PDA

View Full Version : Can someone really define 'old school feel' ?


NoBadMojo
11-20-2006, 02:03 PM
I cant, other to say it is a flexible feel. And if that is what people mean when they declare a racquet as having old school feel, i think the term 'flexible' defines that feeling much better, and in a much more descriptive easier way to interpret.. a way that takes away confusion..a way that is finite.

Cuz wood is old school feel..everything since is some type of composite which feels like composite and not like wood. The common denominanator seems to be 'flexible', but then again I think that would likely be disputed as well.

StunLock
11-20-2006, 02:09 PM
Also, which racquets give you the kind of 'old-school' feel? all graphite ones?

psp2
11-20-2006, 02:15 PM
Max 200G certainly has the "old school feel".

Tennis Man
11-20-2006, 02:17 PM
Just playtest PC 600, Prestige Tour, PS 85/90, POG, etc and should feel it. It may be the flex of the original graphite, the headlight balance, the solid feel and heavy SW and just the comfortable and controlled power off the smaller and efficient stringbed ... That's how I felt after switching from APD to PS 85/PC 600.

hoosierbr
11-20-2006, 02:21 PM
The best I can describe it would be a hefty static weight (about 12 oz), low swingweight (300-315), very headlight and very flexible. A racquet that allows you to feel the ball precisely as it comes off the strings. Although string type and tension is important.

Examples would be: Volkl Tour 10 Gen II, Volkl Tour 10 V-Engine Mid, Slazenger Pro X1, Fischer Pro #1, Yonex RDX 500 Mid, Yonex RD-Ti 80.

Other racquets a little outside these specs feel old school to me as well. Exmaples: Volkl C10 Pro and C10 Pro Tour, Wilson NCode 6.1 Tour 90, Wilson Prostaff 6.0 (95).

That's old school to me.

NoBadMojo
11-20-2006, 05:07 PM
The best I can describe it would be a hefty static weight (about 12 oz), low swingweight (300-315), very headlight and very flexible. A racquet that allows you to feel the ball precisely as it comes off the strings. Although string type and tension is important.

Examples would be: Volkl Tour 10 Gen II, Volkl Tour 10 V-Engine Mid, Slazenger Pro X1, Fischer Pro #1, Yonex RDX 500 Mid, Yonex RD-Ti 80.

Other racquets a little outside these specs feel old school to me as well. Exmaples: Volkl C10 Pro and C10 Pro Tour, Wilson NCode 6.1 Tour 90, Wilson Prostaff 6.0 (95).

That's old school to me.

so you think the 'old school' feel is as much about the weight and balance of the frame <how it feels to swing> as it is about the feedback coming thru the grip <how it feels to hit> <which would be more a function of the composition>?

also many describe frames like the ps85 as having that so called 'old school feel' and that frame certainly isnt flexy. you would say the ps85 has that old school feel?

vkartikv
11-20-2006, 05:15 PM
so you think the 'old school' feel is as much about the weight and balance of the frame <how it feels to swing> as it is about the feedback coming thru the grip <how it feels to hit> <which would be more a function of the composition>?

also many describe frames like the ps85 as having that so called 'old school feel' and that frame certainly isnt flexy. you would say the ps85 has that old school feel?

Depends on what you mean by old school - to me old school is a small head midsize with lots and lots of mass towards the handle of the racquet. But yes, if you were to talk about the feel of a flexible frame, the ps 85 is certainly not it. To me, the old school feel the ps 85 offered was what came from putting away volleys - the way the frame felt when someone struck a hard ball at you at the net.. Having said all that, I think it is a little overrated today...

thejerk
11-20-2006, 05:44 PM
Has to be the mass unless it has something to do with a different type of graphite. I have alota rackets and not only flexy rackets have old school feel. I thought the pog mid was stiff as was the ps 85. My tri-comps have old school feel but they are'nt flexy either.

In my opinion, players rackets have old school feel mainly because of mass. I believe string length has something to do with feel as well. Old school rackets were usually smaller head, weren't they? Maybe not. I have some old school oversize rackets that have old school feel. I think it has to be either racket composition or mass.

I do think there may be exceptions. For instance, LM prestige should have old school feel, but it doesn't. It feels really plastic compared to what I'd call old school.

hoosierbr
11-20-2006, 06:02 PM
so you think the 'old school' feel is as much about the weight and balance of the frame <how it feels to swing> as it is about the feedback coming thru the grip <how it feels to hit> <which would be more a function of the composition>?

also many describe frames like the ps85 as having that so called 'old school feel' and that frame certainly isnt flexy. you would say the ps85 has that old school feel?


Yes - I don't think the flexiness of the frame defines old school completely. It's a combination of the weight, balance, flex and what you can do with the ball. Old school tennis, to me, is playing with more traditional grips and executing an all court style. Not standing at the baseline and looping massive topspin forehands with Babolat rocket launchers all day. 25-30 stroke rallies. The frames that I listed as "old school" feeling are great for that kind of traditional play. These new super stiff, light on the static and high on the swingweight frames don't feel natural to me.

As for the PS85 I've never hit with it so I can't say if it's old school feeling or not. The specs have always scared me.:)

Randy

dpfrazier
11-20-2006, 06:27 PM
Yes - I don't think the flexiness of the frame defines old school completely. It's a combination of the weight, balance, flex and what you can do with the ball. Old school tennis, to me, is playing with more traditional grips and executing an all court style. Not standing at the baseline and looping massive topspin forehands with Babolat rocket launchers all day. 25-30 stroke rallies. The frames that I listed as "old school" feeling are great for that kind of traditional play. These new super stiff, light on the static and high on the swingweight frames don't feel natural to me.

As for the PS85 I've never hit with it so I can't say if it's old school feeling or not. The specs have always scared me.:)

Randy

The PS85 definitely has a retro feel, relative to lots of other modern frames. But to get a really old school feel, you have to go with wood. Flexibility is the key, as well as the pocketing of the ball. There were no vibration dampeners in those days, and you could really feel the ball, and where you hit the ball on the string bed.

It's interesting how the sweet spot has moved over the years. These days, it's high on the string bed. With a wood racquet, it was closer to the throat. If you hit it out on the end, you got nothing out of the shot.

Steve Huff
11-20-2006, 08:15 PM
I probably could if I don't have to mention her name.

louis netman
11-20-2006, 08:45 PM
Here's my interpretation: There is old-school wood, old-school metal, old-school fiberglass, and old school graphite/composite, all of which were pretty flexible compared to today's standards. However, the term "flexible" may not completely describe the sensation of "old-school" to the younger generations of players who have never experienced wood frames. If frames were still made of wood today, then it would be safe to say that wood frames from the 1970s are old-school because their feel was derived from the fact that they were heavy, had small heads, and dense string patterns. Because I believe that the term "old-school" best be utilized within the context of today's frame materials (graphite/composite), it should therefore refer to the first generation of graphite/composite frames intoduced around the late 1970s/early 1980s...

chiru
11-20-2006, 08:48 PM
ive played extensively with wood (primarily the maxply) and i think of all the rackets ive used the ntour 90 comes kinda closish but ps85 takes it by a mile.

BreakPoint
11-20-2006, 09:00 PM
To me, "old school feel" is more about how solid the frame feels when you hit the ball. Weight is certainly a contributing factor to this feel, but so is flex, composition, head size, beam width, beam shape, and the way it's constructed.

However, a frame doesn't really need to be really flexy to have that "old school feel" IMHO. For example, I find stiffer frames such as the POG, PS 6.0 85, Vantage 90 to have as much "old school feel" as more flexy frames, such as the Max200G, PC600, and RDX 500 Mid.

The common trait is in how solid the frame feels on impact and how it absorbs shock and vibration and gives you a nice solid sound when you hit the ball. This is the way they used to make racquets. The early generation of graphite racquets were generally made to emulate the feel and weight of wood racquets since that's what most people were using and they wanted people to more easily switch from wood to graphite. If they were too different, it would have been too difficult for many people to make the switch.

In comparison, many of the more modern racquets out there today tend to feel "tinny" or "hollow" and too light to me. Many also tend to sound "pingy" to me instead of solid on ball impact, and many tend to transmit more shock and vibration to my arm (most being both lighter and stiffer certainly do not help).

stormholloway
11-20-2006, 09:18 PM
Just look at the differences among early Prestiges compared to later ones. Early Pro Staffs compared to later ones. Whatever changed there is the difference in old and new school feel.

I still like the feel of my Jack Kramer more than any racquet I own. I still have not found the right graphite racquet for me. I'm thinking the RDX500 mid or the PS95 6.0 if they ever come in.

alan-n
11-20-2006, 09:36 PM
In the category of graphite racquets, the rackets I consider old school are those balance and thin flat beamed like wood racquets, purely made of graphite. Racquets such as the PS 85 6.0 etc aren't old school to me, they include double braided kevlar which stiffens them up significantly.

Looking at the TW list of racquets being sold. Those racquets would be the POG, PC 600, PK Rendondo.

I learned the game of tennis playing with the Max 200G. Moved onto the 6.0 95... went through a period of trying Babolats and then went back to something of a compromise between "old school" and "modern tweeners"..... That being a Wilson Tour 90 original.

stormholloway
11-20-2006, 09:39 PM
Tour 90 is hardly even close to being a tweener. I think it's the most demanding racquet I've ever hit with stock.

What I don't understand is how the PS85 is listed as stiffer than the Flex Prestige MP, but it doesn't feel anywhere close to as stiff.

I'm trying to figure this out.

alan-n
11-20-2006, 10:02 PM
Tour 90 is hardly even close to being a tweener. I think it's the most demanding racquet I've ever hit with stock.

What I don't understand is how the PS85 is listed as stiffer than the Flex Prestige MP, but it doesn't feel anywhere close to as stiff.

I'm trying to figure this out.

Tour 90 with loose fast swing = power of tweeners with the weight and balance of old school racquets like the Max 200g... The Max 200g was roughtly 370g strung with a balance of 6-8 pts HL.

As for the PS85 and FP Prestige... I've never played the FP prestige but I'd take it the PS85 would likely be more flexible in the throat area which could translate to less harshness you feel from the handle.

ohplease
11-20-2006, 10:34 PM
Just because people have a difficult time articulating what it feels like doesn't mean it's not real.

When "composite" frames first hit the market, they were constructed in a particular way, with particular fiber layups/orientations/construction techniques. That resulted, for better or worse, in a particular feel and dynamic flex pattern (across all axes, not just along the one typically measured) that just about anyone can identify with a certain era.

In other words, flexy modern rackets are still modern. And stiff old school frames are still old school. It's really not that hard to understand.

BreakPoint
11-20-2006, 10:47 PM
As for the PS85 and FP Prestige... I've never played the FP prestige but I'd take it the PS85 would likely be more flexible in the throat area which could translate to less harshness you feel from the handle.

Actually, the PS 6.0 85/95 are quite stiff in the throat area (where the stiffness rating has the most influence), but quite flexible in the hoop which gives their overall feel to be pretty flexy feeling. Thus, both the PS 6.0 85 and the PS 6.0 95 feel much more flexible than their stiffness ratings would indicate. In comparison, the Slazenger X-1 is rated at 64 but feels much stiffer than either the PS 6.0 85, rated at 66, or the PS 6.0 95 rated at 67. The PS 6.0 95 does feel flexier than the 85 since it's hoop is even flexier.

ericsson
11-20-2006, 10:54 PM
Tour 90 is hardly even close to being a tweener. I think it's the most demanding racquet I've ever hit with stock.

What I don't understand is how the PS85 is listed as stiffer than the Flex Prestige MP, but it doesn't feel anywhere close to as stiff.

I'm trying to figure this out.

have to agree here, ps 85 actually feels flexible... if people didnt know they would say its a flexible racket.

anirut
11-20-2006, 10:55 PM
Here's my interpretation: There is old-school wood, old-school metal, old-school fiberglass, and old school graphite/composite, all of which were pretty flexible compared to today's standards. However, the term "flexible" may not completely describe the sensation of "old-school" to the younger generations of players who have never experienced wood frames. If frames were still made of wood today, then it would be safe to say that wood frames from the 1970s are old-school because their feel was derived from the fact that they were heavy, had small heads, and dense string patterns. Because I believe that the term "old-school" best be utilized within the context of today's frame materials (graphite/composite), it should therefore refer to the first generation of graphite/composite frames intoduced around the late 1970s/early 1980s...

Louis, I'm with you here. Had a similar thought before reading yours.

Young Pete
11-21-2006, 12:17 AM
old school = not much technology behind the racquets

e.g.

pro staff chicago, st. vincent, early 80's graphites......

old school = the racquet "feels" minimal, meaning there are not a whole lot of bells and whistles....its (mostly) graphite. you can feel the raw feeling.

Alafter
11-21-2006, 12:38 AM
Folding your arms and being whipped in the buttock with a cane really is old school feeling.

The cane was usually flexible and whippy, giving great control over the pain experienced.

The stick usually weighs in at about 3-4 ozs.

anirut
11-21-2006, 01:19 AM
Folding your arms and being whipped in the buttock with a cane really is old school feeling.

The cane was usually flexible and whippy, giving great control over the pain experienced.

The stick usually weighs in at about 3-4 ozs.

eh ... Alafter, are you into S&M? :lol: I never knew that when we played tennis together ...

BTW, I'm not into that.

AndrewD
11-21-2006, 01:29 AM
To me, a racquet with 'old school feel' isn't one which is necessarily flexible (my 'old school' isn't wood but graphite) but one which doesn't have the 'hollow' feel you get in most all modern racquets.

stormholloway
11-21-2006, 10:17 AM
The point missed is that the PS85 feels flexible even though it isn't listed that way. It is listed as stiffer than my Prestige but there's no way this is true.

BreakPoint
11-21-2006, 11:30 AM
The point missed is that the PS85 feels flexible even though it isn't listed that way. It is listed as stiffer than my Prestige but there's no way this is true.

I thought that's what I said in my post #20:

Actually, the PS 6.0 85/95 are quite stiff in the throat area (where the stiffness rating has the most influence), but quite flexible in the hoop which gives their overall feel to be pretty flexy feeling. Thus, both the PS 6.0 85 and the PS 6.0 95 feel much more flexible than their stiffness ratings would indicate. In comparison, the Slazenger X-1 is rated at 64 but feels much stiffer than either the PS 6.0 85, rated at 66, or the PS 6.0 95 rated at 67. The PS 6.0 95 does feel flexier than the 85 since it's hoop is even flexier.

rocket
11-21-2006, 12:25 PM
Old-school feel to me is the the way a racquet reacts to the ball when hit soft, medium or hard. A typical old-school racquet would 'bend' on soft hits and 'crisp up' on harder hits, still maintaining a buttery feel throughout. Once you're used to that pleasant feel (and sound), it's hard to hit with anything else.

stormholloway
11-21-2006, 01:39 PM
I thought that's what I said in my post #20:

Well... I missed it.

NoBadMojo
11-21-2006, 01:39 PM
I probably could if I don't have to mention her name.

I think this is likely the definition which makes the most sense so far..good one Steve! were you several Brewsky's deep when you posted this one? ;O I hope there was more than one ....;O

Actually, the PS 6.0 85/95 are quite stiff in the throat area (where the stiffness rating has the most influence),.

Patently untrue. The stiffness is a measurement of the general overall stiffness of the entire racquet with no empahasis placed on the throat

Clearly there are wildly varying concepts of what consitutes old school feel. I really do think it is a useless expression as it clearly means different things to different people. I'm sure people have a finite idea of what it means <to them>, but it just doesnt match the idea of others who have a different 'opinion'

BreakPoint
11-21-2006, 01:58 PM
Patently untrue. The stiffness is a measurement of the general overall stiffness of the entire racquet with no empahasis placed on the throat

Then please explain to us why everyone agrees that the PS 6.0 85 plays much more flexible than 66 and the PS 6.0 95 plays much more flexible than 67 and why both play much more flexible than the Slazenger X-1 rated at 64? :confused:

It's because the PS 6.0's have stiff throats but flexible hoops and the X-1 has a more flexible throat but a stiff hoop. I also find the RDX 500 Mid to play stiffer than 60 because although it has a very flexy throat, it had a fairly stiff hoop. Even you agreed that the Volkl DNX 10 Mid plays stiffer than its 58 rating due to the stiff DNX material in its hoop. Whereas, most would agree that the Volkl C-10 Pro plays more flexy than its 63 rating due to its whippy hoop. And everyone here agrees that the PK Redondo Mid plays stiffer than its 56 rating due to a stiffer hoop.

You can argue how it's measured, I don't really care. I do know that how stiff or flexy a frame is at the throat is what shows up in the resultant stiffness rating number. This is from my empirical experience of hitting with hundreds of different racquets and then checking them against their stiffness rating specs.

NoBadMojo
11-21-2006, 02:15 PM
i agreed to no such thing..you're just making stuff up as usual. i only corrected you on one of your many errors..i see....you are the empriical authority of all things tennis and otherwise...so as you declare the rdc swingweight measurement meaningless and your emperical evidence as better, you are now declaring the rdc stiffness measurement to not be as accurate as you..that's a good one since you dont even know what the rdc stiffness measures, and say things like smaller headed racquets get stuck in your armpit on the backswing...lol
as is your way, you will now deeply search my posts and look for something to try and bust me on

drakulie
11-21-2006, 02:21 PM
To me, a racquet with 'old school feel' isn't one which is necessarily flexible (my 'old school' isn't wood but graphite) but one which doesn't have the 'hollow' feel you get in most all modern racquets.

I agree with this. There is a "hollow feel" in most newer racquets. After hitting with the PS85, the newer racquets feel like they are going to crack.

They also don't seem to send feedback to your hand. Like if they are absorbing the entire hit, rather than letting it reach your hand.

BreakPoint
11-21-2006, 07:09 PM
i agreed to no such thing..you're just making stuff up as usual.
Once again, either you have an incredibly short memory or just short on integrity or both. Here's exactly what you said:

Compared to the Tour 10 Mid, similar indeed I think. I bet the DNX10Mid comes out of the same tool/mold as the T10Mid. Def seems to be the case with the DNX10MP and T10MPGen1 which I used for about 3 years. You would find this frame quite a lot more maneuverable and is soft within the sweetspot. I bet the flex is in the low 60's. So if you want something more maneuverable than what you have, you may enjoy this one. It's kind of a modern update to a midsized frame. I like it better than its bigger bro <so far>

The DNX10mid is strung at 55 w. Klip Excellerator17.
Is not "in the low 60's" higher than 58?

i only corrected you on one of your many errors..i see....you are the empriical authority of all things tennis and otherwise...so as you declare the rdc swingweight measurement meaningless and your emperical evidence as better, you are now declaring the rdc stiffness measurement to not be as accurate as you..

No, I never said the RDC swingweight measurement is meaningless. I said it does not necessarily corrolate directly to a racquet's maneuverability in actual tennis play. It's an extremely limited measurement as it only measures the force in one swing path out of 360 degrees of possible paths and from only one axis of rotation out of an infinite number of axes. So, no, it's not meaningless. It does exactly what it's meant to do, provide a limited measurement that does not neccessarily reflect actual tennis play. Any intelligent would person understand that.

And, no, the RDC stiffness measurement is very accurate. It very accurately measures the stiffness at the throat. It's supposed to measure the average stiffness throughout the entire frame, but because of the way the frame is clamped during the test, it ends up measuring mostly the stiffness at the throat, thus, the resultant stiffness number is more a reflection of the throat stiffness than the hoop stiffness. But when you hit the ball, you can usually feel the hoop stiffness more than the throat stiffness or at least both, depending on the frame.

drakulie
11-21-2006, 08:49 PM
And, no, the RDC stiffness measurement is very accurate. It very accurately measures the stiffness at the throat. It's supposed to measure the average stiffness throughout the entire frame, but because of the way the frame is clamped during the test, it ends up measuring mostly the stiffness at the throat, thus, the resultant stiffness number is more a reflection of the throat stiffness than the hoop stiffness. But when you hit the ball, you can usually feel the hoop stiffness more than the throat stiffness or at least both, depending on the frame.

Break, have you ever measured early ps85's vs taiwan and china models? I am very curious, because to me the earlier PS85's feel much more solid. I wonder if this has anything to do with the throat as you are describing.

BreakPoint
11-21-2006, 09:12 PM
Break, have you ever measured early ps85's vs taiwan and china models? I am very curious, because to me the earlier PS85's feel much more solid. I wonder if this has anything to do with the throat as you are describing.

I have not measured the PS 6.0 85's but I agree with you. I had a Chicago version that felt more solid than the more recent versions but I believe that had more to do with it being heavier than with the flex at the throat IMO. However, that being said, I do agree that the China versions feel a bit more flexy overall than the older versions do.

drakulie
11-21-2006, 09:27 PM
Yeah, I also feel the Chicago has the most solid feel of all/feels heavier, and the China is at the other end of the spectrum. It would be interesting to see the differences.

psp2
11-21-2006, 11:14 PM
Here are some measurements of my different PS85.

Model Babolat RDC #:
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHICAGO) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (SV) 62
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHIAO TA) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHINA) 67
PRO STAFF TOUR 90 67

BreakPoint
11-22-2006, 12:06 AM
Here are some measurements of my different PS85.

Model Babolat RDC #:
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHICAGO) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (SV) 62
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHIAO TA) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHINA) 67
PRO STAFF TOUR 90 67

Hmmm....so isn't this just more empirical evidence that the stiffness rating is not a true reflection of how stiff a racquet can feel in actual play? Most people feel that the China version of the PS 6.0 85 feels more flexible than the earlier versions, i.e., Chicago, St. Vincent, and Taiwan, but the measurements give the China version the stiffest rating. This tells me that the China version has the stiffest throat but a more flexible hoop, thereby, making the overall feel more flexible.

Even Sampras is well known to have preferred the St. Vincent version because he felt that it was stiffer than the other versions. Well, these measurements show that the St. Vincent, in fact, had the most flexible rating. So this shows that the St. Vincent version probably had a more flexible throat but a stiffer hoop which made them feel stiffer overall. Makes sense as a stiffer hoop does make a racquet feel stiffer and provides more directional control which Sampras demanded. Stiffer hoops also work better on volleys especially when your opponents is hitting the ball very hard at you.

Lastly, these measurements show that the China verison of the PS 6.0 85 and the PS Tour 90 have identical stiffness ratings but anyone that has played with these two will attest that the PS Tour 90 definitely feels stiffer. So why the discrepancy in feel? Again, I believe it's because the hoop of the PS Tour 90 has been stiffened with added HyperCarbon, thereby, making the overall frame feel much stiffer than the PS 6.0 85 China version despite their identical stiffness ratings. I believe this is because the RDC machine failed to pick up the extra stiffness of the hoop of the PS Tour 90, and was essentially only measuring the stiffness of the throat which was the same as on the China version of the PS 6.0 85, and so the resultant stiffness ratings turned out to be the same for both of them.

drakulie
11-22-2006, 10:05 AM
Here are some measurements of my different PS85.

Model Babolat RDC #:
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHICAGO) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (SV) 62
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHIAO TA) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHINA) 67
PRO STAFF TOUR 90 67

Wow! Thanks for posting this. It is very interesting.

break, I agree with what you stated ^^^ Perhaps the hoop is stiffer.

In addition, the 65 rating of the Chicago vs 62 of St. Vincent defintiely agrees with how I feel between the 2.

Midlife crisis
11-22-2006, 11:49 AM
Hmmm....so isn't this just more empirical evidence that the stiffness rating is not a true reflection of how stiff a racquet can feel in actual play? Most people feel that the China version of the PS 6.0 85 feels more flexible than the earlier versions, i.e., Chicago, St. Vincent, and Taiwan, but the measurements give the China version the stiffest rating. This tells me that the China version has the stiffest throat but a more flexible hoop, thereby, making the overall feel more flexible.

Even Sampras is well known to have preferred the St. Vincent version because he felt that it was stiffer than the other versions. Well, these measurements show that the St. Vincent, in fact, had the most flexible rating. So this shows that the St. Vincent version probably had a more flexible throat but a stiffer hoop which made them feel stiffer overall. Makes sense as a stiffer hoop does make a racquet feel stiffer and provides more directional control which Sampras demanded. Stiffer hoops also work better on volleys especially when your opponents is hitting the ball very hard at you.

Lastly, these measurements show that the China verison of the PS 6.0 85 and the PS Tour 90 have identical stiffness ratings but anyone that has played with these two will attest that the PS Tour 90 definitely feels stiffer. So why the discrepancy in feel? Again, I believe it's because the hoop of the PS Tour 90 has been stiffened with added HyperCarbon, thereby, making the overall frame feel much stiffer than the PS 6.0 85 China version despite their identical stiffness ratings. I believe this is because the RDC machine failed to pick up the extra stiffness of the hoop of the PS Tour 90, and was essentially only measuring the stiffness of the throat which was the same as on the China version of the PS 6.0 85, and so the resultant stiffness ratings turned out to be the same for both of them.

The one thing being missed is that the weight distribution in the racquet can determine its effective stiffness. For instance, a racquet that has a lot of weight in the handle will feel a lot more flexible than an identically stiff racquet without the weight in the handle. This is because weight in the handle moves the center of mass of the racquet towards the handle, and this allows the head of that racquet to rotate away from the ball further on impact. This produces a feeling of reduced stiffness when in fact the racquet may be stiffer according to the RDC.

BreakPoint
11-22-2006, 11:57 AM
The one thing being missed is that the weight distribution in the racquet can determine its effective stiffness. For instance, a racquet that has a lot of weight in the handle will feel a lot more flexible than an identically stiff racquet without the weight in the handle. This is because weight in the handle moves the center of mass of the racquet towards the handle, and this allows the head of that racquet to rotate away from the ball further on impact. This produces a feeling of reduced stiffness when in fact the racquet may be stiffer according to the RDC.

Perhaps, but in this case, we're talking about the same racquet, the PS 6.0 85, with the same ProStaff headlight balance.

Midlife crisis
11-22-2006, 02:33 PM
Perhaps, but in this case, we're talking about the same racquet, the PS 6.0 85, with the same ProStaff headlight balance.

But two racquets can have the same static weight and same balance, have the same static stiffness measurements, and still have different effective stiffness. It all depends on how the weight is distributed, and you have no assurances that even if it is the same external appearance, that the internal molding of the racquet is the same, especially if they come from different factories.

NoBadMojo
11-22-2006, 03:59 PM
RDC stiffness measures the overall average stiffness of the frame. ..it doesnt indicate where the frame is stiffer and vice versa...it only indicates the average overall stiffness.

nasri_babolat_storm
11-22-2006, 06:32 PM
how bout the prince spectrum comp 90??

CollegeBound
11-23-2006, 07:34 AM
Hmmm....so isn't this just more empirical evidence that the stiffness rating is not a true reflection of how stiff a racquet can feel in actual play? Most people feel that the China version of the PS 6.0 85 feels more flexible than the earlier versions, i.e., Chicago, St. Vincent, and Taiwan, but the measurements give the China version the stiffest rating. This tells me that the China version has the stiffest throat but a more flexible hoop, thereby, making the overall feel more flexible.

Even Sampras is well known to have preferred the St. Vincent version because he felt that it was stiffer than the other versions. Well, these measurements show that the St. Vincent, in fact, had the most flexible rating. So this shows that the St. Vincent version probably had a more flexible throat but a stiffer hoop which made them feel stiffer overall. Makes sense as a stiffer hoop does make a racquet feel stiffer and provides more directional control which Sampras demanded. Stiffer hoops also work better on volleys especially when your opponents is hitting the ball very hard at you.

Lastly, these measurements show that the China verison of the PS 6.0 85 and the PS Tour 90 have identical stiffness ratings but anyone that has played with these two will attest that the PS Tour 90 definitely feels stiffer. So why the discrepancy in feel? Again, I believe it's because the hoop of the PS Tour 90 has been stiffened with added HyperCarbon, thereby, making the overall frame feel much stiffer than the PS 6.0 85 China version despite their identical stiffness ratings. I believe this is because the RDC machine failed to pick up the extra stiffness of the hoop of the PS Tour 90, and was essentially only measuring the stiffness of the throat which was the same as on the China version of the PS 6.0 85, and so the resultant stiffness ratings turned out to be the same for both of them.


LOL, that's a lot of assumptions to be making based on the measurements of one racquet of each version. If you can get everyone on the board who has a PS 6.0 85 to measure the stiffness then you might find what you're looking for. Otherwise its a pretty windy claim.

BreakPoint
11-23-2006, 10:38 AM
LOL, that's a lot of assumptions to be making based on the measurements of one racquet of each version. If you can get everyone on the board who has a PS 6.0 85 to measure the stiffness then you might find what you're looking for. Otherwise its a pretty windy claim.

That's why I said it was "more empirical evidence". If more people provided their measurements, it would be additional empirical evidence.

sureshs
11-23-2006, 10:41 AM
I knew from the get go that the whole purpose of this thread was to prove that there is no such thing as an old school feel. I was waiting to see if I was correct - and I was. As I had thought, it transformed into a battle of the two Titans.

BreakPoint
11-23-2006, 10:48 AM
I knew from the get go that the whole purpose of this thread was to prove that there is no such thing as an old school feel. I was waiting to see if I was correct - and I was. As I had thought, it transformed into a battle of the two Titans.
Huh? How did you conclude that? :confused:

Did you not read all the posts in this thread? Just about everyone here confirms that there is indeed "old school feel", and we all posted exactly what makes a racquet feel "old school" to us.

So, no, you are definitely not correct.

Swissv2
11-23-2006, 10:57 AM
Old school feel in a new world age?

Simple!

1. Dress in the appropriate garb
http://images.sportsnetwork.com/tennis/getty/men/2003/mcenroe_john4.jpg

2. purchase the appropriate equipment
http://chrisevert.net/chrisAutoWood.jpg

3. and stroke the ball the appropriate way!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Cl3fQgPwU

There you go: a recipe for perfect classic feel!

p.s. You're welcome!

armand
11-23-2006, 12:14 PM
I thought the new Pro Staff was definitely flexier(and lighter) than my old China version.

Anyway, I think the old school feel is just a naturally heavier racquet with a proper weight distribution(meaning you can't just lead up your HEAD Airblow and expect the old school feel).

Mick
11-23-2006, 12:44 PM
Old school feel in a new world age?

Simple!

1. Dress in the appropriate garb

2. purchase the appropriate equipment

3. and stroke the ball the appropriate way!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Cl3fQgPwU

There you go: a recipe for perfect classic feel!

p.s. You're welcome!

And it would be truly amazing if you could beat your opponent using the old school racket and tennis game. It's a feat that even Borg could not do it in his first come back attempt :)

sureshs
11-23-2006, 08:33 PM
Huh? How did you conclude that? :confused:

Did you not read all the posts in this thread? Just about everyone here confirms that there is indeed "old school feel", and we all posted exactly what makes a racquet feel "old school" to us.

So, no, you are definitely not correct.

You are contradicting something I did not say :-)

I said that I concluded that the purpose of the thread starter was to prove that there was nothing like an old school feel.

I never said anything about whether it was true or not.

BreakPoint
11-23-2006, 08:38 PM
You are contradicting something I did not say :-)

I said that I concluded that the purpose of the thread starter was to prove that there was nothing like an old school feel.

I never said anything about whether it was true or not.

OK, I see. You're probably right about the purpose of starting this thread, as how could one possibly mix "old school feel" with "modern strokes" and the "modern game"? ;) LOL

Steve Huff
11-23-2006, 09:24 PM
There are other reasons besides weight distribution, etc that can make a stiff racket feel soft. One of the best examples is the older Yonex SRQ rackets with the triangular cross section. The rackets were incredibly stiff, but felt soft. Yonex designed it so that the cross section would collapse inward slightly on ball contact. That's why they made it triangular. This gave it a very soft feel. The idea was to get a stiff racket for good directional control, yet retain the soft feel and ball cupping of a flexible racket.

Steve Huff
11-23-2006, 09:26 PM
Ed--I'm glad someone caught that.

CollegeBound
11-24-2006, 12:22 AM
That's why I said it was "more empirical evidence". If more people provided their measurements, it would be additional empirical evidence.

Yeah, I read that part but you went on to write a couple of paragraphs where you said this tells me and these measurements show that. They might make you suspect or feel but, like I said, its only one tiny set of figures so they don’t show you or tell you what you’re suggesting, unless you’re happy to just clutch at straws. The only thing those numbers tell or show is that Wilson are bad at sticking to specifications.

NoBadMojo
11-24-2006, 05:23 AM
You are contradicting something I did not say :-)

I said that I concluded that the purpose of the thread starter was to prove that there was nothing like an old school feel.

I never said anything about whether it was true or not.

To clarify..again. I started this thread thinking that the term 'old school feel' is a useless term as a descriptor for a tennis racquet...i was right based upon the myriad of definitions people affixed to the term..i didnt say there wasnt such a thing as old school feel....it's just that it varies by person, and therefore is not a very good way to describe a tennis racquet,

thewallylama
11-24-2006, 05:53 AM
I was hitting with a friend yesterday and he pulled out a Wilson Jack Kramer that he had just purchased on a whim through ****. I hit with it for a few minutes and it certainly had "old school feel"--whatever that is. I actually found that I could hit with it fairly decently and that it had more power than I would have thought, and, with good form, tons of control. I can see why some of the pros favor smaller racquet heads. It was a ton of fun, actually, and I can see why some have advocated for a "new" wood-only tennis competition format! I guess that's kind of old school....

movdqa
11-24-2006, 07:00 AM
I sold my Kramer Autograph ages ago but I wish that I had kept it. There is that old school feel of wood but I prefer aluminum over wood as wood doesn't last very long so you basically buy
something that fades in performance over a relatively short period of time. I do like to bring out the wood from time to time but I had a better experience with the Head Pros as they
remain usable even though they're almost 30 years old.

Aside: I used the TW sleeves to go from a 4 1/4 to a 4 5/8.
It took forever to heat them up with a hair drier. And then I
put on a Babolet Grip and added a thick Wilson overgrip.

It's actually bigger than my stock 4 5/8 so I will use a normal
overgrip in the future which should be perfect. This racquet
weighs in around 13+ ounces but feels light to me as I play
with a 16 ounce racquet. The hoop feels way too flexible (I
can feel the flex in it when I hit with it) so I need to add
about a foot of lead tape and then load up the handle with
silicone caulk and finishing nails. The area in the handle isn't
as large as my 4 5/8 racquets but the weight of the sleeves
will hopefully compensate.

ohplease
11-24-2006, 09:08 AM
To clarify..again. I started this thread thinking that the term 'old school feel' is a useless term as a descriptor for a tennis racquet...i was right based upon the myriad of definitions people affixed to the term..i didnt say there wasnt such a thing as old school feel....it's just that it varies by person, and therefore is not a very good way to describe a tennis racquet,

If disagreement signals a lack of truth or meaning, then swingweight, the relative values of headsizes, and all of NGMJ's other favorite dead horses can't mean very much either - at least according to his own sloppy rhetorical guidelines.

There's no strict definiton to art or food or racket quality either - doesn't mean people can't recognize it.

NoBadMojo
11-24-2006, 09:54 AM
If disagreement signals a lack of truth or meaning, then swingweight, the relative values of headsizes, and all of NGMJ's other favorite dead horses can't mean very much either - at least according to his own sloppy rhetorical guidelines.

There's no strict definiton to art or food or racket quality either - doesn't mean people can't recognize it.

clearly you are just looking for any possible stretch to be an ignorant attcking poster especially snce this thread isnt even about swingweight as i think most people might realize..must make you somehow special to post creepy stuff like this. you're just another disgruntled TW poster....talking about dead horses..you obviously are still hacked off about swingweight somehow and now tying it into other threads and a really bad excuse to criticize..good job there Chief.

SFrazeur
11-24-2006, 10:05 AM
Just a quick observation, the term old school is a perspective based on the age. I was born in the 80's and my father was born in the 40's, so our opinion of what is old, vintage is quite deferent. So it is interesting to realize while a PS 85, POG, PC600 may be described as old school, in 10-20 years a Pure Drive or n6.1 95 might very well be described as old school.

drakulie
11-24-2006, 10:34 AM
Can anyone describe "new school feel"?

sureshs
11-24-2006, 10:56 AM
Can anyone describe "new school feel"?

Bab...............

SFrazeur
11-24-2006, 11:04 AM
Can anyone describe "new school feel"?
The closest I can think of would be stiff and muted.

Kaptain Karl
11-24-2006, 12:04 PM
Swissv2 - That Borg / Lendl clip was a cheap shot" at that time of tennis. Lendl was whipped by Match Point and playing super tentatively ... which anyone who ever saw him play would say was not how he played. (If you'd shown a point from the first two sets, you'd have seen a "completely different" Lendl....)

To the OP: I don't think so.

The "right feel" in woodies for me was the Spalding World Open, the Pro Staff, the Fort. They were solid and controlled ... and when I really tried to *nail* a shot, they'd deliver (if I still hit the sweet spot).

The Stan Smith and Pancho Gonzalez frames were too "boardy" for me. I could hit hard, but I didn't feel like I had "touch" with them.

Most Davis frames were too flexible in the shaft / throat. They were too unforgiving for me.

I rarely agreed with my peers on the "right feeling" racket back then. Today's much greater assortment of frames ... makes it even tougher to agree, IMO.

I just finished demo-ing way more frames than I meant to ... choosing the PK 7G above all. It felt the most solid, controlled and allowed me to *nail* my shots when I wanted. (The FXP Prestige XL and the Wilson n6.1 95 were #2 and #3 for me, respectively.)

The worst of the almost 20 frames I tested were the PK Heritage Type SX and the PK Ki 10 PSE, which felt like the ball trampolined off the strings way too fast for me; lots of power, little control. (But that was kinda what I thought of those Davis woodies 30 years ago....)

Sorry for the ramble, NBMJ. I've thought about this a lot recently and I don't think we can agree on "old school feel."

- KK

NoBadMojo
11-24-2006, 12:30 PM
Sorry for the ramble, NBMJ. I've thought about this a lot recently and I don't think we can agree on "old school feel."

- KK

No need to apologize to me. I posted this thread for the reason i posted it, and based upon the seriously varied replies intermingled with the standard cheap shots and creepy snide comments from the usuals, i think i proved my point that the descriptor 'old school feel' describes a bunch of racquets from various time periods and with varying specifications and various sensations. if folks dont agree with me, that's fine, but the cheap shots are uncalled for altho expected

drakulie
11-24-2006, 01:41 PM
i proved my point that the descriptor 'old school feel' describes a bunch of racquets from various time periods and with varying specifications and various sensations.

exaclty, those racquets from "various time periods", and with "varying specifications" have..........."old school feel".

For some, it might be the feel of a wood racquet, others a flexible graphite racquet with a small head, etc.

but the cheap shots are uncalled for altho expected

I agree.

BreakPoint
11-24-2006, 02:26 PM
The only thing those numbers tell or show is that Wilson are bad at sticking to specifications.
Huh? How do you know those measurements are not indeed Wilson's desired specs? :confused: And where is your empirical evidence that would make you conclude that those measurements are off-spec without additonal measurements?

joe sch
11-24-2006, 02:38 PM
Old school feel may have a wider variance than most old school players would like to admit but I think that old school technique has more accepted parameters. The variance with old school feel is that the rackets can be flexible or stiffer, but most always 13+ oz. They can be head light or head heavy but most often very stable and <=85 si heads. These old school "feel" rackets are best suited to an old school technique which employed closed stances, more level swings and continental to eastern grips.

armand
11-24-2006, 03:59 PM
I like the "Old School Feel" coupled with new school improvements. Yep, The Yonex RD-7 strung with ALU Power is one lethal combination(for your opponent and for your arm).

joe sch
11-24-2006, 07:46 PM
I like the "Old School Feel" coupled with new school improvements. Yep, The Yonex RD-7 strung with ALU Power is one lethal combination(for your opponent and for your arm).

I sorta think that poly strings are counter "old school feel" since they provide outstanding control but minimized feel. I think natural gut goes with "old school feel".

Steve Huff
11-24-2006, 08:28 PM
Joe, I guess it's a matter of perspective. Wood rackets were low-powered because of their flex, and used higher-powered natural gut as somewhat of a compensation. Now, they have high-powered rackets, so they have to use low-powered strings to compensate for the racket.

Steve Huff
11-24-2006, 08:30 PM
I think "new school feel" is a sign that your current girlfriend is about to become an "ex" girlfriend.

CollegeBound
11-24-2006, 11:34 PM
And where is your empirical evidence that would make you conclude that those measurements are off-spec without additonal measurements?

Ah, hah, finally the light dawns on Marble Head.

If you don't like where I got my figures from (same place you got yours. In other words, I made a broad assumption based on one small set of numbers)then you're admitting that your claims are merely speculation and that they tell you nothing nor prove anything other than what you want to hear.

That was my point and that's why I threw in that last sentence.

Rabbit
11-25-2006, 04:57 AM
Sorry, but there is no current frame which approaches the wood feel. The balance is all wrong. The weight is wrong. The flex is wrong. The closest thing in flex that I have played with to wood is the C10 and it, honestly, feels more flexible than some wood frames.

Wood provided a different kind of feedback, unique from anything else. The rackets then had much more weight in the head and this meant you had to alter your swing to compensate. Wood frames on serves were also totally different. With a standard sized head, you had to compensate on your first serve because a second serve was more of a challenge. Finally, net play is totally different with wood.

No, if anyone is looking for a wood feel in a frame, they'd do best to purchase a wood frame. That's not to say that today's frames are inadequate or lacking in any way, they are just vastly different than their wooden counterparts.

joe sch
11-25-2006, 12:58 PM
Joe, I guess it's a matter of perspective. Wood rackets were low-powered because of their flex, and used higher-powered natural gut as somewhat of a compensation. Now, they have high-powered rackets, so they have to use low-powered strings to compensate for the racket.
Steve, I agree with you that most modern players cant used natural gut with the current rackets and control the power. The new rackets have a totally diff feel as do poly strings. I prefer a midsize heavy flexible racket strung with natural gut strings. Its very hard to find this combination in todays rackets.