RF97 is NOT a continuation of the 6.0 85, 88 and 90's

[asifallasleep]

So i hit for two hours tonight and as I suspected, IMO, the RF97 is NOT a continuation of the 6.0 85, 88 and 90's. If you are a fan of the Wilson 6.1 line, that of the thicker straight beam, then the RF97 might be just right for you. It does not come close to the feel of a box beam. It definitely is a more modern frame and you can absolutely crush the ball with ease from both sides as long as you have good racquet head speed. If you get a frame with the correct or close to correct specs it is very easy to swing. Unfortunately one of my two frames was insanely off, the grip was too thick for a 4 1/4, the hl balance was 4 points off - too heavy and it vibrated like crazy on every single hit. Not good. The "proper" frame felt very comfortable on the arm and I was able to whip through my contact points with ease. I must note that I of course had better feel with all my box beams but surprisingly I felt that i was also more connected to the ball with my Blade 93 over the RF97. Serving was also easier with the Blade 93. I definitely had bigger put-a-way power with the RF97 on both wings. You can hit crazy penetrating topspin with high trajectories with the RF97. The entire racquet face is a sweet spot. Slice backhands are great as well. Where my K90 was a 1983 Porsche 911 SC, where you felt extremely connected to the road and had to drive it (manual transmission and no power steering), the RF97 is a modern day 911 with a tiptronic, it's smooth, big, comfortable less connected, and no longer a real sports car, but a different kind of fun.

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

Way to take what I've been saying for months ever since the black prototype images were released. I noted that the thicker oval-ish beam and the head size had more to do with the Pro Staff Classic 6.1/Six.One 95 line, than the Pro Staff 6.0 lineage frames.

Not really an insight since you're just repeating what myself and few others have been saying since forever, but ok.

 

[yangster007]

Nope, RF97 is nowhere near the 85 and 90, it's not even close to the recent PS95. RF97 is more like a leaded up Wilson Blade 98.

 

[kingcheetah]

Well, if it's closer to the Six One line I'd probably enjoy it. If it's closer to the Blade 98... not so much.

 

[Pete.Sampras.]

So does the RF97 swing much heavier than the six.one 95s or about the same?

I'm still using the K-factor version which has a SW of 340 according to TW but back in the days the K90 felt heavier to me, despite its lower SW. My 95 is not on the light side with its 356gr strung weight.

I'm looking for a SW just a bit lower and a slightly bigger head. I always liked my PS85s - SW below 330, yet solid as a rock. I can't demo the RF97 yet.

 

[tt2003]

Modern prostaff 88 is close to 85. 97 head size are less control and more power for sure

 

[asifallasleep]

So does the RF97 swing much heavier than the six.one 95s or about the same?

I'm still using the K-factor version which has a SW of 340 according to TW but back in the days the K90 felt heavier to me, despite its lower SW. My 95 is not on the light side with its 356gr strung weight.

I'm looking for a SW just a bit lower and a slightly bigger head. I always liked my PS85s - SW below 330, yet solid as a rock. I can't demo the RF97 yet.

My two RF97's were completely different. The lighter one does swing very easy and quickly. With racquet quality control all over the map you'd have to buy from a dealer and have them match or find the specs you are looking for. So yeah, you could find a RF97 with a lower sw than your 95.

 

[bluetrain4]

So i hit for two hours tonight and as I suspected, IMO, the RF97 is NOT a continuation of the 6.0 85, 88 and 90's. If you are a fan of the Wilson 6.1 line, that of the thicker straight beam, then the RF97 might be just right for you. It does not come close to the feel of a box beam. It definitely is a more modern frame and you can absolutely crush the ball with ease from both sides as long as you have good racquet head speed. If you get a frame with the correct or close to correct specs it is very easy to swing. Unfortunately one of my two frames was insanely off, the grip was too thick for a 4 1/4, the hl balance was 4 points off - too heavy and it vibrated like crazy on every single hit. Not good. The "proper" frame felt very comfortable on the arm and I was able to whip through my contact points with ease. I must note that I of course had better feel with all my box beams but surprisingly I felt that i was also more connected to the ball with my Blade 93 over the RF97. Serving was also easier with the Blade 93. I definitely had bigger put-a-way power with the RF97 on both wings. You can hit crazy penetrating topspin with high trajectories with the RF97. The entire racquet face is a sweet spot. Slice backhands are great as well. Where my K90 was a 1983 Porsche 911 SC, where you felt extremely connected to the road and had to drive it (manual transmission and no power steering), the RF97 is a modern day 911 with a tiptronic, it's smooth, big, comfortable less connected, and no longer a real sports car, but a different kind of fun.

Wilson quality control strikes yet again.

 

[coloskier]

Wilson quality control strikes yet again.

Head and Babolat have exactly the same issues.

 

[5point5]

How does it compare to the Graphene Prestige MP?

 

[Sander001]

So i hit for two hours tonight and as I suspected, IMO, the RF97 is NOT a continuation of the 6.0 85, 88 and 90's. If you are a fan of the Wilson 6.1 line, that of the thicker straight beam, then the RF97 might be just right for you. It does not come close to the feel of a box beam. It definitely is a more modern frame and you can absolutely crush the ball with ease from both sides as long as you have good racquet head speed. If you get a frame with the correct or close to correct specs it is very easy to swing. Unfortunately one of my two frames was insanely off, the grip was too thick for a 4 1/4, the hl balance was 4 points off - too heavy and it vibrated like crazy on every single hit. Not good. The "proper" frame felt very comfortable on the arm and I was able to whip through my contact points with ease. I must note that I of course had better feel with all my box beams but surprisingly I felt that i was also more connected to the ball with my Blade 93 over the RF97. Serving was also easier with the Blade 93. I definitely had bigger put-a-way power with the RF97 on both wings. You can hit crazy penetrating topspin with high trajectories with the RF97. The entire racquet face is a sweet spot. Slice backhands are great as well. Where my K90 was a 1983 Porsche 911 SC, where you felt extremely connected to the road and had to drive it (manual transmission and no power steering), the RF97 is a modern day 911 with a tiptronic, it's smooth, big, comfortable less connected, and no longer a real sports car, but a different kind of fun.

Sounds like it is a continuing evolution of the Pro Staff line. The Tour 90's were nowhere in feel or playability to the Pro Staff 85 circa 1983-1990.

 

[THESEXPISTOL]

How does it compare to the Graphene Prestige MP?

Are you considering to change from the GOAT frame to the RF97? :shock:

 

[OnyxZ28]

12/10!!!!11!one!!1

 

[5point5]

Are you considering to change from the GOAT frame to the RF97? :shock:

I guess it doesn't compare to the greatest iteration of the Prestige in 28 years.

 

[bluetrain4]

Head and Babolat have exactly the same issues.

That makes it better?

 

[yangster007]

Head and Babolat have exactly the same issues.

What kind of excuse is this, "my two neighbors are dumb and lazy, so I can be dumb and lazy too ?" :shock:

 

[Fed Kennedy]

Way to take what I've been saying for months ever since the black prototype images were released. I noted that the thicker oval-ish beam and the head size had more to do with the Pro Staff Classic 6.1/Six.One 95 line, than the Pro Staff 6.0 lineage frames.

Not really an insight since you're just repeating what myself and few others have been saying since forever, but ok.

Disagree. It is a continuation. Rogger signed all of them. He used all of them. It is a big family of aging GOATness.

What all these racquets can say for each other is that they were used by Feddermann.

 

[BLACKOUT]

The KPS88 isn't far off from the RF97A. The RF97A is just a bigger and depending on who you are, better version of the KPS 88

 

[asifallasleep]

The KPS88 isn't far off from the RF97A. The RF97A is just a bigger and depending on who you are, better version of the KPS 88

Completely different feel and balance

 

[coloskier]

That makes it better?

Not at all. Just commenting that there is no one single racket company that doesn't have this issue. You just hear about Wilson more because they sell so many more rackets than everyone else. Almost everyone has their rackets made in China now, so it is just something you have to deal with. Make sure you match your rackets before you buy. I would go with the most head light of the frames that you can get away with, so that the heft (weight) of the racket does not become an issue.

 

[dgoran]

Well, if it's closer to the Six One line I'd probably enjoy it. If it's closer to the Blade 98... not so much.

Six one 95 feels more comfy and somehow more precise but ill test more and tell you in detail...

 

[roundiesee]

Just had a very brief hit with the RF autograph and the lighter RF 315
Have to agree with the OP. Very different from the actual Prostaff feel. But nonetheless great rackets from Wilson. The paintjob when you hold the racket isn't as bad as pictures on the internet haha.
The 315 was indeed a pleasant surprise. And I might venture to say that in some respects it's actually better than its heavier cousin.
But won't be making the switch as the Prostaff Feel is why we play with prostaffs in the first place

 

[OnyxZ28]

Maybe it's a continuation in part...?

 

[roundiesee]

I think it's a continuation in the sense that Roger has autographed all the other previous versions. And the name ProStaff has been imprinted on the racket. But other than these two points, for people who have been long time prostaff users, they will know what I mean when I say the feel is very different. And that is what the OP is also trying to say.

 

[Rock Strongo]

So you're saying the RF97 is like the 991 Turbo?

But wasn't that a brilliant car apart from the electronic steering?

 

[roundiesee]

Apologies but I don't really know much about cars
Don't you mean the 911?
Anyway to me Wilson has come out with two very good rackets but just different from the prostaffs that we have got used to and love

 

[WINZOWAR]

Modern Porsches have dual clutch transmissions with paddle shifters. The tiptronic has been dead for years. A real manual transmission is still available on some models though.

 

[asifallasleep]

Modern Porsches have dual clutch transmissions with paddle shifters. The tiptronic has been dead for years. A real manual transmission is still available on some models though.

I have a vintage 911 and was told by the Porsche guys at the dealership that all manual transmissions are being phased out. What a shame. Kind of like the box beam Wilson.

I do actually like the RF97. It's a great stick, even without the box beam feel.

 

[aimr75]

Apologies but I don't really know much about cars
Don't you mean the 911?
Anyway to me Wilson has come out with two very good rackets but just different from the prostaffs that we have got used to and love

a 991 is a 911, but the most current iteration is the 991. for example, you can get a 911 SC, 911 Carrera 3.2, 964, 993, 996, 997, 991.. but they are all 911's

I have a vintage 911 and was told by the Porsche guys at the dealership that all manual transmissions are being phased out. What a shame. Kind of like the box beam Wilson.

I do actually like the RF97. It's a great stick, even without the box beam feel.

Which 911 do you own? I used to own a 1984 3.2.. was fun to drive

It is too bad they are phasing out manuals.. not that i could ever afford a new model anyway

 

[BreakPoint]

Maybe it's a continuation in part...?

Maybe it's a sequel? And as you know, usually sequels are not as good as the Original.

 

[BreakPoint]

Modern Porsches have dual clutch transmissions with paddle shifters. The tiptronic has been dead for years. A real manual transmission is still available on some models though.

Even regular torque converter automatic transmissions have manual paddle shifters these days. :shock:

 

[SFrazeur]

I'll say it time and time again--Feel is overrated.

 

[BreakPoint]

I'll say it time and time again--Feel is overrated.

Feel is the only reason some people even play tennis. You can get much more exercise by running for 2 hours.

 

[SFrazeur]

Feel is the only reason some people even play tennis. You can get much more exercise by running for 2 hours.

Then you must not be playing right.

 

[BreakPoint]

Then you must not be playing right.

Are you serious? Some people can almost run a marathon in 2 hours. There's no amount of playing tennis the "right way" that is more exhausting than running a marathon. For one thing, in tennis, the majority of time is spent standing around between points before serving or sitting down or resting during changeovers. Running is non-stop. I can easily play tennis for 4 hours. There's no way I can run non-stop for even 1 hour.

 

[SFrazeur]

Depends on how you define exercise. You will use your whole body more playing tennis than with running. I call that getting more exercise. However, if you define exercise by the burning of calories then running probably does burn more. But just as you yourself are adding in dead time to 2 hours of tennis I factor in dead time to running. You said "running for two hours." If most people are going to run for that duration there will be breaks. Running a marathon and "running for 2 hours" can be very different things. So there

 

[asifallasleep]

a 991 is a 911, but the most current iteration is the 991. for example, you can get a 911 SC, 911 Carrera 3.2, 964, 993, 996, 997, 991.. but they are all 911's



Which 911 do you own? I used to own a 1984 3.2.. was fun to drive

It is too bad they are phasing out manuals.. not that i could ever afford a new model anyway

I have a 1983 SC. (See pic below). Used to have a "toy" 986 (2000 boxster) and a crappy 996 (2003)

 

[aimr75]

^ that looks very nice

here was the 84 i had. 231hp model

 

[asifallasleep]

nice!! why did you sell it?

 

[SFrazeur]

Could had sworn I was on a tennis forum.

 

[aimr75]

nice!! why did you sell it?

Other expenses, including mortgage. Miss it though