PDA

View Full Version : Pro Racket Paintjob - illegal ?


Tombhoneb
08-28-2008, 06:25 AM
Correct me if im wrong but surely it must be illegal for a company such as babolat or wilson to false advertise their rackets ?

ie Nadal saying he uses a APD with cortex when he doesnt ?

cheers

Gorecki
08-28-2008, 06:36 AM
illegal no. imoral... maybe!

t-swede
08-28-2008, 12:04 PM
illegal no. imoral... maybe!

heres some interesting read from head and richard gascquet enjoy !


You play with the MG Extreme Pro. Why do you like that racquet?I really like this racquet because its powerful, and that is important for my game. I can play with a lot of topspin which is crucial for my backhand. The MG Extreme Pro helps me to improve my game.

what a joke everyone knows that he plays with the instinct tour xl including himself yet he keeps the consumer believing otherwise lame !!

certifiedjatt
08-28-2008, 12:13 PM
technically, companies are not advertising their rackets through pros. that's just how we interpret it (and they obviously know that). they're simply paying the pros to use their stick knowing that the audience is watching. so, they aren't doing anything illegal. it's quite different from actual advertising in which companies ad. a product with specific specifications. if the actual product does not meet those specification, only then is there some sort of a violation...

certifiedjatt
08-28-2008, 12:14 PM
when a player says "i'm using so and so...", it's HIM lying, not the company falsely advertising. and lying isn't illegal!

BreakPoint
08-28-2008, 12:17 PM
heres some interesting read from head and richard gascquet enjoy !


You play with the MG Extreme Pro. Why do you like that racquet?I really like this racquet because it’s powerful, and that is important for my game. I can play with a lot of topspin which is crucial for my backhand. The MG Extreme Pro helps me to improve my game.

what a joke everyone knows that he plays with the instinct tour xl including himself yet he keeps the consumer believing otherwise lame !!
Don't forget that Head probably makes 10-20 different racquets all with the marketing name of "MG Extreme Pro", only one of which they sell to the public. So, yes, Gasquet does indeed use A "MG Extreme Pro", just not the same "MG Extreme Pro" as the one we can buy in the stores. So unless a company specifically says that a certain pro uses - "the SAME racquet at the one sold in the stores", like Wilson has said about Federer's K90, just saying that a pro uses a certain model name doesn't really mean anything because there could be many different racquets all given the same marketing name. Internally, they have no model names at all, just code numbers to differentiate them.

I don't think there's a law against companies giving many different variations of a product the same marketing name when they're only selling one of the variations in the market.

retrowagen
08-28-2008, 12:41 PM
Next someone will suggest that NASCAR drivers are driving actual Fords, Chevrolets, Pontiacs, and Toyotas - the same cars one can buy at the local dealership --!

Really, by and large, professional tennis rackets are closely analogous to the relationship these NASCAR race cars have to their consumer bases. The race car is merely a facsimile of the consumer good, just like the tennis pro's frame is a highly tailored, custom item, often made to look like the mass-produced version one can find in the local sporting goods store. This practice seems much more widespread nowadays than it did 20 years ago, though.

But in the end, who cares? Why does this matter so much? The pro is paid to "endorse" a certain model for a certain brand, hence he is being paid to sing its praises, even if he is earning his paycheck using something else, albeit disguised to look like his "signature racket." Anyone who feels shocked and manipulated by marketing exercises such as this is probably a bit naiive

Nanshiki
08-28-2008, 12:53 PM
40 years ago that was true... NASCAR was literally "win on sunday, sell on monday."

But for a number of performance and safety reasons, now they're just identical frames with identical body covers with some lame stickers to make them look different.

Tombhoneb
08-28-2008, 12:53 PM
when a player says "i'm using so and so...", it's HIM lying, not the company falsely advertising. and lying isn't illegal!

Isnt this false advertising ??

http://www.babolat.com/english/tennis/rackets/index.php?idproduit=202

' used by rafael nadal ' .

LafayetteHitter
08-28-2008, 01:01 PM
Surely people can find something better to do. Why is this so important that people have to try to figure out a way to profit from it.

BreakPoint
08-28-2008, 01:13 PM
This practice seems much more widespread nowadays than it did 20 years ago, though.

But even almost 40 years ago, Rod Laver painted his wood Dunlop Maxply Fort racquets to look like aluminum Chemold racquets (who was sponsoring him at the time). Yes, he painted wood racquets to try and make them look like they were aluminum! Not easy to do.

10isDad
08-28-2008, 01:15 PM
Isnt this false advertising ??

http://www.babolat.com/english/tennis/rackets/index.php?idproduit=202

' used by rafael nadal ' .

He could have hit one ball with the stick and it's "used by Rafael Nadal"?

Frankly, he uses the racquet: to advertise for Babolat. He doesn't hit w/ it, but certainly uses it.

BreakPoint
08-28-2008, 01:16 PM
Isnt this false advertising ??

http://www.babolat.com/english/tennis/rackets/index.php?idproduit=202

' used by rafael nadal ' .
No, it's not. Because, again, it doesn't say that Nadal uses the SAME Aeropro Drive as the one sold in the stores. But he does indeed use an "Aeropro Drive".

Rorsach
08-28-2008, 01:17 PM
But even almost 40 years ago, Rod Laver painted his wood Dunlop Maxply Fort racquets to look like aluminum Chemold racquets (who was sponsoring him at the time). Yes, he painted wood racquets to try and make them look like they were aluminum! Not easy to do.

And Lendl with his Kneissl/Adidas/Mizuno or McEnroe and Navratilova with the Max200G or Becker with his Puma/Estusa.

BreakPoint
08-28-2008, 01:18 PM
And Lendl with his Kneissl/Adidas/Mizuno or McEnroe and Navratilova with the Max200G or Becker with his Puma/Estusa.
But McEnroe always used a real Max 200G, the same one we could buy in the stores. He never had it paintjobbed AFAIK.

tennisfever8181
08-28-2008, 01:29 PM
Isnt this false advertising ??

http://www.babolat.com/english/tennis/rackets/index.php?idproduit=202

' used by rafael nadal ' .
Yeah it says "Aeropro Drive" (which is what he uses). It doesn't say "Aeropro Drive Cortex", which is what he has a PJ of..

Rorsach
08-28-2008, 01:30 PM
But McEnroe always used a real Max 200G, the same one we could buy in the stores. He never had it paintjobbed AFAIK.

He did have it completely blacked out for a time (for whatever reason). Don't know if this constitutes a paintjob though.

Tombhoneb
08-28-2008, 01:32 PM
Yeah it says "Aeropro Drive" (which is what he uses). It doesn't say "Aeropro Drive Cortex", which is what he has a PJ of..

I was thinking that as well but then it has the picture of the cortex technology therefore making it the APDC ... maybe they have done it in a certain way to cover their *** !!

JediMindTrick
08-28-2008, 02:24 PM
Don't forget that Head probably makes 10-20 different racquets all with the marketing name of "MG Extreme Pro", only one of which they sell to the public. So, yes, Gasquet does indeed use A "MG Extreme Pro", just not the same "MG Extreme Pro" as the one we can buy in the stores. So unless a company specifically says that a certain pro uses - "the SAME racquet at the one sold in the stores", like Wilson has said about Federer's K90, just saying that a pro uses a certain model name doesn't really mean anything because there could be many different racquets all given the same marketing name. Internally, they have no model names at all, just code numbers to differentiate them.

I don't think there's a law against companies giving many different variations of a product the same marketing name when they're only selling one of the variations in the market.

I don't think it's legal, I think it's false advertising. It's just that no one sued them yet.

maximo
08-28-2008, 03:21 PM
Is there any players that don't use paint jobs?

Nanshiki
08-28-2008, 03:46 PM
...amateurs... that's about it.

BreakPoint
08-28-2008, 03:48 PM
...amateurs... that's about it.
Actually, many amateurs such as juniors and college players use paintjobs, too.

saram
08-28-2008, 04:00 PM
Yeah it says "Aeropro Drive" (which is what he uses). It doesn't say "Aeropro Drive Cortex", which is what he has a PJ of..

The advertisement in Tennis Mag says that Rafa is using the APD "with cortex".

Nanshiki
08-28-2008, 06:36 PM
He is, it's just that his cortex is made out of paint.

Also, when I say Amateur I mean someone who isn't being paid to use the racquet, or given free racquets. Pros have to endorse the latest and greatest racquets, but on the other hand, they almost never change racquets (they do once in a while when they feel they need something more)... hence why you have paint jobs.

Amateurs (that is, recreational players) are about the only players who don't use paint jobs... because we're the ones actually buying the new models.

I have a theory that the younger a pro player is, the more likely he's actually playing with the racquet he says he is... although it's still very unlikely (since the racquet they play with as a junior is going to be a 10 year-old model by the time they reach pros, and racquet models change every 3-4 years).

RFRF
08-28-2008, 06:45 PM
i called the the head manager of australia last week and threatend to sue as i brought a micro gel prestige as shown to be used by safin in fact its not and its a head prestige classic, they said just take the raquet back for a full refund. THEY ARE ALL SCARED!!! they know we will win in court and they will have to pay all court costs, lets all stick together and keep harrasing them and maybe this will some day stop! the reason they do this is because they sell us the junk at a top price and the pros get the real deal because it costs more to make as qaulity control and materials are very strict. i know most of us arnt at ATP level but we deserve to buy what we see not what they want us to see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

saram
08-28-2008, 07:48 PM
I know that people are being thrown into the public eye as using a certain product and that is just successful marketing. Everyone and anyone buying a stick because their favorite player uses it deserves to be deceived in some regard and or fashion.

We should aim to use what works for us--not our favorite player on tour. It is not like we have their strokes, stature, intensity, strings, weight/balance, etc....

Only fools buy a stick to be like their idols....(and, I was once a fool as well).

Tennis_Freak
08-28-2008, 07:54 PM
Is there any players that don't use paint jobs?

Ana Ivanovic uses the actual Yonex that is sold in stores. I know this because I know someone who strings for Yonex team.

vsbabolat
08-28-2008, 08:16 PM
But even almost 40 years ago, Rod Laver painted his wood Dunlop Maxply Fort racquets to look like aluminum Chemold racquets (who was sponsoring him at the time). Yes, he painted wood racquets to try and make them look like they were aluminum! Not easy to do.

I have searched for photos or matches with Laver using a wood racquet painted to look like a Aluminum racquet. I would love to see some. I have found these with Laver using Chemold Aluminum and his Dunlop Maxply Fort with all the paint stripped off.
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/rodlaver1970.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/rodlaver1979.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/52287065.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/52287070.jpg

Gorecki
08-29-2008, 01:54 AM
i called the the head manager of australia last week and threatend to sue as i brought a micro gel prestige as shown to be used by safin in fact its not and its a head prestige classic, they said just take the raquet back for a full refund. THEY ARE ALL SCARED!!! they know we will win in court and they will have to pay all court costs, lets all stick together and keep harrasing them and maybe this will some day stop! the reason they do this is because they sell us the junk at a top price and the pros get the real deal because it costs more to make as qaulity control and materials are very strict. i know most of us arnt at ATP level but we deserve to buy what we see not what they want us to see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

im not sure i get it right. please explain otherwise but i understood this: you are claiming over getting a better racquet than the one you were suposed to get? if anything you should pay more!

10isDad
08-29-2008, 07:07 AM
i called the the head manager of australia

The country of Australia has a head manager?!?!:oops:


im not sure i get it right. please explain otherwise but i understood this: you are claiming over getting a better racquet than the one you were suposed to get? if anything you should pay more!

My interpretation of this is he/she bought a MG Prestige, then returned it because it's not what Safin actually uses. He/she is saying that all the quality control goes into the sticks for the pros while the ones sold to us are "junk".

PimpMyGame
08-29-2008, 07:20 AM
In order to sue a company surely you have to prove that you have lost something financially. Yes I am sure some of the racket companies' advertising "puff" is close to the mark but last time I checked nobody lost anything because Rafa uses an old APD with a PJ.

If there are people out there with nothing else to worry about other than advertising a product a little too close to the knuckle then please can you share your secret?

10isDad
08-29-2008, 06:40 PM
"While the terms "false" and "deceptive" are essentially the same for most, being deceptive is not the same as producing deception. What is illegal is the potential to deceive, which is interpreted to occur when consumers see the advertising to be stating to them, explicitly or implicitly, a claim that they may not realize is false and material. The latter means that the claim, if relied on for making a purchasing decision, is likely to be harmful by adversely affecting that decision."

kabob
08-29-2008, 07:12 PM
The paintjob is just advertising. When you see a city bus going by with a Coca Cola ad plastered across the side, do you expect soda to come gushing out when the doors open? Come on, people, give the whole PJ issue a rest.

Nanshiki
08-29-2008, 10:48 PM
Um, people don't expect coke to gush out of the bus. That's understood as advertising.

On the other hand, racquet companies directly suggest that the racquets they sell are the same thing that the player's use. Customizing a racquet should be assumed but anyone can do that.

RCizzle65
08-30-2008, 12:11 AM
Go ahead, take them to court, you are going to lose anyways they can get any decent lawyer and find either a loophole, or prove it's not false advertising. Seriously why are you all making a big deal out of this, it's not like any of you guys are going to take a company to court over a tennis racket paint job.

officerdibble
08-30-2008, 12:49 AM
Firstly, may I gently point out that US law isn't the same as that used on the rest of the planet, so the question of what is legal or not will vary from country to country.

In the UK, there are a number of ways of tackling the falsehoods propogated by manufacturers; firstly we have an Advertising Standards Authority, who have the power to make an advertiser withdraw a misleading or untruthful advert. Beyond that we have recent legislation to protect consumers in the form of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008) and the Misrepresentation Act (1967) which in the latter case helpfully places the burden of proof on the defendent. So in the case of racquet paint jobs it would require, for example, Head to show that they didn't know that they had supplied a particular tennis pro with a different racquest from the one they said he used, and that someone else had gone to the trouble of painting it to look like their current racquet.

Head have also misled their shareholders by claiming in their Annual Report and Accounts that Andre Agassi used Flexpoint technology to reach a grand slam final. That's quite naughty too.

As I have said on this forum before, when I found out Agassi didn't use Flexpoint racquets I threatened Head in the UK with legal action and they agreed to exchange two two year old racquets for brand new ones (which I promptly sold on ****).

Personally, I will never buy tennis equipment from brands that actively deceive the public. Fortunately I found Vantage racquets!!!

I also would endorse the original poster's point that the manufacturers do this to enable them to provide inferior products on which they can make greater profits; although they also do it because it has become standard to reinvigorate the market each year by offering some technological 'innovation' that causes tennis playing mugs to go into the shop and convince themselves that the claims made for it is true. Heck, I was dumb enough to buy a Flexpoint racquet and that technology makes no logical sense at all: what happens to the cupping effect when you hit the ball above the centre line??

Either the people who are saying it's not illegal are living in a country with shoddy consumer protection - I'd have thought you'd have something in place when it transpired all that Snake Oil didn't actually make you better; or else they are adopting a default position that because it happens and the company is getting away with it it must be legitimate.

officerdibble
08-30-2008, 12:51 AM
Go ahead, take them to court, you are going to lose anyways they can get any decent lawyer and find either a loophole, or prove it's not false advertising. Seriously why are you all making a big deal out of this, it's not like any of you guys are going to take a company to court over a tennis racket paint job.

With respect, this is a stupid post. Some people might have more backbone than you, and in any event in some countries (like mine) it's quite straightforward and inexpensive to instigate legal action. I have taken two companies to court successfully.

officerdibble
08-30-2008, 12:53 AM
The paintjob is just advertising. When you see a city bus going by with a Coca Cola ad plastered across the side, do you expect soda to come gushing out when the doors open? Come on, people, give the whole PJ issue a rest.

Remind me to sell you one of my "really it is a real diamond really" rings.

Would you mind if you bought a Wilson K-Factor and it turned out to be a Chinese knock-off? Would you mind even the specs all matched?

BreakPoint
08-30-2008, 02:09 AM
I think some of you guys are missing the point. "False advertising" is when a company advertizes a certain benefit to be gained by the consumer from use of its product, such as, "Tide will get your clothes whiter than any other laundry detergent." If it doesn't, then you can claim it's a case of false advertising.

However, no specific claims of any consumer benefit is promised by the practice of pros using paintjobs. They never specifically claimed that if you bought a Head Flexpoint Radical, that you would be able to play tennis as well as Andre Agassi. Thus, no promises were unfulfilled because no promises of benefits from the use of the product were ever specifically made. In order for you to successfully sue Head in a court of law, you would have to prove that by using the retail racquet that you purchased, you can only play at best at a 4.0 level, but if you used Agassi's actual racquet, you would be able to play just as well as Agassi, since you were disappointed that after buying the racquet you were still not able to play as well as Agassi. Good luck proving that because you can't. However, if you bought the racquet just to look like Agassi, then that benefit has indeed been met because the retail racquet looks just like Agassi's racquet to anyone watching you play from a distance.

So I think people should just stop getting all bent out of shape over this paintjob issue. It's just marketing and they do it of course to sell more racquets. And if they didn't do it, they would sell far fewer racquets, and each racquet would cost twice as much as they do now. Do you guys want to pay that much more for tennis racquets?

KBlade Pro
08-30-2008, 03:21 AM
They don't make a claim of increasing the buyer's performance, but they do make the claim that a certain pro uses a particular racquet. For example, if you go to the Babolat web page and you click on "Aeropro Drive," you will see the statement "used by Rafael Nadal." (Cortex technology is shown so we can assume that they mean the cortex version.) Now based on that statement, any reasonable person would conclude that Babolat means that Nadal used the racquet shown on that webpage. But is that true? No, if you believe that he uses the non-cortex version with PJ. This is false advertising! They lied. They didn't say he's using a variant of the racquet or a previous generation of the racquet. No, they are saying he is using this racquet!

And he is not taking the stock racquet and customizing it. He is using a previous generation of the current racquet, which qualifies it as a whole different racquet. The fact that Babolat is advertising the new cortex version as new means that even they see the cortex racquet as a separate racquet from the previous generation.

Just the fact that they feel compelled to try to cover up the actual racquets used by the pros with PJs means that they are trying to hide something. It's deceptive and it's false advertising.

Did you feel lied to when you first found out about PJs? I certainly did. I never bought a racquet based on that fact that some pro is using it, but I still felt lied to... by the players and by the companies. The bottom line is they're stating a fact that is false, and that is false advertising.

officerdibble
08-30-2008, 03:48 AM
I think some of you guys are missing the point. "False advertising" is when a company advertizes a certain benefit to be gained by the consumer from use of its product, such as, "Tide will get your clothes whiter than any other laundry detergent." If it doesn't, then you can claim it's a case of false advertising.

However, no specific claims of any consumer benefit is promised by the practice of pros using paintjobs. They never specifically claimed that if you bought a Head Flexpoint Radical, that you would be able to play tennis as well as Andre Agassi. Thus, no promises were unfulfilled because no promises of benefits from the use of the product were ever specifically made. In order for you to successfully sue Head in a court of law, you would have to prove that by using the retail racquet that you purchased, you can only play at best at a 4.0 level, but if you used Agassi's actual racquet, you would be able to play just as well as Agassi, since you were disappointed that after buying the racquet you were still not able to play as well as Agassi. Good luck proving that because you can't. However, if you bought the racquet just to look like Agassi, then that benefit has indeed been met because the retail racquet looks just like Agassi's racquet to anyone watching you play from a distance.

So I think people should just stop getting all bent out of shape over this paintjob issue. It's just marketing and they do it of course to sell more racquets. And if they didn't do it, they would sell far fewer racquets, and each racquet would cost twice as much as they do now. Do you guys want to pay that much more for tennis racquets?

I can't speak for US law, but your point doesn't hold in the UK. What are the laws on misleading shareholders in the US? Head claimed that there innovative technology was so good it helped Andre Agassi reach a Grand Slam final!

10isDad
08-30-2008, 06:33 AM
So, somebody sue already - maybe you'll scare the manufacturers to the point they all re-release their old models

Then maybe these pointless, neverending threads will go away.

ElMagoElGato
08-30-2008, 07:27 AM
I have an APD Cortex. Please leave
Babolat alone and let me keep saying "I have a racket used by Nadal." Besides, the racket is actually good for me and I don't want to use a true Nadal racket. Does anybody?

vsbabolat
08-30-2008, 08:35 AM
I think what the Racquet Companies are doing is illegal. A few years ago Nike was sued over false advertising claiming that Tiger Woods used a certain Golf Ball when he did not.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/23/sports/sp-9017

Unfair-Business Practices Suit Says Nike Golf Ads Lack Accuracy
August 23, 2000 in print edition D-10

Tiger Woods endorses “Nike Tour Accuracy” golf balls in TV and magazine ads, but he really plays with custom-made balls unavailable to everyday duffers, Nike acknowledged Tuesday after being sued in federal court.

Nike Inc. said the balls the long-hitting Woods uses have a slightly harder inner and outer core than the balls sold to the public.

In the suit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, a nonprofit group called Public Remedies Inc. claimed Nike, based in Beaverton, Ore., was engaging in unfair business practices. It asks that Nike’s “ill-gotten gains” be restored to the public.

“Tiger Woods does not play the Nike Tour Accuracy golf ball, but instead plays one with a different composition and performance characteristics specially made for him … and not available to the general public,” the suit said.

Mike Kelly, marketing director for Nike Golf, said it’s common practice in the golfing world to sell the public different products than what the pros really use.

Joe Gomes, a spokesman for Titleist, said its players use the same products they advertise. And if a player uses a “tweaked” version of a club, he said, a consumer could special order it.

This is the samething that is going on in Tennis.

jmsx521
08-30-2008, 08:58 AM
I also can’t stand the gimmick of paint jobs. In the name of money, people would do anything. I am pretty sure they are going to make less money if they said our player chose to use our old technology instead.

But the whole point of advertising in current times (and I work with advertisement) is for profit obviously. So, companies and advertisers allow themselves to deliver the message in ways that entice the consumer… even if those ways are pure brainwashing. And since laws against deceptive advertisement are loose, they do so because they can get away with it.

In the name of money, soda manufacturers will not tell you stop drinking this crap… start drinking water instead. Cigarette manufacturers – as well – were enticing smokers into their product for how many decades, before they put the warning label. And even with the warning label, they still intend to brainwash you… and they’ll do so since they can get-away with it.

When was the last time a consumer sued a major fast-food chain, because the burger advertisement appeared so delicious in the advertisement, but when the consumer unwrapped the burger and lifted the bun… it looked like a steamroller had ran over it!? We see these things every day, accept that’s how advertisements & corporations function… and instead of being involved in controlling how corporations should communicate to us, we are passive and walk-away, accepting it as – oh, well – if it’s that way, then that’s how it is… assuming we can’t change things because corporations are like some sort of untouchable supreme entities.

Moral restriction of greed and desire to have more-and-more is just not enough…. Capitalism is a travesty, and should’ve been outlawed long time ago: It obviously doesn’t function well for ALL people, but for the fewer smarter and elite who control the shots to favor themselves!

Anyway, how is false advertisement in other sports?

slkbassist
08-30-2008, 09:10 AM
I don't find it ilegal at all. As mentioned by some, they are not claiming you can play like the athlete. They are just using the athlete's image to attract buyers. Just like clothes and food products...Lebron can't play like he does drinking Sprite all day, Jordan and Bird surely wouldn't have been able to move like that eating McDonalds and Lays all the time. And you know Gatorade, they have special formulas for athlethes not sold in stores!

I think that the issue is not with the PJs, the real problem is that companies don't continue of make available products that athletes use. The Head Prestige Classic, is an example of a racquet that should remain in production...there seems to be a wide enough demand, with most reviews claiming it to still be the most superior version of the racquet despite there being about 5 incarnations of it afterwards. Racquets should also be available to the public if an athlete uses a common though now extinct frame with a PJ...again pointing to the PC, if say Safin is using a straight up PJ PC, it should be still available.
However, custom made frames, are a different story, since it wouldn't be possible, it wouldn't be cost effective to try and make each frame variety.

vsbabolat
08-30-2008, 09:40 AM
I don't find it ilegal at all. As mentioned by some, they are not claiming you can play like the athlete. They are just using the athlete's image to attract buyers. Just like clothes and food products...Lebron can't play like he does drinking Sprite all day, Jordan and Bird surely wouldn't have been able to move like that eating McDonalds and Lays all the time. And you know Gatorade, they have special formulas for athlethes not sold in stores!

I think that the issue is not with the PJs, the real problem is that companies don't continue of make available products that athletes use. The Head Prestige Classic, is an example of a racquet that should remain in production...there seems to be a wide enough demand, with most reviews claiming it to still be the most superior version of the racquet despite there being about 5 incarnations of it afterwards. Racquets should also be available to the public if an athlete uses a common though now extinct frame with a PJ...again pointing to the PC, if say Safin is using a straight up PJ PC, it should be still available.
However, custom made frames, are a different story, since it wouldn't be possible, it wouldn't be cost effective to try and make each frame variety.

You see there was a law suit in Sports with false advertising. Nike was sued over Tiger Woods' Golf Ball. Nike advertised that Tiger used the Nike Tour Accuracy when he did not. Tiger used a custom made ball. Days after Nike was sued they quickley released Tigers Golf Ball to the public.

http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Articles%202000/WoodsNikesuit.htm
Nike Admits Tiger Woods' Golf Balls Are Unavailable to the Public

In suit claiming unfair business practices, company states that alterations are 'minor'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Francisco, August 27, 2000 -- Nike has done it again.

After being sued in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Nike acknowledged that the golf balls which Tiger Woods uses in professional competition are not available to the public. A nonprofit group, Public Remedies, filed a claim alleging that Nike is engaging in unfair business practices. At issue is the fact that Woods plays with "custom made balls unavailable" to consumers, rather than the "Nike Tour Accuracy" golf balls which Woods endorses in print and television advertisements. Additionally,
Public Remedies is calling for Nike's "ill gotten gains be restored to the public", according to the Associated Press.

In response to the lawsuit, a Nike spokesperson admitted that that the balls which Woods uses in competition have a "slightly harder inner and outer core than the balls sold to the public." Nike, however, also contends that it is commonplace for manufactures to make minor specification adjustments to the equipment which professionals use in competition. This notion is disputed by other golf equipment manufactures, such as Titleist and Callaway, who claim that the public is offered the same equipment that their professionals endorse, provided that the consumer may have to wait only for the equipment to be mass produced.

While Woods officially switched to the Nike ball before the U.S. Open this year, he claims that he can see no "appreciable difference" in the distance between the Nike ball and the Titleist ball, which he used previously, and which is available to the public, according to ESPNews.

Only days after this lawsuit was filed, Nike announced that the exact ball which Woods uses in competition would soon become available to the public, pending U.S. Golf Association approval, and be marketed as "Tour Accuracy TW". It is a decision which Nike maintains had been in the works long before the suit against them was filed. Nike also stated that the company would continue to defend against the pending lawsuit


Believe you me if a similar Law Suit was filed against the likes of HEAD, Babolat, and Wilson, you have the same kind of result.

BreakPoint
08-30-2008, 12:21 PM
They don't make a claim of increasing the buyer's performance, but they do make the claim that a certain pro uses a particular racquet. For example, if you go to the Babolat web page and you click on "Aeropro Drive," you will see the statement "used by Rafael Nadal." (Cortex technology is shown so we can assume that they mean the cortex version.) Now based on that statement, any reasonable person would conclude that Babolat means that Nadal used the racquet shown on that webpage. But is that true? No, if you believe that he uses the non-cortex version with PJ. This is false advertising! They lied. They didn't say he's using a variant of the racquet or a previous generation of the racquet. No, they are saying he is using this racquet!

And he is not taking the stock racquet and customizing it. He is using a previous generation of the current racquet, which qualifies it as a whole different racquet. The fact that Babolat is advertising the new cortex version as new means that even they see the cortex racquet as a separate racquet from the previous generation.

Just the fact that they feel compelled to try to cover up the actual racquets used by the pros with PJs means that they are trying to hide something. It's deceptive and it's false advertising.

Did you feel lied to when you first found out about PJs? I certainly did. I never bought a racquet based on that fact that some pro is using it, but I still felt lied to... by the players and by the companies. The bottom line is they're stating a fact that is false, and that is false advertising.
No, I never lost a minute of sleep over paintjobs because I don't buy racquets just because of the pros.

And, no, it is not false advertising because the company did not fail to deliver a promised benefit from the use of its product.

BreakPoint
08-30-2008, 12:23 PM
I can't speak for US law, but your point doesn't hold in the UK. What are the laws on misleading shareholders in the US? Head claimed that there innovative technology was so good it helped Andre Agassi reach a Grand Slam final!
I don't think most Head shareholders care what technology Agassi used to get to a Grand Slam final. What they care about is how many racquets Head can sell. And if paintjobs help Head to sell more racquets, then its shareholders would LOVE paintjobs.

BreakPoint
08-30-2008, 12:32 PM
Only days after this lawsuit was filed, Nike announced that the exact ball which Woods uses in competition would soon become available to the public, pending U.S. Golf Association approval, and be marketed as "Tour Accuracy TW". It is a decision which Nike maintains had been in the works long before the suit against them was filed. Nike also stated that the company would continue to defend against the pending lawsuit


Believe you me if a similar Law Suit was filed against the likes of HEAD, Babolat, and Wilson, you have the same kind of result.
But it says in that press release that Nike is still fighting the lawsuit, so have they lost yet? And they claim that they were going to eventually release Wood's actual ball to the public anyway and it was not as a result of the lawsuit. So did the public really "win" this lawsuit?

martin8768
08-30-2008, 12:44 PM
Isnt this false advertising ??

http://www.babolat.com/english/tennis/rackets/index.php?idproduit=202

' used by rafael nadal ' .

lol it says that for the APDC and APDC+ ... so which one is it babolat? filthy liars

max200G
08-30-2008, 03:30 PM
No, I never lost a minute of sleep over paintjobs because I don't buy racquets just because of the pros.

And, no, it is not false advertising because the company did not fail to deliver a promised benefit from the use of its product.


Fraud:
In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them usually, to obtain property or services unjustly.

The racquet companies are deliberatly deceiving the public into buying racquets buy using paint jobs on the Pro's racquets.

The issue is not that the racquets being sold are good or bad but that the Pro's racquets are painted and marketed as using what we buy. That is the fraud. A example is Agassi never used the Flexpoint Radical Oversize he used the Original Radical Trisys 260 Oversize but Head in every advertisement said Agassi used the Flexpoint Radical to sell racquets.

BreakPoint
08-30-2008, 07:50 PM
Fraud:
In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them usually, to obtain property or services unjustly.

But how do you prove that the customer was "damaged"? They still got a very playable racquet that is probably more appropriate for them to use at their level than a heavy, unforgiving pro spec racquet. I think the only way you can show "damage" is if you can prove that you can play tennis better (as well as the pro) with that pro's actual racquet than with the racquet that you purchased. Because only then can you prove that you received an "inferior" product and not the "superior" product that you thought you were buying.

vsbabolat
08-30-2008, 08:23 PM
But it says in that press release that Nike is still fighting the lawsuit, so have they lost yet? And they claim that they were going to eventually release Wood's actual ball to the public anyway and it was not as a result of the lawsuit. So did the public really "win" this lawsuit?
I have not found anymore info on the lawsuit. It is either still winding it's way through the legal system or Nike very quietly settled this case.

Charlie_Boy
08-30-2008, 08:28 PM
For the rafa thing it just says "Rafa Nadal uses Aero technology" on it or some crap like that.


It even says it for the Aero Storm I got.

But on TW when they say "used by Rafa Nadal", you could probably have some sort of case against THEM for false advertising.

RFRF
08-30-2008, 08:38 PM
no read it again, what i brought was junk, the players use the good stuff, dont belive me then hit with any head prestige then hit with a prestige classic!

RFRF
08-30-2008, 08:58 PM
[QUOTE=RFRF;2662261]no read it again, what i brought was junk, the players use the good stuff, dont belive me then hit with any head prestige then hit with a prestige classic QUOTE]

Trevor
08-31-2008, 11:57 AM
That don't say exactly what they use them for. For all we know when they say that someone uses a racquet they could mean they use it to wash their car.

jmsx521
08-31-2008, 04:42 PM
Doesn't Davydenko use longer than 27" Prince Ozone Pro Tour?

This TW review doesn't say he uses a longer version customized for him:
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/POZPT/POZPTReview.html

"When switching racquets, most pros do it in the brief off-season before the Australian Open. Few change mid-season right before a big event. Nikolay Davydenko is the exception to the rule. At the 2008 Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, Davydenko took a gamble and entered the event with a brand new racquet. The gamble paid off as Davydenko added a second Masters Series title to his resume. On his way to capturing the Sony Ericsson title, Davydenko posted impressive wins over Andy Roddick in the semifinal and Rafael Nadal in the final."

Tennisguy777
08-31-2008, 05:09 PM
:twisted:You Can't Handle The Pros' Racquets:twisted:


That's why they make 9 - 12 oz. racquets for the rest of us weaklings.

brinkeguthrie
08-31-2008, 07:14 PM
Borg used Bancroft in the USA and Donnay everywhere else. WHen the Bancroft deal expired, he painted over the Bancroft or the Donnay solid black to use in the USA. His next deal with Donnay, which intro'd the Borg Pro, was worldwide.

LordRaceR
08-31-2008, 07:24 PM
I really don’t care and don’t want to buy Nadal, Federer, Djokovic or Kendrick or Nishikori racquet. I want to buy best possible racquet that I like. For instance PS 85 (or Tour90 for me) or Prestige Classic are proven better racquets over the all new models. What are racquet company are doing, they research for new cheaper materials and simplify production lines in order to cut cost and make more money. By that, they offer lower quality products to the public and use professional tennis player for advertisement in order to sell those lower quality racquets as new best possible racquet technology. So, we all can just buy junk that pros wont event touch, with of course some exceptions.

kabob
08-31-2008, 08:40 PM
Remind me to sell you one of my "really it is a real diamond really" rings.

Would you mind if you bought a Wilson K-Factor and it turned out to be a Chinese knock-off? Would you mind even the specs all matched?

What does that have anything to do with it? My point is that I don't buy my racquets based on what player is hitting with what. That is so moronic, it defies belief. Who gives a crap if a player's using a PJ'ed racquet. He has to because he wants/need that racquet sponsorship. What sense would it make for Wilson, Prince, Dunlop, Head, etc., to pay a touring professional to use a 10-year-old racquet that reaps the manufacturer zero profits?

pmerk34
08-31-2008, 08:59 PM
Is there any players that don't use paint jobs?

This forum is ridiculous half the time claiming a 19 year old is using a paint job of a frame that came out out when he ws three. I am happy to see all these Head Microgels being used by the male pros at this years US Open,

superstition
08-31-2008, 10:00 PM
I don't think it's legal, I think it's false advertising. It's just that no one sued them yet.

Yep.

Bait and switch isn't normal business.

RanchDressing
08-31-2008, 10:17 PM
Isnt this false advertising ??

http://www.babolat.com/english/tennis/rackets/index.php?idproduit=202

' used by rafael nadal ' .
yeah if they do that.
But then again its not because almost every single pro has drastically different specs (wheight)

I think they could just play a "racquets vary due to needs ect... and he is paid to and undercontract he does play with blah blah blah racquet"

But there is all that stuff with the warranty.

Maybe a lawyer would know.
But im assuming its somehow a loophole, otherwise somone would have sued wilson or babolat or prince a long time ago.
EDIT:
And they could say he just practices it.
He could use it like 2x or somthing at home or at some practice or somthing and then they can legaly claim nadal uses bab aeropro drive

RFRF
08-31-2008, 10:27 PM
Your The Man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ESP#1
08-31-2008, 10:54 PM
While it may not be illegal it is certainly unethical, its also bad business and bad for our sport. I mean think of all the people who were disillusioned when they figured out that Agassi never used a flexpoint or Nadal doesn't use the cortex. This is where Sampras stands alone. Pete was offered more money to change his racquet or to at least paint his racquet to look like some new wilson product but he refused. More players should follow this example, if pros want to show class, start by not decieving your fans for more money.

BreakPoint
08-31-2008, 11:36 PM
I am happy to see all these Head Microgels being used by the male pros at this years US Open,
Yes, and the great majority of those are older racquets painted to look like Microgels.

BreakPoint
08-31-2008, 11:41 PM
This is where Sampras stands alone. Pete was offered more money to change his racquet or to at least paint his racquet to look like some new wilson product but he refused. More players should follow this example, if pros want to show class, start by not decieving your fans for more money.
Yeah, but Sampras didn't do what he did because of ethics. He tried a lot of other racquets and just didn't like any of them better than his PS 6.0 85's. He talks about it in his book. He didn't want a paintjob because he preferred an all black racquet, and he was so sensitive about his racquets that he says he could tell if there was too much ink used for the "W" stencil on his strings. Can you imagine what a different paintjob would do to his concentration? :shock:

NamRanger
09-01-2008, 12:31 AM
Yeah, but Sampras didn't do what he did because of ethics. He tried a lot of other racquets and just didn't like any of them better than his PS 6.0 85's. He talks about it in his book. He didn't want a paintjob because he preferred an all black racquet, and he was so sensitive about his racquets that he says he could tell if there was too much ink used for the "W" stencil on his strings. Can you imagine what a different paintjob would do to his concentration? :shock:


I think it was more of just superstition personally. I think his mind was so set that he had so much success with one racquet, that he didn't want to switch racquets to see if it would improve his game or not.


It did eventually caught up to him near the tail end of his career, when more powerful racquets and better strings were available. I don't blame him though, why switch from something that won you 14 slams.

pmerk34
09-01-2008, 05:55 AM
Yes, and the great majority of those are older racquets painted to look like Microgels.

Yes all those 19 year olds are using discontinued Heads from 1987 painted to look like Microgels.

vsbabolat
09-01-2008, 09:05 AM
Yes all those 19 year olds are using discontinued Heads from 1987 painted to look like Microgels.

I hate to break it to you but many of them are using discontinued Heads from 1993. However guys like Gael Monfils and Robin Haase are using the Prestige Classic 600. The Prestige Classic 600 is technology from 1986.

LordRaceR
09-01-2008, 10:54 AM
I hate to break it to you but many of them are using discontinued Heads from 1993. However guys like Gael Monfils and Robin Haase are using the Prestige Classic 600. The Prestige Classic 600 is technology from 1986.

that is what i am talking about

pmerk34
09-01-2008, 03:19 PM
I hate to break it to you but many of them are using discontinued Heads from 1993. However guys like Gael Monfils and Robin Haase are using the Prestige Classic 600. The Prestige Classic 600 is technology from 1986.

Well they must be updated by now. Monfeils wasn't even born yet when that old outdated useless in today's pro game 600 came out.

BreakPoint
09-01-2008, 05:52 PM
Yes all those 19 year olds are using discontinued Heads from 1987 painted to look like Microgels.
Yes, many of them are (such as Donald Young) because they are better racquets than most of the newer garbage.

BreakPoint
09-01-2008, 05:55 PM
Well they must be updated by now. Monfeils wasn't even born yet when that old outdated useless in today's pro game 600 came out.
But what does having being born yet have anything to do with it? If a racquet from 1986 plays better than a racquet from 2006, does it matter when you were born? The racquet doesn't know when the player was born, does it?

ESP#1
09-02-2008, 08:29 AM
Yeah, but Sampras didn't do what he did because of ethics. He tried a lot of other racquets and just didn't like any of them better than his PS 6.0 85's. He talks about it in his book. He didn't want a paintjob because he preferred an all black racquet, and he was so sensitive about his racquets that he says he could tell if there was too much ink used for the "W" stencil on his strings. Can you imagine what a different paintjob would do to his concentration? :shock:

I have not read his book so I dont know the details, I can see where the extra ink on the W would change the feel because its located in the sweet spot. My point is that Pete wasnt going to sell out and paint his racquet for extra money, he was more concern with winning grand slams, I would like to think that he also thought it was unethical but he would never say it just because that would insult all other pros and thats not Petes style.

leon505
09-02-2008, 11:33 AM
if the racquet still carry's the same name then its not really illegal for a pro to paintjob. Essentially a paintjob is a modified version of a stick they actually play with, whether that being an older racquet or just modifying the new ones.

Tofuspeedstar
09-02-2008, 11:47 AM
Fischer claims all it's players on tour use the exact frames you can buy in stores.

BreakPoint
09-02-2008, 12:12 PM
I have not read his book so I dont know the details, I can see where the extra ink on the W would change the feel because its located in the sweet spot. My point is that Pete wasnt going to sell out and paint his racquet for extra money, he was more concern with winning grand slams, I would like to think that he also thought it was unethical but he would never say it just because that would insult all other pros and thats not Petes style.
Yet, Sampras had no problem paintjobbing his shoes. He used to wear Wilson shoes with a Nike swoosh drawn on the sides. His racquet choice had nothing to do with ethics. It was just what he played best with and he didn't want to fool with it.

If he was really that ethical, he wouldn't have accepted all those appearance fees just to show up at tournaments in Asia and at smaller events in the U.S.

schwuller
09-02-2008, 12:33 PM
to establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.

what's being discussed here seems to clearly fall within definition number 2 and definition number 3, at the very least.

schwuller
09-02-2008, 12:40 PM
this is a legal issue that has not come to a head yet. but, it will. it only will take one lawsuit before the labels arrive "this product is not actually used by rafael nadal in tournament play." one lawsuit will bring that about. they are getting away with it now, because no one really gives a damn.

mtommer
09-02-2008, 05:17 PM
If people aren't buying racquets because pros use them, then why the need for a paint job in the first place? Free advertising on TV? Hardly. Consider that quite a few do in fact want their favorite player's "racquet", especially kids whom racquets are marketed towards.

El Diablo
09-02-2008, 06:07 PM
Endorsements such as these are generally allowed by existing law because they make no claim of benefit to you. If they said the racquet will enable you to play like Nadal, then there is a case. If you went to court and said you bought the racquet so you could play like Nadal, you would be laughed at. I doubt you will see any court rule against a manufacturer for this kind of advertising. And civil cases require not only evidence that wrong was done but that you were "harmed" as a result. Telling the court you spent $200 on this particular racquet rather than $200 on a different one is not very compelling indication of harm.

schwuller
09-02-2008, 06:22 PM
it's not an endorsement if a manufacturer strongly suggests that a professional is using this particular product, and even goes so far as to paint and conceal what said professional is actually playing with, again in order to convince you that you too can purchase the same item. that's not the same as a person endorsing a product, or suggesting that a person was part of the development of a particular product. the manufacturers are attempting to fool the buying public with techniques such as these paintjobs, and with the novak djokovic kblade commercial. that commercial clearly is designed to give us the impression that this professional is currently using this particular product they are selling, which he is not. they don't say uses it, but they strongly imply it. that's false advertising.
other industries have already been punished for this over the years. it's only a matter of time before it happens here.

BreakPoint
09-02-2008, 07:23 PM
... and with the novak djokovic kblade commercial. that commercial clearly is designed to give us the impression that this professional is currently using this particular product they are selling, which he is not. they don't say uses it, but they strongly imply it. that's false advertising.

But Djokjovic does use a "K-Blade Tour". What the commercials don't specifically tell you is that you can't buy HIS "K-Blade Tour" in the stores. You can only buy the RETAIL "K-Blade Tour" in the stores. But Djokovic does indeed use a "K-Blade Tour", just not the SAME "K-Blade Tour" that's available for sale to the public.

vsbabolat
09-02-2008, 07:33 PM
But Djokjovic does use a "K-Blade Tour". What the commercials don't specifically tell you is that you can't buy HIS "K-Blade Tour" in the stores. You can only buy the RETAIL "K-Blade Tour" in the stores. But Djokovic does indeed use a "K-Blade Tour", just not the SAME "K-Blade Tour" that's available for sale to the public.

That is called bait and switch. Which is illegal....

When Dunlop was selling the Max 200G and said McEnroe and Graf used it you could really buy the same Max 200G that they used.

El Diablo
09-02-2008, 07:59 PM
Other industries have been punished? What industry has been punished over a celebrity endorsement, where no claim is made of specific benefit to the consumer? I'd be very surprised. Companies are given enormous latitude in this regard, and it's not even clear to me that one could prove somebody doesn't use a product. Has he EVER used it? Has he used it in practice?

vsbabolat
09-02-2008, 08:17 PM
Other industries have been punished? What industry has been punished over a celebrity endorsement, where no claim is made of specific benefit to the consumer? I'd be very surprised. Companies are given enormous latitude in this regard, and it's not even clear to me that one could prove somebody doesn't use a product. Has he EVER used it? Has he used it in practice?

Since you seem to be a lawyer or know a lot about the law maybe you could look up this case in the California Law Journal for us.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/23/sports/sp-9017

Unfair-Business Practices Suit Says Nike Golf Ads Lack Accuracy
August 23, 2000 in print edition D-10

Tiger Woods endorses “Nike Tour Accuracy” golf balls in TV and magazine ads, but he really plays with custom-made balls unavailable to everyday duffers, Nike acknowledged Tuesday after being sued in federal court.

Nike Inc. said the balls the long-hitting Woods uses have a slightly harder inner and outer core than the balls sold to the public.

In the suit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, a nonprofit group called Public Remedies Inc. claimed Nike, based in Beaverton, Ore., was engaging in unfair business practices. It asks that Nike’s “ill-gotten gains” be restored to the public.

“Tiger Woods does not play the Nike Tour Accuracy golf ball, but instead plays one with a different composition and performance characteristics specially made for him … and not available to the general public,” the suit said.

Mike Kelly, marketing director for Nike Golf, said it’s common practice in the golfing world to sell the public different products than what the pros really use.

Joe Gomes, a spokesman for Titleist, said its players use the same products they advertise. And if a player uses a “tweaked” version of a club, he said, a consumer could special order it.

BreakPoint
09-03-2008, 12:01 AM
That is called bait and switch. Which is illegal....

But I don't really see it that way. The commercials just say that "Djokovic uses a K-Blade Tour". Nowhere in the commercial do they claim that people can buy his "K-Blade Tour". Just like if Levis claimed that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans", even though people can't buy the same "Levis 501 jeans" that he wears because his are custom made to fit him exactly, whereas, the rest of us can only buy the mass-produced retail versions in pre-set sizes. But Levis is still making an accurate statement when they say that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans". Or if Chevrolet says that some professional race car driver "drives a Chevy Impala" without ever claiming that he drives the same "Chevy Impala" that's sold in the Chevrolet dealerships. I don't think too many people have a problem with that.

Tombhoneb
09-03-2008, 03:22 AM
But I don't really see it that way. The commercials just say that "Djokovic uses a K-Blade Tour". Nowhere in the commercial do they claim that people can buy his "K-Blade Tour". Just like if Levis claimed that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans", even though people can't buy the same "Levis 501 jeans" that he wears because his are custom made to fit him exactly, whereas, the rest of us can only buy the mass-produced retail versions in pre-set sizes. But Levis is still making an accurate statement when they say that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans". Or if Chevrolet says that some professional race car driver "drives a Chevy Impala" without ever claiming that he drives the same "Chevy Impala" that's sold in the Chevrolet dealerships. I don't think too many people have a problem with that.

I think most of us understand that we will not be getting an identical racket. However, my issue with all this is when they say its a new technology a pro is using. I use the ADP w/ cortex and since using it my slight TE pain has gone, so my choice in purchasing that racket was not because Nadal uses it but for the technology in it. So for me i am not losing anything. BUT. A lot of adults and teenagers i know have bought an APDC purely because Nadal uses an APD with the cortex. They want the same technology a pro is using. In my view they have lost out on the cost difference between an APD and an APDC, purely because a company is false advertising a product.

BreakPoint
09-03-2008, 03:33 AM
A lot of adults and teenagers i know have bought an APDC purely because Nadal uses an APD with the cortex. They want the same technology a pro is using. In my view they have lost out on the cost difference between an APD and an APDC, purely because a company is false advertising a product.
But do they like the APD or the APDC better? If they like the APDC better, then what's the problem? They bought a racquet that they like better than the one that Nadal uses. But if they like the APD better but bought the APDC anyway just because they think Nadal uses it, then they really don't have anyone to blame but themselves for not buying the racquet that they like better, do they?

schwuller
09-03-2008, 05:45 AM
breakpoint: what you're saying makes perfect sense of course. but, common sense says that 'the contents of' the mcdonald's coffee cup is hot. they were still sued over not making this point clear enough in their packaging (among other things) and LOST the suit. several pharma manufacturers have been sued and are being sued for not making packaging clear enough (going way beyond common sense). audi was successfully sued (class action in fact, if i recall) for (basically) not making it clear that a person must apply the brake before putting their automatic transmissions into drive or reverse! now the cars are placarded for such.

so, in courts, manufacturers are held to standards far above common sense all the time. this is not new. that's why our products are labeled with all sorts of foolish warning: all of that is the result of (mostly successful) civil suits.

the problems with this paintjob issue are based on an attempt to deceive the buying public. that's where things go wrong with this practice. they don't say that i'll be able to play like djokovic, or woods, by buying this product (something weightloss product ads are careful to avoid saying due to past lawsuits, and make very clear they are not promising). the problem is they are going to lengths to strongly suggest something that is false: that a particular touring professional is USING this product, and that this product is available for me to purchase. that's the falsehood. not the promise of similar performance, but rather that the tool this athlete is currently using is available for purchase, should i want it. they even go to extraordinary lengths to support this claim by: custom making a racket to appear to be the racket i can buy, painting this racket to appear to be the racket i can purchase. this is clearly designed to deceive the consumer. that's the problem.
djokovic can endorse it, he can have a hand in developing it; he can even say he HAS APPROVED it. but, they are strongly suggesting he is actually using it in professional tournament play. that's a falsehood that they are going to 'extraordinary lengths' to present to the consumer. and there is the problem. that is false advertising.

it's not nuts to imagine a group suing wilson, stating consumers are currently purchasing some of their products based on claims in advertising which wilson knows are false and are acting to conceal. that is not far fetched at all.

about the racing car issue: a reasonable person can clearly and easily see that the version that is for sale and the version on the track are not the same vehicle, not even close: not the same size, not the same shape, not the same length, etc etc. can a reasonable person clearly see that novak's racket is not the same kblade that is currently hanging on the shelf for sale? no; because wilson has taken great measures to conceal that fact from the consumer. so these two examples are not comparable.

sorry for the length. i'm done. but it's an interesting topic.

crosscourt
09-03-2008, 08:31 AM
I think most of us understand that we will not be getting an identical racket. However, my issue with all this is when they say its a new technology a pro is using. I use the ADP w/ cortex and since using it my slight TE pain has gone, so my choice in purchasing that racket was not because Nadal uses it but for the technology in it. So for me i am not losing anything. BUT. A lot of adults and teenagers i know have bought an APDC purely because Nadal uses an APD with the cortex. They want the same technology a pro is using. In my view they have lost out on the cost difference between an APD and an APDC, purely because a company is false advertising a product.

This all gets very murky. If a company paints the racket a pro uses -- say a ProStaff Classic 6.1 -- to look like part of its current line -- say a K95 -- (and I use this example because I understand it is the most common PJ on the men's tour) it is difficult to complain. The company is only promoting its brand. It is when the company says that X plays with Y racket, where he does not play with Y racket, that things become objectionable. There appears to be a misrepresentation and we assume that the purpose of the misrepresentation is to sell rackets. If extra rackets are sold then there has been a benefit to the company. There may be a good argument against this, but at present I am not sure what it is. It may be argued that consumers have choice and that if they buy a racket they must do so because they like it. It may also be that the rackets used are sufficiently similar to those available that there is no basis for objection. There obviously are difficulties in these sorts of areas, in particular in relation to recovering putative losses. That is one of the reasons why there are laws enforceable at public expense in many jurisdictions about misleading advertisements.

cc

PimpMyGame
09-03-2008, 08:57 AM
breakpoint: what you're saying makes perfect sense of course. but, common sense says that 'the contents of' the mcdonald's coffee cup is hot. they were still sued over not making this point clear enough in their packaging (among other things) and LOST the suit. several pharma manufacturers have been sued and are being sued for not making packaging clear enough (going way beyond common sense). audi was successfully sued (class action in fact, if i recall) for (basically) not making it clear that a person must apply the brake before putting their automatic transmissions into drive or reverse! now the cars are placarded for such.

These are great examples of a company's negligence/oversight which at some point will result in damage/injury to a consumer. I don't see how such damage can be caused by selling a racket that looks like one used by a pro.

In fact, it would be extremely difficult to prove in a court of law and I would suggest that in defence the racket company and pro him/herself would claim that they could not give away secrets to their actual gear as this would place them at a competitive disadvantage.

ollinger
09-03-2008, 09:00 AM
The McDonald's judgement was knocked way down on appeal.

vsbabolat
09-03-2008, 09:06 AM
But I don't really see it that way. The commercials just say that "Djokovic uses a K-Blade Tour". Nowhere in the commercial do they claim that people can buy his "K-Blade Tour". Just like if Levis claimed that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans", even though people can't buy the same "Levis 501 jeans" that he wears because his are custom made to fit him exactly, whereas, the rest of us can only buy the mass-produced retail versions in pre-set sizes. But Levis is still making an accurate statement when they say that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans". Or if Chevrolet says that some professional race car driver "drives a Chevy Impala" without ever claiming that he drives the same "Chevy Impala" that's sold in the Chevrolet dealerships. I don't think too many people have a problem with that.

The Wilson commercial just says "This is Djokovic's K-Blade." http://ww.youtube.com/watch?v=T3AdBvkTaLs
Your comparison with a pair of Levi 501 should be more like this: Djokovic gets his 501's with the button fly and the denim is made out of 100% Cotton. While the consumer gets the new easier fly front with a zipper and new more durable fabric made from Dupont 100% Polyester. The 501's that Djokovic wears and the 501's that are sold to the public are two totally different pair of pants. Just like Djokovic's racquet is totally different from what is being sold to the public. Different head size different layup. It is not that Djokovic's racquet is customized to his weight, balance, and swing weight. It is the fact that Djokovic's racquet is a different mold and made from different layup than what is advertised the K-Blade Tour. Djokovic's racquets are made to play like his old HEAD racquets.
http://www.protennisfan.com/2005/12/djokovic_signs_.html
"I tried to play with 15-20 different models of Wilson and no one is conform to me. Then they made a copy of my Head racquet, and he is absolutely the same."

The K-Blade Tour plays closer and is made to compete in the market place with the Microgel Prestige MID.


the problems with this paintjob issue are based on an attempt to deceive the buying public. that's where things go wrong with this practice. they don't say that i'll be able to play like djokovic, or woods, by buying this product (something weightloss product ads are careful to avoid saying due to past lawsuits, and make very clear they are not promising). the problem is they are going to lengths to strongly suggest something that is false: that a particular touring professional is USING this product, and that this product is available for me to purchase. that's the falsehood. not the promise of similar performance, but rather that the tool this athlete is currently using is available for purchase, should i want it. they even go to extraordinary lengths to support this claim by: custom making a racket to appear to be the racket i can buy, painting this racket to appear to be the racket i can purchase. this is clearly designed to deceive the consumer. that's the problem.
djokovic can endorse it, he can have a hand in developing it; he can even say he HAS APPROVED it. but, they are strongly suggesting he is actually using it in professional tournament play. that's a falsehood that they are going to 'extraordinary lengths' to present to the consumer. and there is the problem. that is false advertising.

it's not nuts to imagine a group suing wilson, stating consumers are currently purchasing some of their products based on claims in advertising which wilson knows are false and are acting to conceal. that is not far fetched at all.

about the racing car issue: a reasonable person can clearly and easily see that the version that is for sale and the version on the track are not the same vehicle, not even close: not the same size, not the same shape, not the same length, etc etc. can a reasonable person clearly see that novak's racket is not the same kblade that is currently hanging on the shelf for sale? no; because wilson has taken great measures to conceal that fact from the consumer. so these two examples are not comparable.

sorry for the length. i'm done. but it's an interesting topic.
Schwuller, great post and I agree with you.

orangettecoleman
09-03-2008, 09:10 AM
wouldn't it be amazing if PJs were illegal? it would be a totally different world for racquet marketing, and we would know exactly what the pros use. oh well, not gonna happen. As the poster above said, Rafa can hit one ball in one practice with a APDC and they can advertise it as being used by Rafa.

orangettecoleman
09-03-2008, 09:16 AM
anyway, if people buy a racquet just because some pro uses it then that's their problem. even if it is the same racquet there is no reason to think that it would make that particular person play better. people just want to be seen on the courts with the Fed racquet or the Rafa racquet. let the racquet companies milk these people for profits, i pick whatever helps me play best.

orangettecoleman
09-03-2008, 09:18 AM
to establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.

what's being discussed here seems to clearly fall within definition number 2 and definition number 3, at the very least.

good point there.

PimpMyGame
09-03-2008, 09:37 AM
good point there.

Yup, good point that even on this legislation there are maybe three of the five conditions which aren't met.

BreakPoint
09-03-2008, 01:56 PM
anyway, if people buy a racquet just because some pro uses it then that's their problem. even if it is the same racquet there is no reason to think that it would make that particular person play better. people just want to be seen on the courts with the Fed racquet or the Rafa racquet. let the racquet companies milk these people for profits, i pick whatever helps me play best.
And that purpose and benefit has been fulfilled by the companies since the racquets sold to the public look just like the racquets that their favorite pro uses to all but the most trained eyes very close-up, most of whom are just the few people on this board. :)

So if your reason for buying the APDC is to look like Nadal out on the courts then your need has been met and you should be very happy. However, if you bought the APDC because you thought by using it you would be able to play tennis just like Nadal, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. :)

azn_hobo
09-03-2008, 02:16 PM
Yeah it says "Aeropro Drive" (which is what he uses). It doesn't say "Aeropro Drive Cortex", which is what he has a PJ of..

well the cortex version doesn't have "aeropro drive cortex" either. the only place the word cortex is used is right above the actual cortex system

mtommer
09-04-2008, 12:29 AM
And that purpose and benefit has been fulfilled by the companies since the racquets sold to the public look just like the racquets that their favorite pro uses to all but the most trained eyes very close-up, most of whom are just the few people on this board. :)

So if your reason for buying the APDC is to look like Nadal out on the courts then your need has been met and you should be very happy. However, if you bought the APDC because you thought by using it you would be able to play tennis just like Nadal, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. :)

How did a company get me to pay $159+ for a racquet versus one of their lower end offerings? By implying that the racquet is what the pros use. And isn't this what they're counting on? Think about the difference people mention here between the "classic" sticks versus today's "modern" sticks. Which one is seen as "solid" while the other a plasticy toy?

BreakPoint
09-04-2008, 12:37 AM
How did a company get me to pay $159+ for a racquet versus one of their lower end offerings? By implying that the racquet is what the pros use. And isn't this what they're counting on? Think about the difference people mention here between the "classic" sticks versus today's "modern" sticks. Which one is seen as "solid" while the other a plasticy toy?
Because you got a better racquet than the cheap $40 WalMart racquet.

Did you buy the racquet because some pro uses it? If so, you would have bought that same racquet if that pro also used a "plasticy toy", right? So does it really matter if the pro uses a paintjob or not? You didn't buy it for the racquet itself but because it looks just like the one a pro uses, right?

LPShanet
09-04-2008, 12:45 AM
At the end of the day, none of the legalities matter until someone decides it's worth his/her time and money to take action. The U.S. government (or more accurately any particular state government, since this is as much their issue as a federal one) is certainly not going to suddenly crack down on this practice unless there is significant pressure to do so. I can't really imagine a scenario under which it makes sense to sue a racquet company over the issue. Even if you win the case, the damages are essentially $199.

crosscourt
09-04-2008, 01:49 AM
Yup, good point that even on this legislation there are maybe three of the five conditions which aren't met.


Aren't four (I am leaving aside the point about interstate trade) out of the five at least arguably met if: the advertisement misrepresents a leading player as using a racket that they are not using, the purchaser believes that the racket is being used by that player, in consequence the purchaser believes that the racket is an advance on previous offerings so that the racket is more desirable, consequently the purchaser acquires a racket that he would not otherwise have purchased?

cc

mtommer
09-04-2008, 06:27 AM
Because you got a better racquet than the cheap $40 WalMart racquet.

Did you buy the racquet because some pro uses it? If so, you would have bought that same racquet if that pro also used a "plasticy toy", right? So does it really matter if the pro uses a paintjob or not? You didn't buy it for the racquet itself but because it looks just like the one a pro uses, right?

A pro using the racquet means it must be able to stand up to some abuse, hence it's not a platicy toy. (Understand that I'm talking about consumer perception here which companies try to direct). Also, those who buy racquets because the pros use them do so for more than just looks. They don't understand your point about performance vs looks. It certainly is true that in the minds of many consumers if they get the equipment the pros use, they will be able to play like the pro. They may not be able to RUN around like the pro, but give them the racquet and they'll at least be able to hit like a pro. Absolutely consumers, especially kids, believe this.

There's also another aspect to this. Again, those who are buying racquets because the pros use them don't know enough about tennis to understand a game can't be "bought". But this goes beyond just "magically" being able to play. For example, when I first bought my Ti Radicals, I was just beginning in tennis. I absolutely bought those racquets because Agassi played with them and I wanted to emulate my game after him. For me, the racquet represented a measuring stick of sorts. If I was not playing like Agassi it's because I still had some work to do but I believed (*:oops:*) that given enough time I COULD hit like him. In other words, all I had to do was elevate my skills to match the potential of the racquet. And of course, how these racquets are marketed, it's not possible to pick up a broom and beat some students. :)

My point is that most here know people who believe they can buy a game. With the paintjob racquets, the industry is taking advantage of that false belief and preying upon those who don't know better. That IS unethical IMO. Besides, kids do idolize their players and they do want the equipment their favorite player uses. It makes them feel connected to that player. I'd wager there is a lot of disappointment from them when they learn what they that what thought they were buying is essentially amounts to a fake.

Look at the flip side to all this. Suppose the companies didn't paintjob their racquets. Would they still sell the numbers of racquets that they do? My guess is that we'd see a lot less models offered from the likes of Head and Wilson and higher quality racquets too. I bet sales wouldn't be as good though. Maybe they shouldn't be.

BreakPoint
09-04-2008, 01:09 PM
A pro using the racquet means it must be able to stand up to some abuse, hence it's not a platicy toy.
The quality of pros' racquets are not that different than the retail versions because they use the same graphite and are usually made in the same factories (except Head). You see how easily pros break their racquets when they get angry? They are not made from some superior material. I'd bet you'd have a harder time breaking your retail racquet. The difference is that they build them to closer tolerances so that the pro can get 20 racquets that are all identical in specs. But if the pro's racquet is not a "plasticy toy" then neither is the retail version.

mtommer
09-04-2008, 03:56 PM
The quality of pros' racquets are not that different than the retail versions because they use the same graphite and are usually made in the same factories (except Head). You see how easily pros break their racquets when they get angry? They are not made from some superior material. I'd bet you'd have a harder time breaking your retail racquet. The difference is that they build them to closer tolerances so that the pro can get 20 racquets that are all identical in specs. But if the pro's racquet is not a "plasticy toy" then neither is the retail version.

So James Blake does use the Aerogel 200? They aren't the same racquet with better tolerances. They are completely different and the makeup is not comparable to the "newer" versions. If all you had to do was add lead to get the pro racquet spec, that would be one thing.

If you advertise a Ti Radical on the Bay that was used by Agassi then it had better of been actually used by Agassi. It makes the price jump up. It is in fact worth more.

The same thing is happening in the retail market. When people see Agassi playing with the "Ti Radical" and you go into a store and see one, it looks like his, you see the price tag, you can justify that because "I've got the same racquet as he does." - only you don't. It's devious artificial price inflation - cashing in on buyer ignorance and desire for the sake of profits. It doesn't fly on the Bay and it shouldn't fly in the market place. No matter how one tries to turn it, the only attributes that can be associated with this practice are deception and trickery for more money - the essence of immoral and unethical behavior. There is no other valid, well intentioned, reason why this would be done.

Charlie_Boy
09-04-2008, 05:10 PM
I think it should be illegal.

Just like ticket scalping.

crosscourt
09-06-2008, 05:23 AM
Aren't four (I am leaving aside the point about interstate trade) out of the five at least arguably met if: the advertisement misrepresents a leading player as using a racket that they are not using, the purchaser believes that the racket is being used by that player, in consequence the purchaser believes that the racket is an advance on previous offerings so that the racket is more desirable, consequently the purchaser acquires a racket that he would not otherwise have purchased?

cc

Looking at the Babolat ads for Nadal, they show a racket that looks like the APDC but only go so far as to say that he uses the APD. They must think that this is an acceptable blend of promotion and accurate representation.

cc

Steve Huff
09-06-2008, 08:08 AM
I think a lot of companies get around all this by sending their frames to custom shops like RPNY. He keeps blanks of nearly all the top pro's and does the custom work for the pro's. He reshapes their handles, reweights the rackets and about anything else that's required. Some companies may have "in-house" customizing shops too. For a price, they'd probably customize your racket to whatever specs you want. You can't just say "make mine like Federer's". That may infringe upon HIS rights. But, if you gave them the exact specs you want, they'd make it for you in their customizing shop. Of course, it would cost you. That's the difference. It doesn't cost the pro's because that is included in their compensation for using that brand.

BreakPoint
09-06-2008, 06:25 PM
So James Blake does use the Aerogel 200? They aren't the same racquet with better tolerances. They are completely different and the makeup is not comparable to the "newer" versions. If all you had to do was add lead to get the pro racquet spec, that would be one thing.

I didn't say that the pros use the exact same racquets as the retail versions. I said the quality is similar because they are made using similar materials in the same factories. The pros' racquet is not some super duper racquet made of indestructable materials while the retail version is a "plasticy toy" or a hunk of junk made of garbage. The pros' racquets may use a different mold and/or a different layup but they are not "superior" racquets to the retail version.

You will not play better with a pro's racquet than a retail racquet just because it's a pro's racquet. In fact, you would probably play worse since most amateurs cannot handle the weight and swingweight of pro spec racquets. Years ago, Spalding came out with a line of pro spec racquets that were designed according to the specs used by many ATP pros - they were heavy (>13 oz.) with high swingweights (>350). They quickly disappeared because very few non-pros could handle racquets designed for a pro.

pmerk34
09-06-2008, 07:01 PM
I didn't say that the pros use the exact same racquets as the retail versions. I said the quality is similar because they are made using similar materials in the same factories. The pros' racquet is not some super duper racquet made of indestructable materials while the retail version is a "plasticy toy" or a hunk of junk made of garbage. The pros' racquets may use a different mold and/or a different layup but they are not "superior" racquets to the retail version.

You will not play better with a pro's racquet than a retail racquet just because it's a pro's racquet. In fact, you would probably play worse since most amateurs cannot handle the weight and swingweight of pro spec racquets. Years ago, Spalding came out with a line of pro spec racquets that were designed according to the specs used by many ATP pros - they were heavy (>13 oz.) with high swingweights (>350). They quickly disappeared because very few non-pros could handle racquets designed for a pro.

Andy Murray yet ANOTHER young male touring pro usuing a Head Microgel. Great sticks.

vsbabolat
09-07-2008, 07:55 AM
Andy Murray yet ANOTHER young male touring pro usuing a Head Microgel. Great sticks.

Murray is still using a paint job though. Murray uses the Microgel Prestige Pro with the paint job of the Microgel Radical MP.
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_US_Open4.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_western_southern.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_U_S_OpenC.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_U_S_Opena.jpg

pmerk34
09-07-2008, 10:39 AM
Murray is still using a paint job though. Murray uses the Microgel Prestige Pro with the paint job of the Microgel Radical MP.
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_US_Open4.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_western_southern.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_U_S_OpenC.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_U_S_Opena.jpg

I use the Prestige Pro too. Great choice Mr. Murray may you go far!

ear_lobe
09-07-2008, 10:58 AM
Murray is still using a paint job though. Murray uses the Microgel Prestige Pro with the paint job of the Microgel Radical MP.
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_US_Open4.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_western_southern.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_U_S_OpenC.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_U_S_Opena.jpg

No it's the iprestige (intelligence) 93 mid

vsbabolat
09-07-2008, 01:32 PM
No it's the iprestige (intelligence) 93 mid

No I am sorry but Andy Murray in those photos at the 2008 U.S. Open is using the Microgel Prestige Pro. Murray switched to the Microgel Prestige Pro in Jan. 2008. If you botherd to even look at the photos you would see that Murray's racquet now has a 16x19 string pattern, Full C.A.P. Grommets, and a 98 sq. in. or 630 cm2 head size.
Here look take a look at the Photos again from the 2008 U.S. Open.
.
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_US_Open4.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_western_southern.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_U_S_OpenC.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/Andy_Murray_2008_U_S_Opena.jpg
P.S. Murray old racquet before the Microgel Prestige Pro was the HEAD PT57E

JW10S
09-07-2008, 06:00 PM
vs is right--Murray is using a Prestige Pro. As I stated in another thread I've been told by HEAD execs that Murray is very difficult to work with. That he uses a Prestige Pro painted like a Radical comes down to little more than he wants to be 'special'. He doesn't want to use a stock looking racquet--he has to be different. Is it illegal?--no. Egomaniacal?--yes.

LPShanet
09-08-2008, 10:44 AM
vs is right--Murray is using a Prestige Pro. As I stated in another thread I've been told by HEAD execs that Murray is very difficult to work with. That he uses a Prestige Pro painted like a Radical comes down to little more than he wants to be 'special'. He doesn't want to use a stock looking racquet--he has to be different. Is it illegal?--no. Egomaniacal?--yes.

That Murray uses a Prestige Pro pj'd as a Radical is absolutely correct. That he uses one just to be special is not quite. He may be a pain in the butt, but the reasong for the pj is that Head sells many more Radicals than Prestiges, as it's more of a "tweener" frame, and Rad pj's have traditionally been used by their flashier players (Agassi, etc.). The Rad is more playable by a wider range of recreational players than the Prestige, and has traditionally sold at greater volume, so they promote it more heavily in their advertising and marketing. In fact, Head has a history of pj'ing Prestiges to look like Radicals. The Prestige, which is heavier and more head light (as well as more flexible and having a different flex pattern), is more appealing to many pros, and more customizable, due to its more head-light starting balance.

vsbabolat
09-08-2008, 10:55 AM
The Prestige, which is heavier and more head light (as well as more flexible and having a different flex pattern), is more appealing to many pros, and more customizable, due to its more head-light starting balance.

One kind of HEAD racquet for the Pros is not anymore or any less customizable, whether it be a Prestige or Radical. This is because the boys in Kennelbach manufacture the Pro's racquets that are lighter than what is sold commercially (They do have the cosmetics on it). HEAD will then customize the racquets specs (weight, balance, and swing weight) as needed for a player or ship the racquets uncustomized to the players' desired customizer for customization.
This is done to make the racquets much easier to customize and if a player desires a Prestige that weighs 11.5 oz strung manufacturing them lighter than commercial makes that possible. Otherwise it would be impossible to have a Prestige Mid (600) or Mid Plus (630) 11.5 oz Strung.

BreakPoint
09-08-2008, 12:16 PM
Another possible reason that Murray wanted a Radical paintjob is that he's been quoted as saying that Agassi was his idol growing up and he wanted to play just like Agassi. Besides, his previous racquet had an i.Radical paintjob on it (whether or not it was a real i.Radical underneath, I don't know).

pmerk34
09-08-2008, 12:25 PM
Another possible reason that Murray wanted a Radical paintjob is that he's been quoted as saying that Agassi was his idol growing up and he wanted to play just like Agassi. Besides, his previous racquet had an i.Radical paintjob on it (whether or not it was a real i.Radical underneath, I don't know).

I have Murrays racquet, can his game be far behind???

LPShanet
09-08-2008, 09:42 PM
One kind of HEAD racquet for the Pros is not anymore or any less customizable, whether it be a Prestige or Radical. This is because the boys in Kennelbach manufacture the Pro's racquets that are lighter than what is sold commercially (They do have the cosmetics on it). HEAD will then customize the racquets specs (weight, balance, and swing weight) as needed for a player or ship the racquets uncustomized to the players' desired customizer for customization.
This is done to make the racquets much easier to customize and if a player desires a Prestige that weighs 11.5 oz strung manufacturing them lighter than commercial makes that possible. Otherwise it would be impossible to have a Prestige Mid (600) or Mid Plus (630) 11.5 oz Strung.

That's almost entirely correct. However, some of the frames done at Kennelbach aren't made super light, as they do the customization in house at the manufacturing stage in some cases. The ones they send out for after-market work are exactly as you describe. Ultimately balance is also a big factor, as you can't take weight out of the head after the fact, so the Prestige layup lends itself to customization, as it initially places a lower percentage of weight in the head than the Radical version. Also, the flex pattern of the Prestige is also more appealing to most pros and is a factor in their preference for it over Radicals historically. The flex pattern is separate from the RA rating, as it can't be controlled simply via layup.

vsbabolat
09-08-2008, 10:28 PM
That's almost entirely correct. However, some of the frames done at Kennelbach aren't made super light, as they do the customization in house at the manufacturing stage in some cases. The ones they send out for after-market work are exactly as you describe. Ultimately balance is also a big factor, as you can't take weight out of the head after the fact, so the Prestige layup lends itself to customization, as it initially places a lower percentage of weight in the head than the Radical version. Also, the flex pattern of the Prestige is also more appealing to most pros and is a factor in their preference for it over Radicals historically. The flex pattern is separate from the RA rating, as it can't be controlled simply via layup.

That is almost entirely correct. I said that HEAD does the customization in House in Kennelbach if the player desires. It is done after the manufacturing process. Silicone is put in the hairpin and lead tape put under the C.A.P. system grommets or bumper guard depending on what the case maybe. A tell tail sign that HEAD has done the customization is a hole that has been drilled through the butt-cap.
And of course you know that there is more than one layup for the "Radical MP". You have TGK 231.1 and TGK 231.2 that I am aware of for the "Radical MP". So really it is not about what racquet you can make what weight, balance, and swing weight because you can make any racquet out of the "Pro Room" what weight, balance, and Swing weight you want. Like I said before if a "Player" wants a head heavy, even or head light balance and weight that is 11.5 oz strung it can be done for a "Prestige MP" if it is so desired. Or if a "Player" wants a "Radical MP" in a head light balance and 12.5 oz strung it can be done.

crosscourt
09-08-2008, 10:59 PM
I have Murrays racquet, can his game be far behind???

Without his racket he wont have any game at all.

cc

jack hoyer
09-09-2008, 07:16 AM
Companies getting pros to use racquets with paint jobs to make them look like another model illegal ? ... maybe not. Misleading, false advertising, dishonest - definitely!

LPShanet
09-09-2008, 10:01 AM
That is almost entirely correct. I said that HEAD does the customization in House in Kennelbach if the player desires. It is done after the manufacturing process. Silicone is put in the hairpin and lead tape put under the C.A.P. system grommets or bumper guard depending on what the case maybe. A tell tail sign that HEAD has done the customization is a hole that has been drilled through the butt-cap.
And of course you know that there is more than one layup for the "Radical MP". You have TGK 231.1 and TGK 231.2 that I am aware of for the "Radical MP". So really it is not about what racquet you can make what weight, balance, and swing weight because you can make any racquet out of the "Pro Room" what weight, balance, and Swing weight you want. Like I said before if a "Player" wants a head heavy, even or head light balance and weight that is 11.5 oz strung it can be done for a "Prestige MP" if it is so desired. Or if a "Player" wants a "Radical MP" in a head light balance and 12.5 oz strung it can be done.

Yep, all true. In fact, I thought there were even more Radical layups than those two, but don't profess to know them all. But the flex pattern is a trickier matter, and people rarely seem to talk about it on these boards.

vsbabolat
09-09-2008, 01:48 PM
Yep, all true. In fact, I thought there were even more Radical layups than those two, but don't profess to know them all. But the flex pattern is a trickier matter, and people rarely seem to talk about it on these boards.

I am sorry for the confusion. I certainly don't profess to know all of the Radical layups. Yeah you sure are right the flex pattern is very important.

JW10S
09-09-2008, 01:54 PM
That Murray uses a Prestige Pro pj'd as a Radical is absolutely correct. That he uses one just to be special is not quite. He may be a pain in the butt, but the reasong for the pj is that Head sells many more Radicals than Prestiges, as it's more of a "tweener" frame, and Rad pj's have traditionally been used by their flashier players (Agassi, etc.). The Rad is more playable by a wider range of recreational players than the Prestige, and has traditionally sold at greater volume, so they promote it more heavily in their advertising and marketing. In fact, Head has a history of pj'ing Prestiges to look like Radicals. The Prestige, which is heavier and more head light (as well as more flexible and having a different flex pattern), is more appealing to many pros, and more customizable, due to its more head-light starting balance.I would buy into that except for the fact that the MG Prestige Pro, with it's more open string pattern and different balance, is new to the Prestige line. HEAD wants to promote it. Where better than in the hands of a Top 10 pro? The Radical is already an established worldwide success. To introduce a new frame and paint it like an established one doesn't make much sense to me--so I'm going to go along with what I was told regarding the situation.

matchmaker
09-10-2008, 05:51 PM
Well, to get back on topic. I have thought about this for a long time and I do think that something should be done about this PJ fraud.

I find that, if a racquet is advertised with a pro player wielding it, it should be the exact same racquet that is available for retail, minus the adding of lead tape. So flex, composition, headsize, string pattern should be the same.

That is just my opinion. I feel this PJ thing has hurt too many consumers, sometimes literally, when they buy superlight headheavy racquets because they think pros play with that.

MonkeyMan123
09-10-2008, 07:10 PM
yeah, its illegal, saying djokovic uses the kblade tour that we can buy today even though he uses an entirely different racket should be illegal, also safin using a microgel even though he obviously doesnt. It is an outright lie. Something should be done.

officerdibble
09-10-2008, 11:23 PM
:twisted:You Can't Handle The Pros' Racquets:twisted:


That's why they make 9 - 12 oz. racquets for the rest of us weaklings.

YES YOU CAN if you learn to play proper shots.

officerdibble
09-10-2008, 11:25 PM
Because you got a better racquet than the cheap $40 WalMart racquet.



That's not necessarily true; there are only a handful of factories in the Far East that manufacture tennis racquets for all the brands, so there's a reasonable chance that the $40 racquet is, technically, no worse than the branded model (although it may be even lighter, which wouldn't be good).

LPShanet
09-11-2008, 09:57 AM
That's not necessarily true; there are only a handful of factories in the Far East that manufacture tennis racquets for all the brands, so there's a reasonable chance that the $40 racquet is, technically, no worse than the branded model (although it may be even lighter, which wouldn't be good).

Officer Dibble, first off thanks for your contribution. However, the part of the discussion referred to wasn't in relation to no-name racquets versus branded. It was about major companies' high end frames being the same or different from the same brand's low end "supermarket specials". Clearly, just because something is made in the same factory doesn't mean it's the same thing, or a thing of the same quality. Is the top of the line Mercedes the same as their cheapest offering? Do they use exactly the same materials? Does it go from 0-60 at the same rate? This is also true for racquets.

You're right that a high percentage of the world's racquets are made at a surprisingly small number of factories in China. However, all companies using these factories specify the materials, tolerances and manufacturing processes they'd like used, and pay a proportionate amount for manufacture. Some models cost much more or less than others. Some are much better or worse than others. When they make $40 "supermarket specials" they often don't even use graphite (which is almost certainly the "toy" an ealier poster referred to). They make a certain number of racquets that have similar cosmetics to their performance racquets intended to be sold to people via the mass channel (i.e. Walmart, KMart, big box sporting goods stores, etc.), which have vastly inferior specs and materials. When they make performance frames, they use different materials and charge proportionately more for them.

In turn, the racquet companies are charged much more by the OEMs for making more labor-intensive frames, or ones with costlier materials and processes. Like all retail items, the cost at retail is largely determined by the cost of manufature, at least in terms of relative proportion. So a $40 racquet is, in fact, usually technically much worse than a higher end frame.

BreakPoint
09-11-2008, 01:26 PM
That's not necessarily true; there are only a handful of factories in the Far East that manufacture tennis racquets for all the brands, so there's a reasonable chance that the $40 racquet is, technically, no worse than the branded model (although it may be even lighter, which wouldn't be good).
That may or may not be true, but most people buy the $180 racquet from a pro shop instead of the $40 racquet from Wal-Mart NOT because some pro uses the $180 model but because they think a $180 racquet from a real tennis pro shop has got to be a better racquet than a $40 racquet from Wal-Mart. Most people tend to associate a higher price with better quality, and not just with tennis racquets, whether or not that product is endorsed by a celebrity.

Bdarb
09-25-2012, 05:03 PM
That may or may not be true, but most people buy the $180 racquet from a pro shop instead of the $40 racquet from Wal-Mart NOT because some pro uses the $180 model but because they think a $180 racquet from a real tennis pro shop has got to be a better racquet than a $40 racquet from Wal-Mart. Most people tend to associate a higher price with better quality, and not just with tennis racquets, whether or not that product is endorsed by a celebrity.


Agreed. However many people lend credence to the frames the pros play with (or think they are) not because they want to play like them but because they assume "he's a pro, he wouldn't use a crap product". The argument that using a pros actual racquet isn't good for their game isn't rally valid because even if they do make them a better player by selling them a different stick, consumers are free to be as stupid as they wish. Point made by cigarettes ha. If they want a pros stick and you say you can give that to them, thats ypur obliation as an ethical company, simple as that.
This whole situation is merky at best, it's clearly unethical on some level to elicit such debate. It would be interesting to see what racquet sales would do if this practice was banned. Would players change their setups at the companies whim for money? Would manufactures offerings change to match pros sticks in a effort to rejuvenate presumably lost revenue. Who knows.
I hope this post isn't seen as argumentative. I think both sides have valid points but overall I think it says something that a company saying "our pros sticks are the same that are available to you" does mean something to many people, even if only principally.

Interesting thread I'm new to tw, great forum!

Bdarb
09-25-2012, 05:04 PM
^^ sorry for spelling and no indentation, on mobile ha

Bdarb
09-25-2012, 05:09 PM
JuSt saw im posting so someone from four years ago. Noob mistake sorry guys

onehandbh
09-26-2012, 09:28 AM
Pro stock cars should be illegal. My 4 cylinder Toyota
Camry handles like a boat and barely goes up steep
hills. Total false advertising!

jorel
09-26-2012, 09:51 AM
But McEnroe always used a real Max 200G, the same one we could buy in the stores. He never had it paintjobbed AFAIK.
i actually cant think of a racquet that mac ever used that was a paintjob

BreakPoint
09-26-2012, 12:46 PM
i actually cant think of a racquet that mac ever used that was a paintjob
The graphite Dunlop Maxply McEnroe and probably his current racquet are paintjobs.

vsbabolat
09-26-2012, 01:13 PM
The graphite Dunlop Maxply McEnroe and probably his current racquet are paintjobs.

Yes, that Graphite Maxply McEnroe was a paint job.

West Coast Ace
09-26-2012, 07:21 PM
Pro stock cars should be illegal. My 4 cylinder Toyota
Camry handles like a boat and barely goes up steep
hills. Total false advertising!Try bump drafting.

Wonder how the OP's (and all the other outraged victims) lawsuit is going... :confused: