flanker2000fr
Hall of Fame
I've been on a bit of a rampage recently acquiring a number of old Kneissl White Star racquets and its variations (Masters, Red Star, Pro etc.), and to be complete this collection needed to include the Adidas frames derived from the same mold.
I used to play successively the GTX Pro, Boron and then Pro-T as a teenager in the 80's, and in my memories the Pro-T was playing somewhat differently than the Pro and the Boron. Hence I was always intrigued when reading, on this board and elsewhere, that they had the same composition with different graphics.
Since I just got both models, I thought it would be interesting to share my own findings on this topic, for the benefit of the 5 people who actually still care about this.
First of all, the specs:
- they both come in a L4 configuration, to which I added an overgrip and the same dampener so from that standpoint they are comparable, both coming at around 380g (yup, that's about 13.5 oz)
- the comparison is not 100% accurate since I got the GTX Pro strung at 22kg with a Babolat Origin 130/16, while the Pro-T came on a nylon I could not identify and, judging by the sound, is strung higher (probably around 24kg)
Then, how they played:
- the GTX Pro plays very stiff (not as much as the Boron, but that's a different topic), with a lot of high frequency vibrations despite the dampener. It is very, very hard on the arm, even with the reasonable tension on a comfortable string
- the GTX Pro-T doesn't have these vibrations, at least not with the dampener. Despite the higher string tension, it has a bit more flex, feels more rubbery and overall much more pleasant. I was surprised how much more pop I got out of it, especially when going for flat forehands. I can't discard that the string might have something to do with this
At this stage, these are all anecdotal evidences pointing to a different composition and / or layup, so perhaps the next part is more telling:
- these being used racquets, the paint has chipped in places on the top of the head, consistent with where you'd expect court rashes
- this reveals two distinctive compositions. The Pro is essentially white, which points to a high fiberglass content. The Pro-T is very dark grey, almost black, pointing to a high percentage of graphite / carbon fibres
Pictures being better than 1,000 words, see for yourself:
Pro
Pro
Pro-T
Pro-T
Short of talking to the production manager in charge of the manufacturing line at the time the Pro-T replaced the Pro, one cannot be 100% affirmative that these are two different racquets sharing the same mold. But based on what I describe above, it would appear so.
I hope that this was useful and that you enjoyed it. If I am not too lazy, I will post a comparative review of how all of these frames play, the Adidas as well as the Kneissl's.
I used to play successively the GTX Pro, Boron and then Pro-T as a teenager in the 80's, and in my memories the Pro-T was playing somewhat differently than the Pro and the Boron. Hence I was always intrigued when reading, on this board and elsewhere, that they had the same composition with different graphics.
Since I just got both models, I thought it would be interesting to share my own findings on this topic, for the benefit of the 5 people who actually still care about this.
First of all, the specs:
- they both come in a L4 configuration, to which I added an overgrip and the same dampener so from that standpoint they are comparable, both coming at around 380g (yup, that's about 13.5 oz)
- the comparison is not 100% accurate since I got the GTX Pro strung at 22kg with a Babolat Origin 130/16, while the Pro-T came on a nylon I could not identify and, judging by the sound, is strung higher (probably around 24kg)
Then, how they played:
- the GTX Pro plays very stiff (not as much as the Boron, but that's a different topic), with a lot of high frequency vibrations despite the dampener. It is very, very hard on the arm, even with the reasonable tension on a comfortable string
- the GTX Pro-T doesn't have these vibrations, at least not with the dampener. Despite the higher string tension, it has a bit more flex, feels more rubbery and overall much more pleasant. I was surprised how much more pop I got out of it, especially when going for flat forehands. I can't discard that the string might have something to do with this
At this stage, these are all anecdotal evidences pointing to a different composition and / or layup, so perhaps the next part is more telling:
- these being used racquets, the paint has chipped in places on the top of the head, consistent with where you'd expect court rashes
- this reveals two distinctive compositions. The Pro is essentially white, which points to a high fiberglass content. The Pro-T is very dark grey, almost black, pointing to a high percentage of graphite / carbon fibres
Pictures being better than 1,000 words, see for yourself:
Pro
Pro
Pro-T
Pro-T
Short of talking to the production manager in charge of the manufacturing line at the time the Pro-T replaced the Pro, one cannot be 100% affirmative that these are two different racquets sharing the same mold. But based on what I describe above, it would appear so.
I hope that this was useful and that you enjoyed it. If I am not too lazy, I will post a comparative review of how all of these frames play, the Adidas as well as the Kneissl's.
