Can someone really define 'old school feel' ?

NoBadMojo · Nov 20, 2006

I cant, other to say it is a flexible feel. And if that is what people mean when they declare a racquet as having old school feel, i think the term 'flexible' defines that feeling much better, and in a much more descriptive easier way to interpret.. a way that takes away confusion..a way that is finite.

Cuz wood is old school feel..everything since is some type of composite which feels like composite and not like wood. The common denominanator seems to be 'flexible', but then again I think that would likely be disputed as well.

StunLock · Nov 20, 2006

Also, which racquets give you the kind of 'old-school' feel? all graphite ones?

psp2 · Nov 20, 2006

Max 200G certainly has the "old school feel".

Tennis Man · Nov 20, 2006

Just playtest PC 600, Prestige Tour, PS 85/90, POG, etc and should feel it. It may be the flex of the original graphite, the headlight balance, the solid feel and heavy SW and just the comfortable and controlled power off the smaller and efficient stringbed ... That's how I felt after switching from APD to PS 85/PC 600.

hoosierbr · Nov 20, 2006

The best I can describe it would be a hefty static weight (about 12 oz), low swingweight (300-315), very headlight and very flexible. A racquet that allows you to feel the ball precisely as it comes off the strings. Although string type and tension is important.

Examples would be: Volkl Tour 10 Gen II, Volkl Tour 10 V-Engine Mid, Slazenger Pro X1, Fischer Pro #1, Yonex RDX 500 Mid, Yonex RD-Ti 80.

Other racquets a little outside these specs feel old school to me as well. Exmaples: Volkl C10 Pro and C10 Pro Tour, Wilson NCode 6.1 Tour 90, Wilson Prostaff 6.0 (95).

That's old school to me.

NoBadMojo · Nov 20, 2006

hoosierbr said:
The best I can describe it would be a hefty static weight (about 12 oz), low swingweight (300-315), very headlight and very flexible. A racquet that allows you to feel the ball precisely as it comes off the strings. Although string type and tension is important.

Examples would be: Volkl Tour 10 Gen II, Volkl Tour 10 V-Engine Mid, Slazenger Pro X1, Fischer Pro #1, Yonex RDX 500 Mid, Yonex RD-Ti 80.

Other racquets a little outside these specs feel old school to me as well. Exmaples: Volkl C10 Pro and C10 Pro Tour, Wilson NCode 6.1 Tour 90, Wilson Prostaff 6.0 (95).

That's old school to me.

so you think the 'old school' feel is as much about the weight and balance of the frame <how it feels to swing> as it is about the feedback coming thru the grip <how it feels to hit> <which would be more a function of the composition>?

also many describe frames like the ps85 as having that so called 'old school feel' and that frame certainly isnt flexy. you would say the ps85 has that old school feel?

vkartikv · Nov 20, 2006

NoBadMojo said:
so you think the 'old school' feel is as much about the weight and balance of the frame <how it feels to swing> as it is about the feedback coming thru the grip <how it feels to hit> <which would be more a function of the composition>?

also many describe frames like the ps85 as having that so called 'old school feel' and that frame certainly isnt flexy. you would say the ps85 has that old school feel?

Depends on what you mean by old school - to me old school is a small head midsize with lots and lots of mass towards the handle of the racquet. But yes, if you were to talk about the feel of a flexible frame, the ps 85 is certainly not it. To me, the old school feel the ps 85 offered was what came from putting away volleys - the way the frame felt when someone struck a hard ball at you at the net.. Having said all that, I think it is a little overrated today...

thejerk · Nov 20, 2006

Has to be the mass unless it has something to do with a different type of graphite. I have alota rackets and not only flexy rackets have old school feel. I thought the pog mid was stiff as was the ps 85. My tri-comps have old school feel but they are'nt flexy either.

In my opinion, players rackets have old school feel mainly because of mass. I believe string length has something to do with feel as well. Old school rackets were usually smaller head, weren't they? Maybe not. I have some old school oversize rackets that have old school feel. I think it has to be either racket composition or mass.

I do think there may be exceptions. For instance, LM prestige should have old school feel, but it doesn't. It feels really plastic compared to what I'd call old school.

hoosierbr · Nov 20, 2006

NoBadMojo said:
so you think the 'old school' feel is as much about the weight and balance of the frame <how it feels to swing> as it is about the feedback coming thru the grip <how it feels to hit> <which would be more a function of the composition>?

also many describe frames like the ps85 as having that so called 'old school feel' and that frame certainly isnt flexy. you would say the ps85 has that old school feel?

Yes - I don't think the flexiness of the frame defines old school completely. It's a combination of the weight, balance, flex and what you can do with the ball. Old school tennis, to me, is playing with more traditional grips and executing an all court style. Not standing at the baseline and looping massive topspin forehands with Babolat rocket launchers all day. 25-30 stroke rallies. The frames that I listed as "old school" feeling are great for that kind of traditional play. These new super stiff, light on the static and high on the swingweight frames don't feel natural to me.

As for the PS85 I've never hit with it so I can't say if it's old school feeling or not. The specs have always scared me.

Randy

dpfrazier · Nov 20, 2006

hoosierbr said:
Yes - I don't think the flexiness of the frame defines old school completely. It's a combination of the weight, balance, flex and what you can do with the ball. Old school tennis, to me, is playing with more traditional grips and executing an all court style. Not standing at the baseline and looping massive topspin forehands with Babolat rocket launchers all day. 25-30 stroke rallies. The frames that I listed as "old school" feeling are great for that kind of traditional play. These new super stiff, light on the static and high on the swingweight frames don't feel natural to me.

As for the PS85 I've never hit with it so I can't say if it's old school feeling or not. The specs have always scared me.

Randy

The PS85 definitely has a retro feel, relative to lots of other modern frames. But to get a really old school feel, you have to go with wood. Flexibility is the key, as well as the pocketing of the ball. There were no vibration dampeners in those days, and you could really feel the ball, and where you hit the ball on the string bed.

It's interesting how the sweet spot has moved over the years. These days, it's high on the string bed. With a wood racquet, it was closer to the throat. If you hit it out on the end, you got nothing out of the shot.

Steve Huff · Nov 20, 2006

I probably could if I don't have to mention her name.

louis netman · Nov 20, 2006

Here's my interpretation: There is old-school wood, old-school metal, old-school fiberglass, and old school graphite/composite, all of which were pretty flexible compared to today's standards. However, the term "flexible" may not completely describe the sensation of "old-school" to the younger generations of players who have never experienced wood frames. If frames were still made of wood today, then it would be safe to say that wood frames from the 1970s are old-school because their feel was derived from the fact that they were heavy, had small heads, and dense string patterns. Because I believe that the term "old-school" best be utilized within the context of today's frame materials (graphite/composite), it should therefore refer to the first generation of graphite/composite frames intoduced around the late 1970s/early 1980s...

chiru · Nov 20, 2006

ive played extensively with wood (primarily the maxply) and i think of all the rackets ive used the ntour 90 comes kinda closish but ps85 takes it by a mile.

BreakPoint · Nov 20, 2006

To me, "old school feel" is more about how solid the frame feels when you hit the ball. Weight is certainly a contributing factor to this feel, but so is flex, composition, head size, beam width, beam shape, and the way it's constructed.

However, a frame doesn't really need to be really flexy to have that "old school feel" IMHO. For example, I find stiffer frames such as the POG, PS 6.0 85, Vantage 90 to have as much "old school feel" as more flexy frames, such as the Max200G, PC600, and RDX 500 Mid.

The common trait is in how solid the frame feels on impact and how it absorbs shock and vibration and gives you a nice solid sound when you hit the ball. This is the way they used to make racquets. The early generation of graphite racquets were generally made to emulate the feel and weight of wood racquets since that's what most people were using and they wanted people to more easily switch from wood to graphite. If they were too different, it would have been too difficult for many people to make the switch.

In comparison, many of the more modern racquets out there today tend to feel "tinny" or "hollow" and too light to me. Many also tend to sound "pingy" to me instead of solid on ball impact, and many tend to transmit more shock and vibration to my arm (most being both lighter and stiffer certainly do not help).

stormholloway · Nov 20, 2006

Just look at the differences among early Prestiges compared to later ones. Early Pro Staffs compared to later ones. Whatever changed there is the difference in old and new school feel.

I still like the feel of my Jack Kramer more than any racquet I own. I still have not found the right graphite racquet for me. I'm thinking the RDX500 mid or the PS95 6.0 if they ever come in.

alan-n · Nov 20, 2006

In the category of graphite racquets, the rackets I consider old school are those balance and thin flat beamed like wood racquets, purely made of graphite. Racquets such as the PS 85 6.0 etc aren't old school to me, they include double braided kevlar which stiffens them up significantly.

Looking at the TW list of racquets being sold. Those racquets would be the POG, PC 600, PK Rendondo.

I learned the game of tennis playing with the Max 200G. Moved onto the 6.0 95... went through a period of trying Babolats and then went back to something of a compromise between "old school" and "modern tweeners"..... That being a Wilson Tour 90 original.

stormholloway · Nov 20, 2006

Tour 90 is hardly even close to being a tweener. I think it's the most demanding racquet I've ever hit with stock.

What I don't understand is how the PS85 is listed as stiffer than the Flex Prestige MP, but it doesn't feel anywhere close to as stiff.

I'm trying to figure this out.

alan-n · Nov 20, 2006

stormholloway said:
Tour 90 is hardly even close to being a tweener. I think it's the most demanding racquet I've ever hit with stock.

What I don't understand is how the PS85 is listed as stiffer than the Flex Prestige MP, but it doesn't feel anywhere close to as stiff.

I'm trying to figure this out.

Tour 90 with loose fast swing = power of tweeners with the weight and balance of old school racquets like the Max 200g... The Max 200g was roughtly 370g strung with a balance of 6-8 pts HL.

As for the PS85 and FP Prestige... I've never played the FP prestige but I'd take it the PS85 would likely be more flexible in the throat area which could translate to less harshness you feel from the handle.

ohplease · Nov 20, 2006

Just because people have a difficult time articulating what it feels like doesn't mean it's not real.

When "composite" frames first hit the market, they were constructed in a particular way, with particular fiber layups/orientations/construction techniques. That resulted, for better or worse, in a particular feel and dynamic flex pattern (across all axes, not just along the one typically measured) that just about anyone can identify with a certain era.

In other words, flexy modern rackets are still modern. And stiff old school frames are still old school. It's really not that hard to understand.

BreakPoint · Nov 20, 2006

alan-n said:
As for the PS85 and FP Prestige... I've never played the FP prestige but I'd take it the PS85 would likely be more flexible in the throat area which could translate to less harshness you feel from the handle.

Actually, the PS 6.0 85/95 are quite stiff in the throat area (where the stiffness rating has the most influence), but quite flexible in the hoop which gives their overall feel to be pretty flexy feeling. Thus, both the PS 6.0 85 and the PS 6.0 95 feel much more flexible than their stiffness ratings would indicate. In comparison, the Slazenger X-1 is rated at 64 but feels much stiffer than either the PS 6.0 85, rated at 66, or the PS 6.0 95 rated at 67. The PS 6.0 95 does feel flexier than the 85 since it's hoop is even flexier.

ericsson · Nov 20, 2006

stormholloway said:
Tour 90 is hardly even close to being a tweener. I think it's the most demanding racquet I've ever hit with stock.

What I don't understand is how the PS85 is listed as stiffer than the Flex Prestige MP, but it doesn't feel anywhere close to as stiff.

I'm trying to figure this out.

have to agree here, ps 85 actually feels flexible... if people didnt know they would say its a flexible racket.

anirut · Nov 20, 2006

louis netman said:
Here's my interpretation: There is old-school wood, old-school metal, old-school fiberglass, and old school graphite/composite, all of which were pretty flexible compared to today's standards. However, the term "flexible" may not completely describe the sensation of "old-school" to the younger generations of players who have never experienced wood frames. If frames were still made of wood today, then it would be safe to say that wood frames from the 1970s are old-school because their feel was derived from the fact that they were heavy, had small heads, and dense string patterns. Because I believe that the term "old-school" best be utilized within the context of today's frame materials (graphite/composite), it should therefore refer to the first generation of graphite/composite frames intoduced around the late 1970s/early 1980s...

Louis, I'm with you here. Had a similar thought before reading yours.

Young Pete · Nov 21, 2006

old school = not much technology behind the racquets

e.g.

pro staff chicago, st. vincent, early 80's graphites......

old school = the racquet "feels" minimal, meaning there are not a whole lot of bells and whistles....its (mostly) graphite. you can feel the raw feeling.

Alafter · Nov 21, 2006

Folding your arms and being whipped in the buttock with a cane really is old school feeling.

The cane was usually flexible and whippy, giving great control over the pain experienced.

The stick usually weighs in at about 3-4 ozs.

anirut · Nov 21, 2006

Alafter said:
Folding your arms and being whipped in the buttock with a cane really is old school feeling.

The cane was usually flexible and whippy, giving great control over the pain experienced.

The stick usually weighs in at about 3-4 ozs.

eh ... Alafter, are you into S&M? :lol: I never knew that when we played tennis together ...

BTW, I'm not into that.

AndrewD · Nov 21, 2006

To me, a racquet with 'old school feel' isn't one which is necessarily flexible (my 'old school' isn't wood but graphite) but one which doesn't have the 'hollow' feel you get in most all modern racquets.

stormholloway · Nov 21, 2006

The point missed is that the PS85 feels flexible even though it isn't listed that way. It is listed as stiffer than my Prestige but there's no way this is true.

BreakPoint · Nov 21, 2006

stormholloway said:
The point missed is that the PS85 feels flexible even though it isn't listed that way. It is listed as stiffer than my Prestige but there's no way this is true.

I thought that's what I said in my post #20:

BreakPoint said:
Actually, the PS 6.0 85/95 are quite stiff in the throat area (where the stiffness rating has the most influence), but quite flexible in the hoop which gives their overall feel to be pretty flexy feeling. Thus, both the PS 6.0 85 and the PS 6.0 95 feel much more flexible than their stiffness ratings would indicate. In comparison, the Slazenger X-1 is rated at 64 but feels much stiffer than either the PS 6.0 85, rated at 66, or the PS 6.0 95 rated at 67. The PS 6.0 95 does feel flexier than the 85 since it's hoop is even flexier.

rocket · Nov 21, 2006

Old-school feel to me is the the way a racquet reacts to the ball when hit soft, medium or hard. A typical old-school racquet would 'bend' on soft hits and 'crisp up' on harder hits, still maintaining a buttery feel throughout. Once you're used to that pleasant feel (and sound), it's hard to hit with anything else.

stormholloway · Nov 21, 2006

BreakPoint said:
I thought that's what I said in my post #20:

Well... I missed it.

NoBadMojo · Nov 21, 2006

Steve Huff said:
I probably could if I don't have to mention her name.

I think this is likely the definition which makes the most sense so far..good one Steve! were you several Brewsky's deep when you posted this one? ;O I hope there was more than one ....;O

BreakPoint said:
Actually, the PS 6.0 85/95 are quite stiff in the throat area (where the stiffness rating has the most influence),.

Patently untrue. The stiffness is a measurement of the general overall stiffness of the entire racquet with no empahasis placed on the throat

Clearly there are wildly varying concepts of what consitutes old school feel. I really do think it is a useless expression as it clearly means different things to different people. I'm sure people have a finite idea of what it means <to them>, but it just doesnt match the idea of others who have a different 'opinion'

BreakPoint · Nov 21, 2006

NoBadMojo said:
Patently untrue. The stiffness is a measurement of the general overall stiffness of the entire racquet with no empahasis placed on the throat

Then please explain to us why everyone agrees that the PS 6.0 85 plays much more flexible than 66 and the PS 6.0 95 plays much more flexible than 67 and why both play much more flexible than the Slazenger X-1 rated at 64?

It's because the PS 6.0's have stiff throats but flexible hoops and the X-1 has a more flexible throat but a stiff hoop. I also find the RDX 500 Mid to play stiffer than 60 because although it has a very flexy throat, it had a fairly stiff hoop. Even you agreed that the Volkl DNX 10 Mid plays stiffer than its 58 rating due to the stiff DNX material in its hoop. Whereas, most would agree that the Volkl C-10 Pro plays more flexy than its 63 rating due to its whippy hoop. And everyone here agrees that the PK Redondo Mid plays stiffer than its 56 rating due to a stiffer hoop.

You can argue how it's measured, I don't really care. I do know that how stiff or flexy a frame is at the throat is what shows up in the resultant stiffness rating number. This is from my empirical experience of hitting with hundreds of different racquets and then checking them against their stiffness rating specs.

NoBadMojo · Nov 21, 2006

i agreed to no such thing..you're just making stuff up as usual. i only corrected you on one of your many errors..i see....you are the empriical authority of all things tennis and otherwise...so as you declare the rdc swingweight measurement meaningless and your emperical evidence as better, you are now declaring the rdc stiffness measurement to not be as accurate as you..that's a good one since you dont even know what the rdc stiffness measures, and say things like smaller headed racquets get stuck in your armpit on the backswing...lol
as is your way, you will now deeply search my posts and look for something to try and bust me on

drakulie · Nov 21, 2006

AndrewD said:
To me, a racquet with 'old school feel' isn't one which is necessarily flexible (my 'old school' isn't wood but graphite) but one which doesn't have the 'hollow' feel you get in most all modern racquets.

I agree with this. There is a "hollow feel" in most newer racquets. After hitting with the PS85, the newer racquets feel like they are going to crack.

They also don't seem to send feedback to your hand. Like if they are absorbing the entire hit, rather than letting it reach your hand.

BreakPoint · Nov 21, 2006

NoBadMojo said:
i agreed to no such thing..you're just making stuff up as usual.

Once again, either you have an incredibly short memory or just short on integrity or both. Here's exactly what you said:

NoBadMojo said:
Compared to the Tour 10 Mid, similar indeed I think. I bet the DNX10Mid comes out of the same tool/mold as the T10Mid. Def seems to be the case with the DNX10MP and T10MPGen1 which I used for about 3 years. You would find this frame quite a lot more maneuverable and is soft within the sweetspot. I bet the flex is in the low 60's. So if you want something more maneuverable than what you have, you may enjoy this one. It's kind of a modern update to a midsized frame. I like it better than its bigger bro <so far>

The DNX10mid is strung at 55 w. Klip Excellerator17.

Is not "in the low 60's" higher than 58?

NoBadMojo said:
i only corrected you on one of your many errors..i see....you are the empriical authority of all things tennis and otherwise...so as you declare the rdc swingweight measurement meaningless and your emperical evidence as better, you are now declaring the rdc stiffness measurement to not be as accurate as you..

No, I never said the RDC swingweight measurement is meaningless. I said it does not necessarily corrolate directly to a racquet's maneuverability in actual tennis play. It's an extremely limited measurement as it only measures the force in one swing path out of 360 degrees of possible paths and from only one axis of rotation out of an infinite number of axes. So, no, it's not meaningless. It does exactly what it's meant to do, provide a limited measurement that does not neccessarily reflect actual tennis play. Any intelligent would person understand that.

And, no, the RDC stiffness measurement is very accurate. It very accurately measures the stiffness at the throat. It's supposed to measure the average stiffness throughout the entire frame, but because of the way the frame is clamped during the test, it ends up measuring mostly the stiffness at the throat, thus, the resultant stiffness number is more a reflection of the throat stiffness than the hoop stiffness. But when you hit the ball, you can usually feel the hoop stiffness more than the throat stiffness or at least both, depending on the frame.

drakulie · Nov 21, 2006

BreakPoint said:
And, no, the RDC stiffness measurement is very accurate. It very accurately measures the stiffness at the throat. It's supposed to measure the average stiffness throughout the entire frame, but because of the way the frame is clamped during the test, it ends up measuring mostly the stiffness at the throat, thus, the resultant stiffness number is more a reflection of the throat stiffness than the hoop stiffness. But when you hit the ball, you can usually feel the hoop stiffness more than the throat stiffness or at least both, depending on the frame.

Break, have you ever measured early ps85's vs taiwan and china models? I am very curious, because to me the earlier PS85's feel much more solid. I wonder if this has anything to do with the throat as you are describing.

BreakPoint · Nov 21, 2006

drakulie said:
Break, have you ever measured early ps85's vs taiwan and china models? I am very curious, because to me the earlier PS85's feel much more solid. I wonder if this has anything to do with the throat as you are describing.

I have not measured the PS 6.0 85's but I agree with you. I had a Chicago version that felt more solid than the more recent versions but I believe that had more to do with it being heavier than with the flex at the throat IMO. However, that being said, I do agree that the China versions feel a bit more flexy overall than the older versions do.

drakulie · Nov 21, 2006

Yeah, I also feel the Chicago has the most solid feel of all/feels heavier, and the China is at the other end of the spectrum. It would be interesting to see the differences.

psp2 · Nov 22, 2006

Here are some measurements of my different PS85.

Model Babolat RDC #:
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHICAGO) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (SV) 62
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHIAO TA) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHINA) 67
PRO STAFF TOUR 90 67

BreakPoint · Nov 22, 2006

psp2 said:
Here are some measurements of my different PS85.

Model Babolat RDC #:
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHICAGO) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (SV) 62
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHIAO TA) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHINA) 67
PRO STAFF TOUR 90 67

Hmmm....so isn't this just more empirical evidence that the stiffness rating is not a true reflection of how stiff a racquet can feel in actual play? Most people feel that the China version of the PS 6.0 85 feels more flexible than the earlier versions, i.e., Chicago, St. Vincent, and Taiwan, but the measurements give the China version the stiffest rating. This tells me that the China version has the stiffest throat but a more flexible hoop, thereby, making the overall feel more flexible.

Even Sampras is well known to have preferred the St. Vincent version because he felt that it was stiffer than the other versions. Well, these measurements show that the St. Vincent, in fact, had the most flexible rating. So this shows that the St. Vincent version probably had a more flexible throat but a stiffer hoop which made them feel stiffer overall. Makes sense as a stiffer hoop does make a racquet feel stiffer and provides more directional control which Sampras demanded. Stiffer hoops also work better on volleys especially when your opponents is hitting the ball very hard at you.

Lastly, these measurements show that the China verison of the PS 6.0 85 and the PS Tour 90 have identical stiffness ratings but anyone that has played with these two will attest that the PS Tour 90 definitely feels stiffer. So why the discrepancy in feel? Again, I believe it's because the hoop of the PS Tour 90 has been stiffened with added HyperCarbon, thereby, making the overall frame feel much stiffer than the PS 6.0 85 China version despite their identical stiffness ratings. I believe this is because the RDC machine failed to pick up the extra stiffness of the hoop of the PS Tour 90, and was essentially only measuring the stiffness of the throat which was the same as on the China version of the PS 6.0 85, and so the resultant stiffness ratings turned out to be the same for both of them.

drakulie · Nov 22, 2006

psp2 said:
Here are some measurements of my different PS85.

Model Babolat RDC #:
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHICAGO) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (SV) 62
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHIAO TA) 65
PRO STAFF 6.0 85 (CHINA) 67
PRO STAFF TOUR 90 67

Wow! Thanks for posting this. It is very interesting.

break, I agree with what you stated ^^^ Perhaps the hoop is stiffer.

In addition, the 65 rating of the Chicago vs 62 of St. Vincent defintiely agrees with how I feel between the 2.

Midlife crisis · Nov 22, 2006

BreakPoint said:
Hmmm....so isn't this just more empirical evidence that the stiffness rating is not a true reflection of how stiff a racquet can feel in actual play? Most people feel that the China version of the PS 6.0 85 feels more flexible than the earlier versions, i.e., Chicago, St. Vincent, and Taiwan, but the measurements give the China version the stiffest rating. This tells me that the China version has the stiffest throat but a more flexible hoop, thereby, making the overall feel more flexible.

Even Sampras is well known to have preferred the St. Vincent version because he felt that it was stiffer than the other versions. Well, these measurements show that the St. Vincent, in fact, had the most flexible rating. So this shows that the St. Vincent version probably had a more flexible throat but a stiffer hoop which made them feel stiffer overall. Makes sense as a stiffer hoop does make a racquet feel stiffer and provides more directional control which Sampras demanded. Stiffer hoops also work better on volleys especially when your opponents is hitting the ball very hard at you.

Lastly, these measurements show that the China verison of the PS 6.0 85 and the PS Tour 90 have identical stiffness ratings but anyone that has played with these two will attest that the PS Tour 90 definitely feels stiffer. So why the discrepancy in feel? Again, I believe it's because the hoop of the PS Tour 90 has been stiffened with added HyperCarbon, thereby, making the overall frame feel much stiffer than the PS 6.0 85 China version despite their identical stiffness ratings. I believe this is because the RDC machine failed to pick up the extra stiffness of the hoop of the PS Tour 90, and was essentially only measuring the stiffness of the throat which was the same as on the China version of the PS 6.0 85, and so the resultant stiffness ratings turned out to be the same for both of them.

The one thing being missed is that the weight distribution in the racquet can determine its effective stiffness. For instance, a racquet that has a lot of weight in the handle will feel a lot more flexible than an identically stiff racquet without the weight in the handle. This is because weight in the handle moves the center of mass of the racquet towards the handle, and this allows the head of that racquet to rotate away from the ball further on impact. This produces a feeling of reduced stiffness when in fact the racquet may be stiffer according to the RDC.

BreakPoint · Nov 22, 2006

Midlife crisis said:
The one thing being missed is that the weight distribution in the racquet can determine its effective stiffness. For instance, a racquet that has a lot of weight in the handle will feel a lot more flexible than an identically stiff racquet without the weight in the handle. This is because weight in the handle moves the center of mass of the racquet towards the handle, and this allows the head of that racquet to rotate away from the ball further on impact. This produces a feeling of reduced stiffness when in fact the racquet may be stiffer according to the RDC.

Perhaps, but in this case, we're talking about the same racquet, the PS 6.0 85, with the same ProStaff headlight balance.

Midlife crisis · Nov 22, 2006

BreakPoint said:
Perhaps, but in this case, we're talking about the same racquet, the PS 6.0 85, with the same ProStaff headlight balance.

But two racquets can have the same static weight and same balance, have the same static stiffness measurements, and still have different effective stiffness. It all depends on how the weight is distributed, and you have no assurances that even if it is the same external appearance, that the internal molding of the racquet is the same, especially if they come from different factories.

NoBadMojo · Nov 22, 2006

RDC stiffness measures the overall average stiffness of the frame. ..it doesnt indicate where the frame is stiffer and vice versa...it only indicates the average overall stiffness.

nasri_babolat_storm · Nov 22, 2006

how bout the prince spectrum comp 90??

CollegeBound · Nov 23, 2006

BreakPoint said:
Hmmm....so isn't this just more empirical evidence that the stiffness rating is not a true reflection of how stiff a racquet can feel in actual play? Most people feel that the China version of the PS 6.0 85 feels more flexible than the earlier versions, i.e., Chicago, St. Vincent, and Taiwan, but the measurements give the China version the stiffest rating. This tells me that the China version has the stiffest throat but a more flexible hoop, thereby, making the overall feel more flexible.

Even Sampras is well known to have preferred the St. Vincent version because he felt that it was stiffer than the other versions. Well, these measurements show that the St. Vincent, in fact, had the most flexible rating. So this shows that the St. Vincent version probably had a more flexible throat but a stiffer hoop which made them feel stiffer overall. Makes sense as a stiffer hoop does make a racquet feel stiffer and provides more directional control which Sampras demanded. Stiffer hoops also work better on volleys especially when your opponents is hitting the ball very hard at you.

Lastly, these measurements show that the China verison of the PS 6.0 85 and the PS Tour 90 have identical stiffness ratings but anyone that has played with these two will attest that the PS Tour 90 definitely feels stiffer. So why the discrepancy in feel? Again, I believe it's because the hoop of the PS Tour 90 has been stiffened with added HyperCarbon, thereby, making the overall frame feel much stiffer than the PS 6.0 85 China version despite their identical stiffness ratings. I believe this is because the RDC machine failed to pick up the extra stiffness of the hoop of the PS Tour 90, and was essentially only measuring the stiffness of the throat which was the same as on the China version of the PS 6.0 85, and so the resultant stiffness ratings turned out to be the same for both of them.

LOL, that's a lot of assumptions to be making based on the measurements of one racquet of each version. If you can get everyone on the board who has a PS 6.0 85 to measure the stiffness then you might find what you're looking for. Otherwise its a pretty windy claim.

BreakPoint · Nov 23, 2006

CollegeBound said:
LOL, that's a lot of assumptions to be making based on the measurements of one racquet of each version. If you can get everyone on the board who has a PS 6.0 85 to measure the stiffness then you might find what you're looking for. Otherwise its a pretty windy claim.

That's why I said it was "more empirical evidence". If more people provided their measurements, it would be additional empirical evidence.

sureshs · Nov 23, 2006

I knew from the get go that the whole purpose of this thread was to prove that there is no such thing as an old school feel. I was waiting to see if I was correct - and I was. As I had thought, it transformed into a battle of the two Titans.

BreakPoint · Nov 23, 2006

sureshs said:
I knew from the get go that the whole purpose of this thread was to prove that there is no such thing as an old school feel. I was waiting to see if I was correct - and I was. As I had thought, it transformed into a battle of the two Titans.

Huh? How did you conclude that?

Did you not read all the posts in this thread? Just about everyone here confirms that there is indeed "old school feel", and we all posted exactly what makes a racquet feel "old school" to us.

So, no, you are definitely not correct.

Can someone really define 'old school feel' ?

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Professional

Bionic Poster

Legend

Professional

Legend

Professional

Professional

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

New User

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Similar threads