PDA

View Full Version : Paintjobs are bad for tennis


Jesse
02-08-2005, 08:18 AM
I think the paintjob issue degrades the image of tennis. I mean is there any other sport where the manufacturers and players cheat media so much? (Maybe badminton and squash deal with same issue, I donít know for sure.)

Donít get me wrong, I think itís fine to tune your sport equipment to get the best results. But painting the prosí racquets to look like the new models and saying it is the same racquet is sooooo wrong. Is everything allowed in the name of marketing? The companies look like fools in my eyes.

Okay, the paintjobs are not the most important thing in the world and general public may not know or doesnít even care this matter, but I still think the paintjobs suck. There is great danger that the tennis fan who wants to buy his or her idolís racquet gets cheated. The racquet he or she wants to buy looks like the one his idol uses but itís not the same. And what about the responsibility of the shop keeper. I know from experience that some of them go along with the racquet manufactures and not tell the truth (or are not even aware of the issue!).

I know the reason for paintjobs is money, right? One explanation is that without paintjobs the companies would die because they wouldnít sell enough racquets. But what if there was a company that would have guts to go against the grain. At least Iíd appreciate and support a racquet manufacturer that wouldnít do paintjobs for their pros. That company could say that we donít have to produce new (playersí) racquets every year. If our pros want to play with the old ones we produce them (in any colour you want) as long as we come up with some good racquets our pros want to use.

I may be an idealist but I know some of you tennis fans think the same. Now Iíll stop whining and taking your time. I'll pack my bag and go to hit some beautiful slices ;). Sorry for bad Euro-Engrish :) .

Craig Sheppard
02-08-2005, 08:37 AM
Let me boil down the responses you're going to get:

1. You're so right! Paintjobs are deceptive and misleading and there should be lawsuits against the racquet companies.

2. Get over it dude. Why do you care what the pros really use anyway? They're just marketing wh0res to begin with. Anyone in their right mind would know they're just pimping the brands.

Do a search, this argument never ends... I'm in camp #1, but I don't really care anymore.

Kaptain Karl
02-08-2005, 08:44 AM
The tennis public has itself to blame. How on Earth I would expect to like a racket because "Pro X" uses it is beyond me.

P. T. Barnum was right ... especially for tennis.

- KK

max200G
02-08-2005, 09:57 AM
The racquet manufacturers are comitting fraud on the public.
They state that a pro player is using a particular racquet and uses
some other racquet painted to look like said racquet,simply put this is fraud
This is not customizing a racquet ie weight,ballance,grip shape etc etc.

Why is this allowd to continue! FRAUD IS FRAUD

Steve Huff
02-08-2005, 10:24 AM
Personally, I've never thought of it as fraud. I look at it as if the racket was an advertising board for that player and manufacturer. It's no different than NASCAR, which is "Stock Car" racing. It's just another billboard to advertise the products they are endorsing.

Rabbit
02-08-2005, 10:37 AM
I'm with Steve here. I don't remember anywhere an ad stating that a pro used an off the shelf model. We should also remember that more pros than not do use off the shelf models, not all can afford to have multi-thousand dollar customizations done for them.

max200G
02-08-2005, 10:47 AM
If you do not rember ads with pros endorising racquets take another look at Tennis magazine ,Tennis week,or any other magazine.
Stock car racing is not the same thing apples and oranges. Take a look at the pro glof tour, hocky, base ball,bowling

Kaptain Karl
02-08-2005, 11:09 AM
Here are the rules for proving fraud in the USA. Knock yourself out, max200G....
___________
For fraud to be established, the US Supreme Court has set forth the following nine points which must ALL be proven:

1. There has been a representation of an existing fact.

2. The representation is material.

3. The representation is false.

4. The person forwarding the representation knew of its falsity or knew that they were ignorant of its truth.

5. The person making the representation did so with the intent that the statement be relied upon by the one to whom it was made.

6. Ignorance on the part of the one to whom the representation is made

7. Reliance by the one to whom it is made

8. The right of the one to whom the representation is made to rely upon it

9. Consequent damage to whom the representation is made
___________

Think you've still got a case? Go for it....

- KK

max200G
02-08-2005, 11:37 AM
Karl I agree with your post 100%. You may rember in the summer of 04 or 03
the wall street journal had an artical on this very issue. And perhaps one other new paper.

Jesse
02-08-2005, 11:53 AM
Just kidding, but this is true: the question and answer are from Federer's homepage http://www.rogerfederer.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=19&page=5

In the last days I saw you playing in Roland Garros I saw that you changed your racquet. What is it and why did you change?

I now play with a Wilson Six-One Tour 90, which is an improvement to my last racket with means of the Nano-Technology.

So I guess this comment proves what it's all about. The companies give money for pros to say what is needed to say. Shame on you Roger, you should be a role model!

Btw: does anyone sell 'SAY NO TO PAINT JOBS' t-shirt? I think I'd wear one. :D

max200G
02-08-2005, 11:57 AM
I found one artical written by Darren Rovaell from ESPN.com dated September1,2004.. ''The tennis racquet'' take the time to read it I think you may be inlightend by it

BreakPoint
02-08-2005, 12:13 PM
Which is more stupid?

1. Companies that do paintjobs and try to deceive the pubic?

or,

2. People who buy a racquet just because some pro uses it?


I vote for #2.

BTW, for people that do want to look like their favorite pro when playing tennis, you still get a racquet that LOOKS just like the one they're using. Why does it need to have the exact same specs as the one they're using? Are you a 7.0 ATP touring pro? If not, you probably won't be able to handle their racquet anyway. And if so, you'd be getting your own customized racquets with paintjobs from the manufacturers so you wouldn't have to worry about it.

Craig Sheppard
02-08-2005, 12:51 PM
BTW, for people that do want to look like their favorite pro when playing tennis, you still get a racquet that LOOKS just like the one they're using. Why does it need to have the exact same specs as the one they're using? Are you a 7.0 ATP touring pro? If not, you probably won't be able to handle their racquet anyway.
This is a good point b/c if you buy the racquet b/c your favorite pro is using it, then as long as it looks like your pro's racquet, for all intents and purposes you are "supporting" your favorite pro... (whether or not it has the weight/balance etc). But if you're under the impression that you must have the exact SAME racquet under the paint as your favorite pro, then you're under the delusion that their game is somehow tied to their racquet specs, and don't kid yourself, what you're really trying to do is get their game by getting their racquet specs... And we all know it don't work that way kiddies.

Datacipher
02-08-2005, 01:11 PM
Which is more stupid?

1. Companies that do paintjobs and try to deceive the pubic?

or,

2. People who buy a racquet just because some pro uses it?


I vote for #2.

.

I agree Breakpoint(though I admit when I was a kid, I felt the urge to play with the sticks of my favorite pros). However, I don't think #2, justifies #1.

Rabbit: Ads dont' say that pro plays with a racquet "as is, off the shelf"...but they do clearly say that a pro plays with racquet X, which in many cases, it is not....it is racquet Y....of course I would let it go if it is racquet X customized. Clearly the intent is to deceive the reader...that's the whole point/reason for painting the racquet! And they succeed...many club players believe this...or have not given it any thought.

You can say...."well people should not be stupid/naive enough to believe or even want the pros actual racquets"....those are valid points and good advice.....it doesn't justify the lies however...

Craig Sheppard
02-08-2005, 01:25 PM
And they succeed...many club players believe this...or have not given it any thought.

Shoot Datacipher, I was in a SHOP the other day where the salesperson insisted that player X used racquet Y! INSISTED! Cut the crap, please... Nothing bothers me more than merchants (car dealers, shop owners, etc) who cater to a particular segment and don't know what's what...or try to pretend I don't know what's what.

Jesse
02-08-2005, 01:43 PM
Hey Breakpoint, whose side are you on?

1. A company that don't get its stuff sold otherwise than paint jobbing their pros racquets.

2. A tennis fan who wants to know inside out the equipment his/her idol is using.


BTW: You are right that presumably only few of us "fans" could play with our idols' racquets. But the question isn't is it stupid or not to use an exact pros racquet. The problem is that the paint job is so dirty/brilliant way to make more money. If the general public knew the issue better it would be really bad for the sport. I don't think I'd be the only one to start underrate tennis for this reason.

Of course it could be much worse than paint jobs; thank god there's not too many doping cases in tennis. So, I guess every sport has its Achilles heel. But nevertheless, PJ is a matter of principle. Tennis is regarded as a sport of gentlemen. I don't care how much lead or whatever every pro puts in the racquet, but painting a racquet to look like newer model is the silliest thing I can think of. Hmm... I think I'll call Michael Moore, I have a case for him. ;)

BreakPoint
02-08-2005, 02:13 PM
Paintjobs are not that silly if you really think about it. Racquet companies need to keep selling racquets in order to survive, right? That's their business. Thus, they keep coming out with new models every couple of years (e.g., Trysis Radical, Twin Tube Radical, Ti Radical, i.Radical, LM Radical, Flexpoint Radical, etc.). To get customers to keep buying these new models, they get their sponsored pros to use paintjobs of these new models because most pros don't want to switch. If the pros are using the paintjobs, customers are encouraged to switch. But what if the pros did not use paintjobs? Many customers would not switch either and would continue to use their old racquets. If very few people switch because they still see their favorite pro using an old model, the companies would lose a lot of sales because people wouldn't need to buy as many new racquets. They cannot count on just replacement sales since racquets can last a long time. If this continues year after year, the companies risk going out of business. Then what would happen? There would be no companies left that make tennis racquets and where would we be then?

Remember all the racquet makers back in the '70's that either went under or got out of the racquet business? (e.g., Davis, Bancroft, Donnay, Le Coq Sportif, Snauweart, Garcia, Rossignol, Spalding, Kneissl, Puma, Adidas, Fila, Chemold, Rawlings, etc.)

Phil
02-08-2005, 09:44 PM
I know the reason for paintjobs is money, right? One explanation is that without paintjobs the companies would die because they wouldnít sell enough racquets. But what if there was a company that would have guts to go against the grain.

Well, that "gutsy" company would very quickly go out of business. Quit yer bellyachin' and buy the racquet that works for YOU, not some prima donna who gets paid a couple big ones (millions) to use it. This is not "bad" for tennis. Think about it a little and you may realize why...

Roforot
02-09-2005, 03:50 AM
Slightly off topic, but in the earlier post, someone mentioned
a "No Paintjobs T-Shirt". I think that's a funny idea. I'd also like
to see a "My other racquet is a paintjob!"

As far as the paintjobs; I don't have a big problem w/ them. It seems as though
we're seeing more "tour" versions also come out which are probably related to
the actual thing. For example, Agassi's stick on Tennis warehouse. So if you want
the cosmetics and want something weighted similar to the pros it's available.

equinox
02-09-2005, 08:29 PM
I'm sure a few huge fines from your local consumer watchdogs would change these companies minds about misleading the public with paintjobs.

Metzler
02-09-2005, 09:17 PM
Roddick and Spadea use off-the-shelf models with a few grams of Gamma lead tape added at 3 and 9 - so go get a Pure Drive + or POG oversize and start hitting like a touring pro! BTW, the difference between what's under the paint and what you can buy is often trivial - Hewitt's old school Yonex frame is not that different from an RDX.

elbuzzard
02-09-2005, 10:51 PM
i admire pete for never using a paint job. his 6.0 85 is just as much a trademark as his chest hair.

amadextor
02-09-2005, 11:08 PM
I think that painjobs are GOOD because the rackets with older specs look better every year, sometimes with addition some crappy ingredients, it's sort of a FACE LIFT with a better probability. If someone will sue racket manufacturers for Fraud and Public Deception in the court of law (I wonder why no one has done that yet), their lawyers can use this argument and probably win if they have a Dream Team guys who saved OJ Simpson *****.

But seriously, I would like to know the position of TW on that matter, are they for or against PJs? Also there should be petition created, where we as customers demand racket companies to stop misleading public!....

Phil
02-10-2005, 12:37 AM
i admire pete for never using a paint job. his 6.0 85 is just as much a trademark as his chest hair.

No, he didn't use a paintjob, but his racquets were heavily customized by the factory. No average Joe would be able to find Pete's exact racquet on the shelves, because it was never sold there. So why is that any less deceptive than a paintjob?

fedex27
02-10-2005, 03:15 AM
with out paintjobs we would have nothing to talk about.

Kaptain Karl
02-10-2005, 05:01 AM
I like the "My other racket is a paintjob" Tee. Get going on that production, will ya, E?

- KK

BreakPoint
02-10-2005, 11:57 AM
But seriously, I would like to know the position of TW on that matter, are they for or against PJs?

Think about it. Wouldn't anyone in the business of selling tennis racquets LOVE paintjobs? The whole point of paintjobs is to sell NEW racquets to the public. It wouldn't surprise me if it were the retailers and pro shops that demand the manufacturers do paintjobs. If there were no paintjobs, fewer customers would want to buy new racquets since they still see their favorite pros still using 5 or 10 year old models, so they figure they will also continue to just use their 5 or 10 year old racquets. The retailer and pro shops would lose a lot of sales and may even go out of business. It's already pretty difficult for most pro shops to make a living. Without paintjobs, they'd be dead. So what do you think TW's position is on paintjobs? I mean they actually have pics of the pros that use a particular model on the racquet description pages and also sometimes named in the description write-up itself. Like everyone else, they use these pros names that are associated with certain racquets to sell these racquets, whether or not they know they are paintjobs.

lendl lives
02-10-2005, 12:29 PM
not only do i want to buy the raquet of my tennis idol (s). i only use the raquet that the current number one player in the world uses. or whoever beats that number #1 also might influence it.

also i might choose to watch tape of a match based on what raquet I'm using at the time and what raquet the pros in the match are playing with.

ok. i have to see my therapist now. bye. -)

JennyS
02-14-2005, 05:12 PM
I do think that it's deceptive if a player is using a completely different racquet than the one they are advertizing. An example would be Hewitt, whose actual racquet has a different head shape than the RDX-500. But if a player uses a custom version of the racquet they are supposedly using (say a 12 oz pure drive with the same head size and materials as the off the shelf ones).

I am not going to use the same paintjob/racquet that my favorite Jen Cap uses. I don't want to play with a mid size racquet and I wasn't a big fan of the Diablo midplus either.

robbieb
02-16-2005, 03:05 AM
to be honest, paintjobs are a digusting way to exploit the thickos (;)) and increase their net profit just that bit more. honestly players are to blame aswell as they are getting nice little pay offs in order to fool their own die hard fans. poor sods. TELL US THE TRUTH!

:D

roddick is pretty good though as he uses an actual PD+ (though customed). or maybe im being fooled, ah crap...

TommyGun
02-16-2005, 05:12 AM
Paint jobs are an industry "secret" that have not truly been legally challenged yet, although there is some movement toward it becoming a fraudulent practice in he court system. About a year ago there was a small group of companies in another end of the sporting goods industry that had similar issues with paint jobs in their piece of the industry. They backed off at the last minute, but if they had gone to court and won it would have opened up the racquet industry to some huge liability.

The argument by many here that pros frames are so customized that it doesn't matter if its a paint job or not is, IMHO, just wrong. I have a Rickenbacker Bass guitar, Jetglo 4003. I change the strings ( I use a variety of makers depending on how I feel and the sound I'm looking for at the moment) and I have changed one of the pick-ups. Yes, you can't buy a Ricky off the shelf that matches mine...but the base is still a Ricky 4003. Its not a Fender painted to be a 4003, Nor is it a 4001 or 4000 made to look like a 4003. If someone wants to play a bass like mine (which would honor me to no end) then they can at least go out and buy the same base bass and customize it to suit them or make it like mine.

Racquet paint jobs are more like painting a Fender to look like a Ricky. First, the base is different, then the additional customization is over the different base. I will tell you from an experiment I did a few years ago that if you take any frame in the same make but different line (say Prestige Classic and LM Prestige), and customize them in weight and balance and grip type that they will NOT play the same, period. Since the base is different, no matter how much you customize it you can't match it.

Paint jobs are to sell product. 99.9 percent of the people who buy racquets don't care, nor do they play enough for it to matter. That is why the practice goes unchallenged. If you only play occasionally then if the racquet you bought matches the one say Serena or Venus seem to be playing with, you will think you are playing with their "frame" and won't care because you won't play enough to know.

amadextor
02-16-2005, 08:48 AM
I completely agree with the last post. With good faith I hope that racket manufacturers can re-issue old popular frames in limited editions, wny not? Paint them little different so they'll be more atttractive than originals or leave them alone the way they used to be. Someone pointed out that the cost of making a racket is a few dollars; there is a huge profit anyways. I would rather see Safin and everyone else playing with real Prestige Classic "re-issued" racket than a fake LM Painjob.