Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by asifallasleep, Oct 2, 2013.
Nope! Thanks for playing! They used the 300 Tour Mold
I don't know if this is at all related to the lawsuit in question, but I noticed that Head's website now includes "HEAD PRO Players may play with different racquets from the model shown." wherever you see a pro player pictured, as so: http://www.head.com/tennis/products/racquets/tour-speed/?region=us
I don't recall ever seeing language like that before on a manufacturer's website. The times might be a changin'.
They finally started putting disclaimers so they won't have to worry about frivolous lawsuits.
Wilson does the same noting that players may customize the frames to their individual preferences-- that's been added within the last year or so. Most also use "the frame of choice for" instead of something more specific like "XYZ's racquet" or "The racquet XYZ uses"
I think vsbabolat represents average tennis fans' view perfectly. They want to own exactly the same basis racquet which Federer, Nadal or Djokovic uses, made from the same mold and of same material. They believe Pro Staff 6.0 BLX which they can buy from retail shops to be exactly the same racquet that Roger uses as the basis for customization and buy them. If Wilson says Roger actually uses K-factor 9.0 instead of Pro Staff 6.1 90 BLX, people will be after K-factor, not Pro Staff. (I can imagine lots of people seraching for it on ****) That's what's important. It's like saying 'this couch is used by Obama' while it is only an cheap version imitation made of different material but sold for very high price. That's a possible case for lawsuit. A lot of people buy Pro Staff series to just own them as sort of memorabilia rather than to use them as their regular racquet, because they can play better with easier racquets. I think Federer's name sells Pro Staff at least 5 times more than it would without his name. That's the problem.
Why wouldn't Wilson publicly say Federer actually uses something different? Because they want to trick the buyers and take unfair advantage. I think they should really make it clear that Federer actually uses something else as the basis and P1 modifies it to his liking. They can then release that version of racquet at $250 and they would still sell a lot more than usual Pro Staff at $199. I'm sure about that. (Same for Head with Djokovic, Murray and Babolat with Nadal) I don't know why they don't release the same basis racquets pros use, to be honest. That will be much more profitable for them while keeping their conscientiousness clean. They have make them anyway, meaning they have the mold, so all they have to do is just produce more and sell them for higher prices. People would love to own the same racquet Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or Murray uses, so for these 4 players, I think manufacturers can release the 'professional version' and they will be the best sellers.
Looks like someone was upset when they figured out Wilsons "scheme".... Time is valuable when it comes to a production line. Rogers racquet has specific specs. You're asking a mass producing company to make a separate batch of racquets thats all EXACTLY the same weight, balance, etc.? Well clearly you're the marketing expert here so i shouldn't question you.
I think you hit upon the very thing that vs is talking about. I've been into a number of tennis shops and clubs. What I've always heard, what many of the employees have always heard, is: "Hey, I want so and so's racquet, shoes, bag...whatever." There's even been links on this board about how Babolat was inundated with calls when Nadal won his first major. From my experience, most people just want the "experience" of their favorite pro. That you or I understand this won't be achieved by equipment is moot to people's perceptions that they can.
Also from my experience, the vast majority of tennis players, even in the clubs, are in it for the social experience. Sure, they get better just by actually playing or paying for a few group drills but it doesn't take away the fact that few truly try and get better, to master their talent through hard work and excel at the game they "love". Their priorities are family and fun. I'm better than most at the clubs I've joined, not because I have some great talent or potential they don't, but rather it's because I do put in the hard work for development. My point is that now I play with equipment that works for my development. Most don't and won't. Their emotional investment is the dream of "feeling" like a pro. Manufacturers understand this and exploit it.
At the same time, I would also wager that most equipment manufacturers feel their products are excellent and if people need the illusion that they are playing with pro equipment to buy then morally and ethically they are in fact helping people because the equipment they do offer is great product, capable of "pro" play and people continue to "choose" the equipment every time they use it. I've worked in sales for a very long time and this mentality is soooo prevalent. "If they're willing to pay the money, who are we to say they "shouldn't" pay it." or "The customer is buying customer service which costs." or "Our job is to offer products. It's the customer's responsibility to research specs/costs prior to coming in to our store." So many sales people hide behind these types of statements to delude themselves regarding their nobility of character when what they are really after is high commission checks for their own personal gain; greed pure and simple. This IS capitalism 101 and marketing is just an extension of the sales process.
Which is a custom mold because there was no retail 300 Tour at the time. It was a custom mold which Dunlop only made available to their sponsored pros, but was also used by Tecnifibre to make the retail TF335 18x20.
Thanks for playing!
No, I am not confusing the two. I have never even heard of the Premier Tour 600. The Pro Tour 280s I bought were marketed as "97 sq. in." and had Muster's picture on the placard on the stringbed.
Check out this recent post:
That's about how much I paid for mine.
Well, I wouldn't. I own racquets that I can play tennis with, not what any pro uses. It doesn't really affect my game.
And Spalding tried selling pro spec racquets many years ago in its "ATP Pro Stock" line of racquets. Guess what? Nobody bought them because hardly any recreational players could play with them. They were discontinued pretty quickly.
Most recreational players want the latest racquets, not the 20 year-old racquets that many pros actually play with.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PEOPLE V WILSON SPORTING GOODS CO.
The ordinary consumer who buys a retail version of the racket they see the pro use on TV should have enough common sense to realise the one the pro uses may have been modified extensively to the pro's requirements.
The ordinary consumer should not reasonably be under the apprehension that the racket they have bought is the exact same one, specs-wise, as the pro's.
At the Tour level, players' equipment is relatively easily scrutinised and that information is generally quick to be disseminated by social media, to the extent that the pros' equipment specificities promptly enter the public domain of discussion forums such as Talk Tennis.
An ordinary consumer who buys a racket does so under the congnisance that their individual playing skill level is not the same as that of the tennis professional and that no tennis racket will bridge the individual's skill deficiency so as to enable them to play with proficiency of the pros.
I find for the defendant with costs.
Murder rap? On Death Row?
For legal representation on the fly
Don't Fry - Call MAXXply
I think the court will be reluctant to rule against Wilson only because of the potential repercussions across different market places. What's next? People suing restaurants and food companies because famous endorsers don't actually eat their food?
The player is really just endorsing the racquet, not claiming to be selling their actual racquet. If the company says someone endorses it with pretty pictures, most club players will be fine with looking like their favorite pro. The pros get paintjobs to make sure the marketing works. Wilson also uses Federer's image on those various $25 dollar Wal-Mart racquets... is someone else going to sue them because they thought since Roger's picture was on the frame he uses it?
Ha!!!! That was the SMU Made in China ones that came out in 2001, 2002 for the E retailers and the big box stores. Too funny!
Actually you are wrong. The mold was used at retail for the HM 200G XL, M-fill 200 Plus, and the dating back to the mid to late 90's with the Revelation line.
Good for you. People who know more about tennis like you wouldn't buy racquets simply because pros use them. However, there are so many people who buy Pro Staffs because of Federer, not because they want to use them as their regular racquet. You can't really blame them for doing that. If anyone's to blame, it's the manufacturers who are misleading the customers.
I'm sure if the actual frames of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are on the market, they will be sold out in a few months. Not all pro player's racquets will be popular, but people would love to own the racquets used by these 4.
Because what happens when a pro switches companies and they make him a frame like Blake, which is a copy of a competitors product?
Nope. I bought mine in 1997 or 1998 in New York and I moved out of NY in 1998. And I remember them being marked "Made in Austria" in big letters on the side of the beam.
Heck, even TW sold them for only $69 in 1998, but you could have gotten a better deal at some retail shops:
Actually the link you gave is for September 11, 1999. Again that was a early run of SMU for E-retailers and Big box stores and was no longer sold at tennis specialty stores.
Its like what is being done with the Microgel Radical after it was discontinued form the main line of racquets for tennis specialty stores. It is now sold at a much lower price even though its still made as a SMU for the e-retailers and big box stores.
How could Blake, Haas, Berdych have been using an extended length mold when they used standard length racquets? And if this is really true, why did Dunlop bother to paint their racquets as something else if they already had the current models they were using on the market? And never mind that they were using 97 sq. in. racquets (just like the Tecnifibre TF-335) while the HM 200G XL was only 95 sq. in.
My friend you do know that racquets, when they come out of mold are much longer than standard length and then are cut to the desired length. Whether it be 27, 27.5, or 28 inches. The M-fill 200 Plus was marketed as 97sq. While the HM 200G XL claimed it was 95. Again marketing. I would think someone as savvy as you would not be taken in by the marketing. You really surprise me.........
They did paint jobs because of a little thing called marketing. Why does HEAD have Berdych's YT Radical MP 16x19 painted as a IG Instinct MP? When it would much better to have his racquets painted as the IG Radical Pro as his racquets are from the same mold. These are decisions made by the marketing department.
First you said the SMUs came out in 2001 and 2002, and now you said they came out in 1999? Too funny! I brought up 1998 on the archive to get to that TW page. Not sure why it says 1999.
The PT280 didn't sell well in the 90's because it wasn't such a great racquet. I don't recall ever seeing anyone using it. Compared to the great racquets of the time, like the Max 200G, PS 6.0 85, or Prestige Mid, the PT280 was pretty subpar. Now people only want them because they are hard to find. Just like people now want St. Vincents because they are no longer being made so are hard to find. At the time, nobody cared that the PS 85 was made in St. Vincent.
We all cant be as perfect as you man. It says 1999 because thats the year and date that page was captured. I guess you and I have very different experiences. The PT280 was a very popular racquet. No matter what you say or claim to say. That's your opinion that I dont agree with. The PT280 is just a little larger PC600.
So then why even bother to have a different mold for the HM 200G XL or the M-Fil 200 Plus? Just cut the standard HM 200G or standard M-Fil 200 a little longer, right?
Head paints Berdych's YT Radical MP because the YT Radical MP is discontinued and no longer on the market. Not true when Berdych, Haas, and Blake were using Dunlops. If what you claim is true, the actual racquet (mold) they were using was still on the current market, so no need for paintjobs.
Actually HEAD started to paint Berdych's racquets as the Instinct before it was discontinued and the IG RAdical is the same mold. So as you like to say no need for a paint job. But you get to talk out of both sides of your mouth because you are the professional arguer of this site. The HM 200G XL and the M-fil 200 Plus was the same mold as the 300 Tour and what Berdych, Haas, Blake used.
P.S. the M-fil 200 Plus came in both extend length and standard length.
Completely disagree. The PT280 felt nothing like the PC600 to me. The PC600 felt smooth as butter while the PT280 felt tinny and harsh to me. Apples and oranges, IMO.
You just dont have a clue. I have and still own the frames and the PT280 is not tinny, harsh or another weird thing you have to say about it. I really think you bought a Premier Tour. The Pt280 is one of the most buttery racquets ever made.
Pt 630/ 280 Austrian sticks are buttah all day, plush comfy buttah.
Oh, but I do. There's a reason why the Prestige Mid lasted for over 25 years (in different iterations) while the PT280 died after only a couple of years.
And, no, I did not buy a Premier Tour. I don't even know what one looks like. My PT280's were solid blue with black accents. I ended up selling them in 1997 or 1998 to someone who had been using them for several years. According to you, the Premier Tour wasn't even out in 1997/1998. And why would a retailer sell them at 50% off plus buy one get one free on a brand new model?
Hit with them side-by-side with a Dunlop Max 200G (original one) and you'd change your opinion real fast.
The Pro Tour 280 became the Prestige MP in different irritations, You dont know what you are talking about.
I have. The PT280 is one of the smoothest buttery racquets every made.
Plz see signature thanks bagged 200g for years, pro tour is right there.
The 50% off pro tour 280 that were on giveaway pricing at decathlon, SA etc were china sticks exclusively I believe.
Nope, mine were marked "Made in Austria" in big letters on the side of the beam. And I don't believe they were made in China in 1997/1998, which is when I bought them.
Never saw any of those giveaway priced, wish I had!
Seriously BP pick up another Austrian pro tour string it mid range with quality natty gut. Right there with st Vincent ps 85 and 200g. Tennis nirvana..
Amazingly I have never had a hit with a pc600.....
In the short week that I owned my PT280s, I borrowed a PC600 with the suspension grip and hit with them side-by-side. The PT280 felt terrible compared to the PC600 w/suspension grip, which felt like heaven, and much closer to the Max 200G I was using at the time.
I need to get a pc600 huge gap in my tennis resume. You should hunt down another pro tour and try it set up like I describe. I think with 15 years of additional hitting under your belt you would have a different opinion,
There is good reason why most head pro sponsored players are still hitting the pt 57a.
Oh, no doubt. Compared to most of the modern garbage out there today, I'm sure the PT280 today would feel wonderful. But back in 1997, I was comparing it to all the other old school racquets that were available back then. So as with most things in life, it depends on your point of reference.
BTW, many of today's Wilson sponsored pros are still using the PS 6.1 Classic under their paintjobs. I hit with that one back in the early 90's when it first came out and thought it hit like a hollow 2X4, especially compared to my Max 200G. I couldn't understand how anyone could stand playing with it. But, of course, today it would probably feel better than most of the new racquets out on the market. :shock:
do you have any interest in a political office? oh sorry, you just made a lot of sense so you would be overqualified! :twisted:
good point though!
you need to add "if the grip don't fit then you must acquit!" to your little commercial there!
LOL! Great one.
And yes @MaXXply's common sense wouldn't do much good in the courtroom or Wash, DC.
Completely agree on PSC 6.1 in fact I swopped to my brother in law for some other frames ( pogs if I recall correctly ) and he still bags em including 3 of my old ones. Loves em, I tried to cause they were the big stick in town but never hit the 6.1 good. Never quite got what all the fuss was about.
Otoh the 200 g was magic for me as was the ps 85... Now my grails are the various head 18x20 in my sig.
Give the pt 57 another spin some time like I said right there with your favs and a lot easier to hit. The 18x20 loves low tension poly too!!
I know there is one thing we can agree on - that is to be so blessed to have hit some of that magical gear at a high level!!
Another example is the PS 6.0 85. Back in the 80's and 90's, I thought the PS 6.0 85 was a very stiff racquet and too stiff for me to play with (and it had a reputation for being stiff compared to the other old school racquets available at the time). But nowadays, the PS 6.0 85 feels flexy and comfy to me compared to most of the ultra-stiff, lightweight racquets out in the market today. In fact, it feels like a better playing PC600 to me. Just ask Say Chi Sin Lo, he used to use the PC600 but now uses the PS 6.0 85 re-issue.
I personally from my experience think a st Vincent ps 85 strung at 60 # struck perfectly ( Ts forehand drive with big swing speed ) is tennis nirvana. I've said on the forums before every serious player with modern technique should experience this feeling.
In my experience 200 g 50# gut is very close and the pt 630 / 57 is right there.
I have a pair of Austrian iradical mp's and 1 iprestige mp ( pt 57e ) that are magical right now.
Everything else has been ok to meh.... Often serviceable but no goosebumps.
Back to lawsuit talk I think the whole point is the pros can easily find the magic with hot rodded frames under fake paint. We gotta hunt it down.
We can do it cause we know better. Mr average tennis guy gets a lot of off the rack meh.
Another dinosaur refusing to get with the times, stop living in the past
So then you agree with me that the reason why Head doesn't sell the PT57a (PT630/280) to the public and uses paintjobs instead is because almost nobody would buy it since most consumers want the latest and greatest modern racquets?
Thanks for supporting my point!
Nobody wants your old and antiquated rackets anymore sorry. Me, along with 99% of the population, have absolutely no problems playing with modern rackets, with modern esthetics, with modern strings, and a modern game. You can sit on your racket high-horse all day and swallow your bitter pills, but the rest of us are going to be absolutely fine
I agree with you, and so does Head, Wilson, Dunlop, Prince, Babolat, etc. That's why they paintjob those old racquets. Now tell that to all the people here who want the racquet companies stop doing paintjobs that they are wasting their time. Almost nobody wants to buy those old racquets that the pros are actually using.
So far the two sides have agreed on several things here:
1. The general tennis public wants the newest racquets and technology.
2. Many pros (especially at the top) aren't really using the latest models, and in fact are using something older.
3. People want to use the same racquet a pro is using (or at least feel/look like they are.) Usually these pros are Rafa, Fed, Novak or Murray.
4. The specs of any of these 4 are unwieldy and ultimately a poor choice for a vast majority of the general tennis playing population.
So why not give the people what they want? Let them look like their favorite pro while using something more suited to their game... If someone's buying a racquet because a Pro they like allegedly uses it, then this person really doesn't know anything about racquets, so it would be a nice thing for a racquet company to give them something that they could be at least moderately successful with...
Prince does not agree with you. They just launched a classic line of racquets. Or did you forget?
Separate names with a comma.