prostaff 6.0 95 and current(or BLX) ps 95
- Thread starter DNA2002
- Start date
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
If you're comparing stock form to stock form:
I would say that the PS 6.0 95 Original is slightly more powerful due to the slightly higher swingweight (317 vs. 308 ), slightly wider beam width (20mm vs. 18mm), and slightly more open string pattern (16x18 vs. 16x19).
I would say that the PS 6.0 95 Original is slightly more powerful due to the slightly higher swingweight (317 vs. 308 ), slightly wider beam width (20mm vs. 18mm), and slightly more open string pattern (16x18 vs. 16x19).
thank you for letting me know your experience. May I ask you another question? Did you use Head Prestige MP or Pro, or wilson blade 98? If yes, would you compare the PS 95 power comparing these rackets? if compare the feel between them, it helps a lot too. thank you
If you haven't already done so, you should watch the TW video review of the 2012 BLX PS95. Chris mentions it's not the same racquet as it's not as heavy, and it's not as head light. He says you would defnitely need to add some weight to it to get closer to the 6.0.
If it helps, I own a PS95, and I have played with a true 6.1 for a while, and the power difference is significant, in favour of the 6.1 of course. Even if you add weight to the PS95, it will still be less powerful than the 6.1.
You can also use the various tools TW has to compare racquets. You'll find that the PS95 is underpowered compared to most. Of course, numbers are numbers and nothing beats actual play time.
If it helps, I own a PS95, and I have played with a true 6.1 for a while, and the power difference is significant, in favour of the 6.1 of course. Even if you add weight to the PS95, it will still be less powerful than the 6.1.
You can also use the various tools TW has to compare racquets. You'll find that the PS95 is underpowered compared to most. Of course, numbers are numbers and nothing beats actual play time.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yes, I have hit with those other racquets and they are more powerful than the current PS 95. However, the PS 95 has a flexier and better feel to it. But feel is a personal preference.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
It depends which iterations you are comparing really...
I own both the YT Prestige Pro and the IG Prestige Pro and I currently use a customized Pro Staff 95 (2012). In stock, the Prestige has more power and the Pro Staff has more control. However, the Prestige has better directional control and it is better for flat shots IMO. The Pro Staff has easier access to spin and has a softer flex, which translates to less pop off the stringbed. This makes the Pro Staff great for touch shots, but less good for punch volleys. The Prestige Pro is great for volleys (especially the IG) and it is more stable too. The Pro Staff 95 is a racquet that most players will want to customize as it is quite light for a player's style racquet in stock form, making it hard to play with on a higher level (against heavy hitters for example).
Let me ask you a question. If I customize the BLX 95 similar to the 6.0 95 in terms of swing weight (balance and weight too), which one do you think has more power? thanks.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
The 6.0 95, as it has a thicker beam and is more stiff.
do you mean the 6.0 95 is more power than customized blx 95(even in similar weight)?
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
yes. The Pro Staff 95 remains quite low powered. It needs a lot of weight and swingweight to change that.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Don't know as I've never customized a current PS 95 to the same specs as the PS 6.0 95 Original. But since you can't change the string patterns, the slightly more open pattern of the Original should give you a bit more power even if all the other specs were the same.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I assume you're still referring to the ProStaff 95 (white one) and not the BLX 6.1 95 (black and red one), which is commonly referred to as the "BLX 95".
You are right. I assume PS 95 (white one, pretty light). thanks.
blackpearl2007
Semi-Pro
This is my main issue with this frame. I really want to like it but have struggled finding the right lead tape amount, etc. I just think it needs too much lead for my tastes. May try it again at some point or take it to a tennis store and have them try to customize it.
harryz
Professional
I'm kind of surprised that TW missed...
that the newer PS95s are from the same mold as the black and yellow PS Tour 95 of about 8-10 years back, preceding the N-Code series, which did not include a frame from the mold. Nor did the K-Factor line or the first BLX line. The PS Tour 95 had the same specs as the 2012 and 2014 versions and is the true predecessor of the PS95, not the 6.0 95, which was an anomaly. The PS Tour 95 was a fine frame, much better than the reviews suggested at the time, in my view.
that the newer PS95s are from the same mold as the black and yellow PS Tour 95 of about 8-10 years back, preceding the N-Code series, which did not include a frame from the mold. Nor did the K-Factor line or the first BLX line. The PS Tour 95 had the same specs as the 2012 and 2014 versions and is the true predecessor of the PS95, not the 6.0 95, which was an anomaly. The PS Tour 95 was a fine frame, much better than the reviews suggested at the time, in my view.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Sorry, but completely incorrect.
The current 2012 and 2014 ProStaff 95 has a thin box beam.
The PS Tour 95 had a thicker rounded beam.
Two completely different molds.
harryz
Professional
I stand corrected
However, having owned and played with both they are very similar with virtually identical specs except for beam shape and width. If my failing memory serves, the PS Tour 95 was 11,5 oz strung, 19mm or 20mm wide, and was 16x19, 7 point HL and RDC of 62. Much more similar to the current line than the 6.0 95, a great frame in it's own right, of course. So really, the only difference was in the beam and materials. I've used both and they are far more alike than different. Kind of like comparing Radical MPs. The MG had a box beam, 21mm and a slightly softer flex than the YT IG version, which was 22mm and rounded. In both cases, I suspect that the differences have more to do with layup and materials than beam shape and thickness, but I will defer to Mr Breakpoint here. I don't need to be right.
However, having owned and played with both they are very similar with virtually identical specs except for beam shape and width. If my failing memory serves, the PS Tour 95 was 11,5 oz strung, 19mm or 20mm wide, and was 16x19, 7 point HL and RDC of 62. Much more similar to the current line than the 6.0 95, a great frame in it's own right, of course. So really, the only difference was in the beam and materials. I've used both and they are far more alike than different. Kind of like comparing Radical MPs. The MG had a box beam, 21mm and a slightly softer flex than the YT IG version, which was 22mm and rounded. In both cases, I suspect that the differences have more to do with layup and materials than beam shape and thickness, but I will defer to Mr Breakpoint here
. I don't need to be right.
Last edited:
harryz
Professional
I just checked the old TW review
I was correct in all counts about specs and the pics of the shaft and throat sure look like a box beam I don't have the frame handy, but I do recall that the beam shape on the head may have been a bit rounded. Beam is listed at 20mm for the PST 95. The current frame is 18mm so Breakpoint is correct. The PST and the 2014 PS 95 are advertised as graphite and Kevlar hybrids. With Wilson, that usually means 80/20, but the BLX version may have a different layup with the Basalt and "Amplifeel," whatever that is...
Harry
I was correct in all counts about specs and the pics of the shaft and throat sure look like a box beam I don't have the frame handy, but I do recall that the beam shape on the head may have been a bit rounded. Beam is listed at 20mm for the PST 95. The current frame is 18mm so Breakpoint is correct. The PST and the 2014 PS 95 are advertised as graphite and Kevlar hybrids. With Wilson, that usually means 80/20, but the BLX version may have a different layup with the Basalt and "Amplifeel," whatever that is...
Harry
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Not sure if you can tell from these pics but the PS Tour 95 had a very rounded, almost oval beam, like on the PS 6.1 Classic/Six-One 95, whereas the current PS 95 is a box beam just like on the PS 6.0 95.
It's been a long time since I've played with the PS Tour 95 but as I recall it had a stiff tinny feel which I didn't like and it was too light. I really wanted to switch to it from my PS 6.0 95 because I liked the cool paintjob but I just couldn't as it didn't have that sweet ProStaff feel to it.
harryz
Professional
Not sure if you can tell from these pics but the PS Tour 95 had a very rounded, almost oval beam, like on the PS 6.1 Classic/Six-One 95, whereas the current PS 95 is a box beam just like on the PS 6.0 95.
It's been a long time since I've played with the PS Tour 95 but as I recall it had a stiff tinny feel which I didn't like and it was too light. I really wanted to switch to it from my PS 6.0 95 because I liked the cool paintjob but I just couldn't as it didn't have that sweet ProStaff feel to it.
Interesting. Mine felt soft and pretty plush once I added some lead and used a soft multifilament.
In my long experience with the Pro Staffs going back to the Kramer in the (ahem) 70s, though most iterations, the frames can feel boardy if strung too tight and with the wrong string. Naturally, other people's mileage varies
Harry
yangster007
Professional
Not sure if you can tell from these pics but the PS Tour 95 had a very rounded, almost oval beam, like on the PS 6.1 Classic/Six-One 95, whereas the current PS 95 is a box beam just like on the PS 6.0 95.
It's been a long time since I've played with the PS Tour 95 but as I recall it had a stiff tinny feel which I didn't like and it was too light. I really wanted to switch to it from my PS 6.0 95 because I liked the cool paintjob but I just couldn't as it didn't have that sweet ProStaff feel to it.
This one and the current Pro Staff 95 BLX have different designs, first of all, the current BLX 95 has boxed beam. Secondly, the old Hyper Carbon Pro Staff 95 was lighter (10.9 oz strung vs 11.6 oz strung). And both of them are different from the Pro Staff 6.0 95.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yes, all of this has already been pointed out in the above 5 posts, except that the HPS Tour 95 was 11.5 oz. strung (so the same as the 2012 BLX PS 95 and about the same as the 2014 PS 95), and not 10.9 oz. strung.
https://web.archive.org/web/2005010...nnis-warehouse.com/descpageRCWILSON-WT95.html
harryz
Professional
Have been hitting with the 2012 version
Heavily modded, with about 6g of lead on the pallet, a Prince Resi grip, an over wrap, Tourna O dampener and lead from 3 to 9 (roughly 10 more grams+). Still swings HL and feels about 12.3-12.5 oz and I'm guessing 325 SW or so. Will take it to the shop tomorrow to measure, after I get a chance to compare to my new Pacific X-feel pro 95. Should be an interesting comparison, as specs are similar but the Modded PS95 is heavier.
With mods, the frame is exceptional. It works beautifully with soft poly strings- it came with Kirschbaum Turbo Touch around 54lbs or so. No boardiness, and it plays great Solid, stable and predictable everywhere on the court.
Harry
Heavily modded, with about 6g of lead on the pallet, a Prince Resi grip, an over wrap, Tourna O dampener and lead from 3 to 9 (roughly 10 more grams+). Still swings HL and feels about 12.3-12.5 oz and I'm guessing 325 SW or so. Will take it to the shop tomorrow to measure, after I get a chance to compare to my new Pacific X-feel pro 95. Should be an interesting comparison, as specs are similar but the Modded PS95 is heavier.
With mods, the frame is exceptional. It works beautifully with soft poly strings- it came with Kirschbaum Turbo Touch around 54lbs or so. No boardiness, and it plays great
Solid, stable and predictable everywhere on the court.Harry
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I am confused. This pic shows the PS Tour 95 as 16 X 19. The TW Racquet Finder website lists it as 18 X 20.Not sure if you can tell from these pics but the PS Tour 95 had a very rounded, almost oval beam, like on the PS 6.1 Classic/Six-One 95, whereas the current PS 95 is a box beam just like on the PS 6.0 95.
It's been a long time since I've played with the PS Tour 95 but as I recall it had a stiff tinny feel which I didn't like and it was too light. I really wanted to switch to it from my PS 6.0 95 because I liked the cool paintjob but I just couldn't as it didn't have that sweet ProStaff feel to it.
Here:
http://www.racquetfinder.com/?name=...ains=&crosses=¤t=N&max_price=&x=22&y=19
Wilson ProStaff Tour 95
Head Size: 95 sq. in. / 613 sq. cm.
Length: 27.00 inches / 68.58 cm
Strung Weight: 11.50 oz / 326 g
Balance: 7pts HL
Swing Weight: 325
Beam Width: 20.0mm
Tip/Shaft: 20.0mm / 20.0mm
Composition:
Power Level: Low
Stiffness: 62
String Pattern: 18 Mains/20 Crosses
Main Skip: 8T,10T,8H,10H
String Tension: 50-60
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Must be a typo.
Here's the product page from when TW sold it and it clearly states 16x19:
https://web.archive.org/web/2005010...nnis-warehouse.com/descpageRCWILSON-WT95.html
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yep. It must be a typo. I found a long TW review by their playtesters, and it lists it as 16 X 19.
Thanks.
