Co-Classics

Sanglier

Professional
This sub-forum doesn't have enough frivolous and borderline off-topic threads, hence I feel compelled to contribute a new one.

There was a period when manufacturers routinely co-marketed products for different racquet sports, made using the same technology, sharing similar features, and often clad in comparable paint jobs. As my infatuation with the history of racquet development had a relatively late onset, I only became aware of many of those non-tennis offerings until recent years, usually as a result of encountering them in a thrift shop or on fleabay. Here are a few that I was intrigued enough to pick up, but I know there are many more out there (Wilson and Head products are probably the most frequently encountered examples, but there are some weird and rare ones as well). If anyone here has other interesting examples in their collection, please share!

The Leach frames below are the oldest pairing I have. Unlike the other units in this post, Leach racquetball racquets are as common as dirt, and it is possibly the only instance in which a racquetball manufacturer tried to scale up their product to meet tennis requirements. As many earlier threads had already made abundantly clear, this effort was an unmitigated disaster, and a mercifully brief one.

M271fhq.jpg



As many of you know, Prince acquired Ektelon in 1987, the latter has been the de facto racquetball division of Prince ever since. What is less well known is that Prince had considered selling racquetball racquets under their own brand prior to that point, probably at around the time they bought Grafalloy. Here is one such product from that period. I don't think I've ever seen these racquets marketed in the US.

af00Af4.jpg



Fox only made tennis racquets when their production was US-based, so the Taiwan-sourced "RB-110" in the middle is more of a descendant of the two US racquets than an actual sibling. Indeed, if the WB-210 and WB-215 pictured below had a white baby together, this is basically how it would look. As an aside, some of you might recognize this particular WB-210 as one of Brad Gilbert's personal frames (yellow terrycloth grip, Bosworth-applied lead strips). It was buried among hundreds of filthy racquets discovered by a construction worker while clearing a large house once inhabited by a hoarder. The worker told me he trashed hundreds of racquets with the rest of the disgusting junk, until more were unearthed from beneath the refuse, at which point he decided to gather up what's left in giant trash bags and put them on OfferUp in 'as found' condition. Someone had already dug through those trash bags and picked out all the good stuff by the time I got to the scene, but that early bird either was not a fan of Gilbert's or was too repulsed by the terrycloth grip to touch the WB-210. The grip was more sallow than yellow before I cleaned it. Given how close this frame came to death, I couldn't help but wonder if there were other gems that now lie buried in a landfill somewhere!

S6jerem.jpg
 
Last edited:

Saul Goode

Semi-Pro
Nice! I have one set in my collection that falls in this category: the Wilson Profile 2.7 OS (what a tank that is!) and a corresponding Profile squash racquet, which has a slightly less wide cross section. It’s practically new, with the grip still plastic-wrapped, and with the head size of its time, it looks somewhat like the infamous Prince God Racquet.
 

graycrait

Legend
I had a Carbon Flight I picked up somewhere and let it go for some unknown reason 8-10 yrs ago. More recently I had a Fox 210 Target but nothing about that racket intrigued me other than than the hoop. I gave that away this Christmas along with 15 other rackets, including my "snowshoes."
 

Autodidactic player

Professional
I had a Carbon Flight I picked up somewhere and let it go for some unknown reason 8-10 yrs ago. More recently I had a Fox 210 Target but nothing about that racket intrigued me other than than the hoop. I gave that away this Christmas along with 15 other rackets, including my "snowshoes."

That Carbon Flite is a rare and fragile beast. After all the horror stories I've heard about them snapping in the middle of a stroke, I haven't had the courage to play with mine. Apparently, the racketball version didn't have the same issues. Probably why one is as common as dirt and the other as rare as hens teeth! ;)
 

graycrait

Legend
Nice! I have one set in my collection that falls in this category: the Wilson Profile 2.7 OS (what a tank that is!) and a corresponding Profile squash racquet, which has a slightly less wide cross section. It’s practically new, with the grip still plastic-wrapped, and with the head size of its time, it looks somewhat like the infamous Prince God Racquet.
I think that racket is @Shroud 's holy grail.
 

Shroud

G.O.A.T.
I think that racket is @Shroud 's holy grail.
It is in terms of stiffness. Though its too heavy to add the weight I normally do. My shoulder read on the internet that 422g is too much and wont play now. My kick serve saw the comment on my kick serve vid practice that it weighs too much to have a good kick serve and now refuses to play.

Its not exactly the weight its that its too headlight. If they made it a hammer and a bit narrower beam it would be perfect.
 

Sanglier

Professional
Adding some new entrants to my frivolous parade. One pair from Bonny's "Snaky" series, another pair from WinSport. The latter are marked "Made in England", but I have reason to believe they began life in the US.

Both designs embody creative solutions that are in search of a problem. In the case of the WinSport, the solution itself created some major structural problems that didn't exist before; which actually made things worse. However, there is also no denying that these crazy creations make for visually interesting displays. :)

kuytNP4.jpg


MTgpips.jpg
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
This sub-forum doesn't have enough frivolous and borderline off-topic threads, hence I feel compelled to contribute a new one.

There was a period when manufacturers routinely co-marketed products for different racquet sports, made using the same technology, sharing similar features, and often clad in comparable paint jobs. As my infatuation with the history of racquet development had a relatively late onset, I only became aware of many of those non-tennis offerings until recent years, usually as a result of encountering them in a thrift shop or on fleabay. Here are a few that I was intrigued enough to pick up, but I know there are many more out there (Wilson and Head products are probably the most frequently encountered examples, but there are some weird and rare ones as well). If anyone here has other interesting examples in their collection, please share!

The Leach frames below are the oldest pairing I have. Unlike the other units in this post, Leach racquetball racquets are as common as dirt, and it is possibly the only instance in which a racquetball manufacturer tried to scale up their product to meet tennis requirements. As many earlier threads had already made abundantly clear, this effort was an unmitigated disaster, and a mercifully brief one.

M271fhq.jpg



As many of you know, Prince acquired Ektelon in 1987, the latter has been the de facto racquetball division of Prince ever since. What is less well known is that Prince had considered selling racquetball racquets under their own brand prior to that point, probably at around the time they bought Grafalloy. Here is one such product from that period. I don't think I've ever seen these racquets marketed in the US.

af00Af4.jpg



Fox only made tennis racquets when their production was US-based, so the Taiwan-sourced "RB-110" in the middle is more of a descendant of the two US racquets than an actual sibling. Indeed, if the WB-210 and WB-215 pictured below had a white baby together, this is basically how it would look. As an aside, some of you might recognize this particular WB-210 as one of Brad Gilbert's personal frames (yellow terrycloth grip, Bosworth-applied lead strips). It was buried among hundreds of filthy racquets discovered by a construction worker while clearing a large house once inhabited by a hoarder. The worker told me he trashed hundreds of racquets with the rest of the disgusting junk, until more were unearthed from beneath the refuse, at which point he decided to gather up what's left in giant trash bags and put them on OfferUp in 'as found' condition. Someone had already dug through those trash bags and picked out all the good stuff by the time I got to the scene, but that early bird either was not a fan of Gilbert's or was too repulsed by the terrycloth grip to touch the WB-210. The grip was more sallow than yellow before I cleaned it. Given how close this frame came to death, I couldn't help but wonder if there were other gems that now lie buried in a landfill somewhere!

S6jerem.jpg
Don’t forget the Dunlop IMF squash racquets that used the exact same paint job as the tennis racquets.
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
Adding some new entrants to my frivolous parade. One pair from Bonny's "Snaky" series, another pair from WinSport. The latter are marked "Made in England", but I have reason to believe they began life in the US.

Both designs embody creative solutions that are in search of a problem. In the case of the WinSport, the solution itself created some major structural problems that didn't exist before; which actually made things worse. However, there is also no denying that these crazy creations make for visually interesting displays. :)

kuytNP4.jpg


MTgpips.jpg
So are the ones on the right are squash racquets? Badminton?
 

Sanglier

Professional
So are the ones on the right are squash racquets? Badminton?

Both of these are squash racquets. However, the WinSport unit came in a cover that said "Badminton", so they might have made a badminton version as well, though I can't imagine what they could have expected to gain by adding all that complexity and extra weight to a badminton racquet.
 

retrowagen

Hall of Fame
Those Bonny frames are almost comical... sort of look like what Wavex was thinking, but taken beyond the waypoint of “reasonably odd” to the station of “too weird.”

I can’t help but see the original Wilson Javelin 95 , mashed up with the aluminum Wilson Sting—edited with a hacksaw—in the Winsport tennis racquet there!
 
Last edited:

Sanglier

Professional
I can’t help but see the original Wilson Javelin 95 , madhed up with the aluminum Wilson Sting—edited with a hacksaw—in the Winsport tennis racquet there!

That's basically what it is! And what you would expect to see happen to the hacked Wilson is exactly what actually happened to many of these unusual frames - they collapsed inward.

With a chunk of the bridge missing, the load from the cross strings produces two highly stressed areas as circled below, with the red-circled area being especially vulnerable, as it abruptly transitions from a stiff triangle to a completely unsupported (and insufficiently reinforced) portion of the beam. The unit on the left is what an intact racquet should look like. The unit on the right is cracked in both stress areas. If you ever see the bridge triangles touching on a WinSport frame, you can be certain that it has suffered at least one catastrophic failure.

EG7nQaW.jpg
 

BlackAces

New User
Adding some new entrants to my frivolous parade. One pair from Bonny's "Snaky" series, another pair from WinSport. The latter are marked "Made in England", but I have reason to believe they began life in the US.

Both designs embody creative solutions that are in search of a problem. In the case of the WinSport, the solution itself created some major structural problems that didn't exist before; which actually made things worse. However, there is also no denying that these crazy creations make for visually interesting displays. :)

kuytNP4.jpg


MTgpips.jpg
The patent of Bonny's "Snaky" series was applied by Kunnan Lo.
1571542676x1954578459.png
 

Sanglier

Professional
In a couple of earlier beauty contest threads, I had expressed my fondness for the Groves Kelco Grafighter, briefly made here in California in the mid to late seventies. At the time of its conception, the designers had aimed to create a racquet that could be manufactured using relatively simple tools, which would perform better than wood, metal, and first generation (long before 200G) injection-molded plastic frames. They experimented with combinations of metal, wood, and FRP laminates, as well as many different head shapes, eventually settling on a beauty queen that took an inordinate amount of manual labor to produce. The racquet performed competently against conventional wood and metal, but was fated from the start to quickly disappear into obscurity, because it had the misfortune of being born at the same time as the first wave of 100% graphite frames.

The original patent described making both tennis and racquetball racquets, but until last week, I was not aware that the latter had reached the market as a Trenway product. Given that all racquetball racquets at the time were made out of simple aluminum tubing or disposable-looking injection molding, it is difficult to conceive how someone could have justified putting this much work into making such a thing. It's like dressing a cage fighter in a hand-embroidered silk dress! The surviving example here looks to have been dined upon by hungry rodents after retirement, but the pretty bits are thankfully unscathed.

L5EtwMs.jpg
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
That's basically what it is! And what you would expect to see happen to the hacked Wilson is exactly what actually happened to many of these unusual frames - they collapsed inward.

With a chunk of the bridge missing, the load from the cross strings produces two highly stressed areas as circled below, with the red-circled area being especially vulnerable, as it abruptly transitions from a stiff triangle to a completely unsupported (and insufficiently reinforced) portion of the beam. The unit on the left is what an intact racquet should look like. The unit on the right is cracked in both stress areas. If you ever see the bridge triangles touching on a WinSport frame, you can be certain that it has suffered at least one catastrophic failure.

EG7nQaW.jpg
It’s not hard to see why. Without something to complete oval at the throat the frame is going to be subject to serious twisting and uneven bending in the exact places where you circled. Sort of a “what were they thinking?” design.
 

Sanglier

Professional
It’s not hard to see why. Without something to complete oval at the throat the frame is going to be subject to serious twisting and uneven bending in the exact places where you circled. Sort of a “what were they thinking?” design.

I suspect a fair number of these frames were ruined by stringers. The original instructions called for the use of a manufacturer-supplied aluminum wedge that supported the throat area evenly during stringing. Once the wedge was removed, there was probably a drop in tension that lowered the stress on the limbs. Without the wedge, there was no way to stop the limbs from pinching inward when tensioning the lower crosses; which would have put excessive stress on the weakest areas, hastening their eventual failure.

It’s doubtful that the average shop would have acquired these wedges unless they actually carried the brand. Even if they had them, these things are designed to be lost or forgotten during staff turnover.
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
I suspect a fair number of these frames were ruined by stringers. The original instructions called for the use of a manufacturer-supplied aluminum wedge that supported the throat area evenly during stringing. Once the wedge was removed, there was probably a drop in tension that lowered the stress on the limbs. Without the wedge, there was no way to stop the limbs from pinching inward when tensioning the lower crosses; which would have put excessive stress on the weakest areas, hastening their eventual failure.

It’s doubtful that the average shop would have acquired these wedges unless they actually carried the brand. Even if they had them, these things are designed to be lost or forgotten during staff turnover.
Wow. It’s like they tried to design a crap product.
 

rodracquet

Rookie
I suspect a fair number of these frames were ruined by stringers. The original instructions called for the use of a manufacturer-supplied aluminum wedge that supported the throat area evenly during stringing. Once the wedge was removed, there was probably a drop in tension that lowered the stress on the limbs. Without the wedge, there was no way to stop the limbs from pinching inward when tensioning the lower crosses; which would have put excessive stress on the weakest areas, hastening their eventual failure.

It’s doubtful that the average shop would have acquired these wedges unless they actually carried the brand. Even if they had them, these things are designed to be lost or forgotten during staff turnover.
What a great post. Today my Bonny T Bar rocked up with a Logix. So l understand you reckon my Winsport, Snaky, Rox Pro Delta, Estusa AmerPro, Rox Pro Space T1, Wavex could have been Bonny factory? Wonder what else?
 

Sanglier

Professional
What a great post. Today my Bonny T Bar rocked up with a Logix. So l understand you reckon my Winsport, Snaky, Rox Pro Delta, Estusa AmerPro, Rox Pro Space T1, Wavex could have been Bonny factory? Wonder what else?

They also claim to have produced racquets with springs, with adjustable tension, and some diagonally-strung models. This doesn't mean they were exclusively making weird designs, or that they were the only contractor doing it (Kunnan for sure produced some of the low volume unusual designs as well, such as the liquid-filled Dynaspot, and another strange design with spring-loaded Pojie-like things), but they did seem to have occupied a significant swath of this niche market.
 

rodracquet

Rookie
They also claim to have produced racquets with springs, with adjustable tension, and some diagonally-strung models. This doesn't mean they were exclusively making weird designs, or that they were the only contractor doing it (Kunnan for sure produced some of the low volume unusual designs as well, such as the liquid-filled Dynaspot, and another strange design with spring-loaded Pojie-like things), but they did seem to have occupied a significant swath of this niche market.
Just saw a thread explaining Maark co. Making original Prince and other AMF rackets and eventually sold to AMF so l presume this is known?
 
Top