Dimitrov new racquet?

L

leoresende2007

Rookie
Dimitrov is using a new paintjob on Roland Garros. Is it the new Pro Staff 97?
Thanks!

grigor-dimitrov_625x300_1527442333445.jpg
 
all racket companies are out of ideas nowadays. Can't make any BS innovation.
PJ will not be the answer.
What will be next??????????
Probably go back to fundamental and make solid quality rackets?
better materials and innovative durable paint material etc.......
I am wondering about actual racket sale numbers after racket companies increasing prices.
I feel like less racketholics nowadays because of higher racket prices and only have different PJ.
 
kimguroo said:
all racket companies are out of ideas nowadays. Can't make any BS innovation.
PJ will not be the answer.
What will be next??????????
Probably go back to fundamental and make solid quality rackets?
better materials and innovative durable paint material etc.......
I am wondering about actual racket sale numbers after racket companies increasing prices.
I feel like less racketholics nowadays because of higher racket prices and only have different PJ.
Click to expand...
I’d like to see the numbers too. At the very least people are holding onto rackets longer. Maybe the word has spread that the pros are mostly using the same stick from their junior days.
 
Wilson killed the Pro Staff line by having Federer aid in their design. The Pro Staff is supposed to be a small head control oriented racket not a powerful Babolat knock off. Only 2 players on tour use Pro Staff rackets while the others use the Blade, Burn, and the Ultra. And what a joke the RF 85 was. Federer didn't win any slams with the 85. Now if they would have came out with an RF 90 LE, that would have made more sense.
 
kimguroo said:
all racket companies are out of ideas nowadays. Can't make any BS innovation.
PJ will not be the answer.
What will be next??????????
Probably go back to fundamental and make solid quality rackets?
better materials and innovative durable paint material etc.......
I am wondering about actual racket sale numbers after racket companies increasing prices.
I feel like less racketholics nowadays because of higher racket prices and only have different PJ.
Click to expand...

If badminton racquets can get good paint jobs, I'm sure tennis racquets can too. They might be out of ideas but I think more so they are just lazy.
 
NuBas said:
If badminton racquets can get good paint jobs, I'm sure tennis racquets can too. They might be out of ideas but I think more so they are just lazy.
Click to expand...
I also wonder if the lawsuit (which they didn’t really win - stopped due to a technicality) scared them. They’ve changed the way they advertise the sticks - and had at least rewritten (the one that mentioned Fed’s custom handle).
 
West Coast Ace said:
I also wonder if the lawsuit (which they didn’t really win - stopped due to a technicality) scared them. They’ve changed the way they advertise the sticks - and had at least rewritten (the one that mentioned Fed’s custom handle).
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with what you are speaking of.
 
West Coast Ace said:
Really? Did you hit the RF97? It solid; not hollow like Bab sticks.
Click to expand...
Yes I hit with the RF and the standard 97. As I said before the Pro Staff are supposed to be low powered and geared towards control. The regular 97 was light, flimsy, and powerful. While the RF model was more solid the power was off the chart like Babolat rackets. I could not take full swings off either wing. The Burn 95 had less power than the RF and I had considered switching to it but I will just stick with my PS90 which is a true PS.
 
NuBas said:
If badminton racquets can get good paint jobs, I'm sure tennis racquets can too. They might be out of ideas but I think more so they are just lazy.
Click to expand...

Agree, im not liking this color scheme at all..
The black and red colors scheme of the last racquet are safe for another 2 years.. imo..
 
deaner2211 said:
Yes I hit with the RF and the standard 97. As I said before the Pro Staff are supposed to be low powered and geared towards control. The regular 97 was light, flimsy, and powerful. While the RF model was more solid the power was off the chart like Babolat rackets. I could not take full swings off either wing. The Burn 95 had less power than the RF and I had considered switching to it but I will just stick with my PS90 which is a true PS.
Click to expand...

Power can be controlled with strings and string tension, quite easily. A string can transform a frame dramatically.
 
deaner2211 said:
Yes I hit with the RF and the standard 97. As I said before the Pro Staff are supposed to be low powered and geared towards control. The regular 97 was light, flimsy, and powerful. While the RF model was more solid the power was off the chart like Babolat rackets. I could not take full swings off either wing. The Burn 95 had less power than the RF and I had considered switching to it but I will just stick with my PS90 which is a true PS.
Click to expand...
‘Light, flimsy’? (then contradict yourself in the next sentence with ‘solid’). Please. 12.2 and stiff. And obviously more power - that’s what 97sq in and longer mains do. Sorry, that ship has sailed - the game has changed. That’s why Fed went to 97. And Wilson.
 
deaner2211 said:
Wilson killed the Pro Staff line by having Federer aid in their design. The Pro Staff is supposed to be a small head control oriented racket not a powerful Babolat knock off. Only 2 players on tour use Pro Staff rackets while the others use the Blade, Burn, and the Ultra. And what a joke the RF 85 was. Federer didn't win any slams with the 85. Now if they would have came out with an RF 90 LE, that would have made more sense.
Click to expand...
I guess you weren’t around for the Pro Staff Classic 6.1 95, Pro Sraff Largehead, or Pro Staff 125?
 
vsbabolat said:
I guess you weren’t around for the Pro Staff Classic 6.1 95, Pro Sraff Largehead, or Pro Staff 125?
Click to expand...
Yes I was around when the large head came out any it was a big failure. The 6.1 95 classic became popular because it still had the classic feel and you had to generate your own power not like the Babolat Staff RF 97 with all of the free power it has and not so classic feel.
 
time_fly said:
The issue may not be with the racquet ...

Back to the original topic: that gold PJ is hideous. I hope they don't use it on a new line, at least not one that I would otherwise consider.
Click to expand...
The issue was the racket. I can take full swings with my PS85 (Chicago, Taiwan, and China), BLX 6.1 Tour 90, 2014 PS90, and 2014 PS 95, but not the PS RF 97. It has a different power level and feel so it is not your traditional PS in my opinion.
 
West Coast Ace said:
‘Light, flimsy’? (then contradict yourself in the next sentence with ‘solid’). Please. 12.2 and stiff. And obviously more power - that’s what 97sq in and longer mains do. Sorry, that ship has sailed - the game has changed. That’s why Fed went to 97. And Wilson.
Click to expand...
I guess you can't comprehend very well I was talking about the standard 97 when I said light and flimsy. I was talking about the RF model when I said solid. Two different rackets. Which racket are you talking about that is 12.2 ounces? Ship might have sailed but it is a good thing I stocked up on the 2014 PS90.
 
deaner2211 said:
I guess you can't comprehend very well I was talking about the standard 97 when I said light and flimsy. I was talking about the RF model when I said solid. Two different rackets. Which racket are you talking about that is 12.2 ounces? Ship might have sailed but it is a good thing I stocked up on the 2014 PS90.
Click to expand...
Whatever. You weren’t clear. I still stand by my claim - none of the sticks in that line are flimsy.
 
deaner2211 said:
The issue was the racket. I can take full swings with my PS85 (Chicago, Taiwan, and China), BLX 6.1 Tour 90, 2014 PS90, and 2014 PS 95, but not the PS RF 97. It has a different power level and feel so it is not your traditional PS in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Once again as this board seems to not understand, any issue with not be able to take a full swing is either string setup, assuming you have correct fundamentals, or user error. I’ve seen plenty of 5.0 men, actual 5.0 not tt 5.0, and college kids take full swings and crush the ball. If you can’t control it then that is on you.
 
deaner2211 said:
Yes I was around when the large head came out any it was a big failure. The 6.1 95 classic became popular because it still had the classic feel and you had to generate your own power not like the Babolat Staff RF 97 with all of the free power it has and not so classic feel.
Click to expand...
You do know that when the Pro Staff was released in 1984 it came in 3 head sizes. Midsize, Largehead, and 125. The Pro Staff RF 97 is ver popular today.........
 
@deaner2211
When the Pro Staff 125 came out, guys purchased one, and got them strung once a year,whether they needed it or not.
The LH was undercut by the Sting's 100$ price & the POG 110 being 1st to market.
Neither could be expected to be generally popular, when most players used sub 90 inch frames.
They were "pro Staffs" for the narrow slice of the market they were design to compete in.
 
Brickhouse8198 said:
Once again as this board seems to not understand, any issue with not be able to take a full swing is either string setup, assuming you have correct fundamentals, or user error. I’ve seen plenty of 5.0 men, actual 5.0 not tt 5.0, and college kids take full swings and crush the ball. If you can’t control it then that is on you.
Click to expand...
I get it now! Every racket can fit anyone that plays the game of tennis. If it doesn't fit your game then it is user error, due to improper strokes or string setup.
 
West Coast Ace said:
Whatever. You weren’t clear. I still stand by my claim - none of the sticks in that line are flimsy.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion and it is my opinion that the standard 97 is flimsy. No please tell me which racket weighs 12.2 ounces as you stated before. How clear do I need to be when I said I hit with the RF and the standard 97?
 
vsbabolat said:
You do know that when the Pro Staff was released in 1984 it came in 3 head sizes. Midsize, Largehead, and 125. The Pro Staff RF 97 is ver popular today.........
Click to expand...
Of course it is popular. Babolat rackets are popular too, so Wilson's answer was the Babolat Staff.
 
deaner2211 said:
Of course it is popular. Babolat rackets are popular too, so Wilson's answer was the Babolat Staff.
Click to expand...
No, the Pro Staff RF 97 is not Wilson’s answer to Babolat. That would be the Burn and Ultra (not Ultra Tour though). Have you tried the Ultra Tour? Maybe that would be a good fit for you?
 
Last edited:
deaner2211 said:
I get it now! Every racket can fit anyone that plays the game of tennis. If it doesn't fit your game then it is user error, due to improper strokes or string setup.
Click to expand...

Don't let them beat you up on here. The RF97 is a departure from the thinner beamed pro staff's you mentioned. It takes time to transition to the RF97 and if you took the time you be able to take full cuts with it as well. It's a fantastic frame with loads of control, power, feel, mass, spin, it has everything.
 
There were widebody Pro Staff such as the Pro Staff 4.5. the Pro Staff Classic 6.1 95 was 22mm wide the same as the RF and was as stiff as board at 72RA. Don’t forget people that Wilson was the first company to successfully mass market the widebody.
 
asifallasleep said:
Don't let them beat you up on here. The RF97 is a departure from the thinner beamed pro staff's you mentioned. It takes time to transition to the RF97 and if you took the time you be able to take full cuts with it as well. It's a fantastic frame with loads of control, power, feel, mass, spin, it has everything.
Click to expand...
I'm not letting them beat me up I was just being funny. That was a very stupid comment, saying it is not the racket but my mechanics or the strings. If that was true then professionals would not care and would not be so meticulous about their rackets. A player does not change their game to fit a racket they change the racket to fit their game. The new Pro Staff line does not fit my game. If I want a racket that feels like a Babolat then I would buy one.
 
The Pro Staff 97s is a thinner beam than the others in the Pro Staff line. It is actually a very good frame if your arm is as good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WYK
deaner2211 said:
I'm not letting them beat me up I was just being funny. That was a very stupid comment, saying it is not the racket but my mechanics or the strings. If that was true then professionals would not care and would not be so meticulous about their rackets. A player does not change their game to fit a racket they change the racket to fit their game. The new Pro Staff line does not fit my game. If I want a racket that feels like a Babolat then I would buy one.
Click to expand...
If you seriously think that it is the rackets fault for you not being able to take a full swing then I feel sorry for you. If the greatest player of all time can swing for the fences and hit a ball in, and you can’t take a full swing and keep the ball in it’s not a reach to say it is completely on user error. Any good player can play with any racket, they may not like the racket or how it plays, but the racket matters less the better you get. A pro could use any racquet and still dominate people. Them using a racquet doesn’t mean all the other racquets on the planet are garbage, it just means they like their racket, it’s one less variable they have to worry about.
 
Brickhouse8198 said:
If you seriously think that it is the rackets fault for you not being able to take a full swing then I feel sorry for you. If the greatest player of all time can swing for the fences and hit a ball in, and you can’t take a full swing and keep the ball in it’s not a reach to say it is completely on user error. Any good player can play with any racket, they may not like the racket or how it plays, but the racket matters less the better you get. A pro could use any racquet and still dominate people. Them using a racquet doesn’t mean all the other racquets on the planet are garbage, it just means they like their racket, it’s one less variable they have to worry about.[/QUOTE
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sixone90
Wilson releasing Pro Staff 97S for Dimitrov (specs. included)
19 20 21
Replies
1K
Views
178K
Sander001
Sander001
B
blacked out frame dimitrov?
Replies
19
Views
5K
SpinToWin
SpinToWin
danbrenner
Dimitrov: new racquet new results.
2 3
Replies
140
Views
32K
JoelDali
JoelDali
A
New Pro Staff
Replies
2
Views
2K
xFullCourtTenniSx
X
SoccerGuy
Dimitrov New Raquet??
Replies
27
Views
7K
jarko111
jarko111
Back
Top