Wilson Prostaff 6.0 95 as a modern racket?

gplracer · Jul 17, 2011

There is so much talk about the reissue of the prostaff 85 and talk about it not being suited to the modern game. I wonder how the 95 version of the racket stacks up? I know it is not widely regarded as a racket on the same level as the 85 but how would it be as a racket in the modern game?

Tar Heel Tennis · Jul 17, 2011

I hit with one yesterday for the first time. Although much lighter than my 390g KPS88s, I liked the ease of hitting with this frame. The guy who owns it said he would consider selling it to me...I'd like to give this a try weighted more like my frames....I bet I would really enjoy it!

bluetrain4 · Jul 17, 2011

gplracer said:
There is so much talk about the reissue of the prostaff 85 and talk about it not being suited to the modern game. I wonder how the 95 version of the racket stacks up? I know it is not widely regarded as a racket on the same level as the 85 but how would it be as a racket in the modern game?

With all of the 95s on the market, I don't see how the PS 95 wouldn't hold up well.

Rusty669 · Jul 17, 2011

The great thing about the PS 6.0 95 is how headlight it is!I don't think any other 95 is14 points head light unstrung

This makes for a really easy swing,even if it is not exactly light at roughly 350 grams strung plus an overgrip.As a result you can tune it to your own desire.In addition it slightly thinner in width than say a BLX Six One 95 and it also has a box beam.
It plays great in my opinion, so it should stand up to all the other modern rackets

Mick · Jul 17, 2011

luishcorreia said:
I just bough one trough the TW classified foruns! I should receive it next week.

I think for 4.0 players and beyond its a up to date racquet.

i bought 4 of them years ago from tennis-warehouse before it was discontinued and only used one of them.

don't know where the other two are but i found one of the unused ones

Dave M · Jul 18, 2011

I went out to buy an 85 and bought a pair of 95s instead many years ago, loved them and if i hadn't of bought a grip size that felt too large i'd probably never ofmoved them on.I played with them and the 6.1 for years always prefered the 6.0

SFrazeur · Jul 18, 2011

Mick said:
i bought 4 of them years ago from tennis-warehouse before it was discontinued and only used one of them.

don't know where the other two are but i found one of the unused ones

I always read your posts just to see what racquets you've bought a dozen of and can't find most of.

-SF

dr325i · Jul 18, 2011

Tar Heel Tennis said:
I hit with one yesterday for the first time. Although much lighter than my 390g KPS88s, I liked the ease of hitting with this frame. The guy who owns it said he would consider selling it to me...I'd like to give this a try weighted more like my frames....I bet I would really enjoy it!

390g, cool!
Can we take a look at a video of you hitting with that thing early in the match, then 1 hour later?
What is the point of a 390g racket?

Thanks!

trilix · Jul 18, 2011

gplracer said:
There is so much talk about the reissue of the prostaff 85 and talk about it not being suited to the modern game. I wonder how the 95 version of the racket stacks up? I know it is not widely regarded as a racket on the same level as the 85 but how would it be as a racket in the modern game?

Dolgopolov uses it, so that pretty much answers it.

chippy17 · Jul 18, 2011

I have used these since I was 18 (37 now) and I do love them but I also am beginning to find them lacking power compared to more modern stuff and now that I am a bit older I am finding that lack of power a, albeit small, problem.

The feel is great, I have one stock and one lightly leaded and I cannot say which I prefer as I am findinng the leaded one a bit hefty and as stock, well as I said, power is required

I have not found anything yet that I would swap them for but I am looking...

BreakPoint · Jul 18, 2011

dr325i said:
390g, cool!
Can we take a look at a video of you hitting with that thing early in the match, then 1 hour later?
What is the point of a 390g racket?

Thanks!

To crush the ball so it won't ever come back. Watch some videos of Sampras during his prime.

BTW, almost everyone used to play with 390g and heavier racquets back during the wood era, including women and children. :shock:

BreakPoint · Jul 18, 2011

chippy17 said:
I have used these since I was 18 (37 now) and I do love them but I also am beginning to find them lacking power compared to more modern stuff and now that I am a bit older I am finding that lack of power a, albeit small, problem.

The feel is great, I have one stock and one lightly leaded and I cannot say which I prefer as I am findinng the leaded one a bit hefty and as stock, well as I said, power is required

I have not found anything yet that I would swap them for but I am looking...

Are you sure? The PS 6.0 95 was introduced in 1994 (17 years ago).

Mick · Jul 18, 2011

SFrazeur said:
I always read your posts just to see what racquets you've bought a dozen of and can't find most of.

-SF

haha. i only can't find the unused ones since i have no intention of ever using or reselling them. i just like the idea of knowing that i have them

Power Player · Jul 18, 2011

BreakPoint said:
BTW, almost everyone used to play with 390g and heavier racquets back during the wood era, including women and children. :shock:

Right. When the game was much slower and played a lot differently. Everybody forgets to add that part in.

BreakPoint · Jul 18, 2011

Power Player said:
Right. When the game was much slower and played a lot differently. Everybody forgets to add that part in.

But the laws of physics hasn't changed, has it?

A 14 oz. racquet will crush a 2 oz. ball much more than an 11 oz. racquet will. It's just simple physics.

Power Player · Jul 18, 2011

Of course. I agree 100% with that.

But the game moves so fast now that setting up to get that racquet moving is a lot more difficult.

stevewcosta · Jul 18, 2011

gplracer said:
There is so much talk about the reissue of the prostaff 85 and talk about it not being suited to the modern game. I wonder how the 95 version of the racket stacks up? I know it is not widely regarded as a racket on the same level as the 85 but how would it be as a racket in the modern game?

What would be one reason why it wouldn't be good for this "modern game?" It's better than 99% of the "modern" racquets.

movdqa · Jul 18, 2011

> A 14 oz. racquet will crush a 2 oz. ball much more than an 11 oz. racquet
> will. It's just simple physics.

It depends on where the mass is. I have 17 oz frames where the swingweight is around 320. I'd guess that you could find an 11 oz or 11+ oz frame with a higher swingweight that hits a heavier ball.

There's a Pro Staff 95 for sale on the strings forum with a K95 paintjob so it sounds like there may be a few pros out there that still use it while selling K95s or BLX95s.

gplracer · Jul 18, 2011

It has been so long.... I do not remember what this racket hit like. Back in the day I played with the 85 as a junior. Later my friend had the 95 and played with it. I seem to remember people saying it did not really hit like the 85 version. I think the upper hoop was more flexible. The thing is people keep saying "light" rackets. It seems like most of the pros play with rackets that weigh the same as they did 10 years ago. It is just that the stock version of the racket has gone down in weight. Heck a lot of pros appear do not even play with the newer rackets. They are playing with older rackets that are painted.

movdqa · Jul 18, 2011

My view is that the pros are playing with lighter racquets but with swingweights in the 330 area. There are some very good hard hitters in the 350+ area.

gplracer · Jul 18, 2011

Movdqa I would agree with that assessment. I think that is about on the money. You said you are moving away from your kps88. Is that due to the headsize?

AndrewD · Jul 18, 2011

Power Player said:
Right. When the game was much slower and played a lot differently. Everybody forgets to add that part in.

At the club level the game isn't played much differently to the way it's always been played. Most points are won on errors, rallies average 4 shots, feet don't move well enough and we still think that the guy who hits the ball hardest is best when the truth is, at our level, control trumps power.

The 6.0 95 is a perfectly viable racquet for the modern club player and I'm sure it's as capable at the pro level as it ever was (although it was never as popular with the pros as the 6.1 95 or 6.0 85). Honestly, if you think the Prestige MP is still relevant then so is the 6.0 95.

Personally, I wish I'd taken the opportunity to buy a couple of them when they were still available.

movdqa · Jul 18, 2011

> You said you are moving away from your kps88. Is that due to the headsize?

That's a big part of it.

One other part of it is the ability to hit serves as big as the KPS with significantly less static weight. Adding static weight in the handle may not make a big difference in the effort to hit groundstrokes and volleys but it does make a difference in the serving effort. The motion from where the elbow is bent launching the racquet up to meet the ball requires effort in accelerating the additional mass in the handle. I do not believe that accelerating this additional mass results in more force to the serve but it can put a lot of additional stress on the arm and/or shoulder. My experiments with heavy static weight racquets with low swingweights resulted in added arm stress with small if any additional benefits in serving power.

One thing in playing with pro stock racquets is the discovery that a lot of players that receive pro stock racquets use frames around 11.9 to 12.2 oz strung. My guess was that most pros used frames in the 12.5 to 13 oz area but this may have been swayed by what players like Soderling, Federer, Djokovich used. Obviously Nadal didn't fit my idea that big hitters used 12.5 to 13 oz frames.

So I'm behind the times in using high static weight racquets at 13+ ounces. My feeling is that there are practical benefits to using something from 12.1 to 12.45 ounces with a swingweight from 330 to 355. That weight range includes an overgrip and maybe a vibration dampener. This would compare to 13.0 to 13.3 ounces in my KPS frames.

There are retail frames in the 11-11.9 oz area with pretty decent swingweights and I wonder if there are many pros that actually use frames in the mid-11 ounce area. Pro1tennis at the big auction site is selling seven TGK238.4s and I think that they come in at 316 grams unstrung or 11.65 ounces strung. That's a pretty low static weight from what I've seen.

cnr1guy · Jul 18, 2011

Mick said:
haha. i only can't find the unused ones since i have no intention of ever using or reselling them. i just like the idea of knowing that i have them

You're such a tease!!!

Mick · Jul 18, 2011

cnr1guy said:
You're such a tease!!!

haha. sorry. it was a phase that i went through. nowadays, i am more into playing tennis than collecting tennis racquets.

chippy17 · Jul 19, 2011

BreakPoint said:
Are you sure? The PS 6.0 95 was introduced in 1994 (17 years ago).

no as I am slightly prematurely senile! I may indeed have been 20ish when I bought mine

chippy17 · Jul 19, 2011

movdqa said:
> A 14 oz. racquet will crush a 2 oz. ball much more than an 11 oz. racquet
> will. It's just simple physics.

It depends on where the mass is. I have 17 oz frames where the swingweight is around 320. I'd guess that you could find an 11 oz or 11+ oz frame with a higher swingweight that hits a heavier ball.

There's a Pro Staff 95 for sale on the strings forum with a K95 paintjob so it sounds like there may be a few pros out there that still use it while selling K95s or BLX95s.

coudl you point me in the direction of the PS that is for sale?

movdqa · Jul 19, 2011

It is in the strings forum (use google) in the for sale section.

kaiser · Jul 19, 2011

movdqa said:
> You said you are moving away from your kps88. Is that due to the headsize?

That's a big part of it.

One other part of it is the ability to hit serves as big as the KPS with significantly less static weight. Adding static weight in the handle may not make a big difference in the effort to hit groundstrokes and volleys but it does make a difference in the serving effort. The motion from where the elbow is bent launching the racquet up to meet the ball requires effort in accelerating the additional mass in the handle. I do not believe that accelerating this additional mass results in more force to the serve but it can put a lot of additional stress on the arm and/or shoulder. My experiments with heavy static weight racquets with low swingweights resulted in added arm stress with small if any additional benefits in serving power.

One thing in playing with pro stock racquets is the discovery that a lot of players that receive pro stock racquets use frames around 11.9 to 12.2 oz strung. My guess was that most pros used frames in the 12.5 to 13 oz area but this may have been swayed by what players like Soderling, Federer, Djokovich used. Obviously Nadal didn't fit my idea that big hitters used 12.5 to 13 oz frames.

So I'm behind the times in using high static weight racquets at 13+ ounces. My feeling is that there are practical benefits to using something from 12.1 to 12.45 ounces with a swingweight from 330 to 355. That weight range includes an overgrip and maybe a vibration dampener. This would compare to 13.0 to 13.3 ounces in my KPS frames.

There are retail frames in the 11-11.9 oz area with pretty decent swingweights and I wonder if there are many pros that actually use frames in the mid-11 ounce area. Pro1tennis at the big auction site is selling seven TGK238.4s and I think that they come in at 316 grams unstrung or 11.65 ounces strung. That's a pretty low static weight from what I've seen.

Those are some very interesting observations! But if you are considering going from 13+ to 12.5- oz rackets while maintaining the same relatively high swingweight, you will have to accept a less head-light balance. How do you feel about that? I'm very happy with my modern 13 oz, ~10 pts head-light racket, the Dunlop 4D200 Tour, but occasionally when I've been serving a lot I feel some shoulder discomfort. Lastly I felt a sudden pain in the base of my thumb after playing and serving a lot (practicing my serve with a bucket of balls...). Nothing some rest and ice won't cure, and I might just as well get similar problems with a lighter racket (overuse = overuse...) but in the light of what you are saying interesting nevertheless... What alternative, lighter rackets are you considering, seeing that we come form the same original preference?

movdqa · Jul 19, 2011

I'm playing around with Pro Stock racquets at the moment but am considering retail sticks too.

I am okay with going down to 6 or 7 points headlight which is where the KPS is today. Here's an example:

Take the Head MG Radical Midplus ($90 at TW). 27 inches, 11 oz, 2 pts head light, 315 swingweight. Using the TW automated customization tool, it can be modified to 12.4 oz, 10 points headlight, 345 swingweight by adding 0.16 oz at 27 inches, 0.13 oz at 26.6 inches and 1.11 oz at 0.8 inches.

It can be modified to 12.2 oz, 8 points headlight, 345 swingweight by adding 0.16 oz at 27 inches, 0.14 oz at 26.6 inches and 0.9 oz at 0.8 inches.

The Head YOUTEK Radical Midplus is 11 oz, 2 points headlight and has a SW of 324. Adding 0.14 oz at 26.8 inches, 0.07 oz at 26.4 inches and 0.99 oz at 0.8 inches would result in a static weight of 12.2 oz, 10 points headlight and a swingweight of 345.

The Babolat Pure Storm GT could be customized to 12.23 oz, 10 points headlight and 345 SW.

The Dunlop Aerogel 4D 300 could be customized to 12.1 oz, 10 points headlight, SW 345.

So there are ways to do this with retail frames. I think that it will take a little time to find what I want given the added variables of flex and strings.

The key is in finding a retail frame that's already lightweight that isn't stiff as a board - basically a frame that screams out for customization. It seems to me that the Pro Stock racquets are made this way - very light hairpin, with silicone added in the handle and lead in from 11:00 to 1:00.

One final example that I've been thinking about for a while for a super-flexible solution:

PK Redondo MP (57 RA) -> 12.31 static weight, 8 points headlight, 345 SW. Basically the flex of a PT57A at 1/3rd the price by just adding 0.21 oz of lead between 11:00 and 1:00.

movdqa · Jul 19, 2011

The Aerogel 4D 200 Tour is already a monster of a frame at 352 SW. It can be modified to 12.8 oz, 10 points headlight, 353 swingweight by adding half an ounce to the handle.

You can get a Federer/Nadal SW of 355 with the Babolat AeroPro Drive GT with a static weight of only 12.4 ounces and a 10 points headlight balance. The only issue that I'd have with that is that it would be a super-stiff solution. There are very light frames that can be customized to high swingweights with relatively low static weights but most of them are very stiff.

gplracer · Jul 19, 2011

I have a friend that is a 5.5 and he uses a 6.1 team. I asked why he does not use the regular 6.1 and he stated that he likes to weigh down the head with tape.

0d1n · Jul 19, 2011

^^ The most obvious choices are radicals...old style instincts and the Dunlop 300 series.

dr325i · Jul 19, 2011

BreakPoint said:
To crush the ball so it won't ever come back. Watch some videos of Sampras during his prime.

BTW, almost everyone used to play with 390g and heavier racquets back during the wood era, including women and children. :shock:

Ah, thanks!
I forgot that Sampras was posting on this forum...

Whatever man, read what I posted again, then think about it...

Power Player · Jul 19, 2011

AndrewD said:
At the club level the game isn't played much differently to the way it's always been played. Most points are won on errors, rallies average 4 shots, feet don't move well enough and we still think that the guy who hits the ball hardest is best when the truth is, at our level, control trumps power.

The 6.0 95 is a perfectly viable racquet for the modern club player and I'm sure it's as capable at the pro level as it ever was (although it was never as popular with the pros as the 6.1 95 or 6.0 85). Honestly, if you think the Prestige MP is still relevant then so is the 6.0 95.

Personally, I wish I'd taken the opportunity to buy a couple of them when they were still available.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

He was talking about 390 gram racquets. You are talking about a classic graphite Wilson 6.0 weighing an ounce less that of course can be used by any club player. The 95 is still being used on the tour under PJs I am quite sure.

It's still a demanding frame compared to the newer sticks though. I had a PC600 and a youtek Prestige mid. The newer sticks just hit with more power, even the modern classics like the Prestige mid.

CDestroyer · Jul 19, 2011

gplracer said:
There is so much talk about the reissue of the prostaff 85 and talk about it not being suited to the modern game. I wonder how the 95 version of the racket stacks up? I know it is not widely regarded as a racket on the same level as the 85 but how would it be as a racket in the modern game?

If Federer goes to a new racquet it will be a BLX. Maybe Wilson will release a BLX Prostaff 95 with a box beam.

BreakPoint · Jul 19, 2011

dr325i said:
Ah, thanks!
I forgot that Sampras was posting on this forum...

Whatever man, read what I posted again, then think about it...

And I would suggest you do the same.

If a 70lb. 10 year-old kid can handle a 390g racquet, why can't a 200lb. 30 year-old man?

ssonosk · Jul 19, 2011

It's just an plain heavy racquet, it would probably be like hitting with a k90 but with a 95 head size

Venetian · Jul 19, 2011

BreakPoint said:
And I would suggest you do the same.

If a 70lb. 10 year-old kid can handle a 390g racquet, why can't a 200lb. 30 year-old man?

"Handle" and "play effective, competitive modern tennis with" are two different things.

dr325i · Jul 21, 2011

Venetian said:
"Handle" and "play effective, competitive modern tennis with" are two different things.

The guy knows nothing about tennis and math...so far he proved that.
The more he posts here (and he's done it a lot), the more he shows his flaws...

I can bet ANY money that 99% of amateur players cannot "use" the 390g frame in the match play and would be MUCH more effective with a 340g frame. THey believe they can do it, I believed I could do it with a 360g frame and I am playing a level higher now with a 330g frame...

BreakPoint · Jul 21, 2011

dr325i said:
The guy knows nothing about tennis and math...so far he proved that.
The more he posts here (and he's done it a lot), the more he shows his flaws...

I can bet ANY money that 99% of amateur players cannot "use" the 390g frame in the match play and would be MUCH more effective with a 340g frame. THey believe they can do it, I believed I could do it with a 360g frame and I am playing a level higher now with a 330g frame...

Yeah, you're right. I know absolutely nothing about tennis and math. Which means I know 100 times more about both tennis and math than you do.

CDestroyer · Jul 21, 2011

dr325i said:
The guy knows nothing about tennis and math...so far he proved that.
The more he posts here (and he's done it a lot), the more he shows his flaws...

I can bet ANY money that 99% of amateur players cannot "use" the 390g frame in the match play and would be MUCH more effective with a 340g frame. THey believe they can do it, I believed I could do it with a 360g frame and I am playing a level higher now with a 330g frame...

I totally agree with your asessment of 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 level players will for the most part play a higher quality match with a 330g frame than a 390g frame.

BP just likes to argue and get the last word in. He wont admit when he is wrong, thinks he knows everything about everything, and he is frequently wrong.

Power Player · Jul 21, 2011

Venetian said:
"Handle" and "play effective, competitive modern tennis with" are two different things.

Exactly. Thank you sir.

BreakPoint · Jul 21, 2011

CDestroyer said:
I totally agree with your asessment of 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 level players will for the most part play a higher quality match with a 330g frame than a 390g frame.

Only if you want to run side to side along the baseline all day long hitting the ball back and forth like a pusher instead of crushing the ball with one shot and winning the point outright.

CDestroyer said:
BP just likes to argue and get the last word in. He wont admit when he is wrong, thinks he knows everything about everything, and he is frequently wrong.

Yet, no one has yet been able to prove it. :-?

BreakPoint · Jul 21, 2011

Venetian said:
"Handle" and "play effective, competitive modern tennis with" are two different things.

But who said everyone has to necessarily play "modern tennis" to win?

McEnroe still plays his ultra-old-school style of tennis and can still beat 99% of his opponents that play "modern tennis". :shock:

CDestroyer · Jul 21, 2011

And he is full of himself. Real cool dude.

BreakPoint · Jul 21, 2011

ssonosk said:
It's just an plain heavy racquet, it would probably be like hitting with a k90 but with a 95 head size

Have you ever played with a PS 6.0 95? That racquet is not heavy at all. It's only about 12.5oz. (354g) strung with overgrip and is so headlight that it swings like a feather.

ssonosk · Jul 21, 2011

BreakPoint said:
Have you ever played with a PS 6.0 95? That racquet is not heavy at all. It's only about 12.5oz. (354g) strung with overgrip and is so headlight that it swings like a feather.

12.5 is heavy now a days, A lot of racquets are around the 10-11 area.

BreakPoint · Jul 21, 2011

ssonosk said:
12.5 is heavy now a days, A lot of racquets are around the 10-11 area.

So then you haven't played with a PS 6.0 95? Because it swings like a 11.5 or lighter racquet.

Power Player · Jul 21, 2011

I hit with the stars and stripes PS85 and it reminded me of my prestige mid which is 12.5.

Wilson Prostaff 6.0 95 as a modern racket?

Hall of Fame

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Legend

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Professional

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Professional

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Professional

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Similar threads