My first goodwill haul!

graycrait

Hall of Fame
LOL! I have had those from Goodwill. I eventually gave them away. Nice grab. You need to hit with those Heads. The T2000, take it out once and then use it as a rug beater.
 

retrowagen

Hall of Fame
I think a Wilson T-tournament would be just as much fun as a "woodie" tournament. I could supply 8-10 T-series rackets in playable condition!!!
Sign me up! A few years ago, I played part of a USTA league 4.5 tournament in Northern California with a Goodwill T2K. Made me concentrate, and freaked out the opponents!
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
LOL! I have had those from Goodwill. I eventually gave them away. Nice grab. You need to hit with those Heads. The T2000, take it out once and then use it as a rug beater.
I have one of those Head Ash models but I haven’t hit with it. TBH it seems like a terrible racquet and I imagine it bending back and hitting me when the ball strikes the string bed.
 

coachrick

Hall of Fame
I have one of those Head Ash models but I haven’t hit with it. TBH it seems like a terrible racquet and I imagine it bending back and hitting me when the ball strikes the string bed.
IF you hit too high on the face, the ball is likely to fall onto your foot! :)
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
IF you hit too high on the face, the ball is likely to fall onto your foot! :)
From an engineering standpoint It was an interesting experiment that just didn’t work out it seems. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that they enjoyed playing with it. I only have it as an interesting example of composite materials.
 

coachrick

Hall of Fame
From an engineering standpoint It was an interesting experiment that just didn’t work out it seems. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that they enjoyed playing with it. I only have it as an interesting example of composite materials.
I enjoyed the Comp 2 as it was stiffer. The original and the 2 were like new wood rackets but stayed that way for longer than most wood sticks. Allowed players to step into new technology without abandoning the characteristics of wood entirely. Similar rackets from Yamaha(YCR), Rossignol(R40, RT) had the same fluttery feel on shots hit above center(like a Davis Imperial or Dunlop Maxply after a month or two).
My roommate back then played the Ashe Comp 2 with Leoina 66 @ 64# for 2-3 years(went through quite a few of them).
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
I enjoyed the Comp 2 as it was stiffer. The original and the 2 were like new wood rackets but stayed that way for longer than most wood sticks. Allowed players to step into new technology without abandoning the characteristics of wood entirely. Similar rackets from Yamaha(YCR), Rossignol(R40, RT) had the same fluttery feel on shots hit above center(like a Davis Imperial or Dunlop Maxply after a month or two).
My roommate back then played the Ashe Comp 2 with Leoina 66 @ 64# for 2-3 years(went through quite a few of them).
I've heard that the plastic composite material warped easily. However it would be interesting to see if this could be solved by embedding it inside a carbon box frame instead of just a sandwich. Such a design could offer excellent comfort and stability without excessive weight.
 

1HBHfanatic

Hall of Fame
@coachrick @WestboroChe
I liked the head rakets wayyyyy more than the w.t2k
the t2k was horrible to me, I never hit a good shot with it, I rather play with wood frames
the head.A.A rakets where actually very solid and predictable to me, good volley rakets, imo
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
@coachrick @WestboroChe
I liked the head rakets wayyyyy more than the w.t2k
the t2k was horrible to me, I never hit a good shot with it, I rather play with wood frames
the head.A.A rakets where actually very solid and predictable to me, good volley rakets, imo
I suppose it's pretty easy to hit a drop volley with one of those! Looks impossible to hit a groundstroke with.
 

1HBHfanatic

Hall of Fame
I suppose it's pretty easy to hit a drop volley with one of those! Looks impossible to hit a groundstroke with.
serves, volleys, and flat shots where nice, slices also
no topspin!!, no way to play modern tennis with these HEAD racquets above and/or wood frames,, not enough room for brushing up on the ball..
 
You can find more up to date racquets at GW than these. As another person above wrote, you can find the T2000 at most of the thrift stores, as no one wants them. If you look at more of the stores, you can find some good racquets in the 95-110 sq inch range that hit so much better, for next to no money.
 

deaner2211

Semi-Pro
serves, volleys, and flat shots where nice, slices also
no topspin!!, no way to play modern tennis with these HEAD racquets above and/or wood frames,, not enough room for brushing up on the ball..
You don't "brush up" on the ball that is a myth just like "snap back".
 

1HBHfanatic

Hall of Fame
You don't "brush up" on the ball that is a myth just like "snap back".
the loch ness monster is a myth!,
snap back is not only proven but also on film:
topspin can be argued more!!, but im still going to believe that its a brushing up motion, however short it might be,,

but if you wish to believe what you believe, then its your rite!!
 
Last edited:

coachrick

Hall of Fame
nice, I've been looking for the Arthur Ashe Comp racquet for years.
A few months AFTER I decided to stop collecting and start culling, I found a near pristine AA Comp. Recently found a pretty nice Rossi F200 and had to pry myself away(I was in on the proto testing for the 100 and 200 back in '79).
 

JW10S

Hall of Fame
From an engineering standpoint It was an interesting experiment that just didn’t work out it seems. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that they enjoyed playing with it. I only have it as an interesting example of composite materials.
I had some those Arthur Ashe Competitions, along with the brown Boron ones that followed, and I enjoyed playing with them very much. I doubt anyone who did not play with a small headed wood racquet could relate to or enjoy playing with them. And I'm not sure 'that it just didn't work' as they were around for awhile and other companies, like Yamaha and Rossignol, also made racquets with similar design. And I remember when they came out, they were just the coolest things.
 
Last edited:

JW10S

Hall of Fame
serves, volleys, and flat shots where nice, slices also
no topspin!!, no way to play modern tennis with these HEAD racquets above and/or wood frames,, not enough room for brushing up on the ball..
Huh? Spin is spin, if you're able to slice a ball and put backspin on it you can therefore also put topspin on it. As I mentioned in another thread I saw Ilie Nastase flick up 1HBH topspin lobs with ease using a Dunlop Maxply, using a continental grip. In order to spin a ball the hitting surface only need to be bigger than the ball. I could hit topspin with small headed racquets.
 

1HBHfanatic

Hall of Fame
@JW10S
nastase and/or borgs spin does not come close to jack.socks and/or nadals spin.
thats because of the differences in equipment

but I sense that we're going to get into a splitting-hair scenario
 

NLBwell

Legend
@JW10S
nastase and/or borgs spin does not come close to jack.socks and/or nadals spin.
thats because of the differences in equipment

but I sense that we're going to get into a splitting-hair scenario
That's more due to the string advances than the racket advances.
The thing is that Borg and Nastase could do things few players could do (and I wouldn't bet money that there was a lot of difference in maximum levels of spin). In terms of physics, the smaller headed racket doesn't make much difference. The poly strings that impart more spin on the ball due to snapping back and the stiffness of the poly strings that allow rackets with very open string patterns to be controllable allow normal humans to do these things consistently.
 

deaner2211

Semi-Pro
the loch ness monster is a myth!,
snap back is not only proven but also on film:
topspin can be argued more!!, but im still going to believe that its a brushing up motion, however short it might be,,

but if you wish to believe what you believe, then its your rite!!
When the strings move back into position, the ball is long gone. Actually the string bed behave as a wave and do not snap back instantly. Just another marketing gimmick. Now there may be some effect if you produce ATP power but the average Joe in the court is not effected by the behavior of strings. I can use a full bed of gut, syn gut, a hybrid, or full poly and the spin on my shots are not much different same with an ATP player.
 

tennytive

Professional
I had both of these back in college. First the T 2000, but when I saw the AA Comp I was mesmerized. It was the coolest racket I had ever seen. I couldn't afford a new one, ($70) if I remember right, so I bought the only used one in WI from a floor mate who had come to school for one year from the East coast. He was tiny but could hit the ball a ton with this stick. I paid $40 and used it to make the tennis team my senior year. Almost everyone in our conference played with wood, mostly using the JKA, so I felt cutting edge. I continued to play with this into the 90's when one of my hitting partners gave me a Boris Becker Super, and then I eventually moved into the POG line. Serves and overheads were like bombs with this stick, but I hit flat in those days so didn't learn to hit topspin with it until after graduation. I still have it to this day, hit with it once in a while but prefer an old JKA I bought online, how ironic. I've restrung both with tournament nylon which approximates the same feel as when I could play serve and volley and chase down lobs. Those days are long gone, but the rackets remain and remind me of those times gone by.
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
I had some those Arthur Ashe Competitions, along with the brown Boron ones that followed, and I enjoyed playing with them very much. I doubt anyone who did not play with a small headed wood racquet could relate to or enjoy playing with them. And I'm not sure 'that it just didn't work' as they were around for awhile and other companies, like Yamaha and Rossignol, also made racquets with similar design. And I remember when they came out, they were just the coolest things.
You are the first person I have seen on here that reports finding those racquets enjoyable. While Yamaha and Rossignol might have made similar racquets I can guarantee they were not similar in playability. And the design clearly didn't work otherwise we would still be seeing racquets like this made. I don't fault the designers, it was the wild west of racquet design with new materials and new possibilities. They were trying to mimic certain characteristics of an older material while providing performance advantages by improving on that material's limitations. There were bound to be mis-steps.
 

JW10S

Hall of Fame
You are the first person I have seen on here that reports finding those racquets enjoyable. While Yamaha and Rossignol might have made similar racquets I can guarantee they were not similar in playability. And the design clearly didn't work otherwise we would still be seeing racquets like this made. I don't fault the designers, it was the wild west of racquet design with new materials and new possibilities. They were trying to mimic certain characteristics of an older material while providing performance advantages by improving on that material's limitations. There were bound to be mis-steps.
Because we don't still see the racquets today does not mean 'they didn't work', that's a weak argument. And judging by your statement I wonder if you ever really played with the Yamahas or Rossignols. We don't see wood, steel, aluminum, fiberglass, etc., racquets used by pros anymore either--that doesn't mean 'they didn't work'. It's just that things evolve. The Arthur Ashe Competition had a few different models that came after the one pictured in this thread and this was during a time when manufacturers didn't come out with new models every 18 months to 2 years. If it didn't work it would have been a one off, and it wasn't, it had a good run.
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
Because we don't still see the racquets today does not mean 'they didn't work', that's a weak argument. And judging by your statement I wonder if you ever really played with the Yamahas or Rossignols. We don't see wood, steel, aluminum, fiberglass, etc., racquets used by pros anymore either--that doesn't mean 'they didn't work'. It's just that things evolve. The Arthur Ashe Competition had a few different models that came after the one pictured in this thread and this was during a time when manufacturers didn't come out with new models every 18 months to 2 years. If it didn't work it would have been a one off, and it wasn't, it had a good run.
Yes things evolve. Manufacturers learn from their mistakes and make better racquets.

The Bottom line is that these racquets were only moderately popular at best and I believe that was because of Ashe’s endorsements. The overwhelming amount of feedback I’ve received on it is that it was not an easy racquet to play with even compared to similar racquets of the day, had a tendency to warp and delaminate. I happen to believe that the only reason this racquet has any sort of following today is due its unusual appearance and construction as well as being tied to Ashe even though he did most of his winning with wood. The performance reviews on this racquet are generally not good when compared with others of its time.

You don’t have to agree with me. I will confess I haven’t hit with it and all this is based on others feedback. And of course just because people feel this way has no impact on your enjoyment of it. I happen to love a certain TV show that no one else I know thinks is even good.

But I don’t question their qualifications to form that opinion.
 
Because we don't still see the racquets today does not mean 'they didn't work', that's a weak argument. And judging by your statement I wonder if you ever really played with the Yamahas or Rossignols. We don't see wood, steel, aluminum, fiberglass, etc., racquets used by pros anymore either--that doesn't mean 'they didn't work'. It's just that things evolve. The Arthur Ashe Competition had a few different models that came after the one pictured in this thread and this was during a time when manufacturers didn't come out with new models every 18 months to 2 years. If it didn't work it would have been a one off, and it wasn't, it had a good run.
Technologies evolve and become more advanced. Moore's Law states that we can expect the speed and capability of our computers to increase every couple of years, and we will pay less for them. If Djokovic uses racquets made in the 80's, he would have been killed by players rank in the 200s. Computer chips today is thousand times faster than computer chips in the 80s.

If you look watch the movie "terminator", you notice that the robot become much more advance in each sequel.

Those racquets need to be in the museum.
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
Technologies evolve and become more advanced. Moore's Law states that we can expect the speed and capability of our computers to increase every couple of years, and we will pay less for them. If Djokovic uses racquets made in the 80's, he would have been killed by players rank in the 200s. Computer chips today is thousand times faster than computer chips in the 80s.

If you look watch the movie "terminator", you notice that the robot become much more advance in each sequel.

Those racquets need to be in the museum.
I’m not sure what you’re point is. No one is arguing that these racquets are better than modern ones. And they should be in a museum as examples of materials engineering.
 

JW10S

Hall of Fame
Yes things evolve. Manufacturers learn from their mistakes and make better racquets.

The Bottom line is that these racquets were only moderately popular at best and I believe that was because of Ashe’s endorsements. The overwhelming amount of feedback I’ve received on it is that it was not an easy racquet to play with even compared to similar racquets of the day, had a tendency to warp and delaminate. I happen to believe that the only reason this racquet has any sort of following today is due its unusual appearance and construction as well as being tied to Ashe even though he did most of his winning with wood. The performance reviews on this racquet are generally not good when compared with others of its time.

You don’t have to agree with me. I will confess I haven’t hit with it and all this is based on others feedback. And of course just because people feel this way has no impact on your enjoyment of it. I happen to love a certain TV show that no one else I know thinks is even good.

But I don’t question their qualifications to form that opinion.
Ashe won Wimbledon and the Australian Open using the AA Competition, quite a feat since apparently they didn't work. My point is comparing those racquets to modern day racquets is not a valid comparison. I am comparing them to other racquets of the time. I wouldn't use them now but I enjoyed playing with them back then. These came out before graphite racquets and were quite revolutionary at the time. Back then there were wood, steel or aluminum which also don't compare to modern racquets, but back then they worked. I had a few AA Competitions over the course of a couple years and none of them warped or delaminated. The 2 pictured above are about 50 years old and don't appear warped or delaminated.

But I am very surprised you'd state things as fact about something you never tried. I'll remember that when I read future posts and take them with the appropriate grain of salt.
 
Last edited:

joe sch

Legend
I think a Wilson T-tournament would be just as much fun as a "woodie" tournament. I could supply 8-10 T-series rackets in playable condition!!!
Im ready to visit Austin when you have one setup :)
On a more serious observation is that there seem to be less classic racket players and tournaments as the years pass.
In years past, I would hear about about a dozen or so during the spring to fall times.
Did not hear about any in TX this year and only a few in CA.
Most of the old school players in FL are playing modern baseline blasters now.

All, please post any classic racket or event sightings ...
 
Last edited:

Don't Let It Bounce

Hall of Fame
Oddly enough, a couple of weeks ago a fellow had one in his racket bag and, when I remarked on it, invited me to hit a few with it. It felt a lot nicer than I expected, as long as I got the ball near the center of the string bed.

It's worth noting, too, that the line persisted into the appearance of midsize frames, and even after Ashe's retirement. They must have sold reasonably well. I thought the Competition 3 was the coolest-looking of the line. The Competition Edge looked sharp, too.
 

joe sch

Legend
You are the first person I have seen on here that reports finding those racquets enjoyable. While Yamaha and Rossignol might have made similar racquets I can guarantee they were not similar in playability. And the design clearly didn't work otherwise we would still be seeing racquets like this made. I don't fault the designers, it was the wild west of racquet design with new materials and new possibilities. They were trying to mimic certain characteristics of an older material while providing performance advantages by improving on that material's limitations. There were bound to be mis-steps.
I have seen many many reports and get emails for finders all the time enjoying classic racket finds, looking for more info.
If a racket is good enough to win a slam championship then its NOT an error or mistake but a classic.
This is the case for many of the metal transitional rackets including the t2000 and Head AA models.
You really should try playing them so you do not rely on reporting other players experiences.
 
Yes things evolve. Manufacturers learn from their mistakes and make better racquets.

The Bottom line is that these racquets were only moderately popular at best and I believe that was because of Ashe’s endorsements. The overwhelming amount of feedback I’ve received on it is that it was not an easy racquet to play with even compared to similar racquets of the day, had a tendency to warp and delaminate. I happen to believe that the only reason this racquet has any sort of following today is due its unusual appearance and construction as well as being tied to Ashe even though he did most of his winning with wood. The performance reviews on this racquet are generally not good when compared with others of its time.

You don’t have to agree with me. I will confess I haven’t hit with it and all this is based on others feedback. And of course just because people feel this way has no impact on your enjoyment of it. I happen to love a certain TV show that no one else I know thinks is even good.

But I don’t question their qualifications to form that opinion.

I played with Comp back in the day. I liked it, no complaints. It was kinda pricey if i recall.
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
I have seen many many reports and get emails for finders all the time enjoying classic racket finds, looking for more info.
If a racket is good enough to win a slam championship then its NOT an error or mistake but a classic.
This is the case for many of the metal transitional rackets including the t2000 and Head AA models.
You really should try playing them so you do not rely on reporting other players experiences.
I think you guys are mistaking my criticism of the racquet with criticizing classic racquets in general. I enjoy playing with old racquets because they are so different than todays frames. I absolutely love hitting with my Black Ace, it is a comfortable, powerful frame and if I had to I could play with it, but there is no way I'm bringing that into a match and anyone who tells me that these old frames are better is just kidding themselves.

And just because someone one a slam with it doesn't really mean anything. Cedric Pioline made it to the USO final with a cheapie aluminum Prince frame you could get at KMart for $20. Doesn't mean its a good frame. Ditto for the T2000. Just because Connors liked it doesn't mean anything. If they were such great frames why didn't more pros play and win with them? Perhaps because there were better choices out there?

Regardless of playability or whatever. If a racquet has a tendency to warp and delaminate it is by definition a piece of garbage and that seems to be a common criticism of it. Especially if one paid top dollar for it. Therefore despite my interest in the racquet for a number of reasons I consider it to be an example of poor design. I think it serves as an example of why the hollow tube style of design and construction quickly became the standard. You don't have to agree with me and I won't question your tennis credentials if you do.
 
Last edited:

JW10S

Hall of Fame
Pioline used a Prince Magnesium, the same racquet Pat Cash used to win Wimbledon, it's just that Pioline's were painted white. They were certainly NOT cheapie $20 K Mart frames. And while Connors used the T-2000 for a longer period than anyone else there were indeed many other pros who used them. And the hollow tube design certainly did not 'quickly become the standard', that came quite a long while after the introduction of the Arthur Ashe Competition. The ignorance here is astounding...
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
You are the first person I have seen on here that reports finding those racquets enjoyable. While Yamaha and Rossignol might have made similar racquets I can guarantee they were not similar in playability. And the design clearly didn't work otherwise we would still be seeing racquets like this made. I don't fault the designers, it was the wild west of racquet design with new materials and new possibilities. They were trying to mimic certain characteristics of an older material while providing performance advantages by improving on that material's limitations. There were bound to be mis-steps.
Have you played with the Rossignol R40, Johan Kriek, or RT? Rossignol had a whole line of fiberglass core with aluminum skin frames. They were wonderful playing racquets and the tech came
From the ski industry. Many early pioneers of carbon fiber frames were ski companies because of their expertise in manufacturing using the materials in skis
 

frinton

Professional
You are the first person I have seen on here that reports finding those racquets enjoyable. While Yamaha and Rossignol might have made similar racquets I can guarantee they were not similar in playability. And the design clearly didn't work otherwise we would still be seeing racquets like this made. I don't fault the designers, it was the wild west of racquet design with new materials and new possibilities. They were trying to mimic certain characteristics of an older material while providing performance advantages by improving on that material's limitations. There were bound to be mis-steps.
Then I am the second. I haven’t played much with an AA Comp, but I love playing around with old rackets and do so every once in a while! I played it on or 2 years ago in our clubs classic racket fun tourney. What I remember, is that I liked the additional stability and stiffness compared to some woodies I played on that day.


Still not sure if I managed to scrape back the backhand half-volley or not... I suppose rather not
 
Last edited:

joe sch

Legend
Then I am the second. I haven’t played much with an AA Comp, but I love playing around with old rackets and do so every once in a while! I played it on or 2 years ago in our clubs classic racket fun tourney. What I remember, is that I liked the additional stability and stiffness compared to some woodies I played on that day.


Still not sure if I managed to scrape back the backhand half-volley or not... I suppose rather not
Is that you in the above photo?
Looks like a very nice court and I love the classic whites!
What great evidence of enjoyment ;)
 

frinton

Professional
Is that you in the above photo?
Looks like a very nice court and I love the classic whites!
What great evidence of enjoyment ;)
Yep, that’s me ... 2 years ago. Yes, we have nice clay courts here... if you’re ever in Switzerland let me know and come play some classic Tennis with me!

I was hitting today and broke out the AA Competition to play points without serves. The first game playing with my main stick PS85 lost 10:5, the 2nd and 3rd with Ashe Comp 10:3 and 10:8.
Yes, less spin, less power, but managed to play a few good points. It was fun and my PS85 felt light after . But wrist, and arm feel it a bit.
 

coachrick

Hall of Fame
Im ready to visit Austin when you have one setup :)
On a more serious observation is that there seem to be less classic racket players and tournaments as the years pass.
In years past, I would hear about about a dozen or so during the spring to fall times.
Did not hear about any in TX this year and only a few in CA.
Most of the old school players in FL are playing modern baseline blasters now.

All, please post any classic racket or event sightings ...
I'm still interested in the old classics; but, alas, I now play Pickleball instead of tennis. A hit with some classics might be what it would take to get me back out on the court ;)
 

joe sch

Legend
I'm still interested in the old classics; but, alas, I now play Pickleball instead of tennis. A hit with some classics might be what it would take to get me back out on the court ;)
Atlleast your still on the courts, assuming pickleball has taken over tennis courts in Austin as well :(
Some classic hits would be fun and get me back on the courts, have been retired from tennis most of this year :(
Id bring a bike since I do love cycling in Austin (and the food and brews, recently went to The Brewtorium Brewery & Kitchen) :)
 

joe sch

Legend
Yep, that’s me ... 2 years ago. Yes, we have nice clay courts here... if you’re ever in Switzerland let me know and come play some classic Tennis with me!

I was hitting today and broke out the AA Competition to play points without serves. The first game playing with my main stick PS85 lost 10:5, the 2nd and 3rd with Ashe Comp 10:3 and 10:8.
Yes, less spin, less power, but managed to play a few good points. It was fun and my PS85 felt light after . But wrist, and arm feel it a bit.
Raincheck on Switzerland. I love the meetup offer.
 
Top