Wilson Pro Staff Classic

Discussion in 'Classic Racquet Talk' started by Clintspin, May 5, 2013.

  1. Clintspin

    Clintspin Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    776
    What is the difference between the Wilson Pro Staff Classic and the 6.1? They both look the same to me.
     
    #1
  2. Clintspin

    Clintspin Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    776
    I am guessing they are the same with a different paint job?
     
    #2
  3. Don't Let It Bounce

    Don't Let It Bounce Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,617
    IIRC, they are the same racket produced in different years. It was originally released as the Pro Staff Classic, a player's version of the widebodies that had taken over the market since the release of the Profile (Wilson's version of Kuebler's original design). It was called "Classic" and given red and yellow design accents to make a marketing connection between the Pro Staff Mid of the 1980's and contemporary widebody power.

    It was during the racket's run that Wilson started using its own stiffness rating, with higher numbers indicating greater flex (not measured the same way as Babolat's RDC, though). The PSC got "6.1" as part of its name. The 80's Pro Staff got "6.0" as part of its name, and the original Profile got "2.7" as part of its name.

    I'm sure Wilson was pleasantly surprised when the 6.1 got such a great reputation on its own that the intended marketing association with the Pro Staff Mid was all but forgotten.
     
    #3
  4. joe sch

    joe sch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Hotel CA
    Excellent explanation.
    The Prostaff Classic, aka "6.1", was also endorsed by Stephen Edberg, who actually played the Prostaff Mid, aka "6.0" using the classic paint job. I have one in my collection that I like to show and can post pictures if anyone is interested.

    I have posted the below specs as measured by Dino in one of his many play test evaluations for his impressive collection.
    Notice the 71 flex of the 6.1 is stiffer then the 63 flex of the 6.0.
    I always found it confusing the way Wilson number the prostaffs with the "greater flex" with larger numbering.
    Not sure what the Profile rates but its one of the stiffest and most powerful rackets produced at the time and probably ever.


    model (aka) weight(g)/weight(oz)/rdc/sw
    ------------------------------------------------
    Wilson Pro Staff Classic (6.1) 362/12.77/71/334
    Wilson PS 85 (6.0) 368/12.98/63/332
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2013
    #4
  5. big ted

    big ted Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,836
    i think wilson said it got those numbers (6.0, 6.1, 2.7, etc..) by putting a weight on the tip of the frame and that number is the number of mm that the tip flexed
     
    #5
  6. retrowagen

    retrowagen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,909
    Correct, IIRC, their "Stiffness Index" (SI) numbers were measured at the top of the head when the frame was clamped at its grip to a table, and a 3KG weight hung from the top of the head. Wilson brochures from circa 1986 explain it... I'll dig one out from my archives and possibly scan and post later.
     
    #6
  7. flair

    flair New User

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Messages:
    47
    That would be great if you can scan and post it :)
     
    #7
  8. HRB

    HRB Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,474
    The weird thing is the stiffness rating is so high compared to other racquets I've tried, and yet when strung with Syn Gut over 62 lbs., by the 3rd set it is the most dialed in, and spot on comfortable stick I ever wielded.

    I keep wanting to find something better (Wanderlust!) but I always come back to PS 6.1's (everything BUT BLX..feels like a board for some reason).
     
    #8
  9. goran_ace

    goran_ace Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,860
    Location:
    At Large
    Loved how the PSC 6.1 was both super stiff and comfortable at the same time. Just rock solid. Hyper carbon and nCode descendants were alright (though I preferred HPS 5.0 to the HPS 6.1), but after nCode the 6.1 line just didn't have the same solid feel/comfort. K-factor and BLX versions just felt harsh and I think a lot of would-be 6.1 users went to the Blade.
     
    #9
  10. HRB

    HRB Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,474
    Generally agree, but I do find KFactor fine with Syn Gut....BLX caused both shoulder to hurt within days...total board!

    Love the HPS,,,but kinda ruined mine when I thought it was a great idea to custom paint job the one I had that was pretty scraped up...must have used too many coats, because although it looks bad a## (All Flat Black) it now weighs in at 13.2 strung! Still feels awesome, but by second set gotta pop down to KFactor for a break.
     
    #10
  11. Hannah19

    Hannah19 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    999
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    IIRC the Pro Staff Classic started as a 6.0. It was supposed to be the "new and improved" version that would certainly make people forget about the PS 85 that was considered to be outdated. The truth however was that the tennis crowd loved the PS 85 so eventually the Classic was produced next to the PS 85 and was renamed 6.1 to avoid any misunderstanding.
    If any of you is looking for a good 6.1 replacement, try to get your hands on a Mega Age M1 or M2. Both 100% graphite and straight from the 6.1 moulds with dito grommets that are 6mm longer at the 3 and 9 o clock position because they are original 6.1 grommets. The M1 and M2 are without PWS but with PWS grommet strips. The M1 is the heaviest of the two and pretty headlight. The M2 more evenly balanced and a bit lighter.
     
    #11
  12. WARPWOODIE

    WARPWOODIE Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    369
    Hey, I picked up a PSC 6.1 yesterday at Goodwill, a demo model in mint condition. I was bummed in that I paid $4.99 for it, but after getting it home, I noticed a sale price of $3.00 on the butt cap ;-(
    Anyway, I also have the 7.5 model...what is the difference between the 6.1 and 7.5 (which has less of a following)...am assuming stiffness rating? Side by side it looks the same except for the paintjob. I guess the popularity of the 6.1 stems from many big name pros had used the 6.1 (Sampras, Edberg, etc), but who used the 7.5?
     
    #12
  13. gtshark1

    gtshark1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    249
    Nice find!

    I have a few Wilson Pro Staff 5.1 customized and used by David Wheaton. When I contacted him he said they played similar to the 6.1 with a 18X19 string pattern.

    Iv'e never heard of the 7.5
     
    #13
  14. WARPWOODIE

    WARPWOODIE Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    369
    Correction, I have the PS 7.5 si model, apparently used by Steffi Graff. After doing some research, the 6.1 has is graphite and kevlar mix, whereas the 7.5 si has 70% graphite and 30% fiberglass.

    And dang, I had a Prostaff 5.1 before, sold it in a yard sale a few years ago:cry:
     
    #14
  15. andreh

    andreh Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,089
    Wilson's SI index was not a stiffness index, it was a "swing index". If I recall correctly, a higher number indicated the need to take fuller swings. 6.0 meant the racket was low powered and required full swing to generate adequate power and 2.7 was as such a more powerful racket requiring shorter swings.

    The abandoned the swing index logic but kept the numbers, presumably because they were now imprinted in the consumer's mind and meant something.
     
    #15
  16. Don't Let It Bounce

    Don't Let It Bounce Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,617
    "SI" started out as standing for "stiffness index", and a couple years into it they started referring to it as "swing index" – presumably because the marketing boys thought that would make it a quicker way for players to connect their games to a particular Wilson model.

    I always suspected the marketing aspect of the numbers being imprinted on the racket-buying public's consciousness sort of took over the process even before Wilson quit talking about swing index. When I was a Wilson-sponsored coach in the 90's and players would ask me what "6.2" meant, I used to jokingly answer, "It means 'black and white'."
     
    #16
  17. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,480
    Location:
    Arkansas
    He, he. . .I remember the 6.2s, aka the skunks. The 6.4 was called the bloody skunk.
     
    #17
  18. andreh

    andreh Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,089
    Ahhh. Noted. Thx!
     
    #18

Share This Page