The Official Angell Users Club

Quick update:

My k95 broke so I have been playing with a Babolat Aerostorm Tour for the past week. 16x20, 320 gr unstrung 10 pts HL according to the specs on the racquet.

I kinda dig it. I think I'm gonna go for a TC97 18x20 in 320 gr 10 pts HL OR maybe a 310 gr 7 pts HL and maybe add some weight to the hoop to counter the overgrip and bump the weight up a bit.

Im considering the 18x20 over the 16x19 because I'd rather have a bit more control.

Whatcha think?
 

StanAO14

Rookie
Quick update:

My k95 broke so I have been playing with a Babolat Aerostorm Tour for the past week. 16x20, 320 gr unstrung 10 pts HL according to the specs on the racquet.

I kinda dig it. I think I'm gonna go for a TC97 18x20 in 320 gr 10 pts HL OR maybe a 310 gr 7 pts HL and maybe add some weight to the hoop to counter the overgrip and bump the weight up a bit.

Im considering the 18x20 over the 16x19 because I'd rather have a bit more control.

Whatcha think?
I would go for the 310/ 9pHL. It plays bigger/ feels heavier than the specs on paper (partly) because of the foam filling.
 

emhtennis

Semi-Pro
Quick update:

My k95 broke so I have been playing with a Babolat Aerostorm Tour for the past week. 16x20, 320 gr unstrung 10 pts HL according to the specs on the racquet.

I kinda dig it. I think I'm gonna go for a TC97 18x20 in 320 gr 10 pts HL OR maybe a 310 gr 7 pts HL and maybe add some weight to the hoop to counter the overgrip and bump the weight up a bit.

Im considering the 18x20 over the 16x19 because I'd rather have a bit more control.

Whatcha think?
Even though I'm really dialed in to my TC97 310g, I do wish it were a bit more headlight so I could maintain rackethead speed past the 2.5hr mark on court.

If you're comfortable with the babolat at 320g, I say build the Angell the same way, at 10pt HL. That would be a really neat comparison as well. I think the beams are probably pretty close to identical. Angell would still be more comfortable I think because of the foam filling.
 
Even though I'm really dialed in to my TC97 310g, I do wish it were a bit more headlight so I could maintain rackethead speed past the 2.5hr mark on court.

If you're comfortable with the babolat at 320g, I say build the Angell the same way, at 10pt HL. That would be a really neat comparison as well. I think the beams are probably pretty close to identical. Angell would still be more comfortable I think because of the foam filling.
Those are my thoughts too.
 

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
I would go for the 310/ 9pHL. It plays bigger/ feels heavier than the specs on paper (partly) because of the foam filling.
I was facing the same question when choosing my TC95: going 310g / 315mm or 320g / 310mm. I went with the former, on the basis that I could always customize the racquet to be heavier if feeling too light, but could not easily lighten the frame if it felt too heavy.

I am happy I did as, to your point, the Angell's swing heavier than other brands at the same weight / balance because of its foam filling. I think the 320g / 310mm would have proven too challenging over the course of a hard fought singles match. I did not have to customize the 310g / 315mm at all - it swings heavy enough and feels pretty beefy at contact, probably in the high 320's / low 330's SW which is around my preferred specs.
 
Last edited:

ed70

Professional
i would measure swing weight more confident using this. Where the time is the trickiest part. I use the slow motion camera on my phone to get the time for 10 cycles displayed on a timer.





Stability yes, which is probably related to it being less maneuverable. Did I say something else? What I mean by pop is more free power, partly by whipping. If you take full cuts the tc97 probably has more power, which I guess comes from your chosen weight spec as well as the tc97 being more polarized. Even though I am not sure that is by much.
I tend to play at around 325SW, so after building a k7 up to 325SW, it was less powerful & had less stability. At 325SW both can be played whippy. Problem I had with K7 was stability wasn’t near enough at 325SW & I don’t like going much higher as it doesn’t suit my game. Touch & feel of K7 was sublime though.
 

ockelito

New User
Where did you add the weight? You should be able to add like 8-10 g at 3 and 9 to get more stability. But that would add more twist weight and decrease twist maneuverability, which is what I wanna get away from with a gravity history. I added 3 g at 12 on K7 red to make the sw like 321 with a dampener.
 

Blahovic

Semi-Pro
I just played with the 97p and it was great. Gf bought it for me for my birthday. Hits that difficult balance of being whippy and friendly to spin shots as well as clean on flatter, more old school shots.
 
So I’ll bite. I like the looks of both TC95 and TC97. Currently play with Head Gravity Tour or Yonex Vcore Pro 97HD, both arm friendly 18x20s. Most forehands are flat or topspin, backhands are often lots of topspin and I rarely slice on any shots.Serves are high toss, flat or topspin with a lot of down, typically waist high on the fence on one bounce. I normally play at very high altitude (over 7000 ft), which is why most baseline shots are topspun. I string my own racquets so can pretty much put on whatever I want. I have a liking for gut/poly cross and square or hex mains with a good power poly cross. Recommendations from the gallery on Angell racquets?
 

emhtennis

Semi-Pro
So I’ll bite. I like the looks of both TC95 and TC97. Currently play with Head Gravity Tour or Yonex Vcore Pro 97HD, both arm friendly 18x20s. Most forehands are flat or topspin, backhands are often lots of topspin and I rarely slice on any shots.Serves are high toss, flat or topspin with a lot of down, typically waist high on the fence on one bounce. I normally play at very high altitude (over 7000 ft), which is why most baseline shots are topspun. I string my own racquets so can pretty much put on whatever I want. I have a liking for gut/poly cross and square or hex mains with a good power poly cross. Recommendations from the gallery on Angell racquets?
If you like the head-flex and feel of old-school prestiges then go with the TC97 18x20. I play one and have no issues generating plenty of topspin when I want it. The Vcore Pro 97HD is more similar to the TC97 in my opinion. If you want to get it really close, you can always choose the 320g or 330g option.

If you want a more full-frame flex feel then go with the TC95 18x20.

I'm not sure you can go wrong, you'll probably really enjoy whichever one you pick.
 
If you like the head-flex and feel of old-school prestiges then go with the TC97 18x20. I play one and have no issues generating plenty of topspin when I want it. The Vcore Pro 97HD is more similar to the TC97 in my opinion. If you want to get it really close, you can always choose the 320g or 330g option.

If you want a more full-frame flex feel then go with the TC95 18x20.

I'm not sure you can go wrong, you'll probably really enjoy whichever one you pick.
Thanks emh. Question on the configuration specs: Does the “weight“ refer to strung weight, unstrung weight, or swingweight? Really, the question is, how do I compare specs with my existing racquets, all of which are swingweights of about 325 g and similar strungweights?
 

Blahovic

Semi-Pro
Thanks emh. Question on the configuration specs: Does the “weight“ refer to strung weight, unstrung weight, or swingweight? Really, the question is, how do I compare specs with my existing racquets, all of which are swingweights of about 325 g and similar strungweights?
All Angell specs are unstrung. You can usually just extrapolate from the unstrung weight and balance of whatever racquet you have (plus string pattern).
 

edelp

Semi-Pro
Thanks emh. Question on the configuration specs: Does the “weight“ refer to strung weight, unstrung weight, or swingweight? Really, the question is, how do I compare specs with my existing racquets, all of which are swingweights of about 325 g and similar strungweights?
Can you also mention your strung balance? to finish with 325gr strung I guess you have to go to a 300gr unstrung Angell, I had / have plenty of them. If you tell us the string gauge you use we can help you as @Blahovic said to extrapolate it...

I had tc95 16x19 and have tc97 18x20, all 300gr unstrung
 
Based on a comment from earlier, is the TC line or the K7 line closer to the feel of Head racquets (flex in a Gravity for instance)?

I always thought the K7 line would be closer due to Twaron, whereas the TC line would offer a firmer feel due to foam filling?
 

Gee

Hall of Fame
Based on a comment from earlier, is the TC line or the K7 line closer to the feel of Head racquets (flex in a Gravity for instance)?

I always thought the K7 line would be closer due to Twaron, whereas the TC line would offer a firmer feel due to foam filling?
I played with K7 Lime, TC95 and TC97 and I can confirm the K7 Line has indeed a more muted feel than the foam filled TC line.
 
Can you also mention your strung balance? to finish with 325gr strung I guess you have to go to a 300gr unstrung Angell, I had / have plenty of them. If you tell us the string gauge you use we can help you as @Blahovic said to extrapolate it...

I had tc95 16x19 and have tc97 18x20, all 300gr unstrung
I use mainly 1.20 and 1.25, sometimes more or less depending on brand. Typical string weight is between 17 and 22 g. I was aiming for about 330-335, so would then start with a 310. I also almost always use an overgrip, which adds about 5 g or so.
 
Ok so Wilson K factor 6.1 95 16x19 broke.
Babolat Aero storm tour strings broke.

Coach lent me his Wilson BLX 6.1 Pro staff and OMG it's the best I've felt and played in years. Looking at the TC95 at 310 and 7 pt HL with a 63 flex it's pretty much the same as the BLX 6.1 95 pro staff.

If the TC 95 plays anything like the BLX 6.1 95 I'm ordering one ASAP.
 

TriggerHappy

New User
Ok so Wilson K factor 6.1 95 16x19 broke.
Babolat Aero storm tour strings broke.

Coach lent me his Wilson BLX 6.1 Pro staff and OMG it's the best I've felt and played in years. Looking at the TC95 at 310 and 7 pt HL with a 63 flex it's pretty much the same as the BLX 6.1 95 pro staff.

If the TC 95 plays anything like the BLX 6.1 95 I'm ordering one ASAP.
Just got a tc95 330/12 pt Hl delivered as a replacement for blx 6.1 95. Wil be trying it out tomorrow.
 

TriggerHappy

New User
;
WOuld you be so kind as to share your thoughts please!?

And anyone else who has played with the TC95 310/20pt please!
After one session, tc 95 was plusher, comfortable and more stable. Swing weights was very similar to 6.1 95 16x18. Less spin than 6.1 95. Might have to string looser. Played with Solinoco tourbite diamond rough at 50lbs. Ground strokes are not fully dialed in yet.
 

landcookie

Semi-Pro
Tried to play with my TC100 70ra 16x19 yesterday after using only the TC95 63ra 18x20 for a while.
Man what a difference. I strung it with poly to tone done the power a bit, but balls were still flying. Great for serving bombs and overheads but didn't feel in control anymore.
1HBH on the TC95 is sooo much better since I can really let her rip without hitting the fence. Only two months until my birthday so I can buy myself a present (another TC95) :cool:
Interesting comment. I've never hit with a TC95 but I play with the TC 100 (I have both 63 and 70 RA and play mostly with the 63).
TC 100 does have a lot of power but it's also very spin friendly so probably more suited for people who like to play the 'modern game' with lots of spin.
I initially shared your sentiment but managed to find a sweet spot with a 1.30 round poly at higher tension (57/55) to close the stringbed a little and provide more control. What this allows me to do is play within myself when under pressure and get that extra oomph and depth in my rally shots; and where I am in a position to swing out, groundies and serves become absolute bombs.

Obviously, the downside is the higher tension which may lead to discomfort especially with poly. This is something I'm still looking into especially for the 70 RA. Currently I've settled with the 1.30 Yonex PTP, with Technifibre Razor code on the radar. Gut/poly hybrid in the TC100 is an absolute menace - I imagine it would be the same in the TC95. If you've never tried it, highly recommend you give that a go, even if it's just once!
 

TSTAVRO

New User
Hello Angell users,
I am a long-time user of the Head IG Prestige mp w. full bed 16g poly (tour-bite soft right now) and about 5 grams lead tape at 12 (10-2). I am currently looking for new frames. Open to racquets that give me the classic control, precision/ touch and feel I get out of the IG PMP, however, I am trying to tow that fine-line where I get a racquet that gives me a tad more spin and pop in a compact and whippy package. I have tried the TC 97 16x19 320 10pt hl and found it to be slightly too hefty- strange because my prestige is around the same weight if not heavier. I have read mixed reviews on the forum about these swinging slow or fast due to foam fill. I think I may be happier with the 95sq inch offerings (18x20 or 16x19), but am also interested in how the k7 lime would compare.
Big questions:
- If the 320 10 hl tc97 w full bed poly and overgrip felt too hefty- would the same weight and balance in the 95 give me the same problem? If so, what would be a better weight and balance to go for?
- Any thoughts on if I'm better to stick with the 18x20? is the 16x19 going to be way too open for me?
- Comparison on Prestige- K7 lime

Lots of questions- No problem if you are not able to answer them all. Thank you and looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
 

StanAO14

Rookie
95 feels a bit speedier than the 97 due to lower twistweight. Therefore also a bit less stable than the 97. The 95 320 is still a heavy and more demanding frame than the k7 lime, which is the whippiest. Power of the custom line is however higher than the k7 if you can wield the 95/97. The 16/19 custom is a very open pattern. If I were you I would choose the 95 310g/315mm or 315gr/310mm 18/20 or the k7 lime. The 18/20 angells are pretty dense but I think slightly less dense than your prestige IG MP. From those options you can customize further if needed. Where the k7 needs some lead at 12 and some counterweight. If you want something a little more forgiving than the prestige but not too many changes choose the k7. If you want a beast of a service choose the 95. The k7 would be the easiest to transition to.
 

Tennisist

Semi-Pro
Head Prestige Pro feels the closest to Prestige MP, except it has more power and more spin. Prestige Pro is faster through the air than any TC from Angell.
 

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
Hello Angell users,
I am a long-time user of the Head IG Prestige mp w. full bed 16g poly (tour-bite soft right now) and about 5 grams lead tape at 12 (10-2). I am currently looking for new frames. Open to racquets that give me the classic control, precision/ touch and feel I get out of the IG PMP, however, I am trying to tow that fine-line where I get a racquet that gives me a tad more spin and pop in a compact and whippy package. I have tried the TC 97 16x19 320 10pt hl and found it to be slightly too hefty- strange because my prestige is around the same weight if not heavier. I have read mixed reviews on the forum about these swinging slow or fast due to foam fill. I think I may be happier with the 95sq inch offerings (18x20 or 16x19), but am also interested in how the k7 lime would compare.
Big questions:
- If the 320 10 hl tc97 w full bed poly and overgrip felt too hefty- would the same weight and balance in the 95 give me the same problem? If so, what would be a better weight and balance to go for?
- Any thoughts on if I'm better to stick with the 18x20? is the 16x19 going to be way too open for me?
- Comparison on Prestige- K7 lime

Lots of questions- No problem if you are not able to answer them all. Thank you and looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
I can't compare how the TC97 swings vs. the TC95 at similar specs, seeing that I have never hit with the TC97. But I am not surprised you find the TC97 320g / 10pt HL hefty, as my experience of the Angell frames (TC100 63RA 16x19, TC95 63 RA in both 16x19 and 18x20) typically swing heavier than I would expect at the specs I ordered them at (310g / 315mm). And I used to play with a Prince Phantom 93P, so I am used to hefty swing weights.

To your questions regarding the TC95:
- I think it would come down to choosing either the 310g / 315mm or the 315g / 310mm configuration. The former is probably a bit more conservative, as it's easy to add 5g if it feels a tad too light, whereas if the latter still feels a bit heavy, it won't be as easy to adjust it down
- the 16x19 pattern is very open, and will probably require a significant adjustment if you're coming from a 18x20 Prestige. The launch angle is quite high. You'll probably feel a lot more at home with the 18x20 pattern. What I would suggest if you end up getting it, is dropping the gauge of your string from 16 to 17, as this will naturally give you more power and spin
 

emhtennis

Semi-Pro
Hello Angell users,
I am a long-time user of the Head IG Prestige mp w. full bed 16g poly (tour-bite soft right now) and about 5 grams lead tape at 12 (10-2). I am currently looking for new frames. Open to racquets that give me the classic control, precision/ touch and feel I get out of the IG PMP, however, I am trying to tow that fine-line where I get a racquet that gives me a tad more spin and pop in a compact and whippy package. I have tried the TC 97 16x19 320 10pt hl and found it to be slightly too hefty- strange because my prestige is around the same weight if not heavier. I have read mixed reviews on the forum about these swinging slow or fast due to foam fill. I think I may be happier with the 95sq inch offerings (18x20 or 16x19), but am also interested in how the k7 lime would compare.
Big questions:
- If the 320 10 hl tc97 w full bed poly and overgrip felt too hefty- would the same weight and balance in the 95 give me the same problem? If so, what would be a better weight and balance to go for?
- Any thoughts on if I'm better to stick with the 18x20? is the 16x19 going to be way too open for me?
- Comparison on Prestige- K7 lime

Lots of questions- No problem if you are not able to answer them all. Thank you and looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
If you own your TC97 you can always go on the adventure of taking the weights out of the handle and shifting them around to get a lighter static weight. Another idea is to polarize the frame a little more by adding 1 or 2g of lead at the base of the grip and at 12 on the hoop. It'll weigh more, but should feel like it 'swings itself' a little easier (think a Volkl C10 Pro).

If you don't own the TC97, or just want to start fresh and buy another one, I would get a 305 or 310g TC97 18x20. I play with one and use an 18g poly and can get plenty of spin.
 

Happi

Professional
I have been playing with Angell TC95 18x20 for quite a while, and have grown fond of thin poly strings. I like the comfort of a thin poly string strung low in the 18x20 frame.

I am now changing to TC95 16x19 and that frame is quite open, so I wonder if I should go up in gauges to 16 or I could still play with the 18g and 19g strings (I have a lot in stock).

I don't really break strings in the 18x20 but cut out after 8-10 hours.

Please share your experience playing with thin strings in TC95 16x19, pros/cons to 18g/19g vs 16g.

Cheers, H

PS - Posted a separate thread in string forum, but since this is Angell related I have also posted my question here.
 

djNEiGht

Hall of Fame
I have been playing with Angell TC95 18x20 for quite a while, and have grown fond of thin poly strings. I like the comfort of a thin poly string strung low in the 18x20 frame.

I am now changing to TC95 16x19 and that frame is quite open, so I wonder if I should go up in gauges to 16 or I could still play with the 18g and 19g strings (I have a lot in stock).

I don't really break strings in the 18x20 but cut out after 8-10 hours.

Please share your experience playing with thin strings in TC95 16x19, pros/cons to 18g/19g vs 16g.

Cheers, H

PS - Posted a separate thread in string forum, but since this is Angell related I have also posted my question here.
I usually play 17g but in the TC95 16m, I preferred 16L/16 strings. Since you have lots of inventory, try out your 18/19 to get a feel for yourself. I would probably go up in tension though...
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
I have been playing with Angell TC95 18x20 for quite a while, and have grown fond of thin poly strings. I like the comfort of a thin poly string strung low in the 18x20 frame.

I am now changing to TC95 16x19 and that frame is quite open, so I wonder if I should go up in gauges to 16 or I could still play with the 18g and 19g strings (I have a lot in stock)., but go up

I don't really break strings in the 18x20 but cut out after 8-10 hours.

Please share your experience playing with thin strings in TC95 16x19, pros/cons to 18g/19g vs 16g.

Cheers, H

PS - Posted a separate thread in string forum, but since this is Angell related I have also posted my question here.
It's doable... but I think the launch angle difference will be quite pronounced. I use 18 and 19 gauge strings in my TC 95/97 18x20s but go up to 1.30mm or even higher in the same model 16x19s.
 

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
I have been playing with Angell TC95 18x20 for quite a while, and have grown fond of thin poly strings. I like the comfort of a thin poly string strung low in the 18x20 frame.

I am now changing to TC95 16x19 and that frame is quite open, so I wonder if I should go up in gauges to 16 or I could still play with the 18g and 19g strings (I have a lot in stock).

I don't really break strings in the 18x20 but cut out after 8-10 hours.

Please share your experience playing with thin strings in TC95 16x19, pros/cons to 18g/19g vs 16g.

Cheers, H

PS - Posted a separate thread in string forum, but since this is Angell related I have also posted my question here.
I'd definitely go up to a 16L or 16 gauge for both durability and tame the launch angle somewhat. I'd probably also bump up the tension by 10% to keep some level of control.

I can keep a 17 poly in the 18x20 up to 12 hours, but a 16 poly in the 16x19 lasts me only 6-7 hours.
 
Last edited:

ed70

Professional
I hear most people saying the same…tc97 has a bit more power than the k7. For me, I don’t notice the difference in power but mine are both 18x20.
So so different an 18x20 foam filled TC97 & a 16x19 low SW non foam filled K7 red. In a normal non racquet addiction world the player who gels with the 18x20 Tc97 would be the polar opposite to a player digging the K7 red. The Talk of Power wouldn’t even come into it either the TC97 18x20 player, he’d be enjoying the control & plough way too much.
 

andyN

Rookie
anyone knows the bare bone weight of thr TC100 without pallet and grip?

it’s in this thread but i can’t seem to find it via search
 

Andykay

New User
So I'm still tinkering with my setup. Having now tested:

63RA TC100
70RA TC100
63RA TC95 18x20

The TC95 18x20 has become my favourite. I'm still finding the right strings, and struggling a little netting low balls (I come from mostly 16x19 frames so the low launch angle is going to be a long term adjustment), but the combination of control and power is the best I've come across.

I like the TC100 a lot, but the really open 16x19 of the Angells just lacks a tiny bit of predictability. I get flyers when I swing out more than with other frames, even if the result when I strike cleanly is very good.

But the racquetaholic in me feels like maybe my quest isn't done, and I'm debating trying a TC97 to complete my experiment. What can I expect from the 18x20 TC97 in comparison to my TC95? I know the flex profile is different, but I can't really visualise that. I never really paid attention to my gear too much beyond a few years ago, and I don't really have a strong basis for comparison in my head in terms of how that less uniform flex will feel. Is there anything else notably different in how they play?

If it makes any difference I play a pretty flat game, UTR 8ish, big serve, big forehand, I slice a lot of backhands because I like creating angles, but hit a flat one hander when I do drive. I play almost exclusively on synthetic grass, since that's prevalent in Sydney, so I deal with and hit lots of low skidding balls.
 
Last edited:
Greetings,

I’m getting back into tennis after years away from the game.Life happened and didn’t have time for it.When I was a teenager I used the aero pro drive and later a pure drive. I want something more comfortable though. Scrolling through talk tennis has lead me here. After looking at angell website, would a tc100 or k7 cyan be a decent replacement stick? I wouldn’t mind a little more control than my older frames
 

edelp

Semi-Pro
Greetings,

I’m getting back into tennis after years away from the game.Life happened and didn’t have time for it.When I was a teenager I used the aero pro drive and later a pure drive. I want something more comfortable though. Scrolling through talk tennis has lead me here. After looking at angell website, would a tc100 or k7 cyan be a decent replacement stick? I wouldn’t mind a little more control than my older frames
TC100 RA63 is an excellent frame and powerwise in a league of the PA, PD, more or less. And very comfortable. I had mine measured and strung all were between RA58 and RA61. SW might be higher though than the PD that start if I am not wrong and if it on spec at 290 and the TC might around 295SW unstrung
 

edelp

Semi-Pro
anyone knows the bare bone weight of thr TC100 without pallet and grip?

it’s in this thread but i can’t seem to find it via search
I had mine at 290 gr and 32,5BP. If you remove pallets, that are around 8-10 gr and base grip, another 13-15gr you would end up at approximately 265gr, not knowing whether there are still a few weights in the handle.
 

Happi

Professional
So I'm still tinkering with my setup. Having now tested:

63RA TC100
70RA TC100
63RA TC95 18x20

The TC95 18x20 has become my favourite. I'm still finding the right strings, and struggling a little netting low balls (I come from mostly 16x19 frames so the low launch angle is going to be a long term adjustment), but the combination of control and power is the best I've come across.

I like the TC100 a lot, but the really open 16x19 of the Angells just lacks a tiny bit of predictability. I get flyers when I swing out more than with other frames, even if the result when I strike cleanly is very good.

But the racquetaholic in me feels like maybe my quest isn't done, and I'm debating trying a TC97 to complete my experiment. What can I expect from the 18x20 TC97 in comparison to my TC95? I know the flex profile is different, but I can't really visualise that. I never really paid attention to my gear too much beyond a few years ago, and I don't really have a strong basis for comparison in my head in terms of how that less uniform flex will feel. Is there anything else notably different in how they play?

If it makes any difference I play a pretty flat game, UTR 8ish, big serve, big forehand, I slice a lot of backhands because I like creating angles, but hit a flat one hander when I do drive. I play almost exclusively on synthetic grass, since that's prevalent in Sydney, so I deal with and hit lots of low skidding balls.
I have been on the same journey with first TC100, then TC95 16x19 and 18x20 (both RA's), and I would suggest you to try the TC95 16x19 RA63, that racquet is a really good compromise between the two you already tested. I really love the TC95 18x20 but like you I also sometimes struggle with the low launch angle and can net low balls, and the TC95 16x19 solved that problem and still a very precise instrument.

I have had the TC97 and did not like the feel (flex), also K7 Lime is a great racquet but I prefer the TC line.

TC95 16x19 plays much closer to the TC95 18x20 than to the big brother TC100 16x19.

TC95 18x20, you can use thinner strings, and multi strings plays well in that frame. Great feeling frame and very precise frame. Spin and power is good. Low launch angle. Can be board if you string too high.
TC95 16x19, I use thicker poly strings there, multi strings move all over the place. I get more power and spin from that frame while still being a precise frame. Higher launch angle.

I string TC95 16x19 1-2 kg higher than the 18x20 version.

I am still switching between the two TC95 patterns, and debating witch one I like the most. I can adjust very easy going from one frame to the other, even in one hitting session.
 

Dado111

New User
if you scroll few pages back you would see the monster i bought:)...i went to the extreme with my tc97 18x20, 28'', 320g (360sw:)) after 5-6 matches i can say that i love the racquet and i got what i ordered... a real power house that can deliver winner straight ball precise like a scalpel...

but you need to hit every ball with full swing (coming from prince beast 27.5'' (isner's) 100 16x19 with which everything was going over the net w/o effort) bcs if you dont, the ball will be go into the net...very low trajectory...

i have msv cofocus 1.23mm 22kg-21kg on it, so next i will take thinner one 1.18 and string it with 21-22 (lower weight on mains) in hope to get some higher throw...

i haven't play with tc95 18x20, but i imagine its not so different...if you want the higher throw i would try the 16-19 version....
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
So I'm still tinkering with my setup. Having now tested:

63RA TC100
70RA TC100
63RA TC95 18x20

The TC95 18x20 has become my favourite. I'm still finding the right strings, and struggling a little netting low balls (I come from mostly 16x19 frames so the low launch angle is going to be a long term adjustment), but the combination of control and power is the best I've come across.

I like the TC100 a lot, but the really open 16x19 of the Angells just lacks a tiny bit of predictability. I get flyers when I swing out more than with other frames, even if the result when I strike cleanly is very good.

But the racquetaholic in me feels like maybe my quest isn't done, and I'm debating trying a TC97 to complete my experiment. What can I expect from the 18x20 TC97 in comparison to my TC95? I know the flex profile is different, but I can't really visualise that. I never really paid attention to my gear too much beyond a few years ago, and I don't really have a strong basis for comparison in my head in terms of how that less uniform flex will feel. Is there anything else notably different in how they play?

If it makes any difference I play a pretty flat game, UTR 8ish, big serve, big forehand, I slice a lot of backhands because I like creating angles, but hit a flat one hander when I do drive. I play almost exclusively on synthetic grass, since that's prevalent in Sydney, so I deal with and hit lots of low skidding balls.
The TC97 18x20 will be slightly firmer but still very comfortable (the 66RA Vs 63RA before strings), it will hit a flatter ball (I still get plenty of margin above the net with both TC95 and TC97 18x20... but the TC97 is flatter), it will be excellent on slices (but then the TC95 18x20 is pretty fantastic in this department as well), the feel is a very personal thing and therefore needs to be taken with a pinch of salt... but I have both, I will keep both in my permanent collection, but I prefer the TC95 18x20 due to the flex, slightly softer feel (in fact I would prefer it to be a little softer still), and the slightly loopier ball trajectory that I feel gives it an additional dimension.

Both the TC95 and TC97 18x20s are excellent on serve, the shape of the beams is different therefore the TC95 feels like it is thinner in the off-hand even though they are both 20mm (TC97 is more box beam and the TC95 is a D-Beam similar to the Blade 98 - except the TC95 is a D-Beam all the way and not just in the head).

The TC97 18x20 plays more like a Prestige MP as far as feel and flex, I would string it a bit looser to get the softness of the TC95 18x20, and I may use softer strings for the very same reason.

In both the TC97 and TC95 18x20, MSV Co-Focus 1.18mm (in yellow) played very well and lasted quite a bit. Hybrid setups would also play very well. The TC95 18x20, I am told, feels like it hits a heavier ball. I string both versions in the mid-40s and I tend to keep a 3 lbs differential which helps with the launch angle and additional loop to the shots (so usually 46M/43C with polys and 46M/46C with poly/syn gut or poly/natural gut or poly/multi... if I went gut/poly I would probably try 46-48M/43C)

They are both fantastic racquets and the choice comes down to a few personal things. Hope this is helpful.
 
Last edited:

andyN

Rookie
i got an extended TC100…
did anyone attempt their racket to a standard 27in length? if so, how did u do it ? with what ?
 

djNEiGht

Hall of Fame
i got an extended TC100…
did anyone attempt their racket to a standard 27in length? if so, how did u do it ? with what ?
I haven't done a racquet but I've done with new pallets that needed to be cut.

Measure twice...maybe even measure 3 times. i used a hack saw
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
have u tried it in black or other color? is brighter really livelier?
The blue I tried in a different racquet (PT630), and it was more dead feeling and not as good (it also didn't last as long - the yellow colour seemed to last for ages and as the tension went the string bed stayed even and very playable). The sweet spot in the racquet was tiny as well (but that could be the PT630 and polys - not sure as the best it's played was with a Syn gut - haven't tried gut as I'm in a humid part of my country and don't want to risk it snapping after a short period). But, I didn't try it in the TC95 or TC97 (the black or blue colour)... so I can't say how it would feel in those. The difference between the yellow and blue was very big, so I don't want to risk it. I can't remeber if I tried the black... I might have... but it may have been in the crosses (which would not have as much influence), and it would have been other racquets.

I have bought the string in white, but have not tried it in the TC95 or TC97. I'll try it soon and see if it is more lively.

Hope that helps.
 

ockelito

New User
i got an extended TC100…
did anyone attempt their racket to a standard 27in length? if so, how did u do it ? with what ?
I just used a regular saw to cut off 0.25 inches. What was tricky was to get the butt cap staples back in the existing holes, as the graphite is too strong to hammer through. I did manage to find the existing holes for the staples after some struggle, but I doubt that would have been possible if cutting off 0.5 inches.
 
Top