The Official Angell Users Club

[Backhanded Compliment]

I remember you saying that you were going to post up some videos of yourself hitting, about a year ago, but never got around to it. Well, when you're done composing your epic poem, upload the madness.

I think I said I might record them some time... I believe I alsosaid I will not post them as I enjoy my anonymity here (Im a public figure of sorts and tennis is fun stuff). So you are unlikely to see anything. I dont suck (most days) and played at a relatively high level. If you seek some verifiable truths here on this tennis internet forum I suspect you will be massively disappointed. That said I do travel a lot and there a few people on this forum Id have love to hit with. Im no snob and will hit with anyone who is 3.5 and above. Best players Ive ever hit with were a futures level guy and old coach (who played tour level against Arthur Ashe, lost both times... ofc). My main hitting partner was a wta hitting partner.

That is all you get... dont hold your breath. But yeah Im curious about seeing my form because Ive apparently come a long way and after giving up the sport from an acl injury in college play it means something to me.

Oh yeah and every time I hit a second serve magical rainbow of colorful marshmallows appears.

back on the subject of this thread... I waited 6 years to get an Angell (or the earlier Vantage iteration) and it has been nothing but great. Paul makes sticks that fit my needs. read this: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...95-16x19-flexy-shakedown.553138/#post-9954079

Oh yeah and Im no shill, just a professional wordsmith (horsing off here) that likes chase fuzzy yellow balls around a court.

 

[Classic-TXP-IG MID]

You rarely swing above 85% if you are using it right... if youve ever played truly talented (elite) players you see how they are almost never swinging full out (just on super important points).

To this day Ive never seen a player hit with more insane aggression than Stan the Man did in his 3 slam wins. I mean I can understand a talented pro hitting that hard... but on every shot??? well he did

Totally agree on both points. Stan's hitting was insane... and I wasn't there in person... seeing it live would have been something!

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Totally agree on both points. Stan's hitting was insane... and I wasn't there in person... seeing it live would have been something!

Precisely, the point I was trying to make... TC95 isnt a stick for redlining for long periods...its more for relaxed power and precision. The stick I used before it the Pacific X Feel pro 95 was extra low powered for a 95... more forgiving than a mid but maybe not as much power as even a PS85. That was a good stick for really working hard for every point. 3 years or so with that stick was good for getting my game together.... helped me appreciate that the TC95 needs to have its power unlocked to make the best use of it.

 

[mr.torrence]

I think I said I might record them some time... I believe I alsosaid I will not post them as I enjoy my anonymity here (Im a public figure of sorts and tennis is fun stuff). So you are unlikely to see anything. I dont suck (most days) and played at a relatively high level. If you seek some verifiable truths here on this tennis internet forum I suspect you will be massively disappointed. That said I do travel a lot and there a few people on this forum Id have love to hit with. Im no snob and will hit with anyone who is 3.5 and above. Best players Ive ever hit with were a futures level guy and old coach (who played tour level against Arthur Ashe, lost both times... ofc). My main hitting partner was a wta hitting partner.

That is all you get... dont hold your breath. But yeah Im curious about seeing my form because Ive apparently come a long way and after giving up the sport from an acl injury in college play it means something to me.

Oh yeah and every time I hit a second serve magical rainbow of colorful marshmallows appears.

back on the subject of this thread... I waited 6 years to get an Angell (or the earlier Vantage iteration) and it has been nothing but great. Paul makes sticks that fit my needs. read this: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...95-16x19-flexy-shakedown.553138/#post-9954079

Oh yeah and Im no shill, just a professional wordsmith (horsing off here) that likes chase fuzzy yellow balls around a court.

Yeah, I'm no stranger to Angell. I have 5, going 6 TC100 racquets. Upgraded from the 95 to 100. Seamless transition. Every racquet I've casually hit with, I always end up going back to the TC-100. Feels like home. Plus I had Paul rearrange the weights for me in the handle, so they're 12 pts HL unstrung, 320 unstrung.
I have a tournament coming up soon in October, so I might post some videos of my serve in the Tennis Tip section. Just need to iron out a few kinks.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Yeah, I'm no stranger to Angell. I have 5, going 6 TC100 racquets. Upgraded from the 95 to 100. Seamless transition. Every racquet I've casually hit with, I always end up going back to the TC-100. Feels like home. Plus I had Paul rearrange the weights for me in the handle, so they're 12 pts HL unstrung, 320 unstrung.
I have a tournament coming up soon in October, so I might post some videos of my serve in the Tennis Tip section. Just need to iron out a few kinks.

I agree I can go direcly from the TC95 to Tc100. My main hitting partner use the TC100 and loves it. Its hard to find a thin beam flexy stick that has touch and spin... absolute serve monster. He's one of those players who really doesnt have a second serve just his first serve with a tad more spin. He uses a first like a warmup for a wicked second.

video is one of the most revealing tools, especially on serves... Im currently backing up all sorts of video files as I waste time here.

 

[Pneumated1]

... Angell racquets can reverse time, and rend the fabric of space and time...

Suspecting as much, I raced home and ripped off my pallets. Alas ... no space stone, no time stone, no mind stone. Just vibraniumless foam. I regret that I do not have The Infinity Gauntlet, but enough, I must say modestly, to slay my own Grendels across the way at 75% ... until Ragnarok comes.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Suspecting as much, I raced home and ripped off my pallets. Alas ... no space stone, no time stone, no mind stone. Just vibraniumless foam. I regret that I do not have The Infinity Gauntlet, but enough, I must say modestly, to slay my own Grendels across the way at 75% ... until Ragnarok comes.

Angell = epic tennis, lol.

 

[djNEiGht]

Tc95 didn’t stay sidelined long. Testing the 1.30 yellow jacket fr Signum Pro

Let’s see how this goes. Ball feeds to the kids and then about an hour of rallying with some buddies

 

[topspn]

Yeah, lets us know how it goes with YJ. Tourna also has a new string out they named Grit. Appears to be for high control and spin

 

[MrBrownstone]

Can you elaborate on why you made the switch from TC95 to TC100, and what were the pros and cons of each? I’m getting ready to take the plunge and almost set on the TC95, but every time I hit with one of my other 100 inch racquets, I question whether the TC100 would be a better choice. Any insights you can provide would be much appreciated!

Yeah, I'm no stranger to Angell. I have 5, going 6 TC100 racquets. Upgraded from the 95 to 100. Seamless transition. Every racquet I've casually hit with, I always end up going back to the TC-100. Feels like home. Plus I had Paul rearrange the weights for me in the handle, so they're 12 pts HL unstrung, 320 unstrung.
I have a tournament coming up soon in October, so I might post some videos of my serve in the Tennis Tip section. Just need to iron out a few kinks.

 

[topspn]

Can you elaborate on why you made the switch from TC95 to TC100, and what were the pros and cons of each? I’m getting ready to take the plunge and almost set on the TC95, but every time I hit with one of my other 100 inch racquets, I question whether the TC100 would be a better choice. Any insights you can provide would be much appreciated!

TC95 and TC100 are very much the same lineage. Essentially, the TC100 is a larger head TC95. TC100 will have a bit more spacing in the string bed and more user friendly especially defensively. TC95 will comparatively be a bit more demanding but give more precision. They both have terrific dictating power for those who play with decent mechanics and spend time dialing them in.

 

[haqq777]

Yeah, lets us know how it goes with YJ. Tourna also has a new string out they named Grit. Appears to be for high control and spin

I saw the ad on Facebook. Going to pull the trigger soon. Sounds interesting.

 

[haqq777]

Can you elaborate on why you made the switch from TC95 to TC100, and what were the pros and cons of each? I’m getting ready to take the plunge and almost set on the TC95, but every time I hit with one of my other 100 inch racquets, I question whether the TC100 would be a better choice. Any insights you can provide would be much appreciated!

TC95 and TC100 are very much the same lineage. Essentially, the TC100 is a larger head TC95. TC100 will have a bit more spacing in the string bed and more user friendly especially defensively. TC95 will comparatively be a bit more demanding but give more precision. They both have terrific dictating power for those who play with decent mechanics and spend time dialing them in.

+1 to exactly what @topspn said. You need decent technique for both in my opinion. I have seen a few entry level recreational players struggle with TC100 as well thinking they could hit like Babolats (which have a ton of power). The power and authority is there in both TC95 and TC100, just need the requisite fluidity in strokes.

 

[topspn]

I saw the ad on Facebook. Going to pull the trigger soon. Sounds interesting.

It does sound interesting or maybe the nano tech jargon spoke to the geek in me They have in 18g 1.2mm so would be curious for my TC95s, just wondering what comfort is like

 

[haqq777]

It does sound interesting or maybe the nano tech jargon spoke to the geek in me They have in 18g 1.2mm so would be curious for my TC95s, just wondering what comfort is like

Cool, was thinking the same. Lets exchange thoughts here if you we both get to try it. How are you liking Hyper-G in denser 18x20 btw?

 

[topspn]

Cool, was thinking the same. Lets exchange thoughts here if you we both get to try it. How are you liking Hyper-G in denser 18x20 btw?

I have hyper-g 1.25mm and playability is good, just could be a bit more soft. However, I can drop tension some more from 45lbs or go to 1.2mm. I have both frames with hyper-g 16L at the moment so will be tested thoroughly before i decide on changes in string. So far, my main complaint is string bed stiffness.

 

[haqq777]

I have hyper-g 1.25mm and playability is good, just could be a bit more soft. However, I can drop tension some more from 45lbs or go to 1.2mm. I have both frames with hyper-g 16L at the moment so will be tested thoroughly before i decide on changes in string. So far, my main complaint is string bed stiffness.

Yeah, definitely go lower I would suggest. Might get tricky though if you are used to a certain type of feedback from the stringbed. All trial and error I'm afraid.

 

[Pneumated1]

... So far, my main complaint is string bed stiffness.

If and when I try The TC95 18x20, I'm sure it will be with gut/poly. It just seems like the natural choice, but maybe that's just me.

 

[topspn]

Yeah, definitely go lower I would suggest. Might get tricky though if you are used to a certain type of feedback from the stringbed. All trial and error I'm afraid.

I played TC95 16x19 as low as 45lbs so certainly makes sense to lower tension a bit but chose 45lbs on my new 18x20s as a starting point. The gauge seems fine to me but what’s your string setup for your new TC97s? I know yours are a bit softer anyway due to the head flex.

 

[topspn]

If and when I try The TC95 18x20, I'm sure it will be with gut/poly. It just seems like the natural choice, but maybe that's just me.

Nothing against gut/poly but I’m just to used to full poly for many years

 

[Pneumated1]

Nothing against gut/poly but I’m just to used to full poly for many years

Understood. When I bought and tried the TC97 18x20 awhile back, I went full Tecnifibre Multifeel at 55#. I thought even that (a multi) was stiff/boardy, but the tension was too high. I'm just learning about the dark art of stringing poly low, but I'm liking it.

 

[topspn]

Understood. When I bought and tried the TC97 18x20 awhile back, I went full Tecnifibre Multifeel at 55#. I thought even that (a multi) was stiff/boardy, but the tension was too high. I'm just learning about the dark art of stringing poly low, but I'm liking it.

For context, TC97 will play a bit more plush then TC95 all things equal. TC97 is designed with more head flex so does provide that more plush feel. TC95 plays pretty uniform flex without much head deformation arguably giving it the more dictating power albeit firmer feel. Also, just from the pictures, i get the impression the 18x20 pattern seems tightest on TC95 but not sure. I can’t think of a tighter pattern that I’ve ever played and not complaining. I really enjoyed my first hit and no issues generating heavy spin.

 

[haqq777]

I played TC95 16x19 as low as 45lbs so certainly makes sense to lower tension a bit but chose 45lbs on my new 18x20s as a starting point. The gauge seems fine to me but what’s your string setup for your new TC97s? I know yours are a bit softer anyway due to the head flex.

Full poly all the way for me. I have my TC97 18×20 at 48lbs (just because of their flex, would have gone lower had it been D-beam) and they play absolutely magnificent.

 

[haqq777]

For context, TC97 will play a bit more plush then TC95 all things equal. TC97 is designed with more head flex so does provide that more plush feel. TC95 plays pretty uniform flex without much head deformation arguably giving it the more dictating power albeit firmer feel. Also, just from the pictures, i get the impression the 18x20 pattern seems tightest on TC95 but not sure. I can’t think of a tighter pattern that I’ve ever played and not complaining. I really enjoyed my first hit and no issues generating heavy spin.

Absolutely. Also, played with 16x19 patterns for over a decade. I am amazed how well I am liking my denser patterns. Not going back to 16x19 any time soon.

 

[Gee]

For context, TC97 will play a bit more plush then TC95 all things equal. TC97 is designed with more head flex so does provide that more plush feel. TC95 plays pretty uniform flex without much head deformation arguably giving it the more dictating power albeit firmer feel. Also, just from the pictures, i get the impression the 18x20 pattern seems tightest on TC95 but not sure. I can’t think of a tighter pattern that I’ve ever played and not complaining. I really enjoyed my first hit and no issues generating heavy spin.

I disagree. The TC95 has definitely a softer response and absorbs more shock that is noticeably at hard blocking volleys though the TC97 feels a bit more solid because its crisper feel.
I never experienced the so called more head deformation flex of the TC97. Both the TC95 and TC97 have an uniform flex to me.

 

[Pneumated1]

I disagree. The TC95 has definitely a softer response and absorbs more shock that is noticeably at hard blocking volleys though the TC97 feels a bit more solid because its crisper feel.
I never experienced the so called more head deformation flex of the TC97. Both the TC95 and TC97 have an uniform flex to me.

Yeah, I agree with most of this. Some call the TC97 plush, and I guess it is, but I thought it was noticeably stiffer and crisper in the throat and didn't perceive a lot of head flex either. And I agree about the TC95 being softer, but I find it more solid as well. I like the more flexible and dynamic feel (uniform or whatever). We all perceive things differently, I guess.

 

[Gee]

Yeah, I agree with most of this. Some call the TC97 plush, and I guess it is, but I thought it was noticeably stiffer and crisper in the throat and didn't perceive a lot of head flex either. And I agree about the TC95 being softer, but I find it more solid as well. I like the more flexible and dynamic feel (uniform or whatever). We all perceive things differently, I guess.

Yes, the difference in feel between the TC95 and the TC97 feels like you would expect from theirs RA values (63 vs 66).
Regarding the stability of the TC95 vs TC97 I must admit that I think you're right that the TC95 also is more solid because that one seems to absorb shock better. Besides my Tc97 feels more maneuverable because of a lower swingweight than my TC95 and through this I can volley a little bit quicker with my TC97 whereas I enjoy hitting touch volleys more with the softer TC95.

 

[topspn]

hmm..so perhaps there is some wording that we interpret a bit differently but for me the TC97 does have a clear head flex that is not in the TC95 or 100. The box beam was in fact designed by Paul with more head flex and he will readily tell you there is head flex difference. In the 16x19, I could string up poly @45 in the TC95 and if I did the same for TC97, I’d get pronounced trampoline effect. This is why the TC97 plays much softer then it’s RA which is not measured in the head. This deformation is not in the D beams and that’s why they feel more solid and arguably more power. Of course we all sense things a bit differently but i seriously am not making this up When I asked Paul just recently how he compares the TC95 to TC97 18x20, his response was “you know of course the TC97 has more head flex, that’s the main thing”

 

[topspn]

Sorry, i paraphrased incorrectly. Here is exactly how he phrased it

SEP 3RD, 1:06PM

I'd say it's just the flex sensation that sets the two aside. As you know the 97 frames have a slightly softer hoop

 

[mr.torrence]

Can you elaborate on why you made the switch from TC95 to TC100, and what were the pros and cons of each? I’m getting ready to take the plunge and almost set on the TC95, but every time I hit with one of my other 100 inch racquets, I question whether the TC100 would be a better choice. Any insights you can provide would be much appreciated!

TC-95 is the hard hitting little brother of the TC-100 beast master. There really isn't any negative aspects with either racquet, just personal preference. I hit with the 95 for a few years before making the switch, and I just did it because I was better at imparting more topspin on my forehands with the 100 and served a bit more beastly with it as well. However, the TC-95 can obliterate the ball just as well. Spin isn't a problem with the 95 either. Especially on serves. Definitely a serve monster and great for rallies and volleys, I've noticed. Super soft. (63ra. Never tried the 70)
TC-100 has the exact same resume w/ a bit more bite due to larger head size (but not by much at all in comparison) but perhaps less precision, but by very little. What you loose in control, you make up for in pace. I string at 45lbs w/ the TC100 w/ a swing weight of 350 and manage to puts lots of spin to keep it in and fast. I only have good things to say about both racquets. It's just the TC100 was more right for my game. Hope that kinda helps.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

I disagree. The TC95 has definitely a softer response and absorbs more shock that is noticeably at hard blocking volleys though the TC97 feels a bit more solid because its crisper feel.
I never experienced the so called more head deformation flex of the TC97. Both the TC95 and TC97 have an uniform flex to me.

plush, soft, buttery, flex... mostly we all are describing a set of experiences that in our "pristine inner experience" we think others must share... in fact they rarely do.

to really test empirically you need controls and a big enough sample of frames.... then some lab tests to explore what might be causing these "buttery" sensations.

overall head flex is a more pronouncrd sensation than throat flex and even pauls flexy head stick will feel more uniform flex than some of those narrow beam Volkls because that is just the way he designs stuff.

 

[Pneumated1]

hmm..so perhaps there is some wording that we interpret a bit differently but for me the TC97 does have a clear head flex that is not in the TC95 or 100. The box beam was in fact designed by Paul with more head flex and he will readily tell you there is head flex difference. In the 16x19, I could string up poly @45 in the TC95 and if I did the same for TC97, I’d get pronounced trampoline effect. This is why the TC97 plays much softer then it’s RA which is not measured in the head. This deformation is not in the D beams and that’s why they feel more solid and arguably more power. Of course we all sense things a bit differently but i seriously am not making this up When I asked Paul just recently how he compares the TC95 to TC97 18x20, his response was “you know of course the TC97 has more head flex, that’s the main thing”

My previous statement about string tension in my TC97 18x20 was off (corrected by my son) It was 50#, not 55#. I definitely don't think you're making stuff up, haha. Honestly, though, my comparison of the TC95 16x19 and TC97 18x20 is a bit apples to oranges because of the string pattern differences. Maybe I'd get the 'sensation' (Paul's term) of more head flex in the TC97 16x19 with the same string and tension. As things were, my sensation of the TC97 18x20 was that it was boardy and firm with a multi at 50#.

Here is Paul's response to me Sept. 17, a year ago regarding your same question: "The TC97 frames are slightly more flexible in the hoop and stiffer in the shaft which tends to favour players that are more used to stiffer frames."

Looks like we're both validated, but I would take Paul's response to mean that the TC97 would attract players who like a stiffer (not necessarily stiff) frame and the TC95 those who like a more flexible 'dipped in rainbow marshmallow butter' (thanks BC) frame. But I think we would agree that it's the composite totality of attributes that create the overall sensation of harmony (or not), not just beam type or a flexy head or flexy throat or stiff hoop or vice versa. I'll give you 'plush' on the TC97. I'll take 'buttery' for the TC95--winter's morning in a dish on a dark counter

 

[topspn]

My previous statement about string tension in my TC97 18x20 was off (corrected by my son) It was 50#, not 55#. I definitely don't think you're making stuff up, haha. Honestly, though, my comparison of the TC95 16x19 and TC97 18x20 is a bit apples to oranges because of the string pattern differences. Maybe I'd get the 'sensation' (Paul's term) of more head flex in the TC97 16x19 with the same string and tension. As things were, my sensation of the TC97 18x20 was that it was boardy and firm with a multi at 50#.

Here is Paul's response to me Sept. 17, a year ago regarding your same question: "The TC97 frames are slightly more flexible in the hoop and stiffer in the shaft which tends to favour players that are more used to stiffer frames."

Looks like we're both validated, but I would take Paul's response to mean that the TC97 would attract players who like a stiffer (not necessarily stiff) frame and the TC95 those who like a more flexible 'dipped in rainbow marshmallow butter' (thanks BC) frame. But I think we would agree that it's the composite totality of attributes that create the overall sensation of harmony (or not), not just beam type or a flexy head or flexy throat or stiff hoop or vice versa. I'll give you 'plush' on the TC97. I'll take 'buttery' for the TC95--winter's morning in a dish on a dark counter

Another one getting out of hand Paul was answering my question on the 18x20s but same applies for 16x19 although there is a small layup difference as i found out recently. Apparently same frame gets a different flow pattern for the different string pattern. Anyway, my test was personal and quite simple. Same spec, same string, same tension and one frame plays great and the other is catapulting flexy. I had to raise the tension on the TC97 to mitigate that feel. Amen to the gods of different sensations. I am very curious on the TC97 18x20 and will be getting same spec as my 95s to try out. Yes, this racquet bug is a curse but enjoyed so many good frames.

 

[Pneumated1]

Another one getting out of hand ... I am very curious on the TC97 18x20 and will be getting same spec as my 95s to try out. Yes, this racquet bug is a curse but enjoyed so many good frames.

Speaking of which, are you 40s or 50s? If the latter, you may be suffering from sensation atrophy. That has to be factored in, lol Totally kidding, but I take it that you're not about the TC97 18x20s? You're getting those, too?

 

[topspn]

Speaking of which, are you 40s or 50s? If the latter, you may be suffering from sensation atrophy. That has to be factored in, lol Totally kidding, but I take it that you're not about the TC97 18x20s? You're getting those, too?

I am afraid it may not be sensation atrophy and just plain overall atrophy Why yes, 1 TC97 18x20 in similar spec to my TC95s. I would have played every single frame Paul makes other then the 90 and 105.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

My previous statement about string tension in my TC97 18x20 was off (corrected by my son) It was 50#, not 55#. I definitely don't think you're making stuff up, haha. Honestly, though, my comparison of the TC95 16x19 and TC97 18x20 is a bit apples to oranges because of the string pattern differences. Maybe I'd get the 'sensation' (Paul's term) of more head flex in the TC97 16x19 with the same string and tension. As things were, my sensation of the TC97 18x20 was that it was boardy and firm with a multi at 50#.

Here is Paul's response to me Sept. 17, a year ago regarding your same question: "The TC97 frames are slightly more flexible in the hoop and stiffer in the shaft which tends to favour players that are more used to stiffer frames."

Looks like we're both validated, but I would take Paul's response to mean that the TC97 would attract players who like a stiffer (not necessarily stiff) frame and the TC95 those who like a more flexible 'dipped in rainbow marshmallow butter' (thanks BC) frame. But I think we would agree that it's the composite totality of attributes that create the overall sensation of harmony (or not), not just beam type or a flexy head or flexy throat or stiff hoop or vice versa. I'll give you 'plush' on the TC97. I'll take 'buttery' for the TC95--winter's morning in a dish on a dark counter

i think of the tc95 as more like a block of dark 85% chocolate wrapped around a unicorns horn with 1 single higgs boson for counterweighting and the ability to manifest my florid prose into shots on court...

sorry, i am so bad

 

[djNEiGht]

 

[Gee]

plush, soft, buttery, flex... mostly we all are describing a set of experiences that in our "pristine inner experience" we think others must share... in fact they rarely do.

to really test empirically you need controls and a big enough sample of frames.... then some lab tests to explore what might be causing these "buttery" sensations.

overall head flex is a more pronouncrd sensation than throat flex and even pauls flexy head stick will feel more uniform flex than some of those narrow beam Volkls because that is just the way he designs stuff.

Beautifully written I would say.

 

[Gee]

My previous statement about string tension in my TC97 18x20 was off (corrected by my son) It was 50#, not 55#. I definitely don't think you're making stuff up, haha. Honestly, though, my comparison of the TC95 16x19 and TC97 18x20 is a bit apples to oranges because of the string pattern differences. Maybe I'd get the 'sensation' (Paul's term) of more head flex in the TC97 16x19 with the same string and tension. As things were, my sensation of the TC97 18x20 was that it was boardy and firm with a multi at 50#.

Here is Paul's response to me Sept. 17, a year ago regarding your same question: "The TC97 frames are slightly more flexible in the hoop and stiffer in the shaft which tends to favour players that are more used to stiffer frames."

Looks like we're both validated, but I would take Paul's response to mean that the TC97 would attract players who like a stiffer (not necessarily stiff) frame and the TC95 those who like a more flexible 'dipped in rainbow marshmallow butter' (thanks BC) frame. But I think we would agree that it's the composite totality of attributes that create the overall sensation of harmony (or not), not just beam type or a flexy head or flexy throat or stiff hoop or vice versa. I'll give you 'plush' on the TC97. I'll take 'buttery' for the TC95--winter's morning in a dish on a dark counter

This is what I experienced as well. To me the TC97 18x20 plays more like a modern (stiffer but still very comfortable) frame than the TC95 18x20 63RA that has a lttle more muted oldschool feel.
However I play equally well with both frames. I just prefer the feel of the TC95 18x20 63RA.

@topspn So I think we both are right and I hope we achieved a consensus now.

 

[redmini]

I have hyper-g 1.25mm and playability is good, just could be a bit more soft. However, I can drop tension some more from 45lbs or go to 1.2mm. I have both frames with hyper-g 16L at the moment so will be tested thoroughly before i decide on changes in string. So far, my main complaint is string bed stiffness.

FYI could also go even thinner with hyper g. I’ve got 1.15 in one of my racquets and am liking it. Very tight spin even off a tight string pattern. My stringer says it can be supplied even at 1.10!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[redmini]

This is what I experienced as well. To me the TC97 18x20 plays more like a modern (stiffer but still very comfortable) frame than the TC95 18x20 63RA that has a lttle more muted oldschool feel.
However I play equally well with both frames. I just prefer the feel of the TC95 18x20 63RA.

@topspn So I think we both are right and I hope we achieved a consensus now.

Not the same frames but having tried the 100 and 97 16x19 with same fresh strings and weight / balance I noticed the flex difference between the D beam 100 and the box beam 97. Wouldn’t say one is better, just different. Noticed the extra shaft (throat) firmness of the 97 particularly in volleys taken close to the body. Tc97 was more comfy on receiving slower balls, TC 100 more on faster ones.

I also noticed the 100 had this unique character against hard hits where it ‘sucks up’ the energy from them and redirects it to where you want to send it, under control. What’s unique is how you can feel all this going on whilst swinging through the ball. Very satisfying. It’s like a ‘richer’ sweetspot experience.

Wonder if the 95 63RA, or indeed the 70RA 100 has the same?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tordne]

FYI could also go even thinner with hyper g. I’ve got 1.15 in one of my racquets and am liking it. Very tight spin even off a tight string pattern. My stringer says it can be supplied even at 1.10!!

I’ve been scared to try Hyper-G again. First string job (16 gauge) in an Angell racket for me and it split a grommet in two places. I’ve had no issues with 18L Cyclone, just been scared by Hyper-G because it’s square (very sharp edged).

 

[topspn]

lol..all i know now is I’m more intrigued to try the TC97 18x20

 

[topspn]

d

 

[topspn]

I’ve been scared to try Hyper-G again. First string job (16 gauge) in an Angell racket for me and it split a grommet in two places. I’ve had no issues with 18L Cyclone, just been scared by Hyper-G because it’s square (very sharp edged).

Don’t be scared, i use to have my TC100s strung with hyper-g 16 all the time and no issues to grommets

 

[bleno567]

Can anyone comment on how big a difference in stiffness there is between the TC100 63RA vs the 70RA? I bought and played a set with the 63 yesterday, and I liked it a lot, but wish it were a tad stiffer. That said, I don't want a bazooka like a pure drive or SV98. Anyone know?

 

[Sintherius]

Can anyone comment on how big a difference in stiffness there is between the TC100 63RA vs the 70RA? I bought and played a set with the 63 yesterday, and I liked it a lot, but wish it were a tad stiffer. That said, I don't want a bazooka like a pure drive or SV98. Anyone know?

The 70RA isn’t stiff like a Babolat, as after it’s strung it actually drops to about 65RA so more like a Wilson 6.1 95. A tad more access to free power, and a slightly lower SW in the 70RA version

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Beautifully written I would say.

has anyone actually hit a tennis ball with a stick of butter?

 

[haqq777]

has anyone actually hit a tennis ball with a stick of butter?

It's not as soft as you would think. Gave me TE.

 

[Faris]

It's not as soft as you would think. Gave me TE.

WTF this had me laughing my ass off...