PDA

View Full Version : ROK vs scissors (kBlade Tour)


racquetfreak
01-07-2008, 07:51 AM
is there any difference other than graphics and about 10 years? The specs are insanely similar:

-----------ROK----kBlade Tour
swng wt---329------323
head-------93-------93
mass------336------335
length------27-------27
beam-------20-------20
balance----7HL------8HL
strng ptrn--18x20----18x20
msrp-------$160 $199

iradical18
01-07-2008, 08:01 AM
What's the stiffness?

racquetfreak
01-07-2008, 08:04 AM
What's the stiffness?

ROK - 62
KBT - 65

iradical18
01-07-2008, 08:07 AM
Other than that they seem to be about the same, with that said, they will probably play different anyway because that's just how racquets are.

SFrazeur
01-07-2008, 08:09 AM
TW specs from a few years ago:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031206094849/http://av.tennis-warehouse.com/ProductImages/ROK92.JPG

93 sq. in /600 sq. cm.
length 27 in
Strung weight 11.8 / 335
Swing weight 323
Stiffness 60
Balance 5 pts HL
Beam width 19.5
http://web.archive.org/web/20031206094849/www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCWILSON-ROK92.html

TW review: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/ROK92/ROK92Review.html

-SF

racquetfreak
01-07-2008, 09:05 AM
TW specs from a few years ago:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031206094849/http://av.tennis-warehouse.com/ProductImages/ROK92.JPG

93 sq. in /600 sq. cm.
length 27 in
Strung weight 11.8 / 335
Swing weight 323
Stiffness 60
Balance 5 pts HL
Beam width 19.5
http://web.archive.org/web/20031206094849/www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCWILSON-ROK92.html

TW review: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/ROK92/ROK92Review.html

-SF

i got my specs from the tennis magazine link-up with usrsa. beam and balance i measured mysely on a nearly new ROK with a 4 1/8 grip - i just did one with 4 3/8 grip and it was 4 pts hl.

Pro_Tour_630
01-07-2008, 10:10 AM
beam width was 19.5 for the rok!?!?!, interesting me thinks thinner; it also means I am not the only one crazy enough to measure beam width in .5mm, me thinks the Kblade is more than 20mm, will double check

beam issues similar to the PT630 vs the MG prestige MP, The MG Prestige MP was around 20.75mm rounded to 21mm while the PT was 20.25 rounded to 20mm

JackSkellington
01-07-2008, 12:54 PM
beam width was 19.5 for the rok!?!?!, interesting me thinks thinner; it also means I am not the only one crazy enough to measure beam width in .5mm, me thinks the Kblade is more than 20mm, will double check

beam issues similar to the PT630 vs the MG prestige MP, The MG Prestige MP was around 20.75mm rounded to 21mm while the PT was 20.25 rounded to 20mm

yeah...I could swear it was thinner--almost 18

BounceHitBounceHit
01-07-2008, 01:03 PM
ROK - 62
KBT - 65


The ROK played much softer than 62. CC

BounceHitBounceHit
01-07-2008, 01:05 PM
yeah...I could swear it was thinner--almost 18

I agree. The beam of the ROK felt very thin. CC

BounceHitBounceHit
01-07-2008, 01:05 PM
beam width was 19.5 for the rok!?!?!, interesting me thinks thinner; it also means I am not the only one crazy enough to measure beam width in .5mm, me thinks the Kblade is more than 20mm, will double check

beam issues similar to the PT630 vs the MG prestige MP, The MG Prestige MP was around 20.75mm rounded to 21mm while the PT was 20.25 rounded to 20mm

Hey Michael,

Should I try out a MG Prestige Mid or Pro? I know of your exprience with the K90, so how do you compare the two? Best, CC

drakulie
01-07-2008, 01:12 PM
The kblade didn't feel 8 pts head light. Maybe more like 3? 4?

AlpineCadet
01-07-2008, 04:05 PM
Assuming you threw out ROK at the sametime I threw out Paper, means...

racquet_jedi
01-07-2008, 04:17 PM
The ROK was for Roger Federer???

That is uh, in-ter-sting...

Pro_Tour_630
01-07-2008, 04:36 PM
yeah...I could swear it was thinner--almost 18
surer is
Hey Michael,

Should I try out a MG Prestige Mid or Pro? I know of your exprience with the K90, so how do you compare the two? Best, CC

well you fancy K90's i would go with the MG Mid but nothing special that any old ordinary prestige mid 600 can't do, now for the volkl lovers, the pro should be interesting, it will win few volkl lovers to Head :mrgreen:

Mad iX
01-07-2008, 08:18 PM
Doncha know? It's the K-Factor!

jorel
01-08-2008, 05:30 AM
is there any difference other than graphics and about 10 years? The specs are insanely similar:

-----------ROK----kBlade Tour
swng wt---329------323
head-------93-------93
mass------336------335
length------27-------27
beam-------20-------20
balance----7HL------8HL
strng ptrn--18x20----18x20
msrp-------$160 $199

10 years???? im not that old am i?

more like 10 months...

like 5 yrs

theone
01-31-2008, 08:55 AM
Would you say the ROK (or kblade) has more power than the PS 6.0 85?

racquetfreak
01-31-2008, 09:43 AM
Would you say the ROK (or kblade) has more power than the PS 6.0 85?

my personal impression:
kBlade tour - yes
ROK - not much if any
on paper the ROK and the kblade tour specs look to be similar but on the court the ROK is significantly more flexible. Actually, more flexible than any other Pro Staff which is why it never caught on in the US.

AlpineCadet
01-31-2008, 12:01 PM
Would you say the ROK (or kblade) has more power than the PS 6.0 85?
Both kBlade and kBlade Tour have more power than the ROK. The ROK is pretty flexible, with a very dense string pattern (esp the mains around the throat area.) With racket mass and good technique the ROK/PS85 can be pretty poweful if you hit the sweetspot.

A.J. Sim
01-31-2008, 12:46 PM
Interesting thread racquetfreak. If I recall correctly, the ROK was made to attract Prestige users at about the same time Head discontinued the frame. Wilson is trying to Head users by making frames at 93 and 98 inches (as they did with Djokovic) in addition to their normal 90 and95 range. Looks like the KBlade and KBlade Tour is just another attempt to get Prestige users imho.

racquet_jedi, I think the ROK was indeed for Federer; supposedly Sampras was actually going to switch to the PS Tour 90 in 2003 and Federer would play with the ROK. Sampras of course retired after the 2002 US Open and Federer started playing with a racket that was painted like a Tour 90.

TsongaBonga
01-31-2008, 02:15 PM
Hmmm, intersting, never knew or thought they were so alike!

A.J. Sim
01-31-2008, 02:28 PM
The ROK and the KBlade Tour probably don't feel the same when you're hitting with them, and they probably don't exactly replicate the Prestige feel, which many on the boards say is unique. I can say though that Wilson is going after the Prestige crowd with the 2 frames.

On a side note, I seriously considered getting a ROK when I played a lot in high school, kinda sad that I didn't. Might consider trying to scrounge around the 'net for one now.

theone
02-01-2008, 01:52 AM
Are they both as demanding as the K90 is? (i've never used the K90 but I know its demanding..)

thejuice
02-01-2008, 05:07 AM
^^^
The K Blade Tour isn't a demanding stick at all IMO. It is very forgiving for a 93 sq. in frame.

drakulie
02-01-2008, 01:46 PM
Are they both as demanding as the K90 is? (i've never used the K90 but I know its demanding..)

How would you know it's demanding if you have never hit with it??

Anyway, IMO the Kblade tour is more demanding than the K90 because it does not have as much pop.

theone
02-01-2008, 01:47 PM
Lol i'm just trying to gauge them against one another in my head. It doesn't matter anyway i'm not looking at it any more.

bluescreen
02-01-2008, 04:47 PM
ive hit with the kblade tour, ROK (of which i own 2), and the k90. the kblade and the rok r indeed different racquets. even though they have similar specs, the kblade feels livelier and has more spin potential. the no, the rok plays nothing like the prestige in imo.

the k90 is more demanding than both frames, yet i find the k90 the best racquet of the three.