The rise and fall of racquet companies.

Crocodile said:

15. Stellar

Click to expand...

First graphite racquet I had (still have) was a Stellar. Seems they were around for a good while but theres zero info on the internet.

Steve Huff said:

It was before most of you guys' time, but I'm sure some of the older farts here had a Bard racket at some point. I did. A Jade Fire.

Click to expand...

Just bought a few Bards off fleabay. The white ceramic one and a couple of burgundy brown boron/graphite ones. Nice stiffer feel but without the vibes. Got a fox bosworth wb310 as well. Love buying 80's & 90's racquets to try out and hit with. They actually had real materials like kevlar/ceramic/boron/fibreglass. Nowadays we just get stiff graphite with imaginary graphene etc.

Crocodile said:

The Mizuno's we're great frames. Never played with a Bridgestone, were they good frames.

Click to expand...

Bridgestone is Japanese market only.
I would like to hit with one of their heavier (at least, heavy for the Japanese market) frames, they seem like exceptionally high quality and they frequently have very nice paint....

Above is the X-Blade 305. 16x19 string pattern, 305 grams unstrung, balance point of 315 mm (9 points headlight, which means it probably has a swingweight of about 310-315). It appears to be composed of woven carbon fiber and fiberglass.

It looks like an excellent customization platform. If I had this stick, I'd add four 4-inch strips of tungsten tape at 3 and 9 and two 4-inch strips at 12. That would probably bump it up to a swingweight of about 335 and give it some really nice plow.

@Crocodile
The Bridgestone frame I tried did not standout compared to the other frames in its price range during the daawn of the graphite era.
Kawasaki's Ruler & Rulerflexwere thin and a joy to hit with.
Comments are about standard size frames.

Crocodile said:

Over the years we have had quite a few changes in market landscape of tennis racquet companies. If I think back as far as the 80's the only 3 brands that are still dominant in tennis is Head, Wilson and Yonex . Babolat only came on the scene with racquets in the mid 90's and now obviously part of the big 3 with Yonex positioned 4th and rising. These 3/4 brands have a big presence on tour and have other products in their line up to sell.
Now for those with a better memory can you shed light on why the following brands which were major players in the past are now either struggling financially or very minor players or even non existent:
1. Dunlop Slazenger
2. Prince
3. Snauwert
4. Rossignol
5. Spalding
6. Puma
7. Pro Kennex
8. Emrik - Australia only ?
9. Kneissl
10. Donnay
11. Bancroft
12. Oliver
13. Fin
14. Yamaha
15. Stellar

The other brands I haven't mentioned here are brands such as Pacific, Volkl, Mizuno, and Tecnifibre and Gamma. Pacific which bought Fischer had decent presence in the past in the 80's and 90's but currently very quiet. Volkl have always been sought of a product of mystique with a lower tour presence these days since Dent, Korda, Hanika, Stoser etc, and Tecnifibre trying to rise in the sales numbers
I'd be interested in reading posts about particular brands and any others that I have left out as to what you know about their situation.

Click to expand...

Can add Bosworth's Fox and of course Adidas. Also Wimbledon (made by Kunnan?), Le Coq Sportif and Lacoste of France.

BorgCash said:

Can add Bosworth's Fox and of course Adidas. Also Wimbledon (made by Kunnan?), Le Coq Sportif and Lacoste of France.

Click to expand...

Yes I had a Wimbledon Graphite and it was a sweeter stick than their Black Ace (PK Sister brand)

Crocodile said:

Yes I had a Wimbledon Graphite and it was a sweeter stick than their Black Ace (PK Sister brand)

Click to expand...

Is it Nystrom and Pernfors played with?

BorgCash said:

Is it Nystrom and Pernfors played with?

Click to expand...

Pernfors version I think.

Also, Bancroft, Donnay, Durbin and PDP. Bancroft & Donnay fell victim to Borg's retirement and the transition to graphite. Durbin was a niche graphite racket that enjoyed some success in the mid 80s with a cool design. PDP had some good frames, the Open was copied by Head and Adidas to better sales. They also made the Fibrestaff and Fibregraph which were cool frames. I owned (and have two now) Fibrestaffs.

I've had a Durbin once too. Throat piece way down the shaft. Looked like an oversized squash racket. Mine was aluminum. They had a graphite model too. PDP Open--my favorite metal racket. Bancroft's were innovative wood rackets. Unfortunately, they were being innovative just before graphite was being introduced. A few others: Lobster, WonderWand, MatchMate. I've strung WonderWands and MatchMates. The WonderWand was superoversized, had a 20 x 22 string pattern as I recall.

Crocodile said:

Did the legal action cause Yamaha's demise ?

Click to expand...

I was looking for a stringing pattern for an old Yamaha recently and wondered why they stopped making tennis rackets...the (unconfirmed) info I found suggested that as a result of the legal action Yamaha 'decided not to bother with tennis rackets'.

I used a Lobster citation racquet back in the day for a couple of years (probably late 80's early 90's). Would love to get one for my collection...

PBODY99 said:

@R15 @Crocodile
The EOS

Click to expand...

Yamaha made the best solid high modulus carbon racquets. Decades before their time.

I’ve been tennising a LOT recently - more than my usual amount - have been toying around with one of these newfangled feather weight power pufft frames - Pro Staff LS etc.

Undoubtedly, if you want to swing for the fences and sweep for topspin, without much effort or footwork, they’re awesome.

Forget feel on your side of the contact point.

But if you already are used to feel and touch in your contact point, the modern frames aren’t very useful.

My guess is it’s probably modern technique more than anything. Most players today are not going to like classics or old school feel based frames. I gave someone my Angel today - he couldn’t understand why I like the thing.

PBODY99 said:

the EOS model, which infringed by being under 10 oz and a head heavy balance.
Note the specs inside the throat

Click to expand...

So the patent....was for a balance point and a weight specification?!?!?

Estusa racquets were popular in my area for bit.

They should have collaborated with Canon’s camera division.

PBODY99 said:

@R15 @Crocodile
The EOS

Click to expand...

Crocodile said:

Over the years we have had quite a few changes in market landscape of tennis racquet companies. If I think back as far as the 80's the only 3 brands that are still dominant in tennis is Head, Wilson and Yonex . Babolat only came on the scene with racquets in the mid 90's and now obviously part of the big 3 with Yonex positioned 4th and rising.

Click to expand...

I THINK it transcends across almost ALL industries that three major brands rise to the top, and capture & command majority market share. This also applies to appliances, banks, IT, entertainment networks, fast food, etc. Smaller companies simply do not have the advertising & marketing budgets to compete this way despite producing excellent products.

Crocodile said:

These 3/4 brands have a big presence on tour and have other products in their line up to sell.

Click to expand...

By "big presence on tour" do you mean "huge marketing budgets"? Hardly any endorsed tennis players use actual retail products. Almost all racquets you see pros playing are custom made, unavailable to the general public, and covered with retail paint jobs.

LaZeR said:

I THINK it transcends across almost ALL industries that three major brands rise to the top, and capture & command majority market share. This also applies to appliances, banks, IT, entertainment networks, fast food, etc. Smaller companies simply do not have the advertising & marketing budgets to compete this way despite producing excellent products. By "big presence on tour" do you mean "huge marketing budgets"? Hardly any endorsed tennis players use actual retail products. Almost all racquets you see pros playing are custom made, unavailable to the general public, and covered with retail paint jobs.

Click to expand...

Yes this is how it works.

PBODY99 said:

@Simon_the_furry
Yes, the "Hammer patent " covered sub 10 oz frames with a head heavy balance point.
Pick up weight was the big selling point.

Click to expand...

Wow, that's bizarre. There's so many other companies now making the same specs that anything like that today would be unthinkable.

from my understanding, the patent was owned by Jack Frolow and Wilson bought the patent when they realised it could restrict other brands. The patent was about 2000 pages long and hideous to circumnavigate!

Kübler. I remember back in the 80ies these frames, like the Kübler Resonanz, used to be the hot ticket around here for a while, at least among the older crowd.

My coach at that time thought they were too powerful for me and recommended I use a rex professional Turbo 95 (which of course he happened to sell). I still have it:

Crocodile said:

Over the years we have had quite a few changes in market landscape of tennis racquet companies. If I think back as far as the 80's the only 3 brands that are still dominant in tennis is Head, Wilson and Yonex . Babolat only came on the scene with racquets in the mid 90's and now obviously part of the big 3 with Yonex positioned 4th and rising. These 3/4 brands have a big presence on tour and have other products in their line up to sell.
Now for those with a better memory can you shed light on why the following brands which were major players in the past are now either struggling financially or very minor players or even non existent:
1. Dunlop Slazenger
2. Prince
3. Snauwert
4. Rossignol
5. Spalding
6. Puma
7. Pro Kennex
8. Emrik - Australia only ?
9. Kneissl
10. Donnay
11. Bancroft
12. Oliver
13. Fin
14. Yamaha
15. Stellar

The other brands I haven't mentioned here are brands such as Pacific, Volkl, Mizuno, and Tecnifibre and Gamma. Pacific which bought Fischer had decent presence in the past in the 80's and 90's but currently very quiet. Volkl have always been sought of a product of mystique with a lower tour presence these days since Dent, Korda, Hanika, Stoser etc, and Tecnifibre trying to rise in the sales numbers
I'd be interested in reading posts about particular brands and any others that I have left out as to what you know about their situation.

Click to expand...

I absolutely loved Kneissl, loved it! All the kids were playing with it in the 80’s. It was the Babolat of the time. I stopped playing in the later 80’s...when I came back in 2010 I was shocked to see it’s disappearance. No idea what happened to it.

WILSON HAMMER TECHNOLOGY PATENT IS ENFORCED: PRO-KENNEX TO PULL FOUR MODELS THAT COPY WILSON'S PATENTED RACQUET TECHNOLOGY / CHICAGO, Aug. 5 / PRNewswire/

Wilson Sporting Goods today announced it has posted a legal victory in its fight to enforce its patents on tennis racquet technology. Pro-Kennex, which markets racquets that copy Wilson's patented Hammer racquet technology, has agreed to stop selling four racquet models. In accordance with a preliminary injunction entered today, Pro-Kennex will stop selling these racquets because they infringe Wilson's patents for Hammer racquet weight and balance.

"Wilson is committed to developing, marketing and protecting breakthrough racquet technology," said Jim Baugh, Wilson Racquet Sports vice president and general manager. "This is a big step. It is testament to the performance features and benefits of the patent, and it shows that we're not going to tolerate Hammer copycats on the market."

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division has ordered that effective Sept. 30, 1992, Pro-Kennex is "enjoined from selling" four models -- Pro-Kennex Infinity 265, Pro-Kennex Innovator 265, Pro-Kennex Destiny 265, and Pro-Kennex Presence 265.

Hammer technology was first introduced by Wilson in December 1990 with the Profile 2.7 Hammer. Since then, that racquet has been the best-selling racquet in pro and specialty shops nationwide. In November 1991, Wilson introduced the second racquet in the Hammer series, the Pro Staff 4.0 Hammer, which is also a top seller.

In all, Wilson has three Hammer technology patents concerning: 1) racquet stiffness; 2) dual taper beam cross section; and 3) weight and balance. Hammer series racquets have weight taken out of the handle while maintaining the mass in the racquet head -- like a hammer. This extends the center of percussion -- the heart of the sweet spot -- into the upper part of the racquet face where most balls are hit. Hammer racquets have the highest and largest sweet spots of any racquets.

"We're actually not surprised that Hammer technology is being copied," said Baugh. "Hammer technology means the largest sweet spot, and players want that. On the court, a larger sweet spot means being able to hit the ball better and get it over the net more often." Baugh said, "This should be viewed as a warning to other racquet companies. There are others infringing the Hammer patent, and we're going after them too."

In addition to racquet sports, Chicago-based Wilson is a market leader in team sports equipment and golf.

-0- 8/5/92 /CONTACT: Ruth Hamill of Wilson Racquet Sports, 312-714-6703/ CO: Wilson Sporting Goods; Pro-Kennex ST: Illinois IN: LEI SU: GK -- NY067 -- 7187 08/05/92 14:52 EDT

@LaZeR
Thank you for the research.
Played the Ceramic Destiny during this period, and picked up a Destiny 265, when they were released. Sold it to a club member when they went away. She still uses it today.

You'd think they'd (wilson) be able to paint those things better, but probably would infringe on the paint that sticks patent.

R15 said:

I was looking for a stringing pattern for an old Yamaha recently and wondered why they stopped making tennis rackets...the (unconfirmed) info I found suggested that as a result of the legal action Yamaha 'decided not to bother with tennis rackets'.

Click to expand...

I grew up playing with the Yamaha YFG-20 in the late 70's which I think was unique for it's time. It was a fiberglass midsize racquet in the age where everyone was either playing with small wood/metal racquets or those gigantic Prince racquets. I really liked the racquet and how it played. It is too bad they stopped making racquets.

@ollinger Do you still have the lt12 rackets? Would you be willing to sell or trade one of them? Thanks.

After demoing about 15 racquets from about 7 or 8 different brands in the year 2000, I remember buying a Babolat Pure Control as it felt the best. At that time, no one had heard of them at my club as a racquet brand and I was an early adopter. It has been amazing to see their fast growth in the two decades since.

I’ve stayed in the Babolat family ever since in spite of many demo tests over the years and my racquet evolution has been Pure Control to AeroStorm Tour to Pure Strike Tour G1 to Pure Strike Tour G3. Amongst 12 oz racquets with thin beams and SW above 330 with mid-sixties stiffness, it seems like the Babolat models always had the biggest sweet spot for me.

They’ve really earned their way to the top of the racquet market after having low brand awareness even twenty years ago at least in the US. Of course, their calling card is their stiff tweeners like the Drive/Aeros, but they’ve made solid racquets for those who came from traditional heavy thin-beam players racquets also. I had grown up with Dunlops and Wilsons before that all the way from the wood days.

movdqa said:

With Dunlop, I just recall a lot of Pros moving from Dunlop to Head which seemed to coincide with them falling. It appears that marketing in tennis really works. Marketing really works well for Nike as they pay huge amounts of money for their sponsored players in chose sports.

Click to expand...

Getting your equipment into the hands of a consistent top 10 pro is indded what really works. Just look at the "Alcarez (sp?)" racquet. Prior to his using it, nobody cared or played it despite the fact that I'm sure it's a perfectly good racquet. And therein lies the key. A company will have a few years once their "pro" is no longer in the sport before the influx of new juniors start gravitating towards x top player regardless of how good the quality, playability, etc. is for any other racquet. Yonex has gained a bit in popularity due to Stan and a few others. Of course Yonex has always made decent racquets but that's moot without a "name" to cause the junior thirst for it. Prince is the prime example of this. Does anyone really believe Prince doesn't make great racquets? Of course they do. Just look at the RF97. One....ONE....player uses that racquet and it's a top seller. One. Want to bet that once Nadal retires, if there's no serious big name to carry on his endorsed frame, that it slowly dies in sales? Babolat needs Alcarez to be as good as he's hyped to be as that will become their number one seller virtually overnight.