TW Reviews: NEW Wilson Six One 95 Racquets

MAXXply

Hall of Fame
I think I wanna be the first to go on the record as saying the new PJ's don't look thaaat bad up close...at least there is a symmetry about the cosmetic unlike the previous version which had colour changes at odd angles etc. The gold lines on the sides here whilst gaudy as usual are at least shown on both sides of the hoop to give it an even symmetry.

But, there's still too much white. I understand it is by now the Six.One's legacy colour but I just hate it. Why couldn't they have made the entire frame Swiss red with only the branding and logos in white?
 

TripleB

Hall of Fame
TripleB-

I also was excited about the 95S, then saw the Rad Pro will go on presale, starting next week. I asked TW about the difference between the two, and you can see Michelle's response in post #5: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=480368

Good luck in your quest!

Thanks for the link...she always has great insight on racquets. I'm looking forward to their reviews...think they are supposed to be up next week some time.

In the order of 'excitement' for me I think it's the 95S, PCG 100, and then the Rad Pro....haven't been happy with any Rad Pro except the MicroGel.

TripleB
 

g4driver

Legend
No harm, no foul.

I never got the Spin Effect gimmick.

Michele says she tries to debunk the spin effect by Wilson also, but she can't - I'm no open player, but I do hit flat like her.

I have to have the lowest average net clearance of any guy in town - lol Hitting flat works nicely when you clear tape. but when you hit that white tape, and you get "The Heisman " from the net, it blows . :( There are plenty of guys who naturally hit so much topspin, they don't need any extra spin, but I'm not one of them .

What I don't understand is why Wilson uses a 18x16 pattern in the 98S and 95S. It seems the larger the headsize frames like the 99S & 105S could take a tighter ESP pattern (18x16) while the smaller headsize frames could take the 16x15 patterns like the Pro Staff 95 (16x15) that is coming out.

Wilson : any chance to make a Steam 99S 18x16 with the stiffness of the Blade 98 ? This seems to be the missing link for me ;)
 

g4driver

Legend
The Pro Staff 95S will be 16 x 15. Like the 99S but thinner beam, slightly smaller face, presumably less stiff than the 99S.

You may want to consider it

Thanks...Any word on the Pro Staff 100? Are they making a Pro Staff 100S?

My perfect frame: Steam 99S 18x16 with RDC of 66 ( like the Blade 98 ), the Swingweight and Static Weight are perfect - Hey, Wilson you reading this? ;)
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
What I don't understand is why Wilson uses a 18x16 pattern in the 98S and 95S. It seems the larger the headsize frames like the 99S & 105S could take a tighter ESP pattern (18x16) while the smaller headsize frames could take the 16x15 patterns like the Pro Staff 95 (16x15) that is coming out.

I agree. Waiting for the Pro Staff 95s now just because of the string pattern.
 

Overdrive

Legend
Michele says she tries to debunk the spin effect by Wilson also, but she can't - I'm no open player, but I do hit flat like her.

I have to have the lowest average net clearance of any guy in town - lol Hitting flat works nicely when you clear tape. but when you hit that white tape, and you get "The Heisman " from the net, it blows . :( There are plenty of guys who naturally hit so much topspin, they don't need any extra spin, but I'm not one of them .

What I don't understand is why Wilson uses a 18x16 pattern in the 98S and 95S. It seems the larger the headsize frames like the 99S & 105S could take a tighter ESP pattern (18x16) while the smaller headsize frames could take the 16x15 patterns like the Pro Staff 95 (16x15) that is coming out.

Wilson : any chance to make a Steam 99S 18x16 with the stiffness of the Blade 98 ? This seems to be the missing link for me

Basically, these are similar to the BLX frames without the 'BLX' tech in them? Ugh, how confusing.. :oops:

So, these S frames are supposed to generate more spin for players who either can't generate it themselves or prefer it as their source of game?

Chris for example has a Western forehand. That already generates extreme topspin.. So playing with this racquet makes him 'that guy' on the courts.. :lol:

I remember playing one of those extreme topspin female players a few days ago. She did fit my skill level and she basically pushed the ball around (not a pusher just great defense). With that and the extreme spin she had, it was a great workout.

Since it is going to start to get cold here in Texas, there are no goddang indoor courts. Playing in the cold weather is honestly a pain in the rear... :(

I really do envy the folks at TW.
 

g4driver

Legend
So, these S frames are supposed to generate more spin for players who either can't generate it themselves or prefer it as their source of game?

Don't think it is the source of my game, merely like drinking something with electrolytes instead of water. If I clear the net by a few more inches with a S Frame, I should cut down the UEs in my game. I personally like the flat swing I have for the most part, especially in doubles against 4.0 / 4.5 guys as it has them hit low volleys and groundstrokes that don't sit up in their wheelhouse.

Not looking to change my swing radically, so basically these frames do for some players the same thing most poly strings do - simply give more spin. That's my take on Wilson Spin Effect frames and Prince ESP Frames.
 
Last edited:

Overdrive

Legend
Don't think it is the source of my game, merely like drinking something with electrolytes instead of water. If I clear the net by a few more inches with a S Frame, I should cut down the UEs in my game. I personally like the flat swing I have for the most part, especially in doubles against 4.0 / 4.5 guys as it has them hit low volleys and groundstrokes that don't sit up in their wheelhouse.

Not looking to change my swing radically, so basically these frames do for some players the same thing most poly strings do - simply give more spin. That's my take on Wilson Spin Effect frames and Prince ESP Frames.

Hmm... I see..

Western grip players like Chris should experiment with this racquet with spin-friendly poly. :lol:
 

CKLIN

New User
I am fraught with indecision! I have been meaning to upgrade my kFactor 6.1 95 16*18 with the new 95 16*18.

I was actually going to switch to the Amplifeels because of the good discount, but NOW this 2014 is coming out. Just ruined my decision making process. Not only are 2014 out, but 3 of them.

Only problem is I live outside of the States because I would want to demo 95 and 95S. >>> I think I'm going to make a decision soon with the 95, I'm pretty sure that it's hopefully a 'better' racket than my kFactors.
 

Automatix

Legend
Thanks-

Can you post the specs ?

Seems the current Prostaff 100L is extremely light :( - too light to even customize

Specs unchanged AFAIK.

Unstrung...

Pro Staff 100L
Weight: 10.1 oz/285 g
Balance: 32.5cm
Length: 27.25 inches
String pattern: 16 x 18
Beam: 22 mm DTB


Pro Staff 100LS
Weight: 10.1 oz/285 g
Balance: 32.5 cm
Length: 27.25 inches
String pattern: 16 x 15
Beam: 22 mm DTB

And I disagree. Wilson QC is so lame that the lower weight insures you still have enough room for customization. A friend bought a 6.1 95 (309g) and it weighed 318g. 285g unstrung weight allows you to do whatever you wish, lead under bumper, silicon in handle, leather grip etc. without bumping up the weight to much.
 

corners

Legend
Thanks-

Can you post the specs ?

Seems the current Prostaff 100L is extremely light :( - too light to even customize
It's not too light to customize. A moderate amount of lead and a leather grip will match it to this new 95S that the TW team liked so much.
 

TripleB

Hall of Fame
What I don't understand is why Wilson uses a 18x16 pattern in the 98S and 95S.

Yea, that was the question I had...why create a "Spin" racquet with 18 mains...I figured you would use 16 mains for a "Spin" racquet.

But in the T-W review they mention how 'open' the pattern is and it gets huge numbers in topspin and slice!!!

TripleB
 

corners

Legend
Yea, that was the question I had...why create a "Spin" racquet with 18 mains...I figured you would use 16 mains for a "Spin" racquet.

But in the T-W review they mention how 'open' the pattern is and it gets huge numbers in topspin and slice!!!

TripleB

I think the point of using more mains is that control improves. The most recent research on spin from TW University showed that the 16x15 patterns in the two Steams both generated more spin than conventional patterns, but it also revealed that when the main strings move a lot, as they do with so few crosses, a gap is created in the string pattern. Here's a link to a photo of this gap: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=VORiUo6JLcWcyQHcyYDQBA&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAg

This gap has two undesirable effects:

1. Depending on precisely where the ball impacts relative to the strings (e.g. is it contacting three mains squarely, or spread along four mains?) the rebound angle of the ball will be different. Basically, the gap between the strings results in a very high rebound angle, and with few mains this angle tends to be quite different from shot to shot. So if you hit the "exact same" shot twice, but the ball impacts the stringbed in a slightly different position each time, the rebound angle will be quite different on each shot. This has always been a problem with open patterns, and it seems that when the mains are free to slide sideways this problem gets worse.

2. This gap in the strings actually produces a torque that is in the opposite direction of topspin generation. So the main strings slide sideways and then snapback, which produces more spin. That's the entire point of the Spin Effect technology. But when relatively few mains slide sideways quite far, as they do in these frames, the gap that is created between the sliding strings and the non-moving ones allows part of the ball to squeeze into it. That part of the ball receives this counterspin torque, a force that the TW Professor calls a "normal force offset." Again, depending on where the ball impacts relative to the mains, this gap can be larger or smaller. If the gap is large, spin will be less; if the gap is smaller, spin will be greater. So this variability in the size of the gap results in variability in how much spin you get from shot to shot.

Taken together, variability in rebound angle and variability in spin results in wide variability from shot to shot that could be called poor control.


The point of increasing the number of main strings is that, with fewer crosses, those mains can still slide sideways, and so you still get the snapback spin effect. But with more mains, the relationship between the ball and the main strings will be more homogeneous - with 18 mains you have a better chance of the ball spanning six mains each time you hit it, whereas with 16 mains it might span four mains one time, five times the next, etc. Basically, the more mains you have on the ball the smaller will be this gap that appears when the mains slide sideways, and the smaller that gap the more consistent your shots will be, in terms of both rebound angle and rpms.

My sense is that Wilson is trying a few different patterns in different racquets. They probably have a feel already for how each will perform, and what type of player might benefit from each. For example, the faster you swing and the higher the swingweight of your frame, the more your mains will slide. So, a pro player swinging 80 mph on the forehand side will have no problem getting his copoly strings to slide and snapback, even with a conventional 16x19 pattern, especially if his racquet has a 350+ swingweight. But a rec player, swinging at only 50 mph, might not get those same strings to bend and slide, let alone snapback - and so he won't benefit from the slippery copoly strings. But give that same rec player a 16x15 pattern and, because of the reduced friction at the string intersections, he'll start to experience sliding and snapback and the extra spin it brings to the table. So, for higher level players, 18 mains might be great - the strings won't slide quite as easily as they do with a 16x15, but because he's swinging fast he doesn't need them to. And those extra mains, as explained above, will give him more control in terms of less shot to shot variability.

This is all quite complicated, and gets even worse when you consider the many different copoly strings on the market (which vary widely in both stiffness and surface friction) and the various tensions people string them at.

BTW, the study I mentioned above is well worth taking the time to read. TW University is down today, but I'll link to it later in this post. My guess is that, once all the Spin Effect and Prince ESP racquets hit the market, TWU will do some similar work comparing all those racquets in terms of spin, rebound angle, shot variability, power potential, etc. That information will be very revealing.
 

Shroud

G.O.A.T.
I think the point of using more mains is that control improves. The most recent research on spin from TW University showed that the 16x15 patterns in the two Steams both generated more spin than conventional patterns, but it also revealed that when the main strings move a lot, as they do with so few crosses, a gap is created in the string pattern. Here's a link to a photo of this gap: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=VORiUo6JLcWcyQHcyYDQBA&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAg

This gap has two undesirable effects:

1. Depending on precisely where the ball impacts relative to the strings (e.g. is it contacting three mains squarely, or spread along four mains?) the rebound angle of the ball will be different. Basically, the gap between the strings results in a very high rebound angle, and with few mains this angle tends to be quite different from shot to shot. So if you hit the "exact same" shot twice, but the ball impacts the stringbed in a slightly different position each time, the rebound angle will be quite different on each shot. This has always been a problem with open patterns, and it seems that when the mains are free to slide sideways this problem gets worse.

2. This gap in the strings actually produces a torque that is in the opposite direction of topspin generation. So the main strings slide sideways and then snapback, which produces more spin. That's the entire point of the Spin Effect technology. But when relatively few mains slide sideways quite far, as they do in these frames, the gap that is created between the sliding strings and the non-moving ones allows part of the ball to squeeze into it. That part of the ball receives this counterspin torque, a force that the TW Professor calls a "normal force offset." Again, depending on where the ball impacts relative to the mains, this gap can be larger or smaller. If the gap is large, spin will be less; if the gap is smaller, spin will be greater. So this variability in the size of the gap results in variability in how much spin you get from shot to shot.

Taken together, variability in rebound angle and variability in spin results in wide variability from shot to shot that could be called poor control.


The point of increasing the number of main strings is that, with fewer crosses, those mains can still slide sideways, and so you still get the snapback spin effect. But with more mains, the relationship between the ball and the main strings will be more homogeneous - with 18 mains you have a better chance of the ball spanning six mains each time you hit it, whereas with 16 mains it might span four mains one time, five times the next, etc. Basically, the more mains you have on the ball the smaller will be this gap that appears when the mains slide sideways, and the smaller that gap the more consistent your shots will be, in terms of both rebound angle and rpms.

My sense is that Wilson is trying a few different patterns in different racquets. They probably have a feel already for how each will perform, and what type of player might benefit from each. For example, the faster you swing and the higher the swingweight of your frame, the more your mains will slide. So, a pro player swinging 80 mph on the forehand side will have no problem getting his copoly strings to slide and snapback, even with a conventional 16x19 pattern, especially if his racquet has a 350+ swingweight. But a rec player, swinging at only 50 mph, might not get those same strings to bend and slide, let alone snapback - and so he won't benefit from the slippery copoly strings. But give that same rec player a 16x15 pattern and, because of the reduced friction at the string intersections, he'll start to experience sliding and snapback and the extra spin it brings to the table. So, for higher level players, 18 mains might be great - the strings won't slide quite as easily as they do with a 16x15, but because he's swinging fast he doesn't need them to. And those extra mains, as explained above, will give him more control in terms of less shot to shot variability.

This is all quite complicated, and gets even worse when you consider the many different copoly strings on the market (which vary widely in both stiffness and surface friction) and the various tensions people string them at.

BTW, the study I mentioned above is well worth taking the time to read. TW University is down today, but I'll link to it later in this post. My guess is that, once all the Spin Effect and Prince ESP racquets hit the market, TWU will do some similar work comparing all those racquets in terms of spin, rebound angle, shot variability, power potential, etc. That information will be very revealing.

Nice post Corners.

I was thinking of skipping some crosses on my POG and ending up with a 14x9 pattern. Did I read right that this would only create a bunch of control issues due to the variability that such an open pattern would produce?
 

v-verb

Hall of Fame
Nice post Corners.

I was thinking of skipping some crosses on my POG and ending up with a 14x9 pattern. Did I read right that this would only create a bunch of control issues due to the variability that such an open pattern would produce?

Don't know however my 12x13 Hi Ten 30 has plenty of control. Great frame.
 

corners

Legend
Nice post Corners.

I was thinking of skipping some crosses on my POG and ending up with a 14x9 pattern. Did I read right that this would only create a bunch of control issues due to the variability that such an open pattern would produce?

It would definitely open up a can of control-related worms, but you might be able to keep the lid at least partway on. Several posters have played around with skipping every other cross since the TW Professor published his first research on reduced-cross string patterns back in 2011. Travlerajm has done the most with this idea, I think. Basically, if you can get the string stiffness right you can make them play pretty good. If the strings aren't tight enough the mains will slide sideways so far that, not only will there be the large gap and normal force offset described above, the strings won't have time to snapback before the ball leaves the strings. If that happens the result is horrible: a very high launch angle with worse spin than with a normal racquet. My first experiment was with a Wilson 95 strung with 16g poly at 60/70 pounds as a 16x10. The ball just kind of floated up without any tight spin to bring it down.

You'll notice that I upped the cross string tension to avoid warping the frame. The reduced number of crosses kind of demand it. Travlerajm kind of solved the problem by using kevlar mains. The stiffness of the kevlar meant that he could string them rather loose and then really crank up the copoly crosses to equalize the tension across the stringbed. I think he ended up with something like 50/75 (an advanced search would turn up his experiments) and that played pretty good. But then he ran into a problem: the copoly crosses strung at 75 started popping on him. The crosses have to be slippery, otherwise kevlar would have held up fine in the crosses, and so the solution would have been a very thick copoly. The only company that makes anything super thick is Vortex, who make a 14g I think. But Trav drifted away from this experiment. Piano wire was maybe the optimal solution, though :)

I bought an old Pro Kennex micro last year with something like a 22x25 pattern, intending to turn it into a 22x13. I was thinking just along the lines Wilson is with their 18x16 - that the large number of mains would keep up the control, but that the very few number of crosses would really amp the spin. My plan was to go 18g Kevlar in the mains and a flat copoly in the crosses. But I never got around to doing it. Still intend too, but I think these Spin Effect racquets are a better long-term deal :)

So, yeah, if you want to do it I would get hold of some very thick copoly for the crosses and try kevlar in the mains, both as tight as you dare go, but drop the crosses by 20 pounds or so to avoid squashing the hoop. But, with only 14 mains in your POG, you might not be able to get everything tight enough to get a consistent response from shot to shot. On the other hand, the small headsize will be in your favor (because the strings will be pretty short, and thus stiffer.)

The TW Professor wrote a great paper on this topic - about the Goldilocks Principles of spin generation - wherein he explains that for optimal snapback you want the strings to move freely, but not too freely, for all the reasons I've described in this post and the one before it. I wish TWU wasn't down, but as soon as it's back up I'll link to that article here.
 
Last edited:

Vlad_C

Semi-Pro
Back on the topic of the TW Reviews, what's up with the video reviews of the 16x18 and the 18x20?

Yesterday when I tried watching them, it said the video was "private".
Today I'm getting "This video has been removed by the user".
???
 

g4driver

Legend
Specs unchanged AFAIK.

Unstrung...

Pro Staff 100LS
Weight: 10.1 oz/285 g
Balance: 32.5 cm
Length: 27.25 inches
String pattern: 16 x 15
Beam: 22 mm DTB

And I disagree. Wilson QC is so lame that the lower weight insures you still have enough room for customization. A friend bought a 6.1 95 (309g) and it weighed 318g. 285g unstrung weight allows you to do whatever you wish, lead under bumper, silicon in handle, leather grip etc. without bumping up the weight to much.

lol -- I'm well aware of Wilson's lame QC (I have Pro Opens that range from 292 grams to 306 unstrung). That's not the worse part -- the 4 3/8 grips vary in size also. One was so bad, I gave it to my brother. I tried to sand down the pallet to make it smaller. Not much luck there. Wilson ain't Yonex when it comes to QC for certain. Maybe the Steam 99S frames I got were in the 72+ RDC area. :( I swear one of them was much stiffer than the other. When I sold one, the guy called me back and told me it felt stiffer than the other one he had. :shock: I offered his money back, but he said no worries.

I like the 100 square inch frame, and the 65 Flex.
285 unstrung + 15 grams string + 5 gram overgrip = 305 grams then leather, lead and maybe BluTac or silicone. hmmm????

When are the PS 100LS due out ?
 

Shroud

G.O.A.T.
So, yeah, if you want to do it I would get hold of some very thick copoly for the crosses and try kevlar in the mains, both as tight as you dare go, but drop the crosses by 20 pounds or so to avoid squashing the hoop. But, with only 14 mains in your POG, you might not be able to get everything tight enough to get a consistent response from shot to shot. On the other hand, the small headsize will be in your favor (because the strings will be pretty short, and thus stiffer.)

The TW Professor wrote a great paper on this topic - about the Goldilocks Principles of spin generation - wherein he explains that for optimal snapback you want the strings to move freely, but not too freely, for all the reasons I've described in this post and the one before it. I wish TWU wasn't down, but as soon as it's back up I'll link to that article here.

DO you mean drop the MAINS by 20 lbs? Otherwise I am totally lost here.

Read most of the posts you discuss I think and the TW article. The thickest string I have for crosses is Leona 66 at 15g. Would that work? Or would a 16g monogut zx work better?
 

corners

Legend
DO you mean drop the MAINS by 20 lbs?

Yeah, but it should actually be greater than that. But it's probably better to think of it as upping the tension of the crosses, rather than dropping the tension of the mains. The thinking here is that by reducing the number of crosses from 18 to 9 you have to up the tension of those fewer crosses, otherwise the mains will have greater total tension and will squash the hoop. To counter that, you can increase the cross string tension by 20-35 pounds. (Travlerajm used a 35 pound differential, and I would go with that. He's an engineer.) But there is a limit to how tightly you can string the crosses. Let's say you decide that you can string the crosses at 75 pounds, and then drop the mains to 40. If both strings are poly, now your mains are way to loose to snapback quickly in this super-open pattern. And that's where kevlar mains come in. Kevlar is more than twice as stiff as copoly, so if you've got kevlar mains at 40 and copoly crosses at 75 you'll not only protect your frame from squashing, but the mains will be stiff enough, even at 40 pounds, to snapback quickly enough to give you extra spin, at least in theory.

Read most of the posts you discuss I think and the TW article. The thickest string I have for crosses is Leona 66 at 15g. Would that work? Or would a 16g monogut zx work better?

I would definitely avoid syngut and I don't think Monogut ZX would work well here either - it's too flexible. What you want in the crosses is the thickest, stiffest and slipperiest copoly that you can find. Something like Wilson Ripspin 15 might do the trick. You want the crosses to be like rigid, slick rails upon which the kevlar mains can freely slide. (Piano wire would probably be awesome in this pattern, but your balls wouldn't last long :)

Noticed that other posters are starting to get annoyed by our off-topic action, so maybe we should move this conversation over to this thread: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=347846&highlight=16x10
 
Last edited:

Hal

Rookie
You're referring to the TWU power maps, no? Those represent measurements of ACOR, or power potential, or intrinsic power. Those figures are a measurement of rebound speed when the racquet is freely suspended and a ball is fired at them at a constant speed. With that arrangement, the racquet with the higher swingweight will always rebound the ball at a greater speed. So racquets with higher swing weights, like the 18x20 and 16x18 versions, will be more intrinsically powerful than the 18x16 version, which has a lower swingweight. But in actual play, where the player is swinging the racquet, the lower swingweight may allow the player to swing the 18x16 version more quickly. Faster swingspeeds are more important to shot speed than is intrinsic power. So the playtesters found the 18x16 to seem slightly more "powerful" to them than the two heavier versions. This is pretty typical, you can find lots of examples like this - the lighter racquet seems more powerful in actual play. But, you'll also find lots of players saying that the higher swingweight frames are more "powerful", it all depends on how the weight, balance and swingweight of the frame matches a person's swingstyle and playing style.

Personally, I don't pay much attention to subjective reports of "power", particularly because most people confuse power (shot speed) with depth or launch angle and so their reports of "power" simply reflect that confusion. I like to look at the TWU power potential maps, which basically tell you how large the power zone is, and then playtest and see how the intrinsic power of the frame manifests for me on the court. How it manifests for another player is not super useful information, usually. On the other hand, it is useful to me when someone like Chris Edwards reports, because I know how he plays and how he swings and I can go back and compare his reviews of many, many other frames to his review of the 18x16. So he gave the Yonex Vcore Tour 97 (310) an 8.0 for power and the 95S an 8.3 for power. To me this is interesting because those two racquets have nearly identical specs.
Thanks clarification Corners! I agree that the Power zone maps seem to be the most useful charts to use.
 

TW Staff

Administrator
Back on the topic of the TW Reviews, what's up with the video reviews of the 16x18 and the 18x20?

Yesterday when I tried watching them, it said the video was "private".
Today I'm getting "This video has been removed by the user".
???

It has been fixed! Sorry about that!

Michelle, TW
 

PED

Legend
Curious on the 6.1 L, TW has the beam listed as 22m which is bigger than last year.

The official Wilson site has it listed at 20.7mm, who is right?
 

TW Staff

Administrator
Curious on the 6.1 L, TW has the beam listed as 22m which is bigger than last year.

The official Wilson site has it listed at 20.7mm, who is right?

Hello Ped,

Good catch. We double checked the batch of demos we just received and the beam width is being revised downward. The samples we checked came in between 21mm and 21.26mm, which is not an uncommon range.

Thanks,
TW Staff
 
Last edited:

RD 7

Rookie
We're talking about millimeters here. After brushing the racquet with a polymer coating, then sanding it, then applying the final coating of paint, you would expect even larger variations inside sample groups. The fact that they're within 1-2 mm of target is actually impressive.
 

o0lunatik

Professional
Why has this thread gotten so quiet all the sudden? I would expect for a lot more excitement and speculation? Ha!
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
Why has this thread gotten so quiet all the sudden? I would expect for a lot more excitement and speculation? Ha!

personally, since the advent of the 99s, I've been waiting for the Pro Staff 95s 16x15. The new 18x16 racquets just don't do anything for me. I imagine we'll be getting a lot more excitement with the new prostaff line in 2014
 

BigT

Professional
Playtesters-

How is the launch angle of the 95s? Flatter like an 18 main stick, or higher like a more open patterned stick? Thanks.
 

tennixpl

Rookie
personally, since the advent of the 99s, I've been waiting for the Pro Staff 95s 16x15. The new 18x16 racquets just don't do anything for me. I imagine we'll be getting a lot more excitement with the new prostaff line in 2014


painfull excitement too when their reviews even allude to the fact that they have played with it too. I can only hope the box beam double braided pro staff 95s is sweet.
""
Jason - "This racquet kind of sits in between the Steam 99S and the Pro Staff 95S. It has more control than the Steam 99S and more power than the Pro Staff 95S."
""

though i think i will try this one too, can't expect to wait till January......
 

TW Staff

Administrator
Playtesters-

How is the launch angle of the 95s? Flatter like an 18 main stick, or higher like a more open patterned stick? Thanks.

The launch angle is more like an open string patterned racquet. No where near what it is with the Steam 99S but still slightly higher than with a normal 16x19 or 18x20 racquet.

Jason, TW
 

movdqa

Talk Tennis Guru
Interesting to compare the Chris' test hit with the Radical compared to the 95 18 x 20 - his strokes are like night and day on pace.
 

PED

Legend
Jason - "This racquet kind of sits in between the Steam 99S and the Pro Staff 95S. It has more control than the Steam 99S and more power than the Pro Staff 95S."

Is this a true statement in general re the power level of the Pro Staffs and the 6.1's?

I've only owned 6.1's and love the power and control.

I'm leaning toward the new Pro Staff 100L but don't want to give up too much easy power from my 6.1 Team.

It's also hard to resist the new 6.1L at only $149
 

ilovetennis212

Professional
Is this a true statement in general re the power level of the Pro Staffs and the 6.1's?

I've only owned 6.1's and love the power and control.

I'm leaning toward the new Pro Staff 100L but don't want to give up too much easy power from my 6.1 Team.

It's also hard to resist the new 6.1L at only $149

It's $159 in TW.
Where did you find that deal?
Share please.
 

ilovetennis212

Professional
Looks like TW got them in early. I just got notice that mine was strung and packed today.

What model?
Day before Yesterday, I asked them when they were going to get 2014 racquet stocked... they said it can be later than 1st of November.
And already got it?
I'm so purchasing now. :)
 
Top