Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Classic Racquet Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   Largeheads (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=408142)

Player#1 01-04-2012 08:03 PM

Largeheads
 
Still haven't been able to find the exact specs for the Sting Larghead:

stiffness, beam width, weight, balance. (Are the frames solid all the way through or are they hollow? Is it a deadened feel or is there a lot of feedback when you hit the ball?)

I'm also interested in knowing how the Sting and the Pro Staff largehead racquets play. It looks like either would be able to rival the best modern frames.

How do they play comparatively? How about compared to a radical oversize or the trysis?

Steve Huff 01-05-2012 08:05 PM

I have both a Prince Magnesium 125 and a Wilson Pro Staff Largehead 125. They are both 1st run models. I got them for my wife back then.

PBODY99 01-05-2012 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Player#1 (Post 6209249)
Still haven't been able to find the exact specs for the Sting Larghead:

stiffness, beam width, weight, balance. (Are the frames solid all the way through or are they hollow? Is it a deadened feel or is there a lot of feedback when you hit the ball?)

I'm also interested in knowing how the Sting and the Pro Staff largehead racquets play. It looks like either would be able to rival the best modern frames.

How do they play comparatively? How about compared to a radical oversize or the trysis?

If it is the 110 sting, then it is solid, closer to a 260 Trisys.

coachrick 01-06-2012 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Huff (Post 6211507)
I have both a Prince Magnesium 125 and a Wilson Pro Staff Largehead 125. They are both 1st run models. I got them for my wife back then.

I recall the Prince Graphite 125 and the Pro Staff 125 but never saw the Prince Mag. I'll bet that thing could be re-shaped pretty easily when stringing or digging out low backhands. ;)

Also,IIRC, the 'Largehead' designation from Wilson referred to the 110" , correct? Seems like the covers stated "Largehead" instead of 110 on the Pro Staff. I could be wrong, of course...I've gotten hooked on Words with Friends and my brain cells are otherwise involved :) .

Steve Huff 01-06-2012 04:45 PM

Maybe, but it feels stiffer than the ProStaff (plays better too in my opinion). Both are nice relics though.

eman resu 01-28-2013 09:46 AM

Quote:

=Player#1;6209249]Still haven't been able to find the exact specs for the Sting Larghead:

stiffness, beam width, weight, balance. (Are the frames solid all the way through or are they hollow? Is it a deadened feel or is there a lot of feedback when you hit the ball?)

I'm also interested in knowing how the Sting and the Pro Staff largehead racquets play. It looks like either would be able to rival the best modern frames.

I want to know the specs on the Sting Largehead, too - weight, balance, stiffness, swingweight. Plus, how should I string it? Sometimes I use a Graphite matrix at 50 (syn gut, rec. tension 55-65), but it's an 85 sqin. How's the power level of the sting comparing to modern racquets?

flair 01-28-2013 04:38 PM

The largehead appears to be even balance or slightly head heavy.

eman resu 01-29-2013 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flair (Post 7175953)
The largehead appears to be even balance or slightly head heavy.

Are you sure? That's really bad news...

joe sch 01-29-2013 04:58 AM

Probably not too different than below except the select is really flexible at 32:

Wilson Pro Select 110 356/12.56/32/310 balance 30.75 cm

flair 01-29-2013 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eman resu (Post 7176739)
Are you sure? That's really bad news...

I may be a terrible judge at determining balance but it sure does seem to me that it is even balanced. Can anyone confirm this?

eman resu 01-29-2013 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe sch (Post 7176993)
Probably not too different than below except the select is really flexible at 32:

Wilson Pro Select 110 356/12.56/32/310 balance 30.75 cm

That would be closer to what I was expecting. But 32 must be a really fun hit :P

Dino Lagaffe 01-29-2013 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe sch (Post 7176993)
Probably not too different than below except the select is really flexible at 32:

Wilson Pro Select 110 356/12.56/32/310 balance 30.75 cm

Quote:

Originally Posted by eman resu (Post 7177310)
That would be closer to what I was expecting. But 32 must be a really fun hit :P

The specs come from my racquet, and it is indeed a fun hit. :)

joe sch 01-29-2013 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dino Lagaffe (Post 7177335)
The specs come from my racquet, and it is indeed a fun hit. :)

Thanks for all the work on those specs Dino, Im always glad to use them. I bet that racket is fun to hit, Im not sure I ever hit a large head so flexible except for a prince woody :)

eman resu 01-30-2013 04:40 AM

The one I'm about to buy tomorrow is the STING 2 largehead, black and red. Great conditions, nice price, 4 1/2, but I'll probably replace the kind of crumbling leather with some modern synthetic grip.

What are the specs of this sting 2?

superdave3 01-30-2013 10:58 AM

I purchased a hardly used Sting 110 from a resale shop a few years ago that still had the factory string and grip. I restrung it as it was overdue (probably 25-30 year old string) and replaced the stock leather grip with a Fairway leather grip. I measured it and found it to be 3/8" headlight, although the Fairway grip probably weights a few grams more than the stock grip. It feels like about a 60 on the flexibility scale. I had it strung at 60 pounds with synthetic gut 16 gauge and it plays nice. It is easier on the arm than some of the modern racquets. The only drawback is that with a lot of racquets produced in the 80's, the sweet spot is in the mid to lower part of the head, so balls hit near the tip of the racquet lack power and feel. This is an original Sting racquet with no bumper guard. Wilson then came out with the Sting II which had the same 17mm width, but with a bumper guard. These racquets are great for control and you can hit with power, but the modern racquets that are stiffer provide a little more punch. although less control.

eman resu 01-31-2013 06:02 AM

Bought it, played with and weighted it: 366g, round 34 or 34,5cm balance. Don't know the string tension at all. It was very loose, but I can't tell it it's just age or someone strung it low. Recommended tension 65-70. Ouch! The leather grip was surprisingly light, only 12g. With new grip and og, weight is now 371, a bit more HL. Hoping new strings will be lighter too, but I have to break those first...

I played quite well with it (doubles). Very powerful but I could still control it. Great touch volleys, slices and huge topspin. Serves were ok too. But then, old strings are always a mistery and affect a lot on how one racquet usually performs. Should I string at 65 or is it too much even for a head of 110?

My graphite matrix from around that time is strung 5lbs below recommended tension, so I don't really know what to do... I dont want to string too tightly but if I go with what I usually have (around 55) I fear I would add even more weight to the racquet... Opinions? Very thin poly close to 55? 16 syn. gut at 65? I'm lost here :?

superdave3 02-01-2013 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eman resu (Post 7181834)
Bought it, played with and weighted it: 366g, round 34 or 34,5cm balance. Don't know the string tension at all. It was very loose, but I can't tell it it's just age or someone strung it low. Recommended tension 65-70. Ouch! The leather grip was surprisingly light, only 12g. With new grip and og, weight is now 371, a bit more HL. Hoping new strings will be lighter too, but I have to break those first...

I played quite well with it (doubles). Very powerful but I could still control it. Great touch volleys, slices and huge topspin. Serves were ok too. But then, old strings are always a mistery and affect a lot on how one racquet usually performs. Should I string at 65 or is it too much even for a head of 110?

My graphite matrix from around that time is strung 5lbs below recommended tension, so I don't really know what to do... I dont want to string too tightly but if I go with what I usually have (around 55) I fear I would add even more weight to the racquet... Opinions? Very thin poly close to 55? 16 syn. gut at 65? I'm lost here :?

As I mentioned in the above post, I have the same racquet minus the bumper guard. Mine is strung at 60lbs with Wilson Stamina 16, and I think if you went to 65 it could play boardy, but I do not have any experience with poly strings, so if you go that route you might want to string at 55 as I hear you should string lower with poly.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse