The Official Angell Users Club

bkfinch

Semi-Pro
It's a personal preference, of course. I have both with the same specs/patterns/lead installed and I much prefer the 97.
Joohan, have been reading your posts about both racquets: seems that you admit to be able to play very well with the TC95 but you prefer the 97 nonetheless. Being used to the really flexy feel of the Head Pro Tour, when I've hit recently with racquets say... 62 RA + I do feel the extra stiffness and I'm not quite sure if I like it. I play as well with a solid 8-10g of lead in the upper hoop (nothing lower than 3/9, so some twistweight but not crazy crazy, counterweight in handle) so when I read that some people feel the 95 needs some lead in the hoop to 'complete' the frame, I mean, I'm going to add lead in any case to bring the spec to how I like. I suspect a main difference between the two frames could be the feel of the different beams- the 97 seems to be flat, and the 95 has that unique rounded beam. I enjoy flat beams but admit that more rounded beams seem to go through the air better. Maybe better for OHBH acceleration? I'll probably go for one or the other once the outdoor season starts here when I'm playing more every day rather than just a few times a week. Shame there is no demo system but most people seem really satisfied no matter their first purchase.

General comment: don't get how you guys can play with 100" open pattern racquets with low tensions. I can't keep the ball in with those kind of racquets(!)
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
Joohan, have been reading your posts about both racquets: seems that you admit to be able to play very well with the TC95 but you prefer the 97 nonetheless. Being used to the really flexy feel of the Head Pro Tour, when I've hit recently with racquets say... 62 RA + I do feel the extra stiffness and I'm not quite sure if I like it. I play as well with a solid 8-10g of lead in the upper hoop (nothing lower than 3/9, so some twistweight but not crazy crazy, counterweight in handle) so when I read that some people feel the 95 needs some lead in the hoop to 'complete' the frame, I mean, I'm going to add lead in any case to bring the spec to how I like. I suspect a main difference between the two frames could be the feel of the different beams- the 97 seems to be flat, and the 95 has that unique rounded beam. I enjoy flat beams but admit that more rounded beams seem to go through the air better. Maybe better for OHBH acceleration? I'll probably go for one or the other once the outdoor season starts here when I'm playing more every day rather than just a few times a week. Shame there is no demo system but most people seem really satisfied no matter their first purchase.

General comment: don't get how you guys can play with 100" open pattern racquets with low tensions. I can't keep the ball in with those kind of racquets(!)
I prefer the 97. Boxier beam and lower powered nature (compared to 95) seems to be the tipping point. Slices and volleys are 11/10 for me with 97, with 95 it's 2-3 points lower. That being said, you can't really go wrong even if you won't get a 100% fit with your first Angell purchase.
 

djNEiGht

Hall of Fame
djNEiGht, what was it that led you to prefer the Angells to the Redondos?

(If you've already posted a comparison elsewhere, let me know and I'll track it down.)
The Angell I have is a 310 but I added a leather grip so it prob weighs more now. The Redondo 98s that I'm selling are just too high in swing weight for me, especially on long days. I am keep one though forever :) The balance and SW on the one I'm keeping is more to my liking. What is odd is that the x3 that I have are all stock but the SW and balance is off. The one I am keeping is very headlight where as the two I will sell seem to be 6 pts at most. I really enjoy the Redondo, don't get me wrong. Both Angell and PK both play to my liking. Flexible, comfortable, control.
 

sma1001

Hall of Fame
I see Paul has posted a video on his FB page demonstrating the 1g of lead at 12 increases SW by 6 points. Very interesting that.
 

ByakuFubuki

Semi-Pro
Joohan, have been reading your posts about both racquets: seems that you admit to be able to play very well with the TC95 but you prefer the 97 nonetheless. Being used to the really flexy feel of the Head Pro Tour, when I've hit recently with racquets say... 62 RA + I do feel the extra stiffness and I'm not quite sure if I like it. I play as well with a solid 8-10g of lead in the upper hoop (nothing lower than 3/9, so some twistweight but not crazy crazy, counterweight in handle) so when I read that some people feel the 95 needs some lead in the hoop to 'complete' the frame, I mean, I'm going to add lead in any case to bring the spec to how I like. I suspect a main difference between the two frames could be the feel of the different beams- the 97 seems to be flat, and the 95 has that unique rounded beam. I enjoy flat beams but admit that more rounded beams seem to go through the air better. Maybe better for OHBH acceleration? I'll probably go for one or the other once the outdoor season starts here when I'm playing more every day rather than just a few times a week. Shame there is no demo system but most people seem really satisfied no matter their first purchase.

General comment: don't get how you guys can play with 100" open pattern racquets with low tensions. I can't keep the ball in with those kind of racquets(!)
I prefer the 97. Boxier beam and lower powered nature (compared to 95) seems to be the tipping point. Slices and volleys are 11/10 for me with 97, with 95 it's 2-3 points lower. That being said, you can't really go wrong even if you won't get a 100% fit with your first Angell purchase.
Are you referring to a Custom 97 or to Tour/Pro? Because I see the Custom is declared as "20mm Tapered Beam" like the 95.

By the way I already asked about it, but I don't really get what they mean with giving only a measure of thickness to Tapered Beams.
 

ONgame

Semi-Pro
Do Angell leather grips weigh heavier than Angell synthetic grips? If so, how does Paul handle it?
How do Angell leather grips compare to other leather grips like Wilson or TW?

Thanks!
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
Are you referring to a Custom 97 or to Tour/Pro? Because I see the Custom is declared as "20mm Tapered Beam" like the 95.

By the way I already asked about it, but I don't really get what they mean with giving only a measure of thickness to Tapered Beams.
Custom. Cross section of 97 beam is more boxy than ovalish shaped beam of 95.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
I see Paul has posted a video on his FB page demonstrating the 1g of lead at 12 increases SW by 6 points. Very interesting that.
More than interesting. It makes me question...the whole SW measurement system applied ;)
Because if this was actually true then whole SW increase calculation system by using tools and formulas would be meaningless, together with physics formula applied.
I saw the vid. But all I can think of is that measurement on this vid is wrong. Why, I would not know.

EDIT:
Anyone wants to question physics formulas?
Try TWU tool:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/customizationReverse.php

According to TWU tool, adding 1 gram on the inner side at 12 o'clock (I entered 67.5 cm for a center of mass) increases SW by 3.3 units, not by 6.
 
Last edited:

realplayer

Semi-Pro
I bought a tc97 and tried it out for the first time today. Already have a tc95 and strung it with the same string and tension. Both rackets have a lot of similarities but it seems that the tc95 has a more softer impact. I thought that it would be the other way around because of the flexible head of the tc97. Maybe this will change as the racket was freshly strung.
I like the racket so far and it seems slightly more forgiving vs the tc95. I measured the headsize very accurately because some posters said that both headsizes are the same but the tc97 headsize is in fact just a fraction wider and longer.
 

Gee

Hall of Fame
I bought a tc97 and tried it out for the first time today. Already have a tc95 and strung it with the same string and tension. Both rackets have a lot of similarities but it seems that the tc95 has a more softer impact. I thought that it would be the other way around because of the flexible head of the tc97. Maybe this will change as the racket was freshly strung.
I like the racket so far and it seems slightly more forgiving vs the tc95. I measured the headsize very accurately because some posters said that both headsizes are the same but the tc97 headsize is in fact just a fraction wider and longer.
I completely agree.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
Can anyone compare TC97 18x20 to some good Radical of older generation (and relatively similar specs: Tours - Bumblebee, Zebra, Candycane, LM, MG)?
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
Hey joohan, can you describe a bit more detailed what's better with TC97 regarding volleying?
For me, everything. I guess 97 fits better(or the best) with my natural volleying technique. With 95 I often mishit a bit or simply don't find the sweetspot plus I guess with 95 being more powerful makes it harder for me to have an ultimate control over my volleys. With 97 I can do almost anything off of the air. After a month hitting exclusively TC97 18x20, I picked my Bio 300Tour back home since I've left my 97s in London. Feel and overall performance extremely similar and I like volleying with Bio300T more than with the TC95 as well.

Edit: it very well may be the beam cross section difference between the two. Bio 300T is 97s sibling and their beams/feel I get from it is much sweeter and confidence inspiring for me. 300T is strung with 1.20 RS Lyon. I'm off on a holiday in a month and I'll string one of my 97 with VS/RPM hybrid, the other one with RS Lyon.
 
Last edited:

zalive

Hall of Fame
Or it's the specs combination that is different...if you mishit with TC95 often, I bet something in its specs combination is not similar to what you're used to, simply because it swings differently...
 

bkfinch

Semi-Pro
Can anyone compare TC97 18x20 to some good Radical of older generation (and relatively similar specs: Tours - Bumblebee, Zebra, Candycane, LM, MG)?
I'd be curious to read one as well- though some of those radicals can be rreeeaaallyyy different...
 

Racketdesign

Semi-Pro
More than interesting. It makes me question...the whole SW measurement system applied ;)
Because if this was actually true then whole SW increase calculation system by using tools and formulas would be meaningless, together with physics formula applied.
I saw the vid. But all I can think of is that measurement on this vid is wrong. Why, I would not know.

EDIT:
Anyone wants to question physics formulas?
Try TWU tool:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/customizationReverse.php

According to TWU tool, adding 1 gram on the inner side at 12 o'clock (I entered 67.5 cm for a center of mass) increases SW by 3.3 units, not by 6.
I think with any formulas the accuracy of the result depends entirely on the accuracy of the numbers going in. Weight, balance and lengh measurements would all have to be exactly spot on to create a 100% accurate result. Does anyone really measure the length and width to the nearest 0.0001mm? It's like using pi- 3.14 is fine for most uses but results will change when you use the full pi number.
 

alexdoro

New User
Do Angell leather grips weigh heavier than Angell synthetic grips? If so, how does Paul handle it?
How do Angell leather grips compare to other leather grips like Wilson or TW?

Thanks!
Around 5g difference, grip is included in total weight. Thickness and weight is similar to Wilson.

Enviado de meu ONEPLUS A3000 usando Tapatalk
 

beltsman

Legend
I'm looking to jump in with a (unsturng)
100 sq in
70 RA
27"
300 g
290 SW
320 or 325 mm balance

aka a foam-filled Pure Drive clone.

But apparently they don't have that SW in stock in my grip size right now! Aughhhh!

By the way, does anyone know if it's Paul that responds on Facebook, or someone else?
 
I prefer the 97. Boxier beam and lower powered nature (compared to 95) seems to be the tipping point. Slices and volleys are 11/10 for me with 97, with 95 it's 2-3 points lower. That being said, you can't really go wrong even if you won't get a 100% fit with your first Angell purchase.
see i hit very few slices, instead I do a lot of topspin drives or even some relatively flat shots off my backhand and the TC 95 just destroys the ball on those. it's very difficult to explain how much damage they do when you really swing out with your one handed backhand...

Also i just seem to play better with sub 60 ra frames so the tc95 was my obvious choice... really the tc95 has more in common with the ps85 crossed with an earlier sub 60 dunlop. the tc97 is more in the prestige genus. Tc95 is kinda its own species of super dynamic power, spin monster + control MP category. it slices very well too.... i use the 16x19 ra63
 
Last edited:
None of my TC95s RA63 is sub 60RA when strung. All three are 62 RA actually. Have you measured yours?
no but one poster @bouncehitbounce did and it measured ra58... it definitely plays softer than my ra61 x feel pro 95 or ra63 IG Prestige MP. It plays soft, you really feel it on big returns.

stiffer than my noodlish becker london tour mid


i dont swear by spec #'s but as a guide i serve better with more flexy frames
 
Last edited:

zalive

Hall of Fame
I think with any formulas the accuracy of the result depends entirely on the accuracy of the numbers going in. Weight, balance and lengh measurements would all have to be exactly spot on to create a 100% accurate result. Does anyone really measure the length and width to the nearest 0.0001mm? It's like using pi- 3.14 is fine for most uses but results will change when you use the full pi number.
I can agree, but error in measurement can't produce a 50% or 70% difference - this formula is not that sensitive to error.

SW increase formula doesn't depend at all on initial weight, balance or initial swing weight of a racquet. It solely depends on added mass placement and distribution. It depends on mass, and on distance from the point where SW is being measured.

Formula is simple: SW increase = m * d * d, where d is the distance from the spot for which swing weight is measured. Standard for tennis racquets is 10 cm.

Formula says if you want to increase SW by 5 units with a single gram (let's use the lower value), it should be placed at 81 cm from the butt.
Let's say that measuring the weight had 10% accuracy tolerance in this case, so it was actually 1.1 gram, not 1.0 gram. In this case it's enough to place it at 77.5 cm from the butt to increase SW by 5 units..
Then let's say this SW measuring machine was calibrated to measure swing weight at 9.5 cm from the butt, not exactly at 10 cm, like commonly used. In this case you still need 1.1 gram at 77 cm from the butt to increase SW by 5 units.

All those values are out of reach for any used tennis racquet length.

I must mention that formula presumes added mass is entirely concentrated at the single point with d distance from the 10 cm SW reference point, which is not entirely true. But those examples say that centre of mass cannot be inside of a racquet length to increase SW by 5 points by adding approximately a single gram. It cannot happen.


Sooner or later, you must question whether the measuring tool used in the vid made a correct measurement of SW.
 
Last edited:

Racketdesign

Semi-Pro
I can agree, but error in measurement can't produce a 50% or 70% difference - this formula is not that sensitive to error.

SW increase formula doesn't depend at all on initial weight, balance or initial swing weight of a racquet. It solely depends on added mass placement and distribution. It depends on mass, and on distance from the point where SW is being measured.

Formula is simple: SW increase = m * d * d, where d is the distance from the spot for which swing weight is measured. Standard for tennis racquets is 10 cm.

Formula says if you want to increase SW by 5 units with a single gram (let's use the lower value), it should be placed at 81 cm from the butt.
Let's say that measuring the weight had 10% accuracy in this case, so it was actually 1.1 gram, not 1.0 gram. In this case it's enough to place it at 77.5 cm from the butt to increase SW by 5 units..
Then let's say this SW measuring machine was calibrated to measure swing weight at 9.5 cm from the butt, not exactly at 10 cm, like commonly used. In this case you still need 1.1 gram at 70 cm from the butt to increase SW by 5 units.

All those values are out of reach for any used tennis racquet lengths.

I must mention that formula presumes added mass is entirely concentrated at the single point with d distance from the 10 cm SW reference point, which is not entirely true. But those examples say that centre on mass cannot be inside of a racquet length to increase SW by 5 points. It cannot happen.


Sooner or later, you must question whether the measuring tool used in the vid made a correct measurement of SW.
I'm more likely to question the formula tbh. By your calculations, what increase would a frame see by adding 5g at 12? And would that increase be the same for every racket?
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
I'm more likely to question the formula tbh.
It's not my formula.
TWU link:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/customizationReverse.php

This link produces exact calculations that I get using m*d*d formula. You can check yourself.

By your calculations, what increase would a frame see by adding 5g at 12? And would that increase be the same for every racket?
According to formula, SW should increase by 16.2. And it will be the same for any racquet, given the positioning of the lead is the same - it can be a bit different for realistic practical reasons because of beam thickness, actual length, number of lead strips applied and their length, but values won't be far.
 
Last edited:

joohan

Hall of Fame
see i hit very few slices, instead I do a lot of topspin drives or even some relatively flat shots off my backhand and the TC 95 just destroys the ball on those. it's very difficult to explain how much damage they do when you really swing out with your one handed backhand...

Also i just seem to play better with sub 60 ra frames so the tc95 was my obvious choice... really the tc95 has more in common with the ps85 crossed with an earlier sub 60 dunlop. the tc97 is more in the prestige genus. Tc95 is kinda its own species of super dynamic power, spin monster + control MP category. it slices very well too.... i use the 16x19 ra63
I pulled out BLX PS90 after a long time and was quite surprised by the amount of kick I was able to get out of 16x19 pattern. Makes me wonder how wicked 16x19 63RA TC95 must serve.
 

topspn

Legend
I pulled out BLX PS90 after a long time and was quite surprised by the amount of kick I was able to get out of 16x19 pattern. Makes me wonder how wicked 16x19 63RA TC95 must serve.
Pretty damned wicked Especially with a string with good bite
 

HitTheBall

New User
Oh yes. TC95 16x19 really appeals to my sense of humour; such fun to play with. Can get some ridiculous spins. I know sometimes I take tennis too seriously, but this racquet reminds me this is a game! :)
 

sma1001

Hall of Fame
Can anyone compare TC97 18x20 to some good Radical of older generation (and relatively similar specs: Tours - Bumblebee, Zebra, Candycane, LM, MG)?
Yes, albeit i should say my play with the 18/20 is limited to a couple of hours so far. I have played the Bumblebee (in both 630 and 690) and the LM Rad MP. I won't compare to the 690 as the larger hoops makes that a meaningless comparison really.

Firstly I should say that i have my TC97 18/20 at similar specs to the LM Rad MP: 310 static and 315 (9 points HL) as i has the LM Rad MP after i'd added a little weight in the handle of the Rad and some lead . I had the Bumblebee at 350 static and the balance was very similar. The SW of the TC and the LM Rad were similar too (c325-330) while the BB was more like 335-340. It won't take a genius to work out that the BB swung heavier and had more plow. It was also a little more plush than both the TC and the LM. Of course it was also over 20 years old so would have softened up I guess.

The fairer comparison is between the LM and the TC given similarities in specs. The LM was one of my all time favourites, and was in the bag for quite a while as a result. I really should have kept it. I'd say that it did need some lead in the hoop and counter-balanced in the handle to get the pop and plow I wanted. But it had lots of control and a crisp but not stiff feel. The feel of the TC97 with full poly (RS Lyon 1.20 at 52) for me is similar: crisp but not stiff or hollow. It also has a little more flex in the hoop giving it a more dynamic response and a little more free power. I'd also say the launch angle is a little higher as a result, with some more spin. In many ways the Tc97 18/20 gives me a launch and spin rate which is in between what I've experienced between a low launch control 18/20 such as the LM Rad, BB Rad etc, and the 16/19 examples of similar racquets (e.g. TC97 16/19). The extra pop, plus higher launch/spin, are standout features for me as i've tended more towards 16/19 or 16/20 patterns before in order to get a little more net clearance. Hence getting more clearance and spin from the TC97, but not as high as some others, is just the middle position i've been seeking.

In short these are all great bats. Clearly the TC97 is custom so you can choose what weight and balance you want. if you are at the lower end it will be more comparable to the LM Rad. At the higher end to the early Rads. You can ask Paul to choose one which is closer to the SW you want (LM was 10-15 SW lower than BB). Thereafter the feel is more similar to the LM Rad, the flex is a little more dynamic in the hoop, and the launch and spin rate are a little higher too.

I hope this helps.
 

Sambuccashake

Hall of Fame
Before bringing my TC95 (63 RA, old gun metal paintjob) to the stringer I decided to remove the strings and overgrip to check the weight and balance. I must say it is a bit of an oddity.

Static weight is 310 grams with a pacific leather grip and a 316/317 mm balance point.
Not only that, the size 2 grip measures exactly 4 3/8 inches. (which is the standard grip size 3 measurements)

When it's time to get new grommets I was thinking of adding an extra racquet to my bag (to save the environment of redundant shipping or whatnot...) but I can't really decide if I should get another 310 or move up to the 320.
I'm not a string breaker so it's not really super crucial that they match.
Perhaps a 310 to have room to play around with lead?

Edit:
Does Paul compensate weight and balance based on the chosen undergrip?
I mean, a racquet with leather undergrip would have a different weight and balance compared to the same racquet with synthetic undergrip.
 
Last edited:

Racketdesign

Semi-Pro
It's not my formula.
TWU link:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/customizationReverse.php

This link produces exact calculations that I get using m*d*d formula. You can check yourself.



According to formula, SW should increase by 16.2. And it will be the same for any racquet, given the positioning of the lead is the same - it can be a bit different for realistic practical reasons because of beam thickness, actual length, number of lead strips applied and their length, but values won't be far.
Just added 5g in 2 x 2.5g strips across 12 o'clock and it added 18pts.
 

ugly duck

New User
Before bringing my TC95 (63 RA, old gun metal paintjob) to the stringer I decided to remove the strings and overgrip to check the weight and balance. I must say it is a bit of an oddity.

Static weight is 310 grams with a pacific leather grip and a 316/317 mm balance point.
Not only that, the size 2 grip measures exactly 4 3/8 inches. (which is the standard grip size 3 measurements)

When it's time to get new grommets I was thinking of adding an extra racquet to my bag (to save the environment of redundant shipping or whatnot...) but I can't really decide if I should get another 310 or move up to the 320.
I'm not a string breaker so it's not really super crucial that they match.
Perhaps a 310 to have room to play around with lead?

Edit:
Does Paul compensate weight and balance based on the chosen undergrip?
I mean, a racquet with leather undergrip would have a different weight and balance compared to the same racquet with synthetic undergrip.
If you give him the unstrung specs and take some time to wait for the right racquet, in my experience Paul will take the time to give you the exact same configuration. The only caveat: He can match the rackets perfectly BUT this one depends touching your racquet by himself or that both RDCs are calibrated the same.

In short: If you give him the right specs you will get the right racquet.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
Just added 5g in 2 x 2.5g strips across 12 o'clock and it added 18pts.
This is much closer to calculated value than previous experiment with 1g, and difference is in territory of explainable (measurement device rounds measurement to a whole unit, so difference could have easily be closer to 17 pts, which is completely realistic).

If you divide the SW by 5 grams, you get 3.6 units per gram. If you divided +17 with 5 grams, you'd get 3.4 units per gram, which is really close enough. Measurement and calculations got in line.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
Yes, albeit i should say my play with the 18/20 is limited to a couple of hours so far. I have played the Bumblebee (in both 630 and 690) and the LM Rad MP. I won't compare to the 690 as the larger hoops makes that a meaningless comparison really.

Firstly I should say that i have my TC97 18/20 at similar specs to the LM Rad MP: 310 static and 315 (9 points HL) as i has the LM Rad MP after i'd added a little weight in the handle of the Rad and some lead . I had the Bumblebee at 350 static and the balance was very similar. The SW of the TC and the LM Rad were similar too (c325-330) while the BB was more like 335-340. It won't take a genius to work out that the BB swung heavier and had more plow. It was also a little more plush than both the TC and the LM. Of course it was also over 20 years old so would have softened up I guess.

The fairer comparison is between the LM and the TC given similarities in specs. The LM was one of my all time favourites, and was in the bag for quite a while as a result. I really should have kept it. I'd say that it did need some lead in the hoop and counter-balanced in the handle to get the pop and plow I wanted. But it had lots of control and a crisp but not stiff feel. The feel of the TC97 with full poly (RS Lyon 1.20 at 52) for me is similar: crisp but not stiff or hollow. It also has a little more flex in the hoop giving it a more dynamic response and a little more free power. I'd also say the launch angle is a little higher as a result, with some more spin. In many ways the Tc97 18/20 gives me a launch and spin rate which is in between what I've experienced between a low launch control 18/20 such as the LM Rad, BB Rad etc, and the 16/19 examples of similar racquets (e.g. TC97 16/19). The extra pop, plus higher launch/spin, are standout features for me as i've tended more towards 16/19 or 16/20 patterns before in order to get a little more net clearance. Hence getting more clearance and spin from the TC97, but not as high as some others, is just the middle position i've been seeking.

In short these are all great bats. Clearly the TC97 is custom so you can choose what weight and balance you want. if you are at the lower end it will be more comparable to the LM Rad. At the higher end to the early Rads. You can ask Paul to choose one which is closer to the SW you want (LM was 10-15 SW lower than BB). Thereafter the feel is more similar to the LM Rad, the flex is a little more dynamic in the hoop, and the launch and spin rate are a little higher too.

I hope this helps.
Thanks :)
I supposed there could be similarity, though Radical line goes out of custom TC97 weight range on both ends with certain lines. But realistic head size of Rad MPs is similar (TC97 bit larger), 18x20 is there, head shape is similar, flex is usually similar (depending on a line), and Radical line was made with having in mind it allows bit more power for its specs than Prestige line. Also, predictability of hitting with Radicals is usually pretty good too, as Radicals share the same great head geometry and 18x20 string pattern distribution with PT57 and Prestiges in general.

I have experience with Ti.Rad, i.Rad and i.Prestige, I currently have them. There's a difference between them and there's a similarity too. Ti.Rad and i.Prestige in fact have a similar power when you about equalize their specs. i.Radical has some more power being additionally stiffer in realistic situation. But you can sense the same lineage they share thanks to the same head geometry. As for spin, there's difference too between them - i.Rad generates more spin than both Ti.Rad and i.Prestige. Unfortunately I've no experience with LM Rad so I can't compare it for power and spin.

Anyway, the similarity I was interested is because I suspected there might be similarity with TC97, and this is the reason why I'm more interested in TC95 63 RA. Because it's more different and generates yet more spin. Now, if TC97 generates more spin than Radicals, that is something to think about. I expected it might be in line with those Radicals which generate more spin.
 

mrravioli

Semi-Pro
Hi, guys. I'm considering going the Angell route (mainly interested in TC95), but the monstrous spec choices are a bit dizzy. Can't afford the time to read the entire 180-page thread so just a few quick questions here.

1. The string pattern. Would the 16*19 offer a lot more spin or power on tap? I preferred denser patterns in the past (Prestige MP) for longer string life and a more solid feel (real or psychedelic), but when I played both patterns of Blade 98 side by side, I was instantly amazed at the easier power 16*19 offered. So I'm actually leaning toward the 16*19, especially for the smallish 95 size.

2. Weight and balance. I like my racquets to be 325/330-ish in both static and swing weights, so obviously the 310g unstrung version should be my choice. Then which balance point option would bring the racquet into my preferred spec. Also what should be expected from a 320g & more headlight version against its lighter but more headheavy counterpart? If I buy with a leather grip, would it add to the total weight and hl-points or still get the same spec but just different grip?

3. Buying choice. How much and how long would it take to ship to the US?

Thanks in advance. I know some of these question could be too finicky, but would really appreciate if you could offer any help. Fingers crossed to be a part of the club.
 

topspn

Legend
I tried some RPM 17g today @47 on TC 95 63. I didn’t really enjoy the feel of RPM in this frame and it had too much pop. The control was not at a level i liked and i really wasn’t gaining any kind of feel. But it was serving ballistics. I just got some RS Lyon and some Max Power rough 17g. RPM has to come out, its not very playable.
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
1. The string pattern. Would the 16*19 offer a lot more spin or power on tap? I preferred denser patterns in the past (Prestige MP) for longer string life and a more solid feel (real or psychedelic), but when I played both patterns of Blade 98 side by side, I was instantly amazed at the easier power 16*19 offered. So I'm actually leaning toward the 16*19, especially for the smallish 95 size.
What level are you? I'm a pretty advanced player, and I feel like the 18x20 63 RA lets me play on the edge (strung with a thin g poly), but without feeling like I have to dial back. Gives me ample power and spin potential w/o overloading me on either. I'd be less comfortable with the 16x19, but wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, especially if my game were more spin dependent.

2. Weight and balance. I like my racquets to be 325/330-ish in both static and swing weights, so obviously the 310g unstrung version should be my choice. Then which balance point option would bring the racquet into my preferred spec. Also what should be expected from a 320g & more headlight version against its lighter but more headheavy counterpart? If I buy with a leather grip, would it add to the total weight and hl-points or still get the same spec but just different grip?
Just tell Paul what you want, including what (if any) modifications you intend to make on your own. He'll hook you up with the math and the product. Customer service is seriously second to none in this respect.

3. Buying choice. How much and how long would it take to ship to the US?
Oh, customer service is also second to none in this respect. Mine shipped so quickly that I began to question what I knew about Newtonian physics. But FWIW, I do understand this is at least a bit dependent on Paul's schedule and availability. Such is life in the world of boutique business.
 

mxblink

Rookie
1. The string pattern. Would the 16*19 offer a lot more spin or power on tap? I preferred denser patterns in the past (Prestige MP) for longer string life and a more solid feel (real or psychedelic), but when I played both patterns of Blade 98 side by side, I was instantly amazed at the easier power 16*19 offered. So I'm actually leaning toward the 16*19, especially for the smallish 95 size.
I've played with both patterns (albeit with slightly different weight/balance/SW specs), and the more open pattern was a little too lively for me. I couldn't get used to the launch angle and my control/feel suffered. Fun to hit around with but my match play wasn't great. The 18x20 63 RA (my current stick) plays a little deader, but absolutely does not want for power. I can still get monster power and more-than-adequate spin with this stick. I play it with a 1.20mm poly (RS Lyon 17L) at 46 lbs.

That said the 16x19 is really a fantastic stick, and if you can tame it then the power and spin you can access is a little ridiculous.

2. Weight and balance. I like my racquets to be 325/330-ish in both static and swing weights, so obviously the 310g unstrung version should be my choice. Then which balance point option would bring the racquet into my preferred spec. Also what should be expected from a 320g & more headlight version against its lighter but more headheavy counterpart? If I buy with a leather grip, would it add to the total weight and hl-points or still get the same spec but just different grip?
I'm not sure what your preferred balance spec is so it's hard to recommend an option. Generally, more headlight = more maneuverable, particularly on volleys. However, I've found that a racquet that's too headlight makes me start hitting too inside-out on the forehand. 325g/310mm is my working unstrung spec right now, and I add a little lead to the hoop.

The online specs reflect the final unstrung specs regardless of grip choice. If you order a heavier (e.g. leather) grip, Paul will tweak the weights in the handle to match the target spec.

3. Buying choice. How much and how long would it take to ship to the US?
On average, it usually takes about 10 days for the racquet to ship once I order. Then the next day it's on my doorstep (east coast US). About $210 all-included, which I'm very happy with given the product I'm getting.
 

stocchero

New User
Hi, guys. I'm considering going the Angell route (mainly interested in TC95), but the monstrous spec choices are a bit dizzy. Can't afford the time to read the entire 180-page thread so just a few quick questions here.

1. The string pattern. Would the 16*19 offer a lot more spin or power on tap? I preferred denser patterns in the past (Prestige MP) for longer string life and a more solid feel (real or psychedelic), but when I played both patterns of Blade 98 side by side, I was instantly amazed at the easier power 16*19 offered. So I'm actually leaning toward the 16*19, especially for the smallish 95 size.

2. Weight and balance. I like my racquets to be 325/330-ish in both static and swing weights, so obviously the 310g unstrung version should be my choice. Then which balance point option would bring the racquet into my preferred spec. Also what should be expected from a 320g & more headlight version against its lighter but more headheavy counterpart? If I buy with a leather grip, would it add to the total weight and hl-points or still get the same spec but just different grip?

3. Buying choice. How much and how long would it take to ship to the US?

Thanks in advance. I know some of these question could be too finicky, but would really appreciate if you could offer any help. Fingers crossed to be a part of the club.
I had two TC95 63 RA, one of each string pattern.
The 18x20 gives you more control, because of the lower launch angle, directional control and the feel, more connected to the ball. It has a good amount of spin, but I found it to be significantly less than the 16x19 version.

I think the 16x19 is easier to generate power and spin, but you have to learn to control that humongous amount of spin, it takes a little time to adjust (I play almost flat and used to go only with 20 crosses).

If going for the 18x20, in the tc95, I would suggest a little lead on 3 and 9, as I think it has a small sweetspot.

For a 325 sw, I think you should go with the 70RA or ask that before buying, and maybe have to wait a little. My 16x19 had a sw of 340, and my 18x20 had a 330 sw, but here in this forum, it is more easy to find over 330 sw for the 63 RA then less...

I have now two tc100 70 RA, asked for low sw ones, and I got 311 and 304 strung sw, made them 320 with just a little lead on 12 hour, so easy to do.

Swingweight won't be affected by static weight and balance that you choose, so just go with your prefered specs in these departments.

Paul compensates cuhion grip choices in the final weight and balance, but I found the leather grip of Angell to be on the light side, and synthetic grips on the heavier side, so not that much difference for the calculations (around 3/4 grams is what I got).

If what you want in terms of swingweight and RA is available, the 3 times I ordered from Angell, I got the rackets in USA in less than a week (actually, the last one took only one day from Cambridge to Miami in DHL, less than 3 days everything!!!!).

And just to compare, the other two racquets you mentioned, blade and prestige, they feel more like the tc97, so expect the tc95 to get you a little more time to feel at home.

Enviado de meu XT1635-02 usando Tapatalk
 
I pulled out BLX PS90 after a long time and was quite surprised by the amount of kick I was able to get out of 16x19 pattern. Makes me wonder how wicked 16x19 63RA TC95 must serve.
it is a beast... also got a chance to face the dreaded tc100 63ra today... nice frame, full report on my thread soon

no idea what the swingweight on my first tc95 63ra 16x19 was but im still getting my new one matched to it.. at 360g my old one just destroys the ball in a predictable way. the new one at 357g and different brand thinner gage strings really isnt quite the same... but it will be, or at least more similsr. It is already close... i prefer the new ones type A grip too. swingweights likely are up there ... maybe close to 350? definitely 340+ at 9pts hl. Honestly i am not that interested... the feel is all i care about and they are getting very close, just need to get them strung the same and i can dail it in.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gee

beltsman

Legend
it is a beast... also got a chance to face the dreaded tc100 63ra today... nice frame, full report on my thread soon

no idea what the swingweight on my first tc95 63ra 16x19 was but im still getting my new one matched to it.. at 360g my old one just destroys the ball in a predictable way. the new one at 357g and different brand thinner gage strings really isnt quite the same... but it will be, or at least more similsr. It is already close... i prefer the new ones type A grip too. swingweights likely are up there ... maybe close to 350? definitely 340+ at 9pts hl. Honestly i am not that interested... the feel is all i care about and they are getting very close, just need to get them strung the same and i can dail it in.
Honestly though I don't get you Angell guys. Angell (and the Angell legion) are mostly "screw swingweight, just look at weight and balance!" but I just don't get it. How can massive swingweight differences not be a huge deal?
 
Honestly though I don't get you Angell guys. Angell (and the Angell legion) are mostly "screw swingweight, just look at weight and balance!" but I just don't get it. How can massive swingweight differences not be a huge deal?
I used to swing 14oz wooden frames as a small fry and a 13.5oz max 200g as a teen (swingweights of doom). Im very strong now, not the stringbean I was in as a highschooler with my Max 200g. Its technique, we grew up with swingweights that would cause younger players today aneurysms...

In your 30's you get your "manstrength" too, well I did at least (went from stringbean to someone that is a bit bigger built than most tennis players). Overall, in a stick I look for something that feels like home... The TC95 fits that bill and lets me hit shots that bring a smile to my face and I can run opponents with lighter sticks from side to side on the court.

Ive been hitting with a guy 10 years younger than me too with a new pure strike 100... he's a bit scared of what my return game does to his good serves on very slow rebound ace courts and I explained that they are good fast serves but the dont have the weight or unpredictability of a player at higher levels (spin action wise as well as variety). There is a reason the pro tour's top returning players mostly use heavier frames, mass = ball bossing.
 
Last edited:

am1899

Hall of Fame
Ok Angell experts. Been playing with the Head Graphene Speed MP for a number of years now. Currently, my frames have seen better days, and they really need to be replaced. I am currently rated 4.5 in USTA, although after a very successful year, I expect to be bumped up to 5.0 at the end of 2017. (I won't complain if it doesn't happen though)! I have a 1HBH, play an all court style, fairly flat from the baseline. BUT I have always played with open string patterns - predominately 16x19 frames.

Anyway, Ive tried a bunch of new frames. So far, I haven't found anything that I've been happy with. I could probably scrounge and find a couple new Graphene Speed mp's. But I really don't want to be SOL at some later date, when grommets will inevitably be gone.

So based on glowing reviews, how people generally describe the feel of Angell frames, and really not knowing what other direction to go in...I'm considering taking a stab at one of these Angell frames. Can any of you compare any of the Angell models to the Head GSMP? My Speeds are bone stock. I never got around to adding weight to them, and eventually, I became used to playing with a frame much lighter than I frames I used to play with years ago. My intuition at this point would be not to stray too far away from the specs of my current frame. But, I'm totally open to suggestions and thoughts. Here's what I'm thinking at the moment:

Custom TC97 (or would it be better to go TC95)?
16x19
66RA
27"

Either:
A) 300g(10.6oz) / 330mm(4ptsHL)

Or:

B) 300g(10.6oz) / 325mm(6ptsHL)

(Thoughts on the two weight/balance combinations)?

4 & 3/8
grip shape B
Black synthetic grip
Black grommets

Would be thrilled to hear what you guys have to say. Thanks!
 

oble

Hall of Fame
Honestly though I don't get you Angell guys. Angell (and the Angell legion) are mostly "screw swingweight, just look at weight and balance!" but I just don't get it. How can massive swingweight differences not be a huge deal?
Not really. Plenty of other posters here who are sensitive to swingweight changes as well. I also personally know many players who don't give a flying hoot about swingweight. They can grab a light 310+ swingweight tweener or a decently weighted player's racquet and they'll adjust quickly and beat many other players.
 
Ok Angell experts. Been playing with the Head Graphene Speed MP for a number of years now. Currently, my frames have seen better days, and they really need to be replaced. I am currently rated 4.5 in USTA, although after a very successful year, I expect to be bumped up to 5.0 at the end of 2017. (I won't complain if it doesn't happen though)! I have a 1HBH, play an all court style, fairly flat from the baseline. BUT I have always played with open string patterns - predominately 16x19 frames.

Anyway, Ive tried a bunch of new frames. So far, I haven't found anything that I've been happy with. I could probably scrounge and find a couple new Graphene Speed mp's. But I really don't want to be SOL at some later date, when grommets will inevitably be gone.

So based on glowing reviews, how people generally describe the feel of Angell frames, and really not knowing what other direction to go in...I'm considering taking a stab at one of these Angell frames. Can any of you compare any of the Angell models to the Head GSMP? My Speeds are bone stock. I never got around to adding weight to them, and eventually, I became used to playing with a frame much lighter than I frames I used to play with years ago. My intuition at this point would be not to stray too far away from the specs of my current frame. But, I'm totally open to suggestions and thoughts. Here's what I'm thinking at the moment:

Custom TC97 (or would it be better to go TC95)?
16x19
66RA
27"

Either:
A) 300g(10.6oz) / 330mm(4ptsHL)

Or:

B) 300g(10.6oz) / 325mm(6ptsHL)

(Thoughts on the two weight/balance combinations)?

4 & 3/8
grip shape B
Black synthetic grip
Black grommets

Would be thrilled to hear what you guys have to say. Thanks!
It is worth a shot... and you can demo the TC97 tour

I think we need more info on your style of play... type of 1 handed backhand (are you a slicer or an aggressive topspinner)

Tactics... give us a pro or two who has similar tactics or patterns, even build... Im rather wawrinka-esque, Guga-like too with big nordic muscles that crack me up (I grew up Guga skinny then filled out in my 30's). Im a power/finesse extreme polarities kinda player who switcjhes between the two often. I use the TC95: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/angell-tc95-16x19-flexy-shakedown.553138/page-8

What are your best shots?

Overall the TC95 is for shotmaker/ballstrikers and the TC97 fits more players. Think of the tc95 as dynamic (especially the 63ra version it is super spinny yet control oriented). Tc97 is more tempered but still has the angell power mojo in reserve... it also feels more like a classic box beam whearas the TC95 is more muted/unique
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
I aspire to play serve games like Fed (I know I'm not even close to the guy) - spot serving, mix in serve and volley...try for quick holds to build pressure. I don't have a huge serve - 115 max, but I can rack up aces due to hitting spots so well.

I play return games a bit like Sampras used to.
I can lose some quick return games. But ocassionally i connect on a few returns, and make some chances for myself. I will chip charge a second serve - especially if it will unnerve my opponent.

Once any kind of baseline point starts...I'm a loose cannon. Movement is a liability for me, so I will take lots of risk to prevent long extended points. I will almost certainly go for a backhand down the line winner from 8 feet behind the baseline, outside the doubles alley...rather than throw up a defensive lob. A little like Stan in that I like to use my forehand to control points, but also leave the backhand corner open, daring opponents to attack it (id much rather hit backhands generally). Groundstrokes are hit unusually flat for today's game - backhands generally average under 1000 rpm, and forehands average around 1300 rpm. I can slice backhands with the best of them.
I will mix it in by default, but will ere on the side of driving the backhand during a rally - unless there's a reason to slice and dice. If given any kind of opportunity, I will take balls early, flatten it out or slice, and get to the net to end the point.

My best shots are the backhand and the serve.

These days I play mostly doubles - having to cover less of the court doesn't expose my movement as badly. I have solid hands, and technically sound volleys.
 
Top