Official 2012 Wilson Playtest Discussion and Reviews
- Thread starter TW Staff
- Start date
Box beam feel in a bigger. Customizable. Sounds like must demo.
Automatix
Legend
I have to say that the PS 6.1 95 is the frame which IMHO will be a bestseller in 2012.
However the 100 started to intrigue me. A leather grip, overgrip and some silicone in the handle should bump this frame to 320g strung. It should be about 5HL and with the medium stiffness (~65RA) and low swingweight it will be a good frame for older advanced players who don't want to entirely sacrifice the great feel of the 6.1 family for the extra power in a lighter package.
However the 100 started to intrigue me. A leather grip, overgrip and some silicone in the handle should bump this frame to 320g strung. It should be about 5HL and with the medium stiffness (~65RA) and low swingweight it will be a good frame for older advanced players who don't want to entirely sacrifice the great feel of the 6.1 family for the extra power in a lighter package.
SteveI
Legend
It was appox 18 mm at head and 20 mm @ 3&9 and about a max of 22 mm @ throat. Hope that helps. Very thin beam in the playing area.
Regards,
Steve
SteveI
Legend
Very much so. I can see myself using this frame. it has a very low SW.. and is med flex. Not sure I would add silicone to handle. One of the best parts of this frame is the feel. Not really want to mute that feel.
Thanks, but I am asking about the width of the stringbed (strings) inside the frame from 3 to 9 without the frame. I know it's 22.8 cm (9 inches) in six one tour 90. Wondering how much wider it is in PS BLX 100. TIA
Automatix
Legend
I didn't have a chance to hit with the 100 yet so I'm judging by the specs alone - I've posted all specs for the new Pro Staffs in a different thread.
As for the silicone, I've become somewhat addicted to the stuff. It really improves feel for me, especially when you use jarring/stiff frames like a Pure Drive etc.
I'm actually thinking of buying 2x 100s, test them out, try different setups and if I like them do a make over - black pj, leather grips etc.
SteveI
Legend
Sorry no longer have the frame.. sent it back to TW after I completed the play testing. Maybe someone else has the info.
Shangri La
Hall of Fame
Only if it was standard length...
I was thinking about the same thing too because customizing the PS95 can be tricky. By the time the sw reaches 320+ and a leather grip is put on, the weight is 12oz already. But too bad the 100 is 27.25 in long..
Last edited:
ICanBeSerious
Rookie
tw-europe is about to post the 6.1 2012 line:
http://www.tenniswarehouse-europe.com/descpageRCWILSONH-WSO95O.html
I guess they will have exact the same spec as the previous model.
http://www.tenniswarehouse-europe.com/descpageRCWILSONH-WSO95O.html
I guess they will have exact the same spec as the previous model.
Automatix
Legend
I actually prefer extended and would like it to be 27,5-28 inches.
It's easier to reduce the length a bit than to extend it IMHO.
Automatix
Legend
Last edited:
Automatix
Legend
Yeah, but still it depends on what you actually get from Wilson.
For example the specs given for the PS 6.1 BLX 95 differ from my short experience with the frame.
Fed Kennedy
Legend
I would love that to be true. My test frame felt more like 340.
Geoff
Hall of Fame
Fed Kennedy
Legend
Thats good news. I prob just had a heavy one.
Power Player
Bionic Poster
It took over my EXOs to be honest. Extremely versatile as compared to the more defensive style of the EXO.
Still have an EXO though..too good of a stick to not pull out for a hit, especially if an injury happens.
This Wilson demo was an ingenious plot by TW.
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
Review Part 1
My Review:
Your Racquet of Choice:
Currently using a Babolat Pure Storm Tour (really by default) as I wait until the spring to get a new frame. All through the 2011 summer competitive (tournament and league) season, I primarily used a Babolat Pure Drive Roddick. That's a very short window with those two frames. Prior to that I used a Prince Diablo mid for several years and Dunlop 200 series frames, the last being the Aerogel 4D.
The color code of the racquet received:
Black-Blue (I assume this is the next in the 6.1 95 players frame line) String pattern was 16x18
How many hours did you play with this racquet: Around 4 hours. An initial short hitting session, then on a different day 4 sets of singles, and on a different day a set of doubles.
A little bit about me:
Late 30s, 4.5 competitive player (regularly play tournaments and leagues, both USTA and non-sanctioned). Primarily western forehand, though can move it to SW if needed. Two-handed backhand, and one-handed slice backhand. Primarily a baseliner who can be aggressive and also grind and work the point. Will come to net when forced, when there is a clear opportunity, and sometimes just to mix it up. Rarely serve and volley in singles. Play consistently - 3-4 times per week in the summer, and 1-2 times per week indoors in the winter.
COMMENTS ON THE FRAME:
1. Overall feel
The frame was beautifully balanced and swung through the contact point superbly. I realize this varies for all players, but this frame really matched my stroke mechanics well. I have never used a Wilson 6.1 series frame as my normal frame, but I have hit and played with my friends' 6.1 frames (BLX, K-Factor, Ncode, Classic 6.1) enough to have a good frame (pun intended) of reference. I felt this frame was noticeably more maneuverable than the BLX 6.1, without giving away stability. It's just one of those things where even though the specs may be close, minor differences can make a big difference. And, again, this frame was particularly suited to my mechanics.
Stability was great, as you would expect. No issues. Rock solid. No weird vibrations, no twisting.
Stiffness was perfect. I wrote this in a very short post weeks ago - there was really no discernible stiffness "feel" one way or the other. The frame didn't have an obviously stiff feeling that jarred you at first and could cause soreness before adjusting (like some Babolat frames or even the Kfactor 6.1). But, it also didn't have a noticeable flex feel either, like an Ncode 6.1, or a Prince EXO3 Tour. It was sublimely in between in my opinion.
Finally, I thought that compared to other 6.1 frames, the sweet spot was slightly higher in the string bed. This has always been an issue for me after using a Prince Diablo Mid for years, which has a very high sweet spot compared to most frames. I really liked this aspect of the frame. Also thought the sweet spot was fairly large for a 95.
Arm friendly, and fairly plush and not harsh, even strung with all poly.
2. Groundstrokes.
Surprisingly, at first I thought it was WAY too powerful. I used a Pure Drive Roddick all summer, which many would consider more powerful. But, you control a PDR by really whipping through the contact point and getting a lot of spin, not by letting off of the shot. So, I started by swinging as I swung with my PDR and balls were flying. I hadn't used a heavier frame for a while, so I had all that extra mass juicing up my shots. And, the different balance sort of threw me off at first. But, I adjusted quickly.
Once I made the necessary adjustments, I found my ground strokes to be fantastic with this frame. I have a pretty compact two-handed backhand that I hit with considerably less spin than my forehand. This is the best backhand frame I have played with since my Diablo or maybe ever. No extraneous movement is necessary. Due to the weight of the frame, I can just turn my hips and shoulders, take my usual short backswing and let the weight of the frame do the work. So nice. I can really rip the ball with minimal effort. And, due to the stability, the control is fantastic. Defensively, it's just as good. I can "bunt" balls back when rushed for time just by setting the racket face in the right position and taking an incredibly short swing. This is where weight and stability really matter. I could never do this consistently with my PDR, which didn't lend itself to half-strokes. IMO, a PDR becomes a completely different frame when slowed down. This frame was great slowed down. Slice backhands were also very good, both long-stroke Steffi Graf type slices used to pin your opponent on the baseline, and also for short chip slices to create short angles and when hitting a ball of desperation that you barely got to.
Forehands were equally good. A wonderful frame for hitting a variety of forehands. If you want to hit massive spin, you can. I could take a fairly big loop, put my grip in full western and hit hard, loopy, spinny shots, which is great when trying to get back into position, or just for general grinding. But, the frame also lent itself to flattening out the ball. Could totally take the ball and hit "point and shoot" flattish (trajectory, not necessarily lack of spin) winners. Could really get a lot of head speed due to the maneuverability, but everything was still very controllable. And, as on the backhand side, if I was rushed or had to play quick defensive shots, the frame responded great to a shortening of my stroke, block-backs or "bunts" as it were.
Overall, I absolutely loved this frame for ground strokes.
See next post for PART 2 of review
My Review:
Your Racquet of Choice:
Currently using a Babolat Pure Storm Tour (really by default) as I wait until the spring to get a new frame. All through the 2011 summer competitive (tournament and league) season, I primarily used a Babolat Pure Drive Roddick. That's a very short window with those two frames. Prior to that I used a Prince Diablo mid for several years and Dunlop 200 series frames, the last being the Aerogel 4D.
The color code of the racquet received:
Black-Blue (I assume this is the next in the 6.1 95 players frame line) String pattern was 16x18
How many hours did you play with this racquet: Around 4 hours. An initial short hitting session, then on a different day 4 sets of singles, and on a different day a set of doubles.
A little bit about me:
Late 30s, 4.5 competitive player (regularly play tournaments and leagues, both USTA and non-sanctioned). Primarily western forehand, though can move it to SW if needed. Two-handed backhand, and one-handed slice backhand. Primarily a baseliner who can be aggressive and also grind and work the point. Will come to net when forced, when there is a clear opportunity, and sometimes just to mix it up. Rarely serve and volley in singles. Play consistently - 3-4 times per week in the summer, and 1-2 times per week indoors in the winter.
COMMENTS ON THE FRAME:
1. Overall feel
The frame was beautifully balanced and swung through the contact point superbly. I realize this varies for all players, but this frame really matched my stroke mechanics well. I have never used a Wilson 6.1 series frame as my normal frame, but I have hit and played with my friends' 6.1 frames (BLX, K-Factor, Ncode, Classic 6.1) enough to have a good frame (pun intended) of reference. I felt this frame was noticeably more maneuverable than the BLX 6.1, without giving away stability. It's just one of those things where even though the specs may be close, minor differences can make a big difference. And, again, this frame was particularly suited to my mechanics.
Stability was great, as you would expect. No issues. Rock solid. No weird vibrations, no twisting.
Stiffness was perfect. I wrote this in a very short post weeks ago - there was really no discernible stiffness "feel" one way or the other. The frame didn't have an obviously stiff feeling that jarred you at first and could cause soreness before adjusting (like some Babolat frames or even the Kfactor 6.1). But, it also didn't have a noticeable flex feel either, like an Ncode 6.1, or a Prince EXO3 Tour. It was sublimely in between in my opinion.
Finally, I thought that compared to other 6.1 frames, the sweet spot was slightly higher in the string bed. This has always been an issue for me after using a Prince Diablo Mid for years, which has a very high sweet spot compared to most frames. I really liked this aspect of the frame. Also thought the sweet spot was fairly large for a 95.
Arm friendly, and fairly plush and not harsh, even strung with all poly.
2. Groundstrokes.
Surprisingly, at first I thought it was WAY too powerful. I used a Pure Drive Roddick all summer, which many would consider more powerful. But, you control a PDR by really whipping through the contact point and getting a lot of spin, not by letting off of the shot. So, I started by swinging as I swung with my PDR and balls were flying. I hadn't used a heavier frame for a while, so I had all that extra mass juicing up my shots. And, the different balance sort of threw me off at first. But, I adjusted quickly.
Once I made the necessary adjustments, I found my ground strokes to be fantastic with this frame. I have a pretty compact two-handed backhand that I hit with considerably less spin than my forehand. This is the best backhand frame I have played with since my Diablo or maybe ever. No extraneous movement is necessary. Due to the weight of the frame, I can just turn my hips and shoulders, take my usual short backswing and let the weight of the frame do the work. So nice. I can really rip the ball with minimal effort. And, due to the stability, the control is fantastic. Defensively, it's just as good. I can "bunt" balls back when rushed for time just by setting the racket face in the right position and taking an incredibly short swing. This is where weight and stability really matter. I could never do this consistently with my PDR, which didn't lend itself to half-strokes. IMO, a PDR becomes a completely different frame when slowed down. This frame was great slowed down. Slice backhands were also very good, both long-stroke Steffi Graf type slices used to pin your opponent on the baseline, and also for short chip slices to create short angles and when hitting a ball of desperation that you barely got to.
Forehands were equally good. A wonderful frame for hitting a variety of forehands. If you want to hit massive spin, you can. I could take a fairly big loop, put my grip in full western and hit hard, loopy, spinny shots, which is great when trying to get back into position, or just for general grinding. But, the frame also lent itself to flattening out the ball. Could totally take the ball and hit "point and shoot" flattish (trajectory, not necessarily lack of spin) winners. Could really get a lot of head speed due to the maneuverability, but everything was still very controllable. And, as on the backhand side, if I was rushed or had to play quick defensive shots, the frame responded great to a shortening of my stroke, block-backs or "bunts" as it were.
Overall, I absolutely loved this frame for ground strokes.
See next post for PART 2 of review
Last edited:
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
Review Part 2
3. Serve Return
Much of what I wrote for ground strokes could apply in the serve return category - maneuverability, stability, control, ability to hit a variety of spins and trajectories, etc. Especially noteworthy is what I wrote about stability and being able to shorten my swing for "bunting" and blocking back balls. These sorts of returns were great. I play indoors in the winter where everyone's serve is a juiced up due to the conditions, and I have a couple of people I play regularly with all year who have big serves. So this ability to shorten the swing for the return or just block back with control is HUGE. I didn't always have that with my PDR. Serve return can be tricky for me. I usually have a full western forehand, but my right hand on my backhand side is Eastern. Holding my right hand somewhere in the middle and then making a split second decision often doesn't work well on big first serves. (Though, I often have success on second serves). So, on first serves, I have to commit. I commit to hitting a forehand and if I don't get it, blocking back the backhand. Or, more often, I commit to the backhand and, if I don't get it, block back or bunt the forehand return. This racquet actually was stable enough and just felt "right" enough where if I was holding my grip waiting for a serve to by backhand, but got a forehand, I could just get the racket out in front, take a short swing, and hit a forehand return using an Eastern grip instead of hitting a pure "block" shot. This was impossible with my PDR. I never would have thought I could make some successful Eastern forehand returns. LOL.
4. Serve.
Again, very solid. Really have the ability to hit some heaters as well as hit all areas of the serve box. Great spin and slice capability, or can just throw it out front, come straight down on top of it and hit a nice flat serve. But, I can see where it could be a bit cumbersome over a long match though. Serve is where this frame felt the heaviest. Using a PDR this summer, I wasn't throwing my toss as far out in front and was relying on lots of spin all the time to control my serves. With this frame, I moved my toss farther out front, didn't wind up as much and let the weight of the frame do more work. Really important to lean in with this frame on serve, IMO. Can't get away with as much with this frame on serve. But, if toss and mechanics are good (make sure to really snap that wrist), it's a great serving frame. Nice blend of control and power.
5. Volleys
I'm not a great volleyer. I successfully put away volleys because I know when to come into net and usually create an easy volley. And, I have fairly good hands which makes up for deficient form. Specifically, my backhand volley is pretty good - compact swing, out front, crisp. But, my forehand volley can range from "pretty good" on a great day, to much more commonly "fine" to, on regular occasion, "pretty bad." I've never been consistently, naturally been out front on my forehand volley. I tend to let it get "in" on me, too close to my body. And, I have a tendency to not turn my shoulders and not always step forward through the shot when I should, thus arming the ball and making some pretty embarrassing misses. I know what I'm doing wrong, but it doesn't come naturally. If I start thinking of everything I should be doing, I usually have worse results. My best forehand volley is off the serve when playing doubles because I'm naturally moving forward and my racket is naturally out front. Much worse is when I'm standing at the net when my partner is serving and people are rifling returns. I guess, all of this is to say that I may not be the best person to assess a racket's volleying qualities.
That said, I really liked this racquet for volleying. On the backhand volley, it was maneuverable, solid, and reliable. Unlike on my forehand volley, my backhand volley is pretty sound, and this racquet responds well to that classic short swing punch volley. Control is very good and stability is also good for volleying back pace or for when you get into rapid fire volley exchanges. I'd assuming, for these reasons, that this frame is just as good for proper forehand volleys, and that was my experience those times when I was doing things right and hitting a proper forehand volley. More importantly for me, the weight and control of the racquet really helped when I got caught, as I often do, with my elbow back and the ball "in" on me, not out in front. I could block the ball back from that position to keep the point going, though I really couldn't do anything offensive or creative. With my PDR, this never would have happened. Bad-form forehand volleys with the PDR were much, much less successful (not that bad-form shots neccessarily should be "successful," but I'll take what I can get). I'm not sure I want to promote a frame as helping me mask a weakness, but to some degree this frame did help mask the weakness of my forehand volley.
6. Final thoughts.
Overall I loved this frame. I have really nothing negative to say about it, other than it may be a bit cumbersome on serve. Any weaknesses would really be player specific (doesn't fit your game style, is generally too heavy for you, the head isn't big enough and you want something more forgiving, etc.). There was nothing like poor quality manufacturing or general instability, or poor spin potential that would be a negative for all players, regardless of racket preference or ability level.
If the specs stay the same from this prototype to the production model, there is a very good chance that it will be my new frame. I was that impressed. I played very well this frame.
Thank you TW for the opportunity to test the frame. I sincerely apologize for the delay in posting my comments. Happy Holidays, everyone.
3. Serve Return
Much of what I wrote for ground strokes could apply in the serve return category - maneuverability, stability, control, ability to hit a variety of spins and trajectories, etc. Especially noteworthy is what I wrote about stability and being able to shorten my swing for "bunting" and blocking back balls. These sorts of returns were great. I play indoors in the winter where everyone's serve is a juiced up due to the conditions, and I have a couple of people I play regularly with all year who have big serves. So this ability to shorten the swing for the return or just block back with control is HUGE. I didn't always have that with my PDR. Serve return can be tricky for me. I usually have a full western forehand, but my right hand on my backhand side is Eastern. Holding my right hand somewhere in the middle and then making a split second decision often doesn't work well on big first serves. (Though, I often have success on second serves). So, on first serves, I have to commit. I commit to hitting a forehand and if I don't get it, blocking back the backhand. Or, more often, I commit to the backhand and, if I don't get it, block back or bunt the forehand return. This racquet actually was stable enough and just felt "right" enough where if I was holding my grip waiting for a serve to by backhand, but got a forehand, I could just get the racket out in front, take a short swing, and hit a forehand return using an Eastern grip instead of hitting a pure "block" shot. This was impossible with my PDR. I never would have thought I could make some successful Eastern forehand returns. LOL.
4. Serve.
Again, very solid. Really have the ability to hit some heaters as well as hit all areas of the serve box. Great spin and slice capability, or can just throw it out front, come straight down on top of it and hit a nice flat serve. But, I can see where it could be a bit cumbersome over a long match though. Serve is where this frame felt the heaviest. Using a PDR this summer, I wasn't throwing my toss as far out in front and was relying on lots of spin all the time to control my serves. With this frame, I moved my toss farther out front, didn't wind up as much and let the weight of the frame do more work. Really important to lean in with this frame on serve, IMO. Can't get away with as much with this frame on serve. But, if toss and mechanics are good (make sure to really snap that wrist), it's a great serving frame. Nice blend of control and power.
5. Volleys
I'm not a great volleyer. I successfully put away volleys because I know when to come into net and usually create an easy volley. And, I have fairly good hands which makes up for deficient form. Specifically, my backhand volley is pretty good - compact swing, out front, crisp. But, my forehand volley can range from "pretty good" on a great day, to much more commonly "fine" to, on regular occasion, "pretty bad." I've never been consistently, naturally been out front on my forehand volley. I tend to let it get "in" on me, too close to my body. And, I have a tendency to not turn my shoulders and not always step forward through the shot when I should, thus arming the ball and making some pretty embarrassing misses. I know what I'm doing wrong, but it doesn't come naturally. If I start thinking of everything I should be doing, I usually have worse results. My best forehand volley is off the serve when playing doubles because I'm naturally moving forward and my racket is naturally out front. Much worse is when I'm standing at the net when my partner is serving and people are rifling returns. I guess, all of this is to say that I may not be the best person to assess a racket's volleying qualities.
That said, I really liked this racquet for volleying. On the backhand volley, it was maneuverable, solid, and reliable. Unlike on my forehand volley, my backhand volley is pretty sound, and this racquet responds well to that classic short swing punch volley. Control is very good and stability is also good for volleying back pace or for when you get into rapid fire volley exchanges. I'd assuming, for these reasons, that this frame is just as good for proper forehand volleys, and that was my experience those times when I was doing things right and hitting a proper forehand volley. More importantly for me, the weight and control of the racquet really helped when I got caught, as I often do, with my elbow back and the ball "in" on me, not out in front. I could block the ball back from that position to keep the point going, though I really couldn't do anything offensive or creative. With my PDR, this never would have happened. Bad-form forehand volleys with the PDR were much, much less successful (not that bad-form shots neccessarily should be "successful," but I'll take what I can get). I'm not sure I want to promote a frame as helping me mask a weakness, but to some degree this frame did help mask the weakness of my forehand volley.
6. Final thoughts.
Overall I loved this frame. I have really nothing negative to say about it, other than it may be a bit cumbersome on serve. Any weaknesses would really be player specific (doesn't fit your game style, is generally too heavy for you, the head isn't big enough and you want something more forgiving, etc.). There was nothing like poor quality manufacturing or general instability, or poor spin potential that would be a negative for all players, regardless of racket preference or ability level.
If the specs stay the same from this prototype to the production model, there is a very good chance that it will be my new frame. I was that impressed. I played very well this frame.
Thank you TW for the opportunity to test the frame. I sincerely apologize for the delay in posting my comments. Happy Holidays, everyone.
Last edited:
Power Player
Bionic Poster
blue Train..awesome review. You play style sounds very very similar to mine to where it is rather scary.lol.
Since demoing the same stick in this play test I have bought 2 BLX versions and may buy 1 or 2 of the new ones as well if things continue as well as they have.
I have switched to an abbreviated serve and it really helps with this stick, especially in terms of being able to serve over a 2-3 hour duration.
Since demoing the same stick in this play test I have bought 2 BLX versions and may buy 1 or 2 of the new ones as well if things continue as well as they have.
I have switched to an abbreviated serve and it really helps with this stick, especially in terms of being able to serve over a 2-3 hour duration.
Last edited:
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
I was going to give the BLX 6.1 another chance, but I think I'll wait. I've always liked 6.1 95s, they've always been "fine" for me, and if I had to, I certainly could have used them. But, I've never loved them until this frame.
Is there any idea when the new Wilson line will be released?
Is there any idea when the new Wilson line will be released?
Automatix
Legend
When the racquets were available on a czech tennis site it stood February 2012.
SteveI
Legend
Last year... we playtested late October - November and the there was a two stage roll out. The more popular frames came 1st ... released with the AO. The other release was mid February and included the lesser know lines.. or new lines/names. Most of them game improvement and tweeners.
Hope that helps... this was in the CONUSA. Can't speak to other regions and countries.
Steve
Last edited:
Topaz
Legend
I've been a total slacker in posting my review...I blame nursing school!
Though, I will say right now that I was disappointed that mine was strung with full poly.
Last time I tried that I had to take almost two weeks off from tennis while my arm healed. I did hit with my test racquet for one hour, and will post my 'mini-review' soon!
And even after that...my arm hurt a bit. The poly is just too harsh for me and I had no means of re-stringing it. I find it hard to believe that TW would send out the racquets strung that way...perhaps it was someone else's first and they restrung it with the poly?
Though, I will say right now that I was disappointed that mine was strung with full poly.
Last time I tried that I had to take almost two weeks off from tennis while my arm healed. I did hit with my test racquet for one hour, and will post my 'mini-review' soon!And even after that...my arm hurt a bit. The poly is just too harsh for me and I had no means of re-stringing it. I find it hard to believe that TW would send out the racquets strung that way...perhaps it was someone else's first and they restrung it with the poly?
SteveI
Legend
I've been a total slacker in posting my review...I blame nursing school!
Though, I will say right now that I was disappointed that mine was strung with full poly.
And even after that...my arm hurt a bit. The poly is just too harsh for me and I had no means of re-stringing it. I find it hard to believe that TW would send out the racquets strung that way...perhaps it was someone else's first and they restrung it with the poly?
Hey Lady,
Nice to see you posting again. You are no longer teaching school? What frame did you get to test? The frames were all strung with a full bed of ALU Power. I tested the PS 6.1 100 as far as I can tell.
Looking forward to your mini review.
- My current racket: Volkl Organix 10 295 customized to 340 grams, 5 HL, ~335 swing weight; all court player 4-4.5
- 2 black strips (shhh don't tell but it might be the new Prostaff 95 racket) weight 329.3 grams strung (no overgrip, no dampener), 6 pts HL strung, 16x19 string pattern, thin (~18mm) square beam, and appeared to have a 95" stringbed. Strung with all Luxilon.
- Played 4 hours with the racket
- Groundstrokes: the racket was very easy to play with off the ground due to the HL balance. The swing weight felt low (guess around 310 grams) but I don't have a good way of measuring it. Anyhow, very quick and maneuverable - easy to handle. Loads of spin available. Easy to generate spin as you can get good racket head speed due to the relatively light weight and HL balance. Good flex, again can not measure flex but my guess is low 60-64 range RDC strung. The only negative off the ground is it is a low powered racket and you have to work to generate power. But, it is very precise due to the 95" head and you can work the ball for great spin and control. Easy on the arm due to soft feel.
- Serve: again, very precise on serve with loads of spin available. I don't hit a lot of flat serves but slice and kick serves are fairly easy to accomplish with the open string pattern and HL balance. The only downside is I get a bit more power from my current racket which has a much higher swing weight.
- Volley: An all lux string bed would not be my choice for demo-ing volleys but I think this racket will be a great volley racket with a hybrid setup or all soft string (gut/multi) setup. It is easy to handle and you can place volleys well. I like rackets in the 95" to 98" head size as you get great control on the volleys. This racket has potential to be a great volleying racket with the right string setup.
- Serve Returns: excellent racket to drive returns in stock form. It needs a higher swing weight to handle bigger serves with block returns. You can tee off on weak serves and keep your return in the court due to the control and spin. Against fast serves or serves with lots of kick, a little higher swing weight would have been nice.
- Summary: I really like the "potential" of this racket. Personally, I would add 5-10 grams to the head to get more power and stability. I think the higher swing weight would help the racket in all areas of the game. In stock form, I think it is a very solid racket if you like low swing weight rackets. Maybe if you are the kind of player who compensates for low swing weight with a high swing speed, you might like it in stock form. I posted a thread last Feb (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=369919&highlight=Dear+Wilson) asking Wilson to build a racket similar to this one. They got it mostly right but I think a higher swing weight would have made it a classic. But, it is a perfect racket to use for customization, and I'll probably demo it again when I am ready to buy my next pair of rackets. It is a bit different than your classic "pro staff" as most pro staff rackets tend to be clubs with higher weight and swing weight. This racket isn't a club and is a more modern faster pro staff. I tend to buy 2 rackets and play with them about 1.5-2 years before I get the bug to try something new. I like to buy low weight rackets and customize to my personal setup and I think this racket can be tweaked to satisfaction. This racket is on my short list for my next purchase. Overall an excellent concept and very good racket.
Thanks to TW for including me in the demo program and it has been a lot of fun.
- 2 black strips (shhh don't tell but it might be the new Prostaff 95 racket) weight 329.3 grams strung (no overgrip, no dampener), 6 pts HL strung, 16x19 string pattern, thin (~18mm) square beam, and appeared to have a 95" stringbed. Strung with all Luxilon.
- Played 4 hours with the racket
- Groundstrokes: the racket was very easy to play with off the ground due to the HL balance. The swing weight felt low (guess around 310 grams) but I don't have a good way of measuring it. Anyhow, very quick and maneuverable - easy to handle. Loads of spin available. Easy to generate spin as you can get good racket head speed due to the relatively light weight and HL balance. Good flex, again can not measure flex but my guess is low 60-64 range RDC strung. The only negative off the ground is it is a low powered racket and you have to work to generate power. But, it is very precise due to the 95" head and you can work the ball for great spin and control. Easy on the arm due to soft feel.
- Serve: again, very precise on serve with loads of spin available. I don't hit a lot of flat serves but slice and kick serves are fairly easy to accomplish with the open string pattern and HL balance. The only downside is I get a bit more power from my current racket which has a much higher swing weight.
- Volley: An all lux string bed would not be my choice for demo-ing volleys but I think this racket will be a great volley racket with a hybrid setup or all soft string (gut/multi) setup. It is easy to handle and you can place volleys well. I like rackets in the 95" to 98" head size as you get great control on the volleys. This racket has potential to be a great volleying racket with the right string setup.
- Serve Returns: excellent racket to drive returns in stock form. It needs a higher swing weight to handle bigger serves with block returns. You can tee off on weak serves and keep your return in the court due to the control and spin. Against fast serves or serves with lots of kick, a little higher swing weight would have been nice.
- Summary: I really like the "potential" of this racket. Personally, I would add 5-10 grams to the head to get more power and stability. I think the higher swing weight would help the racket in all areas of the game. In stock form, I think it is a very solid racket if you like low swing weight rackets. Maybe if you are the kind of player who compensates for low swing weight with a high swing speed, you might like it in stock form. I posted a thread last Feb (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=369919&highlight=Dear+Wilson) asking Wilson to build a racket similar to this one. They got it mostly right but I think a higher swing weight would have made it a classic. But, it is a perfect racket to use for customization, and I'll probably demo it again when I am ready to buy my next pair of rackets. It is a bit different than your classic "pro staff" as most pro staff rackets tend to be clubs with higher weight and swing weight. This racket isn't a club and is a more modern faster pro staff. I tend to buy 2 rackets and play with them about 1.5-2 years before I get the bug to try something new. I like to buy low weight rackets and customize to my personal setup and I think this racket can be tweaked to satisfaction. This racket is on my short list for my next purchase. Overall an excellent concept and very good racket.
Thanks to TW for including me in the demo program and it has been a lot of fun.
TW Staff
Administrator
I've been a total slacker in posting my review...I blame nursing school!
Though, I will say right now that I was disappointed that mine was strung with full poly.
And even after that...my arm hurt a bit. The poly is just too harsh for me and I had no means of re-stringing it. I find it hard to believe that TW would send out the racquets strung that way...perhaps it was someone else's first and they restrung it with the poly?
Topaz,
The playtest racquet's string set up was at the request of Wilson.
Brittany, TW
Topaz
Legend
Really? Very interesting, thanks for letting me know. It's a bit surprising to me too...my racquet felt fairly light and a full bed of lux was just too harsh for me. Could have been a psychological reaction too when I saw the string!
Topaz
Legend
Hi Steve! *waving*
My racquet had two yellow tape strips.
Yup, going through a career change/early midlife crisis...or something like that!
Teaching wasn't allowing me enough time for tennis!!!
*kidding*
SteveI
Legend
Hi Topaz,
DD and I both tested the same frame you are testing now. I hope all is going well in your career change. Looking forward to your review. Happy Holidays.
Steve
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
And just in time for Christmas, BHBH weighs in on the Pro Staff BLX 90 and 95!!
Greetings Fellow Tennis Addicts!
This will be my follow up to complete the “Other 180 Degrees” of our promised “360 Review!”
Time Devoted to the Review: approximately 8 hours
Personal Racquet of Choice
Wilson K 6.1 Tour 90 ASIAN EDITION customized by 1st Service Tennis to my preferred ‘target specs’ of 340 grams/32 balance/325 SW
Luxilon BB Ace 18 @63# (actual measured tension after 15 mins of hitting is 47#)
No grip-just a single Tournagrip over the bare handle, Guga style!
Test Racquet Received
I was afforded the opportunity to playtest the “Two Blue Stripe” frame (BLX Pro Staff 90) while Geoff received the “Two Black Stripe” (BLX Pro Staff 95). I ultimately played (as did Geoff!) both frames, completing the “360” review from BOTH perspectives.
Test Racquet Specs
2 Black Stripes - 326g, 32cm, 299SW
2 Blue Stripes - 356.5g, 31.3cm, 324SW
My playtests
2 Black Stripes (BLX Pro Staff 95)
Groundstrokes
I want to admit I entered the playtest with a bias-I was inclined to think the BLX PS 95 might very well be my new frame. However off the ground I was immediately aware of the effort I needed to exert to keep the ball deep into the court on both the forehand and backhand wings. I felt Robin Soderling-esque in the cartoonish cuts I was taking at the ball, and even the undeniable swing speed I was able to generate (which in turn produced quite a bit of spin) but was ultimately disappointed in the results. While directional control was good, and the ball seemed to bite and ‘hop’ nicely off the court, my shots lacked their typical ‘nastiness’. In turn I found myself more often on the defense, even when I struck what I felt were solid groundstrokes. As an all court player, I use my ground game to set up the attack, and without the ability to ‘hurt’ a player like Geoff off the ground one can expect a long, painful day at the office. This is just what I experienced. Especially the painful part.
Serve
Typically I’ve found lighter frames confer a bit of an advantage on the serve, allowing for greater swing speed and in turn more ‘pop’ on flat first deliveries and spin on seconds. And while I certainly served reasonably well with the 95, here too I felt I lost something on the whole. Again targeting was good, but the weight of shot seemed to be lacking. In fact CrossCourt (a 5.0+ talented player who is part of our happy little group) specifically commented to me on his fact, saying “Your serve just didn’t have its usual heaviness and spin.” Geoff let his racquet do the talking, blasting returns at my navel and passing me seemingly at will.
Volley and Overhead
Like Geoff, I was happiest with the 95 at net, which I too found surprising. Typically frames with a lighter static weight are less stable at the net. This is particularly noticeable when playing higher level competition capable of generating excellent pace and spin. Not so with the BLX Pro Staff 95. In fact, just the opposite. I found this frame to be remarkably stable and to offer the wonderful Pro Staff box beam feel so many have craved in a slightly larger, perhaps more forgiving, package. Volleys off both sides were crisp and easy to control for both depth and placement. I prefer a very simple volley technique, with a shoulder turn used to set the frame behind the ball, followed by compact steps forward, capitalizing upon one's momentum to volley with depth and precision. This "volleying with the feet" technique was very well served by the BLX 95. The maneuverability and stability observed on volleys translated beautifully to hitting overheads. I was able to hit strong put away shots, with outstanding placement, even on many of Geoff’s best lobs. In short, I absolutely loved the BLX 95 at net! In fact I clearly preferred it to my beloved 90s.
Serve Returns
Many of my observations concerning the 95 off the ground were also evident when returning serve. During the playtest I had the opportunity to return serves from Geoff as well as from our good friend CrossCourt. The two are very different servers. Geoff’s serve is deceptively good. Though he does not generate tremendous amounts of pace he hits a flat, low bouncing serve with excellent variety and precision. Geoff can really ‘hit his spots’!! He is also known to mix in the serve and volley with regularity, keeping the returner off-balance. CrossCourt has a real weapon in his serve. He is capable of generating tremendous pace and is possessed of excellent variety. When "hot" CrossCourt is able to back up his serve with ferocious attacking tennis, including both an aggressively struck forehand and all out serve and volley onslaught. When returning both men’s serves I found myself much more on the defensive with the 95 than I'm accustomed to when playing my 90. The excellent stability observed at net with the 95 did not seem to translate to the service return, a fact I can only explain as reflective of my trouble timing the ball with the much lighter frame. When playing competitively, I set a personal goal to return at least 90% of my opponents’ first-serves, and 100% of their seconds. This mindset typically produces tremendous pressure on one's opponent. With the 95 I consistently failed to effectively return both first and second serves in a manner that could produce pressure on my accomplished opponents. Again, it was my perception that while the ball frequently was returned into play, it lacked its usual effect on my opponent. I especially struggled with the slice return off the backhand side, typically a bread and butter play for me. At my age, I like to say I was hitting that shot with Federer was still in diapers! But not with the 95.
General comments on overall performance
In conclusion, I have to admit my disappointment with the BLX 95. I entered the playtest imagining myself changing to this frame. As of today, I can't imagine that will happen. While possessed of many virtues, including specifications that allow ample room for customization, incredible stability at net, and tremendous maneuverability, the frame in stock form is simply too light for my tastes, which in turn adversely affected its performance off the ground and on the serve. And even when customized to my exact specifications the 95 seemed excessively flexible with a peculiar weight distribution that did not serve my particular all court game style. Having now read the reviews of other board members I'm aware many are very enthusiastic concerning the BLX 95. I am certain it will be a very popular frame, but in all candor I cannot offer my endorsement.
2 Blue Stripes (BLX Pro Staff 90)
Groundstrokes
One of my favorite aspects of playing the Wilson 90 in.² players frames, from the tour 90, to the n90, and more recently the K and BLX series is the performance of these frames off the ground. My satisfaction and enjoyment only continued and was even more so enhanced with the Pro staff 90 BLX. While the test frame maintained the utterly unique Wilson box beam feel, precise control over height and direction, and allowed for excellent depth, it did so in a more manageable, maneuverable package. I know the specifications of the frame indicated it is only ever so slightly more head light than the previous Wilson players frames, with a modestly lower SW. However during play the perceived difference in responsiveness was dramatic. I found myself immediately confident in taking full cuts at the ball on both the forehand and backhand wing. Aggressive swings were rewarded with tightly spun balls that cleared the net with generous margin, bit the court, and bounced aggressively forward. Likewise, slice backhands and approach shots flowed naturally with depth and trajectory easy to control. On more than one occasion both Geoff and Crosscourt commented on the heavy, difficult to manage nature of my slice backhand with the Pro staff 90.
Serve
In competitive play I rely heavily on my serve, both first and second, to win easy points out right as well as to set up an aggressive groundstroke or volley. In my estimation few racquets serve better than the Wilson 90 series. The family tradition of Wilson excellence was maintained with BLX Pro Staff 90. In fact, not unlike the experience found off the ground, the somewhat more head light nature of the Pro Staff 90 lent itself beautifully to serving. Whether it was flat first deliveries or kick/slice seconds, the BLX Pro Staff 90 cut through the air beautifully, allowing the serve to flow naturally. I've always felt I serve especially well with the Asian K 90. I think I serve even better with the Pro staff 90.
Volley and Overhead
The BLX Pro Staff 90 was also an absolute joy at net. The combination of its high static weight, incredible stability, headlight balance, stiffness and remarkable overall maneuverability all spelled "incredible volleying stick" for me. When I play Geoff or Crosscourt trust me when I tell you I'm faced with many challenging volleys, including everything from deftly hit, deceptively difficult to time "softballs", to tightly spun and dipping passing shots, to all out efforts to enlarge the size of my navel. No matter the nature of the incoming ball I found myself consistently able to volley (and half volley when necessary) with touch, control, and the nasty under spun skid that allows me to stay in points with players of this caliber. Likewise on the overhead, just as on the serve, racquet head speed was easy to generate allowing for consistent, aggressively struck and well-placed overheads. I don't think I've ever hit my overhead better than with the BLX Pro Staff 90.
(continued in next post................)
Greetings Fellow Tennis Addicts!
This will be my follow up to complete the “Other 180 Degrees” of our promised “360 Review!”
Time Devoted to the Review: approximately 8 hours
Personal Racquet of Choice
Wilson K 6.1 Tour 90 ASIAN EDITION customized by 1st Service Tennis to my preferred ‘target specs’ of 340 grams/32 balance/325 SW
Luxilon BB Ace 18 @63# (actual measured tension after 15 mins of hitting is 47#)
No grip-just a single Tournagrip over the bare handle, Guga style!
Test Racquet Received
I was afforded the opportunity to playtest the “Two Blue Stripe” frame (BLX Pro Staff 90) while Geoff received the “Two Black Stripe” (BLX Pro Staff 95). I ultimately played (as did Geoff!) both frames, completing the “360” review from BOTH perspectives.
Test Racquet Specs
2 Black Stripes - 326g, 32cm, 299SW
2 Blue Stripes - 356.5g, 31.3cm, 324SW
My playtests
2 Black Stripes (BLX Pro Staff 95)
Groundstrokes
I want to admit I entered the playtest with a bias-I was inclined to think the BLX PS 95 might very well be my new frame. However off the ground I was immediately aware of the effort I needed to exert to keep the ball deep into the court on both the forehand and backhand wings. I felt Robin Soderling-esque in the cartoonish cuts I was taking at the ball, and even the undeniable swing speed I was able to generate (which in turn produced quite a bit of spin) but was ultimately disappointed in the results. While directional control was good, and the ball seemed to bite and ‘hop’ nicely off the court, my shots lacked their typical ‘nastiness’. In turn I found myself more often on the defense, even when I struck what I felt were solid groundstrokes. As an all court player, I use my ground game to set up the attack, and without the ability to ‘hurt’ a player like Geoff off the ground one can expect a long, painful day at the office. This is just what I experienced. Especially the painful part.
Serve
Typically I’ve found lighter frames confer a bit of an advantage on the serve, allowing for greater swing speed and in turn more ‘pop’ on flat first deliveries and spin on seconds. And while I certainly served reasonably well with the 95, here too I felt I lost something on the whole. Again targeting was good, but the weight of shot seemed to be lacking. In fact CrossCourt (a 5.0+ talented player who is part of our happy little group) specifically commented to me on his fact, saying “Your serve just didn’t have its usual heaviness and spin.” Geoff let his racquet do the talking, blasting returns at my navel and passing me seemingly at will.
Volley and Overhead
Like Geoff, I was happiest with the 95 at net, which I too found surprising. Typically frames with a lighter static weight are less stable at the net. This is particularly noticeable when playing higher level competition capable of generating excellent pace and spin. Not so with the BLX Pro Staff 95. In fact, just the opposite. I found this frame to be remarkably stable and to offer the wonderful Pro Staff box beam feel so many have craved in a slightly larger, perhaps more forgiving, package. Volleys off both sides were crisp and easy to control for both depth and placement. I prefer a very simple volley technique, with a shoulder turn used to set the frame behind the ball, followed by compact steps forward, capitalizing upon one's momentum to volley with depth and precision. This "volleying with the feet" technique was very well served by the BLX 95. The maneuverability and stability observed on volleys translated beautifully to hitting overheads. I was able to hit strong put away shots, with outstanding placement, even on many of Geoff’s best lobs. In short, I absolutely loved the BLX 95 at net! In fact I clearly preferred it to my beloved 90s.
Serve Returns
Many of my observations concerning the 95 off the ground were also evident when returning serve. During the playtest I had the opportunity to return serves from Geoff as well as from our good friend CrossCourt. The two are very different servers. Geoff’s serve is deceptively good. Though he does not generate tremendous amounts of pace he hits a flat, low bouncing serve with excellent variety and precision. Geoff can really ‘hit his spots’!! He is also known to mix in the serve and volley with regularity, keeping the returner off-balance. CrossCourt has a real weapon in his serve. He is capable of generating tremendous pace and is possessed of excellent variety. When "hot" CrossCourt is able to back up his serve with ferocious attacking tennis, including both an aggressively struck forehand and all out serve and volley onslaught. When returning both men’s serves I found myself much more on the defensive with the 95 than I'm accustomed to when playing my 90. The excellent stability observed at net with the 95 did not seem to translate to the service return, a fact I can only explain as reflective of my trouble timing the ball with the much lighter frame. When playing competitively, I set a personal goal to return at least 90% of my opponents’ first-serves, and 100% of their seconds. This mindset typically produces tremendous pressure on one's opponent. With the 95 I consistently failed to effectively return both first and second serves in a manner that could produce pressure on my accomplished opponents. Again, it was my perception that while the ball frequently was returned into play, it lacked its usual effect on my opponent. I especially struggled with the slice return off the backhand side, typically a bread and butter play for me. At my age, I like to say I was hitting that shot with Federer was still in diapers! But not with the 95.
General comments on overall performance
In conclusion, I have to admit my disappointment with the BLX 95. I entered the playtest imagining myself changing to this frame. As of today, I can't imagine that will happen. While possessed of many virtues, including specifications that allow ample room for customization, incredible stability at net, and tremendous maneuverability, the frame in stock form is simply too light for my tastes, which in turn adversely affected its performance off the ground and on the serve. And even when customized to my exact specifications the 95 seemed excessively flexible with a peculiar weight distribution that did not serve my particular all court game style. Having now read the reviews of other board members I'm aware many are very enthusiastic concerning the BLX 95. I am certain it will be a very popular frame, but in all candor I cannot offer my endorsement.
2 Blue Stripes (BLX Pro Staff 90)
Groundstrokes
One of my favorite aspects of playing the Wilson 90 in.² players frames, from the tour 90, to the n90, and more recently the K and BLX series is the performance of these frames off the ground. My satisfaction and enjoyment only continued and was even more so enhanced with the Pro staff 90 BLX. While the test frame maintained the utterly unique Wilson box beam feel, precise control over height and direction, and allowed for excellent depth, it did so in a more manageable, maneuverable package. I know the specifications of the frame indicated it is only ever so slightly more head light than the previous Wilson players frames, with a modestly lower SW. However during play the perceived difference in responsiveness was dramatic. I found myself immediately confident in taking full cuts at the ball on both the forehand and backhand wing. Aggressive swings were rewarded with tightly spun balls that cleared the net with generous margin, bit the court, and bounced aggressively forward. Likewise, slice backhands and approach shots flowed naturally with depth and trajectory easy to control. On more than one occasion both Geoff and Crosscourt commented on the heavy, difficult to manage nature of my slice backhand with the Pro staff 90.
Serve
In competitive play I rely heavily on my serve, both first and second, to win easy points out right as well as to set up an aggressive groundstroke or volley. In my estimation few racquets serve better than the Wilson 90 series. The family tradition of Wilson excellence was maintained with BLX Pro Staff 90. In fact, not unlike the experience found off the ground, the somewhat more head light nature of the Pro Staff 90 lent itself beautifully to serving. Whether it was flat first deliveries or kick/slice seconds, the BLX Pro Staff 90 cut through the air beautifully, allowing the serve to flow naturally. I've always felt I serve especially well with the Asian K 90. I think I serve even better with the Pro staff 90.
Volley and Overhead
The BLX Pro Staff 90 was also an absolute joy at net. The combination of its high static weight, incredible stability, headlight balance, stiffness and remarkable overall maneuverability all spelled "incredible volleying stick" for me. When I play Geoff or Crosscourt trust me when I tell you I'm faced with many challenging volleys, including everything from deftly hit, deceptively difficult to time "softballs", to tightly spun and dipping passing shots, to all out efforts to enlarge the size of my navel. No matter the nature of the incoming ball I found myself consistently able to volley (and half volley when necessary) with touch, control, and the nasty under spun skid that allows me to stay in points with players of this caliber. Likewise on the overhead, just as on the serve, racquet head speed was easy to generate allowing for consistent, aggressively struck and well-placed overheads. I don't think I've ever hit my overhead better than with the BLX Pro Staff 90.
(continued in next post................)
Last edited:
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
Serve Returns
A racquet that plays well off the ground tends to be a racquet that also serves one well on the return of serve. One of my best coaches consistently told me to consider the second serve as the shortest ball I might see in the course of any given point and as an opportunity to attack. With the BLX Pro staff 90 in hand I felt able to explore the outer limits of my returning ability. Again by virtue of its heft and stability the frame offered an excellent tool for dealing with CrossCourt’s flat bombs as well as Geoff’s precisely placed, skidding first deliveries. Slice returns stayed low and skidded, making a first volley or groundstroke a more challenging proposition for my opponents. On second serve returns I followed my coach’s advice and played aggressively, often able to use a forcefully struck return to change defense into offense, or at the very least to neutralize my very capable adversaries’ attacks. These findings came as no surprise to me as I've always felt The Pro Staff 90 series to be especially proficient on the return. I can't say if the test frame was any better than the K or BLX series, but certainly nothing was lost.
General comments on overall performance
As you can probably tell, both by this review and many others past, I am a very big fan of the Wilson 90 in.² players’ frames. For me these racquets offer an almost ideal balance of virtues, pairing the weight, stability, stiffness, and maneuverability that more or less optimally suit my all court game. Personally I do not believe their small head size nor hefty (at least by modern standards) swing weight to be in any way a detriment to my game. In fact, when I try "modern" offerings with larger head sizes and lower static, as well as swing, weights (and as those of you who have followed my threads carefully know, I have tried many!!) I find any modest gains achieved in terms of additional power or forgiveness are easily more than offset by losses in consistency and control. The one area in which I have found midplus frames to exceed the performance offered by my beloved Pro Staff mids would be comfort. Still, for me at the end of the day, nothing feels or performs like a Wilson 90. With the BLX Pro Staff 90 Wilson has, in my opinion, simply built upon or amplified (no pun intended!) the virtues of the venerable Pro staff line. I will be laying down my Asian K 90 and moving to the new frames.
Playing Against the Test Frames
This portion of the review will summarize my experience from the other side of the net hitting against my good friend, and our fellow board member, Geoff. Geoff is a very accomplished player who has experience at the very highest levels of the game. A former Division I collegiate tennis player and practice partner to two former world number ones, Geoff brings outstanding stroke production, consistency, athleticism, speed, and incredible court sense as well as anticipation to the game. He has been nationally ranked in age group tennis as an adult and is a USPTA “Professional One” pro as well as a very accomplished stringer and racquet customization specialist. Also on court during some of the playtest time was our good friend CrossCourt, himself also a very accomplished former collegiate player with coaching experience at the professional, as well as amateur, level. Crosscourt plays a very different game style from Geoff, and thus the opportunity to include him in this review process was invaluable. Last but not least, my OTHER pal Geoff also joined me for a 90 minute hitting session during the test period. THIS “Geoff” is a highly accomplished DI coach and former ACC champ who plays one of the oddest games you’ll ever encounter, with a feel for the ball (and control over it) that is hard to describe!! If Geoff's game is modeled after Federer, I would say CrossCourt is is more akin to Stefan Edberg, and the “Other Geoff”……well, Fabrice Santoro?
2 Black Stripes (BLX Pro Staff 95)
Groundstrokes
Like myself, I happen to know Geoff was very enthusiastic about the arrival of the BLX Pro Staff 95. Unfortunately, I think his experience was similar to my own when using the 95 in.² frame off the ground. Geoff moves so well and has such fundamentally sound stroke mechanics he could consistently rally using a broom. (Please, PLEASE let’s not go there! It’s just an expression, OK??) However with the 95, while Geoff’s consistency and directional control were still very much present, his shots lacked their normal sting. Geoff hits a relatively flat ball off the ground, and this quality seemed to be accentuated with the Pro staff 95. Puzzlingly, Geoff seemed to struggle more when set up to strike the ball than when he found himself on the move!! My hypothesis is that the lighter frame allowed Geoff to more easily redirect aggressively struck balls at the last possible instant than either his own frame or the 90 in.² test frame. A paradox was thus created: on simple rally shots Geoff’s ball lacked the depth, spin, and ‘heaviness’ he usually produces with ease. However when placed on the run he hit a series of shots (and in particular certain passing shots) that were nothing short of miraculous. When things like that happen on the court, I like to just smile and simply say, “I was glad to be there to witness it!” But, on the whole, I think Geoff's ground game suffered with the 95 in.² frame in hand.
Serve
I've already described Geoff’s serve as characterized by excellent placement, variety, and a sneakily low trajectory that makes returning it difficult. With the 95 in.² test frame all of these same virtues were certainly evident. There may have been however a modest increase in the velocity of his first serve in particular. I definitely did perceive additional spin in the form of both slice and kick on various second offerings. On the whole I would say Geoff’s serve very slightly, but meaningfully, benefited from his using the Pro Staff 95 as despite the additional pace and spin offered him by the 95, his consistency, placement, and variety did not seem to suffer.
Volley and Overhead
Geoff is possessed of gifted hands and incredible touch. At net with the 95 in.² test frame in hand he simply did not miss. As a part of our assessment process Geoff asked me to hit him balls with various spin, pace, and trajectory. Rarely does a good friend ask you to hit balls as hard as you can at his head, but that's just what Geoff asked me for during our play test! The purpose of this demented exercise? To allowed Geoff to simultaneously assess the stability, maneuverability, and precision of the Pro staff 95!! The test frame acquitted itself amazingly well. Or, perhaps better said, Geoff tore it up at the net with the 95 in.² frame in hand. His volleys were crisp, tightly back spun, and skidding. Try picking up a chunk of lead with the head of your racquet and you'll get the idea of what felt like when trying to strike Geoff volleys when delivered with the Pro staff 95. At the same time placement and precision as well as feel for drop volleys and acute angles was maintained. Overheads were consistently and powerfully struck. In fact, even more so than on the serve I noticed an increase in power on Geoff’s overheads when using the BXL Pro Staff 95. If the 95 si test frame had performed as well for him from other areas of the court as it did at net I am sure Geoff would've already pre-ordered a half-dozen frames.
Serve Returns
Geoff seemed to struggle mightily when returning serve with the BLX Pro staff 95.This is all the more remarkable because typically the return is one of the strongest aspects of Geoff game. It is my suspicion that the lighter static weight and more head light balance of the frame, along with its somewhat flexible nature led to timing difficulties as Geoff ‘s returns were subpar off both first and second serves. And believe you me, typically I take a deep gulp before delivering second serve to Geoff!
(and more in the next post...............)
A racquet that plays well off the ground tends to be a racquet that also serves one well on the return of serve. One of my best coaches consistently told me to consider the second serve as the shortest ball I might see in the course of any given point and as an opportunity to attack. With the BLX Pro staff 90 in hand I felt able to explore the outer limits of my returning ability. Again by virtue of its heft and stability the frame offered an excellent tool for dealing with CrossCourt’s flat bombs as well as Geoff’s precisely placed, skidding first deliveries. Slice returns stayed low and skidded, making a first volley or groundstroke a more challenging proposition for my opponents. On second serve returns I followed my coach’s advice and played aggressively, often able to use a forcefully struck return to change defense into offense, or at the very least to neutralize my very capable adversaries’ attacks. These findings came as no surprise to me as I've always felt The Pro Staff 90 series to be especially proficient on the return. I can't say if the test frame was any better than the K or BLX series, but certainly nothing was lost.
General comments on overall performance
As you can probably tell, both by this review and many others past, I am a very big fan of the Wilson 90 in.² players’ frames. For me these racquets offer an almost ideal balance of virtues, pairing the weight, stability, stiffness, and maneuverability that more or less optimally suit my all court game. Personally I do not believe their small head size nor hefty (at least by modern standards) swing weight to be in any way a detriment to my game. In fact, when I try "modern" offerings with larger head sizes and lower static, as well as swing, weights (and as those of you who have followed my threads carefully know, I have tried many!!) I find any modest gains achieved in terms of additional power or forgiveness are easily more than offset by losses in consistency and control. The one area in which I have found midplus frames to exceed the performance offered by my beloved Pro Staff mids would be comfort. Still, for me at the end of the day, nothing feels or performs like a Wilson 90. With the BLX Pro Staff 90 Wilson has, in my opinion, simply built upon or amplified (no pun intended!) the virtues of the venerable Pro staff line. I will be laying down my Asian K 90 and moving to the new frames.
Playing Against the Test Frames
This portion of the review will summarize my experience from the other side of the net hitting against my good friend, and our fellow board member, Geoff. Geoff is a very accomplished player who has experience at the very highest levels of the game. A former Division I collegiate tennis player and practice partner to two former world number ones, Geoff brings outstanding stroke production, consistency, athleticism, speed, and incredible court sense as well as anticipation to the game. He has been nationally ranked in age group tennis as an adult and is a USPTA “Professional One” pro as well as a very accomplished stringer and racquet customization specialist. Also on court during some of the playtest time was our good friend CrossCourt, himself also a very accomplished former collegiate player with coaching experience at the professional, as well as amateur, level. Crosscourt plays a very different game style from Geoff, and thus the opportunity to include him in this review process was invaluable. Last but not least, my OTHER pal Geoff also joined me for a 90 minute hitting session during the test period. THIS “Geoff” is a highly accomplished DI coach and former ACC champ who plays one of the oddest games you’ll ever encounter, with a feel for the ball (and control over it) that is hard to describe!! If Geoff's game is modeled after Federer, I would say CrossCourt is is more akin to Stefan Edberg, and the “Other Geoff”……well, Fabrice Santoro?
2 Black Stripes (BLX Pro Staff 95)
Groundstrokes
Like myself, I happen to know Geoff was very enthusiastic about the arrival of the BLX Pro Staff 95. Unfortunately, I think his experience was similar to my own when using the 95 in.² frame off the ground. Geoff moves so well and has such fundamentally sound stroke mechanics he could consistently rally using a broom. (Please, PLEASE let’s not go there! It’s just an expression, OK??) However with the 95, while Geoff’s consistency and directional control were still very much present, his shots lacked their normal sting. Geoff hits a relatively flat ball off the ground, and this quality seemed to be accentuated with the Pro staff 95. Puzzlingly, Geoff seemed to struggle more when set up to strike the ball than when he found himself on the move!! My hypothesis is that the lighter frame allowed Geoff to more easily redirect aggressively struck balls at the last possible instant than either his own frame or the 90 in.² test frame. A paradox was thus created: on simple rally shots Geoff’s ball lacked the depth, spin, and ‘heaviness’ he usually produces with ease. However when placed on the run he hit a series of shots (and in particular certain passing shots) that were nothing short of miraculous. When things like that happen on the court, I like to just smile and simply say, “I was glad to be there to witness it!” But, on the whole, I think Geoff's ground game suffered with the 95 in.² frame in hand.
Serve
I've already described Geoff’s serve as characterized by excellent placement, variety, and a sneakily low trajectory that makes returning it difficult. With the 95 in.² test frame all of these same virtues were certainly evident. There may have been however a modest increase in the velocity of his first serve in particular. I definitely did perceive additional spin in the form of both slice and kick on various second offerings. On the whole I would say Geoff’s serve very slightly, but meaningfully, benefited from his using the Pro Staff 95 as despite the additional pace and spin offered him by the 95, his consistency, placement, and variety did not seem to suffer.
Volley and Overhead
Geoff is possessed of gifted hands and incredible touch. At net with the 95 in.² test frame in hand he simply did not miss. As a part of our assessment process Geoff asked me to hit him balls with various spin, pace, and trajectory. Rarely does a good friend ask you to hit balls as hard as you can at his head, but that's just what Geoff asked me for during our play test! The purpose of this demented exercise? To allowed Geoff to simultaneously assess the stability, maneuverability, and precision of the Pro staff 95!! The test frame acquitted itself amazingly well. Or, perhaps better said, Geoff tore it up at the net with the 95 in.² frame in hand. His volleys were crisp, tightly back spun, and skidding. Try picking up a chunk of lead with the head of your racquet and you'll get the idea of what felt like when trying to strike Geoff volleys when delivered with the Pro staff 95. At the same time placement and precision as well as feel for drop volleys and acute angles was maintained. Overheads were consistently and powerfully struck. In fact, even more so than on the serve I noticed an increase in power on Geoff’s overheads when using the BXL Pro Staff 95. If the 95 si test frame had performed as well for him from other areas of the court as it did at net I am sure Geoff would've already pre-ordered a half-dozen frames.
Serve Returns
Geoff seemed to struggle mightily when returning serve with the BLX Pro staff 95.This is all the more remarkable because typically the return is one of the strongest aspects of Geoff game. It is my suspicion that the lighter static weight and more head light balance of the frame, along with its somewhat flexible nature led to timing difficulties as Geoff ‘s returns were subpar off both first and second serves. And believe you me, typically I take a deep gulp before delivering second serve to Geoff!
(and more in the next post...............)
Last edited:
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
General comments on overall performance
Like myself Geoff has explored more or less all of the 95 in.² players’ frame offerings from Wilson, including the Hyper Pro staff 95 and Pro staff Original 95. Although each is offered him certain advantages over his 90 in.² Wilson, none has on the whole exceeded its performance.
2 Blue Stripes(BLX Pro Staff 90)
Groundstrokes
Geoff seemed immediately at home producing groundstrokes with the 90 in.² test frame. There seem to be little or no adjustment period needed. Geoff’s excellent consistency, depth, spin, and placement were immediately evident. I did not perceive any real change in comparison to his groundstrokes as produced with his usual frame.
Serve
As would be expected, Geoff served similarly with the 90 in.² test frame as he does with his own Wilson BLX 90. I did think however there was additional pace and spin to be found with the slightly more head light Pro Staff BLX 90. I am already lamenting the improvements I expect to see in Geoff serve once he has fully dialed in the new frame.
Volley and Overhead
I've already commented on the nothing short of stellar performance Geoff put on with the Pro Staff 95 while at net. Although there may have been some modest decline in his performance when using the 90, particularly as pertains to the perceived “stick” on the volley Geoff was able to accomplish with the 95, I suspect the losses he might experience in other areas of his game were he to change racquets would more than likely offset these gains.
Serve Returns
Geoff is a great returner and with the Pro staff 90 in hand it was back to business as usual. A.k.a. he didn't miss! I even thought he returned some especially well struck first serves with more than the typical dose of punishment I'm accustomed to receiving. Could this also reflect the somewhat more head light balance of the test frame and his attendant ability to “get it around"? Only time will tell.
General comments on overall performance
As usual, Geoff played an exceedingly high quality, all court game when using the 90 in.² BLX Pro Staff. It seemed as if he had been using this racquet all of life. Come to think of it, he has been using it for quite a while!
Overall Summary:
I want to thank Tennis Warehouse and Wilson Tennis for the amazing opportunities they have provided us over the years to playtest frames in advance of their general release and to offer our observations on an incredible forum like Talk Tennis Warehouse. It has truly been a privilege to serve as a playtest participant, and one I do not take lightly. I would therefore also like to apologize for the delay in posting my comments. However both the timing of the arrival of the test frame immediately before a holiday and an illness in a member of my family caused me to repeatedly postpone the review.
In conclusion, what we have here in my opinion are two frames that are very likely to be wildly successful. While not appealing to my particular tastes, the BLX Pro Staff 95 will undoubtedly be a bestseller. It is a true players’ frame in a slightly more forgiving head size with tons of room for customization. I suspect many, many Tennis Warehouse racquetaholics will be gleefully tweaking this frame to suit their game for years to come. And the 90 in.² Wilson simply speaks for itself. In my opinion its success is only marginally accounted for by its association with Roger Federer. Rather it is its unique playing characteristics, not unlike The Venerable Pro Staff 85, that have earned its place amongst the best frames currently offered. I for one will be buying more.
Happy Holidays!!!
BHBH
Like myself Geoff has explored more or less all of the 95 in.² players’ frame offerings from Wilson, including the Hyper Pro staff 95 and Pro staff Original 95. Although each is offered him certain advantages over his 90 in.² Wilson, none has on the whole exceeded its performance.
2 Blue Stripes(BLX Pro Staff 90)
Groundstrokes
Geoff seemed immediately at home producing groundstrokes with the 90 in.² test frame. There seem to be little or no adjustment period needed. Geoff’s excellent consistency, depth, spin, and placement were immediately evident. I did not perceive any real change in comparison to his groundstrokes as produced with his usual frame.
Serve
As would be expected, Geoff served similarly with the 90 in.² test frame as he does with his own Wilson BLX 90. I did think however there was additional pace and spin to be found with the slightly more head light Pro Staff BLX 90. I am already lamenting the improvements I expect to see in Geoff serve once he has fully dialed in the new frame.
Volley and Overhead
I've already commented on the nothing short of stellar performance Geoff put on with the Pro Staff 95 while at net. Although there may have been some modest decline in his performance when using the 90, particularly as pertains to the perceived “stick” on the volley Geoff was able to accomplish with the 95, I suspect the losses he might experience in other areas of his game were he to change racquets would more than likely offset these gains.
Serve Returns
Geoff is a great returner and with the Pro staff 90 in hand it was back to business as usual. A.k.a. he didn't miss! I even thought he returned some especially well struck first serves with more than the typical dose of punishment I'm accustomed to receiving. Could this also reflect the somewhat more head light balance of the test frame and his attendant ability to “get it around"? Only time will tell.
General comments on overall performance
As usual, Geoff played an exceedingly high quality, all court game when using the 90 in.² BLX Pro Staff. It seemed as if he had been using this racquet all of life. Come to think of it, he has been using it for quite a while!
Overall Summary:
I want to thank Tennis Warehouse and Wilson Tennis for the amazing opportunities they have provided us over the years to playtest frames in advance of their general release and to offer our observations on an incredible forum like Talk Tennis Warehouse. It has truly been a privilege to serve as a playtest participant, and one I do not take lightly. I would therefore also like to apologize for the delay in posting my comments. However both the timing of the arrival of the test frame immediately before a holiday and an illness in a member of my family caused me to repeatedly postpone the review.
In conclusion, what we have here in my opinion are two frames that are very likely to be wildly successful. While not appealing to my particular tastes, the BLX Pro Staff 95 will undoubtedly be a bestseller. It is a true players’ frame in a slightly more forgiving head size with tons of room for customization. I suspect many, many Tennis Warehouse racquetaholics will be gleefully tweaking this frame to suit their game for years to come. And the 90 in.² Wilson simply speaks for itself. In my opinion its success is only marginally accounted for by its association with Roger Federer. Rather it is its unique playing characteristics, not unlike The Venerable Pro Staff 85, that have earned its place amongst the best frames currently offered. I for one will be buying more.
Happy Holidays!!!
BHBH
PeterFig
Professional
Great review BHBH (and Geoff for the first 180)!!! I've played with the PS95 a few times and liked it but only once it was leaded up .... but not as much as my current ABLX90.
I've been adding more and more weight to my ABLX90 to get more plow-through closer to that of the regular BLX90 so hearing that the new PSBLX90 is a little easier to swing than the BLX90 but still a solid frame is fantastic news. Sounds like just the right mix of what I"m looking for. Can't wait to order a few!
I've been adding more and more weight to my ABLX90 to get more plow-through closer to that of the regular BLX90 so hearing that the new PSBLX90 is a little easier to swing than the BLX90 but still a solid frame is fantastic news. Sounds like just the right mix of what I"m looking for. Can't wait to order a few!
JGads
G.O.A.T.
Man, you guys knocked it out of the park with the thoroughness of that 360 review. BHBH, your findings on the PS 95 were exactly the same as mine: a frame I had huge hopes for, but ultimately didn't have it; just had to work too hard for consistent pace. The 90 sounds great; you guys and the honorable FedKennedy both really dug it. Anyway, just wanted to say, great write-ups.
General comments on overall performance
Like myself Geoff has explored more or less all of the 95 in.² players’ frame offerings from Wilson, including the Hyper Pro staff 95 and Pro staff Original 95. Although each is offered him certain advantages over his 90 in.² Wilson, none has on the whole exceeded its performance.
2 Blue Stripes(BLX Pro Staff 90)
Groundstrokes
Geoff seemed immediately at home producing groundstrokes with the 90 in.² test frame. There seem to be little or no adjustment period needed. Geoff’s excellent consistency, depth, spin, and placement were immediately evident. I did not perceive any real change in comparison to his groundstrokes as produced with his usual frame.
Serve
As would be expected, Geoff served similarly with the 90 in.² test frame as he does with his own Wilson BLX 90. I did think however there was additional pace and spin to be found with the slightly more head light Pro Staff BLX 90. I am already lamenting the improvements I expect to see in Geoff serve once he has fully dialed in the new frame.
Volley and Overhead
I've already commented on the nothing short of stellar performance Geoff put on with the Pro Staff 95 while at net. Although there may have been some modest decline in his performance when using the 90, particularly as pertains to the perceived “stick” on the volley Geoff was able to accomplish with the 95, I suspect the losses he might experience in other areas of his game were he to change racquets would more than likely offset these gains.
Serve Returns
Geoff is a great returner and with the Pro staff 90 in hand it was back to business as usual. A.k.a. he didn't miss! I even thought he returned some especially well struck first serves with more than the typical dose of punishment I'm accustomed to receiving. Could this also reflect the somewhat more head light balance of the test frame and his attendant ability to “get it around"? Only time will tell.
General comments on overall performance
As usual, Geoff played an exceedingly high quality, all court game when using the 90 in.² BLX Pro Staff. It seemed as if he had been using this racquet all of life. Come to think of it, he has been using it for quite a while!
Overall Summary:
I want to thank Tennis Warehouse and Wilson Tennis for the amazing opportunities they have provided us over the years to playtest frames in advance of their general release and to offer our observations on an incredible forum like Talk Tennis Warehouse. It has truly been a privilege to serve as a playtest participant, and one I do not take lightly. I would therefore also like to apologize for the delay in posting my comments. However both the timing of the arrival of the test frame immediately before a holiday and an illness in a member of my family caused me to repeatedly postpone the review.
In conclusion, what we have here in my opinion are two frames that are very likely to be wildly successful. While not appealing to my particular tastes, the BLX Pro Staff 95 will undoubtedly be a bestseller. It is a true players’ frame in a slightly more forgiving head size with tons of room for customization. I suspect many, many Tennis Warehouse racquetaholics will be gleefully tweaking this frame to suit their game for years to come. And the 90 in.² Wilson simply speaks for itself. In my opinion its success is only marginally accounted for by its association with Roger Federer. Rather it is its unique playing characteristics, not unlike The Venerable Pro Staff 85, that have earned its place amongst the best frames currently offered. I for one will be buying more.
Happy Holidays!!!
BHBH
BHBH,
Thanks for the very insightful review. I have a couple quick questions, although it may prompt a long response, regarding your comparison of the BLX PS 90 to the PS 85 reissue. I know you spent some time with the reissued PS 85 and it is my stick of choice (again after many many years away from tennis as we discussed in your PS 85 thread).
So as it stands if you wouldn't mind answering the following (if you think it necessary in a separate thread so as not to detract from the Wilson playtest):
1) Why did you switch back to your customized AK90 from the PS 85?
2) How does the BLX PS 90 compare to the current PS 85?
Thanks.
not part of the playtest but my local store finally got the BLX PS95 in (only 5) and they know how interested i was in this racket so I finally got to demo it and its was awesome!!!! switching next year. I also saw it was 10 PT HL? opposed to the 7PTs on the spec. sheet
Last edited:
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
I suspect you will like the new BLX Pro Staff 90 very much if your taste runs toward the feel/flex of the ASIAN Wilson 90 series, as does mine. The new frame feels REMARKABLY similar to my AK90! Best, BHBH
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
Ultimately the switch back to the AK90 came because of the ability to play better defense using it comparison to the PS 85. I LOVE the 'feel' and precision of the 85, and there is nothing I find more effective on the serve and at net, but at my current level I run into plenty of folks who can really put some mustard on the ball and get you moving. Once in motion, and especially on my forehand wing, I found the 85 simply less forgiving.
As for a comparison between the two, I think (GULP-get ready to take heat, BHBH!) the new BLX PS 90 plays a LOT like a bigger, more forgiving 85. Thus, the change (in lieu of simply sticking with the AK90!)
Best,
BHBH
Wow! Ok, looks like I am going to have to give the BLX PS 90 a thorough playtest once my biceps tenodesis heals (two weeks into about 16-24 weeks of recovery). At least with my recovery I won't have to compete with everyone that wants these racquets as soon as they are released. Maybe I'll pick up a used one after initial rush happens and use it for my playtest. Thanks again and good luck with the switch.
Good review and feedback.
You say that you tweaked it with lead - exactly how much and where did you add it?
I pre-ordered a PS 95 but having seen the specs and read peoples' reviews, I'm pretty sure I'm going to cancel it and pick up a 16x18 6.1 95 instead.
Last edited:
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
Hi Torres,
My test frame was customized by my buddy's company, 1stServiceTennis. He matched it to my target specs of 340 grams/32 cm/325 SW. The lead was placed primarily at 11-1 o'clock. This increases the SW significantly, as was my wish. Note all my frames are so configured/balanced, so the odd feel I experienced with the BLX PS 95 was unique to it and likely NOT a function of the placement of the lead.
Best,
BHBH
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
I suspect the two frames will play VERY differently! Best, BHBH
I've got a couple of BLX 6.1s already (albeit the 18x20s) so it won't be too much of a surprise. The only frustrations with the 6.1s is that there's no room for customisation if you get a stick that's out of spec.
Bit of shame about the PS95. I was hoping it might turn out to be a great but it looks like its a bit flimsy and the jury's still out as to how well it takes additional weight.
I did a modding experiment with a couple of BLX 6.1 Teams and they took to the addition of lead up to about 325g (from a stock weight of around 313g) pretty well, but beyond that they just didn't feel right. Even at 335g, it felt more unwieldy than my 354g 6.1, so I sort of understand when you say that the PS95 distribution of mass doesn't feel quite right when leaded up with additional weight.
Last edited:
Geoff
Hall of Fame
Hi Torres
There are many ways to achieve new specs when adding lead. The TW customization tools are an excellent resource for the easiest solution. If you prefer the lead to be more at 3 & 9 or at 12 then the worksheet will assist you on potential combinations. In gets to be a little bit trial and error. Obviously it is all dependent on the initial specs of the racquet you are customizing.
The 10 pt HL is probably unstrung. I have not seen a ps95 yet except the play test racket which was blacked out. If I remember correctly, Wilson had the unstrung balance on the BLX 6.1 95 and I think what you saw is the unstrung balance. It will be about 6-7 HL depending on strings. The play test racket was 6 HL.
