) (68.1-85.6) (Strung weight: 323 g; Swing weight: 320; Stiffness: 57)
ProKennex Ki Black Ace (12.4-19.7-41) (Strung weight: 335 g; Swing weight: 325; Stiffness: 56)
Head Gravity MP L (13.1-18.7-39.3%) (48%) (Strung weight: 295 g; Swing weight: 308; Stiffness: 57)
Wilson Clash 100 v3 (11.9-18.6-39.2%) (47%) (67.1-84) (Strung weight: 312 g; Swing weight: 308; Stiffness: 54)
Head Gravity Team (12.1-18.4-38.6%) (48%) (Strung weight: 283 g; Swing weight: 304; Stiffness: 57)
Wilson Clash 100 (11.6-18.4-39.5%) (Strung weight: 312 g; Swing weight: 312; Stiffness: 55)
Wilson Clash 100 v2 (12.2-18-39.6%) (47%) (67.1-84) (Strung weight: 312 g; Swing weight: 313; Stiffness: 57)
Wilson Clash 100L v3 (12.1-17-38.4%) (65.8-83.3) (Strung weight: 295 g; Swing weight: 301; Stiffness: 54)

Here are all models with stiffness of 50 or less for which power data is available (not current models):

Wilson K Fury 100 (7.8-14.7-36.3%) (40%) (Strung weight: 281 g; Swing weight: 290; Stiffness: 50)
Wilson BLX Bold 100 (9-13.4-33.5%) (40%) (62.9-81) (Strung weight: 281 g; Swing weight: 291; Stiffness: 50)

Here are all current models with stiffness of 0 or less:

Wilson Triad Three 113 (Strung weight: 278 g; Swing weight: 331; Stiffness: <0)
Wilson Triad Five 103 (Strung weight: 284 g; Swing weight: 324; Stiffness: <0)

Here are some older models with stiffness of 0 or less:

Wilson Triad XP3 2017 (Strung weight: 278 g; Swing weight: 315; Stiffness: <0)
Wilson Five Lite BLX 2015 (Strung weight: 266 g; Swing weight: 315; Stiffness: <0)
Wilson Three BLX 2013 (Strung weight: 281 g; Swing weight: 321; Stiffness: <0)
Wilson Five 103 2013 (Strung weight: 281 g; Swing weight: 318; Stiffness: <0)
Wilson Five BLX 2013 (Strung weight: 281 g; Swing weight: 311; Stiffness: <0)

and here are some selected low power models:

Prince Phantom 100X (13.7-19.3-40.6%) (67.7-85) (Strung weight: 306 g; Swing weight: 319; Stiffness: 58)
Tecnifibre TFight 325 XL VO2MAX (17.9-18.1-40.8%) (Strung weight: 337 g; Swing weight: 326; Stiffness: 68)
Prince ATS Textreme Tour 100 (14.7-19.7-40.9%) (48%) (69.3-86.4) (Strung weight: 328 g; Swing weight: 323; Stiffness: 62)
Prince Phantom 100G LB (14-19.6-42.1%) (47%) (59.9-86.4) (Strung weight: 329 g; Swing weight: 335; Stiffness: 59)
Wilson Ultra 100UL (13.1-15.3-36.6%) (64.4-81.9) (Strung weight: 273 g; Swing weight: 283; Stiffness: 68)
Wilson Clash 100UL v2 (Strung weight: 281 g; Swing weight: 300; Stiffness: 63)
Wilson Clash 100UL v3 (Strung weight: 281 g; can't find the other specs)
Wilson K Bold (Strung weight: 278 g; Swing weight: 284; Stiffness: 52)

Unfortunately I could find a single racquet in the tool that had stiffness below 50, such as the Wilson Triads. These would be among the most interesting racquets to test for power, given that the new models have an oversized stiff head and high swingweight.

Bear in mind also that all of the above is assuming the same racquet tip speed. This is an important caveat because it is very likely that you will not generate the same racquet head speed with a more powerful racquet. It could be slower due to the increase force required to move a greater weight, and slower over time due to fatigue, but it could also be just as fast or faster, because of the decreased shock on impact and increased comfort, or due to extended length. The greater advantage of a heavier racquet for most players is going to be the reduction shock on the arm at the same ball speed, which means that many players generate more ball speed with the heavier racquet due to racquet head momentum being greater. So one is forced to balance shock reduction and power with muscle fatigue reduction and spin production according one's own person physical limitations.

 

[MikhailT]

so from your data here there is a weirdly similar correlation between the off-center speed and both stiffness and shot speed. For me its another sign of the twu data being synthetically created from the specs alone.

The TWU power tool could be real though and the data there is slightly different than in the shot speed tool (for example RF 01 pro is noticeably more powerful off-center than the Ez 98T)

 

[Grafil Injection]

The main thing I notice from the TWU data (and your figures above), is that the difference between the most and least powerful rackets; whether it be a centre strike or off-centre, the same swing effort or the same swing-speed; is no more than 3.5mph or about a 5% range of shot-speeds achieved. This would likely be far less than the variation caused by different types of strings, different tensions, different wind conditions, different tennis-ball freshness and most of all, differences in player technique/timing/strength.

Basically, the shot-speed data suggests that even though there is a clear upward trend with SW on centre, there is no match-relevant difference between the shot-speeds achieved. Most people who can cope with a 70mph forehand, can cope with a 73.5mph one too. And off-centre the correlation with SW is much lower meaning there is a huge cohort of rackets that all achieve about the same shot-speed within about just a 2mph range.

Also weird is that TiS6 comes out as having one of the lowest shot-speeds on centre, and just average off-centre. The classic grandad-stick with a massive head for easy-hitting and huge trampoline effects, is the least powerful?! Perhaps the data would come out differently for strokes around 30-50mph. But overall the figures do appear to be theoretical rather than match specific.

 

[PleaseBeNicer]

so from your data here there is a weirdly similar correlation between the off-center speed and both stiffness and shot speed. For me its another sign of the twu data being synthetically created from the specs alone.

The TWU power tool could be real though and the data there is slightly different than in the shot speed tool (for example RF 01 pro is noticeably more powerful off-center than the Ez 98T)

Really interesting thanks. I thought it was empirically measured, but can't remember why I thought that.

I should probably have used the power tool instead and might edit this post to include the power results.

 

[PleaseBeNicer]

The main thing I notice from the TWU data (and your figures above), is that the difference between the most and least powerful rackets; whether it be a centre strike or off-centre, the same swing effort or the same swing-speed; is no more than 3.5mph or about a 5% range of shot-speeds achieved. This would likely be far less than the variation caused by different types of strings, different tensions, different wind conditions, different tennis-ball freshness and most of all, differences in player technique/timing/strength.

Basically, the shot-speed data suggests that even though there is a clear upward trend with SW on centre, there is no match-relevant difference between the shot-speeds achieved. Most people who can cope with a 70mph forehand, can cope with a 73.5mph one too. And off-centre the correlation with SW is much lower meaning there is a huge cohort of rackets that all achieve about the same shot-speed within about just a 2mph range.

A consistent speed gain of 3.5 mph would actually make a big difference at the pro level, but the bigger problem is that more swingweight means a slower racquet speed in practice. More stiffness means more pain and injuries. And more power generally means less margin over the net, less spin relative to ball speed.

As I said above, perhaps the most important factor in choosing a racquet is preventing pain and injuries, since that will determine how much practice and match time you can get in, but the tennis racquet marketing teams don't see that as sexy enough so it's all about power.

 

[Grafil Injection]

A consistent speed gain of 3.5 mph would actually make a big difference at the pro level, but the bigger problem is that more swingweight means a slower racquet speed in practice. More stiffness means more pain and injuries. And more power generally means less margin over the net, less spin relative to ball speed.

As I said above, perhaps the most important factor in choosing a racquet is preventing pain and injuries, since that will determine how much practice and match time you can get in, but the tennis racquet marketing teams don't see that as sexy enough so it's all about power.



Yeah I think it's theoretical and I probably should have used the compare power tool instead of the compare speed tool.

Yeah, the Power metric shows about an 8% range closely correlated again to SW, which is offset by the Swing-Speed metric that is negatively correlated to SW with about a 3% range, which is why the Shot-Speed metric results in about a 5% positively correlated range from lowest SW to highest. It's described in the notes to each chart. All very theoretical really.

Something like Swing-Vision (or a more accurate radar version), monitoring at least 100 shots of similar type for each racket, would probably be better way of identifying racket performance differences.

 

[Crocodile]

I have hit with the current E Zone 98 tour in the last few months and yes, it’s a very powerful racquet.
A few observations if I may add is what a racquet can bring to your game based on your physicality and how you like to play and win. If you are a big server, including pace you can generate, the angle and height of bounce you can achieve, then the right racquet can make a significant difference, provided you can sustain it and not get injured.
With Yonex I found all of their tour versions are monster frames. I had a client that bought a V Core Tour and it came in way over spec with its SW ( 348) and after hitting with it - yes it was a beast.
On the other hand the Pure Drive plus and Solinco blackout 27.5 inch frames are also healthy beasts when it comes to serving - provided you are strong enough to use them.
Ultimately a stiff, extra long racquet with a high SW and low wind resistance is going to be a powerful serving stick. By subtracting one of these variables you can find the racquet that is going to match your game and physicality.

 

[esgee48]

Everything in the TWU databases are lab based. You should really read and understand how the data was collected. To say that the data is not relevant is not true. It is there to provide guidance. It says nothing how well you will play with a racquet since you have different preferences on strings, tension and racquet mods. The data that is related to static measurements is valid for what it is. The data that is related to dynamic performance is not unless you’re the same as the robot doing it. Threads like this promote mis understanding how to use the data.

 

[PleaseBeNicer]

Everything in the TWU databases are lab based. You should really read and understand how the data was collected. To say that the data is not relevant is not true. It is there to provide guidance. It says nothing how well you will play with a racquet since you have different preferences on strings, tension and racquet mods. The data that is related to static measurements is valid for what it is. The data that is related to dynamic performance is not unless you’re the same as the robot doing it. Threads like this promote mis understanding how to use the data.

The compare speed tool explains that it is based on power potential (which is lab based) and then it sounds like they apply that to different speeds and assume the power potential stays the same a different speeds, which would make it partly synthetic. However, I got different results in the rankings when I used the power tool instead so I don't really know what's going on. Perhaps you could explain it if you understand it so well?

Regardless, I don't see how this thread promotes a misunderstanding of how to use the data. Do you have any criticism of any claims in my initial post?

 

[PleaseBeNicer]

Yeah, the Power metric shows about an 8% range closely correlated again to SW, which is offset by the Swing-Speed metric that is negatively correlated to SW with about a 3% range, which is why the Shot-Speed metric results in about a 5% positively correlated range from lowest SW to highest. It's described in the notes to each chart. All very theoretical really.

Something like Swing-Vision (or a more accurate radar version), monitoring at least 100 shots of similar type for each racket, would probably be better way of identifying racket performance differences.

Can you point out where they explain this? I can't find it. The compare speed tool says "Assumption 1: both racquets are swung at the same speed", which is not realistic over the course of a match if one has a greater weight and swingweight.

 

[Grafil Injection]

The compare speed tool explains that it is based on power potential (which is lab based) and then it sounds like they apply that to different speeds and assume the power potential stays the same a different speeds, which would make it partly synthetic. However, I got different results in the rankings when I used the power tool instead so I don't really know what's going on. Perhaps you could explain it if you understand it so well?

Regardless, I don't see how this thread promotes a misunderstanding of how to use the data. Do you have any criticism of any claims in my initial post?

I agree, there's no erroneous information above, just pointing out that the lab-based power ranges are small and other real world factors should be considered.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Can you point out where they explain this? I can't find it. The compare speed tool says "Assumption 1: both racquets are swung at the same speed", which is not realistic over the course of a match if one has a greater weight and swingweight.

In the Shot Speed details they describe how increased SW will raise Power but lower Swing Speed.

 

[PleaseBeNicer]

I've updated the OP to include this, which I think is pretty important:

the most powerful current models I've found with stiffness of 60 or less;

the most powerful current models with stiffness between 51 and 57;

all models with stiffness of 50 or less for which power data is available (not current models):

all current models with stiffness of 0 or less;

and some older models with stiffness of 0 or less.

 

[PleaseBeNicer]

I've developed a formula that predicts power from head size, swingweight and stiffness:

Predicted Power = exp(0.651 + (0.0091 * Head Size) + (0.0107 * Stiffness (RA)) + (0.0024 * Swingweight))

Here's the csv form of the data for those that might want to use it.

In order of power relative to predicted power (extent more powerful than predicted):

Racquet Name,Head Size,Strung Weight (g),Swingweight,Stiffness (RA),Power,Predicted Power,Predicted Power Delta
Head Gravity Tour 100,100,323,328,59,21.3,19.73,1.57
Prince O3 Phantom 100X 2025,100,326,324,65,22.4,20.84,1.56
Prince Phantom Pro 100,100,323,320,54,19.9,18.35,1.55
Prince O3 Phantom 100X 2024,100,326,325,60,21.3,19.8,1.5
ProKennex Ki Black Ace 97,97,335,325,56,19.7,18.46,1.24
Wilson RF 01 Pro 98,98,337,331,67,22.5,21.26,1.24
Head Gravity Pro 100,100,332,329,59,21.0,19.78,1.22
Wilson Blade 100S Countervail,100,324,324,71,23.3,22.22,1.08
Prince Synergy 98,100,323,334,60,21.3,20.24,1.06
Babolat Pure Aero 98,98,323,321,66,21.5,20.54,0.96
Head Gravity MP 100,100,312,323,57,20.0,19.09,0.91
Wilson Clash 100 Pro v3,100,323,320,57,19.8,18.95,0.85
Dunlop 500 FX,100,320,321,69,22.4,21.6,0.8
Wilson Clash 100 v3,100,312,308,54,18.6,17.83,0.77
Babolat Pure Drive 98,98,323,322,67,21.5,20.81,0.69
Head Speed Pro 100,100,329,333,60,20.8,20.19,0.61
Wilson Blade Pro 98,100,320,336,61,21.0,20.55,0.45
Tecnifibre TFight ISO 305 98,98,320,338,64,21.3,20.94,0.36
Babolat Pure Drive 100,100,318,317,69,21.7,21.39,0.31
Head Gravity MP L 100,100,295,308,57,18.7,18.41,0.29
Wilson Clash 100,100,312,312,55,18.4,18.19,0.21
Prince Phantom 100X,100,306,319,58,19.3,19.11,0.19
Yonex EZONE 98 Tour,98,334,332,63,20.6,20.42,0.18
Head Gravity Team 100,100,283,304,57,18.4,18.23,0.17
Yonex Vcore Pro 97 330 2019,97,349,332,65,20.7,20.67,0.03
Wilson Ultra 95 Countervail,95,326,339,69,21.5,21.55,-0.05
Solinco Whiteout 305 XTD+ 98,98,323,345,64,21.2,21.3,-0.1
Solinco Whiteout 305 XTD v2,98,323,345,64,20.9,21.3,-0.4
Prince ATS Textreme Tour 100,100,328,323,62,19.7,20.13,-0.43
Prince Phantom 100G LB,100,329,335,59,19.6,20.07,-0.47
Yonex Vcore Pro 97 330 2017,97,346,330,65,20.1,20.57,-0.47
Tecnifibre TFight ISO 315 98,98,329,334,69,21.4,21.88,-0.48
Wilson Clash 100L v3,100,295,301,54,17.0,17.53,-0.53
Wilson Clash 100 v2,100,312,313,57,18.0,18.63,-0.63
Babolat Pure Aero 100,100,318,318,66,20.0,20.76,-0.76
Wilson Blade SW102,102,323,349,69,22.7,23.53,-0.83
Prince O3 Legacy 120 2024,120,285,330,69,25.5,26.48,-0.98
Wilson Ultra 100 Countervail,100,318,322,75,22.1,23.08,-0.98
Solinco Blackout 305 XTD 100,100,320,328,70,20.6,22.2,-1.6
Wilson K Fury 100,100,281,290,50,14.7,16.36,-1.66
Wilson Ultra 108,108,294,324,73,22.7,24.42,-1.72
Wilson Blade SW104,104,323,341,68,21.0,23.25,-2.25
Wilson BLX Bold 100,100,281,291,50,13.4,16.4,-3.0
Wilson Ultra 100UL,100,273,283,68,15.3,19.5,-4.2
Dunlop LX1000 115,115,269,305,75,,25.4,
Wilson Five Lite BLX 2015,103,266,315,0,,10.46,
Wilson Triad XP3 2017 103,103,278,315,0,,10.46,
Wilson Three BLX 2013 103,103,281,321,0,,10.61,
Wilson Five BLX 2013 103,103,281,311,0,,10.36,
Wilson Five 103 2013,103,281,318,0,,10.53,
Wilson Triad Five 103,103,284,324,0,,10.69,
Wilson K Bold 100,100,278,284,52,,16.47,

 

[Shroud]

I've developed a formula that predicts power from specs:

Predicted Power = -15.01 + (0.252 x Head Size) - (0.051 x Strung Weight) + (0.081 x Swing Weight) - (0.010 x Flex)

Strung weight inversely correlates with power when the other factors are held constant because a higher swing weight at the same swingweight means less mass at the head of the racquet.

Here's the csv form of the data for those that might want to use it:

In order of power:

Racquet Name,Head Size,Strung Weight (g),Swing Weight,Flex (×100),Predicted Power,Power
Prince O3 Legacy 120 2024,120,285,330,465,22.8,25.5
Wilson Ultra 108,108,294,324,405,21.3,22.7
Wilson RF 01 Pro,98,337,331,495,21.8,22.5
Dunlop 500 FX,100,320,321,465,20.4,22.4
Prince O3 Phantom 100X,100,326,324,525,19.9,22.4
Wilson Ultra 100 Countervail,100,318,322,375,20.6,22.1
Yonex EZONE 100+ 300,100,318,337,450,21.7,21.8
Babolat Pure Drive 100,100,318,317,465,20.0,21.7
Wilson Ultra 95 Countervail,95,326,339,465,20.5,21.5
Babolat Pure Aero 98,98,323,321,510,19.9,21.5
Babolat Pure Drive 98,98,323,322,495,20.2,21.5
Tecnifibre TFight ISO 315 98,98,329,334,465,20.4,21.4
Tecnifibre TFight ISO 305 98,98,320,338,540,20.5,21.3
Prince Synergy 100,100,323,334,600,20.2,21.3
Head Gravity Tour 100,100,323,328,615,20.3,21.3
Head Gravity Pro 100,100,332,329,615,19.8,21
Wilson Blade SW104,104,323,341,480,21.9,21
Wilson Blade Pro 98,98,320,336,585,20.2,21
Solinco Whiteout 305 XTD v2,98,323,345,540,21.0,20.9
Head Speed Pro 100,100,329,333,600,20.1,20.8
Yonex Vcore Pro 97 330 2019,97,349,332,525,19.8,20.7
Yonex EZONE 98 Tour,98,334,332,555,19.9,20.6
Solinco Blackout 305 XTD 100,100,320,328,450,20.6,20.6
Yonex Vcore Pro 97 330 2017,97,346,330,525,19.9,20.1
Babolat Pure Aero 100,100,318,318,510,19.7,20
Head Gravity MP,100,312,323,645,19.2,20
Prince Phantom Pro 100,100,323,320,690,18.5,19.9
Wilson Clash 100 Pro v3,100,323,320,645,19.2,19.8
Prince ATS Textreme Tour 100,100,328,323,570,19.9,19.7
ProKennex Ki Black Ace,95,335,325,660,18.6,19.7
Prince Phantom 100G LB,100,329,335,615,20.1,19.6
Prince Phantom 100X,100,306,319,630,19.2,19.3
Head Gravity MP L,100,295,308,645,19.3,18.7
Wilson Clash 100 v3,100,312,308,690,18.3,18.6
Head Gravity Team,100,283,304,645,19.5,18.4
Wilson Clash 100,100,312,312,675,18.5,18.4
Tecnifibre TFight 325 XL VO2MAX,95,337,326,480,19.2,18.1
Wilson Clash 100 v2,100,312,313,645,18.8,18
Wilson Clash 100L v3,100,295,301,690,18.0,17
Wilson Ultra 100UL,100,273,283,480,18.9,15.3
Wilson K Fury 100,100,281,290,750,16.5,14.7
Wilson BLX Bold 100,103,281,291,750,17.4,13.4
Wilson Five Lite BLX 2015,103,266,315,1500,12.3,
Wilson Triad XP3 2017,103,278,315,1500,12.0,
Wilson Five BLX 2013,103,281,311,1500,11.9,
Wilson Three BLX 2013,103,281,321,1500,11.8,
Wilson Five 103 2013,103,281,318,1500,11.8,
Wilson Triad Five 103,103,284,324,1500,11.5,
Wilson Triad Three 113,113,278,331,1500,11.1,

In order of power relative to predicted power (extent more powerful than predicted):

Racquet Name,Head Size,Strung Weight (g),Swing Weight,Flex (×100),Predicted Power,Power,Performance vs. Prediction (%)
Prince O3 Legacy 120 2024,120,285,330,465,22.8,25.5,11.8
Babolat Pure Drive 100,100,318,317,465,20.0,21.7,8.5
Wilson Ultra 100 Countervail,100,318,322,375,20.6,22.1,7.3
Wilson Ultra 108,108,294,324,405,21.3,22.7,6.6
Head Gravity Pro 100,100,332,329,615,19.8,21.0,6.1
ProKennex Ki Black Ace,95,335,325,660,18.6,19.7,5.9
Prince O3 Phantom 100X,100,326,324,525,19.9,22.4,12.6
Dunlop 500 FX,100,320,321,465,20.4,22.4,9.8
Head Gravity Tour 100,100,323,328,615,20.3,21.3,4.9
Tecnifibre TFight ISO 315 98,98,329,334,465,20.4,21.4,4.9
Yonex Vcore Pro 97 330 2019,97,349,332,525,19.8,20.7,4.5
Wilson Blade Pro 98,98,320,336,585,20.2,21.0,4.0
Yonex EZONE 98 Tour,98,334,332,555,19.9,20.6,3.5
Wilson RF 01 Pro,98,337,331,495,21.8,22.5,3.2
Wilson Clash 100 Pro v3,100,323,320,645,19.2,19.8,3.1
Babolat Pure Drive 98,98,323,322,495,20.2,21.5,6.4
Head Speed Pro 100,100,329,333,600,20.1,20.8,3.5
Prince Synergy 100,100,323,334,600,20.2,21.3,5.4
Babolat Pure Aero 100,100,318,318,510,19.7,20.0,1.5
Yonex Vcore Pro 97 330 2017,97,346,330,525,19.9,20.1,1.0
Solinco Blackout 305 XTD 100,100,320,328,450,20.6,20.6,0.0
Yonex EZONE 100+ 300,100,318,337,450,21.7,21.8,0.5
Prince ATS Textreme Tour 100,100,328,323,570,19.9,19.7,-1.0
Wilson Clash 100,100,312,312,675,18.5,18.4,-0.5
Prince Phantom 100G LB,100,329,335,615,20.1,19.6,-2.5
Wilson Blade SW104,104,323,341,480,21.9,21.0,-4.1
Wilson Clash 100 v2,100,312,313,645,18.8,18.0,-4.3
Head Gravity MP,100,312,323,645,19.2,20.0,4.2
Prince Phantom 100X,100,306,319,630,19.2,19.3,0.5
Solinco Whiteout 305 XTD v2,98,323,345,540,21.0,20.9,-0.5
Tecnifibre TFight 305 98,98,320,338,540,20.5,21.3,3.9
Babolat Pure Aero 98,98,323,321,510,19.9,21.5,8.0
Wilson Clash 100 v3,100,312,308,690,18.3,18.6,1.6
Tecnifibre TFight 325 XL VO2MAX,95,337,326,480,19.2,18.1,-5.7
Head Gravity Team,100,283,304,645,19.5,18.4,-5.6
Wilson Clash 100L v3,100,295,301,690,18.0,17.0,-5.6
Prince Phantom Pro 100,100,323,320,690,18.5,19.9,7.6
Head Gravity MP L,100,295,308,645,19.3,18.7,-3.1
Wilson Ultra 95 Countervail,95,326,339,465,20.5,21.5,4.9
Wilson K Fury 100,100,281,290,750,16.5,14.7,-10.9
Wilson Ultra 100UL,100,273,283,480,18.9,15.3,-19.0
Wilson BLX Bold 100,103,281,291,750,17.4,13.4,-23.0
Wilson Triad Three 113,113,278,331,1500,11.1,,
Wilson Triad Five 103,103,284,324,1500,11.5,,
Wilson Triad XP3 2017,103,278,315,1500,12.0,,
Wilson Five Lite BLX 2015,103,266,315,1500,12.3,,
Wilson Three BLX 2013,103,281,321,1500,11.8,,
Wilson Five 103 2013,103,281,318,1500,11.8,,
Wilson Five BLX 2013,103,281,311,1500,11.9,,

Was really excited because I buy by flex and weight mostly, wanting the stiffest lightest stick I can find. But the flex numbers seem to be off. IN the op the wilson Ultra 108 is listed with an RA of 73. But it looks like that is the 2015 model since the current one is only 70. Also the Ultra 100 countervaile is old too. And the last post has flex x 100 but those values seem to be off, like the first one (prince 03) with a flex of 4.65? Is that different than RA or something? Never heard of anything but RA measurements usually from the bab RDC and ranging like you list in the first post between 50-mid 70. What am I missing?

 

[PleaseBeNicer]

Was really excited because I buy by flex and weight mostly, wanting the stiffest lightest stick I can find. But the flex numbers seem to be off. IN the op the wilson Ultra 108 is listed with an RA of 73. But it looks like that is the 2015 model since the current one is only 70. Also the Ultra 100 countervaile is old too. And the last post has flex x 100 but those values seem to be off, like the first one (prince 03) with a flex of 4.65? Is that different than RA or something? Never heard of anything but RA measurements usually from the bab RDC and ranging like you list in the first post between 50-mid 70. What am I missing?

"Flex" here is not stiffness in RA. It's deviation in mm x 100 on the stiffness flexibility test. I did this because I wanted to have positive values for all racquets including the Triad line that have "zero" stiffness on racquet finder.

Thanks for pointing out that not all of the racquets are the the latest models. I used the most current one that existed in the power tool, since the newest models are very often not in the power tool. By "current models" in the OP I mean "current" as defined by the racquet finder, which is not always the latest model.

I've cleaned up the detail and recalculated as there were other errors so I'll edit that comment now. In the new formula, the prediction from strung weight, balance in points, head size and stiffness is so accurate that none of the racquets really perform more than 2.2% more than predicted, and this is a small enough amount that it might be due to measurements being off.

 

[PleaseBeNicer]

Was really excited because I buy by flex and weight mostly, wanting the stiffest lightest stick I can find. But the flex numbers seem to be off. IN the op the wilson Ultra 108 is listed with an RA of 73. But it looks like that is the 2015 model since the current one is only 70. Also the Ultra 100 countervaile is old too. And the last post has flex x 100 but those values seem to be off, like the first one (prince 03) with a flex of 4.65? Is that different than RA or something? Never heard of anything but RA measurements usually from the bab RDC and ranging like you list in the first post between 50-mid 70. What am I missing?

If what you're mainly interested in is something very light and stiff, you might be interested in the *lowest* rated racquets in this list, where I used Babolat's proprietary standard "RA" for stiffness.

P

Thread 'I created a formula that estimates shock reduction based on strung weight and stiffness'

Oct 18, 2025

I subjectively rated the comfort of various racquets and then used regression to find a decent formula to predict the comfort rating from just strung weight and stiffness.
Shock Reduction = Strung Weight + 5 * (100 - Stiffness (RA))

The fit with my subjective ratings was incredibly close (probably though methodological errors) with R-squared (R²): 0.998.

Which racquets do you think should be ranked higher or lower?

Racquet Name	Strung Weight (g)	Stiffness (RA)	Shock Reduction
Wilson Triad Five 103	284	0	784

...

• PleaseBeNicer
• Replies: 6
• Forum: Racquets

• 

 

[Shroud]

If what you're mainly interested in is something very light and stiff, you might be interested in the *lowest* rated racquets in this list, where I used Babolat's proprietary standard "RA" for stiffness.

P

Thread 'I created a formula that estimates shock reduction based on strung weight and stiffness'

Oct 18, 2025

I subjectively rated the comfort of various racquets and then used regression to find a decent formula to predict the comfort rating from just strung weight and stiffness.
Shock Reduction = Strung Weight + 5 * (100 - Stiffness (RA))

The fit with my subjective ratings was incredibly close (probably though methodological errors) with R-squared (R²): 0.998.

Which racquets do you think should be ranked higher or lower?

Racquet Name	Strung Weight (g)	Stiffness (RA)	Shock Reduction
Wilson Triad Five 103	284	0	784

...

• PleaseBeNicer
• Replies: 6
• Forum: Racquets

• 

Thanks. But man you are killing me with the old models…

Also some of those racquets have dumb grommets where the string moves more which makes the stiffness less impactful ime. The experience is not stiff enough.

 

[PleaseBeNicer]

Thanks. But man you are killing me with the old models…

Also some of those racquets have dumb grommets where the string moves more which makes the stiffness less impactful ime. The experience is not stiff enough.

You must love pain I guess. Have you tried the Wilson Ultra 100UL? Seems like the perfect racquet if you want to hurt your arm with something light and stiff.

 

[Shroud]

You must love pain I guess. Have you tried the Wilson Ultra 100UL? Seems like the perfect racquet if you want to hurt your arm with something light and stiff.

Well v4 and v5 of that racquet are only 68 and 65 ra respectively.

The idea for light is that I add a ton of weight so starting with a light frame is ideal to keep the static weight lighter. Even then i often end up over 400g and sw over 400. Its unlikely i will hurt anything other than my legs playing tennis.

 

[PleaseBeNicer]

Well v4 and v5 of that racquet are only 68 and 65 ra respectively.

The idea for light is that I add a ton of weight so starting with a light frame is ideal to keep the static weight lighter. Even then i often end up over 400g and sw over 400. Its unlikely i will hurt anything other than my legs playing tennis.

What is the point of choosing the lightest possible weight if you're going to add weight?

 

[Shroud]

What is the point of choosing the lightest possible weight if you're going to add weight?

Control of where the weight is. Usually light racquets are often very head heavy. So if you are going to add around 50g to the handle it helps to not have a regular racquet with an already headlight balance.

Another plus is you can get a highly polarized racquet if it starts out lighter. And if you add alot of weight at each end it certainly seems to make a racquet appear to be less stiff so a stiffer racquet helps.

 

[Donmikan]

I think this really applies (i also suffer from this)

- showing that some things never change with tennis equipment:

https://imgur.com/a/gslGlR5

 

[PleaseBeNicer]

I think this really applies (i also suffer from this)

True in my case! Although I think it's a coincidence that tennis is a new passion for me and I happen to love data science. Probably not true for every new player.