Anyone know with certainty what the specific head size is on the Wilson T2000? I've been trying to find the specs for it by I'm not having any luck with the searches I've been trying. I'm guessing they are in the neighborhood of 65 sq. inches, but would like to know the exact specs.

I think with the T2000, you can do a simple math as the head is "almost perfectly round". Just go with: pi*[(d/2)^2] (the d/2 is for the radius). I should think the head is somewhere around the conventional size. BTW, when are you coming to Thailand? I "need" something from the States ... I need a PS85 ... They're not available here.

Yeah, I've got mine put away in somewhere and I'm hoping to find an answer without having to find the racquet. But actually, I do want to dig it up and do a bit of hitting with it anyway, just to see what it feels like. I did most of my tennis "learning" using the T2000 and it amazes me today to hear everyone griping about the differences in the 90-110 sq. in. racquet ranges. They're ALL giants compared to the racquets that came out before the mid-80s or so. But it's all rather relative (relative to what you're used to, relative to what's out there at the time).

Although the head size may matter much more to the competitive tennis world than we recreational players, I think it's the stroke production that helps you nail the sweetspot. My son plays with my JK and he could like nail the sweetspot without thinking. Of course, I taught him the old school strokes first. If one has a bad stroke production, a big head may help one to hit closer to the sweetspot, but the result will still be mediocre. Disclamier: I have nothing against using big heads. The above views are totally my opinion.

Man, I wish I could say. It's something I want to do but I'm having trouble pinpointing a time to be able to travel. At this point, I don't see it happening before 2007 (and I'm not even sure when in 2007 it might be).

For anyone interested, my calculations with the T2000 put it at 70 square inches. If I'm right with this formula for measuring the area of an oval, and if my measurements are correct (the measurements are very close, in any case). Length x Width x 4 divided by 5 10 x 8.75 x 4 divided by 5 = 70 sq. in.

68.7-ish, so yes. Though where you got that formula from, I'll never know. It's 3.14*(length/2)*(width/2)

Place a T-2000 over a standard wood racquethead, which is 68-70". Was told the T-2000 headsize is ~53-55".

Got the formula somewhere on the internet. I think it's one that's used to calculate the surface area of a swimming pool -- one that's shaped like a tennis racquet, that is... Actually, I had a slight bit of difficulty figuring out exactly how to make the measurement, given the odd stringing on the T2000 where the string bed doesn't actually go all the way to the inner rim of the racquet. 10 x 8.75 inches is pretty close, though, but perhaps I measured it a bit smaller than the actual inner diameter of the oval (but I don't think I was off by more than about 1/8 inch). I'd still like to know what size Wilson specified for the T2000, if anyone has a link to that particular bit of data.

I think the standard wood racket was 72 sq in. The t2000 was a bit smaller. Amone's calculations seem about right.

I don't believe that's true about the standard wood being 72. I checked my 'random wooden racquet' I have sitting in my bedroom, and it's also about 68.

Revising my measurements on the T2000 with better lighting and a more careful look, I get 10.2 inches x 8.25 inches on the oval's inner diameter. Using the formula provided by Amone, I get this: 3.14 x (10.2/2) x (8.75/2) = 70.06125 Looks like a 70 square inch racquet (give or take a tiny bit).

OK, I've gone overboard and measured some old wooden racquet I have collected. (Used the formula provided by Amone.) These measurements assume measuring the inside diameter of the racquet head and not the outside diameter. Here's how the T2000 compared to the others in head size measured in square inches: 70.06 Wilson T2000 69.08 Wilson Jack Kramer Prostaff 67.76 Dunlop Maxply 67.51 MacGregor Winton 67.51 Spalding Contender 63.12 Slazenger "The Demon" I'm not sure how old some of these old wooden racquets are, so if size has varied over time there may be measurement discrepancies with old wood racquets owned by others.