I recently got a chance to test the 3rd generation of the Pure strike rackets or the 2019 version, that will be available for sale in August 2019. I was testing the Pure strike 16/19 100 and the Pure Strike Team at the same time.
I will focus mostly on the regular 100 version, which weighs 300 grams unstrung, as the Team version is a lot different than what I usually play with, and I feel I can’t really go in depth while reviewing the racket. I wanted to play the rackets in stock form (not weighted up to my specs) to give my opinions on the of the shelf specs and playing characteristics of the rackets. It’s worth mentioning that I played extensively with the first generation of the strikes (the black and red version) and briefly with the 98-18/20 2nd generation strike (Project One7).
Like mentioned I’ll focus on the Strike 100, but first let’s take a look at the specs of both rackets and what the differences are and how that translated on the court for me.
They were both strung with RPM blast 1,25 mm at 24 kg. Generally, the rackets have the same mould, string pattern, string spacing and so on, with the 100 having a bit more weight in the hoop and handle making it more polarized.
The 100 also has a higher mass, swingweight and is more headlight. This also translates to a lower MGR/I compared to the Team version.
With the Strike 100, I felt comfortable on the baseline, but not too far behind it, because it’s still a pretty light racket and the balls can land short. I had to focus on hitting topspin and sharp angles instead of deep penetrating balls. It was sometimes hard not to get pushed behind the baseline because I couldn’t find the depth I’m used to. I was playing my best tennis with the 100 right on the baseline moving the ball side to side with angles and topspin. I enjoyed hitting anything with spin (slice and topspin), but due to lover MGR/I, then on the Team version, I felt I lacked control on flatter shots. The Team version, on the other hand, was the best when I could shorten my swings, step inside the baseline and hit flatter shots.
The following thoughts are for the Pure Strike 100:
GENERAL IMPRESSIONS
I felt that the Strike 100 was made to be a slightly more controlled version of the new Pure Drive. They used the same technologies to keep them stiff and feeling dampened at the same time, while the Pure Drive still has a thicker beam and higher RA stiffness sitting at 71 while the Strike is at 69. The bumped the SW up a bit on both and making them less headlight, more noticeably so on the Pure Drive which went from just over 32 cm balance to 33 cm strung. The SW bump on the Strike might just be the fact that I had an »off specs« test racket, which had a beefy (for its weight class) 329 SW. For me, it will be interesting to see what the average swingweight will be for these rackets.
POWER
The racket had plenty of power, which is to be expected with Babolat these days. It stands somewhere between the Pure Drive and the Head Speed rackets, or maybe even the Blades. The power comes from a higher 69 RA stiffness and a bit higher swingweight for its weight class. It also has a bit higher twistweight, I’d say around 14,5, so it’s also quite forgiving with a big sweet spot, meaning that it’s not lacking power on slight miss-hits. The most power I could access was with long strokes aimed to hit a heavy top-spin. For me, power is always a combination of spin and pace, as this is the energy that the ball carries. If I just went for pace I often lost control, but when I focused on hitting with top-spin I could really hit out. I didn’t really sacrifice the pace, but the ball was much more penetrating. The same goes for the serve. I always liked Babolat rackets for my serve, as they give you the power and spin to hit a decent kick serve. It’s not different from the Strike 100. But if you are looking to hit some flat serves, or some slices close to the line, look elsewhere. I preferred the Strike Team for flatter serves.
CONTROL
The control with these rackets has to come from utilizing the spin. Directional control wasn’t the best, and I couldn’t really go for the lines or corners, but like already mentioned I had to use more angles and spin. The racket is stiff enough so it doesn’t flex that much on contact, consequentially providing sufficient directional control despite its low weight and quite open string pattern. It’s worth mentioning that I found great control on my slices and drop shots. I don’t utilize drop shots much in my game, but with this racket, I had the confidence to go for more drop shots.
STABILITY/MANEUVRABILITY
You can’t have a very stable and very maneuvrable racket at the same time, as the basic laws of physics don’t allow for that, but this racket has a healthy measure of both. Maneuvrable enough because of the lightweight and stable enough because of a bit higher swingweight for its weight class and a high twistweight. I had to adjust my forehand a bit, as I’m used to a bit lower twistweight, but nothing I couldn’t work around.
FEEL
The feel was a bit surprising for me. The racket is following the trend in recent years when manufacturers are using materials to make stiff rackets feel softer or more muted than they actually are. I was reminded of the stiffness when I started feeling my arm a bit when playing with the Team version, but that was more because of the lack of weight and my strokes that are optimized for much heavier rackets. On the other hand, I thought that the Strike 100 was comfortable, event though I prefer the raw stiff feeling that Babolat is famous for, which I also really like in the first generation of the Strike. Despite a bit different feel I felt connected to the ball and I knew where the ball was going on softer shots like slices and drop shots.
STROKE STYLE AND PLAYING STYLE
In stock form, I would say that this racket is best suited for someone with long strokes that allow for heavy topspin and a 2 handed backhand (Read more about my criteria for certain strokes). The racket is not meant to shoot laser beams down the line, but it really shines in heavy topspin baseline exchanges. I found the most effective way to play, was to stay on the baseline and dictate with spin to open up angles on both sides.
CLOSING COMMENTS
I definitely look forward to the 98 versions of the 3rd generation of the Strike. If everything carries from the Strike 100 it might be a racket I could weight up and switch to it. More mass and smaller head size is where I’m at these days. If I had one real knock is that I like the traditional Babolat feel more. Even though the feel of my 1 st. Generation strike might be a bit unpleasant at times, it keeps me connected to the ball and I always know what is going on at the contact and when I hit the sweet spot. I hope Babolat will go back to its roots with some of the future rackets. Stiff, powerful and direct feeling rackets are what Babolat is all about and they need to be careful to not lose their identity.
Thanks for the interesting read!
I played with the Pure Strike 98 2017 (18 x 20) for a few years and liked it very much. Out of interest in extended length frames I recently changed to a Pure Drive Tour Plus and love it. Allthough I do miss some directional control, touch (especially for topspin lobs) and it’s very stiff (RA 71 strung).
I am considering to switch to the Pure Strike 100 and let it extend to 27,5″ and tuned to specs similar as the Pure Drive Tour Plus (static weight, balance and SW).
Do you think this could indeed be a less stiff alternative for a Pure Drive Tour Plus with a bit more precise directional control and better touch at the cost of some power?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts and other suggestions are of course appreciated.
Thank you for the positive feedback!
I’m also looking to extend the 98 version of the strike for my personal use. I think that pure drive is to powerful to for a tour and plus version, so extending something like the strike might be what you are looking for in the control department.