Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by dirtballer, Jun 26, 2007.
Is Slazenger a subsidiary of Dunlop or vice versa? Is Henman's racket a repainted Dunlop?
Please do a search. Lots of info here on Henman's racquet.
Bottom line is that Henman never used a Slazenger nor Dunlop. He's always used a Wilson PS 6.1 Classic. When Slazenger signed him many years ago, they made him a racquet that was basically the same as a PS 6.1 Classic but without the PWS, and threw whatever the latest Slazenger model's paintjob on it.
Slazenger and Dunlop are the same company but it was bought out back in 2004 by the same large retailer that owns Donnay. Most of the product development guys from Dunlop/Slazenger left at that time and started Vantage.
i noticed richard bloomfield was using a slazenger frame with dunlop logo on the strings, didn't really see the point of that..
jonothan marray was using the slazenger racket with dunlop stencil, bloomfield was using a dunlop aerogel 200 PJ (or not)
Dunlop and Slazenger are part of the Dunlop-Slazenger-Carlton group, one company, which, if memory serves me correctly, are owned by the giant Sports World (formerly soccer sport), who own lilywhites and other various companies.
They make the Dunlop Roland Garros ball as well as the Slazenger Wimbledon ball. Both of which are excellent. As good, if not better than the Grand Prix ball.
As far as frames go, I wish Slazengers were around in the US market. Just not appreciated over here, I guess. Dunlop seems to be doing okay, though, from what I see on the courts.
yeah sorry, that's who i meant
i got confused between our underachieving players!
They really do seem to be a company that can destroy any brand in a matter of minutes, it's extraordinary. And I speak as someone who has no loyalty or relationship to any of the brands concerned; it's amazing what they can do!
I think the company may be run by a group of slightly mentally subnormal pigeons, but I'm not certain
Correct, so did Rusedski, it was a painted Wilson, first as a Donnay (while sports world were marketing Donnay underpants & Chav wear) then as various Dunlop paint jobs. A couple of the Dunlop Guys also went to Prince.
So let me get this straight....So pretty much everyone uses a Wilson PS with a paint job huh? Really? Okay....
yeah pretty much
...yup...that about sums it up
As it turns out....No.
Yup, Mardy Fish, too.
And so did some of the winningest pro players ever, including Federer, Sampras, Edberg, Courier, Connors, Evert, etc., except that their Wilson PS racquets were painted as Wilsons.
Oh, and I should add that the guy who beat Federer twice this year within a couple of weeks time, Canas, also uses a PS 6.1 Classic with a paintjob (of the latest Wilson model).
except for all the guys with prestige pj's
Well A year or so ago Tim wasn't playing with a PS - so don't see why he would now...A lot of mis-information around here. And Fed doesn't play with a paintjob. Stock stick.
Do you use a PS 6.1 Classic? :roll:
Nope, too stiff and powerful and heavy for me.
But it's an extremely popular racquet amongst the pros, teaching pros, and 5.0+ players. I still see many more people using them than the PS 6.0 85.
He wasn't? What was Tim using then?
His racquet is the same as it's ever been. Only now it has an electric blue Slazenger paintjob on it. Even the ex-product manager at Slazenger that made the racquet for Henman said he never used a real Slazenger.
I hate to break it to you but what has been said by BreakPoint is true. Henman really does use a Pro Staff Classic 6.1 95 without the PWS.
Here is Henman using a real Pro Staff Classic 6.1
Henman with his Custom Pro Staff Classic 6.1 with out PWS with Slazenger cosmetics.
The consumer version of the Slazenger Type II NX One
Slazenger Type II NX One that is sold commercially
Notice a difference between the Slazenger Henman Has and the Slazenger that is being sold commercially.
Here are a couple more.
You can really see in the last two photos that the molds are the same the only difference being the Slazenger does not have PWS.
Well I don't know Tim well - but I hit around with him a bit in the UK - and his stick - and it wasn't a PS - close though. You may be right with the knockoff thing (I thought it was a Slaz/Dunlop version) but it wasn't just a repainted PS and you're right with the no PWS. If I knew this was such a big thing I would've paid more attention. Don't get me wrong - the PS is a great stick - always has been - it's just that not everyone plays with painted up ones. Fed doesn't and Pete doesn't now either - at least the last time I saw him hit.
Did you hit with Henman's racquet side-by-side with a retail PS 6.1 Classic? If not, how could you know it's not a paintjobbed PS 6.1 Classic without the PWS? Two identical racquets can look completely different if they had different paintjobs on them. It's very easy to fool the eye with paint and graphics. Really the only way to tell is to hit with the racquets.
Look at the bottom cross-string on each of the pictures. It is definitely higher on the commercial Slazenger, and in about the same position on Henman's racquet and the PS.
More than that, look at the shape of the "V" of the throat and the top two corners of the "V". They're curved on Henman's racquet and on the PS 6.1 Classic but sharp angled cutouts on the retail version. The retail version also has a more elongated throat or "V".
Why does everyone always talk about this?
Can't we just face the fact that most racquets evolved from three or four classic molds:
Pro Staff 6.0
Pro Staff 6.1
and the POG
You forgot the Prestige Classic.
I was talking with a pro stringer about all that stuff a month or so ago
if you care to do some digging and you can find the match between Henman and Kafelnikov at Wimbledon (can't remember the year) you would see Henman playing with a blacked out Wilson PS Classic 6.1 with PWS and everything. This was his first big run in a major and just before he signed with slazenger. all salzenger did was make a Classic 6.1 for him without PWS, as many other here have mentioned already. why is that fact so hard to accept for some people?
Because anyone can see that a statement like that is self contradictory. If a racquet doesnt have PWS it cant be a Classic 6.1 now can it? It obviously came from a different mold, therefore it is a different racquet. Also, nobody can say that the layup isn't different including the recipe and the weight distribution...other than that, his racquet is similar to the 6.1 as it is a tennis racquet. all this sleuthing doesnt prove a thing, and why would people even care?
Wait, aren't you the one that has been harping for years here that Wilson's PWS is purely cosmetic and hollow, and doesn't do anything to affect the frame's playability? If so, then wouldn't a PS 6.1 Classic without the PWS play exactly like a PS 6.1 Classic with the PWS? If the PWS makes no difference then a PS 6.1 Classic with or without the PWS is still the same racquet, if all they did was to remove the PWS from the mold.
no, you are right, we don't know the layup, etc. i would guess the only people that know that are tim and the people at slazenger. however, a reasonable assumption would be that his current racquet plays and feels much like whatever version of the PSC 6.1 he used for many years before signing with slazenger. whatever the mold actually is, it sure looks like a PSC without PWS.
I can agree the racquet is 'similar', but all racquets of that ilk are similar <but different>
it's similar to all this over the top arguing about what Federer is really using. Sure, it looks like the k90, and what he uses may even be more similar to the k90 than Henmans frame is to the 6.1 as it may even come from the same mold, but it is easy to say the racquets are different because I dont think Fed is using a racquet with a bunch of cheap Carbon Black filler in it, and his weight distribution is likely different as well. i think federer uses a frame with a lot more of the good stuff in it (graphite), than what is sold to the public..therefore, an entirely different frame. but it really is of no import to me.
Separate names with a comma.