The Official Angell Users Club

chiapants226

Professional
Is there a big difference between the TC95 and TC97 in terms of stability and feel? I'm considering ordering 2 Angell's when I move to London next month.
Currently I'm using Head Youtek IG Speed MP 316 16x19 with a leather and 3 grams added at 3 and 9 o'clock. I also own a PT630 which I like the stability of.
I was thinking of getting an Angell at 325g either TC95 or 97 to try and mimic the feel of the PT630 with a more open 16x19 string pattern. Any comments from people who have tried both the TC95 and TC97?
 

jman32

Rookie
New member here

Specs: tc100, 27.25", 300gram (modded to 345grams all in) 70ra, b handle, 3/8" leather with 2 tourna over grips. Lead from 8:30- 10:30/ 1:30-3:30 Estimated mod specs: 345 SW and 7pts HL. Solinco revolution 1.30 46/44 lbs (constant pull)

Had my first hit, wow this thing is a canon. Might need to go 49/47 lbs. I have never served so big in my life. Needed a toss adjustment (a little farther into the court) and just pounded flat servers. Biggest change for me was flat wide and short in the box on ad court (I am a righty) never hit this serve so big. Kickers need a little adjustment as well.

Still working on dialing in FH and BH. But I only played for 1 hour.
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
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.
I do fine with 18x20 version, it's just that some angles on serve and short cross court angles off both wings are way easier with Tour G 330 and even Yonex 89 Tour. If I can access them with 16x19 TC95 it would be a tough call between that and 18x20 TC97.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
I gave myself some time last week and I browsed through some of Paul's posts present on this board. It was a truly educational and a worthwhile spent time.
One thing I learned is that Paul believes (and values) that a player should choose his custom stick rather than conform to stock specs. Because choice of a setup is deeply personal.
Angell racquet custom offer is all about this. But the concept is even wider than his current offer, because out of practical reasons, he cannot offer as much standard custom options as variety of players may need.
It can never be enough. But luckily you can further customize even a custom racquet. And I think I won't be wrong if I say that I think Paul himself believes this is the right approach.

So, @chiapants226 : TC97 has a significantly lower average SW than TC95, as I understand. But that does not mean one can't customize TC97 to a SW similar to TC95's. Or even go beyond, both with TC95 or TC97. Also, there's no reason to fear possible stability issues of TC97, as you can easily add few grams of lead at 3+9 o'clock, or at 2+10 o'clock, if you feel you'd like it a bit more stable. Doing this works every time.
 

Subaruvich

Semi-Pro
Currently I'm using Head Youtek IG Speed MP 316 16x19 with a leather and 3 grams added at 3 and 9 o'clock. I also own a PT630 which I like the stability of.
I was thinking of getting an Angell at 325g either TC95 or 97 to try and mimic the feel of the PT630 with a more open 16x19 string pattern. Any comments from people who have tried both the TC95 and TC97?
Haven't hit with PT630, but with PT57A and all custom Angells except TC105.
If you want to mimic PT630, TC97 is the way to go, I would say.
 

ed70

Professional
I do fine with 18x20 version, it's just that some angles on serve and short cross court angles off both wings are way easier with Tour G 330 and even Yonex 89 Tour. If I can access them with 16x19 TC95 it would be a tough call between that and 18x20 TC97.
Fine margins with those short cross court angles, maybe you need more time with the 18x20 tc97. When I play these I up my racquet head speed, I think id suffer more with a racquet that's too heavy rather than the string pattern.
 

CosmosMpower

Hall of Fame
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.
I don't have a problem with longer racquets, my primary doubles stick is a blade 104 which is 27.5 bit it's also about 30 grams lighter. I'm done fiddling with racquets, not going to cut or anything and mess with it in hopes it will work, just going to try and find something off the rack that works for my game and be done with it.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
HOT DAMN!

Pro Staff 85 user here. My coach sort of buggered her arm so I was left without anything to do here in Thailand for the month of February. I took to hitting against a wall, except well, the Pro Staff 85 gets exhausting with this kind of repetition. In all honestly I'd been toting a TC97 [320 10HL] but hadn't really given it a fair chance since last October.

That is until I met the wall. Holy moly! Breakpoint, all I can say is thank you thank you, and thank you. I'm a convert. Unfortunately I left my TC95 [330 12HL] back in Taiwan, for sure, that is on the agenda. After 2 years I've finally, FINALLY, gotten away from the PS 85 6.0. I can see the light (Angells, light, get it? Bwrrrahaha - okay it wasn't that funny)

Anyway. These rackets are a bomb. If you're craving for the solid thwack and response of a classic without wanting the pancake modern junk, Angells' are it.

TC97 320/10 HL, 27.25" 16/19 - Type A Leather grip.
Mains - Pacific Classic Gut @ 53
Crosses - RS Lyon @ 51

"pelting the living yellow fuzz off that ball with my new stick"
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
I don't have a problem with longer racquets, my primary doubles stick is a blade 104 which is 27.5 bit it's also about 30 grams lighter. I'm done fiddling with racquets, not going to cut or anything and mess with it in hopes it will work, just going to try and find something off the rack that works for my game and be done with it.
No no, I think we didn't understand each other...
1. Do you have a problem with standard length racs?
2. Modern 'longbodies' are intentionally made with lighter hairpins to have a lower SW; Angell racquets share I believe the same hairpins for different lengths, so if you get them (custom) longer, SW will increase above what modern 'longbodies' usually offer; so it has little to do with how you handle modern 'longbody' racs;
3. My recommendation to you in my best intention is to do fiddle with this one rather than sell it right away, because it might really pay off; however if you'd rather give up then give it a real chance, hey, it's your rac ;)
 
Is there a big difference between the TC95 and TC97 in terms of stability and feel? I'm considering ordering 2 Angell's when I move to London next month.
Currently I'm using Head Youtek IG Speed MP 316 16x19 with a leather and 3 grams added at 3 and 9 o'clock. I also own a PT630 which I like the stability of.
I was thinking of getting an Angell at 325g either TC95 or 97 to try and mimic the feel of the PT630 with a more open 16x19 string pattern. Any comments from people who have tried both the TC95 and TC97?
The Tc97 18x19 has more PT630 characteristics than any of the frames but if you want an open pattern and pt630 like flex the TC95 63ra (58 strung) 16x19 is a stick of impressive firepower and control. If you want the more tempered Pt630 feel get the 97 but if you like higher swingweights and want to be surprised with the sheer heavyness of the ball either flat and with heavy spin the Tc95 63 ra 16x19 is unlike anything Ive ever come across. I guess it just matters how traditional a feel you want (trad = Tc97) and lever of pin potential (spin = TC95). Tc95 feels more dampened due to its eccentric D beam cross section geometry (breaks up vibrations). Ive had no stability issues with the Tc95 and they all seem to respond well to a little lead at 6 and 9.

No no, I think we didn't understand each other...
1. Do you have a problem with standard length racs?
2. Modern 'longbodies' are intentionally made with lighter hairpins to have a lower SW; Angell racquets share I believe the same hairpins for different lengths, so if you get them (custom) longer, SW will increase above what modern 'longbodies' usually offer; so it has little to do with how you handle modern 'longbody' racs;
3. My recommendation to you in my best intention is to do fiddle with this one rather than sell it right away, because it might really pay off; however if you'd rather give up then give it a real chance, hey, it's your rac ;)
Im almost certain that the extended Angells are indeed full length hairpins. This was discussed somewhere before.

HOT DAMN!

Pro Staff 85 user here. My coach sort of buggered her arm so I was left without anything to do here in Thailand for the month of February. I took to hitting against a wall, except well, the Pro Staff 85 gets exhausting with this kind of repetition. In all honestly I'd been toting a TC97 [320 10HL] but hadn't really given it a fair chance since last October.

That is until I met the wall. Holy moly! Breakpoint, all I can say is thank you thank you, and thank you. I'm a convert. Unfortunately I left my TC95 [330 12HL] back in Taiwan, for sure, that is on the agenda. After 2 years I've finally, FINALLY, gotten away from the PS 85 6.0. I can see the light (Angells, light, get it? Bwrrrahaha - okay it wasn't that funny)

Anyway. These rackets are a bomb. If you're craving for the solid thwack and response of a classic without wanting the pancake modern junk, Angells' are it.

TC97 320/10 HL, 27.25" 16/19 - Type A Leather grip.
Mains - Pacific Classic Gut @ 53
Crosses - RS Lyon @ 51

"pelting the living yellow fuzz off that ball with my new stick"
Yeah they really do have the modern spin too in addition to the old school feel.
 
Last edited:

CosmosMpower

Hall of Fame
No no, I think we didn't understand each other...
1. Do you have a problem with standard length racs?
2. Modern 'longbodies' are intentionally made with lighter hairpins to have a lower SW; Angell racquets share I believe the same hairpins for different lengths, so if you get them (custom) longer, SW will increase above what modern 'longbodies' usually offer; so it has little to do with how you handle modern 'longbody' racs;
3. My recommendation to you in my best intention is to do fiddle with this one rather than sell it right away, because it might really pay off; however if you'd rather give up then give it a real chance, hey, it's your rac ;)
Sorry must have read your post wrong. No I'm fine playing with 27" standard length, was just pointing out that my Blade 104 is 27.5 so I'm ok with both lengths. I'm most likely going to trade for a TC97 or TC100 Pro model which has a much lower starting weight and see how that goes.

How do the TC97 Pro and TC100 Pro compare? The weights are similar (290 vs 300 grams) but the TC97 is 2 pts head light which will become even balanced or slightly head heavy after strings. However it also has the more comfortable 63RA vs the TC100's 67 RA. I do prefer the 6 points head light balance of the TC100 Pro though.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
The Tc97 18x19 has more PT630 characteristics than any of the frames but if you want an open pattern and pt630 like flex the TC95 63ra (58 strung) 16x19 is a stick of impressive firepower and control. If you want the more tempered Pt630 feel get the 97 but if you like higher swingweights and want to be surprised with the sheer heavyness of the ball either flat and with heavy spin the Tc95 63 ra 16x19 is unlike anything Ive ever come across. I guess it just matters how traditional a feel you want (trad = Tc97) and lever of pin potential (spin = TC95). Tc95 feels more dampened due to its eccentric D beam cross section geometry (breaks up vibrations). Ive had no stability issues with the Tc95 and they all seem to respond well to a little lead at 6 and 9.



Im almost certain that the extended Angells are indeed full length hairpins. This was discussed somewhere before.



Yeah they really do have the modern spin too in addition to the old school feel.

Also, I can't be absolutely sure but it feels like I can flick desperate-reach backhand/forehand slices better with the Angells then I ever could with the 90. I've primarily stayed with the PS85 because its thin/svelte beam sort of inspired the reach slices/squash shots over the 90. The TC97 320/10HL allows me to go on for hours, is wicked on the FH and slices. About the only adjustment I need to tweak is the BH, I may need to employ more of a topspin type swing path (and grip) because I haven't yet figured out how to swing for the fences with my usual flat continental. Having so much fun slicing with this racket, even on serve.

I can't thank you enough. It's too bad I only had the 97 320/10HL with me, gosh damn I'm carrying 2 x 85 and a 90 which haven't been used in a week. The other Angells are sitting brand new in Taiwan. Would have loved to start with the 95 330/12HL first because I feel while the 97 may be awesome for extended wall and practice sessions, the 95 330 would probably be better for matches. Oh well, at least I've taken the first baby steps away from the 85. I hated the fact I loved it so much.
 

Gee

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.
Nice to hear I am not the only one who prefers the TC95 over the TC97. I also think the TC95 has a better feel than the TC97.
 

Gee

Hall of Fame
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
Exactly! Where did you read that word before?! ;)
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.
 
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.
I was thinking the same thing but I knew I didn't have to mention it to you.

Exactly! Where did you read that word before?!
;)


Also, I can't be absolutely sure but it feels like I can flick desperate-reach backhand/forehand slices better with the Angells then I ever could with the 90. I've primarily stayed with the PS85 because its thin/svelte beam sort of inspired the reach slices/squash shots over the 90. The TC97 320/10HL allows me to go on for hours, is wicked on the FH and slices. About the only adjustment I need to tweak is the BH, I may need to employ more of a topspin type swing path (and grip) because I haven't yet figured out how to swing for the fences with my usual flat continental. Having so much fun slicing with this racket, even on serve.

I can't thank you enough. It's too bad I only had the 97 320/10HL with me, gosh damn I'm carrying 2 x 85 and a 90 which haven't been used in a week. The other Angells are sitting brand new in Taiwan. Would have loved to start with the 95 330/12HL first because I feel while the 97 may be awesome for extended wall and practice sessions, the 95 330 would probably be better for matches. Oh well, at least I've taken the first baby steps away from the 85. I hated the fact I loved it so much.
I agree... I love mids but my defensive game is simply better with a 95... the angell TC95 has a lot of the PS85's legendary shotmaking versatility though... it comes up with special stuff when asked for. Good maneuverability too.

I just weighed all of my fames my New Angell Tc95 unstrung is 331g

PS85 (Taiwan) 363g
Max 200g 382g
My modded TC95 is 359g
IGPMP 364g
Xfeel pro 95 is 360g
 
Last edited:

joohan

Hall of Fame
Another session with 18x20 TC97. After two weeks on an indoor clay with 18x20 TC95 and Yonex Tour G 330, I took my TC97 to concrete public courts in balmy London. 15 degree Celsius but quite windy, played in shorts for the first time this year anyway. I met a tennis buddy at the courts who plays a bit like Alexander Dolgopolov - all kinds of funky slices and spin off both wings - but is tall and strongly built, plus at the same time fast and appears to desperately enjoy chasing every ball...even lost causes.

We did just practice so no switching sides and I happened to play against the wind. It took me about 30 mins to get used to the surface, the racquet and overall conditions (low floodlights, people on other courts etc...). With the wind blowing against me and my hitting partner fully exploiting that fact with deep, heavy slices and tops, I started longing for my Tour G. I simply struggled to hit through the wind and the player at the other side of the net...I thought I'd start leading the TC97 up right after I get home. First I took two steps behind the baseline, then I started to examine my whole performance - from footwork through core rotation, preparation, timing and, most importantly, properly leaning into my shots. Once I improved my performance, the racquet started to do what she (yes, it's a lady for me) does best. Laser like accuracy, deadly slices and immaculate touch. In the last 30 mins I don't recall losing a point.

Conclusion? I would have probably hit the guy off the court with my Tour G or even TC95 (I've done it with my heavily leaded Vcore 89Tour some two months ago) but I've realized that, paradoxically, heavy racquets let me get away with under-par technique/footwork and that "stock" TC97, on top of every other quality it possesses, keeps me honest and brings the best tennis there is in me. Interesting revelation...

I will do one change, though. With an Angell synthetic grip, I dearly missed a better definition of grip bevels I'm so used to with leather replacement grips. Fairways are on the way already...
 
Another session with 18x20 TC97. After two weeks on an indoor clay with 18x20 TC95 and Yonex Tour G 330, I took my TC97 to concrete public courts in balmy London. 15 degree Celsius but quite windy, played in shorts for the first time this year anyway. I met a tennis buddy at the courts who plays a bit like Alexander Dolgopolov - all kinds of funky slices and spin off both wings - but is tall and strongly built, plus at the same time fast and appears to desperately enjoy chasing every ball...even lost causes.

We did just practice so no switching sides and I happened to play against the wind. It took me about 30 mins to get used to the surface, the racquet and overall conditions (low floodlights, people on other courts etc...). With the wind blowing against me and my hitting partner fully exploiting that fact with deep, heavy slices and tops, I started longing for my Tour G. I simply struggled to hit through the wind and the player at the other side of the net...I thought I'd start leading the TC97 up right after I get home. First I took two steps behind the baseline, then I started to examine my whole performance - from footwork through core rotation, preparation, timing and, most importantly, properly leaning into my shots. Once I improved my performance, the racquet started to do what she (yes, it's a lady for me) does best. Laser like accuracy, deadly slices and immaculate touch. In the last 30 mins I don't recall losing a point.

Conclusion? I would have probably hit the guy off the court with my Tour G or even TC95 (I've done it with my heavily leaded Vcore 89Tour some two months ago) but I've realized that, paradoxically, heavy racquets let me get away with under-par technique/footwork and that "stock" TC97, on top of every other quality it possesses, keeps me honest and brings the best tennis there is in me. Interesting revelation...

I will do one change, though. With an Angell synthetic grip, I dearly missed a better definition of grip bevels I'm so used to with leather replacement grips. Fairways are on the way already...
That was the thing playing with the x feel pro 95 for me... absolutely everything had to be working to get good penetration... core kinetic chain etc. 3.5 years with that stick was nothing but good for my form and I still use it for hitting around or the wall for that reason. Perhaps its my exotic backhand that keeps me honest overall too... big coil and unload, so much so that one teaching pro kept mentioning that my shoulder turned during the stroke (actually a bit of an illusion since I make contact so far in front of me that right after contact the uncoiling and follow through turn my shoulders...very Wawrinka-esque. Basically if my timing goes off Im screwed... but like the time I was playing that teaching pro I was painting the baseline with deep backhands... won that set 6-3.

My point is I think it is important to choose gear that encourages, even rewards good form. I was hitting into the wind in my first outdoor shorts hit of the year too and I loved the easy depth the TC95 made available that isnt with the Pacific x Feel pro 95 unless everything clicks perfectly. I think people who like Fischer frames like that sense of "demanding" from a frame.

Also I agree... those bevels are the devil... leather all the way on both my old and new TC95 and I really can feel the A style grip on my new one (old one was B) Picking up my IGPMP and my new TC95 the handles feel the same.. which is great since its my favorite feeling grip of all time.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Conclusion? I would have probably hit the guy off the court with my Tour G or even TC95 (I've done it with my heavily leaded Vcore 89Tour some two months ago) but I've realized that, paradoxically, heavy racquets let me get away with under-par technique/footwork and that "stock" TC97, on top of every other quality it possesses, keeps me honest and brings the best tennis there is in me. Interesting revelation...
Couldn't agree with you more. Though I make more errors and it requires greater concentration I always felt like the heft of the PS85 allowed me to get away with improper footwork. All you need to do is just take the ball in front and and let gravity do its pendulum thing. I think after a few years I've gotten my upper body/rhythm/timing/sweet spot grooved nicely with the 85, but my lower body isn't exactly efficient.

My point is I think it is important to choose gear that encourages, even rewards good form. I was hitting into the wind in my first outdoor shorts hit of the year too and I loved the easy depth the TC95 made available that isnt with the Pacific x Feel pro 95 unless everything clicks perfectly. I think people who like Fischer frames like that sense of "demanding" from a frame.

Also I agree... those bevels are the devil... leather all the way on both my old and new TC95 and I really can feel the A style grip on my new one (old one was B) Picking up my IGPMP and my new TC95 the handles feel the same.. which is great since its my favorite feeling grip of all time.
Also agree. Demanding rackets are wonderful. Perhaps its the sadomasochist in some of us tennis people, we don't necessarily play to win but also in pursuit of perfection. I know that when I hit a good stroke with the 85 a variety of things are happening in the way they need to [top half - see remark to joohan above] and it's a sense of accomplishment/achievement.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
That was the thing playing with the x feel pro 95 for me... absolutely everything had to be working to get good penetration... core kinetic chain etc. 3.5 years with that stick was nothing but good for my form and I still use it for hitting around or the wall for that reason. Perhaps its my exotic backhand that keeps me honest overall too... big coil and unload, so much so that one teaching pro kept mentioning that my shoulder turned during the stroke (actually a bit of an illusion since I make contact so far in front of me that right after contact the uncoiling and follow through turn my shoulders...very Wawrinka-esque. Basically if my timing goes off Im screwed... but like the time I was playing that teaching pro I was painting the baseline with deep backhands... won that set 6-3.

My point is I think it is important to choose gear that encourages, even rewards good form. I was hitting into the wind in my first outdoor shorts hit of the year too and I loved the easy depth the TC95 made available that isnt with the Pacific x Feel pro 95 unless everything clicks perfectly. I think people who like Fischer frames like that sense of "demanding" from a frame.

Also I agree... those bevels are the devil... leather all the way on both my old and new TC95 and I really can feel the A style grip on my new one (old one was B) Picking up my IGPMP and my new TC95 the handles feel the same.. which is great since its my favorite feeling grip of all time.
Pacific XFP 95...never played with it...I have Pacific XFL which has 98'' and a wider beam, and is also a graphite/basalt racquet; and I have had experience with another graphite/basalt but thinner beam, which is PS95...anyway, the point: much of it is basalt, which lowers energy return, and it will especially be felt if hitting spot is not at the very sweet spot centre. I can feel this effect much less on a thicker beam of Pacific, which is still decent though flexier closer to the frame, than on a thin 18 mm beam of a PS95; Wilson later 'escaped' to the 21.5 mm beam 'safe zone' with PS97 design to avoid obvious weakness of a basalt as a material for racquets...funny, with PS95 you don't feel it as a flex, but rather as a structural weakness when hitting gets harder, which limits the power (energy return).

Now, Pacifix XFP is a 20 mm constant beam design using basalt, and I don't think some negative effects of basalt can be avoided in such a design. It' surely better than in 18 mm PS95 design, but they must be felt neverhteless. Resulting in energy return when hitting seriously, lower power off the centre etc. Resulting in a more demanding stick, which XFP is, right?

What I don't know because absolutely no experience is how was with Fischers in this particular respect. Were materials they used (ceramics, fiberglass) better in this respect? All these materials will be good on the arm because those dampening properties mute vibrations, help flex etc. But when playability is on the line, I'm not sure...that is, I am now sure for basalt it's nothing but trading quality for some hitting comfort. Anyway, traditional Fischer designs were tapered beam, which I guess helped compensate the effect of those composites since you make the beam in the upper hoop stronger, at least.

Anyway, since reading Paul's explanation about how to make a layup soft even when using HM (stiff) graphite sheets, I'm pretty much sure now that no material aside of pure graphite and possibly a bit of kevlar (which is a dampening material too, but a stiffer one) is needed. Perhaps ceramics to an extent (for which I may have a belief it might be better than basalt or fiberglass), and depending on a design - might be Pro Kennex still use ceramics because their layup is different. All the other stuff, either just marketing, or if used for real in a layup, better be out of technology when making serious racquets, because it's downgrading them.
 
Last edited:
Pacific XFP 95...never played with it...I have Pacific XFL which has 98'' and a wider beam, and is also a graphite/basalt racquet; and I have had experience with another graphite/basalt but thinner beam, which is PS95...anyway, the point: much of it is basalt, which lowers energy return, and it will especially be felt if hitting spot is not at the very sweet spot centre. I can feel this effect much less on a thicker beam of Pacific, which is still decent though flexier closer to the frame, than on a thin 18 mm beam of a PS95; Wilson later 'escaped' to the 21.5 mm beam 'safe zone' with PS97 design to avoid obvious weakness of a basalt as a material for racquets...funny, with PS95 you don't feel it as a flex, but rather as a structural weakness when hitting gets harder, which limits the power (energy return).

What I don't know because absolutely no experience is how was with Fischers in this particular respect. Were materials they used (ceramics, fiberglass) better in this respect? All these materials will be good on the arm because those dampening properties mute vibrations, help flex etc. But when playability is on the line, I'm not sure...that is, I am now sure for basalt it's nothing but trading quality for some hitting comfort. Anyway, traditional Fischer designs were tapered beam, which I guess helped compensate the effect of those composites since you make the beam in the upper hoop stronger, at least.

Anyway, since reading Paul's explanation about how to make a layup soft even when using HM (stiff) graphite sheets, I'm pretty much sure now that no material aside of pure graphite and possibly a bit of kevlar (which is a dampening material too, but a stiffer one) is needed. Perhaps ceramics to an extent (for which I may have a belief it might be better than basalt or fiberglass), and depending on a design - might be Pro Kennex still use ceramics because their layup is different. All the other stuff, either just marketing, or if used for real in a layup, better be out of technology when making serious racquets, because it's downgrading them.
It wasn't low power because it had basalt. it was low powered because it was a Fischer designed racquet and they just tend to be lower powered. in fact i have a fischer version without basalt and its even lower powered than the slightly stiffer pacific (both had no dead zone in the upper hoop despite being straight, thin beams). Also basalt is a form of ceramic it's just a naturally occurring one. Basically the basalt isn't the issue it is the overall layup ( for the wilsons they cheaped out on layers in the hoop). the Pacific frames that i used were actually very high quality and consistently so... I had multiple frames so I could compare them to one another to see if they were degrading... they were fine. Wilson simply value engineered those ps95 frames which lead to having instability in the upper hoop.

The point is Angell doesnt skimp and tend to have extra power... rather than the lower power of fischers. It took some adjustment but was worth it since i use full poly and it tames the power.
 
Last edited:

saleem

Semi-Pro
Pacific XFP 95...never played with it...I have Pacific XFL which has 98'' and a wider beam, and is also a graphite/basalt racquet; and I have had experience with another graphite/basalt but thinner beam, which is PS95...anyway, the point: much of it is basalt, which lowers energy return, and it will especially be felt if hitting spot is not at the very sweet spot centre. I can feel this effect much less on a thicker beam of Pacific, which is still decent though flexier closer to the frame, than on a thin 18 mm beam of a PS95; Wilson later 'escaped' to the 21.5 mm beam 'safe zone' with PS97 design to avoid obvious weakness of a basalt as a material for racquets...funny, with PS95 you don't feel it as a flex, but rather as a structural weakness when hitting gets harder, which limits the power (energy return).

Now, Pacifix XFP is a 20 mm constant beam design using basalt, and I don't think some negative effects of basalt can be avoided in such a design. It' surely better than in 18 mm PS95 design, but they must be felt neverhteless. Resulting in energy return when hitting seriously, lower power off the centre etc. Resulting in a more demanding stick, which XFP is, right?

What I don't know because absolutely no experience is how was with Fischers in this particular respect. Were materials they used (ceramics, fiberglass) better in this respect? All these materials will be good on the arm because those dampening properties mute vibrations, help flex etc. But when playability is on the line, I'm not sure...that is, I am now sure for basalt it's nothing but trading quality for some hitting comfort. Anyway, traditional Fischer designs were tapered beam, which I guess helped compensate the effect of those composites since you make the beam in the upper hoop stronger, at least.

Anyway, since reading Paul's explanation about how to make a layup soft even when using HM (stiff) graphite sheets, I'm pretty much sure now that no material aside of pure graphite and possibly a bit of kevlar (which is a dampening material too, but a stiffer one) is needed. Perhaps ceramics to an extent (for which I may have a belief it might be better than basalt or fiberglass), and depending on a design - might be Pro Kennex still use ceramics because their layup is different. All the other stuff, either just marketing, or if used for real in a layup, better be out of technology when making serious racquets, because it's downgrading them.
I have 3 Fischer racket all 3 are graphite and fiberglass and those frames feel wonderful to hit with, I have twin tec, ecliptic and vacuum pro 98 all 3 are great frames and I also love playing with my Angells (tc97 and tc95)
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
It wasn't low power because it had basalt. it was low powered because it was a Fischer designed racquet and they just tend to be lower powered. in fact i have a fischer version without basalt and its even lower powered than the slightly stiffer pacific (both had no dead zone in the upper hoop despite being straight, thin beams). Also basalt is a form of ceramic it's just a naturally occurring one. Basically the basalt isn't the issue it is the overall layup ( for the wilsons they cheaped out on layers in the hoop). the Pacific frames that i used were actually very high quality and consistently so... I had multiple frames so I could compare them to one another to see if they were degrading... they were fine. Wilson simply value engineered those ps95 frames which lead to having instability in the upper hoop.

The point is Angell doesnt skimp and tend to have extra power... rather than the lower power of fischers. It took some adjustment but was worth it since i use full poly and it tames the power.
I have 3 Fischer racket all 3 are graphite and fiberglass and those frames feel wonderful to hit with, I have twin tec, ecliptic and vacuum pro 98 all 3 are great frames and I also love playing with my Angells (tc97 and tc95)
Even Pacific feels really good to hit with because of flex and comfort, because even if Pacific used a different material, their obvious intention was to recreate the feel of Fischers as well. And by the comments it seems they succeeded a lot in this. But my comment was not about feel, it was about playability.

It's quite possible that materials Fischer used (ceramics, fiberglass) were similar in terms of playability to basalt. Or perhaps they were some better - it's possible too. BC mentions basalt is a natural ceramics too. Well yes, but I've also read it is not quite the same as ceramics used in the past as a racquet manufacturing material. However there might be similarities.

Anyway, I try to look at it a bit from a designers point of view. @Backhanded Compliment I'm sure basalt effects power because I'm pretty sure there's no difference between PS95 and PS95s 2015 in layup construction, aside they replaced graphite/basalt sheets with pure graphite, leaving kevlar content in braid (it's present in both). And it effected energy return. Basalt has a poor energy return because it doesn't produce the same firmness in a layup as a graphite sandwich.

It's just that when basalt is done in a thicker beam, it has less negative effects than when used in a thin beam.

I was told Paul Angell doesn't hold high about basalt. He considers it being a cheap material, and obviously he didn't want to use it in his racquets. So someone who talks to him can ask him more about basalt.
 
Last edited:

chiapants226

Professional
The Tc97 18x19 has more PT630 characteristics than any of the frames but if you want an open pattern and pt630 like flex the TC95 63ra (58 strung) 16x19 is a stick of impressive firepower and control. If you want the more tempered Pt630 feel get the 97 but if you like higher swingweights and want to be surprised with the sheer heavyness of the ball either flat and with heavy spin the Tc95 63 ra 16x19 is unlike anything Ive ever come across. I guess it just matters how traditional a feel you want (trad = Tc97) and lever of pin potential (spin = TC95). Tc95 feels more dampened due to its eccentric D beam cross section geometry (breaks up vibrations). Ive had no stability issues with the Tc95 and they all seem to respond well to a little lead at 6 and 9.
Thanks for that. Perhaps I will order a 320g TC97 16x19 to get the feel of the PT630 with a more open string pattern. Then I could play around with some different lead tape placements of total 5 grams at 3 and 9 for a bit more stability?
The main issue with my speed MPs at the moment is the stability - even with added weight at 3 and 9. I feel this could be more of the 100inch headsize though, so perhaps the TC97 will make the difference!
 
Even Pacific feels really good to hit with because of flex and comfort, because even if Pacific used a different material, their obvious intention was to recreate the feel of Fischers as well. And by the comments it seems they succeeded a lot in this. But my comment was not about feel, it was about playability.

It's quite possible that materials Fischer used (ceramics, fiberglass) were similar in terms of playability to basalt. Or perhaps they were some better - it's possible too. BC mentions basalt is a natural ceramics too. Well yes, but I've also read it is not quite the same as ceramics used in the past as a racquet manufacturing material. However there might be similarities.

Anyway, I try to look at it a bit from a designers point of view. @Backhanded Compliment I'm sure basalt effects power because I'm pretty sure there's no difference between PS95 and PS95s 2015 in layup construction, aside they replaced graphite/basalt sheets with pure graphite, leaving kevlar content in braid (it's present in both). And it effected energy return. Basalt has a poor energy return because it doesn't produce the same firmness in a layup as a graphite sandwich.

It's just that when basalt is done in a thicker beam, it has less negative effects than when used in a thin beam.

I was told Paul Angell doesn't hold high about basalt. He considers it being a cheap material, and obviously he didn't want to use it in his racquets. So someone who talks to him can ask him more about basalt.
one thing Fischer used basalt first... in european released frames, including a version of what pacific then called the x feel pro 95. I agree, by and large the fischers play really well but just because they're really well made and designed.... Basalt really doesn't contribute a lot to the structural Integrity of any particular frame, its a dampening material... at the same time I don't know how much basalt was in these things. miniscule? I've never performed an autopsy on either the Wilsons or the Pacifics. Fisher was notorious for using name only Tech... with Angell we dont have to worry. i know the ps85 actually had a lot of kevlar. Also the layups for those 2012-15 wilsons could differ from year to year... batch to batch... another thing Paul oversees closely.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Oh, I forgot to mention this earlier. But Angell not only has some of the finest made rackets available to us common folk, but also some of the best accessories. I'm one of the few that moved production from China > Taiwan over the years, precisely because "made in Taiwan" is a whole load better than "made in China". While I don't know where the rackets are made, the little accessories like towels and wrist bands are made in Taiwan [printed on packaging].

For years I've hated practically all the junk from the big brands that for one reason or another have moved to China. In fact I routinely purchase my socks and tennis attire directly in Taiwan from factories there.

Angell wrist bands and towels are the best. Honestly, you can wash and wash and wash them with minimal issue. And when you've laundered them to the point where a little bleach needs to be added into the wash to brighten them up, from underneath the steel grey "A" logo emerges a lovely gold.

Paul knows his sources well. Top notch quality across a variety of equipment/accessories.

 
Don't be so sure about this. PS95 's cracked a lot.
that actually supports my thesis

and of course there's been very few reports of angells cracking

Thanks for that. Perhaps I will order a 320g TC97 16x19 to get the feel of the PT630 with a more open string pattern. Then I could play around with some different lead tape placements of total 5 grams at 3 and 9 for a bit more stability?

The main issue with my speed MPs at the moment is the stability - even with added weight at 3 and 9. I feel this could be more of the 100inch headsize though, so perhaps the TC97 will make the difference!
if you want the PT 630 feel I would go for the TC 97 18 by 20 it has a different layup than the 16 by 19... it has a slightly larger head than the prestiges and more open string pattern anyway so you will still get more spin and free power
 
Last edited:

bkfinch

Semi-Pro
This is some thread everybody.

Gonna go out on a limb and ask if anyone could make a recommendation-

I'm playing also with PT630s, I've brought the swingweight up to about 350, the weight anywhere around 358-362g. I love the racket but basically what I 'miss' is some more free power and spin, especially on OHBH. The TC95 sounds great in this respect, also for the higher swingweight. But I read a lot that the TC97 18x20 is basically the closest to the PT630/PT57A. Basically if a new racket would not be a little different than the one I play now, I'm not interested to replicate it, but to go for something which is still as close while offering more of what I feel is 'missing' in my current setup. I tried already lower tension/spin strings but this for me doesn't seem to go very far, it's more artificial IMO than having a racket which is just structurally optimized for more spin. I also like too much the feel of higher tensions (60-65 depending on time of year) to let myself string too loose.

Greetings from snow covered Canada
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
That was the thing playing with the x feel pro 95 for me... absolutely everything had to be working to get good penetration... core kinetic chain etc. 3.5 years with that stick was nothing but good for my form and I still use it for hitting around or the wall for that reason. Perhaps its my exotic backhand that keeps me honest overall too... big coil and unload, so much so that one teaching pro kept mentioning that my shoulder turned during the stroke (actually a bit of an illusion since I make contact so far in front of me that right after contact the uncoiling and follow through turn my shoulders...very Wawrinka-esque. Basically if my timing goes off Im screwed... but like the time I was playing that teaching pro I was painting the baseline with deep backhands... won that set 6-3.

My point is I think it is important to choose gear that encourages, even rewards good form. I was hitting into the wind in my first outdoor shorts hit of the year too and I loved the easy depth the TC95 made available that isnt with the Pacific x Feel pro 95 unless everything clicks perfectly. I think people who like Fischer frames like that sense of "demanding" from a frame.

Also I agree... those bevels are the devil... leather all the way on both my old and new TC95 and I really can feel the A style grip on my new one (old one was B) Picking up my IGPMP and my new TC95 the handles feel the same.. which is great since its my favorite feeling grip of all time.
It's not that underpowered. Take away the wind element and I'm more than ok. I noticed that if I mistime my wrist lag, the hoop with no lead won't help one bit (talking about yesterday's windy conditions). I might add a bit of lead, eventually, but for now it's an interesting experience for me. I will restring the racquet with gut/poly combination sooner rather than later. Touch and feel are sublime even with 16L shaped Poly, I can't wait for that gut feeling.

One thing to consider is me playing 100% technique with TC95 or Tour G 330. I'm not saying I'm slacking below-par when I'm not playing with the TC97 but there most certainly is room for improvement (as demonstrated yesterday). All in all - I'm in good place right now. I like all the racquets I switch between and I'm playing good tennis with all of them, too. Win win combination.
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
This is some thread everybody.

Gonna go out on a limb and ask if anyone could make a recommendation-

I'm playing also with PT630s, I've brought the swingweight up to about 350, the weight anywhere around 358-362g. I love the racket but basically what I 'miss' is some more free power and spin, especially on OHBH. The TC95 sounds great in this respect, also for the higher swingweight. But I read a lot that the TC97 18x20 is basically the closest to the PT630/PT57A. Basically if a new racket would not be a little different than the one I play now, I'm not interested to replicate it, but to go for something which is still as close while offering more of what I feel is 'missing' in my current setup. I tried already lower tension/spin strings but this for me doesn't seem to go very far, it's more artificial IMO than having a racket which is just structurally optimized for more spin. I also like too much the feel of higher tensions (60-65 depending on time of year) to let myself string too loose.

Greetings from snow covered Canada
You can read my last few contributions to this thread. My TC97 18x20 is 320g/310mm unstrung (around 340 strung) so you have some 20g room to tune up plow and power. Heavier options won't help because the only weight that changes between weight options is in the handle. With some lead at 3/9 it should be more than ok in power department (or if you can wait a month or so, I can provide a direct comment on that). If it's free power you're after, TC95 might be a better option in the end.
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
Oh, I forgot to mention this earlier. But Angell not only has some of the finest made rackets available to us common folk, but also some of the best accessories. I'm one of the few that moved production from China > Taiwan over the years, precisely because "made in Taiwan" is a whole load better than "made in China". While I don't know where the rackets are made, the little accessories like towels and wrist bands are made in Taiwan [printed on packaging].

For years I've hated practically all the junk from the big brands that for one reason or another have moved to China. In fact I routinely purchase my socks and tennis attire directly in Taiwan from factories there.

Angell wrist bands and towels are the best. Honestly, you can wash and wash and wash them with minimal issue. And when you've laundered them to the point where a little bleach needs to be added into the wash to brighten them up, from underneath the steel grey "A" logo emerges a lovely gold.

Paul knows his sources well. Top notch quality across a variety of equipment/accessories.

White and gold. So Federer at Wimbledon.
 

saleem

Semi-Pro
This is some thread everybody.

Gonna go out on a limb and ask if anyone could make a recommendation-

I'm playing also with PT630s, I've brought the swingweight up to about 350, the weight anywhere around 358-362g. I love the racket but basically what I 'miss' is some more free power and spin, especially on OHBH. The TC95 sounds great in this respect, also for the higher swingweight. But I read a lot that the TC97 18x20 is basically the closest to the PT630/PT57A. Basically if a new racket would not be a little different than the one I play now, I'm not interested to replicate it, but to go for something which is still as close while offering more of what I feel is 'missing' in my current setup. I tried already lower tension/spin strings but this for me doesn't seem to go very far, it's more artificial IMO than having a racket which is just structurally optimized for more spin. I also like too much the feel of higher tensions (60-65 depending on time of year) to let myself string too loose.

Greetings from snow covered Canada
I have 2 TC97 and 2 TC95 both 16x19 TC95 has 15%-20% more power than TC97s in stock forum and same specs, TC97 was easier to get use to of coming from DR98 but TC95 took long time (it was well worth it), I mainly use my TC97 for doubles and TC95 for singles but if I need to take big gun to double's game I switch it over to TC95
 

alexdoro

New User
I have 2 TC97 and 2 TC95 both 16x19 TC95 has 15%-20% more power than TC97s in stock forum and same specs, TC97 was easier to get use to of coming from DR98 but TC95 took long time (it was well worth it), I mainly use my TC97 for doubles and TC95 for singles but if I need to take big gun to double's game I switch it over to TC95
You got both 330/305 unstrung?
 

Subaruvich

Semi-Pro
Noticed today, that Halo 2 is available now on Angell website. I know many of you guys have tried it out already.
I had a chance to test it last summer, liked the feel, but it broke in 2 hours. Not sure why.
 

Purist

Rookie
Maybe I'm missing something here... I talked to Paul last week. I told him I'm using the newer ProStaff 97 (and am not that happy with it), he said the TC97 is closer to that than the TC95. He said he built the TC97 to give a feel more like today's modern rackets as opposed to the TC95 being akin to older rackets. So, at least for me, I knew I did NOT want the TC97 because I've not been that happy with the PS97. After reading about the TC95 and talking to Paul I realized that what I have probably been missing from my racket in this latest attempt to come back to tennis was that old school racket feel. Me being a guy that used the ProStaff original 6.0, Prince Graphite, Yonex R-7, and ProKennex Silver Ace etc. back in the 80's as a junior (lol, not in that order per se).

So, when I bought the PS97 it was after I'd been away from the game since basically 2001 and wasn't all caught up with all of you racket experts about this stuff, the feel of this and that racket and how they compare to each other etc.

This is some thread everybody.

Gonna go out on a limb and ask if anyone could make a recommendation-

I'm playing also with PT630s, I've brought the swingweight up to about 350, the weight anywhere around 358-362g. I love the racket but basically what I 'miss' is some more free power and spin, especially on OHBH. The TC95 sounds great in this respect, also for the higher swingweight. But I read a lot that the TC97 18x20 is basically the closest to the PT630/PT57A. Basically if a new racket would not be a little different than the one I play now, I'm not interested to replicate it, but to go for something which is still as close while offering more of what I feel is 'missing' in my current setup. I tried already lower tension/spin strings but this for me doesn't seem to go very far, it's more artificial IMO than having a racket which is just structurally optimized for more spin. I also like too much the feel of higher tensions (60-65 depending on time of year) to let myself string too loose.

Greetings from snow covered Canada
 

Purist

Rookie
I have 2 TC97 and 2 TC95 both 16x19 TC95 has 15%-20% more power than TC97s in stock forum and same specs, TC97 was easier to get use to of coming from DR98 but TC95 took long time (it was well worth it), I mainly use my TC97 for doubles and TC95 for singles but if I need to take big gun to double's game I switch it over to TC95
BAH! All you TW frequent posters and your acronyms. I swear, reading all your guys' posts I have to keep a separate browser window open on my 2nd monitor to google all these damn acronyms. Okay, the Yonex DR98? LOL, in your case you're only missing the brand so it's not that bad but still... The worst are the string acronyms, jeez.
 

saleem

Semi-Pro
BAH! All you TW frequent posters and your acronyms. I swear, reading all your guys' posts I have to keep a separate browser window open on my 2nd monitor to google all these damn acronyms. Okay, the Yonex DR98? LOL, in your case you're only missing the brand so it's not that bad but still... The worst are the string acronyms, jeez.
if you really want to see my collection (I am a racketholic) {missing 2 TC97 and a Volkl organix 9, loaned to friends for trying) look at here https://goo.gl/photos/5tXm7ydX9u8rySuU8
 

ed70

Professional
I have 2 TC97 and 2 TC95 both 16x19 TC95 has 15%-20% more power than TC97s in stock forum and same specs, TC97 was easier to get use to of coming from DR98 but TC95 took long time (it was well worth it), I mainly use my TC97 for doubles and TC95 for singles but if I need to take big gun to double's game I switch it over to TC95
I have both too, I think 15/20% is way too much!! Yes the tc95 has some extra power, but the tc97 hits a heavy ball too. Maybe theres 5% in it, that's more than enough extra power to make a difference on court.
 

saleem

Semi-Pro
BAH! All you TW frequent posters and your acronyms. I swear, reading all your guys' posts I have to keep a separate browser window open on my 2nd monitor to google all these damn acronyms. Okay, the Yonex DR98? LOL, in your case you're only missing the brand so it's not that bad but still... The worst are the string acronyms, jeez.
these are the evil twins
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
He said he built the TC97 to give a feel more like today's modern rackets as opposed to the TC95 being akin to older rackets.
As for flex and swing weight, it's just like Paul said. Older players racquets were usually both flexier and had higher swing weights. In this respect TC97 is similar to newer player racquets: middle flex and moderate SW.

However all Angells stand out with their layup. Which is being done in the old style, no-nonsense way. In this respect they're all 'the old style'.
 
Last edited:
I have both too, I think 15/20% is way too much!! Yes the tc95 has some extra power, but the tc97 hits a heavy ball too. Maybe theres 5% in it, that's more than enough extra power to make a difference on court.
yeah 15% is actually a massive difference... its more like 2% at max but I think its the way that power is acessed... The TC95 is very dynamic. It has a lot of amplitude whereas, I suspect the TC97 has easier to access power as a median level with its slightly larger head (and its very slight). Lets call the Tc97 more even keeled and the Tc95 more dynamic. Both predictably so...
 

DanF1961

Rookie
I have 2 TC97 and 2 TC95 both 16x19 TC95 has 15%-20% more power than TC97s in stock forum and same specs, TC97 was easier to get use to of coming from DR98 but TC95 took long time (it was well worth it), I mainly use my TC97 for doubles and TC95 for singles but if I need to take big gun to double's game I switch it over to TC95
Saleem, I'm thinking about a TC95 or a TC97, so I appreciate reading your posts. Can I ask you what RA are your 95s, 63 or 70? Thanks Saleem.
 
TC97 is easier to use and get use to of it than TC95, mine are 63s
Yeah the TC95 is a very idiomatic stick, it is like nothing else in the way it encompases extremes of power, control and spin while still being great on flat balls. It is really completed with the right bed of full poly too. I think the Tc97 might respond better to gut/poly or other hybrids like poly/syngut than it does in the TC95.
 

graycrait

Hall of Fame
Anyone play with a TC100 28"? If so comments? Just wondering because I have recently become enamored with the Prince Classic 100LB.
 
Top