PDA

View Full Version : Wilson Ultra 2 Mid


Japan Tennis
11-17-2006, 04:10 AM
Hey anyone played with this racquet?

I know it is an old racquet but it recently came out again in Japan and I was wondering how it does on power, spin, feel/confort, and control.

Thanks

Japan tennis

Japan Tennis
11-25-2006, 07:37 AM
hello? no one has every tried this racquet?? How does it compare to the o3 tour

louis netman
11-25-2006, 08:46 AM
I used the Ultra 2 way back in the early 1980's...sweet, but IMO, somewhat inappropriate for today's game. If the reissue is identical, it would be a nice addition to your Wilson Collection on your library wall or something......

Rabbit
11-25-2006, 12:34 PM
The Ultra 2 played similarly to the ProStaff. It was stiffer and more evenly balanced if I remember correctly. The Ultra was the original descendant of the PWS graphite that Wilson put out in the late 70s. The Ultra was used by Hana Mandlikova. It was Wilson's flagship graphite frame. Then the ProStaff, then the Sting.

joe sch
11-25-2006, 12:51 PM
The Ultra 2 played similarly to the ProStaff. It was stiffer and more evenly balanced if I remember correctly. The Ultra was the original descendant of the PWS graphite that Wilson put out in the late 70s. The Ultra was used by Hana Mandlikova. It was Wilson's flagship graphite frame. Then the ProStaff, then the Sting.

As Rabbit explained, the Ultra 2 (U2) followed the ultra pws, which had metal pws tabs that were changed to graphite tabs for later prostaff 60 (ps60) . The U2 was heavier and stiffer thus more powerful than both rackets. I find the ps60 more like the original ultra pws. I think for the time, the U2 was the most powerful racket produced. I think the wilson profile which was released about the same time as the ps60, was maybe even more powerful. If you like rackets that were made to last and can handle the power and weight, then the U2 maybe one of the best ever.

Japan Tennis
11-25-2006, 05:39 PM
does anyone know the specs of the ultra 2? and how does it compare with other traditoinal frames...ie the pog and head graphite. Also why do you say it is bad for the modern game louis?

Midlife crisis
11-25-2006, 10:08 PM
does anyone know the specs of the ultra 2? and how does it compare with other traditoinal frames...ie the pog and head graphite. Also why do you say it is bad for the modern game louis?

My Ultra II Mid, size 4 1/2L but with a 6" section of a full-size-increase heat shrink sleeve and a synthetic replacement grip, weighs 371 grams/13 1/8 ounces and is 6 points HL/balance point of 32 cm when strung with SPPP 1.18.

It is an awesome frame, but IMO just too small to cope with the spin and speed of shot of the modern game, especially if you are trying to hit it back with a lot of speed and/or spin.

Japan Tennis
11-25-2006, 10:47 PM
so the ultra 2 mid does not provide much speed or spin...

AndrewD
11-26-2006, 04:30 AM
The Ultra 2 played similarly to the ProStaff. It was stiffer and more evenly balanced if I remember correctly. The Ultra was the original descendant of the PWS graphite that Wilson put out in the late 70s. The Ultra was used by Hana Mandlikova. It was Wilson's flagship graphite frame. Then the ProStaff, then the Sting.

Rabbit (or Joe),

Weren't there a couple of versions of the Ultra II? I had some notion that there was a standard sized model (not exactly 'standard' but close to the Max 200G) as well as a midsize (85sq). Am I getting the Ultra confused with another frame?

I remember David Pate using the Ultra (was his the smaller version?), as well as Mandlikova, Helen Kelesi, Claudia Kohde-Kilsch and numerous other pros. Also seem to recall it being exceptionally pricey .

PBODY99
11-26-2006, 04:46 AM
The braided graphite and Boron Ultra 2 came in a standard (18 x18), mid 85 and a Largehead 110. They predate the Profile by at least 5 years.

The mid plays nothing like an O3 tour.

superstition
11-26-2006, 08:50 AM
I play with a standard size Ultra II. I think the head is 75 square inches. I also play with a Kramer Prostaff 85, and the regular Prostaff 85. I'd like to get the 85" version of the Ultra II, but it tends to go for too high a price on the auction site.

The Ultra II standard is quite stiff so I use gut, and requires extremely good timing (especially for returning serve), but provides sharper angles than the Prostaff 85.

superstition
11-26-2006, 08:51 AM
it recently came out again in Japan
That is extremely surprising. Do you have a link?

Pushmaster
11-26-2006, 09:22 AM
I play with a standard size Ultra II. I think the head is 75 square inches. I also play with a Kramer Prostaff 85, and the regular Prostaff 85. I'd like to get the 85" version of the Ultra II, but it tends to go for too high a price on the auction site.

The Ultra II standard is quite stiff so I use gut, and requires extremely good timing (especially for returning serve), but provides sharper angles than the Prostaff 85.

Super, how does the JK PS 85 compare to the regular 85?

SFrazeur
11-26-2006, 09:33 AM
Super, how does the JK PS 85 compare to the regular 85?

specs wise the JK 85 is 80% graphite, 20% fiberglass.

Pushmaster
11-26-2006, 09:42 AM
specs wise the JK 85 is 80% graphite, 20% fiberglass.

Thx. I would guess with the fiberglass it would feel softer/more flexible? I'd like to try one.

SFrazeur
11-26-2006, 09:46 AM
Thx. I would guess with the fiberglass it would feel softer/more flexible? I'd like to try one.


Also, as far as I know all JK 85's were made at the St. Vincent factory, if that means anything to you.

Rabbit
11-26-2006, 09:56 AM
The original Ultra was made only in a stadard size. It was the racket of choice for Aaron Krickstein when he came on tour. The frame was also the first to use PWS, Permieter Weighting System. The weights were actually attached outside the frame via brads. I remember seeing and coveting this frame at a local sports shop. It was very plain, and for the time very expensive. I think a wood racket ran $50 and this frame ran $150 - $200 back in the 70s.

This, I believe, was Wilson's first foray into the graphite arena and was put there to combat the Bancroft Scorpion, Fansteel Graphite, Tony Trabert C-6, and Adila Cannon. Krickstein was very reluctant to give up this racket. If I'm not mistaken, it was the frame he used to become the youngest ever winner of a round at the US Open. He defeated none other than Vitas Gerulaitis in the 1R with it. The match was carried live on USA, it was very windy, and when VG lost, it was the first time I'd ever heard an F-bomb on network TV. :0

joe sch
11-26-2006, 01:07 PM
Rabbit (or Joe),

Weren't there a couple of versions of the Ultra II? I had some notion that there was a standard sized model (not exactly 'standard' but close to the Max 200G) as well as a midsize (85sq). Am I getting the Ultra confused with another frame?

I remember David Pate using the Ultra (was his the smaller version?), as well as Mandlikova, Helen Kelesi, Claudia Kohde-Kilsch and numerous other pros. Also seem to recall it being exceptionally pricey .

Andrew, This picture should help:

http://www.woodtennis.com/sampras/ultra3racs.jpg

The ultra original head was like woodie size, approx 70si, the UII was approx 85 midsize, and there was an OS.

Joe

superstition
11-26-2006, 05:30 PM
Super, how does the JK PS 85 compare to the regular 85?
Significantly weaker for groundstrokes, but easy on the joints. Interestingly enough, though, I served big with it. A restringing resulted in less power. From now on, I'm going to stick with 17 gauge gut. I tried 16 and it has almost no power.

Even though the Kramer is more flexible than the regular 85, it feels more solid than the recent Chinese 85s.

The Kramer keeps balls in the court because it has less power, but the balls are easier to attack because they have less pace. Someone with a bad case of tennis elbow like I had should use the racquet.

Pushmaster
11-26-2006, 06:54 PM
Significantly weaker for groundstrokes, but easy on the joints. Interestingly enough, though, I served big with it. A restringing resulted in less power. From now on, I'm going to stick with 17 gauge gut. I tried 16 and it has almost no power.

Even though the Kramer is more flexible than the regular 85, it feels more solid than the recent Chinese 85s.

The Kramer keeps balls in the court because it has less power, but the balls are easier to attack because they have less pace. Someone with a bad case of tennis elbow like I had should use the racquet.

Thanks Super. The JK PS 85 sounds pretty sweet, I'd like to pick one up. They seem to be very rare these days, but I'll keep an eye out. Sorry for the threadjack.

Midlife crisis
11-26-2006, 07:01 PM
so the ultra 2 mid does not provide much speed or spin...

No, it's plenty powerful, but I just can't hit the sweetspot enough on it when playing against tough shots. When you try to hit a heavy topspin shot, the ball will travel about two inches on your stringbed during the impact. Because this racquet is so small, you have very little margin for error. You probably can't miss by an inch on the initial contact (meaning the initial contact is two inches off center or directly on the center line) and still have good control. I just can't do that, especially when someone hits it hard and spins it shoulder high on my backhand side, deep in the corner.

Japan Tennis
11-27-2006, 01:49 AM
anyone else have reviews...and how does it compare to my o3 tour on power, spin, control, confort, feel and most importantly ease on the elbow.

superstition
11-27-2006, 11:13 AM
it recently came out again in Japan
That is extremely surprising. Do you have a link?

Japan Tennis
11-27-2006, 12:54 PM
not sure look up tennis eddy on the internet... thats the store i found it at.

Japan Tennis
11-29-2006, 03:05 AM
anyone else with info on the ultra 2? compare it to the PS 6.0 and the POG mid...

haerdalis
11-29-2006, 03:13 AM
Thx. I would guess with the fiberglass it would feel softer/more flexible? I'd like to try one.
I have a wilson avenger. It looks like a white ps 60 but has that composition too. Quite heavy, very flexible and low powered.

Pro_Tour_630
11-29-2006, 04:57 PM
I played with the ultra 2 mid for three years during my high school days, it was very stiff and considered to be a "midplus" compared to the older PWS version with metal plates at 3/9 which was about 65-70sq. the PS6.0/85 was a noodle compared to the ultra 2. it you were a baseliner then the ultra 2 was a better choice back then, it had more solid feel on serves and forhands. I paid $250 each for them in 1983, think about how much that would be in todays $, oh and by the way it is not elbow friendly

SFrazeur
11-29-2006, 05:05 PM
...I paid $250 each for them in 1983, think about how much that would be in todays $...

Well, according to The inflation calculator @ http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

What cost $250 in 1983 would cost $477.55 in 2005.

yourserve
11-29-2006, 07:37 PM
i have an old ultra 2 in the basement. i haven't hit with it. obtained from an old friend along with a ps 85. maybe i should put some string in it and try it out.

superstition
11-30-2006, 07:37 AM
If you don't want either of them, I do, if the grip size is at least 4 1/2

superstition
11-30-2006, 07:39 AM
Well, according to The inflation calculator @ http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

What cost $250 in 1983 would cost $477.55 in 2005.
The Prostaff 85 (Kevlar) was the most expensive racquet in Wilson's lineup. The Ultra 2 was the second-most expensive. The Sting was third.

SFrazeur
11-30-2006, 08:17 AM
The Prostaff 85 (Kevlar) was the most expensive racquet in Wilson's lineup. The Ultra 2 was the second-most expensive. The Sting was third.

Do you know how much the PS 85 cost when it first arrived?

Azzurri
11-30-2006, 08:40 AM
The Prostaff 85 (Kevlar) was the most expensive racquet in Wilson's lineup. The Ultra 2 was the second-most expensive. The Sting was third.

incorrect. The Ultra 2 was by far the more expensive racquet in the early to mid 80's. They indeed went for $250 in ALL the sports shops. Now, I am asuming the Prostaff 85 (kevlar) is the PS 6.0?? If not sorry....I just don't remember the Prostaff 85...just the PS 85 6.0

P.S. I owned 8 Ultra II's and I could not even get a discount on them.

yourserve
11-30-2006, 12:39 PM
not real interested in keeping the ultra 2. although there is some sentimental value involved. I do know the grip is at least 4 1/2. contact me if you wish. i can get some pictures in a day or two. jimbob619@hotmail.com

mrname
12-02-2006, 07:47 PM
I currently own Ultra II (braided with boron... 2nd from left in the picture provided in an earlier link) and PS Original 85. I play with both of them as I see fit.
You need a big arm and swing to hit with Ultra II. If you are accurate, the racquet will plow through anything and get your ball where you need it.
In my recent plays, I realized that I am not as young anymore and the racquet causes some arm pains.
ProStaff is my ALL time favorite. I am still trying to find a replacement. It is all about control and feedback. Pinpoint accuracy is how I would describe. Now as heavy as Ultra II but it will still plow through if you have the full swing (I do).
Although I do not own anymore, I also played for long time with Prince Graphite Original Mid (93). The most powerful of the three. It had a "ping" that was so pleasant to listen and easy on the arm. Great for "crowd pleasing" shots and "volleys" (when compared to Wilsons).
With ProStaff and Ultra II you can not be late for any shot or your returns will be punished by your opponents.
With ProStaff and Ultra II you can not misshit (or miss the sweetspot) or your returns will be punished by your opponents.
With ProStaff and Ultra II you will generate "untouchables". Extremely accurate and deep balls that have low bounce. I call these "snakes". They are not the current generation's top spin, crowd pleasing, a foot over the net with a nice bounce shots. But they are 3 to 5 inches above the net, deep, with a very low bounce, untouchable point generating shots.
Overheads, are no brainer as long as you are ready and timed your shot well.
When the subject is backhand, both Ultra II and ProStaff makes you like Sampras or Federer (for single hand hitters).

Prince will allow you generate more spin loaded shots. I always thought that Prince would probably have been easier to my game. However, when I have one of those short balls where I run 5-6 steps and I get my bottom as close to the ground (as I can) and swing one of those "you should not be doing this when you are so close to the net" shots where the racquet head is swung and closed so fast that if you did not know any better you would have thought that I am fighting with a bee. I never miss them with my ProStaff. Tangent to the net, deep, and ego rubbing. I was never able to generate those shots with Prince. Which actually means nothing other than the fact that I probably should have slowed down my swing and generate an underspin approach. However, I always felt that I was having a harder time to close Prince's head when the balls were above average speed, and I would retreat to a more defensive game. I tried to play with my timing but I failed.
Prince would also compliment spin serves if you have it. To me, it never felt as steady/stable as my ProStaff for power serves.

I have an eastern grip, full swing with body turned to the ball on both forehands and backhands (single handed).
I hit hard on both sides. I love to hit paralel and short cross court (inside the serve box, close to net) forehands and backhands.
I serve a strong flat first serve, and strong very little spin added second serve (thus I am quite prone to double faults).
I am lefty.
I have 66 lbs 17 gauge on my ProStaff.
I have 63 lbs 16 gauge on my Ultra II.
Both of them have brand new grip.
In general, I would with people where points are not really the main drive.

So for what is worth, obviously these are my personal opinions. I am not an expert. I just love to hit the ball.

Cheers,

MrName.

DURICA533
12-04-2006, 01:30 PM
I have one for sale. 4 1/2" grip. cond 8.5-9/10. check classifieds or contact me at jdurica@hotmail.com

Colpo
12-04-2006, 01:36 PM
Even 20 years ago, the Ultra II was regarded as an advanced only frame, because it was so stiff and unwieldy. It's a beast of a frame, because it weighs about 13 oz. and because its stiffness is largely concentrated in the throat, where much of a racquet's feel comes from. In short, this wasn't for a touch player; this was a frame for a player who like to turn on fastballs.

As frames have gotten larger and more forgiving over time, and the Ultra II remains the same, I can only say that an Ultra II will only be enjoyable in a match context today if one is a large, strong person who hit hard and is accurate with ball contact on the racquetface. I can't imagine trying this frame today for anything other than a soft hit, to get a feel for the weight, SW, and stiffness. The frame produces a satisfying thwok feel on contact with the sweetspot.

The Ultra II is not nearly as bouncy or forgiving as a POG MP, not even close, and it's heavier to swing than a PS 6.0 85. It's also stiffer than both. It's a behemoth player's frame, maybe the ultimate, and it's probably got no role for you (the typical non-pro player) other than as a collection piece.

vsbabolat
12-04-2006, 01:44 PM
I wonder why Andrea Jaeger enjoyed the moon-ball with the Ultra and Ultra2 Midsize.

Kirko
12-04-2006, 02:34 PM
guy I have been hitting with since we were kids used it for years and it was powerful and th espin was mighty if you desired. it was "black hole" for strings though it chewed them up like anything. Ken Rosewall used it for yrs. the orginal and the mid-size. I saw him play Mal Anderson in a senoirs tournament in the 80's when I lived in Reno,NV and Rosewall played tha t mid-size like it was a super sized racket there was a big greasy stain right where the sweet spot was. Anderson was using the Dunlop 200G and ditto on him striking the sweet spot time and time again. my friend used the med. version it came in weights like wood rackets from the "olden days". a solid 4.0 guy or lady with a classic style of play could still hold their own with it. I rate the is Wilson Ultra II with the Prince Magnesium Pro. SO SOLID! no vibration dampners or rubber bands to mute that awful feel you get from the modern crop of rackets. Mel Purcell used it also. that guy always reminded me of that kid on the movie Deliverence you know the kid who played the banjo. my buddy finally gave up looking for them and switched to the Pro Staff 85 orginal. a yr. ago I asked him what he thought about it. his reply was. " its fine,but it no f****king Ultra.

superstition
12-04-2006, 02:41 PM
incorrect. The Ultra 2 was by far the more expensive racquet in the early to mid 80's. They indeed went for $250 in ALL the sports shops. Now, I am asuming the Prostaff 85 (kevlar) is the PS 6.0?? If not sorry....I just don't remember the Prostaff 85...just the PS 85 6.0

P.S. I owned 8 Ultra II's and I could not even get a discount on them.
Someone posted a Wilson price list and it showed the Prostaff 85 original (the Sampras racquet) as being the most expensive, followed by the Ultra II mid, then the Ultra II standard, then the Sting.

My theory is that the Ultra II was discounted after the Prostaff 85 was released. It definitely would have been Wilson's most expensive racquet before that, though.

Azzurri
12-04-2006, 04:23 PM
Someone posted a Wilson price list and it showed the Prostaff 85 original (the Sampras racquet) as being the most expensive, followed by the Ultra II mid, then the Ultra II standard, then the Sting.

My theory is that the Ultra II was discounted after the Prostaff 85 was released. It definitely would have been Wilson's most expensive racquet before that, though.

I played H.S. tennis in the mid to late 80's. The Ultra 2 was $250 from 83(?) and still available in the late 80's. I know for a fact the Ultra 2 was the more expensive of the two. No doubt.

If anyone happens to own a mid 80's "Tennis" or "Tennis World" magazine ....please help! The price for the PS 85 was around $150. The Ultra 2 was more expensive because of the BORON material. It cost quite a bit (the boron) per ounce. The Ultra 2 was also made in St. Vincent.

The racquet was unbelievable when you hit the sweetspot. I was actually scared how fast my returns were when I hit the sweetspot...almost like a shock feeling. I loved this stick.

Kirko
12-04-2006, 05:14 PM
I played H.S. tennis in the mid to late 80's. The Ultra 2 was $250 from 83(?) and still available in the late 80's. I know for a fact the Ultra 2 was the more expensive of the two. No doubt.

If anyone happens to own a mid 80's "Tennis" or "Tennis World" magazine ....please help! The price for the PS 85 was around $150. The Ultra 2 was more expensive because of the BORON material. It cost quite a bit (the boron) per ounce. The Ultra 2 was also made in St. Vincent.

The racquet was unbelievable when you hit the sweetspot. I was actually scared how fast my returns were when I hit the sweetspot...almost like a shock feeling. I loved this stick.
You're right. The Ultra II or the orginal was never discounted ever. It always commanded a high price. Its in my top 4 rackets of all time: my youth until 1983 the wilson jack kramer auto. , the prestige, the prince magnesium pro and the ultra II.

Azzurri
12-05-2006, 06:19 AM
You're right. The Ultra II or the orginal was never discounted ever. It always commanded a high price. Its in my top 4 rackets of all time: my youth until 1983 the wilson jack kramer auto. , the prestige, the prince magnesium pro and the ultra II.

KIRKO...I am hoping someone has some old magazines to see the prices!

Colpo
12-05-2006, 08:03 AM
I've got the mags, haven't done the research though. My recall is that the Ultra II listed at $275 or so, and even at the end of its run, it never sold below about $169 or so. The Standard sized Ultra II was dropped early in its run, rather than allowed to die a slow, ever-reduced price death which would've diluted the brand's exclusivity. The PS 6.0 85 also listed over $200, but was UNDENIABLY Wilson's #2 player's model. Other than the Prince Boron, the Ultra II was the most expensive list frame out there from '83 to the end of its run around '87.

DURICA533
12-05-2006, 08:46 AM
still have one for sale $105 shipped. GREAT CONDITION. check classifieds.

no scratches!

Ultra2HolyGrail
12-05-2006, 03:11 PM
Intresting story, one night walking up to local tennis courts to hit with this guy who showed up alot, was walking onto the courts and a raccquet was laying on the courts away from his bags as he was going to the bathroom in the woods. Low and behold it was a ultra2, white grip, begging me to play it like it was cast upon me from the heavens :) All i can say is i never served flat bombs up the T better with any other racquet ever. Untouchable aces. Forehands and backhands were awesome too. Anyways i could of bought it from him for $20 and never did. I even told him what it was worth and last time i seen him i would of bought it but then he tells me he sold it for $120 and said i was right haha ;(... Anyways i have a unstrung ultra2 but have played very little with it and have played with current ps6085's for some years now. The difference is the ultra2 cannot volley as well as the 6.0 as it's pure magic if on your game serving and volleying. Forehands-backhands-serves- the ultra2 i give the edge.

Azzurri
12-06-2006, 08:15 AM
I've got the mags, haven't done the research though. My recall is that the Ultra II listed at $275 or so, and even at the end of its run, it never sold below about $169 or so. The Standard sized Ultra II was dropped early in its run, rather than allowed to die a slow, ever-reduced price death which would've diluted the brand's exclusivity. The PS 6.0 85 also listed over $200, but was UNDENIABLY Wilson's #2 player's model. Other than the Prince Boron, the Ultra II was the most expensive list frame out there from '83 to the end of its run around '87.

Please check for us. When you get a chance.

Colpo
12-07-2006, 06:36 AM
Please check for us. When you get a chance.

slappano, I checked. The Ultra II Midsize is reviewed in World Tennis' 12/83 issue and carries a sticker price of $279. (The male contingent of the review panel "gushed" over the power and stiffness of the Ultra II, the review says.) The Pro Staff Midsize is reviewed in World Tennis' 12/84 issue and carries a sticker of $260, which surprised me, frankly. (The Pro Staff Midsize was awarded WT's inaugural "Racquet of the Year" award, and the rest is history. The Largehead version of the Pro Staff was runner-up.) In terms of practical cost, the various mail-order ads in the back of the tennis magazines of that era (basically, soon after both models were introduced) would've netted you an Ultra II in the $190 range, and a PS in the $180 range.

DURICA533
12-07-2006, 10:31 AM
just posted new pics of my Ultra 2 for sale. check classifieds for info.

http://www.duricaart.com/ultra.html


$105 shipped

jdurica@hotmail.com

zx1100
03-03-2007, 10:33 PM
I still have 2 of my Ultra 2s laying around but don't think I can get them strung due to the grommets being in bad shape. I'm starting to pick up tennis again and currently borrowing racquets from whoever I'm going to be playing with so I want to get my own.

What current Wilson racquet would be closest to the Ultra 2 racquet in playability? I'm liking how the NCode Six-One 95 looks but will it play like it?

nBladed
03-04-2007, 12:35 PM
zx1100,

Y'know funny you should ask that. I just came back from my 2nd outing with the k90. At first I didn't like it but this time WOW! It really reminded me of my Ultra II except with more spin. Swingweight wise it feels really similar, may not be as plush.

zx1100
03-08-2007, 11:13 PM
nBladed...you still liking the k90? I'm really thinking about getting one :) I hit with the N95 a few times and it feels ok but not exactly the feel I'm familiar with.

Jack & Coke
03-08-2007, 11:35 PM
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1593/fc171yy8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4981/2f443pu6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1007/30fd3bs2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2672/32623jf2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Jack & Coke
03-08-2007, 11:38 PM
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1081/33823pz8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Here's an Ultra 1

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3562/1009100101950101wk3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2230/1009100101950303tf3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/435/1009100101950404pz6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Jack & Coke
03-08-2007, 11:43 PM
Ultra Ti

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3664/38aa1gd6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Ultra FPK

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/824/12811746tpea6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9775/12811749tpcb6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Jack & Coke
03-08-2007, 11:47 PM
Item number: 140092613074 at that really big auction site:

Brand new Never used WILSON ULTRA2 MID Limited Edition

(aprox. $350-$500)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4452/fe1b12ry7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5020/ff9012qo4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7091/00ba12rx4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9748/046212jx7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Jack & Coke
03-10-2007, 10:05 PM
http://www.woodtennis.com/sampras/ultra3racs.jpg

http://www.woodtennis.com/sampras/ultra2.jpg

http://www.woodtennis.com/sampras/ultraThroats.jpg

http://www.woodtennis.com/sampras/ultraPWSs.jpg

proracketeer
07-23-2007, 11:26 PM
The original Ultra was made only in a stadard size. [...]This, I believe, was Wilson's first foray into the graphite arena and was put there to combat the Bancroft Scorpion, Fansteel Graphite, Tony Trabert C-6, and Adila Cannon. [...]

Was the original Ultra the stiffest of them all?

gsquicksilver
07-24-2007, 08:11 AM
I play with a standard size Ultra II. I think the head is 75 square inches. I also play with a Kramer Prostaff 85, and the regular Prostaff 85. I'd like to get the 85" version of the Ultra II, but it tends to go for too high a price on the auction site.

The Ultra II standard is quite stiff so I use gut, and requires extremely good timing (especially for returning serve), but provides sharper angles than the Prostaff 85.

is it me or do you also find that the kramer pro staff 85 plays very similar or even identical to the feel of the ps85?

Dane
07-24-2007, 09:05 AM
I have one of those puppies. What should I string Ultra 2 Mid with and at what tension?

Rabbit
07-24-2007, 09:37 AM
Was the original Ultra the stiffest of them all?


From memory, probably of all the Ultras, yes. I think my post was referring to the Tony Trabert C-6 which is about as stiff as a frame can get.

Rabbit
07-25-2007, 04:32 AM
I have one of those puppies. What should I string Ultra 2 Mid with and at what tension?

I'd string it with a good multi between 50 and 60 pounds.

Midlife crisis
07-25-2007, 09:31 PM
I have one of those puppies. What should I string Ultra 2 Mid with and at what tension?

I have mines strung up with SPPP 1.23 52 mains, 50 crosses and it plays beautifully. I'm a poly string user in all my other racquets though. I had TNT Fat Core in there a little while ago and strung that up in the middle 50's and it also felt okay, but the string is really pretty unexceptional and that's why I put a poly in it.

The orange of the SPPP matches the graphics pretty well. It's a nice, coordinated look.

Dane
07-26-2007, 08:30 AM
Just found the card that came with the racquet. Recommended for the mid size is #65-#70. I strung it up with Gosen Micro Sheep 17g at #68. Haven't tried it yet.

superstition
07-26-2007, 10:35 AM
is it me or do you also find that the kramer pro staff 85 plays very similar or even identical to the feel of the ps85?
Very similar, but more flexible.

Hal
07-26-2007, 01:36 PM
Do you know how much the PS 85 cost when it first arrived?
The PS 85 was $129 and not the most expensive. The Ultra2 was more expensive because of the boron content.

Hal
07-26-2007, 01:54 PM
slappano, I checked. The Ultra II Midsize is reviewed in World Tennis' 12/83 issue and carries a sticker price of $279. (The male contingent of the review panel "gushed" over the power and stiffness of the Ultra II, the review says.) The Pro Staff Midsize is reviewed in World Tennis' 12/84 issue and carries a sticker of $260, which surprised me, frankly. (The Pro Staff Midsize was awarded WT's inaugural "Racquet of the Year" award, and the rest is history. The Largehead version of the Pro Staff was runner-up.) In terms of practical cost, the various mail-order ads in the back of the tennis magazines of that era (basically, soon after both models were introduced) would've netted you an Ultra II in the $190 range, and a PS in the $180 range.
This is way off for the PS mid. I worked for a mail order store that sold them for $129. There was little or no discount, if any, discount because Wilson did not want undercutting on this racquet. I used this racquet as soon as they came out and was able to buy them at cost, which was about $85.