older racquets

[monkeyisland90]

I know lot of people still use older racquest (year 2000 and below) but in the modern era where people are getting stronger and smarter... should one upgrade there equipment to more recent one? Or in tennis if it feels good and does the result regardless of age and looks of the racquet don't change... I've demo'd many racquets and the newer ones that looked flashy with all these new features really didn't seem much.... if it aint broke dont fix it?

Although i demo'd lot of racquets and kind of stuck one right now.. wilson hammer 6.2 skunk back of my head i always feel there is one racquet just for me but kind of exhausted looking ...

 

[biggsy]

i have been demo-ing a Prince Ozone Tour for some time and REALLY wishing that it was going to be my stick. 2 weeks ago I found a Prince Graphite Comp series 90 ( from the 80's) in my sisters garage. It is far better than the Ozone. Really, really solid. I think Prince went sideways when they introduced the holes, and the speedports etc. Hopefully the EX03 'technology' is better...but i'll be staying with the 1980's racket for now!

 

[tennisdad65]

POG OS / MP is one of the few 1980s racquet that can hold its own today in terms of power (and control). The RA was 63 (OS) and 66-67 (MP) which is comparable to modern racquets. Most of the other 1980s racquets had RA in the 50-60 Range and would be considered low powered.

Factor in the small head sizes for 80s racquets, of about 85-90 sq in, plus smaller sweet spots, and you tend to frame a lot of balls when facing and if hitting heavy topspin.

If you hit it flat/slice and do not use a lot of topspin, a 1980s flexible, low powered racquet is ok.

 

[rudester]

My experience is that it is all marketing these days, I prefer older racquets made with better material, in fact i have been selling my newer experiments as they just do not measure up to similar models from the past. Just do not feel as solid, the only new racquet i will keep is my Vantage which has that old time feel to it.

 

[spaceman_spiff]

Things haven't changed really.

Actually, most of the rackets these days aren't really different than those made 10-15 years ago. The main differences are that the current ones are a bit lighter and there are more models to choose from around 98-100".

15 years ago, everyone was making midsized (around 95) and oversized (around 110) frames. Wilson did the whole superlight, superstiff thing with the Hammer series (though they started the superstiff trend years earlier with their Profile frames). Prince did the whole magic material thing with the Vortex series, which were made almost entirely with the same material Head's Youtek series uses.

And, some rackets, like the 6.1 series from Wilson haven't really changed at all. Starting with the PS Classic 6.1, Wilson has been making the same 95", 335-g, mid-60s RA racket for over 15 years. If you blacked out an original PS Classic and a BLX 6.1, almost no one who didn't already play with one or the other would be able to tell the difference. There's nothing modern about the BLX, and there's nothing out-of-date with the PS Classic. They're almost the same racket. And, if some salesman tries to tell you otherwise, he's full of it.

 

[NicoMK]

I've been using the "old" Fischer Pro Classic from the mid 90s since 11 years now... I've tested plenty of frames during the last 4-5 years : the Pure Control, some Radicals, some Wilson Pro Staffs, played with Volkl for a short while then went back to the Fischers. I know I won't change as I have never found in recent racquets the feel I have with my Pro Classic, even with what we call "the players frames". Of course it is a matter of personal taste as well, but I aslo think that older racquets had a feel that modern racquets, due to their stiffness and the lighter weight, just don't have...

 

[Don't Let It Bounce]

I would echo what Spaceman Spiff says. Headsize, length, flex, balance, mass, and swingweight almost completely predict a racquet's performance, and there have been no recent innovations in those areas.

"Feel" is the element missing from the above, and many regard recent frames as inferior in that regard. It is sometimes claimed that the quality of graphite has gone down, but that seems extremely unlikely to me. It is more likely that it has gone up, to such a degree that racquets can be made much more cheaply and with less carbon... and so they are. I'd expect companies who need to maximize profits (i.e., all the big ones) to gamble that most players won't feel the difference. They are probably right, and the custom frames they build in their pro rooms take care of the rest.

I don't have access to pro room frames and do care about feel, so while I do appreciate the best of the modern designs, I'm especially interested in frames from a time when the touring pros and the customers played with more or less the same racquets.

 

[mutantducky]

I think overall the newer frames are better. By that I mean if you take 10 random older frames and 10 newer I'd say a majority of newer ones would be better. But flat out the top of the line older sticks like the Pro Staffs, Prince, Dunlop 200 max, can hold up to anything today.

 

[big bang]

Actually, most of the rackets these days aren't really different than those made 10-15 years ago. The main differences are that the current ones are a bit lighter and there are more models to choose from around 98-100".

15 years ago, everyone was making midsized (around 95) and oversized (around 110) frames. Wilson did the whole superlight, superstiff thing with the Hammer series (though they started the superstiff trend years earlier with their Profile frames). Prince did the whole magic material thing with the Vortex series, which were made almost entirely with the same material Head's Youtek series uses.

And, some rackets, like the 6.1 series from Wilson haven't really changed at all. Starting with the PS Classic 6.1, Wilson has been making the same 95", 335-g, mid-60s RA racket for over 15 years. If you blacked out an original PS Classic and a BLX 6.1, almost no one who didn't already play with one or the other would be able to tell the difference. There's nothing modern about the BLX, and there's nothing out-of-date with the PS Classic. They're almost the same racket. And, if some salesman tries to tell you otherwise, he's full of it.

the 6.1 series are very different, the might look the same but plays nothing alike. I have been using 6.1 classic since they came out and dont like any of the so called updates at all.. they all feel like cheap copies of the classic!

 

[big bang]

I would echo what Spaceman Spiff says. Headsize, length, flex, balance, mass, and swingweight almost completely predict a racquet's performance, and there have been no recent innovations in those areas.

"Feel" is the element missing from the above, and many regard recent frames as inferior in that regard. It is sometimes claimed that the quality of graphite has gone down, but that seems extremely unlikely to me. It is more likely that it has gone up, to such a degree that racquets can be made much more cheaply and with less carbon... and so they are. I'd expect companies who need to maximize profits (i.e., all the big ones) to gamble that most players won't feel the difference. They are probably right, and the custom frames they build in their pro rooms take care of the rest.

I don't have access to pro room frames and do care about feel, so while I do appreciate the best of the modern designs, I'm especially interested in frames from a time when the touring pros and the customers played with more or less the same racquets.

another prove that the frames back then was much better quality than the "stock versions" of today!! you could buy the exact same as the pros where using, today we can only buy the discount model.

 

[spaceman_spiff]

the 6.1 series are very different, the might look the same but plays nothing alike. I have been using 6.1 classic since they came out and dont like any of the so called updates at all.. they all feel like cheap copies of the classic!

In terms of feel, there may be a big difference due to different material make-up and construction methods. But, in terms of everything else (weight, stiffness, power, stability), they're pretty much the same.

I used to play with the PS Classic when I was in highschool, and I've hit around with my brother's K6.1. To me, it was just two versions of the same thing. I couldn't say his 6.1 was a modern version of the Classic, because everything felt so similar. They still accomplish pretty much the same thing though.

That said, I switched from the Classic after a couple of years because I found it to be harsh. That might be why I don't view the K6.1 as being much worse in terms of feel.

 

[spaceman_spiff]

I think overall the newer frames are better. By that I mean if you take 10 random older frames and 10 newer I'd say a majority of newer ones would be better. But flat out the top of the line older sticks like the Pro Staffs, Prince, Dunlop 200 max, can hold up to anything today.

But how are they better? They're not more powerful; they're not bigger; they're not stiffer or more flexible; they're not made with different materials (disregarding the 1% of the racket using Microgel, Aerogel, D30, LiquidMetal, or whatever other magic material the marketing people tout, since it has little to no effect on actual performance).

So, what is it that makes them better? If I paint them all black and have you do a blind test, would you be able to tell the difference? What would the modern rackets do that the 15-yo designs won't?

The only thing better nowadays is strings. Mmmm, strings.

 

[ericsson]

My personal experience is that the racket business didn't change that much the last 15 years but the strings did, look at the power of Luxilon these days, even the women on the WTA start to fall for it...
Today you still have wonderful rackets and you have crappy hollow feeling racket just like 10 years ago.