Any difference in performance between the Wilson sting with and without PWS?

Discussion in 'Classic Racquet Talk' started by AndrewD, Mar 9, 2009.

  1. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    The Wilson sting has always been one of my favourite racquets but I've never had the opportunity to hit with both the PWS and non-PWS versions. Just wondering if anyone has hit with both and can offer up a comparison, assuming there's some difference.

    Also, I do recall there being a Wilson Sting (midsize) that had red piping instead of the typical blue stripe. Any difference there or just a cosmetic variation?

    Oh, just wondering if anyone can provide the specs for the Sting Oversize.

    TW had the specs listed, for the mid, as being:
    Head Size: 90 sq. in
    Length: 27 inches
    Strung Weight: 12.6oz / 357g
    Balance: 7pts Head Light
    Swingweight: 326
    Stiffness: 61
    String Pattern: 16 Mains / 18 Crosses

    Does anyone know what they'd be for the OS ?
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2009
    #1
  2. plasma

    plasma Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,356
    [​IMG]
    sting is an 85, string pattern and headsize identical to st.vincent...
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2009
    #2
  3. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    As I said, I'm quoting TW verbatim.
     
    #3
  4. jorel

    jorel Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,489
    they are very similar.. just put some lead at 3 and 9 on the nonpws version and wa la
     
    #4
  5. gsquicksilver

    gsquicksilver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    SoCal
    i believe the PWS version is a bit softer than the non PWS. i've only played with the non PWS version.

    as for the red sting, that is known is the STING 2. it's almost identical to the sting without PWS, but with an indented groove area for the bumperguard. the bumperguard sits flushed instead of protruding out like typical bumperguards. the sting 2 is more flexible than the blue sting, and yes, i own both version so this statement is true on my part.
     
    #5
  6. tandayu

    tandayu Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,351
    just curious, what the 3 letter code on the buttcap of your Sting with PWS and non-pws?

    I might have one with "Q" on the third letter, need to check it tonight ...
     
    #6
  7. gsquicksilver

    gsquicksilver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    SoCal
    let me check when i get a chance. i only have the non pws versions. they came with a black buttcap and white W logo.
     
    #7
  8. gsquicksilver

    gsquicksilver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    SoCal
    damn, you guys make me want to dig my old sting's out of the closet and string them up to play, haha. i haven't used them since 95 when i switched over to the ps85.
     
    #8
  9. tandayu

    tandayu Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,351

    The non-pws is rare, I got one because VSBabolat told me about its existence.

    The sting was used by several pros including John Loyd, Scott Davis, and several more I can't remember right now.
     
    #9
  10. gsquicksilver

    gsquicksilver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    SoCal
    the sting felt similar to the ps85, but it was a tad stiffer and slightly heavier. but shots dead on the sweet spot were potent. mishits sucked.
     
    #10
  11. gsquicksilver

    gsquicksilver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    SoCal
    #11
  12. jorel

    jorel Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,489
    u thought the sting was stiffer???
     
    #12
  13. jorel

    jorel Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,489
    yep i bought a few from the Bosworth collection
     
    #13
  14. jorel

    jorel Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,489
    with PWS is in Taiwan
     
    #14
  15. gsquicksilver

    gsquicksilver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    SoCal
    yes it was stiffer.
     
    #15
  16. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    Marty Davis, one of the nicest blokes you'll ever meet and possibly my favourite tennis player of all time. Got to meet him back in 1985 when I was in primary school and my school took a few of us to see the old Melbourne Indoor (he won it that year). He was one of the players who took the time to chat with us (mainly about surfing LOL).

    Hence my reason for asking about the Sting and wanting to grab a couple to play with.
     
    #16
  17. RyanC

    RyanC New User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    80
    So what's the Sting like compared to the ProStaff 6.0 85 ? Is the Sting stiffer or more flexible, less power or more, spinnier or less spin, etc ?


    Plus, I just saw a Sting 95sq on the big auction site. Is that one of those semi-wide body racquets or is it a slim beam like the original Sting racqeuts?
     
    #17
  18. tandayu

    tandayu Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,351
    The sting 95 is not like the PS6.0 95 to the midsize version, just using the Sting name.

    DIfferent people might feel different sensation, but my sting felt more swingweight, crisper and harsher compared the St. Vincent, which more absorbing feel in comparison.

    My college coach and most sponsored WIlson team in the late 80s were all using Sting back then until the arrival of the Ps6.0, which everybody has to help use and promote.
     
    #18
  19. schu47

    schu47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    299
    RyanC,
    The Sting 95, if it's the one I think it is, isn't like the original at all. The Sting was a classic 80s graphite 85-sq-in mid. The 95 is a wide-body -- kind of lightweight, head-heavy, cumbersome, and puny -- part of Wilson's "High-Beam" series. IMO, they feel tinny and play the same way.
    The only good thing about them is that they have the beautiful black finish with the blue and silver graphics. Other than that, very little to recommend them, if you like the real 80s mid graphites. I used the Sting mid for many years, and loved it. Just a solid, no-nonsense racquet. The PWS and non-PWS versions weren't really much different -- just a little more head weight in the PWS versions, natch, and a little more plow-through. Now I have the whole family, even the Largeheads and Sting 2. I'll post a family portrait tomorrow.
     
    #19
  20. RyanC

    RyanC New User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    80
    Hey guys,

    Sorry if I caused any confusion but what I meant was how does the Sting Midsize (not the 95sq) compare to the PS85. For that matter, does anyone know how the Sting Midsize (with pws or without) compares to the POG Mid?
     
    #20
  21. tandayu

    tandayu Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,351
    Why Sting has that bridge, while Ps6.0 85 no bridge?
     
    #21
  22. gsquicksilver

    gsquicksilver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    SoCal
    i believe it was in response to the prince graphite.
     
    #22
  23. schu47

    schu47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    299
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    These are the "true" Stings, IMO. From the left, they are the SC2000 (the graphite/ceramic version) mid and largehead; the Sting 2 mid; and the Sting largehead and mid. The bottom photo is just the mids, which are all are from the same mold, as far as I can tell. Some models had PWS, some didn't. I always assumed the earlier models didn't, but don't know that for sure. The Sting and Sting 2 play very much alike, the ceramic feels a little lighter, not as substantial.

    I'm sorry I can't provide much in the way of a comparison between the Sting and the PS 6.0. I haven't used the 6.0 very much. The one thing I noticed, though, was that the Pro Staff definitely has a smoother, more balanced feel to it. I am a big fan of the Sting -- I think it's a solid, responsive classic -- and costs about one-tenth as much as a PS 6.0.
     
    #23
  24. schu47

    schu47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    299
    [​IMG]

    Here's the original Sting next to the Sting 95. No comparison, really. The Sting 95 mimicked the Sting graphically. It's pretty, but no substance, part of the cheap "High Beam" series Wilson produced in what, the early 90s?
     
    #24
  25. schu47

    schu47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    299
    [​IMG]

    And here's the weird cousin. The crossed bridges are plastic, and the strings go through them and then off at an angle to the head. Sort of a metal version of the Wilson Legacy.
     
    #25
  26. GPB

    GPB Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,187
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Woah, it's like a snowshoe!
     
    #26
  27. tandayu

    tandayu Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,351
    Sting with PWS and without PWS, old pic from old post using cell phone camera

    http://i5.tinypic.com/21o9fyf.jpg

    Sorry for the toe nail, those are my rackets and my toe
     
    #27
  28. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    Thanks for the pictures and to everyone else who has been able to contribute.

    As I said in another thread, this always makes me incredibly envious of you folk in the States who can pick up one of those great racquets for about $40 or $50 (if not less).

    When I came back to tennis 5 years ago (after a 12-13 year break) if I could have just picked up a few Prince Graphite Comp 110, POG OS (the early models, when they were 8-10 pts HL) and Wilson Sting Midsize, I would have never felt the need to constantly jump, jump, jump from one modern racquet to the next in the hopes that I'd find something comparable (there is nothing).
     
    #28
  29. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Absolutely!!!

    I've made my main racquet now the Dunlop 300i, I can't find a racquet as good as this anywhere, they just don't make 'em like this anymore, and in the 300i's case since 1988:):)
     
    #29
  30. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    Never really got a good feel from the 300i (I played the 200G) but had a couple of team-mates who swore by them.

    Just dawning on me that what I really need to do is bite the bullet and purchase a few of the old frames I know I love from the States. I've been hesitant to do so because of one bad experience but think it might be worth my while giving it one last try.
     
    #30
  31. Chalk Flew Up!

    Chalk Flew Up! New User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    I've been using a Sting w/o PWS for a couple of weeks now and I am impressed with this stick. This is the most special racquet I have ever swung. I am more used to midplus sizes but my concentration has never been better and I'm able to hit a lot more crisply and cleanly, not to mention accurately, with this racquet than I was with any modern stick. Even though this racquet was way before my time I feel a special bond with it. The Sting has made tennis even more fun than before.

    Best 3 dollars I've ever spent!:) Found it at a thrift store along with an immaculate Wilson Pro Select midsize...paid 5 dollars for the two. I haven't swung my modern sticks since.
     
    #31
  32. Virginia

    Virginia Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,537
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    That's what I've been doing for the last year, Deuce and I've picked up some beauties. The only problem now is the exchange rate with the US dollar, which has moved up (or down, whichever way you look at it) from .79/.80 to a horrendous .5. I expect it's the same for you in Australia.

    You might want to check out rodracquet (who's in Melbourne - where are you BTW?) as he trades on the big site and has listed some fantastic frames in the past. I can put you in contact with him privately if you like - he's the guy that's recently started the Australian tennis history website.
     
    #32
  33. plasma

    plasma Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,356
    Thanks Virginia, I try to tell people about his beautiful site. It is the only one in the calibre of wood tennis or 80's tennis. These three sites provide phenomenal history on "racquetology": the history and science behind racquet technology
     
    #33
  34. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    Virginia,

    Thanks very much for that. I have seen the site you mentioned but most of the racquets seem to be of the 'very collectable' type and my interest is far more utilitarian. While I do love the craftsmanship involved in the older frames my main interest is in playing with them. That being the case, there's really only a select few which interest me (exceptions being the odd wooden frame) - the Graph Comp 110, POG OS (early versions) and the Sting Midsize.

    Yes, our dollar has been dragged down against the US and it's probably only worth about 65-70 cents against the US$. Where I find that hurts most is in shipping. I can buy a racquet $20US and it's still inexpensive (about $30Aus) but then you've got add on shipping and that's a fixed rate. Might add another $40Aus to the price of each sale. So, unless I can get a number of racquets from the same source at the same time I end up getting hurt quite badly with shipping.

    I have sent Joe at woodtennis.com an email asking for a price on the Sting Mid and Sting OS but, to date, haven't received a reply. When I do I might also ask if he can give me a price on the Graphite Comp 110 and the POG OS (earlier models). As I want them for playing, not collecting, I can be a bit more flexible with their condition. So long as they're playable, no cracks and can handle a few more re-strings I'll be happy. If I can source them all from him it might save quite a bit with postage.

    Can I ask, what are your areas of interest when it comes to collecting? Is it just wooden frames or do you go beyond that?
     
    #34
  35. Virginia

    Virginia Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,537
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    I specialise in 80's frames (I just love those) but go back to around 1950 with some of my woods and I have a few of the better 1990's frames, such as the Fischer M Speed, Prince Mono and Mach 1000, and several modern Snauwaerts (because I love Snauwaerts). My goal was/is to collect as many different manufacturers as possible and to just buy frames that are either very collectable, or very beautiful (often they are the same ones of course). To date I have around 330, with 68 different manufacturers represented.

    You're not in Sydney by any chance, are you?
     
    #35
  36. tailofdog

    tailofdog Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    497
    Postage

    Living in Australia presents a problem on postage. I have 6 racquets comming in i bought 2 as one only buy,s (THAT HURT) the other 4 were 2 at a time which i will do in the future as it,s the only way to make it work.
    Rod does sell some playable racquets from time to time and he is a good guy to deal with.
     
    #36
  37. Virginia

    Virginia Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,537
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Recently I was very lucky with buys from the big site. Six racquets from two separate buyers! That was certainly a good deal, shipping wise. It definitely pays to buy two or more from the same seller. I always check to see what else they have listed, for that reason.
     
    #37
  38. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    Virginia,

    No, I'm in Brisbane (originally from Melbourne - moved in 03).
     
    #38
  39. Djumex

    Djumex Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    belgrade
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    wich sting is this?
     
    #39
  40. projoe

    projoe New User

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    23
    great thread by the way. my first wilson stick was a sting high beam series in the 90's. think it was a 110sq in head. there was also a sting hammer after that i think. may be wrong though. i used to love that sting and it was a good back up racket after i bought the pro staff classic. but it broke after i smashed it off the net post. i wish i hadnt done that now.
     
    #40
  41. PBODY99

    PBODY99 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,222
    When Vic Braden made the commercial" You've got to go with the Graphite !! " it was a dig at the Prince Pro. The Sting 110 was 99.00 $ back then, the same price as the Al Prince Pro. I played with one while nursing a damages shoulder. Great frame, half the price of the POG,
     
    #41
  42. schenkelini

    schenkelini Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    494
    Location:
    Chino. CA
    I worked in a shop in the 80's and we sold the Sting. We hated it though and we referred to it as the Stink.
     
    #42
  43. pshulam

    pshulam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,398
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    I have not noticed any difference in playability between the two versions.
     
    #43
  44. tennis005

    tennis005 Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    I found a new Wilson Sting 110 high beam series the other day. What would it be worth. Still had plastic on handle.
     
    #44

Share This Page