News on PS97 paintjob sand future of Prostaff line.

BreakPoint · Jun 30, 2014

Blitzball said:
So if I say I want a racquet with a paintjob of the Blade 98s, that means I want a Blade 98s? I didn't know I wanted that racquet.

Then you say you want a racquet with the Blade 98 paintjob or you say you want a racquet painted just like the Blade 98.

If you say you want a paintjob of the Blade 98 then that means you want a Blade 98 with a non-standard paintjob.

Sparky · Jun 30, 2014

SouthboundAgain said:
They're discontinuing the 90? does this mean I should start buying a bunch of the 90s while they're still out there?

I would wait until year end and wait for Wilson to blow out the PS90 for $79.95.

There is an auction site where genuine PS90s are going for $144.95 free shipping since they were originally released. It'll surely be under $100 at year end as were the 2013 PS90s.

THE FIGHTER · Jun 30, 2014

BreakPoint said:
Yes, the way you worded it sounds like you meant they both use the 95S with paintjobs on them.

What you wanted to say is that they both use racquets that have the PS 95S paintjob on them. When you say - "Both of them use a paintjob of the 95S...", that means they use a 95S with paintjobs on them.

Pedantic post if the year. You must be great to hang out with

THE FIGHTER · Jun 30, 2014

Sad to see the Wilson midsized go, but it's been a long time coming. Hopefully future iterations of the 95s retain a box beam design however.

martini1 · Jun 30, 2014

10,000 tour 90 sold worldwide? I do not believe that figure to be the average. It must be the sales figure of 2013-14. The K90 was selling like crazy when "everybody" went to buy one thinking they can play like Federer. In local tourneys I still see at least 2-3 players using a version of the tour 90. I believe up until mid 2010 the tour 90 was selling well. There is no way Wilson spending the big bucks on Fed and only selling a non-selling racket, a signature bag that is also not the biggest hit, and a bunch of low end $40 stick with his face on the cardboard. That is a very poor business execution.

Roddickulous · Jun 30, 2014

martini1 said:
10,000 tour 90 sold worldwide? I do not believe that figure to be the average. It must be the sales figure of 2013-14. The K90 was selling like crazy when "everybody" went to buy one thinking they can play like Federer. In local tourneys I still see at least 2-3 players using a version of the tour 90. I believe up until mid 2010 the tour 90 was selling well. There is no way Wilson spending the big bucks on Fed and only selling a non-selling racket, a signature bag that is also not the biggest hit, and a bunch of low end $40 stick with his face on the cardboard. That is a very poor business execution.

Wilson rep told me it's been around 10,000 in recent history and that was back in 2011 during the black/red blx 90. He said they weren't much better during nCode or K Factor. Obviously their peak would have been the Hyper PS90, back when a lot of pros still used mid sized racquets. I tell my customers all the time, "the prestige mids, 90s, Yonex 89s, and blade 93's of the world don't have a place in the modern game of tennis. The sweet spots are too small."

I'm not saying this to spark controversy or offend anyone, but next to no one in the top 100 is using anything smaller than a 95, and a lot of players are going for the lighter, wider bodied frames. Look at Verdasco, and all the other prestige type guys that have switched to APD or PD recently. It's not a trend, it's a changing of the guard. Babolat has been #1 in sales for the last 4 years now. Wilson can't compete by throwing money at racquets that don't sell. Sure maybe some of you guys see other people play with the 90 all the time. I'm telling you, working in a pro shop full time right now, and I see maybe one or two 90s a month for restringing and even my manager who would love to push the 90 (as he uses it himself and has been since it's inception) admits that it's time for it to go away. People who come in and want Federer's racquet pick it up, realize how heavy it is and then they take an APD instead.

martini1 · Jun 30, 2014

Roddickulous said:
Wilson rep told me it's been around 10,000 in recent history and that was back in 2011 during the black/red blx 90. He said they weren't much better during nCode or K Factor. Obviously their peak would have been the Hyper PS90, back when a lot of pros still used mid sized racquets. I tell my customers all the time, "the prestige mids, 90s, Yonex 89s, and blade 93's of the world don't have a place in the modern game of tennis. The sweet spots are too small."

I'm not saying this to spark controversy or offend anyone, but next to no one in the top 100 is using anything smaller than a 95, and a lot of players are going for the lighter, wider bodied frames. Look at Verdasco, and all the other prestige type guys that have switched to APD or PD recently. It's not a trend, it's a changing of the guard. Babolat has been #1 in sales for the last 4 years now. Wilson can't compete by throwing money at racquets that don't sell. Sure maybe some of you guys see other people play with the 90 all the time. I'm telling you, working in a pro shop full time right now, and I see maybe one or two 90s a month for restringing and even my manager who would love to push the 90 (as he uses it himself and has been since it's inception) admits that it's time for it to go away. People who come in and want Federer's racquet pick it up, realize how heavy it is and then they take an APD instead.

I'm not arguing with you. I know Babo is #1 for years now. And almost no Jr playing with mids, also in the ATP. If the sales figures of the tour 90 pre 2010 is that bad, I am just disappointed on Wilson's execution and more puzzling is Fed has been getting mega pay checks year after year from Wilson. You can say he is more like a spokes person and it boosted Wilson's brand image. But the success of the APD came strictly from Rafa winning the Wimbledon, and RG b4 that. A spokesperson with no hot selling item is pretty bad. Imagine Jordan winning the NBA 6 times but none of the shoes are selling over 10,000 pairs! Ouch.

Roddickulous · Jun 30, 2014

martini1 said:
But the success of the APD came strictly from Rafa winning the Wimbledon, and RG b4 that. A spokesperson with no hot selling item is pretty bad. Imagine Jordan winning the NBA 6 times but none of the shoes are selling over 10,000 pairs! Ouch.

I could not disagree with you more in that regard. The APD wins the head to head war in demoing 80% of the time. It's been the best selling racquet since it came out in 2005. Sure it helps that Rafa uses it, but that's about 10% of the sales. Rarely do I get anyone who asks for Rafa's racquet. Most people demoing racquets know (next to) nothing about tennis racquets, but they are able to easily pick out that the APD is far superior to it's competitors (Extremes, Juices, F5.0's, Formula 100, etc.) The Radical Pro and Speed Pro don't sell well at all and Murray and Djokovic use those racquets. It's about feel and quality. You guys used to the classic feel won't like an APD, the general public loves it because it helps them improve their game and hit deeper in the court.

movdqa · Jun 30, 2014

martini1 said:
I'm not arguing with you. I know Babo is #1 for years now. And almost no Jr playing with mids, also in the ATP. If the sales figures of the tour 90 pre 2010 is that bad, I am just disappointed on Wilson's execution and more puzzling is Fed has been getting mega pay checks year after year from Wilson. You can say he is more like a spokes person and it boosted Wilson's brand image. But the success of the APD came strictly from Rafa winning the Wimbledon, and RG b4 that. A spokesperson with no hot selling item is pretty bad. Imagine Jordan winning the NBA 6 times but none of the shoes are selling over 10,000 pairs! Ouch.

Federer's picture is on the cardboard insets of a wide variety of racquets at the local big-box store. So his marketing power is still useful to Wilson even though he's not carrying his weight with his signature frame.

YarikA99 · Jun 30, 2014

Roddickulous said:
The Juice 100S is their #1 selling racquet, followed by the Steam 99S, Juice 108, Blade 98S, and Steam 105S. The only pro staff in their top ten sales is the 95S.

Wow, I would have thought that those were their least selling racquets. Those racquets are only good for beginners, they have no control against heavy hitters.

What about the blade 98 18x20, how is that racquet selling. I see a lot of players using this racquet and almost no players using the racquets above.

Roddickulous · Jun 30, 2014

YarikA99 said:
Wow, I would have thought that those were their least selling racquets. Those racquets are only good for beginners, they have no control against heavy hitters.

What about the blade 98 18x20, how is that racquet selling. I see a lot of players using this racquet and almost no players using the racquets above.

Another racquet that probably will eventually be dropped. And you'd be surprised, a lot of kids are switching from Babolat and Head to the spin frames and adding weight to make them more stable. They are certainly not beginners racquets.

movdqa · Jun 30, 2014

I guess that this is a good example of the generation gap.

I thought that the Steam and Juice were junk frames too. Always good to get a reality-check.

BreakPoint · Jun 30, 2014

THE FIGHTER said:
Pedantic post if the year. You must be great to hang out with

I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what he means unless he says it. How many people in this world know what racquets Dimitrov and Dogolpolov use, much less that they are using paintjobs and of which racquets and with what paintjobs on them.

BreakPoint · Jun 30, 2014

Roddickulous said:
Wilson rep told me it's been around 10,000 in recent history and that was back in 2011 during the black/red blx 90. He said they weren't much better during nCode or K Factor. Obviously their peak would have been the Hyper PS90, back when a lot of pros still used mid sized racquets. I tell my customers all the time, "the prestige mids, 90s, Yonex 89s, and blade 93's of the world don't have a place in the modern game of tennis. The sweet spots are too small."

I'm not saying this to spark controversy or offend anyone, but next to no one in the top 100 is using anything smaller than a 95, and a lot of players are going for the lighter, wider bodied frames. Look at Verdasco, and all the other prestige type guys that have switched to APD or PD recently. It's not a trend, it's a changing of the guard. Babolat has been #1 in sales for the last 4 years now. Wilson can't compete by throwing money at racquets that don't sell. Sure maybe some of you guys see other people play with the 90 all the time. I'm telling you, working in a pro shop full time right now, and I see maybe one or two 90s a month for restringing and even my manager who would love to push the 90 (as he uses it himself and has been since it's inception) admits that it's time for it to go away. People who come in and want Federer's racquet pick it up, realize how heavy it is and then they take an APD instead.

But the Tour 90's have gone lighter and lighter over the years. Just look at their swingweights. The current 2014 PS 90 is so light that I would have to add a lot of lead tape to it to use it.

And I still see older Tour 90s, like the nCode 90, being strung up for customers at pro shops.

You sure the sales were not 10,000 per month or per quarter? As I said, most of them were "Best Sellers" on TW, and I understand a lot of units have to be sold to qualify for "Best Seller" status on TW. I'm sure all the other websites sold lots of them, too.

Power Player · Jun 30, 2014

Roddickulous said:
I could not disagree with you more in that regard. The APD wins the head to head war in demoing 80% of the time. It's been the best selling racquet since it came out in 2005. Sure it helps that Rafa uses it, but that's about 10% of the sales. Rarely do I get anyone who asks for Rafa's racquet. Most people demoing racquets know (next to) nothing about tennis racquets, but they are able to easily pick out that the APD is far superior to it's competitors (Extremes, Juices, F5.0's, Formula 100, etc.) The Radical Pro and Speed Pro don't sell well at all and Murray and Djokovic use those racquets. It's about feel and quality. You guys used to the classic feel won't like an APD, the general public loves it because it helps them improve their game and hit deeper in the court.

I agree there. It has a ton of power. I find it can work against me though due to that sometimes. I hit with a lot of spin, but it is not always enough to control the beastliness of this stick.

You are also correct about the feel. Tough to go away from a racquet that feels really good to an APD. The comfort level takes a hit as well.

All that aside I think it is the best of the modern frames since it translates to about any style of play.

I play the yonex tour g because I prefer classic feeling sticks. I always come back to them.

drakulie · Jun 30, 2014

Roddickulous said:
I could not disagree with you more in that regard. The APD wins the head to head war in demoing 80% of the time. It's been the best selling racquet since it came out in 2005. Sure it helps that Rafa uses it, but that's about 10% of the sales. Rarely do I get anyone who asks for Rafa's racquet. Most people demoing racquets know (next to) nothing about tennis racquets, but they are able to easily pick out that the APD is far superior to it's competitors (Extremes, Juices, F5.0's, Formula 100, etc.) The Radical Pro and Speed Pro don't sell well at all and Murray and Djokovic use those racquets. It's about feel and quality. You guys used to the classic feel won't like an APD, the general public loves it because it helps them improve their game and hit deeper in the court.

I've worked at a pro shop for several years and my experience is the complete opposite of yours. No one has ever come in to our shop specifically asking for the federer racquet, picked it up to find it too heavy and gone on to purchase rafa's frame. Never.

Also, as you state, and I agree, people demoing typically know next to nothing about equipment. But that also would include sale reps, coaches, and even the people who work in pro shops. That said, they (customer) wouldn't know the APD is superior to anything, since they know "next to nothing" to begin with.

Lastly, the APD, along with most other Babolat frames are not "superior" to other frames. Quite frankly, they suck. They crack easier than any other frame, grommets and head guards are terrible (not to mention installing them), and the butt caps consistently come loose. I will say the rattling and vibration is second to none.

By the way, nothing helps you hit deeper into the court than a steam spin frame. Fact when compared to a APD. You also don't have one bit of evidence to back up your claims that the APD helps anyone improve their game.

Not sure if your sales number are accurate either.

Just saying.

Overdrive · Jun 30, 2014

Babolat: 0

Everyone else: 1

unclenimrod · Jun 30, 2014

Of course the lighter racquets with bigger sweet spots are top sellers. The majority of people who play tennis are not 4.0 and up tennis players…so they couldn't use a 90 sq inch racquet and compete. Also…the majority of tennis players aren't that strong (a large section are women, of course, and then there are kids and skinny juniors…that's what, like 70% or more of tennis players?). The Tour 90s were for advanced players…no one expects them to sell better than an APD which is for intermediates. Obviously, advanced players can use most any racquet, so some of them do go for lighter frames and either use them stock and just swing less full or hard or they change their specs to fit a fuller swing. The market share is already tiny for an advanced players racquet. Wilson not selling tons of them would never have been a surprise to anyone who in their marketing department. Your rep complaining about their sales is parroting his manager, not Wilson, the company. His manager wants high sales. Wilson, the company never would have expected the tour 90s to sell as well as a 100 sq inch babolat frame.

gplracer · Jun 30, 2014

The trend is for lighter and stiffer frames. Heavier frames have more mass so if swung at a high speed give more power. The problem is that lots of people have poor technique and/or bad footwork so they do not get lots of racket head speed with a heavier racket. Lots of kids like Babolat frames because they are light rackets that have power because they are stiff. This makes them easy to swing. My son is 12 and plays with Wilson. I am concerned about the long term effects of poly and really stiff rackets. Granted Wilson has some stiff frames too. For me the Babolat Pure drive is the ONLY racket that has ever caused me to have elbow problems. I just had to get rid of all of them and go back to my heavier Wilson 6.1. I am sure different people have different results. That was just mine.

kingcheetah · Jun 30, 2014

While disappointing from a "legacy" standpoint, I think the elimination of the 90, 95 and 100/100s isn't too surprising. I've only ever seen 2 people aside from myself use the 90 in a large tennis community, and they were both 4.0 doubles guys that didn't need anything with greater ease of use... I've seen a couple of pro staff 95's, and they are COVERED in lead so they are more stable/powerful. The 100 and 100s aren't really pro staffs given how light and thick-beamed they are.

Wilson is trying to get more racquets out to the current generation of young players, who for the most part are hooked on things like the Aero pro. Of all the best juniors at the club where I play, about half are using an Aero Pro, there's one using the old radical Pro and another using a Pure Strike Tour. Nobody is using a Wilson. I think Wilson is trying to make a line that can appeal to younger players, since the Juice doesn't seem to have done that.

I was a little surprised at first by the list of what racquets are selling well, but then I realized that what we see on the court doesn't necessarily translate to what is selling. The majority of players don't play as often as us gearheads do, and they are the target market of a lot of the frames like the juice100s, 108s etc.

Roddickulous · Jun 30, 2014

gplracer said:
The trend is for lighter and stiffer frames. Heavier frames have more mass so if swung at a high speed give more power. The problem is that lots of people have poor technique and/or bad footwork so they do not get lots of racket head speed with a heavier racket. Lots of kids like Babolat frames because they are light rackets that have power because they are stiff. This makes them easy to swing. My son is 12 and plays with Wilson. I am concerned about the long term effects of poly and really stiff rackets. Granted Wilson has some stiff frames too. For me the Babolat Pure drive is the ONLY racket that has ever caused me to have elbow problems. I just had to get rid of all of them and go back to my heavier Wilson 6.1. I am sure different people have different results. That was just mine.

Honestly, I've grown sick and tired of people on here bashing pure drives, when their technique is to blame. If your son is 12, he should not be using poly.

martini1 · Jun 30, 2014

Roddickulous said:
I could not disagree with you more in that regard. The APD wins the head to head war in demoing 80% of the time. It's been the best selling racquet since it came out in 2005. Sure it helps that Rafa uses it, but that's about 10% of the sales. Rarely do I get anyone who asks for Rafa's racquet. Most people demoing racquets know (next to) nothing about tennis racquets, but they are able to easily pick out that the APD is far superior to it's competitors (Extremes, Juices, F5.0's, Formula 100, etc.) The Radical Pro and Speed Pro don't sell well at all and Murray and Djokovic use those racquets. It's about feel and quality. You guys used to the classic feel won't like an APD, the general public loves it because it helps them improve their game and hit deeper in the court.

Perhaps it is a regional thing. While Babo is very popular, there are still people using head and Wilson. The radical line is quite popular, especially when people are feeling the arm pain from playing with the APD or PD. I still hear people calling the rackets by the star's names, rather than the model name. Another observation is people are using less OS rackets which Head and Wilson used to sell a lot of. People (3.0) are using the Lite ver more, especially the girls.

movdqa said:
Federer's picture is on the cardboard insets of a wide variety of racquets at the local big-box store. So his marketing power is still useful to Wilson even though he's not carrying his weight with his signature frame.

Well I hope they sell tons of these because the profit margin of a $40 stick selling thru big box is supposed to be very very low. And yet I do not see these low end sticks in the public courts that much. May be people buy them, hit with it once or twice and let it sit in the garage collecting dust. :lol:

BreakPoint · Jun 30, 2014

Roddickulous said:
Honestly, I've grown sick and tired of people on here bashing pure drives, when their technique is to blame. If your son is 12, he should not be using poly.

Well, I wouldn't use the word "blame". Some people just use different techniques than others. APD/Pure Drives work with certain techniques but not with others, so I don't think you can blame their technique. That would be the same as blaming the racquet that it doesn't work with your technique. Likewise, Nadal can blame his technique that he can't use the PS 6.0 85 effectively.

Say Chi Sin Lo · Jun 30, 2014

BreakPoint said:
Well, I wouldn't use the word "blame". Some people just use different techniques than others. APD/Pure Drives work with certain techniques but not with others, so I don't think you can blame their technique. That would be the same as blaming the racquet that it doesn't work with your technique. Likewise, Nadal can blame his technique that he can't use the PS 6.0 85 effectively.

Why don't people just learn good technique so they can use virtually every racquet?

I was hitting at my local park and there was a clinic going on. The coach was hitting with his students with a random wood racquet, and you know what he said to his students? It was something along the lines of:

"I don't prefer the wood racquet, but once I warm up to the wood, it's just as good as any other racquets I've got."

porchdoor · Jul 1, 2014

BreakPoint said:
Yes, the way you worded it sounds like you meant they both use the 95S with paintjobs on them.

What you wanted to say is that they both use racquets that have the PS 95S paintjob on them. When you say - "Both of them use a paintjob of the 95S...", that means they use a 95S with paintjobs on them.

I just wanted to chime in to say that the original phrasing was grammatically correct to begin with (with respect to what the original poster intended to say). The preposition "of" is used to describe the object following the preposition. In other words, "95S" describes "paintjob."

Other examples using the preposition "of":
1. That is a painting of a tree.
2. I graduated in the spring of 2004.
3. Everyday I drink three cups of coffee.

So back to the original sentence containing the prepositional phrase in question.
"Both of them use a paintjob of the 95S."
The sentence can have the prepositional phrase removed and make the same statement, albeit with less information.
"Both of them use a paintjob."
We can then ask ourselves, "What was the paintjob of?"
"It was a paintjob of the 95S."

We can apply this to any of the previous examples I listed as well.
"That is a painting."
"What is it a painting of?"
"It is a painting of a tree."

"Everyday I drink three cups."
"What do you drink three cups of?"
"I drink three cups of coffee."

"They both use racquets that have the PS 95S paintjob on them" is also correct, but I just wanted to say that the original sentence was correct as well.

If he had said, "Both of them use a paintjob on the 95S," then there would be confusion.

martini1 · Jul 1, 2014

Say Chi Sin Lo said:
Why don't people just learn good technique so they can use virtually every racquet?

I was hitting at my local park and there was a clinic going on. The coach was hitting with his students with a random wood racquet, and you know what he said to his students? It was something along the lines of:

"I don't prefer the wood racquet, but once I warm up to the wood, it's just as good as any other racquets I've got."

Well not everybody is coach material and not everybody can play a woodie just as good as a modern frame, in the zone or not. And this definitely is not true for low rating people who can barely hit the ball.

BreakPoint · Jul 1, 2014

porchdoor said:
I just wanted to chime in to say that the original phrasing was grammatically correct to begin with (with respect to what the original poster intended to say). The preposition "of" is used to describe the object following the preposition. In other words, "95S" describes "paintjob."

Other examples using the preposition "of":
1. That is a painting of a tree.
2. I graduated in the spring of 2004.
3. Everyday I drink three cups of coffee.

So back to the original sentence containing the prepositional phrase in question.
"Both of them use a paintjob of the 95S."
The sentence can have the prepositional phrase removed and make the same statement, albeit with less information.
"Both of them use a paintjob."
We can then ask ourselves, "What was the paintjob of?"
"It was a paintjob of the 95S."

We can apply this to any of the previous examples I listed as well.
"That is a painting."
"What is it a painting of?"
"It is a painting of a tree."

"Everyday I drink three cups."
"What do you drink three cups of?"
"I drink three cups of coffee."

"They both use racquets that have the PS 95S paintjob on them" is also correct, but I just wanted to say that the original sentence was correct as well.

If he had said, "Both of them use a paintjob on the 95S," then there would be confusion.

When we discuss "paintjobs" here, "paintjob" is a noun, not an adjective.

Example: Murray is using a paintjob. He is using a paiintjob of the PT630 (or whatever he's really using).

Thus, "paintjob" is the racquet itself, not a description of the racquet.

porchdoor · Jul 1, 2014

BreakPoint said:
When we discuss "paintjobs" here, "paintjob" is a noun, not an adjective.

Example: Murray is using a paintjob. He is using a paiintjob of the PT630 (or whatever he's really using).

Thus, "paintjob" is the racquet itself, not a description of the racquet.

In both my examples and your examples, "paintjob" is still used as a noun. The noun "paintjob" refers to the graphics in which a racquet has. For example, some people could say, "I don't like the paintjob of the new Prestiges." I don't think anyone uses "paintjob" to refer to a racquet.

No adjectives are actually in use in my or your examples. I feel like you only glanced over my first post and didn't really read it thoroughly. This is really basic grammatical syntax.

porchdoor · Jul 1, 2014

If other people are using the word "paintjob" in the way that breakpoint is describing (that is, to refer to a racquet itself and not the graphics on the racquet) then I apologize. My understanding of the word is a little different.

Rafa4Ever · Jul 1, 2014

porchdoor said:
I just wanted to chime in to say that the original phrasing was grammatically correct to begin with (with respect to what the original poster intended to say). The preposition "of" is used to describe the object following the preposition. In other words, "95S" describes "paintjob."

Other examples using the preposition "of":
1. That is a painting of a tree.
2. I graduated in the spring of 2004.
3. Everyday I drink three cups of coffee.

So back to the original sentence containing the prepositional phrase in question.
"Both of them use a paintjob of the 95S."
The sentence can have the prepositional phrase removed and make the same statement, albeit with less information.
"Both of them use a paintjob."
We can then ask ourselves, "What was the paintjob of?"
"It was a paintjob of the 95S."

We can apply this to any of the previous examples I listed as well.
"That is a painting."
"What is it a painting of?"
"It is a painting of a tree."

"Everyday I drink three cups."
"What do you drink three cups of?"
"I drink three cups of coffee."

"They both use racquets that have the PS 95S paintjob on them" is also correct, but I just wanted to say that the original sentence was correct as well.

If he had said, "Both of them use a paintjob on the 95S," then there would be confusion.

That must of taken a lot of effort, but it was worth it. lol

BreakPoint · Jul 1, 2014

porchdoor said:
In both my examples and your examples, "paintjob" is still used as a noun. The noun "paintjob" refers to the graphics in which a racquet has. For example, some people could say, "I don't like the paintjob of the new Prestiges." I don't think anyone uses "paintjob" to refer to a racquet.

No adjectives are actually in use in my or your examples. I feel like you only glanced over my first post and didn't really read it thoroughly. This is really basic grammatical syntax.

Then you don't read this board very much. "Paintjob" does indeed refer to a racquet on these boards.

If you don't like the way the new Prestiges are painted, you could say - "I don't like the way the new Prestiges are painted." or you can say - "I don't like the paint job of the new Prestiges." Notice the space between the word "paint" and "job"? That's because "paintjob" is not really a word. It is used as a noun to convey a racquet that is really something else under the paint.

Example:

Djokovic uses a paintjob, not a retail racquet.

I like the paint job on Nadal's Babolat AeroPureDrive.

porchdoor · Jul 1, 2014

BreakPoint said:
Then you don't read this board very much. "Paintjob" does indeed refer to a racquet on these boards.

If you don't like the way the new Prestiges are painted, you could say - "I don't like the way the new Prestiges are painted." or you can say - "I don't like the paint job of the new Prestiges." Notice the space between the word "paint" and "job"? That's because "paintjob" is not really a word. It is used as a noun to convey a racquet that is really something else under the paint.

Example:

Djokovic uses a paintjob, not a retail racquet.

I like the paint job on Nadal's Babolat AeroPureDrive.

Not sure if "paintjob" and "paint job" have been standardized in the way you're describing. Seems like you're making arbitrary generalizations. But very well.

"Both of them use a paint job of the 95S."

porchdoor · Jul 1, 2014

BreakPoint said:
Yes, the way you worded it sounds like you meant they both use the 95S with paintjobs on them.

What you wanted to say is that they both use racquets that have the PS 95S paintjob on them. When you say - "Both of them use a paintjob of the 95S...", that means they use a 95S with paintjobs on them.

Also, if we are going by your system of correct usage of "paintjob" and "paint job", he would have wanted to say:

"They both use racquets that have the PS 95S paint job on them."

...which would also mean that YOU meant to say "that means they use a 95S with paint jobs on them."

BreakPoint · Jul 1, 2014

porchdoor said:
"Both of them use a paint job of the 95S."

You see, when you word it like that, that's when it causes confusion. Many will subconsciously not see the space and read "paint job" as "paintjob". That's why you shouldn't word that sentence that way. You should word it - "Both of them use racquets painted like the 95S."

Besides, when the emphasis is on the paint/graphics of the racquet, there really is no "job" involved. But when the emphasis is on the real racquet underneath, the "job" is taking a totally different racquet and making it look like some other racquet.

porchdoor · Jul 1, 2014

BreakPoint said:
You see, when you word it like that, that's when it causes confusion. Many will subconsciously not see the space and read "paint job" as "paintjob". That's why you shouldn't word that sentence that way. You should word it - "Both of them use racquets painted like the 95S."

Besides, when the emphasis is on the paint/graphics of the racquet, there really is no "job" involved. But when the emphasis is on the real racquet underneath, the "job" is taking a totally different racquet and making it look like some other racquet.

You're the only one who got confused as far as I can tell, apparently because you have such a weak grasp of how english grammar works.

If the "job" in "paint job" is such a concern for confusion, why did you make that distinction in the first place? The way you choose to conduct and support your arguments is poorly planned.

porchdoor · Jul 1, 2014

I can see where this is going, neither person willing to back down (although I feel as though you're unwilling to back down because you are unwilling to admit that you are wrong).

I've already supported my arguments defending the syntax of the english language. I guess it would have helped if I could have provided citations of some sort, but whatever. So we'll just leave it at us agreeing to disagree.

BreakPoint · Jul 1, 2014

porchdoor said:
I can see where this is going, neither person willing to back down (although I feel as though you're unwilling to back down because you are unwilling to admit that you are wrong).

I've already supported my arguments defending the syntax of the english language. I guess it would have helped if I could have provided citations of some sort, but whatever. So we'll just leave it at us agreeing to disagree.

Again, "paintjob" is a noun in the context that is used on this board. Therefore, your syntax of the English language is incorrect while mine is correct when speaking of "paintjobs".

Sampras did not use a paintjob. Thus, you cannot say he used a paintjob of the PS 85. So although his racquets were painted as the PS 85, they were not paintjobs. They did, however, have the retail PS 85 paint job. (If you insist on using the phrase "paint job".) However, it's better to say - They were painted the same as the retail PS 85.

-Bobo- · Jul 2, 2014

BreakPoint said:
Well, I wouldn't use the word "blame". Some people just use different techniques than others. APD/Pure Drives work with certain techniques but not with others, so I don't think you can blame their technique. That would be the same as blaming the racquet that it doesn't work with your technique. Likewise, Nadal can blame his technique that he can't use the PS 6.0 85 effectively.

I think this argument is pretty invalid. There are people who hit flat with Babs and there are people who hit with spin with prestige mids. The problem is a few things such as when you mishit with a bab it's gone, especially if you hit flat. There is also the whole thing of people using them stock and then complaining about lack of plow through and the frame twisting in their hand which is exacerbated when hitting flatter or driving the ball. I can accept that a person might be used to certain aspects of a frames performance but sampras switched, courier switched, fed switched twice, as have countless other players so to say it works with certain technique doesn't seem to be evident anywhere except the amateur level where it will almost always come down to technique.

floydcouncil · Jul 2, 2014

porchdoor said:
I can see where this is going, neither person willing to back down (although I feel as though you're unwilling to back down because you are unwilling to admit that you are wrong).

I've already supported my arguments defending the syntax of the english language. I guess it would have helped if I could have provided citations of some sort, but whatever. So we'll just leave it at us agreeing to disagree.

Please stop the madness, you can NOT defeat BP with any solid facts, evidence, nor proof. It can not be done!!!!!!!!!!

BreakPoint · Jul 2, 2014

-Bobo- said:
I think this argument is pretty invalid. There are people who hit flat with Babs and there are people who hit with spin with prestige mids. The problem is a few things such as when you mishit with a bab it's gone, especially if you hit flat. There is also the whole thing of people using them stock and then complaining about lack of plow through and the frame twisting in their hand which is exacerbated when hitting flatter or driving the ball. I can accept that a person might be used to certain aspects of a frames performance but sampras switched, courier switched, fed switched twice, as have countless other players so to say it works with certain technique doesn't seem to be evident anywhere except the amateur level where it will almost always come down to technique.

So Nadal's technique should work just as well with a PS 6.0 85?

drakulie · Jul 2, 2014

Roddickulous said:
...a lot of players are going for the lighter, wider bodied frames. Look at Verdasco, and all the other prestige type guys that have switched to APD or PD recently. It's not a trend, it's a changing of the guard.

Food for thought:

Of the 8 players remaining at Wimbledon this year (men and women) 6 of the 8 are playing with a Wilson frame. (Federer, Dimitrov, Raonic, Kvitova, Halep, Safarova).

1 is playing with Babolat (Bouchard), APD.
1 is playing with Head (Joker). Head Speed (really a 20 plus year old mold, the radical variation)

Two of these players are using Pro Staff's. None are using Pure Drives. The other wilson frames are paint jobs of 20-plus year old molds.

That means 7 of the 8 players are using 20 plus year old technology.

And I can't remember the last time I saw Verdasco challenging for a Major.

Like I said in a previous post, most people working in pro shops have no clue about technology either.

Just saying.

HRB · Jul 2, 2014

Say Chi Sin Lo said:
Why don't people just learn good technique so they can use virtually every racquet?

I was hitting at my local park and there was a clinic going on. The coach was hitting with his students with a random wood racquet, and you know what he said to his students? It was something along the lines of:

"I don't prefer the wood racquet, but once I warm up to the wood, it's just as good as any other racquets I've got."

BRAVO!!!! All along on these threads I've been pointing out that, although we may have preferred specs, any player worth their salt can adapt to any stick.

I've suffered through ludicrous mentions of mere millimeters in beam width and sq inches causing racquets to be "unwieldy" or "beast"...LOL...says a lot about the players skills or lack of!:twisted:

gplracer · Jul 2, 2014

drakulie said:
Food for thought:

Of the 8 players remaining at Wimbledon this year (men and women) 6 of the 8 are playing with a Wilson frame. (Federer, Dimitrov, Raonic, Kvitova, Halep, Safarova).

1 is playing with Babolat (Bouchard), APD.
1 is playing with Head (Joker). Head Speed (really a 20 plus year old mold, the radical variation)

Two of these players are using Pro Staff's. None are using Pure Drives. The other wilson frames are paint jobs of 20-plus year old molds.

That means 7 of the 8 players are using 20 plus year old technology.

And I can't remember the last time I saw Verdasco challenging for a Major.

Like I said in a previous post, most people working in pro shops have no clue about technology either.

Just saying.

There you go!

gplracer · Jul 2, 2014

Roddickulous said:
Honestly, I've grown sick and tired of people on here bashing pure drives, when their technique is to blame. If your son is 12, he should not be using poly.

I have grown sick of people saying it is "technique". It might just be my 48 year old arm. I have played since I was 6. Maybe it is just a stiff light frame causing the problem.
I played with:
Head Pro
Jack Kramer
Head Vilas
Wilson Ultra
Kennex Power Ace
Wilson Ultra II
Wilson Prostaff 85
Prince Graphite
Wilson 6.1 Classic
Prince 730
Wilson 6.1 ncode
Wilson 6.1 kfactor
Wilson 6.1 95s

None of those hurt my elbow.

THE FIGHTER · Jul 2, 2014

BreakPoint said:
I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what he means unless he says it. How many people in this world know what racquets Dimitrov and Dogolpolov use, much less that they are using paintjobs and of which racquets and with what paintjobs on them.

in the confines of this section, at least 50%, but if you feel you werent being pedantic, then i believe you.

-Bobo- · Jul 8, 2014

drakulie said:
Food for thought:

Of the 8 players remaining at Wimbledon this year (men and women) 6 of the 8 are playing with a Wilson frame. (Federer, Dimitrov, Raonic, Kvitova, Halep, Safarova).

1 is playing with Babolat (Bouchard), APD.
1 is playing with Head (Joker). Head Speed (really a 20 plus year old mold, the radical variation)

Two of these players are using Pro Staff's. None are using Pure Drives. The other wilson frames are paint jobs of 20-plus year old molds.

That means 7 of the 8 players are using 20 plus year old technology.

And I can't remember the last time I saw Verdasco challenging for a Major.

Like I said in a previous post, most people working in pro shops have no clue about technology either.

Just saying.

I agree with this but would also say that there is a trend of players going lighter, stiffer and more powerful. I'm sure if you looked over the last few years there would be a lot of babs in the final 8 and wimbledon would be the worst major for the modern trend of tennis racquet and style.

A modern racquet isn't going to make you a million times better even if it does benefit you or if it works better with the modern game. It might make you a bit better if you can utilize its characteristics to suit your game but that doesn't mean it's going to make you catch up all the way to people who are way ahead in terms of ability. I'm not gonna go buy and APD and be challenging for major because of it lol.

Lastly Dimitrov is using that new fancy spin pattern thing, which I haven't tried but a lot of people say it adds crazy spin so I don't know where that lands his frame in terms of old vs new maybe both?

5point5 · Jul 8, 2014

Roddickulous said:
The 95's aren't selling well either. The Pro Staff 95 Spin is one of their top selling racquets though.

Racquets break down over time. As a teaching professional, I'm appalled that you don't know this. It looks bad on our industry to have a member of the USPTA saying that racquets last for years and years when really the max you should play with a racquet is two, maybe three years. If I were you, spend some time getting to know your local tennis shop and learn from them.

"As a teaching professional" - that's a bit presumptuous...

Vcore89 · Jul 8, 2014

Say Chi Sin Lo said:
Why don't people just learn good technique so they can use virtually every racquet?

I was hitting at my local park and there was a clinic going on. The coach was hitting with his students with a random wood racquet, and you know what he said to his students? It was something along the lines of:

"I don't prefer the wood racquet, but once I warm up to the wood, it's just as good as any other racquets I've got."

He is able to warm up to wooden racquets, isn't it telling? I bet today's coaches (who's never touch a wooden racquet) would labour finding the sweet spot consistently.:-|

drakulie · Jul 8, 2014

-Bobo- said:
I agree with this but would also say that there is a trend of players going lighter, stiffer and more powerful. I'm sure if you looked over the last few years there would be a lot of babs in the final 8 and wimbledon would be the worst major for the modern trend of tennis racquet and style.

A modern racquet isn't going to make you a million times better even if it does benefit you or if it works better with the modern game. It might make you a bit better if you can utilize its characteristics to suit your game but that doesn't mean it's going to make you catch up all the way to people who are way ahead in terms of ability. I'm not gonna go buy and APD and be challenging for major because of it lol.

Lastly Dimitrov is using that new fancy spin pattern thing, which I haven't tried but a lot of people say it adds crazy spin so I don't know where that lands his frame in terms of old vs new maybe both?

Dimtrov's frame is a pro staff. The drill pattern is custom for him (18x17). But regardless of the drill pattern, the frame is still a 30 year old line of frames.

My point, and I'm not disagreeing with your post, is that there aren't as many "newer technology" frames such as Pure Drives or Aeros being used by higher level players as the OP would have us believe.

I strung at 3 consecutive futures earlier this year. Over 50% of the frames used in all 3 were Blades. Very little pure drives, although there were many aero's. Lots of Prestiges and surprisingly, Instincts. Also a lot of Wilson 95's.

Fxanimator1 · Jul 8, 2014

drakulie said:
Food for thought:

Of the 8 players remaining at Wimbledon this year (men and women) 6 of the 8 are playing with a Wilson frame. (Federer, Dimitrov, Raonic, Kvitova, Halep, Safarova).

1 is playing with Babolat (Bouchard), APD.
1 is playing with Head (Joker). Head Speed (really a 20 plus year old mold, the radical variation)

Two of these players are using Pro Staff's. None are using Pure Drives. The other wilson frames are paint jobs of 20-plus year old molds.

That means 7 of the 8 players are using 20 plus year old technology.

And I can't remember the last time I saw Verdasco challenging for a Major.

Like I said in a previous post, most people working in pro shops have no clue about technology either.

Just saying.

Careful there man, you might start hurting peoples feelings, questioning their beliefs like that.

News on PS97 paintjob sand future of Prostaff line.

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Talk Tennis Guru

Rookie

Rookie

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Rookie

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Professional

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame