Old Wooden Racquets

K

Katzenjammer

Rookie
So, one fateful evening I clicked on a video of Pancho Gonzales v, Laver (1964 Longwood/boston) that came up in my youtube feed. I almost regret it. I became somewhat obsessed with these guys; I cannot believe how good they were. I sort of assumed that back then tennis was rather like early ice hockey (where the level of play was truly a universe apart from today); and in a sense this is partly true; nevertheless, to my eye at least,1930s/40s tennis seems far closer to current levels than, say, ice hockey.

I was particularly struck with their serves (with the limitation that they had to have at least one foot on the ground I believe?), particularly Budge and Gonzales, wonderfully rhythmic, smooth, snappy, effective and they obviously put real pace on the ball. How much so is hard to tell from film of course, but still. There's also an amazing aesthetic quality to their tennis.

So now I want to try one of those racquets. I've always played with a Wilson pro staff, currently the v13. I can justify purchasing this, I tell myself, because I can improve my precision in the use of the (smaller) string bed, rather like a "saber" training racquet or a "TR40."

However, I am not at all sure how to purchase such an old racquet -- that is, one I can actually use and NOT just hang on a wall. By "use," I don't mean in matches of course; and not all the time, just once in a while.

Any suggestions? I am thinking of a Gonzales Spalding autograph racquet? Or the Wilson Advantage? Or the Kramer Pro Staff? Presumably one that is in decent shape also comes with a press? What was top of the line in its day? What should I look for in an old wooden racquet? Does something like an early wilson pro staff exist?

Perhaps an even better way of posing the question: what racquets to avoid?

Or were racquets of a certain level more or less all the same? As some would say they are now! Haha! :)

Any advice/discussion is welcome; feel free to DM me. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Grafil Injection

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
Virtually all wooden standard-sized rackets from the 1960s and 70s are completely useable and perform similarly to each other. Only the very low level ones are perhaps too flexy to produce a consistent ball. The thing to check is it's not warped and the strings are in good tension, and the weight is in the 370g-390g range (L or LM) is probably best. I like the feel of the Slazenger Challenges, which are both alive and also nutty.
 
Grafil Injection

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
My other recommendation would be one of the many Dunlops, because there are so many out there you can probably find one in good condition most easily. In particular:

Maxply Fort - top of the range, solid and stiff for a wood. Iconic design.
Maxply (non-Fort) - rarer, but just as nice design. Nice crisp feel.
Blue Flash - mid-range but same high quality (England) construction. Generous feeling sweet-spot.
International D202 - mid-range but high quality (Japanese) manufacture. Very sweet feeling.
 
LOBALOT

LOBALOT

Legend
Flex, balance, static, and swing weight were not invented in the 2000s. Those characteristics were important back then too and racquets were labeled with their flex, balance, and static weight, and they did perform differently based in particular static and swing weight.

Maybe they were a bit less finicky than we are on this web site today but for sure I didn't like playing with a high static weight / head heavy racquet back then although I had friends that did.
 
kevin qmto

kevin qmto

Hall of Fame
If you want to ease into full classic mono shaft wood rackets, you could always try one of the open throat varients first like the Pro Kennex golden/blue Ace, the Prince Woodie, Slazenger Vilas, or Head Edgewood. Then try out one of the true moon shaft standard head sizes once you’ve grown accustomed to the weight and feel of these frames.
 
J

JW10S

Hall of Fame
LOBALOT said:
Flex, balance, static, and swing weight were not invented in the 2000s. Those characteristics were important back then too and racquets were labeled with their flex, balance, and static weight, and they did perform differently based in particular static and swing weight.
Click to expand...
That may be true but wood racquets still varied somewhat because not all wood was or is exactly the same. It was more of an estimation. I remember a Wilson exec telling me a story about back when he was a rep he would bring Billie Jean King 30-35 of her signature wood racquets (like the one she used to beat Bobby Riggs) that were not strung and there was no weighing, no balancing, or anything like that. She would just pick up each one, feel it's heft, take a couple swings and then say, 'this is good, or this is not'. The whole thing did not take long. He said out of the 30-35 frames he would bring she would only take 4-6 that felt good to her.

These days I come across players who know every spec imaginable for a certain racquet but can't hit a backhand to save their life.
 
Last edited:
K

Katzenjammer

Rookie
Grafil Injection said:
Virtually all wooden standard-sized rackets from the 1960s and 70s are completely useable and perform similarly to each other. Only the very low level ones are perhaps too flexy to produce a consistent ball. The thing to check is it's not warped and the strings are in good tension, and the weight is in the 370g-390g range (L or LM) is probably best. I like the feel of the Slazenger Challenges, which are both alive and also nutty.
Click to expand...

Many thanks! I'm less concerned about strings, will string it myself anyway. Presumably with natural gut? Will post on stringing section here before doing so.

I have to admit, I am confused about terminology here: L or LM? I also see nomenclature such as "medium" and "light"?

A press is a must, I assume, to keep it in good shape?

Given how many sellers might not be aware of subtle warping and other issues, are there sellers who have a great rep and deep knowledge here?

Are most of these racquets 27" standard?

Is it worth seeking out a racquet that is "never strung"?

Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
K

Katzenjammer

Rookie
legrandLeconte said:
I still play with wood from time to time and it's incredibly fun. Like Grafil, I'd go for a Slazenger Challenge because they're so sweet. In any case, you'll enjoy any emblematic model from that era. Regards.
Click to expand...

Many thanks! It's going to be such much fun, lol! :) can't wait.

LOBALOT said:
Flex, balance, static, and swing weight were not invented in the 2000s. Those characteristics were important back then too and racquets were labeled with their flex, balance, and static weight, and they did perform differently based in particular static and swing weight.

Maybe they were a bit less finicky than we are on this web site today but for sure I didn't like playing with a high static weight / head heavy racquet back then although I had friends that did.
Click to expand...

Makes sense; as well that as this....

JW10S said:
That may be true but wood racquets still varied somewhat because not all wood was or is exactly the same. It was more of an estimation. I remember a Wilson exec telling me a story about back when he was a rep he would bring Billie Jean King 30-35 of her signature wood racquets (like the one she used to beat Bobby Riggs) that were not strung and there was no weighing, no balancing, or anything like that. She would just pick up each one, feel it's heft, take a couple swings and then say, 'this is good, or this is not'. The whole thing did not take long. He said out of the 30-35 frames he would bring she would only take 4-6 that felt good to her.

These days I come across players who know every spec imaginable for a certain racquet but can't hit a backhand to save their life.
Click to expand...

Are these specs printed on the inside of the frame?

Are grips the same then as now: L2 then = L2 now? etc.

And I see a few 4 1/2, but no 4 1/8. Probably were very rare even back then?
 
LOBALOT

LOBALOT

Legend
JW10S said:
That may be true but wood racquets still varied somewhat because not all wood was or is exactly the same. It was more of an estimation. I remember a Wilson exec telling me a story about back when he was a rep he would bring Billie Jean King 30-35 of her signature wood racquets (like the one she used to beat Bobby Riggs) that were not strung and there was no weighing, no balancing, or anything like that. She would just pick up each one, feel it's heft, take a couple swings and then say, 'this is good, or this is not'. The whole thing did not take long. He said out of the 30-35 frames he would bring she would only take 4-6 that felt good to her.

These days I come across players who know every spec imaginable for a certain racquet but can't hit a backhand to save their life.
Click to expand...

I agree that there is variance just as there is today. They were dealing with a natural material.

My point is/was that not every racquet was designed and made to perform the same as I had read earlier and yes they will feel and play differently.

Some were made head heavy. Some were made head light. Some were made with more flex. Some were made with less.
 
Grafil Injection

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
Katzenjammer said:
Many thanks! I'm less concerned about strings, will string it myself anyway. Presumably with natural gut? Will post on stringing section here before doing so.

I have to admit, I am confused about terminology here: L or LM? I also see nomenclature such as "medium" and "light"?

A press is a must, I assume, to keep it in good shape?

Given how many sellers might not be aware of subtle warping and other issues, are there sellers who have a great rep and deep knowledge here?

Are most of these racquets 27" standard?

Is it worth seeking out a racquet that is "never strung"?

Thanks again!
Click to expand...

No worries!

Yes, gut or syngut (Nylon) is best. Most are 27'' +/- 0.25'' (for example Slazenger Challenge No. 1 is 27.25'', Maxplys are 27''). Weights are usually Light (L), Light-Medium (LM) and Medium (M), ranging from about 365-410g strung. Sometimes also Heavy (H) or Top (T) are even heavier.

I just ask the seller if it's straight and the strings are good. Usually they are honest and sometimes send additional pictures to confirm. I expect most of the risk of warping occurs in the first few years after production when the woods are drying out, but obviously it's safest to use a press if you're concerned, especially if you are not a specialist in stringing wooden rackets!

I am wary about 'never strung' rackets. Why was it never strung? Better to know that it can take a stringing, than risk the first stringing of a 50-year-old stick. They are also usually more expensive, and probably better for wall-art.

The sensible thing to do is find a cheap used one that is straight and nicely strung and play with that for a few weeks before deciding whether it's worth changing the strings, or a different model.
 
K

Katzenjammer

Rookie
fritzhimself said:
It's not rocket science - there are also stringing instructions.
They were pretty much the same for the wooden rackets.
But there is a left and right side.
Here is a funny video like a tennis string bootcamp.

Click to expand...

omg that is so funny :-D Shades of Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove in the first 50 seconds lol.
 
fritzhimself

fritzhimself

Professional
Last edited:
I

Injured Again

Hall of Fame
Katzenjammer said:
Many thanks! I'm less concerned about strings, will string it myself anyway. Presumably with natural gut? Will post on stringing section here before doing so.
Click to expand...

My first racquet was a black Gonzales Autograph!

If your intention is to have fun hitting, I'd suggest using the string material you normally use as it will give you a familiar launch angle and impact response. If you want to experience tennis as it was played decades ago, then you can use gut.

I have a couple of woodies that I strung up to hit with and I used a thin gauge poly string at low tension, around 30 pounds. It hits great but also be aware that if you hit hard, the racquet may not last long. I’ve broken a couple and they seem to last me about 8-10 hours, but swinging hard and mis-hitting is probably doing the damage and resulting in the eventual cracking of the wood.
 
K

Katzenjammer

Rookie
Injured Again said:
My first racquet was a black Gonzales Autograph!

If your intention is to have fun hitting, I'd suggest using the string material you normally use as it will give you a familiar launch angle and impact response. If you want to experience tennis as it was played decades ago, then you can use gut.

I have a couple of woodies that I strung up to hit with and I used a thin gauge poly string at low tension, around 30 pounds. It hits great but also be aware that if you hit hard, the racquet may not last long. I’ve broken a couple and they seem to last me about 8-10 hours, but swinging hard and mis-hitting is probably doing the damage and resulting in the eventual cracking of the wood.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, many thanks!

How would you characterize the Gonzales Autograph? Still have it?
 
K

Katzenjammer

Rookie
Questions:

  1. Are specs printed on the inside of the frame?
  2. Are grips the same then as now: L2 then = L2 now? etc.
  3. Sometimes I also see them noted in inches; see a few 4 1/2, but no 4 1/8. Probably were very rare even back then?
 
I

Injured Again

Hall of Fame
Katzenjammer said:
That makes sense, many thanks!

How would you characterize the Gonzales Autograph? Still have it?
Click to expand...

I don’t have any of the wood racquets that I used back in the 1960’s or 1970’s (yes, I am old). And at that time, I was just learning tennis and wasn’t discerning at all about how a racquet performed. Today, I definitely notice differences between frames but it’s sometimes hard to know if it is something inherent to the frame’s design or how it has aged over the decades.

Some of the frames I really coveted back in the day without the hoop stiffener above the throat, like the Davis Imperial, are really flexible. The Pro Staff versions of the Wilson racquets felt a bit stiffer than the Autograph versions. Dunlop Forts tended to be kind of brittle but felt fairly crisp.

I think most of the wood frames I now own have a sticker just above the grip that denotes the grip size and relative weight. Small grip sizes were not a thing back then and anything less than a 3 or 4 3/8 is pretty rare.

Here’s a video I made a few years ago of me hitting with my (since cracked) Kramer with Luxilon Big Banger Ace 1.12 strings. If you catch the sweet spot, the mass of the frame generates pretty decent power. But at my skill level I can’t use my regular technique because the sweet spot is small and missing is unforgiving so I’m swinging hard with more or less an old school locked wrist and a flat swing trajectory for best contact accuracy. I can’t hit second serves with it at all, mostly because I choke knowing how much I normally brush across the ball and how little margin of error I have. I can hit a paddy-cake a second serve in, which against another wood racquet player is effective enough but against a player with a modern racquet is a losing proposition.

I pull out some vintage racquets for a fun hit every few months. It really makes me appreciate how far equipment has come. Have fun!

 
fritzhimself

fritzhimself

Professional
I often string and tune for competitive players who earn their money with it.
This video was made a few years ago when I got some blades to tune for Kris.
At the time, I was restringing an old Borg racquet and wanted to play it again.
Kris told me that he had never played with a wooden racquet before, so I gave him the racquet to test.
That's when this short video was made.

 
K

Katzenjammer

Rookie
fritzhimself said:
I often string and tune for competitive players who earn their money with it.
This video was made a few years ago when I got some blades to tune for Kris.
At the time, I was restringing an old Borg racquet and wanted to play it again.
Kris told me that he had never played with a wooden racquet before, so I gave him the racquet to test.
That's when this short video was made.

Click to expand...

NICE! What did he think of the racquet? You're referring to the Donnay as pictured above?
 
kevin qmto

kevin qmto

Hall of Fame
Katzenjammer said:
NICE! What did he think of the racquet? You're referring to the Donnay as pictured above?
Click to expand...
I've posted this a few times in the past, but here's me trying a couple wood frames, and the first one is by no means a high end one. But sometimes time is the great equalizer, and a cheaper wood frame that was well maintatined and stored properly can hit as good or better than a formerly high end frame that was improperly stored. (both frames here are in excellent shape, the 2nd frame, the Davis TopSpin was New Old Stock). I found I could hit pretty modern strokes with both, including serves.

 
K

Katzenjammer

Rookie
kevin qmto said:
I've posted this a few times in the past, but here's me trying a couple wood frames, and the first one is by no means a high end one. But sometimes time is the great equalizer, and a cheaper wood frame that was well maintatined and stored properly can hit as good or better than a formerly high end frame that was improperly stored. (both frames here are in excellent shape, the 2nd frame, the Davis TopSpin was New Old Stock). I found I could hit pretty modern strokes with both, including serves.

Click to expand...

Very nice. What did you string those with ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Wooden Racquets Information
Replies
2
Views
1K
chrispaschal
C
WilsonPlayer101
Stiffness Index of Wooden Racquets
Replies
28
Views
7K
jimbo333
jimbo333
T
What's a good classic racquet to use in high school?
Replies
32
Views
4K
TeddyBear
T
volleygirl
Tad Davis wooden racquet
Replies
14
Views
6K
6-2/6-4/6-0
6-2/6-4/6-0
G
Anyone still producing wooden tennis racquets?
Replies
25
Views
2K
NicoMK
NicoMK
Top