Bagumbawalla
Talk Tennis Guru
Here is an odd racket I found. It is a Mitt "Rocker system". 7cross strings on each side have little, metal see-saw like "rockers" that don't really seem to do much at all.
Best items you found at thrift stores (Goodwill)?
- Thread starter flashfire276
- Start date
kevin qmto
Legend
Wilson saw that and said "Let's make em rollers, like a pully system, people will love that!" but people didn't love it. maybe the rockers work better?
mixtape
Hall of Fame
Interesting. Are they plastic or metal rockers? Reminds me of the Pro Kennex APW system.
Bagumbawalla
Talk Tennis Guru
They are metal- stainless steel. I think.
Here are some on the bridge that are easier to see.
Bagumbawalla
Talk Tennis Guru
Here is another gimmicky racket I found- a ProKennex Ti ASM (asymmetrical) racket. starting from the yoke, one side gets progressively wider moving toward the tip, the other side starts out wide and narrows toward the tip.
Bagumbawalla
Talk Tennis Guru
vsbabolat
Talk Tennis Guru
I remember those. A lady at my club used them. She was terrible
Sanglier
Professional
The inventors of the rocker system initially worked with Karakal, which marketed a racquet in 1986 featuring these things. Karakal's US office was based in Oxnard, where the inventors also lived (it's possible that they had prior ties to Karakal, but I never looked into it). Mitt took over the idea almost a decade later.
I don't see how these Rock(er)'n Roll(er) gimmicks can possibly work as intended. They are based on the assumption that the strings will move under tension, creating a softer and more progressive load by recruiting the adjacent strings via the rockers or rollers. However, unless the ball strikes only one string at a time, this kind of movement can't happen, as such movement requires the adjacent string(s) to have some give in the opposite direction, which is effectively impossible when both strings are struck at the same time. Only the last string at the edge of the contact zone is marginally free to move like this (while pulling all the orthogonal strings that combine to resist this movement through sharply increased friction and tension during ball impact), but this is also the string that does the least amount of work. The strings that matter - those doing the bulk of the work in the middle of the contact zone - don't move at all, as their movement via the rockers/rollers is cancelled by a comparable tug in the opposite direction (i.e., isometric force) by the string(s) immediately next to them. Therefore, while these things look funky and add cost and complexity to the production process, they behave exactly like a conventional racquet during use; which is probably why the idea came and went multiple times under slightly different guises, but never managed to stick.
I don't see how these Rock(er)'n Roll(er) gimmicks can possibly work as intended. They are based on the assumption that the strings will move under tension, creating a softer and more progressive load by recruiting the adjacent strings via the rockers or rollers. However, unless the ball strikes only one string at a time, this kind of movement can't happen, as such movement requires the adjacent string(s) to have some give in the opposite direction, which is effectively impossible when both strings are struck at the same time. Only the last string at the edge of the contact zone is marginally free to move like this (while pulling all the orthogonal strings that combine to resist this movement through sharply increased friction and tension during ball impact), but this is also the string that does the least amount of work. The strings that matter - those doing the bulk of the work in the middle of the contact zone - don't move at all, as their movement via the rockers/rollers is cancelled by a comparable tug in the opposite direction (i.e., isometric force) by the string(s) immediately next to them. Therefore, while these things look funky and add cost and complexity to the production process, they behave exactly like a conventional racquet during use; which is probably why the idea came and went multiple times under slightly different guises, but never managed to stick.
Last edited:
Sanglier
Professional
It occurred to me as I was writing the post above that a rocker/roller system CAN work as intended if it's combined with my experimental dual bed string pattern, inspired by the 1909 Mass et Cie double-strung compound racquet discussed in the ancient history thread (where I originally posted the photo below). When a racquet is strung like this, the adjacent strings are on separate string beds; there would be no interference between them. When one string bed is impacted by the ball, the opposite side would be acting purely as a shock absorber and spring rebounder due to the rockers/rollers! This was the final leap that all those earlier rock'n-rollers failed to take to escape from their dead end ideas.
Needlessly complicated? Yes. Totally pointless solution in search of a problem? Certainly. Potential manna from heaven for those who have been starving for the weird and unusual since 1989? Hallelu-heck-YEH!
All we need now is someone wealthy enough and (perhaps more importantly) ignorant enough to finance this project so that he/she can lose everything in the end, just to infuse ecstatic joy into the lives of 5 or 6 late-middle-aged men around the world.
Needlessly complicated? Yes. Totally pointless solution in search of a problem? Certainly. Potential manna from heaven for those who have been starving for the weird and unusual since 1989? Hallelu-heck-YEH!
All we need now is someone wealthy enough and (perhaps more importantly) ignorant enough to finance this project so that he/she can lose everything in the end, just to infuse ecstatic joy into the lives of 5 or 6 late-middle-aged men around the world.
kevin qmto
Legend
Is that a Gamma Accura?
Bagumbawalla
Talk Tennis Guru
Here is another racket with that criss-cross stringing pattern- Mizuno Reactor 12.1oz- actually hits nicely.
Last edited:
Sanglier
Professional
It is an unmarked frame that I got from a member here, and is very similar to the Mizuno Reactor, so it is in all probability a Mizuno play test racquet of some sort. The beam profile is slightly different compared to the Reactor, and the bridge is of a completely different design, with eight staggered holes instead of six in-line ones. The latter allowed me to fully separate the two string beds from top to bottom.
I played with my home-made weirdo for all of two minutes. It felt more than a little unsettling, as you can imagine. The strings are too far apart to provide consistent control and stress distribution, as I had effectively halved the number of strings in contact with the ball compared to what the designers had intended. However, I think the concept is workable if the racquet had been properly drilled for it, as it basically achieved the same effect as that seen on those unusual designs where the strings are wrapped on the outside of the frame, only this more conventional way of routing the strings might be easier to handle on a typical 6-point machine. If rockers or rollers were integrated into the design, then wrapping the strings on the outside would have required the installation of larger rockers and rollers; which would not only result in a more significant weight penalty, but also obviate the single biggest advantage of such designs - the avoidance of putting holes in the frame!
So, if someone were to try this for real, they should start from the Reactor frame or similar; increase hole density by perhaps 50% in the central part of the string bed (doing it across the entire string bed would add too much weight to the frame by the time the extra strings and additional reinforcements are factored in); install rockers/rollers only for the strike zone, where they can do actual work, while also playing a secondary role as a form of PWS; shave off material wherever they can to keep the whole thing from becoming pathologically head heavy (and just plain heavy); ask a chat bot to come up with a cool name and produce some AI slop ad (because there will be no money left to license "I love rock'n roll"); then sit back and watch these racquets stay firmly planted on the shelves, after Mr Rodracquet has excitedly shared his new discovery with us here and on FB. If this were to happen, twenty years hence, someone will post one in this thread on page 350, a rare find in NOS condition picked up just outside of St Louis.
retrowagen
Hall of Fame
Sounds like a similar experiment I undertook a few years ago, to explore the trendy world of open pattern stringing… https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/take-a-banana-peel-to-a-gun-fight.553112/It is an unmarked frame that I got from a member here, and is very similar to the Mizuno Reactor, so it is in all probability a Mizuno play test racquet of some sort. The beam profile is slightly different compared to the Reactor, and the bridge is of a completely different design, with eight staggered holes instead of six in-line ones. The latter allowed me to fully separate the two string beds from top to bottom.
I played with my home-made weirdo for all of two minutes. It felt more than a little unsettling, as you can imagine. The strings are too far apart to provide consistent control and stress distribution, as I had effectively halved the number of strings in contact with the ball compared to what the designers had intended. However, I think the concept is workable if the racquet had been properly drilled for it, as it basically achieved the same effect as that seen on those unusual designs where the strings are wrapped on the outside of the frame, only this more conventional way of routing the strings might be easier to handle on a typical 6-point machine. If rockers or rollers were integrated into the design, then wrapping the strings on the outside would have required the installation of larger rockers and rollers; which would not only result in a more significant weight penalty, but also obviate the single biggest advantage of such designs - the avoidance of putting holes in the frame!
So, if someone were to try this for real, they should start from the Reactor frame or similar; increase hole density by perhaps 50% in the central part of the string bed (doing it across the entire string bed would add too much weight to the frame by the time the extra strings and additional reinforcements are factored in); install rockers/rollers only for the strike zone, where they can do actual work, while also playing a secondary role as a form of PWS; shave off material wherever they can to keep the whole thing from becoming pathologically head heavy (and just plain heavy); ask a chat bot to come up with a cool name and produce some AI slop ad (because there will be no money left to license "I love rock'n roll"); then sit back and watch these racquets stay firmly planted on the shelves, after Mr Rodracquet has excitedly shared his new discovery with us here and on FB. If this were to happen, twenty years hence, someone will post one in this thread on page 350, a rare find in NOS condition picked up just outside of St Louis.
kevin qmto
Legend
man if I die unexpectedly, the goodwill nearest to my house will have rackets for decades lol.It is an unmarked frame that I got from a member here, and is very similar to the Mizuno Reactor, so it is in all probability a Mizuno play test racquet of some sort. The beam profile is slightly different compared to the Reactor, and the bridge is of a completely different design, with eight staggered holes instead of six in-line ones. The latter allowed me to fully separate the two string beds from top to bottom.
I played with my home-made weirdo for all of two minutes. It felt more than a little unsettling, as you can imagine. The strings are too far apart to provide consistent control and stress distribution, as I had effectively halved the number of strings in contact with the ball compared to what the designers had intended. However, I think the concept is workable if the racquet had been properly drilled for it, as it basically achieved the same effect as that seen on those unusual designs where the strings are wrapped on the outside of the frame, only this more conventional way of routing the strings might be easier to handle on a typical 6-point machine. If rockers or rollers were integrated into the design, then wrapping the strings on the outside would have required the installation of larger rockers and rollers; which would not only result in a more significant weight penalty, but also obviate the single biggest advantage of such designs - the avoidance of putting holes in the frame!
So, if someone were to try this for real, they should start from the Reactor frame or similar; increase hole density by perhaps 50% in the central part of the string bed (doing it across the entire string bed would add too much weight to the frame by the time the extra strings and additional reinforcements are factored in); install rockers/rollers only for the strike zone, where they can do actual work, while also playing a secondary role as a form of PWS; shave off material wherever they can to keep the whole thing from becoming pathologically head heavy (and just plain heavy); ask a chat bot to come up with a cool name and produce some AI slop ad (because there will be no money left to license "I love rock'n roll"); then sit back and watch these racquets stay firmly planted on the shelves, after Mr Rodracquet has excitedly shared his new discovery with us here and on FB. If this were to happen, twenty years hence, someone will post one in this thread on page 350, a rare find in NOS condition picked up just outside of St Louis.
kevin qmto
Legend
Here's a frame I rescued from going in the trash due to its degraded rubber coating turning into a shiny, sticky mess, and nightmarishly difficult to remove. A Wilson Hammer 6 from 2005 I believe (Buttcap code GHW)? This is the 3rd frame I've tried to remove this sort of coating from, and every time I curse the 'designer' not the engineer who decided those rubberized coatings were appropriate for this, or any application. Of the three frames I've attempted this sort of removal process on in the past, this has been the toughest one to clean. (the other two were the Volkl Catapult 6, and the Dunlop Hotmelt 200g) Whatever coating Wilson used here simply laughed at Goo Gone, it had no effect except making the whole frame slicker than an oil soaked banana peel. Goof-Off seemed to have some effect on the coating when rubbed with a paper towel, but it seemed to smear it around more than remove it outright. The winning play, if I can call it one, was to use the abrasive side of an old dish sponge (an older sponge that is less coarse than a new one, which might've scratched the frames finish) soaked with Goof-Off, scrubbing vigorously and eventually it would start to come off entirely. Like all projects of toil and tedium, even when it's finished, it's never, ever worth it, but the sunk cost effect of sinking all this time into the process compells me to finish. This frames specs aren't really what I like, though I am curious how such a light frame got a 6.0 S.I rating, light and flexy? Sounds like @teachingprotx has another racket to buy. This whole mid 2000's Hammer Line is a bit odd. It consists of the Hammers 4, 5, 6, 7, and Tour, and all of them are quite light in weight, but unlike Hammers of past, they're barely Head Heavy, which historically was the whole point of them being Hammers in the first place. The most head heavy of the lot is the 4, at 3.4pts. The Hammer 6 is only 2.8pts, the 7 is only 0.2pts, and the Tour isn't even Head Heavy at all! Why is it a Hammer lol?
Anyways it's hard to dig up any old threads about this line when it was new on these boards, evidently it wasn't on many peoples radar back then. Onto the pics.
FB Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1627103527677645/permalink/3329311114123536/
Anyways it's hard to dig up any old threads about this line when it was new on these boards, evidently it wasn't on many peoples radar back then. Onto the pics.
FB Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1627103527677645/permalink/3329311114123536/
Last edited:
Grafil Injection
Legend
Acetone (nail varnish remover without any perfume) sometimes works better, but don't blame me if the paint smears!
Hammer (inc HyperHammer and Sledgehammer) rackets from the 1990s were super HH, but by the mid-2000s they knew that people didn't like the pain in their forearm it caused, so they winded it back to more modest levels. Plus, being extended it will already be fairly powerful.
6.0 SI equates to around 68ra, so it's fairly stiff.
Hammer (inc HyperHammer and Sledgehammer) rackets from the 1990s were super HH, but by the mid-2000s they knew that people didn't like the pain in their forearm it caused, so they winded it back to more modest levels. Plus, being extended it will already be fairly powerful.
6.0 SI equates to around 68ra, so it's fairly stiff.
kevin qmto
Legend
paint smear was what I was worried about. To me, it would all be pointless if the finish got ruined in the process. Overall, the process took me about an hour and a half of scrubbing and periodically having to scrub the sponge to get the accumulated gunk out of it. I also added lead strips to every bevel so now this example is only 1pt HH and weighs 306g strung.
Bagumbawalla
Talk Tennis Guru
Found this Fox "Super Fox" racket a while back. It is a made in USA racket back- I suppose back from when rackets came with cover
Last edited:
teachingprotx
Legend
Did I hear light .. did I hear flexy …..Here's a frame I rescued from going in the trash due to its degraded rubber coating turning into a shiny, sticky mess, and nightmarishly difficult to remove. A Wilson Hammer 6 from 2005 I believe (Buttcap code GHW)? This is the 3rd frame I've tried to remove this sort of coating from, and every time I curse the 'designer' not the engineer who decided those rubberized coatings were appropriate for this, or any application. Of the three frames I've attempted this sort of removal process on in the past, this has been the toughest one to clean. (the other two were the Volkl Catapult 6, and the Dunlop Hotmelt 200g) Whatever coating Wilson used here simply laughed at Goo Gone, it had no effect except making the whole frame slicker than an oil soaked banana peel. Goof-Off seemed to have some effect on the coating when rubbed with a paper towel, but it seemed to smear it around more than remove it outright. The winning play, if I can call it one, was to use the abrasive side of an old dish sponge (an older sponge that is less coarse than a new one, which might've scratched the frames finish) soaked with Goof-Off, scrubbing vigorously and eventually it would start to come off entirely. Like all projects of toil and tedium, even when it's finished, it's never, ever worth it, but the sunk cost effect of sinking all this time into the process compells me to finish. This frames specs aren't really what I like, though I am curious how such a light frame got a 6.0 S.I rating, light and flexy? Sounds like @teachingprotx has another racket to buy. This whole mid 2000's Hammer Line is a bit odd. It consists of the Hammers 4, 5, 6, 7, and Tour, and all of them are quite light in weight, but unlike Hammers of past, they're barely Head Heavy, which historically was the whole point of them being Hammers in the first place. The most head heavy of the lot is the 4, at 3.4pts. The Hammer 6 is only 2.8pts, the 7 is only 0.2pts, and the Tour isn't even Head Heavy at all! Why is it a Hammer lol?
Anyways it's hard to dig up any old threads about this line when it was new on these boards, evidently it wasn't on many peoples radar back then. Onto the pics.
FB Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1627103527677645/permalink/3329311114123536/
what would you guess this hammer to be as far as stiffness son !?
kevin qmto
Legend
I'll let you know if its actually flexy when I finally hit with it. I just found it odd that a lightweight Hammer series frame had the same 6.0 SI number as say, a midsize Prostaff.
kevin qmto
Legend
That's super cool and I love the color!
teachingprotx
Legend
Dude exactly my sentiments . I bet it’s a low 60’s RA.. I’m feeling it ..
kevin qmto
Legend
Ok reporting back after hitting with it for 30 mins. It is light, however it isn’t flexy. But, it is fairly low powered. Initially I thought Wilson’s designation of it as a 6.0 “for players who generate their own power” type of frame was weird considering it’s light weight, but nope, it’s accurate. Not my type of frame but I know what to do to get good shots from it.
I’ll say this, I like it better than the Pro Staff Titanium 6.6. That thing is rock hard and strung stiff as a board. Was borderline painful to hit with and I put it away after 15 mins. When it comes to thicker beamed Pro Staff frames I’ll stick to the Hyper PS 5.0 thank you very much.
Edit- further update, I just noticed a brand new example of the Hammer 6 listed on the bay, but the placard looked far more modern than 2005, and the paint job is slightly different and simplified. I PM'd the poster and asked what the copyright date on the placard was and surprisingly they didn't tell me to buy the item if I wanted to find out, and they said 2018. Actually a few retailers have the H6 listed in stock right now. So, I guess this frame is another one Wilson brought back for some reason, probably for a "what have we got to recycle for big box stores?" meeting. I'm curious if the specs are the same, and if they still bothered putting that rubberized coating on it. It wouldn't surprise me if they did, since they're doing it on other frames still.
Last edited:
Bagumbawalla
Talk Tennis Guru
Found this- it's a Wright and Ditson Criterion model. The stringing is unusual with strings converging to share holes. Also, it looks like the handle has been carved out to help grip the 5" circumference. It has gut strings and weighs 13.0oz.
bobeeto
Hall of Fame
This paint job is incredible. How did we lose this art of graphic utilizationOk well the Rok sunk like a well... you know. But I can't expect eveyone to have some comment on every frame ever, sometimes its just a stick. Probably why Wilson never made the Rok a mainstay of the PS lineup.
So lets try another flavor of Wilson from around the same time. Hyper Hammer 5.9 in a nice matte paint job that isn't the dumb rubberized finish they've unfortunately decided to start using again despite its known deterioration issues that I doubt have been resolved. I decided to add some lead strips to the grip to make it a little less head heavy, taking it from 9pts HH to only 1pt HH at 304g strung. Condition is excellent, it was a goodwill find so only $4.92.
FB Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1627103527677645/permalink/3299139170474064/
kevin qmto
Legend
Because for some reason every corporate entity thinks solid colors and flat logos with no gradients are all the rage now. Like anything, in 10-15 years all the logos and trends of today will look horribly dated. but even in this moment I really dislike this oversimplified logo hell and design scape we find ourselves living in.
Not like this Salvation Army Prince Graphtech DB 90 though, no they knew what a nice fade and gradient would do to a frame, and it's silver and gold highlights do quite nicely for itself here. It's about the 4th DB frame I've picked up, and I don't think I've hit with any of them yet. This is another frame that borrows the Prince CTS design aesthetic but isn't a CTS itself.
FB Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1627103527677645/permalink/3338319246556056/
Grafil Injection
Legend
Crazy to think Prince designed the Graphtech DB in 1988, alongside the Tricomp and the first CTSs. They look more modern today than most Princes after 1993.
kevin qmto
Legend
I noticed that too, finally yellowing makes something look better for a change.
Grafil Injection
Legend
For a split second I thought it was a 30, but I can't really complain about finding a Pro Tour 690 for £1, including cover! Dropped on half a Korok hockey-stick grip from Decathlon (18g), and it's ready to go:
The previous owner must have over-tensioned the mains as it measures just 67.75cm long, which I guess reduces the swing-weight by about 10pts. Still feels nice a solid though at 342g, 32.5cm balance. Lovely flexible feeling and much more connection than with a POG OS for example. Does this model and the similar Bumblebee OS have a PT code, or do they only exist for the mid-plus sticks?
The previous owner must have over-tensioned the mains as it measures just 67.75cm long, which I guess reduces the swing-weight by about 10pts. Still feels nice a solid though at 342g, 32.5cm balance. Lovely flexible feeling and much more connection than with a POG OS for example. Does this model and the similar Bumblebee OS have a PT code, or do they only exist for the mid-plus sticks?
Last edited:
kevin qmto
Legend
Same thing happened to my Prestige Tour 300 and Ti Radical OS. Something about Head OS players frames of the late 90s, seems like they're all prone to slight warping from stringing.For a split second I thought it was a 30, but I can't really complain about finding a Pro Tour 690 for £1, including cover! Dropped on half a Karok hockey-stick grip from Decathlon (18g), and it's ready to go:
The previous owner must have over-tensioned the mains as it measures just 67.75cm long, which I guess reduces the swing-weight by about 10pts. Still feels nice a solid though at 342g, 32.5cm balance. Lovely flexible feeling and much more connection than with a POG OS for example. Does this model and the similar Bumblebee OS have a PT code, or do they only exist for the mid-plus sticks?
Grafil Injection
Legend
My Prestige Tour 600 is crushed the other way by a good 0.5cm too. I see it as a 'feature', which allows you to select your preferred SW vs TW setting. It's quite nice to serve with a 69cm PT600.
Last edited:
Grafil Injection
Legend
Such a lovely condition A-Player Mid, with its smoky graphite facings and embossed leather grip. I also noticed that the glossy lacquer coating is so thick, it handles like they've rolled the edges too. So sad it has 5-6mm warp, which I guess explains its light use. I think Dunlop / Kunnan Lo should have made these with 18mm beams like the Dunlop English wood composites, rather than 16.5mm. Oh well, it's still useable, and hits fine at 378g, 32.5cm balance. Not too bad for £2.50.
Last edited:
kevin qmto
Legend
I have the other cosmetic for the A-Player with more red highlights. Do we know which came first? Or were they sold at the same time, just available in two colorways?Such a lovely condition A-Player Mid, with its smoky graphite facings and embossed leather grip. I also noticed that the glossy lacquer coating is so thick, it handles like they've rolled the edges too. So sad it has 5-6mm warp, which I guess explains its light use. I think Dunlop / Kunnan Lo should have made these with 18mm beams like the English wood composites, rather than 16.5mm. Oh well, it's still useable, and hits fine at 378g, 32.5cm balance. Not too bad for £2.50.
Grafil Injection
Legend
I am not sure, but after a bit of research I'd guess the red one was later, because I noticed that on the GBtennis Museum red model the layup seems to have been improved to include Hardwood.
Whereas, in my presumably earlier model, the crazy use of 'Soft Maple' is listed. Unless soft maple was just renamed hardwood, I'm thinking they found something a little stronger for the red model.
Shaolin
Talk Tennis Guru
Such a lovely condition A-Player Mid, with its smoky graphite facings and embossed leather grip. I also noticed that the glossy lacquer coating is so thick, it handles like they've rolled the edges too. So sad it has 5-6mm warp, which I guess explains its light use. I think Dunlop / Kunnan Lo should have made these with 18mm beams like the Dunlop English wood composites, rather than 16.5mm. Oh well, it's still useable, and hits fine at 378g, 32.5cm balance. Not too bad for £2.50.
Beautiful.
