Pro's (Past and Present) That Have Swung a Wilson 6.1 [Includes major winners]

moon shot

Hall of Fame
Pretty much, guys like Chase Buchanan and Domi Thiem used much later interations of the 6.1 line, something that I think is cool about this thread is that is celebrates the whole 6.1 linage, and players who used it at various times during their career. Not just the 6.1 junkies like Bjorkman, Nestor, Del Po, etc.
Oh Bjorkman...

 

Steve F.

Professional
@gino - there's the 7.0 Lite Classic Steffi Graf frame - it's a 6.1 classic 16x18 but an ounce or so lighter, sweet sweet frame, layup is a hair flexier if I recall
 

moon shot

Hall of Fame
@gino - there's the 7.0 Lite Classic Steffi Graf frame - it's a 6.1 classic 16x18 but an ounce or so lighter, sweet sweet frame, layup is a hair flexier if I recall
There was a whole slew of 'classic beam' frames which shared the same mold or at least beam geometry but different stiffness from what I understand. It is pretty much where the tree started forking out.

Pro Staff 7.0 85 Lite, Pro Staff 4.2 95, Pro Staff 6.0 95, Pro Staff 7.0 95, Pro Staff 7.0 Lite 95, Pro Staff 7.5 95, Pro Staff 6.0 110, Pro Staff 7.0 Lite 110, Pro Staff 7.5 110

Slightly before the Classic Beam was the Dual Taper Beam which came from Keubler in the late 80s. Classics were then followed by the 'rectangular geometry' in the late 90s before the hyper carbon launch.
 
Last edited:

gino

Legend
There was a whole slew of 'classic beam' frames which shared the same mold or at least beam geometry but different stiffness from what I understand.

Pro Staff 7.0 85 Lite, Pro Staff 4.2 95, Pro Staff 6.0 95, Pro Staff 7.0 95, Pro Staff 7.0 Lite 95, Pro Staff 7.5 95, Pro Staff 6.0 110, Pro Staff 7.0 Lite 110, Pro Staff 7.5 110
So, those are all 6.1 frame geometry? As in the same layups and moulds of the 6.1 series?
 

moon shot

Hall of Fame
So, those are all 6.1 frame geometry? As in the same layups and moulds of the 6.1 series?
They all said 'classic beam' on the side at some point. My understanding is that they are the same mold as others in their respective size, but vary in weight, balance, and flex. Others have said the grommets are interchangeable and they look like an identical mold to me.

So yes and no, different layup and same mold.
 

gino

Legend
They all said 'classic beam' on the side at some point. My understanding is that they are the same mold as others in their respective size, but vary in weight, balance, and flex. Others have said the grommets are interchangeable and they look like an identical mold to me.

So yes and no, different layup and same mold.
Wow, you should not have told me this @moon shot .. now I'm going to be scouring flea bay for every iteration of the 6.1 mould
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
that's quite odd. I can't believe it was never made commercially available if Steffi dominated with it
It's not odd for Wilson. Look what they are doing with the H22 which is very popular on both ATP and WTA Tours. The racquet companies are crazy!
 

Gemini

Hall of Fame
Sargis Sargsian
James Blake
Nicolas Kiefer

All 18x20 6.1's at some point. Kiefer's was custom at 28" long.
 

gino

Legend
It's not odd for Wilson. Look what they are doing with the H22 which is very popular on both ATP and WTA Tours. The racquet companies are crazy!
They truly are. It's a bummer. They mask everything with paint and marketing. While we sit here and invalidate their claims. I though the re-release of the Pure Storm mould and release of the RF/SW Wilson specs would move us closer towards transparency. Meanwhile, about 20 some odd touring pro's use Wilson 6.1's under paint jobs. Pretty much every HEAD player uses frames that aren't even commercially available, and were stuck choosing between the Babolat Pure Aero and Pure Drive. Doesn't make sense to me, but the story goes on
 

bkr

Rookie
Interesting that Tsonga reached only GrandSlam final ..Aus open...using the Wilson 6.1 and never reached another Grand Slam final after that.

Who knows what would have happened if he had struck with that racquet just like Delpo did from juniors.
 

gino

Legend
Interesting that Tsonga reached only GrandSlam final ..Aus open...using the Wilson 6.1 and never reached another Grand Slam final after that.

Who knows what would have happened if he had struck with that racquet just like Delpo did from juniors.
Great post. I might be fooled by the paint, but that does not look like the hyper pro staff 6.5 extended... It seems way smaller? Am I off here?
 

moon shot

Hall of Fame
18 mains, but isn't a 6.1 for sure.

What length was the extended 6.5? A longer grip can make the head appear smaller.
  • three loops in the throat like the 6.5
  • 9-12 crosses on the pws
  • 4th to 5th cross is last loop on the head guard
http://imgur.com/h0HgjgA
 
Last edited:

Gemini

Hall of Fame
18 mains, but isn't a 6.1 for sure.

What length was the extended 6.5? A longer grip can make the head appear smaller.
  • three loops in the throat like the 6.5
  • 9-12 crosses on the pws
  • 4th to 5th cross is last loop on the head guard
Length is 27.5" I actually have one from years ago.
 

moon shot

Hall of Fame
Sargis Sargsian
James Blake
Nicolas Kiefer

All 18x20 6.1's at some point. Kiefer's was custom at 28" long.
Wasn't Blake's Wilson a BLX Six.One Tour 90? I think the OP means the fruit of the Classic 95 here.

Blake said he used paintjobs his whole professional career and there was a thread recently with a photo of him in the 90s holding a Classic 4.2, not that it means he played with that either. It makes me wonder how many guy's we think used a 6.1 Classic actually used a 4.2 or a 7.0 instead. On the other side how many hammers on tour were actually pro staffs?
 
Last edited:

Kalin

Legend
Wow, you should not have told me this @moon shot .. now I'm going to be scouring flea bay for every iteration of the 6.1 mould
I'm pretty sure my trusty old 5.8 Stretch comes from the same mould too :p




Weight Stock 346 gr/12.2oz, balance 31 cm or 14 points HL, SW 336, 28" length
 

bkr

Rookie
Nice looking racquet Kalin and good specs too.

Do you still play with it and have you tried other racquets along the way and interested to know your experiences
 

moon shot

Hall of Fame
I'm pretty sure my trusty old 5.8 Stretch comes from the same mould too :p




Weight Stock 346 gr/12.2oz, balance 31 cm or 14 points HL, SW 336, 28" length
I think the Rectangular Geometry beam is a bit different. If I recall correctly the Rectangular Geometry split the difference between the classic and box beam. Your 5.8 RG (not to be confused with the 5.8 Dual Taper) looks to be an early release in the mold, followed by the 7.1 and several even balance stretch versions (4.7, 5.7, 6.7). I don't know that any were made in hyper versions or later.

left Rectangular Geometry, Right Classic Beam:
 

gino

Legend
I think the Rectangular Geometry beam is a bit different. If I recall correctly the Rectangular Geometry split the difference between the classic and box beam. Your 5.8 RG (not to be confused with the 5.8 Dual Taper) looks to be an early release in the mold, followed by the 7.1 and several even balance stretch versions (4.7, 5.7, 6.7). I don't know that any were made in hyper versions or later.

left Rectangular Geometry, Right Classic Beam:
Great stuff @moonshot. Did the rectanglar geometry eventually die out?
 

Kalin

Legend
Gorgeous frame. What's the headsize? 95?
95 and yes, it's a great frame. Stiff but not harsh and extremely solid. Great for serving (28", good SW and stiffness make for a killer combo)

I think the Rectangular Geometry beam is a bit different. If I recall correctly the Rectangular Geometry split the difference between the classic and box beam. Your 5.8 RG (not to be confused with the 5.8 Dual Taper) looks to be an early release in the mold, followed by the 7.1 and several even balance stretch versions (4.7, 5.7, 6.7). I don't know that any were made in hyper versions or later.

left Rectangular Geometry, Right Classic Beam:
Good point, you may be right. It does seem a bit bulkier/squarer than the Classic. I stupidly never thought to compare the frame with my HPS 6.1 and the N-code 6.1 I have and right now it is not with me. It's a great frame nevertheless; i couldn't find much info about it.
 

moon shot

Hall of Fame
95 and yes, it's a great frame. Stiff but not harsh and extremely solid. Great for serving (28", good SW and stiffness make for a killer combo)



Good point, you may be right. It does seem a bit bulkier/squarer than the Classic. I stupidly never thought to compare the frame with my HPS 6.1 and the N-code 6.1 I have and right now it is not with me. It's a great frame nevertheless; i couldn't find much info about it.
Yeah, pure speculation here, I think I read somewhere the Classic was intended to replace the box beam, but they were unable to kill it off. When that failed the RG Beam seems like their second attempt to duplicate the box beam feel into a aero shape. I'd be interested to see how it hits compared to a 6.1 stretch.

It is interesting to me that once again Wilson has removed from production the box beam 90 and 95 and offered as a evolved replacement a new model which is a bit bulkier/squarer than the 6.1 was.
 

moon shot

Hall of Fame
Great stuff @moonshot. Did the rectanglar geometry eventually die out?
From what I can find if there were later frames in the mold they didn't call them RG. There were some later hammers, ultras, and Quad that are similar but not the exact mold. None of the Hyper Pro Staffs look to have the shape but it could have been revived later as a ncode or kfactor, I don't have exhaustive knowledge by any means.
 

Kalin

Legend
Yeah, pure speculation here, I think I read somewhere the Classic was intended to replace the box beam, but they were unable to kill it off. When that failed the RG Beam seems like their second attempt to duplicate the box beam feel into a aero shape. I'd be interested to see how it hits compared to a 6.1 stretch.

It is interesting to me that once again Wilson has removed from production the box beam 90 and 95 and offered as a evolved replacement a new model which is a bit bulkier/squarer than the 6.1 was.
I am looking at my 6.1s (the Hyper 18x20 and the N-Code 16x18) and the frame does look sharper and slimmer than what I remember the 5.8 looked like (and what the pictures show). Plus, you're right, why else would they type 'Rectangular Geometry' on the frame.

Wilson had so many awesome frames throughout the years that would probably still play great by modern standards. Well, I guess the same could be said about other makers too but Wilson seemd to really push the envelope and have all kinds of different frame geometries, balance points etc.
 
Top