View Full Version : Wilson Ultra 2 mid VS. Pro Staff 6.0 85

03-23-2004, 10:27 AM
I love the PS 85, compare the many other racquet, nothing plays like it. But I've heard the Ultra 2 plays very much like it and even weighs a few onces heavier :shock: . Perfect, 'cause I wouldn't have to put lead on it.
If anyone has played with these two racquets, how do they compare?

Thanks for any feedback :P

03-23-2004, 10:34 AM
The Ultra 2 is stiffer, and won't give you quite as much feel as the PS 85.

03-23-2004, 12:05 PM
I agree. The Ultra 2 weighs the same (or very close to it) as the ProStaff. When this racket was in production, it was the flagship of Wilson's line. The rackets in order of cost then were: Ultra 2, ProStaff, and Sting. This was also the order of stiffness with the Ultra 2 being the stiffest.

The original Ultra was one of Wilson's first graphite frames, and certainly their first premium graphite frame. When it was first produced, it came in a regular head size and the PWS system was actually attached to the frame with rivets or brads. Back when they first came out, the Ultra was about $110, which was astronomical in price considering a Kramer ProStaff went for about $55.

All in all, the ProStaff (graphite version) is considered a better frame than either of its graphite siblings, the Ultra & Sting and has outlasted them thusly.

Dennis Anyone?
03-23-2004, 06:18 PM
The Ultra 2 was advertised as incorporating boron in its build.

I moved from the Sting (the graphite one with the inverted crescent-moon stabilizer bar, not the snowshoe-shaped aluminum number) to the original, pre-bumper guard graphite ProStaff.

Didn't make the leap to the Ultra 2 as I felt it was overly stiff for my liking. I should note that around that time I was beaten by a talented, but visibly pregnant, young woman who wielded an Ultra 2 . . . .

I recall paying about $180.00 US for the ProStaff in the mid-80's. The Ultra 2 was almost $200.00. Looks like prices haven't changed much in the subsequent decades.

Actually, paying a premium may have in vogue back then. Remember the customizable Prince Sovereign?

03-23-2004, 06:50 PM
Dennis, I noticed in you post that you used the PS without head guard. Did you ever come around to using the PS with the head guard? If so, how did they compared? I've heard the older version were heavier and stiffer than the recent models. I'm in search for the older version to compare with the new model that I have now. If you're not using the old PS and you want to unload, let me know.

As for the Ultra 2 mid, I are just so hard to find. But I would love to test it out someday.

Thanks everyone for you input :)

Dennis Anyone?
03-23-2004, 07:59 PM

Afraid I don't have that ProStaff any longer; gave it away years ago. I was never able to make the most of that stick--as a matter of fact, my next racquets were at the opposite end of the flexibility scale: the Dunlop 300i and 200g. (Loved the 300i but suffered so many torn grommet holes as a result of poor manufacturing, had to go to the original widebody, Mac's 200g . . . .)

Don't know if it's the power of suggestion, but I do remember my pre-bumper guard PS as feeling slightly heavier than my friends' later models. Couldn't tell you about difference in stiffness. My high school doubles partner from those days still uses those same PSs. (He idolized Edberg.)

And I did have a bumper guard fitted to that racquet by a local pro shop who overcharged me for an ill-fitting makeshift monstrosity.

Best of luck tracking down the elusive Ultra 2.

03-24-2004, 01:45 PM
I had both versions, and yes the pre bumper guard racquets were heavier and a bit stiffer. I think the normal retail price for the Pro Staff 85 was $149 (I got it at cost for about $89). The PS was and is advertised as 80% graphite, 20% Kevlar.

The Ultra did advertise Boron, and was expensive at about $200. However, that was nothing compared to the Price Boron that was going for $500.

Also, Mac's 200G was also considered a stiff racquet in those days.