The debate is whether the pro stock raquets are special (see the thread title for a reminder on that).
Your contention was that they are as special as the retail raquets they supposedly come from, i.e. nothing more than retail raquet that had been modified at best.
Then we went on to define how we distinguish a pro raquet, and a couple of paths for a raquet to end up as pro stock were discussed.
Generally we found out that it can happen in the following scenarios:
1) retail raquet that has been discontinued, and the company makes it only for its sponsored pros
2) company makes it from the same mold as a known retail frame, but with different layup, materials and QC
3) company makes it as a completely custom frame that has never been offered to the general customer
Throughout that discussion you made a number of statements, many of which were directly refuted (like that Babolat doesn't make custom frames for its pros, that a certain frame cannot be distinguished by other retail frame modded to different specs, etc., etc), and with some you disagreed with, contrary to the general opinion, and personal experience of many posters here (like for example claiming that if two frames come from the same mold, they are similar, despite of having different playing characteristics).
Later on you modified that statement by just saying that, since it is the same mold, the raquets are a modification of each other, just tweaked to have different characteristics, which honestly is a WTF inducing statement, because, if they have different characteristics, then how are they not different raquets (in nature)?
Here you went as far as to claim that modifying a retail raquet with external customisations is the same level of difference as having raquets made from the same mold, but with different layup, materials and QC.
While it was becoming exceedingly clear that you are doing it, because there was no other way that you keep your claim that the pro stocks with different layup are still retail raquets (since they share a mold with existing retail raquets), you lost completely any credibility as far as real world facts and experience are concerned, because those "tweaks" change the way a raquet plays on a fundamental level that cannot be altered by external modifications.
I made the remark about you not making any sense as far as putting all differences under one roof, and challenged you to explain to me why, if all differences are the same (according to you), no pro uses a Walmart raquet?
You tried to allude to the needs of a pro after which you didn't respond to the question why all pros have a certain group of needs that put some raquets out of their options.
Your question in your second paragraph shows that you don't read what the others write, but instead like to listen to your own voice: if you did read what the others write you would have noticed several things:
As already mentioned in the three options about how a raquet can end up as a pro stock, not only we haven't agreed that the difference between how we distinguish between a pro stock and a retail frame is whether it is sold to the public or not (like I said, that is a fortunate coincidence from a faulty logic), but it has been demonstrated with examples that
A) the distinction doesn't run as a juxtaposition of a pro stock and a retail, but it runs in the lines of whether a frame possesses characteristics that the pros look for or not
B) some pro stocks were never intended to be sold to the general consumer, which makes the criteria you use to distinguish both groups of raquets useless
Your third paragraph shows the same as the second: that would be the case with the RF 97.
Indeed, the distinction between a pro stock and retail (if one insists to stick to that juxtaposition, although it was already shown to be incorrect, as it inherently accentuates distribution channels (based on the nature of the grouping of the group "retail" frames) rather than raquet properties), in this case is accessibility, and in that case the focus shifts from the characteristics of the frame to its accessibility.
Here is a clarification of a fact that I feel you still haven't managed to grasp: there is a duality to the term "retail".
It can mean "a distribution channel", and it can mean "a group of items designed for the general public".
Obviously RF 97 has been developed with the pro that will use it in mind, so it is NOT an item designed for the general public.
It is the business decision that made it "retail", but making it "retail" as in "making it available for sale" doesn't alter its pro stock characteristics.
Is this particular retail frame representative for the general association between the retail and pro stock?
IMO, the answer is "absolutely not", as its main characteristics as a raquet doesn't suit the general public that has access to it, as many experiences in the real world confirm.
Is it special?
"Absolutely yes", and not because of the fact that it is Federer's frame, but because it possesses characteristics that many/most other frames will not have.
Is it more special than an oversized middle-of-the-road raquets to an amateur with a low to middle level of skill?
No, quite the opposite.
Is it special to the pro Roger Federer?
Absolutely yes, as he worked with Wilson to get exactly those characteristics in that frame, which means that it is the only one/one of the very few, that can help his particular game.
He cannot get those characteristics from any other frame in the Wilson lineup, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to the pains to develop it for him, if they had a ready solution in the form of a retail frame that can be customised.
Does that mean that it's special to the general public: yes, as long as they know (and eventually can look for) those playing characteristics, meaning that for those who can make use of those the raquet is special (which would be the answer of the question in the OP).
That example doesn't treat another problem that started this here discussion, which is: regardless of how they came to be pro stocks, some of the current pro stocks are the only representatives of a breed of raquets that provide a unique feel when playing with them. There are no retail raquets with the same feel or combination of characteristics, so whether they started as "retail" or not is irrelevant.
Which finally brings me back to repeat that it is not the distinction between retail and pro stock that is important, but the qualities of the raquets that are discussed in such threads.
