I was a little puzzled by the review of the Head Microgel Prestige you published recently. I've played several versions of the Prestige along with several of the Yonex "players" frames and a couple in the Wilson 6.1 line. What confused me is that Chris praised the racquet highly and said it blows the doors of the Flexpoint and LM versions. Yet it rated lower numbers wise than any other Prestige you've ever tested. What's up with that? What should we make of that? It seemed like Granville in particular was really down on the racquet for reasons that were odd: he liked the Fischer Pro One which is even more flexy and low powered than the MG Prestige, but downgraded the Prestige for not having enough power. Several other play testers complained about the lack of power. It's not power stick for seniors okay? It isn't supposed to be a powerful frame. Granville claims in other reviews to like soft feeling and control oriented racquets, which the MG Prestige certainly is, but then complains that it is soft feeling and low powered? Huh? He also suggested that it lacks the power of a "heritage Prestige". Almost everyone I know who's hit with the original models finds the MG a stiffer and more powerful racquet. So it seemed like an odd review. When you rate a racquet for "power" and "control" are these absolute ratings, or comparisons within the category the frame is positioned in? Might it not be better to make these comparisons relative to the other racquets in the category? I'd also like to see in the review how a racquet like the Prestige compares to a Wilson K-factor, a Yonex RQis, Fischer Pro #1, etc... It would make for a more helpful read.