Federer's racquet and retail
- Thread starter akybo
- Start date
origmarm
Hall of Fame
Thanks as always for the info Ron. Interesting in light of the recent prototype that I played with. I was told by the person who had it that this was a prototype of "Roger's new racquet".
Given your comments and other people's comments in the thread it would appear that it may in fact be part of a new box beam line of racquets and this would be the "Team" version.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5959169&postcount=405
Bobby I hope you don't feel I misrepresented what I posted there with the pictures. I thought I had made it clear that the information I had was only on the authority of the chap who let me hit the racquet.
Cheers,
Orig
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
No, not at all. Your post was one of the only ones in that thread worth reading. It's mostly other people who post saying their Wilson rep told them so and so.
That aside, I doubt any local Wilson rep would be in possession of an actual Fed prototype - let alone lend it to a coach. I have no issue with prototypes per se and in fact have seen and played with a few over the years myself. But with organisations like Wilson it is highly unlikely that someone at the public/retail interaction level would be in possession of a truly special prototype. Reps, as they are inclined to, tend to make anything sound better than it really is. If that entailed saying a frame is a Federer prototype then I wouldn't doubt most would claim it or suggest it.
The reality is, outside of a very, very small group no-one even within Wilson would know what was in the works for Federer (frame and development-wise). There is absolutely no need for them to, and it would achieve nothing other than being a business risk for Wilson.
Last edited:
"In the industry, Federer’s racket is generally considered the most challenging to handle, above all for the recreational set. Its 580-square-centimeter, or 90-square-inch, head is the smallest in use by a leading player today, although Aleksandr Dolgopolov and the rising star Grigor Dimitrov use the same model, but with a 93-square-inch head."
http://www.playdudeplay.com/?p=12708
At Last
You are right !
This is the information that wilson and his toys, don't wanna spread to the public !
Many will came back and say that this insn't true... just wait and see !
And YES Fed made some changes, and tested other rackets.
Money talks here...
origmarm
Hall of Fame
Ah ok, you have me worried for a minute there
. Yeah I never thought it was an actual Federer prototype racquet if you see what I mean, more "The Federer Racquet" prototype i.e the one that was going to have his signature on it in the shops as opposed to something he plays with. Turns out from what I can tell it's likely going to be a series by (i.e. several different models) but it's just one big rumour mill at the moment so who knows. Personally I doubt the big man himself will change much if at all.
Always good to see Ron in here injecting the odd bit of info or disproving something. Good tweets from P1 also.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Yes, Fed is playing with different specs since last months
Those values you post, I have posted in the past, you can search for it here on TT.
I will have the new specs in the next days...
cia
At Last
You are right !
This is the information that wilson and his toys, don't wanna spread to the public !
Many will came back and say that this insn't true... just wait and see !
And YES Fed made some changes, and tested other rackets.
Money talks here...
I for one see no reason to trust ART ART over RJYU, but maybe ART ART can give me one?
ben123
Professional
At Last
You are right !
This is the information that wilson and his toys, don't wanna spread to the public !
Many will came back and say that this insn't true... just wait and see !
And YES Fed made some changes, and tested other rackets.
Money talks here...
i dont know what RJYU statement has to do with moneytalk? i mean if fed rly changed something many *******s would follow and it would be good for wilson and not bad?
.. also if you know his specs and you are not just a troll, why dont you just say them..
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Um...the original New York Times article was posted here back in June:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=385108
I even posted about the mention of Dimitrov's racquet being 93 sq. in. in that thread back in June: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5758808&postcount=7
"In the industry, Federer’s racket is generally considered the most challenging to handle, above all for the recreational set. Its 580-square-centimeter, or 90-square-inch, head is the smallest in use by a leading player today, although Aleksandr Dolgopolov and the rising star Grigor Dimitrov use the same model, but with a 93-square-inch head."
I don't think that's true. I'm almost positive that Dolgopolov uses a PS 6.0 95 under his paintjob, and I thought Dimitrov uses a Tour 90. Now maybe Wilson has a 93 sq. in. version of the Tour 90 that they give to the pros, but Dolgopolov at least, isn't using it. And if it actually exists, why don't they just sell it to the public?They would sell tons of them! :smile:
Since then, obviously Wilson asked the NYT to remove that part of the article because they are trying to sell Dimitrov's racquets as the BLX90 and don't want to reveal in something as widely read as the NYT that it's a paintjob. That's why I linked the other website as it captured the original NYT article and not the current NYT website link as that has since been edited.
Oh, and Wilson isn't making a "one-of-a-kind" frame just for Dimitrov. It's probably a standard frame they've had for some time that they only give to their sponsored pros. I pretty sure many other pros also use it, including Mahut. What's so surprising about this?
Many racquet companies make racquets that are not sold to the public but are only available to their sponsored pros. For example, Dunlop made a custom mold which pros like Blake, Haas, and Berdych amongst others used to use. They also had another mold which Fish used, and a different one which Robredo used, etc. Thus, Dimitrov is just choosing from the Wilson molds available to him.
sixone90
Hall of Fame
Um...the original New York Times article was posted here back in June:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=385108
Oh, and Wilson isn't making a "one-of-a-kind" frame just for Dimitrov. It's probably a standard frame they've had for some time that they only give to their sponsored pros. I pretty sure many other pros also use it, including Mahut. What's so surprising about this?
I didn't think Mahut used a box beam like Dimitrov does?
mmk
Hall of Fame
Was the testing done at Nathaniel P. Hill Hall? I think that is the only building I never stepped foot in during my 4 years there.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
But that article is correct in that Dolgopolov does not use the BLX 90, just another box beam racquet that's painted to look like the BLX 90.
Also, it's not that hard for the reporter to think Dolgopolov's racquet is 93 sq. in. instead of 95 sq. in. when he holds it as all he knows is that it's bigger than the standard BLX 90.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Mahut seems to have switched between the PS 6.0 95, the box beam 93 (Tour 93), and the Blade 93 mold over the years - all under whatever the latest paintjob is.
Here he is using a box-beam that's not a PS 6.0 95 nor a Tour 90 but something in between:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
^^^^^
I don't know but it looks a bit bigger than Federer's racquet to me:
I don't know but it looks a bit bigger than Federer's racquet to me:
sixone90
Hall of Fame
I think the minor changes in the positioning of the stencil can sometimes make a racquet look bigger.
eg. If you position the W slightly higher on the stringbed, there is bigger gap between the W and the bottom of the frame leading me to think the headsize is bigger. Just IMO
eg. If you position the W slightly higher on the stringbed, there is bigger gap between the W and the bottom of the frame leading me to think the headsize is bigger. Just IMO
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
look at the string spacing. it's tighter in the center of the stringbed; the BLX90 is a much more even spaced racquet, this one has a clearly tighter density in the sweetspot.
I didn't really believe it until someone put those pictures in the second page of this thread. It's definitely not the blx90, I owned one and it's significantly different. I noticed also that the throat grommets are closer together than on the BLX90, which is how i noticed the tighter string spacing in the sweetspot.
onehandbh
G.O.A.T.
The link you posted is actually an excerpt from this original article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/sports/tennis/20iht-SRWIRACKET20.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
The original article makes no mention of Dimitrov or Dolgopolov using
93 inch racquets. So the person posting the excerpt must have added that
part.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
No, that's not what happened. The NYT deleted that segment from the original article some time after it was published. The website I linked had captured the NYT article as it originally appeared when it was first published on June 19, 2011. I'd bet the NYT got a call from Wilson's lawyers after the article was published, and thus, it has since been edited.
See below:
Um...the original New York Times article was posted here back in June:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=385108
I even posted about the mention of Dimitrov's racquet being 93 sq. in. in that thread back in June: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5758808&postcount=7
"In the industry, Federer’s racket is generally considered the most challenging to handle, above all for the recreational set. Its 580-square-centimeter, or 90-square-inch, head is the smallest in use by a leading player today, although Aleksandr Dolgopolov and the rising star Grigor Dimitrov use the same model, but with a 93-square-inch head."
I don't think that's true. I'm almost positive that Dolgopolov uses a PS 6.0 95 under his paintjob, and I thought Dimitrov uses a Tour 90. Now maybe Wilson has a 93 sq. in. version of the Tour 90 that they give to the pros, but Dolgopolov at least, isn't using it. And if it actually exists, why don't they just sell it to the public?
Since then, obviously Wilson asked the NYT to remove that part of the article because they are trying to sell Dimitrov's racquets as the BLX90 and don't want to reveal in something as widely read as the NYT that it's a paintjob. That's why I linked the other website as it captured the original NYT article and not the current NYT website link as that has since been edited.
Oh, and Wilson isn't making a "one-of-a-kind" frame just for Dimitrov. It's probably a standard frame they've had for some time that they only give to their sponsored pros. I pretty sure many other pros also use it, including Mahut. What's so surprising about this?
Here you can read about Dimitrov test racker http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=363306 )
)
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
How come people assume that if you write something incorrect but inconsequential to 99.999999% of readers that suddenly a company's lawyers would get involved? In that case the publication/website can still say "who cares, it's a minor detail..." as they do daily with news sites (i.e. not posting corrections).
More to the point, if an article says in error that a pro is using a frame which supposedly doesn't exist, or the manufacturer doesn't want to publicise it since it's not available to the public most approaches by their lawyers would be met with a clear "sod off" by any media outlet worth their salt.
As if Wilson would give two hoots what some website wrote unless it was some scandalous accusation about them or their products - which this wasn't.
More to the point, if an article says in error that a pro is using a frame which supposedly doesn't exist, or the manufacturer doesn't want to publicise it since it's not available to the public most approaches by their lawyers would be met with a clear "sod off" by any media outlet worth their salt.
As if Wilson would give two hoots what some website wrote unless it was some scandalous accusation about them or their products - which this wasn't.
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
The guy (BP) is the most stubborn f'n clueless poster here. Starting with his math embarrasements with a 4th grade algebra to trying to twist Ron's words here. Ron clearly made a comment which means - no new RF racket came to P1, therefore, it is all speculation about him "testing" anything new at this point. And he will never admit to his faults.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Um...that article was written and published by The New York Times....you know, one of the most widely read newspapers in the world?
That statement about Dimitrov's racquet not being a 90 got enough attention that we here on TT made comments about it and was reposted on many other web sites. I'm sure Wilson didn't want The New York Times, a newspaper of record, to be used as proof that Dimitrov and Dolgopolov are in fact using paintjobs. But we know the truth.
Oh, and if the NYT didn't care, why did they bother to go back and edit an article that had already been published?
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Um....Ron said that P1 didn't string any prototypes for Federer. How do we know Federer didn't test any racquets that were NOT prototypes or hit with prototypes strung directly by Wilson which did not go through P1?
Oh, and people with PhD's in physics disagree with your understanding (meaning lack thereof) of 4th grade algebra.
jackcrawford
Professional
I would just ignore him - he embarrasses himself enough without anyone needing to emphasize it.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yes, how embarrassing of me to show that Dimitrov uses a 93 and in the process embarrass everyone who thinks he uses a 90.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
They would have edited it because someone showed them they made an error (did they? or was it just not provable by their editorial standards?). Who knows who this person was but it's extremely unlikely Wilson's legal department gives two ***** about stuff like this. A simple call saying "hey, there was an error there - this is the correct info..." would suffice. As it would for other articles where some error/issue was. For online they edit an item (and, if they're ethical, make a note that the item was edited in the footer), if it's print they print a correction - something which takes a pretty high threshold to achieve generally.
As for NYT being one of the most read newspapers in the world. Pretty irrelevant, not to mention its circulation is hardly big league by world standards. It's not even in the top 40 globally. In any case, the larger a news organisation is generally they more homogenised and less self-researched their news items. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about mainstream media could tell you this.
But, let's say Wilson had contacted the NYT to say they wanted something changed because it could potentially affect marketing/sales. They would be met with a resounding: get lost. What on earth does a newspaper owe to a company like Wilson? An onus of proof? Accurate reporting? It'd be a bit hard for Wilson to prove anything there without wasting a whole lot of time and effort rather pointlessly considering the minor nature of the article to the vast majority of even the tennis following world.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Like you said, all Wilson had to do was to call the NYT and tell them it was an "error", even if it really wasn't an error at all. The NYT times wouldn't know if Wilson was lying or not but they felt it was safer to take it out just in case.
However, what I do know is I highly doubt the writer of the article made a error. Why? Because it's obvious that either someone knowledgeable told him, like Dimitrov himself or someone close to him, or he held the racquet in his hand and compared it the Federer's racquet. I mean Dimitrov's racquet has the paintjob of the BLX90 and it even says - "BLX Six-One Tour 90" printed right on it. What would make this reporter think it was 93 sq. in. and different from Federer's 90 sq. in. unless he had some inside information?
Oh, BTW, I doubt the NYT is not in the top 40 globally (not just print but also Internet). It's certainly the newspaper of record here in the U.S.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
It is 47th, by circulation. In the US it is 3rd.
Globally there are 18 newspapers which have over double the circulation of the NYT (including 7 with triple or more).
Online only a few print newspapers hold their same rank relative to their peers - simply because there are so many non-print online news outlets globally.
But, I agree with you. It's likely that the writer knew the specifics rather than making an error. Even more reason why the newspaper would tell Wilson to get lost. But, given it's an American news outlet, their journalistic integrity is likely to be far lower than average so I wouldn't put it past them to change an item for consideration. Perhaps the writer was the lucky recipient of some US Open hospitality courtesy of Wilson.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I was thinking more of just general news newspapers and not ones that primarily focus on sports or business, like some of the ones that have greater circulation than the NYT. In any case, the NYT certainly has more credibility globally than say, for example, some local paper in India even if it may have more circulation.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
They are. The list is daily newspapers, not speciality ones of any significant note other than a tiny few on the list (which are in Japan).
As for the NYT times having credibility globally - you'd be dead wrong and displaying typical American hegemonic thinking. In most of the world local newspapers and their related websites are completely dominant with foreign national new outlets generally barely making a blip on the radar.
Where outlets such as the NYT make a showing is primarily in reprinted items - generally in speciality areas such as US politics, economy, Wall St happenings, baseball/basketball etc. Stuff which is better reprinted than trying to re-invent the wheel from afar. They still pail in comparison with outlets such at the Guardian (UK) etc on a global level.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
No, not at all. The reason why the NYT has more credibility globally is because it's based in the U.S. and reports a lot of what's happening in the U.S. The U.S. is still the most important country in the world for a variety of reasons, including economically, financially, market size, culture/entertainment, and military power. When you have the power to destroy the world at the push of a button, you get people's attention and they want to know what's going on with the U.S. More people around the world care about what goes on in the U.S. than what goes on in India, for example. More people around the world follow the presidential elections in the U.S. than the presidential elections in India, China or Japan. Oh, and yes, I have lived all over the world and can speak from experience.
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Um....Ron said that P1 didn't string any prototypes for Federer. How do we know Federer didn't test any racquets that were NOT prototypes or hit with prototypes strung directly by Wilson which did not go through P1?
Oh, and people with PhD's in physics disagree with your understanding (meaning lack thereof) of 4th grade algebra.
How old are you man?
You sound like 18-22 year old, full of himself not realizing how stupid what you wrote actually is. Let me give you a few pointers:
1) Having a PhD in Physics means NOTHING in this case. I have a Masters in Electrical Engineering and probably know less about some EE Basics than the Student in your local college. Your answer that the outcome of that equation "depends" how you look at it tells me you know nothing about math. There is NO "depends" answer in math -- with defined setup, the answer is ALWAYS the same. If no special rules applied, you follow the existing rules and "*" clearly has no priority over "/" in algebra or vice versa.
2) Ron clearly implied that RF did not try anything new. Now, the smart ***, aka Yourself, is questioning what he meant by that and that he did not say anything about non-prototypes... Stupid!
Go play tennis, learn some basic algebra instead of postin 35,000 posts on some forum!
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Another stupidity...
Ah, and to add, TRAVEL, see what is out there instead of reading (and learning from) the censored media
Last edited:
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
You seem to intertwine the concepts of fame and credibility.
US news media rates low in terms of credibility in general - especially the more partisan stuff like Fox (actually, most News Intl stuff in general). Overseas the US media which is consumed is primarily television - and via packages which come with subscription TV (such as Sky, Foxtel and various Asian outlets etc). These outlets are also loaded to the gills with BBC, Al Jazera World Service, Sky News (Aus) etc. If you had paid attention while living overseas you would have been aware that the NYT has basically no mention or clout anywhere outside of specific circles. The people who read it (print or online) would almost solely be confined to American expats.
As for "when you have the power to destroy... etc etc". For sure - people are acutely aware of the impact the US economy has - especially with regards to hedge/retirement funds, investment banking etc - but, outside that people really don't give much thought to anything other than their own surroundings. Your perception that America wields some significant influence on the world to a high level in terms of media message is simply wrong.
You're bordering on satisfying Godwin's law with this sort of irrelevance. Your successive statements about media aptly demonstrated how little you knew about the comparative size and influence of the NYT. You should have just said something like "that's interesting, I didn't realise that".
I can see you're the sort of person who probably rarely receives information which doesn't conform with your existing perception of things with an open mind. You can believe what you will, I've really no need or reason to try to convince you something you don't want to know regardless of its merit.
Back on the racquet front... Bartelby excellently summed it up above : the NYT, a paper of such undoubted quality (sic) it saw fit to change a fact into a lie. And one which they probably would have had to have disclosed to them in order to make the change. Unless of course they are such prostitutes to corporate approaches they changed the item upon request. Either way, sound like a newspaper fitting of the average reader.
Last edited:
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Oh, first, how old are you?
Second, please do tell us where you have LIVED (not visited).
Third, now, please tell us what countries have you visited.
If you really "lived all over the world" you would not post that crap around as you would clearly know it is not correct but something our (US) leadership wants us to believe and use propaganda (media) to enforce that.
T-ennis 888
Rookie
Son, stop embarrassing yourself and kindly let this rest as your credibility is sinking lower with each post.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
They didn't replace it with anything. They simply deleted that sentence. No fiction was added.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I'm old enough to know basic 4th grade algebra, which you just admitted you lack since you know less about the basics than some local college students.
Does Ron spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with Federer? How would he know what Roger is doing 100% of his waking hours? He only sees racquets that Federer gives to him to string and customize. How would he even know if Federer hit with some random racquet for 10 minutes that Wilson gave directly to him to try out?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yeah, and 9 of the Top 10 most visited places in the entire world are in the U.S. I guess people all over the world do care about the U.S., don't they?
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-interests-40711683
Oh, and I have traveled so much that United Airlines sent me a letter that they were going to paint my name on the side of one of their 747's. And that's just one airline, as I've traveled just as much on at least a dozen different airlines. We're talking millions of miles.
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
You just keep sinking lower with your mature answers...
Again, take a day off and think why the US destinations may be the prime destinations for travelers (with kids for example), then, come back and let's discuss...
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Purposly, I did not want to quote this to give you time to edit it, but heck, these are becoming classics... From here on, you are officially my toy on this board...
Seriously, man, read what I wrote, read what you wrote, drink a glass of milk, and edit it. It is sad to see people with logic like that...
