The Official Angell Users Club

zalive

Hall of Fame
Does anybody tailweight with just weight at 7"? Have not tried that yet.
You can try this, but once you reach the point where you have gotten a racquet's speed through swing that's just right for you, but feel you can use a more head light racquet, it's betterto add the rest of the mass at the butt. This is what I do, I distribute lead/mass between 7'' and the butt, starting with 7'' lead. In combination with a light basic grip it's really great, you get the whippiest result.
 

Power Player

Talk Tennis Guru
Hi all, logged in and saw some older posts asking me questions. I just keep playing with the Angells and PT280. I have not really had a need to look at other frames.For me, it is RS Lyon in an Angell or 280 and I'm good. Simple stuff :) Enjoy them!
 
Hi all, logged in and saw some older posts asking me questions. I just keep playing with the Angells and PT280. I have not really had a need to look at other frames.For me, it is RS Lyon in an Angell or 280 and I'm good. Simple stuff :) Enjoy them!
I forget, do you use the Tc100 sometimes? some people had questions about those as a big serving more comfortable 100sq inch option.
 

Gee

Hall of Fame
Hi all, logged in and saw some older posts asking me questions. I just keep playing with the Angells and PT280. I have not really had a need to look at other frames.For me, it is RS Lyon in an Angell or 280 and I'm good. Simple stuff :) Enjoy them!
I still prefer the feel of my TC95 18x20 63RA. Today I tried my TC97 again (even without dampener). However the T97 just doesn't have the X factor to me.
 
Last edited:

AMGF

Hall of Fame
Got my TC95 18x20 today and hit with it for a few hours. First impressions are that it's like swinging Thor's hammer. When you have time to line up a shot it produces a fast heavy shot. It was also really good/accurate on slice and super stable on serve return. The extra length was a little noticeable due to the smaller head size but the extra real estate on the handle for a 2hbh was very nice.

Mine was 320g unstung and with a leather grip, overgrip and dampener it was 343 grams with a balance point of 32.7CM so about 7 points head light. Paired with the longer 27.5" weight I'm scared to calculate the swing weight but let's say it was pretty heavy and there was no saving shots if you were late. I think I may order one but start it at 300g unstrung instead of 320g.
Thanks for the update. That's the frame wanted to order but was afraid of the SW. The 63Ra has a high SW already and the extra weight from the 18x20 combined with the extra ,5in is sure to be a beast. You can try thinner gauge strings to help lower the weight of the strings and help lower the SW a bit more.

A lower weight frame won't help much as the weight is in the handle and will have only a small effect on the SW. You can try removing the weight in the handle yourself and see if you like it before ordering a new one.
 

1st Seed

Professional
Thanks for the update. That's the frame wanted to order but was afraid of the SW. The 63Ra has a high SW already and the extra weight from the 18x20 combined with the extra ,5in is sure to be a beast. You can try thinner gauge strings to help lower the weight of the strings and help lower the SW a bit more.

A lower weight frame won't help much as the weight is in the handle and will have only a small effect on the SW. You can try removing the weight in the handle yourself and see if you like it before ordering a new one.
are you in Toronto?
AMGF
 

RGT

Rookie
Thanks for the update. That's the frame wanted to order but was afraid of the SW. The 63Ra has a high SW already and the extra weight from the 18x20 combined with the extra ,5in is sure to be a beast. You can try thinner gauge strings to help lower the weight of the strings and help lower the SW a bit more.

A lower weight frame won't help much as the weight is in the handle and will have only a small effect on the SW. You can try removing the weight in the handle yourself and see if you like it before ordering a new one.
Do you know how much impact a thinner gauge would have on sw? For example between 1.25 and 1.20 or any any gauge difference, by how many points would the sw decrease?

Verstuurd vanaf mijn HUAWEI VNS-L31 met Tapatalk
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
Do you know how much impact a thinner gauge would have on sw? For example between 1.25 and 1.20 or any any gauge difference, by how many points would the sw decrease?

Verstuurd vanaf mijn HUAWEI VNS-L31 met Tapatalk
I don't know on top of my head, but I did measure when I went from 16g Solinco Revolution to 18g Cyclone and lost around 5sw if I remember correctly (I'd need to dig in my papers somewhere to know precisely). Plus the 18x20 being quite dense, the thinner gauge allows good spin while not being overly fragile. Best of both world as I have the control of a 18x20 with the advantage of being able to play thinner poly.

*Edit: I did find my calculations, with 16g I had a SW of 364. I then tried a 20g and got 347 (but broke the strings in about 20min) and now play with 18g and have 355sw and strings last 10hours. All strings were full bed poly.
 
Last edited:

CosmosMpower

Hall of Fame
Thanks for the update. That's the frame wanted to order but was afraid of the SW. The 63Ra has a high SW already and the extra weight from the 18x20 combined with the extra ,5in is sure to be a beast. You can try thinner gauge strings to help lower the weight of the strings and help lower the SW a bit more.

A lower weight frame won't help much as the weight is in the handle and will have only a small effect on the SW. You can try removing the weight in the handle yourself and see if you like it before ordering a new one.
Update: cut out the Angell Halo strings and restrung with RPM Blast Rough 16G and it's now 349 grams and about 5.5 points head light. I didn't get a chance to measure the swingweight yet but I'm guessing its' going to be hefty. It has a leather grip on it so I may switch to a thinner synthetic grip and try and get it back down to 340 grams.
 

APG

Rookie
Hi Guys,
I have playing with the Angel sticks for nearly a year. I initially bought a 95 18X20 and then this past fall purchased a
97 18X20 and again a second one in December. I enjoyed playing with the 97, enjoyed its control,flex and spin capability even with the closed pattern. Then for the hell of it restrung my 95 330/310 63 RA
with gut mains and Halo crosses. there is clearly a difference with the 95. The control, feel and power is a bit more than the 97. Yet I am playing my best tennis in months with the 95. It really has a huge sweet spot for a 95 and you can really get a lot of action and speed on the serve with the 95.Both the 95 and 97 generates some nice slice but I give a little more to the 95.Lastly, I am seem to generate more spin with the 95 as well. I just thought that I would put it out there in the event someone is debating between the two. I also prefer the flex of the 95. The 95 has a very familiar action as I think it is reminiscent of the old flexy Prestiges that I played with for years. They were really a 95, despite marketing them as a 98.
It appears I will sell one of my 97's and pick up another 95.
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
Hi Guys,
I have playing with the Angel sticks for nearly a year. I initially bought a 95 18X20 and then this past fall purchased a
97 18X20 and again a second one in December. I enjoyed playing with the 97, enjoyed its control,flex and spin capability even with the closed pattern. Then for the hell of it restrung my 95 330/310 63 RA
with gut mains and Halo crosses. there is clearly a difference with the 95. The control, feel and power is a bit more than the 97. Yet I am playing my best tennis in months with the 95. It really has a huge sweet spot for a 95 and you can really get a lot of action and speed on the serve with the 95.Both the 95 and 97 generates some nice slice but I give a little more to the 95.Lastly, I am seem to generate more spin with the 95 as well. I just thought that I would put it out there in the event someone is debating between the two. I also prefer the flex of the 95. The 95 has a very familiar action as I think it is reminiscent of the old flexy Prestiges that I played with for years. They were really a 95, despite marketing them as a 98.
It appears I will sell one of my 97's and pick up another 95.
It really just is a stupidly good stick. Glad you rediscovered the joys of hitting with it.
 

CosmosMpower

Hall of Fame
Update: cut out the Angell Halo strings and restrung with RPM Blast Rough 16G and it's now 349 grams and about 5.5 points head light. I didn't get a chance to measure the swingweight yet but I'm guessing its' going to be hefty. It has a leather grip on it so I may switch to a thinner synthetic grip and try and get it back down to 340 grams.
Hit for a bit with the RPM blast Rough and it's just too much racquet for me. I'm used to play with about low to mid 11 ounce strung racquets so this TC95 will be a catch and release. It's out in the classifieds if anyone is interested.
 

Mad hatter

Semi-Pro
Hi Guys,
I have playing with the Angel sticks for nearly a year. I initially bought a 95 18X20 and then this past fall purchased a
97 18X20 and again a second one in December. I enjoyed playing with the 97, enjoyed its control,flex and spin capability even with the closed pattern. Then for the hell of it restrung my 95 330/310 63 RA
with gut mains and Halo crosses. there is clearly a difference with the 95. The control, feel and power is a bit more than the 97. Yet I am playing my best tennis in months with the 95. It really has a huge sweet spot for a 95 and you can really get a lot of action and speed on the serve with the 95.Both the 95 and 97 generates some nice slice but I give a little more to the 95.Lastly, I am seem to generate more spin with the 95 as well. I just thought that I would put it out there in the event someone is debating between the two. I also prefer the flex of the 95. The 95 has a very familiar action as I think it is reminiscent of the old flexy Prestiges that I played with for years. They were really a 95, despite marketing them as a 98.
It appears I will sell one of my 97's and pick up another 95.
APG,
Just saw your thread. Contact me if you decide to part with the TC 97 18X20.
Lrizk@yahoo.com
 
I got my custom TC97 18x20 27.5" A 320gr/315mm.
Everything comes fairly easy with this racquet.

It's like the Aston Martin of racquets...:cool:

I might order a second one or try the TC95 RA63.
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
Hit for a bit with the RPM blast Rough and it's just too much racquet for me. I'm used to play with about low to mid 11 ounce strung racquets so this TC95 will be a catch and release. It's out in the classifieds if anyone is interested.
Sorry to hear this. The SW might possibly be in the 370s the way it is built. You could still try to cut .5in and bring it back to 27in. Combined with lighter and thinner strings you could lower SW in the <350 zone which is more playable.
 

CosmosMpower

Hall of Fame
Sorry to hear this. The SW might possibly be in the 370s the way it is built. You could still try to cut .5in and bring it back to 27in. Combined with lighter and thinner strings you could lower SW in the <350 zone which is more playable.
If it doesn't sell I may give that a shot. The 16 gauge poly definitely weighed more than the Angell Halo string that came in it (I think it was 17 or 18 gauge but can't find info on their site).
 

John Z.

Rookie
SW ~350 is still absolutely enormous imo, very few non-pro play with above 335, i personally don't like anything above 330. If you put multi or syntgut in there it will significantly drop the SW relative to RPM 16g. A heavier replacement grip would also likely help the maneuverability of that beast of yours.
 
Hi Guys,
I have playing with the Angel sticks for nearly a year. I initially bought a 95 18X20 and then this past fall purchased a
97 18X20 and again a second one in December. I enjoyed playing with the 97, enjoyed its control,flex and spin capability even with the closed pattern. Then for the hell of it restrung my 95 330/310 63 RA
with gut mains and Halo crosses. there is clearly a difference with the 95. The control, feel and power is a bit more than the 97. Yet I am playing my best tennis in months with the 95. It really has a huge sweet spot for a 95 and you can really get a lot of action and speed on the serve with the 95.Both the 95 and 97 generates some nice slice but I give a little more to the 95.Lastly, I am seem to generate more spin with the 95 as well. I just thought that I would put it out there in the event someone is debating between the two. I also prefer the flex of the 95. The 95 has a very familiar action as I think it is reminiscent of the old flexy Prestiges that I played with for years. They were really a 95, despite marketing them as a 98.
It appears I will sell one of my 97's and pick up another 95.
for me the tc95 has that X Factor, the #feelcrusher... it just does everything plus huge weapons in serve and spin production. Huge heavy balls, even when just rallying... the sw isnt for everyone
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gee

joohan

Hall of Fame
SW ~350 is still absolutely enormous imo, very few non-pro play with above 335, i personally don't like anything above 330. If you put multi or syntgut in there it will significantly drop the SW relative to RPM 16g. A heavier replacement grip would also likely help the maneuverability of that beast of yours.
Don't know. Seems like there's quite a bit of people on these forums who like higher SW.
 

John Z.

Rookie
You are right, but ironically i don't know many of these guys myself; i know dozens of competitive players in both USA and Canada, many of which have played D1/D2/D3 in their prime... so i can't help but to find irony in the fact that many guys here like 340+ SW, which in my experience is pretty hard to swing. Anyways, that's just my experience.

EDIT: i guess there might be an age/technique influence there, given that some players learned to play with extremely heavy wood frames for example, and i assume their technique is adapted to such demanding rackets. My 2 cents.

Don't know. Seems like there's quite a bit of people on these forums who like higher SW.
 
Last edited:

topspn

Legend
Don't know. Seems like there's quite a bit of people on these forums who like higher SW.
I did till i played the new PS one7 and said wholly ****! It is silly easy to play with and just does everything brilliantly with a simply addition of a fairway and OG. Honestly I am shocked as i always enjoyed heavier racquets.
 
I did till i played the new PS one7 and said wholly ****! It is silly easy to play with and just does everything brilliantly with a simply addition of a fairway and OG. Honestly I am shocked as i always enjoyed heavier racquets.
I always enjoy lower swingweight when just hitting around but for matchplay Im uncomfortable with anything below 340. The difference on serve returns and directional control is just too important for my game.
 

topspn

Legend
I always enjoy lower swingweight when just hitting around but for matchplay Im uncomfortable with anything below 340. The difference on serve returns and directional control is just too important for my game.
So far I’ve played with the PS one7 4 matches and it has been way beyond my expectations. I know what you mean with hitting vs match play but I am seriously shocked how easy it is to play with this lighter frame and in matches. In fact, my serve returns are pretty darned good. I’m being a lot more aggressive and taking the ball so early. Trust me I am still shacking my head wondering what the heck is happening.
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
You are right, but ironically i don't know many of these guys myself; i know dozens of competitive players in both USA and Canada, many of which have played D1/D2/D3 in their prime... so i can't help but to find irony in the fact that many guys here like 340+ SW, which in my experience is pretty hard to swing. Anyways, that's just my experience.

EDIT: i guess there might be an age/technique influence there, given that some players learned to play with extremely heavy wood frames for example, and i assume their technique is adapted to such demanding rackets. My 2 cents.
I might just be one if these guys, I started playing some 30 years ago on a wooden frame that was, I assume, ~13oz. At around 14yo I was playing the PSC 6.1si. To me, anything under 340sw is too light and I need to add weight. My current TC97s 18M are 355sw and it is pretty good but obviously not for everyone.

I don't think 340sw was that high or unusual. But it seems like in recent years, many people switched from soft heavy frames to lightweight stiff ones. Making 340sw+ stock frames something less common. I guess when in time someone started playing will have an influence on its preferred SW.
 
I might just be one if these guys, I started playing some 30 years ago on a wooden frame that was, I assume, ~13oz. At around 14yo I was playing the PSC 6.1si. To me, anything under 340sw is too light and I need to add weight. My current TC97s 18M are 355sw and it is pretty good but obviously not for everyone.

I don't think 340sw was that high or unusual. But it seems like in recent years, many people switched from soft heavy frames to lightweight stiff ones. Making 340sw+ stock frames something less common. I guess when in time someone started playing will have an influence on its preferred SW.
actually most of the racket manufacturers stoped making flexible frames that one could lead up to those high swing weights. So it wasn't so much the people switched just that they were forced or herded to change to cheaper to produce frames that didn't suit their strokes developed over several decades.

It's also significant that so many top pros still use flexible high swing weight frames

Angell just happened to be producing exactly what all these other manufacturers decided didn't have a high enough profit margin for. My arm thanks Paul Angell.
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
I did till i played the new PS one7 and said wholly ****! It is silly easy to play with and just does everything brilliantly with a simply addition of a fairway and OG. Honestly I am shocked as i always enjoyed heavier racquets.
That's cool. Whatever works. I've gone from 360+g strung frames to 320g/310mm unstrung TC97 and I'm enjoying the unusually low SW quite a lot. As long as everything I need works, I don't need to play a heavy racquet just for the sake of it. Btw those raving reviews of PSOne7 got me thinking, too.
 

ed70

Professional
12 sets of doubles now with my 63ra tc 95 16x19. Racquet weighs 333g strung. So far I haven't lost a set or service game or served a double fault! This thing is accurate and serves are nasty with a capital N. Still dialling in on ground strikes and volleys, its strange because at the moment I still feel I play better with my tc97, however this thing is really hurting opponents. Extra swingweight has helped with a few big hitters I've played against, its great when you hit a winner and they are still going through their service follow through!!
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
Angell TC97 18x20 > Yonex Tour G 330 > Yonex Vcore 89 Tour > Angell TC95
Didn't you swear by the Fischer Vacuum 90 mid not that long ago as being the best stick for you?

Don't know. Seems like there's quite a bit of people on these forums who like higher SW.
On this board there's a good deal of players from long ago, who learned tennis with solid sticks. SW around 330 used to be pretty much basic back then, and around 340-350 in stock form was nothing unusual, no rarity.

But the thing is, I can understand how some players are used the best with the lower SW - ok, this is what they played with, built their own games on such sticks and that's fine. But it's still hard for me to understand how someone far more athletic than I am can say SW around, say, 330-340 is too much for him. I'm not much athletic (I'm not overweight, around 80 kg at 181 cm is I guess still ok, but I'm not athletic in any other sense really, and footwork represents a hard time to me still), but trouble wielding a stick? C'mon...unless too heavy polarizes, above 365 grams and completely not compensated for MgR/I, there isn't and cannot be an issue).

My guess is some players are simply not used to use their core as much. And the other thing I guess is having experience with sticks with a lot of lead at 12 o'clock and none at the 7'' or at the throat, which indeed creates a lagging setup harder to swing. So experience with such setups can indeed lead to false conclusions.

Funny, I spoke to a long time Radical player. He used Radicals from the Twin Tube age, but frequently updated them so he basically played with all or almost all of them. He said that Radicals always gave some easy power and were easy to play with. But he told me previously how handling a 340+g is too much for him, or handling a SW of 330+ too. So I reminded him that he once played with such sticks (Tours), and he's having a memory of playing with them easily as well. He didn't have a comment on this. Anyway, it really shows how much of this is a mind game.

Anyway, Angells :) I think I broke down and I'll be ordering a new custom TC 95 63 RA 18x20 soonish. I gave it a lot of thought and I think this one has my name on it. Test for me was playing with modded i.Radical (customized to a very high SW - could be around 360?) and since I play very well with it, I've no least doubt this is the right choice. TC95 63 RA is the one that has something special, but I want a bit more control for the launch angle and precision, hence 18x20.
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
Didn't you swear by the Fischer Vacuum 90 mid not that long ago as being the best stick for you?



On this board there's a good deal of players from long ago, who learned tennis with solid sticks. SW around 330 used to be pretty much basic back then, and around 340-350 in stock form was nothing unusual, no rarity.

But the thing is, I can understand how some players are used the best with the lower SW - ok, this is what they played with, built their own games on such sticks and that's fine. But it's still hard for me to understand how someone far more athletic than I am can say SW around, say, 330-340 is too much for him. I'm not much athletic (I'm not overweight, around 80 kg at 181 cm is I guess still ok, but I'm not athletic in any other sense really, and footwork represents a hard time to me still), but trouble wielding a stick? C'mon...unless too heavy polarizes, above 365 grams and completely not compensated for MgR/I, there isn't and cannot be an issue).

My guess is some players are simply not used to use their core as much. And the other thing I guess is having experience with sticks with a lot of lead at 12 o'clock and none at the 7'' or at the throat, which indeed creates a lagging setup harder to swing. So experience with such setups can indeed lead to false conclusions.

Funny, I spoke to a long time Radical player. He used Radicals from the Twin Tube age, but frequently updated them so he basically played with all or almost all of them. He said that Radicals always gave some easy power and were easy to play with. But he told me previously how handling a 340+g is too much for him, or handling a SW of 330+ too. So I reminded him that he once played with such sticks (Tours), and he's having a memory of playing with them easily as well. He didn't have a comment on this. Anyway, it really shows how much of this is a mind game.

Anyway, Angells :) I think I broke down and I'll be ordering a new custom TC 95 63 RA 18x20 soonish. I gave it a lot of thought and I think this one has my name on it. Test for me was playing with modded i.Radical (customized to a very high SW - could be around 360?) and since I play very well with it, I've no least doubt this is the right choice. TC95 63 RA is the one that has something special, but I want a bit more control for the launch angle and precision, hence 18x20.
Vacuum Mid is the best racquet ever made in my book. Of course I play better with larger head and more forgiving sweet spot. I'm not using it that much at the moment as it needs restringing plus in winter it's exclusively clay courts back home in Slovakia which is not the best surface for attacking, S&V tactics. I don't take it with me when I go to U.K. Once outdoor season starts, I'll use it more often.

I can't really picture the level of players discussing on these forums. I'm not a former pro, I've learned basics at university and from that on it's been mostly trial and error for me. The "core" remark is spot on, I guess...plus legs and footwork are probably bigger issue than I can imagine. I'm a natural ball sports talent, I've played football at national level from 5 to 18 and competitive futsal in a non professional league against pro football and futsal player for next ten years...core/leg strength and fast footwork is very easy for me once I understand what and why. That's why 360+ grams frames are not an issue for me (provided that they are reasonably HL). That being said, I am appreciating the fast feeling and lower SW enabling me to have an absolute control over every single shot that my TC97 18x20 provides. We evolve all the time, I guess.

Congrats on your decision. Will be interesting to read what you think of it once you try it out.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
Vacuum Mid is the best racquet ever made in my book. Of course I play better with larger head and more forgiving sweet spot. I'm not using it that much at the moment as it needs restringing plus in winter it's exclusively clay courts back home in Slovakia which is not the best surface for attacking, S&V tactics. I don't take it with me when I go to U.K. Once outdoor season starts, I'll use it more often.

I can't really picture the level of players discussing on these forums. I'm not a former pro, I've learned basics at university and from that on it's been mostly trial and error for me. The "core" remark is spot on, I guess...plus legs and footwork are probably bigger issue than I can imagine. I'm a natural ball sports talent, I've played football at national level from 5 to 18 and competitive futsal in a non professional league against pro football and futsal player for next ten years...core/leg strength and fast footwork is very easy for me once I understand what and why. That's why 360+ grams frames are not an issue for me (provided that they are reasonably HL). That being said, I am appreciating the fast feeling and lower SW enabling me to have an absolute control over every single shot that my TC97 18x20 provides. We evolve all the time, I guess.
My level is not great, it's mere 4.0. Not many tennis hours behind me either, also, I'm not a huge sports talent either, just an average rec player who loves to play tennis (and to discuss it too). But, funny, best control for me comes from a decent SW but setups that are otherwise controlled by string bed, head size, and when design is control oriented by its predictability...there's a certain stillness I get when hitting with such racquets...

Congrats on your decision. Will be interesting to read what you think of it once you try it out.
This is one that hasn't had a huge amount of comment on this forum. But over recent few days has been getting some love. Let us know how you go with it.
Thanks. Well it will still take a bit of time to order it (I must settle the financial part, 170 GBP with delivery is not just like that...I never paid more than 100 EUR delivered for any racquet), get it and test it out. I'll be ordering a 300 grams 4 pts HL one. I want some good margin for customization, the easiest part is to make the handle heavier. At the same time I've nothing against a decent stock SW, I will add some lead on the hoop anyway lol :)
I'll be more than happy to share observations, however these will not likely be for the stock form...currently anything below 340 SW is out of question for me...
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
Vacuum Mid is the best racquet ever made in my book. Of course I play better with larger head and more forgiving sweet spot.
You got me confused by listing VCore 89 Tour mid. Does this mean it's more forgiving than Vacuum Mid?
 

galapagos

Semi-Pro
That's cool. Whatever works. I've gone from 360+g strung frames to 320g/310mm unstrung TC97 and I'm enjoying the unusually low SW quite a lot. As long as everything I need works, I don't need to play a heavy racquet just for the sake of it. Btw those raving reviews of PSOne7 got me thinking, too.
If you mean the 16x19 version then its not worth it ;p From all my racquets. Blade,Dr 98, Prestige mp, pure strike is imo the worst. Its not bad. Its good, solid, fun to hit. But others are just much better imo.
 

ed70

Professional
Didn't you swear by the Fischer Vacuum 90 mid not that long ago as being the best stick for you?



On this board there's a good deal of players from long ago, who learned tennis with solid sticks. SW around 330 used to be pretty much basic back then, and around 340-350 in stock form was nothing unusual, no rarity.

But the thing is, I can understand how some players are used the best with the lower SW - ok, this is what they played with, built their own games on such sticks and that's fine. But it's still hard for me to understand how someone far more athletic than I am can say SW around, say, 330-340 is too much for him. I'm not much athletic (I'm not overweight, around 80 kg at 181 cm is I guess still ok, but I'm not athletic in any other sense really, and footwork represents a hard time to me still), but trouble wielding a stick? C'mon...unless too heavy polarizes, above 365 grams and completely not compensated for MgR/I, there isn't and cannot be an issue).

My guess is some players are simply not used to use their core as much. And the other thing I guess is having experience with sticks with a lot of lead at 12 o'clock and none at the 7'' or at the throat, which indeed creates a lagging setup harder to swing. So experience with such setups can indeed lead to false conclusions.

Funny, I spoke to a long time Radical player. He used Radicals from the Twin Tube age, but frequently updated them so he basically played with all or almost all of them. He said that Radicals always gave some easy power and were easy to play with. But he told me previously how handling a 340+g is too much for him, or handling a SW of 330+ too. So I reminded him that he once played with such sticks (Tours), and he's having a memory of playing with them easily as well. He didn't have a comment on this. Anyway, it really shows how much of this is a mind game.

Anyway, Angells :) I think I broke down and I'll be ordering a new custom TC 95 63 RA 18x20 soonish. I gave it a lot of thought and I think this one has my name on it. Test for me was playing with modded i.Radical (customized to a very high SW - could be around 360?) and since I play very well with it, I've no least doubt this is the right choice. TC95 63 RA is the one that has something special, but I want a bit more control for the launch angle and precision, hence 18x20.
Didn't notice a "high launch angle on my tc95 16x19"
As for higher swingweight sticks, I think a lot of people could handle it if they actually persevered with racquets, rather than making up their minds after a few hits. One thing I notice with my tc95 is that you don't have to play flat out to crush the ball, if you have good technique and decent footwork your going to hurt your opponents.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
Didn't notice a "high launch angle on my tc95 16x19"
I've no experience with Angell's so far, but I can share my thoughts about high launch angle and predictability of launch angle in general.
For me personally, higher launch angle is less problem. Dispersion of launch angle is problem to me.
It's what can happen if the upper hoop has much more open pattern than string bed middle, so it produces a much higher launch angle as well. If you're not consistent in hitting your usual baseline hitting spot on the string bed, you're in trouble, especially if upper hoop is still powerful. Because when you go for a big shot it can easily sail long, if this is not a very low powered racquet.

On the other hand, I recently played with PS95s, 16x15 racquet. It's a very open pattern racquet. Yet, the difference between centre string bed and the upper hoop is less. Result: the difference in hitting with a different spot on a string bed is less damaging, because there is not much launch angle dispersion. Once you compensate it with racquet face tilt and swing path, there's no huge surprises. So again it shows launch angle is not the problem by itself...it's the dispersion of launch angle.

I customize my racs to high SW, nothing under 340, and up to 355-360. With such racquets, launch angle predictability has a huge meaning because spin won't correct if you clear the net too high. Such a rac is typically too powerful to forgive.

For me, 18x20 pattern meaning is about making a hitting with the centre of the string bed or with the upper hoop less different.
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
actually most of the racket manufacturers stoped making flexible frames that one could lead up to those high swing weights. So it wasn't so much the people switched just that they were forced or herded to change to cheaper to produce frames that didn't suit their strokes developed over several decades.

It's also significant that so many top pros still use flexible high swing weight frames

Angell just happened to be producing exactly what all these other manufacturers decided didn't have a high enough profit margin for. My arm thanks Paul Angell.
I agree to a point. In all these years the "stiffest/lightest" frame I played with was the Head Graphene Prestige Pro. It is a 63ra strung, close to 12oz and ~335sw stock. So these frames always existed. But I admit, choice was scarce. Thanks to Paul indeed, but also thanks to this thread, or I would have never heard of Angell frames.
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
If you mean the 16x19 version then its not worth it ;p From all my racquets. Blade,Dr 98, Prestige mp, pure strike is imo the worst. Its not bad. Its good, solid, fun to hit. But others are just much better imo.
Thank you, good to know. It's only the racquetaholic in me...but the next frame will be another TC97 18x20. I'll be scanning for sale sections for some good deals for a DR98 for my mom and a 16x19 63RA TC95 just to try that spin monster with my own hands. 16x19 might actually fix the issues I have with 18x20 version.
 

ed70

Professional
Thank you, good to know. It's only the racquetaholic in me...but the next frame will be another TC97 18x20. I'll be scanning for sale sections for some good deals for a DR98 for my mom and a 16x19 63RA TC95 just to try that spin monster with my own hands. 16x19 might actually fix the issues I have with 18x20 version.
It's no spin monster, put this racquet in a flat hitters hands and it's going to launch the ball flat and low. If you hit heavy topspin then you will be able to get the ball up and down with nice pace. It is what it is.. a 16x19 in a 95/6 head.
 

ed70

Professional
I've no experience with Angell's so far, but I can share my thoughts about high launch angle and predictability of launch angle in general.
For me personally, higher launch angle is less problem. Dispersion of launch angle is problem to me.
It's what can happen if the upper hoop has much more open pattern than string bed middle, so it produces a much higher launch angle as well. If you're not consistent in hitting your usual baseline hitting spot on the string bed, you're in trouble, especially if upper hoop is still powerful. Because when you go for a big shot it can easily sail long, if this is not a very low powered racquet.

On the other hand, I recently played with PS95s, 16x15 racquet. It's a very open pattern racquet. Yet, the difference between centre string bed and the upper hoop is less. Result: the difference in hitting with a different spot on a string bed is less damaging, because there is not much launch angle dispersion. Once you compensate it with racquet face tilt and swing path, there's no huge surprises. So again it shows launch angle is not the problem by itself...it's the dispersion of launch angle.

I customize my racs to high SW, nothing under 340, and up to 355-360. With such racquets, launch angle predictability has a huge meaning because spin won't correct if you clear the net too high. Such a rac is typically too powerful to forgive.

For me, 18x20 pattern meaning is about making a hitting with the centre of the string bed or with the upper hoop less different.
I don't know about all that stuff, I just crack it in the middle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 808

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
Yes. Like 30%. Isometric head makes it play like 93-95, Vacuum Mid is 90 and plays closer to 85.
I do agree that in the brief time I got to hit with one of the newer Vacuum Mids, I would have been hard pressed to find much difference in size and ease of use between it and my old PS85's.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
I don't know about all that stuff, I just crack it in the middle.
AFAIK typical volleying contact spot is string bed centre, while typical baseline contact spot is not the string bed centre but more towards the upper hoop.
But no problem with this; problem arises when one is less precise in hitting with the same contact spot. I am not very precise, so I'm pretty selective about racquet design too.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
Got my TC95 18x20 today and hit with it for a few hours. First impressions are that it's like swinging Thor's hammer. When you have time to line up a shot it produces a fast heavy shot. It was also really good/accurate on slice and super stable on serve return. The extra length was a little noticeable due to the smaller head size but the extra real estate on the handle for a 2hbh was very nice.

Mine was 320g unstung and with a leather grip, overgrip and dampener it was 343 grams with a balance point of 32.7CM so about 7 points head light. Paired with the longer 27.5" weight I'm scared to calculate the swing weight but let's say it was pretty heavy and there was no saving shots if you were late. I think I may order one but start it at 300g unstrung instead of 320g.
Do you ever play with 27'' sticks as well?

This 0.5'' additional length increases SW significantly. The same racquet with 0.5'' shorter pallets is a different stick. If you're ok with 27'' you can shorten your pellets, then try it. It will be even less problem to sell a 27'' stick afterwards, in case you still don't like it, and you won't hurt the stick if you shorten the pellets.

There's another thing you can try instead of shortening it, or at least before: adding some lead at 7'' from the butt cap, under the grip. Because this racquet of yours is most probably polarized, as TC95's are, so being even longer you may be late to the ball because it swings slower than you like. Adding some grams at 7'' will compensate this and you will find your stick easier to swing with.

Also, a leather grip can make things harder, as it can make a racquet more lagging for some strange reasons (yet it can happen). In terms of playability (let alone the feel of a grip) I get the best results with a light basic grip, then adding some lead to 7'' until I compensate the swing speed (pendulum period, MgR/I), then if needed I add more lead to the butt to get the balance of the stick right. The result is whippiest and fastest achievable for the given static weight and swingweight.
 
Last edited:
Top