PDA

View Full Version : I would never play with Wilson because...


DANMAN
01-22-2006, 11:39 AM
OR PROBABLY NOT PLAY WITH WILSON RACKETS at least in my opinion they change their ranges too often. I thought the 7.1 zone was nice, but it did not last long and did not have a suitable replacement. The H series did not last long at all before the ncodes. Babolat has never changed the Pure Drive in the US and it is selling strong. Wilson's competitor, the surge, is now on its 3rd version. I hate the thought of buying a racket that will be discontinued in 2 years especially considering it takes a few months to totally adjust to a new racket. Don't get me wrong, WILSON MAKES GREAT RACKETS--great rackets that are discontinued much too quickly. The ncode 6.1 95 is sweer, but who knows how long it will be around.

BreakPoint
01-22-2006, 11:42 AM
But if you think Wilson makes great racquets, what's preventing you from stocking up on the model you like while they're still around? So who cares if they get discontinued? You can stock up enough to last you a lifetime.

I was still using the Max 200G for 8 years after Dunlop shut down the factory that made them.

DANMAN
01-22-2006, 11:56 AM
This thread was kind of just to see what other people thought. I don't like the idea of stocking up with a lifetime supply because a new racket might come out that you find to be better in every area. Then you sell your other rackets at a loss.

kv581
01-22-2006, 12:34 PM
Doesn't matter much in my opinion. Basically, it sounds like you are criticizing Wilson for giving you a chance to find a new racquet that may fit you better. Instead, you prefer to play with older racquets, not necessarily because they fit you better, but because the company has not updated it for years so there are no new racquets for you to try.

DANMAN
01-22-2006, 12:39 PM
Again, this thread was meant to be a conversation starter. I would like it if Wilson would just keep rackets around for longer rather than discontinue them and bring a new one out. The cost of manufacturing isn't that much and there is already a market for certain frames they are making, so there is no reason to stop making them all of a sudden. More options=more informed decision. Getting rid of old frames is reducing options.

Chopin
01-22-2006, 12:57 PM
Every racket company discontinues their rackets all the time...Head, Yonex, Prince, Dunlop all do exactly the same thing. Whether or not a racket is going to be discontinued is not important to me in selecting a racket. Not many people need more than two rackets (this applies to 95 percent of the tennis population). Maybe 3 if you're "stocking up." Besides, discontinued rackets sell very well since people can't buy them new and are forced to buy them from others.

BreakPoint
01-22-2006, 01:12 PM
This thread was kind of just to see what other people thought. I don't like the idea of stocking up with a lifetime supply because a new racket might come out that you find to be better in every area. Then you sell your other rackets at a loss.

Then I guess you didn't REALLY think that the current Wilson racquets are that great to begin with. Besides, if they didn't continuously keep discontinuing racquets, they would never be able to keep introducing those new racquets that you want to try. There's only so much wall or shelf space at pro shops, so much warehouse space at Wilson, so much manfacturing capacity in their factories, so much marketing dollars to promote a limited number of racquets, so many SKU's they want to manage, so much capacity in their distribution channels, etc. It's also easier to make a profit selling higher volumes of a smaller number of models than it is for them to try and make a profit selling small quantities of a huge number of models.

They also keep introducing new models and discontinuing older models so that people like you will fall into the trap of always thinking that the new models might be better than the older models, when in fact, the older models are almost always better than the new models. This is how they get people to keep buying new racquets every year so that they can keep making money and stay in business. If a tank of gas lasted you 10 years and everyone stopped buying gas every week, do you think the oil companies can make a profit and stay in business?

bee
01-22-2006, 01:46 PM
I do not play with Wilson because they don't have the spring and flex of Head Prestige line. They tend to feel a bit dead to me and seem not so good for my arm.

Keifers
01-22-2006, 03:40 PM
No question that the proliferation of ever "newer," ever "techier" racquets is driven by the desire for profits and market share in a market that doesn't grow significantly year-to-year (at least in the US and Europe).

New racquets are introduced almost as frequently as new apparel now. And it's become an "arms race" that benefits no-one really -- unless, like Babolat, your stars align and you get a Roddick playing with your Pure Drive and then everyone wants one.

jaskey
01-22-2006, 03:52 PM
break point- if the racquets are only getting worse as years go by, i'm forced to wonder if i'll be playing with a racquet that feels no better than a wooden board in the years to come. (very very feather light wooden board probably) ^^ i think there's a lot of bs in racquet tech, but it does help that they do sometimes run into a real break through once in a while. So i think it's worth putting up with the bs just to get the techs moving.

bee- i think your problem with wilson is that you just string your racquets too tightly. if you loosened the string tension then i think wilson racquets would feel more springy and more comfortable.

Donnie Darko
01-22-2006, 04:09 PM
at least in my opinion they change their ranges too often. I thought the 7.1 zone was nice, but it did not last long and did not have a suitable replacement. The H series did not last long at all before the ncodes. Babolat has never changed the Pure Drive in the US and it is selling strong. Wilson's competitor, the surge, is now on its 3rd version. I hate the thought of buying a racket that will be discontinued in 2 years especially considering it takes a few months to totally adjust to a new racket. Don't get me wrong, WILSON MAKES GREAT RACKETS--great rackets that are discontinued much too quickly. The ncode 6.1 95 is sweer, but who knows how long it will be around.

Did you stop buying cars from Chevrolet because they discontinued the Camaro?

DANMAN
01-22-2006, 04:42 PM
I never did buy a camaro or a Chevrolet. I understand your point. The topic was just for discussion. I have been pondering a switch to the n6.1 95 anyway. By the time my frames go dead, I will probably be looking for something different anyway. I didn't mean for there to be any logic involved in this thread. I just wanted to see if anyone else didn't like the idea of the constant discontinuing of rackets in general. The same could go for Head (the Classic and i.prestiges in particular), yonex and its rd-7, and most other companies.

Chopin
01-22-2006, 05:08 PM
Yeah the constant cycle of discontinuing frames is annoying--though Wilson isn’t unique in this regard. To an extent, players are allowing it to happen though--whenever a company introduces their latest and “greatest” racket people rush out to buy it and switch rackets. The switching rackets constantly is comical--I’m always amused at all the 4.5 players and below that switch rackets and talk about how the racket is helping their game so much when they are actually hitting exactly the same with their “better” racket. I’ve noticed that the best players I know rarely if ever switch rackets and then only be necessity (ie cracked frames, discontinued frames). Of course, switching rackets can be fun but many players take their gear far too seriously--much more so than their strokes!

SHUNGO
01-22-2006, 06:11 PM
Hey Danman, I get your pont. you are not trying to hurt feelings, however your thread tittles why you would never play Wilson, and you just mention you are thinking on the Ncode six one, well, here I am not to critizise you whatsoever, just a simple popular saying: we should never say from that water I will not drink.... you never know.

And yes, is a a little stressing knowing that your brand new racquet will be history shortly, but hey, if tennis is your biggest interest in sports, and you have the chance, why not keep trying new technologies, and possibly improve, well , all companies need to sell new staff to keep in business, however, sometimes new racques are just like: the same dancer, with different underware..:p

bcaz
01-22-2006, 10:13 PM
Wilson has made and continues to make lots of great frames. To each their own. I've played Wilsons in the past, I'm not playing them now, but i might play them again in the future. Who knows? For whatever reasons, marketers of many products discontinue products only to replace them with inferior ones. Then again, now and then they introduce a superior product. Not to mention, you, the consumer, also change over time, and may benefit from choosing a different product.

giver deaner
01-23-2006, 12:41 PM
I would never buy a Wilson because they steal technologies. ie Powerholes from Prince's sweetspot suspension. Surge a exact copy of PD etc.
Can't they design any decent frames on there own anymore??

backcourt
01-23-2006, 01:17 PM
because from what I can tell, they dont have a reputation for making arm friendly sticks. Although I suspect there are exceptions.

doriancito
01-23-2006, 03:36 PM
you are ust being silly, not even silly but stupid, what is your FU.. problem is they change racquets to often as long as you have the one you like and you play good with you have no need to change it, unless you are pretending to play rich dude and have always the latest racquet and they never play good, plus babolat has changes! like the Aero technology! think a bit