Vantage 95

sunflowerhx

Rookie
Does anyone know whether the Vantage 95 plays closer to the PS6.0 or PS6.1?

I want a spec as close to the HPS6.0 as possible.
Any advise?

Also is the finish glossy or matt on the white model.

HPS Spec
---------
Head Size 95
Strung Weight 346g
Balance 10pts HL
Swingweight 312
Stiffness 68
Beam Width 20
String Pattern 16x18

Vantage 95
-----------
Head Size 95
Strung Weight 330g
Balance 10pts HL
Swingweight
Stiffness 63
Beam Width 20
String Pattern 16x19
 

BHud

Hall of Fame
Closer to HPS 6.0...the white finish is matte. Agreed with previous poster, the 70 RA (67 strung) will more closely resemble the Wilson HPS 6.0.
 

HeadPrestige

Professional
Well as breakpoint pointed out... RA ratings do not always translate to how stiff a racket will feel. I use to play with the flexpoint prestige MP but found it to bee too stiff (65) and switched to the 6.0 95 (67) and find it to be flexier and more comfortable.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
Well as breakpoint pointed out... RA ratings do not always translate to how stiff a racket will feel. I use to play with the flexpoint prestige MP but found it to bee too stiff (65) and switched to the 6.0 95 (67) and find it to be flexier and more comfortable.
i disagree....ra measurements almost always give a very accurate indication of how flexible/stiff a racquet will feel....that's what it measures....it flexes the frame and applies a number to it
 

HeadPrestige

Professional
RA measurements is not everything when it comes to how a racket plays. Rackets flex differently than one another... some flex more in the throat, some in the hoop etc. The number is not always a reflection of how the racket feels. Case and point the 6.0 95
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
RA measurements is not everything when it comes to how a racket plays. Rackets flex differently than one another... some flex more in the throat, some in the hoop etc. The number is not always a reflection of how the racket feels. Case and point the 6.0 95
yes..i know this, but it still gives you an accurate indication as to the overall stiffness/flexibility, as that is precisely what it measures
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
yes..i know this, but it still gives you an accurate indication as to the overall stiffness/flexibility, as that is precisely what it measures
But isn't how it feels in your hand when you hit the ball that matters most? If the PS 6.0 95 feels more like 61 RA to everyone that plays with it, then doesn't that make it's 67 RA spec pretty much irrelevant? I mean, it's you that's playing with the racquet and not the RDC machine, right?

If a racquet is spec'd at 90 RA but feels like 60 RA to everyone that plays with it, then to them it is 60 RA, and I would use it although I would never use a racquet that actually feels like 90 RA to me. An indication is only valuable if it's useful.
 

HeadPrestige

Professional
But isn't how it feels in your hand when you hit the ball that matters most? If the PS 6.0 95 feels more like 61 RA to everyone that plays with it, then doesn't that make it's 67 RA spec pretty much irrelevant? I mean, it's you that's playing with the racquet and not the RDC machine, right?

If a racquet is spec'd at 90 RA but feels like 60 RA to everyone that plays with it, then to them it is 60 RA, and I would use it although I would never use a racquet that actually feels like 90 RA to me. An indication is only valuable if it's useful.
agree 100% .. this was the point i was trying to make clear
 
I switched from the HPS6.0 to the Vantage 95, not the version in post 1 but the most headlight. The most headlight Vantage 95 is still a little less headlight than the HP6.0 in my opinion so go for the 2 2 1 1 13 (12 pts HL unstrung) option if you want to get as close as possible to the HPS6.0.

As for flex, Breakpoint is correct - the Vantage 63 RA option does feel stiffer than the HPS6.0, nowhere near as stiff as the 6.1 though.

Powerwise, if the HPS6.0 is 6/10, the HPS6.1 is 8/10 , then my Vantage is about 6.5
 
Last edited:

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
agree 100% .. this was the point i was trying to make clear
I'll go with the stiffness specs any day and my perception over someone who may or may not know what they are talking about or maybe doesnt even play tennis who posts on an internet forum. racquets flex to the level their specs indicate <with a rare anomoly>
 

brtennis

Rookie
Breakpoint, have you had your vantage racquet's RA measured by a Babolat RDC machine?

In last year's racquet sale, I bought a RA=70 racquet. Over the next few months, I was puzzled by how it played more like a RA=63 racquet. Finally, I travelled 5 hours to a place where the racquet was measured by a Babolat RDC machine. Holycow, it said RA=61, thus confirming my suspicion.

I called Paul. Although he came short of admitting mistake, he was nice enough to send me a true RA=70 racquet for free. So I was happy as a clam as I have gotten two racquets for the price of 1/2, the sale price.

One thing I don't understand is: the two racquets have exactly the same thickness. How could that be possible?
 

HeadPrestige

Professional
I'll go with the stiffness specs any day and my perception over someone who may or may not know what they are talking about or maybe doesnt even play tennis who posts on an internet forum. racquets flex to the level their specs indicate <with a rare anomoly>
multiple people in this thread have agreed with me and i know for a fact that many knowledgeable people in this forum would as well. YOU also agreed with me in one of your posts and contradicted yourself within that very post. Good job.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
The problem with using RA values strictly is that, to my understanding, taken at a specific point on the frame. A frame can flex differently at different points, so if a frame is stiff at the point of measurement, this is not an indication of how it will play.

Ski manufacturers use a machine that measures the flex of a ski every 1/8 inch or something really small like that. Given that kind of measurement, you could probably make a determination of playability. But, the RA measurement isn't a rock solid indication of how a frame will or won't play. I agree that the ProStaff 85 plays more flexible than the RA given it.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
The problem with using RA values strictly is that, to my understanding, taken at a specific point on the frame. A frame can flex differently at different points, so if a frame is stiff at the point of measurement, this is not an indication of how it will play.

Ski manufacturers use a machine that measures the flex of a ski every 1/8 inch or something really small like that. Given that kind of measurement, you could probably make a determination of playability. But, the RA measurement isn't a rock solid indication of how a frame will or won't play. I agree that the ProStaff 85 plays more flexible than the RA given it.
that would be incorrect. the ra measurement measures the overall stiffness/flexibility of a racquet and not the stiffness at a particular location on the frame
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
^There is a difference between overall and taking a measurement at an interval. The RA measurement is at a fixed location, not taken over the entire frame.

Hence, the difference in feel versus labratory measurement.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I'll go with the stiffness specs any day and my perception over someone who may or may not know what they are talking about or maybe doesnt even play tennis who posts on an internet forum. racquets flex to the level their specs indicate <with a rare anomoly>
OK, you can choose your racquets based on the numbers on a spec table, and I'll choose my racquets from an actual demo to see how it actually feels in my hand. Fair enough?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Breakpoint, have you had your vantage racquet's RA measured by a Babolat RDC machine?

In last year's racquet sale, I bought a RA=70 racquet. Over the next few months, I was puzzled by how it played more like a RA=63 racquet. Finally, I travelled 5 hours to a place where the racquet was measured by a Babolat RDC machine. Holycow, it said RA=61, thus confirming my suspicion.

I called Paul. Although he came short of admitting mistake, he was nice enough to send me a true RA=70 racquet for free. So I was happy as a clam as I have gotten two racquets for the price of 1/2, the sale price.

One thing I don't understand is: the two racquets have exactly the same thickness. How could that be possible?
No, I haven't had my Vantage 90 measured on an RDC machine but I've played with so many different racquets before that I think I have a pretty good idea of the relative stiffness differences between two racquets.

BTW, was the Vantage you bought last year a pre-built model or a custom built one? And did the second one that Paul sent you feel much stiffer than the first one that you bought? If so, was it just that your first one was actually the 63 RA version?

My understanding is that Vantage can adjust the stiffness of the frame by the way the layup is done, e.g., the direction of the graphite layers, the number of layers, etc. Paul said it's not easy to do and is a bit tricky but it can be done and they've figured out how to do it. :)
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
that would be incorrect. the ra measurement measures the overall stiffness/flexibility of a racquet and not the stiffness at a particular location on the frame
But if the machine measures something that you don't really feel in actual play when you actually hit tennis balls with the racquet then really how relevant is the measurement?
 

brtennis

Rookie
BTW, was the Vantage you bought last year a pre-built model or a custom built one? And did the second one that Paul sent you feel much stiffer than the first one that you bought? If so, was it just that your first one was actually the 63 RA version?
It was a custom one. The second one plays much stiffer, more like a PD, whereas the first one more like a Head i-radical or Dunlop 300G that I previously owned. I should say that I've yet to measure the stiffness of the second racquet but it's stiffness is night and day different from the first one.

My understanding is that Vantage can adjust the stiffness of the frame by the way the layup is done, e.g., the direction of the graphite layers, the number of layers, etc. Paul said it's not easy to do and is a bit tricky but it can be done and they've figured out how to do it.
Wow, if this is the case, why doesn't other racquet manufacturers do the same. I absolutely love high stiffness but thin beam racquets.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
that would be incorrect. the ra measurement measures the overall stiffness/flexibility of a racquet and not the stiffness at a particular location on the frame
RDC is not the overall flex of the racquet, but the flex around its throat.

"At Tennis Warehouse, we use the Babolat Racquet Diagnostic Center (RDC) to measure racquet specifications.
Stiffness: frame stiffness measured at or about the throat area. This is generally recognized as the main flex point of a frame during ball contact.
The higher the number, the stiffer the frame. The stiffer the frame, the more power it provides, all other things being equal. This is a relative number but generally, less than 55 is flexible, 55-60 is medium flexible, 60-65 is medium stiff, 65-70 is stiff and 70+ is very stiff."
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I'll go with the stiffness specs any day and my perception over someone who may or may not know what they are talking about or maybe doesnt even play tennis who posts on an internet forum. racquets flex to the level their specs indicate <with a rare anomoly>
That is not correct.

"Today's sophisticated racquets are computer designed with varying stiffness in different parts of the racquet, which means that two racquets with the same flex index may feel very different."
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
It was a custom one. The second one plays much stiffer, more like a PD, whereas the first one more like a Head i-radical or Dunlop 300G that I previously owned. I should say that I've yet to measure the stiffness of the second racquet but it's stiffness is night and day different from the first one.
OK, that makes sense. I guess the first one was really a 63 RA that they sent to you by mistake. (BTW, it measured 61 RA on the RDC machine because it was probably strung when you measured it, right? Frames become a bit more flexible after they're strung.)
Wow, if this is the case, why doesn't other racquet manufacturers do the same. I absolutely love high stiffness but thin beam racquets.
Well, like I said, it's not the easiest thing in the world to do, so maybe other manufactures haven't tried to figure out how to do it or they don't want to deal with the cost of doing it? However, Wilson at least, knows how to make thin beamed frames rather stiff, as the PS 6.0 85/PS Tour 90/nCode 90/K90 are only 17-18mm but pretty stiff for their beam width.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
^There is a difference between overall and taking a measurement at an interval. The RA measurement is at a fixed location, not taken over the entire frame.

Hence, the difference in feel versus labratory measurement.
that would be incorrect. the ra measurement measures the overall stiffness/flexibility of a racquet and not the stiffness at a particular location on the frame
-------------
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Breakpoint, have you had your vantage racquet's RA measured by a Babolat RDC machine?

In last year's racquet sale, I bought a RA=70 racquet. Over the next few months, I was puzzled by how it played more like a RA=63 racquet. Finally, I travelled 5 hours to a place where the racquet was measured by a Babolat RDC machine. Holycow, it said RA=61, thus confirming my suspicion.

I called Paul. Although he came short of admitting mistake, he was nice enough to send me a true RA=70 racquet for free. So I was happy as a clam as I have gotten two racquets for the price of 1/2, the sale price.

One thing I don't understand is: the two racquets have exactly the same thickness. How could that be possible?
My old Vantage 70 felt like a 68, as expected. The weight and balance were right on. Compare to that the experiences I have had with Wilson and Head.

But the case you mention is troubling. If it was a mistake in executing the assembly (custom or prebuilt), it is actually OK, though it raises doubts about how much testing was done, specially for a custom model, since they should not be shipped without measurement of the specs. But if not, the quality control implications are troubling.
 

brtennis

Rookie
Well, like I said, it's not the easiest thing in the world to do, so maybe other manufactures haven't tried to figure out how to do it or they don't want to deal with the cost of doing it? However, Wilson at least, knows how to make thin beamed frames rather stiff, as the PS 6.0 85/PS Tour 90/nCode 90/K90 are only 17-18mm but pretty stiff for their beam width.
Yeah, those Wilson are good examples of thin yet stiff racquets. But those are too much sticks for a lowly 3.5 player like me. Are you aware of other less demanding racquets with such characteristics?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Yeah, those Wilson are good examples of thin yet stiff racquets. But those are too much sticks for a lowly 3.5 player like me. Are you aware of other less demanding racquets with such characteristics?
Hmmm....I can't think of any other racquets that are thin (<19mm) and also stiff (>66 RA) that are currently available off of the top of my head.
 

brtennis

Rookie
But the case you mention is troubling. If it was a mistake in executing the assembly (custom or prebuilt), it is actually OK, though it raises doubts about how much testing was done, specially for a custom model, since they should not be shipped without measurement of the specs. But if not, the quality control implications are troubling.
I personally wouldn't fault vantage too much for making a mistake during the sale event and, considering that he did send me a correct one at no charge. That to me is first rate customer service. The morale of the story is that be mindful of possible mistake in racquet stiffness as it is a spec not visibly obvious.
 

HeadPrestige

Professional
yes..i know this, but it still gives you an accurate indication as to the overall stiffness/flexibility, as that is precisely what it measures
your response to me telling you that rackets flex in different places, and the numbers do not always reflect the feel.

Can you spot the contradiction?
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
The problem with using RA values strictly is that, to my understanding, taken at a specific point on the frame. A frame can flex differently at different points, so if a frame is stiff at the point of measurement, this is not an indication of how it will play.

Ski manufacturers use a machine that measures the flex of a ski every 1/8 inch or something really small like that. Given that kind of measurement, you could probably make a determination of playability. But, the RA measurement isn't a rock solid indication of how a frame will or won't play. I agree that the ProStaff 85 plays more flexible than the RA given it.
that would be incorrect. the ra measurement measures the overall stiffness/flexibility of a racquet and not the stiffness at a particular location on the frame
^There is a difference between overall and taking a measurement at an interval. The RA measurement is at a fixed location, not taken over the entire frame.

Hence, the difference in feel versus labratory measurement.
RDC is not the overall flex of the racquet, but the flex around its throat.

"At Tennis Warehouse, we use the Babolat Racquet Diagnostic Center (RDC) to measure racquet specifications.
Stiffness: frame stiffness measured at or about the throat area. This is generally recognized as the main flex point of a frame during ball contact.
The higher the number, the stiffer the frame. The stiffer the frame, the more power it provides, all other things being equal. This is a relative number but generally, less than 55 is flexible, 55-60 is medium flexible, 60-65 is medium stiff, 65-70 is stiff and 70+ is very stiff."
Measuring a frame at the throat does not account for the "overall" stiffness of the frame per my previous posts.

What the RDC is good for is matching frames and as a general indication of what a frame will play like. However, there are some notable exceptions, like the PS 85 which don't play as stiff as their RDC numbers.

So, I agree with the rest of the world that says that you can't judge a frame's stiffness solely by the RDC numbers.
 
Last edited:

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
your response to me telling you that rackets flex in different places, and the numbers do not always reflect the feel.

Can you spot the contradiction?
I stated that the RA accurately measures overall stiffness/flexibility and I agreed with you that racquets flex in different places. there's no contradiction.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
Measuring a frame at the throat does not account for the "overall" stiffness of the frame per my previous posts.

What the RDC is good for is matching frames and as a general indication of what a frame will play like. However, there are some notable exceptions, like the PS 85 which don't play as stiff as their RDC numbers.

So, I agree with the rest of the world that says that you can't judge a frame's stiffness solely by the RDC numbers.
for the third time, the frames stiffness isnt a measurement of the stiffness/flexibility at the throat. the measurement indicates the overall/general stiffness/flexibility of the frame

yoiu dont believe me...thats fine with me. seems you should move on
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
For the 4th time (wow, counting does make it more emphatic), RA is taken at one location on the frame, not over intervals. This means that it is an indication of flex at a location, not overall. If a frame has a value of 75 at the point the measurement is taken and 60 everywhere else, is the frame stiff or flexible?
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
For the 4th time (wow, counting does make it more emphatic), RA is taken at one location on the frame, not over intervals. This means that it is an indication of flex at a location, not overall. If a frame has a value of 75 at the point the measurement is taken and 60 everywhere else, is the frame stiff or flexible?
again..for the 9th time (i skipped a few times hoping you would find a way to move on), your statement isnt accurate. obviously you are very determined for me to agree with your theory which isnt accurate. since you dont believe me, i suggest you do some research and get the accurate info, which matches what i've been saying all along.

I didnt say that the rdc measures the flex at different intevals. i said that it measures the general/overall flex/stiffness of a racquet.
 

NickJ

Professional
Long time reader of all message boards on TW but new to posting but this topic has made me just have to write in.
I've just spoken to Paul at Vantage and ordered my first racquet, details below. Can any of you knowledgable people out there tell me if this is a good replacement for my nearly-deceased PS 6.0 95??

Frame: 95sq"
String: 16 x 19
Stiffness: 70RA
Length: 27"
Weight 320g - 315mm, 9pts HL

Have been thinking about the kBlade Tour or kBlade 95. Are these a good alternative if I dont get on with the Vantage? Any suggestions are appreciated.
 

fleetparadox

New User
Nick,

You might want to consider the Donnay Pro 1.

Some have considered it a similar racquet to the 6.0 -95". I use the recently deceased PS as well and really want to try to Donnay too.
 
Long time reader of all message boards on TW but new to posting but this topic has made me just have to write in.
I've just spoken to Paul at Vantage and ordered my first racquet, details below. Can any of you knowledgable people out there tell me if this is a good replacement for my nearly-deceased PS 6.0 95??

Frame: 95sq"
String: 16 x 19
Stiffness: 70RA
Length: 27"
Weight 320g - 315mm, 9pts HL

Have been thinking about the kBlade Tour or kBlade 95. Are these a good alternative if I dont get on with the Vantage? Any suggestions are appreciated.
Go 63RA

330g 12 pts HL unstrung

to match the 6.0 95
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
again..for the 9th time (i skipped a few times hoping you would find a way to move on), your statement isnt accurate. obviously you are very determined for me to agree with your theory which isnt accurate. since you dont believe me, i suggest you do some research and get the accurate info, which matches what i've been saying all along.

I didnt say that the rdc measures the flex at different intevals. i said that it measures the general/overall flex/stiffness of a racquet.
since you bring it up, moving on seems to be a real challenge for you along with reading comprehension

to recap:

RDC measures a frame at one location, while this may be a great measure and an accurate one at the point, it may or may not reflect the overall stiffness of the frame since a frame can be engineered to flex differently at different points. Ergo, a frame like the ProStaff may play significantly more flexible than the rating indicates. The only way that an RDC measurement taken at the throat of the frame can reflect overall stiffness of the frame is if the entire frame is consistent with the measurement taken. A machine that measures flex at specific intervals, on the other hand, will allow a more precise determination to be made regarding flex. RDC is not an indication then of the entire frame rather a benchmark more useful for matching frames much like weight/balance.

Likewise, one cannot determine swing weight by merely swinging a racket. Playing on clay can vary the swingweight of a frame by as much as twenty points. A well used overgrip can also severly affect the swingweight of a frame.
 

fleetparadox

New User
Yeah, those Wilson are good examples of thin yet stiff racquets. But those are too much sticks for a lowly 3.5 player like me. Are you aware of other less demanding racquets with such characteristics?
Thin beam racquets are the best of both worlds if you have a stiff hoop.

A couple I have encountered (that are more forgiving than the 90s) are the Volkl DNX 10 Midplus or the Pro Kennex Redondo Midplus.

Those beam are real flexy due to the thin beam but with a solid pop off the strings (The Volkl is definitely more powerful though).

Hope that helps.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
since you bring it up, moving on seems to be a real challenge for you along with reading comprehension

to recap:

RDC measures a frame at one location, while this may be a great measure and an accurate one at the point, it may or may not reflect the overall stiffness of the frame since a frame can be engineered to flex differently at different points. Ergo, a frame like the ProStaff may play significantly more flexible than the rating indicates. The only way that an RDC measurement taken at the throat of the frame can reflect overall stiffness of the frame is if the entire frame is consistent with the measurement taken. A machine that measures flex at specific intervals, on the other hand, will allow a more precise determination to be made regarding flex. RDC is not an indication then of the entire frame rather a benchmark more useful for matching frames much like weight/balance.

Likewise, one cannot determine swing weight by merely swinging a racket. Playing on clay can vary the swingweight of a frame by as much as twenty points. A well used overgrip can also severly affect the swingweight of a frame.
No...again..it is YOU who cant find a way to end this. i keep politely asking you too...you dont seem to have the capacity to move on. you just keep offering up your OPINION in slightly different ways..your opinion happens to be wrong. AGAIN..you dont agree with me..that's fine. I happen to know...you dont...

playing on clay increases the swingweight by as much as 20 points? that's a good one... so because I play on clay, my 315swingweight frames, might be swinging like a 335 swingweight frame....oh..ok. when i do play on hardcourts, my racquets swing the same <and i notice small things>

AGAIN..for the 25th time, you should just find a way to stop all this...ok here....you say again your opinion on how stiffness is measured, and i wont respond if that will make you happy. if you insult me, i am likely to respond however
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Playing on clay can vary the swingweight of a frame by as much as twenty points. A well used overgrip can also severly affect the swingweight of a frame.
Why is that? Because balls become heavier on clay due to soil and moisture? Or because they bounce high with much spin? Is it the SW that changes or just the perception because of the conditions? Or could it be that strings get more moist and heavier?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I didnt say that the rdc measures the flex at different intevals. i said that it measures the general/overall flex/stiffness of a racquet.
Yes, but it does take the measurement at only one point. That's what Rabbit has been saying over and over and I agree. And since it only takes the measurement at only a single point, that being at the throat, it cannot possibly accurately measure the "general/overall flex/stiffness" of a frame. It is merely an estimate of the "general/overall flex/stiffness" of the frame as it assumes that the frame flexes uniformly throughout its length, but in some cases, this is not true as some frames flex differently at different points along its length. Thus, the RDC measurement does not always accurately reflect the true flex/stiffness of the entire frame at every point throughout the length of the frame, which can and does affect it's playability and feel in actual tennis play.
 

HeadPrestige

Professional
hopefully THREE people telling you the same exact thing will somehow get through to you nobad...

i have had my run-ins with BP in the past, but if he is right, i will acknowledge it.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
hopefully THREE people telling you the same exact thing will somehow get through to you nobad...

i have had my run-ins with BP in the past, but if he is right, i will acknowledge it.
WOW! 3 people on an internet forum agree and one of them is Breakpoint...lol.
 

HeadPrestige

Professional
the thing is this isnt even a matter of opinion. It is a fact that RDC is measured at one point on the racket, yet you still argue. How many times do people have to tell you this for you to understand?
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
the thing is this isnt even a matter of opinion. It is a fact that RDC is measured at one point on the racket, yet you still argue. How many times do people have to tell you this for you to understand?

you too should find a way to let this go. i'm right about this. i know this w. certainty. i dont post things and say i am certain when i'm not sure (unlike many other posters). if i'm guessing/speculating, i say i am

if you people would choose to expand your minds and process this correctly, maybe you might understand, rather than to be on some sort of odd mission to try and prove me wrong about something...anything

the ONLY way the ra measurement only considers the flex in the throat would be if the racquet only flexed in the throat. hopefully, most of you can understand that isnt how racquets are made...there aint no hinge there at the throat. they flex to some degree all over. the ra measures the average overall flex of the racquet..obviously it doesnt tell you where it is flexing more/less
 
Top