PDA

View Full Version : Wilson Prostaff 6.0 95 as a modern racket?


gplracer
07-17-2011, 07:13 AM
There is so much talk about the reissue of the prostaff 85 and talk about it not being suited to the modern game. I wonder how the 95 version of the racket stacks up? I know it is not widely regarded as a racket on the same level as the 85 but how would it be as a racket in the modern game?

Tar Heel Tennis
07-17-2011, 07:27 AM
I hit with one yesterday for the first time. Although much lighter than my 390g KPS88s, I liked the ease of hitting with this frame. The guy who owns it said he would consider selling it to me...I'd like to give this a try weighted more like my frames....I bet I would really enjoy it!

bluetrain4
07-17-2011, 09:48 AM
There is so much talk about the reissue of the prostaff 85 and talk about it not being suited to the modern game. I wonder how the 95 version of the racket stacks up? I know it is not widely regarded as a racket on the same level as the 85 but how would it be as a racket in the modern game?


With all of the 95s on the market, I don't see how the PS 95 wouldn't hold up well.

Rusty669
07-17-2011, 02:10 PM
The great thing about the PS 6.0 95 is how headlight it is!I don't think any other 95 is14 points head light unstrung:-)
This makes for a really easy swing,even if it is not exactly light at roughly 350 grams strung plus an overgrip.As a result you can tune it to your own desire.In addition it slightly thinner in width than say a BLX Six One 95 and it also has a box beam.
It plays great in my opinion, so it should stand up to all the other modern rackets

luishcorreia
07-17-2011, 03:10 PM
I just bough one trough the TW classified foruns! I should receive it next week.

I think for 4.0 players and beyond its a up to date racquet.

Mick
07-17-2011, 04:01 PM
I just bough one trough the TW classified foruns! I should receive it next week.

I think for 4.0 players and beyond its a up to date racquet.

i bought 4 of them years ago from tennis-warehouse before it was discontinued and only used one of them.

don't know where the other two are but i found one of the unused ones :)
http://i56.tinypic.com/33k3lnn.jpg

Dave M
07-18-2011, 01:48 AM
I went out to buy an 85 and bought a pair of 95s instead many years ago, loved them and if i hadn't of bought a grip size that felt too large i'd probably never ofmoved them on.I played with them and the 6.1 for years always prefered the 6.0

SFrazeur
07-18-2011, 01:53 AM
i bought 4 of them years ago from tennis-warehouse before it was discontinued and only used one of them.

don't know where the other two are but i found one of the unused ones :)



I always read your posts just to see what racquets you've bought a dozen of and can't find most of. :D

-SF

dr325i
07-18-2011, 02:06 AM
I hit with one yesterday for the first time. Although much lighter than my 390g KPS88s, I liked the ease of hitting with this frame. The guy who owns it said he would consider selling it to me...I'd like to give this a try weighted more like my frames....I bet I would really enjoy it!

390g, cool!
Can we take a look at a video of you hitting with that thing early in the match, then 1 hour later?
What is the point of a 390g racket?

Thanks!

trilix
07-18-2011, 02:38 AM
There is so much talk about the reissue of the prostaff 85 and talk about it not being suited to the modern game. I wonder how the 95 version of the racket stacks up? I know it is not widely regarded as a racket on the same level as the 85 but how would it be as a racket in the modern game?

Dolgopolov uses it, so that pretty much answers it.

chippy17
07-18-2011, 11:49 AM
I have used these since I was 18 (37 now) and I do love them but I also am beginning to find them lacking power compared to more modern stuff and now that I am a bit older I am finding that lack of power a, albeit small, problem.

The feel is great, I have one stock and one lightly leaded and I cannot say which I prefer as I am findinng the leaded one a bit hefty and as stock, well as I said, power is required

I have not found anything yet that I would swap them for but I am looking...

BreakPoint
07-18-2011, 12:38 PM
390g, cool!
Can we take a look at a video of you hitting with that thing early in the match, then 1 hour later?
What is the point of a 390g racket?

Thanks!
To crush the ball so it won't ever come back. Watch some videos of Sampras during his prime. :)

BTW, almost everyone used to play with 390g and heavier racquets back during the wood era, including women and children. :shock:

BreakPoint
07-18-2011, 12:40 PM
I have used these since I was 18 (37 now) and I do love them but I also am beginning to find them lacking power compared to more modern stuff and now that I am a bit older I am finding that lack of power a, albeit small, problem.

The feel is great, I have one stock and one lightly leaded and I cannot say which I prefer as I am findinng the leaded one a bit hefty and as stock, well as I said, power is required

I have not found anything yet that I would swap them for but I am looking...
Are you sure? The PS 6.0 95 was introduced in 1994 (17 years ago).

Mick
07-18-2011, 12:49 PM
I always read your posts just to see what racquets you've bought a dozen of and can't find most of. :D

-SF
haha. i only can't find the unused ones since i have no intention of ever using or reselling them. i just like the idea of knowing that i have them :D

Power Player
07-18-2011, 12:57 PM
BTW, almost everyone used to play with 390g and heavier racquets back during the wood era, including women and children. :shock:


Right. When the game was much slower and played a lot differently. Everybody forgets to add that part in.

BreakPoint
07-18-2011, 01:00 PM
Right. When the game was much slower and played a lot differently. Everybody forgets to add that part in.
But the laws of physics hasn't changed, has it?

A 14 oz. racquet will crush a 2 oz. ball much more than an 11 oz. racquet will. It's just simple physics.

Power Player
07-18-2011, 01:48 PM
Of course. I agree 100% with that.

But the game moves so fast now that setting up to get that racquet moving is a lot more difficult.

stevewcosta
07-18-2011, 02:35 PM
There is so much talk about the reissue of the prostaff 85 and talk about it not being suited to the modern game. I wonder how the 95 version of the racket stacks up? I know it is not widely regarded as a racket on the same level as the 85 but how would it be as a racket in the modern game?

What would be one reason why it wouldn't be good for this "modern game?" It's better than 99% of the "modern" racquets.

movdqa
07-18-2011, 05:03 PM
> A 14 oz. racquet will crush a 2 oz. ball much more than an 11 oz. racquet
> will. It's just simple physics.

It depends on where the mass is. I have 17 oz frames where the swingweight is around 320. I'd guess that you could find an 11 oz or 11+ oz frame with a higher swingweight that hits a heavier ball.

There's a Pro Staff 95 for sale on the strings forum with a K95 paintjob so it sounds like there may be a few pros out there that still use it while selling K95s or BLX95s.

gplracer
07-18-2011, 05:55 PM
It has been so long.... I do not remember what this racket hit like. Back in the day I played with the 85 as a junior. Later my friend had the 95 and played with it. I seem to remember people saying it did not really hit like the 85 version. I think the upper hoop was more flexible. The thing is people keep saying "light" rackets. It seems like most of the pros play with rackets that weigh the same as they did 10 years ago. It is just that the stock version of the racket has gone down in weight. Heck a lot of pros appear do not even play with the newer rackets. They are playing with older rackets that are painted.

movdqa
07-18-2011, 06:57 PM
My view is that the pros are playing with lighter racquets but with swingweights in the 330 area. There are some very good hard hitters in the 350+ area.

gplracer
07-18-2011, 07:44 PM
Movdqa I would agree with that assessment. I think that is about on the money. You said you are moving away from your kps88. Is that due to the headsize?

AndrewD
07-18-2011, 07:55 PM
Right. When the game was much slower and played a lot differently. Everybody forgets to add that part in.

At the club level the game isn't played much differently to the way it's always been played. Most points are won on errors, rallies average 4 shots, feet don't move well enough and we still think that the guy who hits the ball hardest is best when the truth is, at our level, control trumps power.

The 6.0 95 is a perfectly viable racquet for the modern club player and I'm sure it's as capable at the pro level as it ever was (although it was never as popular with the pros as the 6.1 95 or 6.0 85). Honestly, if you think the Prestige MP is still relevant then so is the 6.0 95.

Personally, I wish I'd taken the opportunity to buy a couple of them when they were still available.

movdqa
07-18-2011, 08:16 PM
> You said you are moving away from your kps88. Is that due to the headsize?

That's a big part of it.

One other part of it is the ability to hit serves as big as the KPS with significantly less static weight. Adding static weight in the handle may not make a big difference in the effort to hit groundstrokes and volleys but it does make a difference in the serving effort. The motion from where the elbow is bent launching the racquet up to meet the ball requires effort in accelerating the additional mass in the handle. I do not believe that accelerating this additional mass results in more force to the serve but it can put a lot of additional stress on the arm and/or shoulder. My experiments with heavy static weight racquets with low swingweights resulted in added arm stress with small if any additional benefits in serving power.

One thing in playing with pro stock racquets is the discovery that a lot of players that receive pro stock racquets use frames around 11.9 to 12.2 oz strung. My guess was that most pros used frames in the 12.5 to 13 oz area but this may have been swayed by what players like Soderling, Federer, Djokovich used. Obviously Nadal didn't fit my idea that big hitters used 12.5 to 13 oz frames.

So I'm behind the times in using high static weight racquets at 13+ ounces. My feeling is that there are practical benefits to using something from 12.1 to 12.45 ounces with a swingweight from 330 to 355. That weight range includes an overgrip and maybe a vibration dampener. This would compare to 13.0 to 13.3 ounces in my KPS frames.

There are retail frames in the 11-11.9 oz area with pretty decent swingweights and I wonder if there are many pros that actually use frames in the mid-11 ounce area. Pro1tennis at the big auction site is selling seven TGK238.4s and I think that they come in at 316 grams unstrung or 11.65 ounces strung. That's a pretty low static weight from what I've seen.

cnr1guy
07-18-2011, 08:26 PM
haha. i only can't find the unused ones since i have no intention of ever using or reselling them. i just like the idea of knowing that i have them :D

You're such a tease!!!

Mick
07-18-2011, 08:45 PM
You're such a tease!!!
haha. sorry. it was a phase that i went through. nowadays, i am more into playing tennis than collecting tennis racquets.

chippy17
07-19-2011, 01:30 AM
Are you sure? The PS 6.0 95 was introduced in 1994 (17 years ago).

no as I am slightly prematurely senile! I may indeed have been 20ish when I bought mine

chippy17
07-19-2011, 01:36 AM
> A 14 oz. racquet will crush a 2 oz. ball much more than an 11 oz. racquet
> will. It's just simple physics.

It depends on where the mass is. I have 17 oz frames where the swingweight is around 320. I'd guess that you could find an 11 oz or 11+ oz frame with a higher swingweight that hits a heavier ball.

There's a Pro Staff 95 for sale on the strings forum with a K95 paintjob so it sounds like there may be a few pros out there that still use it while selling K95s or BLX95s.

coudl you point me in the direction of the PS that is for sale?

movdqa
07-19-2011, 01:59 AM
It is in the strings forum (use google) in the for sale section.

kaiser
07-19-2011, 03:41 AM
> You said you are moving away from your kps88. Is that due to the headsize?

That's a big part of it.

One other part of it is the ability to hit serves as big as the KPS with significantly less static weight. Adding static weight in the handle may not make a big difference in the effort to hit groundstrokes and volleys but it does make a difference in the serving effort. The motion from where the elbow is bent launching the racquet up to meet the ball requires effort in accelerating the additional mass in the handle. I do not believe that accelerating this additional mass results in more force to the serve but it can put a lot of additional stress on the arm and/or shoulder. My experiments with heavy static weight racquets with low swingweights resulted in added arm stress with small if any additional benefits in serving power.

One thing in playing with pro stock racquets is the discovery that a lot of players that receive pro stock racquets use frames around 11.9 to 12.2 oz strung. My guess was that most pros used frames in the 12.5 to 13 oz area but this may have been swayed by what players like Soderling, Federer, Djokovich used. Obviously Nadal didn't fit my idea that big hitters used 12.5 to 13 oz frames.

So I'm behind the times in using high static weight racquets at 13+ ounces. My feeling is that there are practical benefits to using something from 12.1 to 12.45 ounces with a swingweight from 330 to 355. That weight range includes an overgrip and maybe a vibration dampener. This would compare to 13.0 to 13.3 ounces in my KPS frames.

There are retail frames in the 11-11.9 oz area with pretty decent swingweights and I wonder if there are many pros that actually use frames in the mid-11 ounce area. Pro1tennis at the big auction site is selling seven TGK238.4s and I think that they come in at 316 grams unstrung or 11.65 ounces strung. That's a pretty low static weight from what I've seen.

Those are some very interesting observations! But if you are considering going from 13+ to 12.5- oz rackets while maintaining the same relatively high swingweight, you will have to accept a less head-light balance. How do you feel about that? I'm very happy with my modern 13 oz, ~10 pts head-light racket, the Dunlop 4D200 Tour, but occasionally when I've been serving a lot I feel some shoulder discomfort. Lastly I felt a sudden pain in the base of my thumb after playing and serving a lot (practicing my serve with a bucket of balls...). Nothing some rest and ice won't cure, and I might just as well get similar problems with a lighter racket (overuse = overuse...) but in the light of what you are saying interesting nevertheless... What alternative, lighter rackets are you considering, seeing that we come form the same original preference?

movdqa
07-19-2011, 04:16 AM
I'm playing around with Pro Stock racquets at the moment but am considering retail sticks too.

I am okay with going down to 6 or 7 points headlight which is where the KPS is today. Here's an example:

Take the Head MG Radical Midplus ($90 at TW). 27 inches, 11 oz, 2 pts head light, 315 swingweight. Using the TW automated customization tool, it can be modified to 12.4 oz, 10 points headlight, 345 swingweight by adding 0.16 oz at 27 inches, 0.13 oz at 26.6 inches and 1.11 oz at 0.8 inches.

It can be modified to 12.2 oz, 8 points headlight, 345 swingweight by adding 0.16 oz at 27 inches, 0.14 oz at 26.6 inches and 0.9 oz at 0.8 inches.

The Head YOUTEK Radical Midplus is 11 oz, 2 points headlight and has a SW of 324. Adding 0.14 oz at 26.8 inches, 0.07 oz at 26.4 inches and 0.99 oz at 0.8 inches would result in a static weight of 12.2 oz, 10 points headlight and a swingweight of 345.

The Babolat Pure Storm GT could be customized to 12.23 oz, 10 points headlight and 345 SW.

The Dunlop Aerogel 4D 300 could be customized to 12.1 oz, 10 points headlight, SW 345.

So there are ways to do this with retail frames. I think that it will take a little time to find what I want given the added variables of flex and strings.

The key is in finding a retail frame that's already lightweight that isn't stiff as a board - basically a frame that screams out for customization. It seems to me that the Pro Stock racquets are made this way - very light hairpin, with silicone added in the handle and lead in from 11:00 to 1:00.

One final example that I've been thinking about for a while for a super-flexible solution:

PK Redondo MP (57 RA) -> 12.31 static weight, 8 points headlight, 345 SW. Basically the flex of a PT57A at 1/3rd the price by just adding 0.21 oz of lead between 11:00 and 1:00.

movdqa
07-19-2011, 04:26 AM
The Aerogel 4D 200 Tour is already a monster of a frame at 352 SW. It can be modified to 12.8 oz, 10 points headlight, 353 swingweight by adding half an ounce to the handle.

You can get a Federer/Nadal SW of 355 with the Babolat AeroPro Drive GT with a static weight of only 12.4 ounces and a 10 points headlight balance. The only issue that I'd have with that is that it would be a super-stiff solution. There are very light frames that can be customized to high swingweights with relatively low static weights but most of them are very stiff.

gplracer
07-19-2011, 05:52 AM
I have a friend that is a 5.5 and he uses a 6.1 team. I asked why he does not use the regular 6.1 and he stated that he likes to weigh down the head with tape.

0d1n
07-19-2011, 06:42 AM
^^ The most obvious choices are radicals...old style instincts and the Dunlop 300 series.

dr325i
07-19-2011, 01:10 PM
To crush the ball so it won't ever come back. Watch some videos of Sampras during his prime. :)

BTW, almost everyone used to play with 390g and heavier racquets back during the wood era, including women and children. :shock:

Ah, thanks!
I forgot that Sampras was posting on this forum...

Whatever man, read what I posted again, then think about it...

Power Player
07-19-2011, 01:25 PM
At the club level the game isn't played much differently to the way it's always been played. Most points are won on errors, rallies average 4 shots, feet don't move well enough and we still think that the guy who hits the ball hardest is best when the truth is, at our level, control trumps power.

The 6.0 95 is a perfectly viable racquet for the modern club player and I'm sure it's as capable at the pro level as it ever was (although it was never as popular with the pros as the 6.1 95 or 6.0 85). Honestly, if you think the Prestige MP is still relevant then so is the 6.0 95.

Personally, I wish I'd taken the opportunity to buy a couple of them when they were still available.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

He was talking about 390 gram racquets. You are talking about a classic graphite Wilson 6.0 weighing an ounce less that of course can be used by any club player. The 95 is still being used on the tour under PJs I am quite sure.

It's still a demanding frame compared to the newer sticks though. I had a PC600 and a youtek Prestige mid. The newer sticks just hit with more power, even the modern classics like the Prestige mid.

CDestroyer
07-19-2011, 01:32 PM
There is so much talk about the reissue of the prostaff 85 and talk about it not being suited to the modern game. I wonder how the 95 version of the racket stacks up? I know it is not widely regarded as a racket on the same level as the 85 but how would it be as a racket in the modern game?

If Federer goes to a new racquet it will be a BLX. Maybe Wilson will release a BLX Prostaff 95 with a box beam.

BreakPoint
07-19-2011, 02:39 PM
Ah, thanks!
I forgot that Sampras was posting on this forum...

Whatever man, read what I posted again, then think about it...
And I would suggest you do the same.

If a 70lb. 10 year-old kid can handle a 390g racquet, why can't a 200lb. 30 year-old man?

ssonosk
07-19-2011, 02:47 PM
It's just an plain heavy racquet, it would probably be like hitting with a k90 but with a 95 head size

Venetian
07-19-2011, 05:13 PM
And I would suggest you do the same.

If a 70lb. 10 year-old kid can handle a 390g racquet, why can't a 200lb. 30 year-old man?

"Handle" and "play effective, competitive modern tennis with" are two different things.

dr325i
07-21-2011, 01:23 AM
"Handle" and "play effective, competitive modern tennis with" are two different things.

The guy knows nothing about tennis and math...so far he proved that.
The more he posts here (and he's done it a lot), the more he shows his flaws...

I can bet ANY money that 99% of amateur players cannot "use" the 390g frame in the match play and would be MUCH more effective with a 340g frame. THey believe they can do it, I believed I could do it with a 360g frame and I am playing a level higher now with a 330g frame...

BreakPoint
07-21-2011, 12:07 PM
The guy knows nothing about tennis and math...so far he proved that.
The more he posts here (and he's done it a lot), the more he shows his flaws...

I can bet ANY money that 99% of amateur players cannot "use" the 390g frame in the match play and would be MUCH more effective with a 340g frame. THey believe they can do it, I believed I could do it with a 360g frame and I am playing a level higher now with a 330g frame...
Yeah, you're right. I know absolutely nothing about tennis and math. Which means I know 100 times more about both tennis and math than you do. :oops:

CDestroyer
07-21-2011, 12:16 PM
The guy knows nothing about tennis and math...so far he proved that.
The more he posts here (and he's done it a lot), the more he shows his flaws...

I can bet ANY money that 99% of amateur players cannot "use" the 390g frame in the match play and would be MUCH more effective with a 340g frame. THey believe they can do it, I believed I could do it with a 360g frame and I am playing a level higher now with a 330g frame...

I totally agree with your asessment of 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 level players will for the most part play a higher quality match with a 330g frame than a 390g frame.

BP just likes to argue and get the last word in. He wont admit when he is wrong, thinks he knows everything about everything, and he is frequently wrong.

Power Player
07-21-2011, 12:19 PM
"Handle" and "play effective, competitive modern tennis with" are two different things.

Exactly. Thank you sir.

BreakPoint
07-21-2011, 12:20 PM
I totally agree with your asessment of 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 level players will for the most part play a higher quality match with a 330g frame than a 390g frame.
Only if you want to run side to side along the baseline all day long hitting the ball back and forth like a pusher instead of crushing the ball with one shot and winning the point outright. :)

BP just likes to argue and get the last word in. He wont admit when he is wrong, thinks he knows everything about everything, and he is frequently wrong.
Yet, no one has yet been able to prove it. :-?

BreakPoint
07-21-2011, 12:22 PM
"Handle" and "play effective, competitive modern tennis with" are two different things.
But who said everyone has to necessarily play "modern tennis" to win? :confused:

McEnroe still plays his ultra-old-school style of tennis and can still beat 99% of his opponents that play "modern tennis". :shock:

CDestroyer
07-21-2011, 12:24 PM
And he is full of himself. Real cool dude.

BreakPoint
07-21-2011, 12:25 PM
It's just an plain heavy racquet, it would probably be like hitting with a k90 but with a 95 head size
Have you ever played with a PS 6.0 95? That racquet is not heavy at all. It's only about 12.5oz. (354g) strung with overgrip and is so headlight that it swings like a feather.

ssonosk
07-21-2011, 12:42 PM
Have you ever played with a PS 6.0 95? That racquet is not heavy at all. It's only about 12.5oz. (354g) strung with overgrip and is so headlight that it swings like a feather.

12.5 is heavy now a days, A lot of racquets are around the 10-11 area.

BreakPoint
07-21-2011, 12:51 PM
12.5 is heavy now a days, A lot of racquets are around the 10-11 area.
So then you haven't played with a PS 6.0 95? Because it swings like a 11.5 or lighter racquet. :)

Power Player
07-21-2011, 12:54 PM
I hit with the stars and stripes PS85 and it reminded me of my prestige mid which is 12.5.

ssonosk
07-21-2011, 03:11 PM
So then you haven't played with a PS 6.0 95? Because it swings like a 11.5 or lighter racquet. :)

I've played with a kps88 and a sting 85. The way the weight is in the sting it seems lighter than it actually is, but for the kps88 it's head heavy :s

Venetian
07-21-2011, 03:13 PM
But who said everyone has to necessarily play "modern tennis" to win? :confused:

McEnroe still plays his ultra-old-school style of tennis and can still beat 99% of his opponents that play "modern tennis". :shock:

What "modern" players is McEnroe competing against these days? Isn't he on the "Seniors" tour?

Look, I can handle playing tennis with a leaded up wooden racquet. But I'm pretty sure I'd compete better with a Pure Drive.

Yeah, people used to use racquets that weighed significantly more and had much smaller head sizes, but they also played a lot more slowly with a lot less spin simply because they could not generate the power and racquet head speed with that type of frame.

movdqa
07-21-2011, 03:15 PM
> So then you haven't played with a PS 6.0 95? Because it
> swings like a 11.5 or lighter racquet.

Perhaps you could comment on my remarks in post #24.

BreakPoint
07-21-2011, 03:19 PM
I've played with a kps88 and a sting 85. The way the weight is in the sting it seems lighter than it actually is, but for the kps88 it's head heavy :s
The KPS88 feels like it weighs 3 TIMES more than the PS 6.0 95 when you play with them. :shock:

It's like comparing a Mini with a Hummer. :) LOL

BreakPoint
07-21-2011, 03:23 PM
> So then you haven't played with a PS 6.0 95? Because it
> swings like a 11.5 or lighter racquet.

Perhaps you could comment on my remarks in post #24.
I don't know, but the PS 6.0 95 has a very low swingweight (317) but it is a serving monster. Very easy to whip that racquet around on both serves and on groundstrokes. :)

BreakPoint
07-21-2011, 03:26 PM
What "modern" players is McEnroe competing against these days? Isn't he on the "Seniors" tour?

Look, I can handle playing tennis with a leaded up wooden racquet. But I'm pretty sure I'd compete better with a Pure Drive.

Yeah, people used to use racquets that weighed significantly more and had much smaller head sizes, but they also played a lot more slowly with a lot less spin simply because they could not generate the power and racquet head speed with that type of frame.
Not only does McEnroe play in World Team Tennis against much younger guys who play "modern tennis", but there are some pretty young guys on the Champion's Tour such as Safin and Philippoussis.

Venetian
07-21-2011, 03:27 PM
Not only does McEnroe play in World Team Tennis against much younger guys who play "modern tennis", but there are some pretty young guys on the Champion's Tour such as Safin and Philippoussis.

Does he get two bounces?

BreakPoint
07-21-2011, 03:29 PM
Does he get two bounces?
No, he gets NO bounces. That's how he beats all of these young players playing "modern tennis" who have never seen an opponent at the net. :)

stevewcosta
07-21-2011, 06:47 PM
Have you ever played with a PS 6.0 95? That racquet is not heavy at all. It's only about 12.5oz. (354g) strung with overgrip and is so headlight that it swings like a feather.

Agreed. 6.0 95 is very easy to swing.

big bang
07-21-2011, 07:23 PM
As much as I hate to admitt it I actually agree with BP on this matter. I used a couple of 6.0īs with k-factor PJ this last winter and they do swing very light, lighter than my YTPP and about the same as my Ozone tours. Very comfotable frame with excellent feel and touch. I find it to be very suited for todays game. The high static weight makes it more stable than most modern frames and the low SW makes it very maneurable at the same time.

TennisCJC
07-21-2011, 09:28 PM
What "modern" players is McEnroe competing against these days? Isn't he on the "Seniors" tour?

Look, I can handle playing tennis with a leaded up wooden racquet. But I'm pretty sure I'd compete better with a Pure Drive.

Yeah, people used to use racquets that weighed significantly more and had much smaller head sizes, but they also played a lot more slowly with a lot less spin simply because they could not generate the power and racquet head speed with that type of frame.

Agassi used a racket that weighted just under 13 oz and Sampras used a racket just under 14 oz. Federer's racket is just over 360 grams. These guys generate plenty of power, racket head speed, and have incredible control. I think a lot of the pro players are using lighter rackets simply because they grow up playing with lighter rackets. But, I have seen many photo's of Djoko with loads of lead on his rackets which probably puts his frame in the 12.5 range give or take a bit.

From everything I've seen the ATP pros consistently play rackets with a swingweight over 350 grams. The doubles players seem to play even heavier SW as it gives you more stability on your volleys. Nadal, Federer, Murray, and Djoko have SW over 350.

Even today's pros are not playing light rackets with low SW.

I don't think average recreational players should play pro specs but do think 4.0+ players should have a minimum SW of 320+, at least 4 points HL, and static weight around 11-12 oz.

Wilson will make loads of money if they release this:

- 95 head
- 16x19 string pattern
- stock SW 325 (good stock but room to improve with customization)
- 20 mm beam
- static weight 11.8 oz (good stock but room to customize)
- 8 points HL
- 12+ twist weight
- BLX material to dampen vibrations
- flex 62-64

This is lighter than the old Wilson and between the blx 6.1 and blx 6.1 team. I think this racket would play great off the shelf and have enough room to beef it up if you need more power or stability.

ssonosk
07-21-2011, 09:34 PM
Nole's Racquet is 359 grams

chippy17
07-22-2011, 01:43 AM
I still get laughed at for playing with my PS

the question is though does one leave it stock to get the head speed or lead it up a bit to get some much needed grunt

any advice for leading or not leading up this racquet?!

jorel
07-22-2011, 04:40 AM
Nole's Racquet is 359 grams
most people arent on a gluten free diet and train 6-8 hrs a day ;)

jorel
07-22-2011, 04:44 AM
would love it if they brought this one back from the grave

ssonosk
07-22-2011, 05:42 AM
I still get laughed at for playing with my PS

the question is though does one leave it stock to get the head speed or lead it up a bit to get some much needed grunt

any advice for leading or not leading up this racquet?!
Just go for what feels better
most people arent on a gluten free diet and train 6-8 hrs a day ;)

man I'd be happy if I was a top 3 player and realized I've been eating something I'm allergic to. That's pretty much like becoming really good with a lead vest and then taking it off lol.

paulcd77
07-22-2011, 06:04 AM
Wilson will make loads of money if they release this:

- 95 head
- 16x19 string pattern
- stock SW 325 (good stock but room to improve with customization)
- 20 mm beam
- static weight 11.8 oz (good stock but room to customize)
- 8 points HL
- 12+ twist weight
- BLX material to dampen vibrations
- flex 62-64


i believe they already did release it, and it was one of their best-sellers: the 6.1 classic.

big bang
07-22-2011, 06:45 AM
i believe they already did release it, and it was one of their best-sellers: the 6.1 classic.
Sorry dude but its not even close..

Power Player
07-22-2011, 07:04 AM
I agree with CJC. BUT, you need to have good footwork and prep to really go to the next level in terms of swingweight. 330 works quite well for me, and I can always lead mine up even more and bump that to 345 one day if I feel the urge.

It boils down to how much you play and what your fitness level is.

jorel
07-22-2011, 07:28 AM
Sorry dude but its not even close..
think the box beam makes a huge difference

paulcd77
07-22-2011, 07:38 AM
think the box beam makes a huge difference

cjc didn't say anything about a box beam.

i don't see how it's "not even close." and if you were going to customize a racquet with those specs, why not just use the 6.1 classic stock?

jorel
07-22-2011, 07:40 AM
cjc didn't say anything about a box beam.

i don't see how it's "not even close." and if you were going to customize a racquet with those specs, why not just use the 6.1 classic stock?
its a different racquet..have u tried both?

paulcd77
07-22-2011, 08:01 AM
its a different racquet..have u tried both?

yes, but that's beside the point.

cjc isn't talking about customizing a 6.0 95. he put together a wish list of specs for a new 95. of course it will be a different racquet - until you start altering it.

jorel
07-22-2011, 08:05 AM
yes, but that's beside the point.

cjc isn't talking about customizing a 6.0 95. he put together a wish list of specs for a new 95. of course it will be a different racquet - until you start altering it.
box beam..

TennisCJC
07-22-2011, 10:30 AM
cjc didn't say anything about a box beam.

i don't see how it's "not even close." and if you were going to customize a racquet with those specs, why not just use the 6.1 classic stock?

Lighter base weight would be good for old guys like me. I could add a few grams to the head and have SW 330-340 and still be 6-7 HL and around or under 12 oz static weight - sweet.

For the young studs, they could add a bit more weight and turn it into a club.

Box beam would be great.

Also, while asking for everything - the wider grommets down the side of the racket like some of the Head rackets would allow you to hide 1/4 lead under the grommets. Just cosmetic improvement but it would be nice to customize and have the lead be invisible.

This dream racket is a lot lighter than a stock 6.1 classic.

Venetian
07-22-2011, 01:02 PM
Agassi used a racket that weighted just under 13 oz and Sampras used a racket just under 14 oz. Federer's racket is just over 360 grams. These guys generate plenty of power, racket head speed, and have incredible control. I think a lot of the pro players are using lighter rackets simply because they grow up playing with lighter rackets. But, I have seen many photo's of Djoko with loads of lead on his rackets which probably puts his frame in the 12.5 range give or take a bit.

From everything I've seen the ATP pros consistently play rackets with a swingweight over 350 grams. The doubles players seem to play even heavier SW as it gives you more stability on your volleys. Nadal, Federer, Murray, and Djoko have SW over 350.

Even today's pros are not playing light rackets with low SW.

I don't think average recreational players should play pro specs but do think 4.0+ players should have a minimum SW of 320+, at least 4 points HL, and static weight around 11-12 oz.

Wilson will make loads of money if they release this:

- 95 head
- 16x19 string pattern
- stock SW 325 (good stock but room to improve with customization)
- 20 mm beam
- static weight 11.8 oz (good stock but room to customize)
- 8 points HL
- 12+ twist weight
- BLX material to dampen vibrations
- flex 62-64

This is lighter than the old Wilson and between the blx 6.1 and blx 6.1 team. I think this racket would play great off the shelf and have enough room to beef it up if you need more power or stability.

I half agree with you. I think Wilson should make five frames with that exact beam width, flex, balance, string pattern, and head size, but each with varying static weight. Say 10.5oz, 10.9oz, 11.3oz, 11.8oz, 12.3oz. That should cover everybody and leave room for customizers. Of course, then their racquet division would go under because they wouldn't have any excuse to release new frames.

stevewcosta
07-22-2011, 03:01 PM
cjc didn't say anything about a box beam.

i don't see how it's "not even close." and if you were going to customize a racquet with those specs, why not just use the 6.1 classic stock?

6.1 classic? That was in the mid 12 ounce range and 22 - 23mm round beam and stiff as hell 72 RA I believe.

big bang
07-22-2011, 04:37 PM
6.1 classic? That was in the mid 12 ounce range and 22 - 23mm round beam and stiff as hell 72 RA I believe.
Exactly!
If you look at the specs of the so called " dream racquet":
- 95 head Agreed
- 16x19 string pattern Not correct
- stock SW 325 (good stock but room to improve with customization) Pretty close
- 20 mm beam Not correct
- static weight 11.8 oz (good stock but room to customize) Not even close
- 8 points HL not correct
- 12+ twist weight this I cant remember
- BLX material to dampen vibrations No BLX or any tech, just good old braided kevlar/graphite
- flex 62-64 Not even close again

thor's hammer
05-28-2013, 10:23 AM
There is so much talk about the reissue of the prostaff 85 and talk about it not being suited to the modern game. I wonder how the 95 version of the racket stacks up? I know it is not widely regarded as a racket on the same level as the 85 but how would it be as a racket in the modern game?

Well, first of all compare the "specifications" on these two pages and draw your own conclusion about how well the 85 is suited to the modern game...

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_Pro_Staff_60_85/descpageRCWILSON-W6085.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_BLX_Pro_Staff_90/descpageRCWILSON-WPS90.html

The 95 definitely has a different feel than the 85, but it has everything anyone needs to play great tennis at any level. More info here...

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/reviews/60/60review.html

Bottom line? It's not the racket.