"Thank You" to the People of this Board (Re Pro Paint Jobs)

[officerdibble]

I wanted to post a thank you to the people who take the time to post about what specs the pros are using, and to those who have studied photos and highlighted the manipulation of customers taking place by the big racket manufacturers.

I was sufficiently out-raged by what I read that I contacted Head about returning the Radical Flexpoints I had owned and played with for almost two years. Eventually, they agreed "without prejudice" to exchange them for two other rackets of my choice.

During the research that was triggered by what I'd seen here, I found out that in the Chairman's statement of Head's 2005 Annual Report and Accounts, Head claims to potential investors that Agassi used the Flexpoint technology to reacht the final of the 2005 US Open - the pictures would appear to contradict this!

So if people are offended by what the manufacturers are doing with these paint jobs, and technology that's so amazing the pros don't want to benefit from it (!), perhaps there is something you can do.

Thanks to the posters herer for getting me some new rackets.

 

[bluetrain4]

That's an amazing story. Obviously the racquet companies sell tons of racquets making the public believe that the best players are using stock frames.

While it is disingenuous, I always thought it was stupid for fans to think they could "play like Agassi" by using his racquet. Of course, the casual fan wouldn't know this.

The most ridiculous paint job I ever saw was Xavier Malisse's Prince Diablo. Nothinh like either the Diablo mid or midplus. Freakishly long handle, bigger and differently shaped head, and extra string holes.

 

[officerdibble]

That's an amazing story. Obviously the racquet companies sell tons of racquets making the public believe that the best players are using stock frames.

While it is disingenuous, I always thought it was stupid for fans to think they could "play like Agassi" by using his racquet. Of course, the casual fan wouldn't know this.

The most ridiculous paint job I ever saw was Xavier Malisse's Prince Diablo. Nothinh like either the Diablo mid or midplus. Freakishly long handle, bigger and differently shaped head, and extra string holes.

I know what you mean, but here's the funny thing: look at the reviews of the pro spec racquest on the Tennis Warehouse site, people really like the way they play. I changed from a woofty Flexpoint to a heavy, head light frame and I find I'm playing MUCH better, more power, more consistency, more accuracy - all the things the manufacturers keep promising from their new "innovations". Plus there's LOTS of evidence to suggest that lighter racquets are bad for the arm etc.

Whilst no one in their right mind would think they would play like Agassi, having him say that the technology is sufficiently worthwhile for him to want it, and then having the manufacturers blatantly mislead us by painting it on his frame (he's welcome to change his mind, but why paint it on unless you're deliberately trying to mislead) has to be wrong (and in many countries illegal).

I think it's great if manufacturers produce a range of frames that cosmetically match those of our favourite players, and I realise that players will customise their frames - but then so should anyone serious about their tennis.

And of course the biggest problem is, if manufacturers are going to the lengths of painting on a Flexpoint to deceive us, can we really trust any racquet they produce to be in our best interests rather than theirs? One industry insider told me that the reason lighter racquets are manufactured is simply because they cost less to make, because they have less material in them! I'm sure that that, coupled with a pleasant "wave it around in the shop factor" make it a no-brainer for the manufacturers, but I'm certain it doesn't help anyone even mildly serious about their tennis.

 

[brokenMan]

Did I read your post correctly?

You complained to head that you felt mislead by their marketing and they offered you new frames to keep you happy? Or maybe to keep quiet?

Thats a pretty big admision on their behalf that you had something.. can you give any more details of how you approched them?

 

[mileslong]

what kind of rackets did they send you in place of your fxp redicals?

 

[Steve Huff]

So, why not take it out on the pro's that use paintjobs? Quit going to their matches if you feel so strongly that they are intentionally deceiving you.

 

[Voltron]

Ask for PT 230/680s (I think thats the right number)

 

[federer_nadal]

So, why not take it out on the pro's that use paintjobs? Quit going to their matches if you feel so strongly that they are intentionally deceiving you.

I think he just wanted new racquets and found a way to manipulate and ultimately get back at the company. I think it is good. Anyhow, why would you stop watching the players, if thy werent sponsored they would be using the racquet under the paintjob but when they are sponsored he company makes them use the paintjob. Its not like federer goes to wilson and says i want this racquet painted this way to decieve the public. Its the other way around.

 

[BreakPoint]

I was sufficiently out-raged by what I read that I contacted Head about returning the Radical Flexpoints I had owned and played with for almost two years. Eventually, they agreed "without prejudice" to exchange them for two other rackets of my choice.

Interesting, but my question is - Did you actually like playing with the racquets? You must have, right, since you used them for two years? Did you buy the racquets only because of Agassi? If you played well with them and liked them, does it really matter if Agassi used them or not? It seems kind of silly to me to get rid of racquets that you liked just because you found out some pro doesn't use the same racquet.

 

[brokenMan]

I dont think thats why he wanted to change rackets.

He said that he found the rackets light and woofty

A racket brand claiming a technology will help your game is one thing. Telling us that a certain player chooses a technology because it offers something is completely different. For the non savy player, they are buying rackets based on this information from companies, not to mention investors being lied to by the chairman!


Way to go dribble!

 

[BreakPoint]

I dont think thats why he wanted to change rackets.

He said that he found the rackets light and woofty

But then why did he buy two of these racquets in the first place?

 

[officerdibble]

what kind of rackets did they send you in place of your fxp redicals?

I opted for Agassi Radical Limited Edition. Probably headed for a popular auction site near me this summer.

 

[officerdibble]

Interesting, but my question is - Did you actually like playing with the racquets? You must have, right, since you used them for two years? Did you buy the racquets only because of Agassi? If you played well with them and liked them, does it really matter if Agassi used them or not? It seems kind of silly to me to get rid of racquets that you liked just because you found out some pro doesn't use the same racquet.

It's a fair observation. I quite liked the rackets initially, but as my game progressed and I started looking into it, I found out that many pros use heavier rackets (without the claimed technology). I'm not pro level, but I'm a good club player, and when I tried a heavier, head light racket I found it infintely better for my game.

I was angry that the rackets that were being masqueraded as pros rackets were SO different. The technology was just the legal leverage I needed to make my point.

When a customer like me goes into a sports shop they're presented with 20 or 30 rackets, 90%+ of which are what I would call lightweight. So one's point of reference is distorted (a distortion that's compounded by the suggestion that, for instance, a Radical Flexpoint is good enough for Agassi).

I think the way tennis rackets are marketed is an outrage, so I did something about it. I can understand people saying they personally don't care, but I find it morally and, certainly in my country, legally indefensible.

 

[officerdibble]

So, why not take it out on the pro's that use paintjobs? Quit going to their matches if you feel so strongly that they are intentionally deceiving you.

The pros are part of it too, you're right. But I have no legal relationship with them as a result of my racket purchase. I do with the retailer and with the company (Head).

Do you think lying about pros using Flexpoint technology is OK? If so, why?

 

[officerdibble]

But then why did he buy two of these racquets in the first place?

Because the internet, rather than the retailer or manufacturer, educated me about what would be best for my game (a head light, heavy racket).

 

[alu16L]

I wanted to post a thank you to the people who take the time to post about what specs the pros are using, and to those who have studied photos and highlighted the manipulation of customers taking place by the big racket manufacturers.

I was sufficiently out-raged by what I read that I contacted Head about returning the Radical Flexpoints I had owned and played with for almost two years. Eventually, they agreed "without prejudice" to exchange them for two other rackets of my choice.

During the research that was triggered by what I'd seen here, I found out that in the Chairman's statement of Head's 2005 Annual Report and Accounts, Head claims to potential investors that Agassi used the Flexpoint technology to reacht the final of the 2005 US Open - the pictures would appear to contradict this!

So if people are offended by what the manufacturers are doing with these paint jobs, and technology that's so amazing the pros don't want to benefit from it (!), perhaps there is something you can do.

Thanks to the posters herer for getting me some new rackets.

WOW!!! I've never heard of anyone doing this before. I hope that I will never have to deal with anyone like you.

 

[Steve Huff]

Actually, I think what you did was very creative, and a good way to show your displeasure of Head's intentional deception. And, I follow your meaning about them basically saying "it's a technology that helped Agassi, it can help you too". They shouldn't make that claim. ESPECIALLY when Agassi wasn't using it. It does seem odd that a company can't produce a racket for a pro, then when it gets to the point that pro likes it, just produce it for everyone. What's the big deal.

 

[BreakPoint]

It does seem odd that a company can't produce a racket for a pro, then when it gets to the point that pro likes it, just produce it for everyone. What's the big deal.

I think the main issue is that most people can't play with the exact same racquet that the pros use because most of us are just not good enough to use them. If Head sold Agassi's exact racquet with the exact same specs he uses, they will sell very few of them because most people won't be able to use it effectively. It would just be too demanding for most people. That's why Head produces a similar looking racquet that's lighter, easier to use, and has some technologies in it to help the non-pro player with improving their games and helping them play better so that they keep playing the game. They are, after all, trying to sell as many racquets to as large of a percentage of the tennis-playing population as possible in order to maximize their return on investment.

 

[Steve Huff]

I agree. I personally have nothing against pro's using a racket painted like another, but I can understand those that do. Rackets are customized for a pro and his/her style of playing. If you play with a similar style or at least try to emulate that style, a certain feel in a racket may help you. I can remember back in the 80's, Lendl's racket, the Kneissl White Star Pro, was ideal for his type of play. When I played a few matches with it, I could see that it's weight and balance made you toss the ball high on serves. It really plowed through it, but it took time to get it around. Bashing from the baseline was a breeze, but volleying wasn't. Ever hit with a t2000? It wasn't a great topspin racket. It's round face made it good for the way Connors hit. Hard slice or sidespin was easy. Volleying--so-so. But get a Maxply. It felt so good volleying, why would you stay back. If you bashed too many really hard, you'd probably break it anyway. Today's rackets have certain characteristics too. I'm sure that in today's world, people don't have the time to demo as much, so they may rely on certain aspects of a player's form etc. for a headstart on what to use. Although today, I'm not sure there's near the variety in playing styles as there was a couple of decades ago, it's still there. Unfortunately now, all the advertisement says is "lighter, more powerful AND more control". And, with pro's using rackets that look like other rackets, I can see how some people who use this information feel deceived.

 

[officerdibble]

I think the main issue is that most people can't play with the exact same racquet that the pros use because most of us are just not good enough to use them. If Head sold Agassi's exact racquet with the exact same specs he uses, they will sell very few of them because most people won't be able to use it effectively. It would just be too demanding for most people. That's why Head produces a similar looking racquet that's lighter, easier to use, and has some technologies in it to help the non-pro player with improving their games and helping them play better so that they keep playing the game. They are, after all, trying to sell as many racquets to as large of a percentage of the tennis-playing population as possible in order to maximize their return on investment.

But I think it should be for the buyer to decide, not for the manufacturer to pretend. As it happens I now use a racket that has relatively pro specs (360gms, narrow beam, head light) and I find it MUCH better to play with. I'm not a top player by any means, probably a 4.5 or 5.0, but still progressing having started playing at age 30 (now 40). On the basis of the industry's positioning of rackets I was using a racket that wasn't supporting my game as much as it could. Arguably worse still, are those rackets that I am convinced contribute to injuries (lightweight / hammer).

 

[wksoh]

I think the main issue is that most people can't play with the exact same racquet that the pros use because most of us are just not good enough to use them. If Head sold Agassi's exact racquet with the exact same specs he uses, they will sell very few of them because most people won't be able to use it effectively. It would just be too demanding for most people. That's why Head produces a similar looking racquet that's lighter, easier to use, and has some technologies in it to help the non-pro player with improving their games and helping them play better so that they keep playing the game. They are, after all, trying to sell as many racquets to as large of a percentage of the tennis-playing population as possible in order to maximize their return on investment.

Yes yes...I agree. But I feel bad because a lie is a lie.. I feel silly too... after seeing Mauresmo's "Head FXP Rad" and counting the 16/19 racket with a box frame... ^^ ...

 

[chaz_233]

All marketing is deceptive, but especially VIP marketing. Does so and so really use this or that deodorant/diet product/line of clothes etc? On top of that the pros rackets, even if it were the stock are modified, so it'll never be anything like what you can get. Head shouldn't have given you anything.

 

[Ted Ghost Shackley]

All marketing is deceptive, but especially VIP marketing. Does so and so really use this or that deodorant/diet product/line of clothes etc? On top of that the pros rackets, even if it were the stock are modified, so it'll never be anything like what you can get. Head shouldn't have given you anything.

Your lofty ethical standards should be applied to tennis shoes. Nike should market a second rate shoe offering no support or cushioning and say it is the same shoe that Federer wears. When people who bought the shoes, under the presumption that they were up to the standards of the highest level competition, complain to Nike about shin splints and sprained ankles, Nike should shrug and tell them they should have known better.

Many of the racquets that are falsely advertised as the same model used by a pro are cheaply made and sufficiently stiff and light as to seriously increase arm and shoulder trouble for advanced amateurs. Dishonesty and alienating your consumer base with condescension and disinformation is not smart business practice.

 

[BreakPoint]

Your lofty ethical standards should be applied to tennis shoes. Nike should market a second rate shoe offering no support or cushioning and say it is the same shoe that Federer wears. When people who bought the shoes, under the presumption that they were up to the standards of the highest level competition, complain to Nike about shin splints and sprained ankles, Nike should shrug and tell them they should have known better.

Many of the racquets that are falsely advertised as the same model used by a pro are cheaply made and sufficiently stiff and light as to seriously increase arm and shoulder trouble for advanced amateurs. Dishonesty and alienating your consumer base with condescension and disinformation is not smart business practice.

Again, most recreational players would not be able to play with the pros' racquets so there's no point for the companies to sell them. They sell the lighter racquets because that's what most recreational players are able to play with and they play much better with them than they could with a pro's actual racquet.

The shoe companies already do also make custom shoes for the pros that are not available to the public, but I don't see the public making a big deal out of it.

 

[wksoh]

I don't feel that bad if Mauresmo's new "Head FXP Rad" is a Head Prestige MP or something from Head. But it's not comforting to see 16x19 box beam and greater similarity to Dunlop 300 or muscle weave. It doesn't look like anything from Head (that I know of).

It makes me wonder if Head has a pro's racket that fits Mauresmo's game at all. It seems a pro like Mauresmo doesn't believe she can adjust and win with Head.

If Mauresmo wins without using a Head racket, I guess it is incorrect for Head to mislead the public that Mauresmo wins with their technology. Just my opinion.

 

[AlpineCadet]

I wanted to post a thank you to the people who take the time to post about what specs the pros are using, and to those who have studied photos and highlighted the manipulation of customers taking place by the big racket manufacturers.

I was sufficiently out-raged by what I read that I contacted Head about returning the Radical Flexpoints I had owned and played with for almost two years. Eventually, they agreed "without prejudice" to exchange them for two other rackets of my choice.

During the research that was triggered by what I'd seen here, I found out that in the Chairman's statement of Head's 2005 Annual Report and Accounts, Head claims to potential investors that Agassi used the Flexpoint technology to reacht the final of the 2005 US Open - the pictures would appear to contradict this!

So if people are offended by what the manufacturers are doing with these paint jobs, and technology that's so amazing the pros don't want to benefit from it (!), perhaps there is something you can do.

Thanks to the posters herer for getting me some new rackets.

I stumbled upon this thread, and I'm glad I did. I'm surprised Head listened to your complaints and gave you what you asked for--this actually means something big--and I'm hoping you're not the only person who will do this.

If Head was willing to correct their mistakes via your requests, then I am definitely sure they felt a legal obligation to do so. 8)

Great job!

 

[BreakPoint]

I don't feel that bad if Mauresmo's new "Head FXP Rad" is a Head Prestige MP or something from Head. But it's not comforting to see 16x19 box beam and greater similarity to Dunlop 300 or muscle weave. It doesn't look like anything from Head (that I know of).

It makes me wonder if Head has a pro's racket that fits Mauresmo's game at all. It seems a pro like Mauresmo doesn't believe she can adjust and win with Head.

If Mauresmo wins without using a Head racket, I guess it is incorrect for Head to mislead the public that Mauresmo wins with their technology. Just my opinion.

Perhaps Head is just getting back at Dunlop for painting a Head Prestige Classic to look like a Dunlop MW200G for Marat Safin a few years ago. LOL

 

[wksoh]

LOL... I remember that one..^^

But somehow I wasn't disappointed with that.
Maybe I am now because I'm a Head lover... and hold a high regard for Head.

 

[chaz_233]

Your analogy doesn't work. Tennis rackets sold to the public aren't second rate or non-functional. But obviously they are not identical to what the pros use and never will. If Larry the Pro uses a sole or heel inserts in his shoes, do you want then Nike to sell "Larry" shoes with the insert an all? Not gonna happen because people are different and companies know that.
All marketing is deceptive and alienating to those in the know. Unfortunately, as long as those not-in-the-know continue to account for billions in sales companies' marketing departments have no incentive to stop lying. Ideally people wouldn't care about what so and so uses. But just look at the frenzy over the Wilson K-Federline-code-n six five point pi 70 on this board.
I'm not supporting the practice but it's not going to change unless customers vote with their pockets, the government imposes penalties, or all these crooks graduating with business degrees develop a moral sense to self-regulate--like that will ever happen.

Your lofty ethical standards should be applied to tennis shoes. Nike should market a second rate shoe offering no support or cushioning and say it is the same shoe that Federer wears. When people who bought the shoes, under the presumption that they were up to the standards of the highest level competition, complain to Nike about shin splints and sprained ankles, Nike should shrug and tell them they should have known better.

Many of the racquets that are falsely advertised as the same model used by a pro are cheaply made and sufficiently stiff and light as to seriously increase arm and shoulder trouble for advanced amateurs. Dishonesty and alienating your consumer base with condescension and disinformation is not smart business practice.

 

[Ted Ghost Shackley]

You make good points, chaz_233, but IMO the operative dynamic is: the racquet companies need to encourage people to feel the need to replace their racquets; they do so by claiming new "space age technology" that makes for lighter and stiffer racquets; and they feel the need to say touring pros benefit from these "advancements," or consumers would wonder why the pros still play with their old racquets.

The problem with the current dynamic is that racquets do not need to become stiffer and lighter, but it is hard to sell a technology that makes racquets heavier and more flexible as these racquets already exist. Consequently, pros pretend to use technology that does not help them or advanced amateurs.

The first example of a modified racquet I know of is the Donnay Borg Pro wood racquet that Borg used. He needed a reinforced head to handle his high string tension. I do not think this kind of difference would bother most consumers. Having ads where players claim to benefit from technology they would never use (nCode, Yonex innovations, etc.) makes consumers feel disenfranchised.

 

[_mats_]

Im 100% with officerdribble, it is Head's legal and ethical obligation to acknowledge this is in fact deceptive marketing, regardless if the racquet they are trying to market by a pro is better or worse than the off-the-shelf version, the point is that they are technically lying to the public, and that is not good business practice.

Good for you Officerdribble !

 

[K. Wilson Moose]

Maybe I am now because I'm a Head lover... and hold a high regard for Head.

Must resist temptation....Don't do it Moose.....

 

[colonelforbin]

But I think it should be for the buyer to decide, not for the manufacturer to pretend. As it happens I now use a racket that has relatively pro specs (360gms, narrow beam, head light) and I find it MUCH better to play with. I'm not a top player by any means, probably a 4.5 or 5.0, but still progressing having started playing at age 30 (now 40). On the basis of the industry's positioning of rackets I was using a racket that wasn't supporting my game as much as it could. Arguably worse still, are those rackets that I am convinced contribute to injuries (lightweight / hammer).

I agree with Breakpoint, the average tennis player could not handle what the pros actually use. According to another post in this forum, most pros use racquets with swingweights 350+, and even some experienced players here were shocked with how heavy they were. If the average player is about a 3.5, then the majority of players are not going to be able to handle true pro racquets in any way. Officerdribble, you may be able to handle such a racquet, but most players are not 4.5-5.0's, and most players would not be able to handle a racquet with actual pro specs. Consequently, the average player would not buy a racquet with real pro specs. And racquet companies are not going to manufacture racquets that only a minority of players will buy. It is annoying that companies don't manufacture racquets with the real specs, but it would really be commercial suicide, as nobody would buy them (except for 4.5+ players, who are, believe it or not, a minority). So just accept the "business ethics" of deception and false advertising, and take it upon yourself to customize your racquets to what you deem true pro specs.

And also, what if companies did manufacture heavy pro racquets, and this caused arm injuries for inexperienced players trying to use them (which it probably would)? If a player got an injury from using a racquet that was way too heavy for them, I wouldn't be surprised if said player came after the company, claiming they were selling racquets that were too demanding for the public. This is another thing companies would want to avoid.

So, really the only option for companies is to not market any of their racquets as pro racquets. But the profits that come from labeling a racquet as, say, "federer's racquet" are too great for companies to resist. Sad, but true, and there's not much we can do about it.

 

[BreakPoint]

A few years ago, Spalding did market a line of racquets that were made to the pros specs, the ATP Pro Spec Line, or something like that. They were very heavy (13 oz. +) and had high swingweights (350+). They didn't sell because nobody bought them as very few non-pros could handle using them. Spalding stopped selling them very quickly and then pulled out of the tennis racquet business altogether. I think that fiasco probably bankrupted the tennis division, and as far as I know, they never returned to the tennis market again.

 

[wksoh]

Must resist temptation....Don't do it Moose.....

LOL... tempting isn't it? LOL

 

[wksoh]

Well... it seems PJ can be justified by various reasons.

But Head's PJ on supposedly a Dunlop...? There should be a limit on false claims...

 

[AlpineCadet]

Im 100% with officerdribble, it is Head's legal and ethical obligation to acknowledge this is in fact deceptive marketing, regardless if the racquet they are trying to market by a pro is better or worse than the off-the-shelf version, the point is that they are technically lying to the public, and that is not good business practice.

Good for you Officerdribble !

Yes, I agree. Let's not overlook the obvious victim here. Nay sayers should reconsider how thoughtful they believe big businesses to be. The fact is, they're in the market for one reason only, and that's to grow as a company and make profit. If you were a leading manufacturer would you rather settle for less or more income? Realistically, let's not chase goodwill, and call it a general practice for marketing, please.

 

[vascoboy]

this is real fuzzy...

When Jeff Gordon says he races a Chevrolet, consumers know that this is not the car they are buying...i think the claim that racquet mfgrs make crosses the line: it's one thing to say Federer uses Wilson, it's another to say he uses the new (...) that with (...) techonology, now available through (...)...it's obvious the player does not know the difference but his EXPECTATION is that he is buying the same racquet...at which point, the consumer is deceived, is the real issue here. To argue that consumers "know" that all racquets are modified by pros therefore they know there's won't be the same is a silly argument (this will make a great defense the day racquet mfgrs get sued, and it will be just a matter of time now...)

How would you feel if you bought an expensive bottle of french wine for the dinner party you plan to find out it's $2 chuck. You or maybe all of your guests won't know the difference, but that does not make it OK...
While I can understand why racquet manufacturers do this, maybe it's even legal, but it's unethical, and most often that's worse...

 

[mpcardenas]

On the Head site, it's very strange. The photo on the first page
describing the Flexpoint Radical MP shows this image:

which seems to have the 16/19 pattern.

On the 2nd page, they show this:

,
which has the 18/20 pattern.

Mary

 

[BreakPoint]

On the Head site, it's very strange. The photo on the first page
describing the Flexpoint Radical MP shows this image:

which seems to have the 16/19 pattern.

On the 2nd page, they show this:

,
which has the 18/20 pattern.

Mary

The first pic is of a Flexpoint Radical Tour which has a 16x19 pattern. The regular Flexpoint Radical MP has a 18x20 pattern.

The second pic is not of a Flexpoint Radical at all. It's a pic of a Flexpoint Prestige, which has a 18x20 pattern.

 

[mpcardenas]

The first pic is of a Flexpoint Radical Tour which has a 16x19 pattern. The regular Flexpoint Radical MP has a 18x20 pattern.

The second pic is not of a Flexpoint Radical at all. It's a pic of a Flexpoint Prestige, which has a 18x20 pattern.

You're absolutely right on the 2nd point--my mistake. I thought
I was going to the 2nd page of a description of the Radical, but
I did not.

However, the photo of the first racquet is from this page, which
states an 18/20 pattern. Just Head making a mistake?

Mary

 

[BreakPoint]

However, the photo of the first racquet is from this page, which
states an 18/20 pattern. Just Head making a mistake?

If that's from the page for the FXP Radical MP, then Head made a mistake by showing a photo of the FXP Radical Tour instead of the FXP Radical MP.

 

[wksoh]

The first pic is of a Flexpoint Radical Tour which has a 16x19 pattern. The regular Flexpoint Radical MP has a 18x20 pattern.

The second pic is not of a Flexpoint Radical at all. It's a pic of a Flexpoint Prestige, which has a 18x20 pattern.

Breakpoint is right on.