PDA

View Full Version : Do any pro's still play with the Prostaff 6.0 MP 95?


RayD
07-02-2005, 07:09 AM
Since Sampras, I haven't really noticed any other Pros using this racquet. Wilson should have updated it for the nCode line. I found the nSix-One 95 and the Tour 90 to be too head heavy, and the prostaff 6.0 is more balanced to my liking.

BreakPoint
07-02-2005, 07:32 AM
There are probably some Wilson sponsored pros that are still using the PS 6.0 95 but they are painted to look like the nSix-One 95, so it's hard to tell on TV.

Coda
07-02-2005, 08:46 AM
I think updating the PS Original would take all the magic out of it, that and it would take out all the feel and add alot more power.

PrestigeClassic
07-02-2005, 01:20 PM
Do any pros still play with the 6.0 95? You ask like they have ever. Sampras? He played the Midsize. As for the 95, it's a horrible frame for anything but topspin shots, which happen to be great. But, go to flatten out on a putaway, say hello to the net. How about hitting a nice slice? Forget about it.

Coda
07-02-2005, 01:22 PM
are you crazy? this is a great all around frame

thejackal
07-02-2005, 02:12 PM
are you crazy? this is a great all around frame

Ignore the infidel Head users... ;)

tandayu
07-02-2005, 02:14 PM
are you crazy? this is a great all around frame

Do you mean the 95 is a great frame for those people who can't use the PS mid 85? I am sure the 95 it is great for some people, but during my 22 years stay in California, only once I met a person with the 95, because he was at max a 4.0 level player. Many use 85, which lead me to try their 85 frames.

I remember back then, the local pro shop always have like 4 to 5 of the mid 85 frames left on the wall, while at least 30-40 frames of the midplus 95. The turnover and demand is more on the mid 85.

antontd
07-02-2005, 02:17 PM
LOL, BreakPoint won’t be happy.

federer_nadal
07-02-2005, 02:43 PM
Guys, you cant go around sledging one frame, it is a great frame IMO, others may not like it its their problem. And by the way they couldnt paint it to look like the N61 95 because the original had flat beam thingy

PrestigeClassic
07-02-2005, 03:16 PM
Uh, Wilson has painted all of their flat beam thingy's with cosmetics from non-flat beam thingy's. The Pro Staff Midsize/85 has had cosmetics from the Classic 6.1, Hyper 6.0, Tour 90, and nCode. The 95, when the Lochness Monster decides to play with it on tour, has had its share of paintjobs, from the Hyper 6.0, to even the Tour 95. Perhaps the reason that you see typically less paintjobs on the 95 is because the 95 is as dead as one's great grandfather ten times over.

BreakPoint
07-02-2005, 07:29 PM
are you crazy? this is a great all around frame

It's been well documented that PrestigeClassic is indeed crazy.

Coda
07-02-2005, 07:30 PM
your resentment towards a piece of equipment probably isn't healthy.

BreakPoint
07-02-2005, 07:37 PM
I remember back then, the local pro shop always have like 4 to 5 of the mid 85 frames left on the wall, while at least 30-40 frames of the midplus 95. The turnover and demand is more on the mid 85.

Look here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=48778
Not exactly a 10 to 1 ratio in favor of the 85 is it? Looks closer to 50/50 to me.

Perhaps that pro shop always only had 4 or 5 of the 85 on the wall because nobody bought them so they felt no need to keep a large inventory of them? Likewise, perhaps the demand for the 95 was so great that the pro shop felt they needed to always keep a large inventory of them so that they don't get caught out of stock when 20 people walk in within a week each wanting to buy three 95's? Ever think of it that way?

If you're not seeing many people use the 95, perhaps you're not getting out enough? ;)

NoBadMojo
07-02-2005, 08:42 PM
someone name with ANY assurance ANY TOP pro who used a Ps6.095 let alone a paint job there of

BreakPoint
07-02-2005, 08:48 PM
I was at a tournament a year ago and the Wilson rep there told me that Wesley Moodie uses a PS 6.0 95 with a Tour 95 paintjob. Don't know if he's still using the PS 6.0 95, but only now with a nSix-One 95 paintjob.

tandayu
07-02-2005, 09:18 PM
Breakpoint, I know you know and like a lot about the 95. Can you provide me infos on how many versions of the 95 were made, where it was made, cosmetical changes, any variances among different production batch/time, and how many Ps 85 versions have you tried for comparison with the 95?

BreakPoint
07-02-2005, 09:34 PM
tandayu,
As far as I know, all PS 6.0 95's were/are made in China. I think the first versions just said "ProStaff" on the throat, whereas, all later versions said "ProStaff 6.0". There was also a version that said "95 SQ. IN." on the inside of the hoop at 5 and 7 o'clock, whereas, the later versions say "MIDPLUS" in those locations.

As far as the PS 6.0 85, I've tried the Chicago, Taiwan, and China versions. I don't believe I've ever tried the St. Vincent version, as far as I can recall. However, I've heard the Chicago and Taiwan versions play very similar to the St. Vincents. The Chicago and Taiwan versions were definitely heavier than the China version. The Chicago might be the heaviest of the three. All were more demading than the 95. However, I could serve great with the 85, even better than with the 95, and the 95 is no slouch in the serve dept., one of the best IMO. However, for all other strokes, I thought the 95 was much easier to use. The 95 is also easy on my shoulder due to the low swingweight and fine for my elbow due to the high mass and high flex.

NoBadMojo
07-03-2005, 06:52 AM
so wesley moodie <whoever that is> is the only 'possible' pro who ever used this bat?

thejackal
07-03-2005, 07:15 AM
BTW Breakpoint, is the HPS 6.0 95 (the one with the HPS 6.1 paintjob) exactly the same as the original 95?

BreakPoint
07-03-2005, 07:27 AM
BTW Breakpoint, is the HPS 6.0 95 (the one with the HPS 6.1 paintjob) exactly the same as the original 95?

Yes, except that the HPS 6.0 95 has some HyperCarbon added to the hoop to stiffen it. It also swings a hair lighter than the PS 6.0 95. I found it to have less feel (as is the case with all racquets with HyperCarbon) than the Original and also harder to get juice on the serve.

BreakPoint
07-03-2005, 07:34 AM
so wesley moodie <whoever that is> is the only 'possible' pro who ever used this bat?

Wesley Moodie is from South Africa and I think he played in the main draw at Wimbledon last year.

Anyway, I wouldn't say "ever" used it, since this racquet came out in the early '90's and there may have been many pros that used it from that time on. Wesley Moodie is just one that I'm aware of in the last year or two that still used it. There may be others that I don't know about since everyone uses paintjobs on tour, even some college players. But like I said, it's possible that many other pros used it in the '90's and now fewer are using it, as is the case with the PS 6.0 85.

thejackal
07-03-2005, 06:40 PM
Confirmation about Moodie: http://tennishack12.bravepages.com/archive04/MoodieLA2.jpg

BreakPoint
07-03-2005, 06:57 PM
Confirmation about Moodie: http://tennishack12.bravepages.com/archive04/MoodieLA2.jpg

Yup, certainly looks like a PS 6.0 95 with a nSix-One Tour/95 red and white paintjob to me. :)

Now if TW could only get their hands on some PS 6.0 95 with nSix-One Tour/95 paintjobs like they did with the Tour 95 paintjob, I'd buy some. I do prefer the red and white paintjob over just all black.

thejackal
07-03-2005, 07:12 PM
Yup, certainly looks like a PS 6.0 95 with a nSix-One Tour/95 red and white paintjob to me. :)

Now if TW could only get their hands on some PS 6.0 95 with nSix-One Tour/95 paintjobs like they did with the Tour 95 paintjob, I'd buy some. I do prefer the red and white paintjob over just all black.

I second that, even though the HPS 6.1 paintjob is my personal fav.

PrestigeClassic
07-04-2005, 01:23 AM
Like who? And you know Wilson must modify Moodie's and whoever else's 6.0 95 frames to the extreme. Plastic being injected all inside the head.

For the record, the Hyper 6.0 95 is so much better for serves. Sure it might have less feel, but it's not as drastic as with nCode. I'd think that a stiff hoop would enable a server to strike the ball much higher on the string bed, creating more leverage. Stiffness = power? I played a couple sets with the Hyper and had no problem whatsoever finding juice on the serve, and more juice than with the normal 95.

And don't they have the same specs? Perhaps you found the Hyper to feel lighter due to its stiffness? Different weights make frames feel more flexible or stiffer, so perhaps to some, different flexes can also make frames feel like they are lighter or heavier?

AndrewD
07-04-2005, 02:02 AM
LOL, I guess we all know who Wesley Moodie is now

Pushmaster
07-04-2005, 03:46 AM
Does Moodie play with a stock 6.0 95 (with nCode PJ) or does he lead it up? BTW, congrats to Moodie and Huss for coming out of nowhere and winning the Wimbledon doubles title, at least we know the 6.0 95 is capable of winning a GS (in the right hands anyway).

AndrewD
07-04-2005, 03:54 AM
Pushmaster,

Moodie wasn't using the PS 6.0 95 at Wimbledon. Not sure which model it was but he's playing Tecnifibre now. Looks like he's been using them since about the end of last year. Seems that he only had a couple of years with Wilson (Yonex prior to 2003) and, from what you can see on Getty it could have been the HPS 6.0 95 that he was using.

Not that it really matters although it is interesting that you see more Tour95's on the pro circuit than PS 6.0 95s. Now that I am curious about. Given all of the negative feedback it gets why would the pros choose the Tour95 over the PS95 ,not to mention the nCode nSix-One, when those frames get far more applause.

thejackal
07-04-2005, 05:49 AM
Like who? And you know Wilson must modify Moodie's and whoever else's 6.0 95 frames to the extreme. Plastic being injected all inside the head.

For the record, the Hyper 6.0 95 is so much better for serves. Sure it might have less feel, but it's not as drastic as with nCode. I'd think that a stiff hoop would enable a server to strike the ball much higher on the string bed, creating more leverage. Stiffness = power? I played a couple sets with the Hyper and had no problem whatsoever finding juice on the serve, and more juice than with the normal 95.

And don't they have the same specs? Perhaps you found the Hyper to feel lighter due to its stiffness? Different weights make frames feel more flexible or stiffer, so perhaps to some, different flexes can also make frames feel like they are lighter or heavier?

I felt that The HPS 6.1 outclasses the HPS 6.0 drastically on serves until I added 4g of lead at the 12 o'clock position on the 6.0.

BreakPoint
07-04-2005, 08:59 AM
Like who? And you know Wilson must modify Moodie's and whoever else's 6.0 95 frames to the extreme. Plastic being injected all inside the head.

For the record, the Hyper 6.0 95 is so much better for serves. Sure it might have less feel, but it's not as drastic as with nCode. I'd think that a stiff hoop would enable a server to strike the ball much higher on the string bed, creating more leverage. Stiffness = power? I played a couple sets with the Hyper and had no problem whatsoever finding juice on the serve, and more juice than with the normal 95.

And don't they have the same specs? Perhaps you found the Hyper to feel lighter due to its stiffness? Different weights make frames feel more flexible or stiffer, so perhaps to some, different flexes can also make frames feel like they are lighter or heavier?

Well, you and I must have completely different service motions then. Either that or we had very different string/tension set-ups in the two racquets. I found a very noticable difference in serve pace and spin with the two racquets, with the PS 6.0 95 being much better. That's why I went with the PS 6.0 95 over the HPS 6.0 95. I was demoing both at the time to see if I wanted to switch to one of them. I believe the swingweight of the HPS 6.0 95 is 312 which is less than the PS 6.0 95's 317. I could definitely feel that difference. Perhaps that's what also affected the pace of the serves. Actually, I find I can serve harder and with more spin with racquets with more flexible hoops than with stiffer hoops. I think it's because the hoop flexes back and snaps into the ball giving it extra juice. For example, in additon to the PS 6.0 95, I could serve great with the Prestige Classic, I think for the same reason.

BreakPoint
07-04-2005, 09:05 AM
Pushmaster,

Moodie wasn't using the PS 6.0 95 at Wimbledon. Not sure which model it was but he's playing Tecnifibre now. Looks like he's been using them since about the end of last year. Seems that he only had a couple of years with Wilson (Yonex prior to 2003) and, from what you can see on Getty it could have been the HPS 6.0 95 that he was using.

Not that it really matters although it is interesting that you see more Tour95's on the pro circuit than PS 6.0 95s. Now that I am curious about. Given all of the negative feedback it gets why would the pros choose the Tour95 over the PS95 ,not to mention the nCode nSix-One, when those frames get far more applause.

AndrewD,
That pic posted above from Getty is of a nSix-One Tour/95 paintjob NOT a HPS 6.0 95 paintjob. I don't think any pros ever used a HPS 6.0 95 as far as I know. We all know Federer was only using a paintjob of one.

Which pros use the Tour 95? I can't think of any. That Wilson rep told me that most pros that used Tour 95 paintjobs were actually using the PS 6.0 95. He named Wesley Moodie as an example, but I'm sure there may be others as well. I can't see any pros using a stock Tour 95 as it's way too light IMHO.

NoBadMojo
07-04-2005, 09:10 AM
Oh so now more flexible frames give a person MORE power somehow rather than less? how does this work? that's simply not close to true.

GregOz
07-04-2005, 09:34 AM
I dont think there's many pros who'd use a stock anything, especially the way they make racquets so much lighter these days.

I know there's a few Aussie pros, not on the main tour but battling around the satellite circuit who use an actual Tour 95 and Rob Smeets the top ranked player here uses one. Surprisingly his is only weighted up to 12.2 so not overly heavy. I know he's not a household name but he's out there on the pro circuit. .

Oh and there's one of your top kids, somebody Oudesma who uses the Tour95 (a real one). Had a look at them up close and personal when he won his two Aus Open junior doubles titles and been keeping an eye on his progress since (he's got a wildcard into Newport if anyone's interested in an up and coming American player). Each pic I've seen he's still been playing the Tour95 although it might be interesting to see what his racquet looks like now he's in the big time.

BreakPoint
07-04-2005, 01:15 PM
Oh so now more flexible frames give a person MORE power somehow rather than less? how does this work? that's simply not close to true.

Well, all I can say is that's what I've experienced over the past 30 years having hit with several hundred different racquets. Remember that stiffer racquets also tend to be lighter, too, so that may be a reason also. I could serve great with the more classic racquets like the PS 6.0 85/95, Prestige Classic, MW 200G, Estusa PB, etc., but less effectively (less pace, less spin, less feel, less placement) with the lighter, stiffer, more modern racquets.

In fact, I think I used to serve even more aces back in the '70's with my Maxply Fort woodie than I do today with any graphite racquet. :o

Mulligan
07-05-2005, 06:05 AM
Yeah, I think it depends on each player's style and what he is used to. For example I served up some bombs with the RDX 500 mid (flex about 60, relatively low swingweight), but I cannot get the same heavy, hard serves with lighter, stiff frames. Too "tinny" or just too light. Like Breakpoint, I believe that it is what you were brought up playing with. I can serve much more effectively with flexy sticks (don't know about raw speed, just better action and pop) than with light stiff frames.....and it doesn't hurt my arm either :)

NoBadMojo
07-05-2005, 06:16 AM
obviously a heavier frame will give you more work if you can swing it fast enough, but flexier frames do not give you more power than a stiffer frame and BP is wrong.. maybe a more appropriate comment for breakpoint to make might be that heavier racquets give heavier serves, not more flexible frames...heaver frames happen to most usually be more flexible frames. would also suggest that most people can get more spin with a lighter frame than with a heavier one because they obvioulsy can create more headspead with a lighter frame than they can with a heavier, so BP is also wrong about that. i can see this is headed twards a typical BP thread where he adds stuff after the fact or otherwise rephrases things so he thinks he is right, so please excuse me whilst i abandon this thread.

GregOz
07-05-2005, 07:15 AM
No, all other things being equal - headsize, weight, string tension, stroke etc- the stiffer frame will provide greater power. Kind of a universally accepted principal in tennis isn't it? If a ball hits a flexible frame (just assume it hits in the sweetspot etc) then the frame will 'give' a bit more or holds the ball for longer than a stiff frame and in doing so lessens the power that the ball rebounds with.

Simpler way of putting it is if you throw a tennis ball at an average brick wall its going to come back faster than if you throw it at an average wooden fence. Why? The fence flexes more and robs the ball of pace. However, if the brick wall doesnt have mass behind it (so its only a stiffer material) but the wooden fence does then the opposite would be true. The wooden fence still flexes more but the brick wall cant sustain the force of the impact so the return speed is weaker.

RockyMaivia
07-05-2005, 08:44 AM
Well, if looser strings produce more power, then i would think a more flexible frame would also produce more power.

From a physics standpoint, tight strings and a stiff frame will deform the ball more, which takes energy away from the ball's rebound.

Loose strings and a flexible fame (assuming it comes back to its original position without much loss in energy, like a spring) will deform the ball less as they give and then they/it will spring back to it's original position without (hopefully) much loss in energy.

The wooden fence example doesn't fit (very) well because a wooden fence is not designed to flex and return to it's original position in a spring-like manner. I would hope the engineers designing tennis rackets can make rackets more efficient than a wooden fence.

However, looking at the system the way I tried to does oversimplifiy things and there are other factors (such as the ball returning to it's shape in a spring like manner). If the ball acted as a perfect spring and the rackets all did, there would be no loss of energy in the system. What i believe it comes down to is whether the ball is more efficient in conserving energy or the frame and strings are more efficient. I think the frame is more efficient out of personal experience, because anyone who has hit a tennis ball with a baseball bat knows, after a certain point, no matter how hard you hit the ball, it will basically only go so far, thus proving that it isn't very efficient.


I'm sorry if this post is long and goes against general knowledge of the tennis world about frame stiffness, etc., but i'm just trying to share my opinion and what i see as being true, from personal experience and from using my knowledge of physics. If anyone wants anything clarified, just ask and i will do my best to explain (though i am not a PhD in physics or anything). One big thing anyone who even doesn't have any knowledge of physics should see is that if looser strings give more power, then a more flexible frame should too (at least i think those two would be analagous).

GregOz
07-05-2005, 09:00 AM
RockyMaivia, appreciated but Im afraid that what Ive said and what NoBadMojo have said isn't anything revolutionary but just standard knowledge. I do understand how it can be confusing, especially given the way we use lower tensions to generate greater power.

Here's a selection of basic racquet tenets from TW's site (provided by the USRSA).

Racquet Facts

* A heavier frame generates more power.
* A heavier frame has a larger sweetspot.
* A stiffer frame generates more power.
* A stiffer frame has a larger sweetspot.
*A stiffer frame provides a more uniform ball response across the entire string plane.

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/LC/BasicFacts.html

So, you can we aren't arbitrarily making things up.


Actually, the wooden fence example fits perfectly as the material (wood) flexes more than brick. Substitute whatever other example you like though. Perhaps use the example of a wooden baseball bat and a similarly weighted aluminium one.

BreakPoint
07-05-2005, 12:35 PM
I do agree that most stiffer frames are more powerful in general than more flexible frames on groundstrokes. But like Mulligan has also experienced, I find I can serve harder and with more spin with more flexible frames. And like I mentioned in my original post, this phenomenon could also be a difference in weight, in that I can serve harder and with more spin with heavier racquets than with lighter racquets. And as I also mentioned in my original post, most stiffer racquets also tend to be lighter and most flexible racquets tend to be heavier.

BTW, NBMJ, are you telling me that what I've experienced playing tennis over the past 30 years is wrong? Was I the one hitting those serves or were you? Were you on the other side of the court receiving my serves throughout those 30 years? I really do not appreciate you telling me what I've experienced or not experienced. It is my opinion based on empirical knowledge. Who are you to tell me that it's wrong? It would be like you telling me that you went to Paris last year and had a great time, and me telling you that, no, you had a terrible time, your trip to Paris sucked, you're wrong about having a great time in Paris. Does that make any sense?

RockyMaivia
07-05-2005, 02:17 PM
Greg oz, the wooden fence example does not fit very well, because there are other objects and factors in the system other than the fence and the ball. The wooden fence is planted in the ground, and the ground actually moves and compacts and absorbs energy. For the most part the example fits, but it is over exagerrated and other factors than the wooden fence itself rob the energy.

Speaking of alloy baseball bats...As a matter of fact, Easton, a leading bat maker, makes it's top of the line alloy bats flex lengthwise to increase power(analagous to a flexible tennis frame). I believe other alloy bat makers also make the walls of the bat flex and return to the original position like a spring too (the surface of a wood bat doesn't flex and return to it's original position, it dents, which means it absorbs energy, which shows a reason why wooden bats are less efficient than alloy, but there are other reasons as well).


I am perfectly willing to accept that I am probably wrong about this. But i just saw something that didn't make sense to me, so i tried to figure it out myself instead of just blindly following what is said to be true. I know there is more to the problem than i remember from physics (and i don't have my text here) such as spring constants, other formulas, etc. , and more than i can probably figure out anyway. That being said, i am willing to take the guideline that stiffer frames are more powerful with a grain of salt.

Swan Song
07-25-2005, 09:38 PM
Another pro who used the Pro Staff 6.0 95 was a Frenchman named Nicholas Mahut.

PrestigeClassic
07-26-2005, 08:56 AM
Well, what do you know. I saw a college player (Stanford?) in some magazine with a 6.0 95 with nCode paintjob. So now we have two pros that are either retired or have moved on to other frames, and a college player. WOO!!! Except, their specs can't be anything like the off-the-shelf 6.0 95.