The Cult of PT57

Alex78

Hall of Fame
ask TW...
They probably don't want too much excitement too far from their launch. I don't think Head had anything against it...
Hmm, probably rather because of the political arguments that started to dominate the thread... Could have deleted those contributions and keep the racquet-related content intact.
There's still basic information in the TW Questions/Comments section...
 

HeadClassic

New User
I know what I would say:

You can put a different woman into the same dress, but that doesn't mean she's beautiful.

Who has a better analogy? [emoji14]

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 

Grinch

Rookie
Just like allowing some people (you) to even discuss about these awesome frames...
I'm not dissing the new PT. I only felt like answering HeadClassic's request for an analogous analogy for his poetic offering. I will probably order a 2.0 today, even though I'm happy with my 280 and 630 (but I only have one of each).
 

Grinch

Rookie
Have you hit with it?
Again, full disclosure ... I was playing word games with @HeadClassic. I have not hit with 2.0 and I will probably order one today simply based on TT opinions posted and TW commentary. I'm not looking for another 280 or 630 to match mine. Instead, I am intrigued by the idea of a "modernized" 2.0 that pays homage to the 280 (i.e., same mold). Sorry for the offense ... I will try to refrain from jokes and stay serious on this thread.
 

HeadClassic

New User
The twaron and overall feel of the old versions of the Pro Tour 630 are exactly what made it a classic. The ball pocketing is not going to be as evident in the new version. I've hit with enough sticks to know. Besides, I can't play with anything above 63 RA or my arm gets thrashed.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
The twaron and overall feel of the old versions of the Pro Tour 630 are exactly what made it a classic. The ball pocketing is not going to be as evident in the new version. I've hit with enough sticks to know. Besides, I can't play with anything above 63 RA or my arm gets thrashed.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
It’s 63RA on my RDC machine and don’t get so caught up on a number.
 

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
The twaron and overall feel of the old versions of the Pro Tour 630 are exactly what made it a classic. The ball pocketing is not going to be as evident in the new version. I've hit with enough sticks to know. Besides, I can't play with anything above 63 RA or my arm gets thrashed.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
How much twaron do you think they put in those classic frames you are raving about???
Or, do you think it is the layup of those classics (discussed the details already) that made them feel buttery?
Where do you think they put twaron in the PT630?
 

HeadClassic

New User
How much twaron do you think they put in those classic frames you are raving about???
Or, do you think it is the layup of those classics (discussed the details already) that made them feel buttery?
Where do you think they put twaron in the PT630?
Is that a bait? You obviously know from all of the years of participating in this thread. The answer is there. It's not a lot, but enough to make a difference. Why don't you use the time you spend typing to educate us. Instead, you always try and test the knowledge of others instead of giving them an answer. But until last year, you didn't even know that you could put different materials into the same mould of a racket, until I let you know that is. So what's your point? Vsbabolat has always been kind to answer others questions, even though he has had to give the same answers over and over. And I have tried to do the same for people with what I have learned as well.



Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
Is that a bait? You obviously know from all of the years of participating in this thread. The answer is there. It's not a lot, but enough to make a difference. Why don't you use the time you spend typing to educate us. Instead, you always try and test the knowledge of others instead of giving them an answer. But until last year, you didn't even know that you could put different materials into the same mould of a racket, until I let you know that is. So what's your point? Vsbabolat has always been kind to answer others questions, even though he has had to give the same answers over and over. And I have tried to do the same for people with what I have learned as well.



Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
I am not following your statement about “different materials in the same mold”???
Why wouldn’t you be able to do so???
Prestige MP had the same mold and different materials over the past 15 years. What are you trying to say??

Also, don’t think I am “always” answering in this manner, however, when you keep pounding over and over on a thing that means a little and lose focus on what really matters, I have to ask.
people get stuck on the twaron or the RA measurement and in the end the layup is what matters and how it works in a mold.

I have multiple rackets with the PT57A layup (PT57A, PT313, PT334, PT339.2) and they ALL feel very different and measure very different flex.
My PT113/PT346 measure 64RA unstrung but feels like 57 RA when hitting with it.

Therefore, the PT2.0 layup is wonderful, has no twaron, measures higher flex but the feel is nice (more modern) and has that classic touch.
 

BDAZ

Professional
Ahhhh, those CAPs look so much better than the rounded end ones. Glad I snagged the last set.
 

Hansen

Semi-Pro
Is that a bait? You obviously know from all of the years of participating in this thread.
you aren´t allowed to criticise the "rerelease", even if the arguments are valid. instead you should be thankful that head, after all these years of begging, finally brought the legend back, which they actually didn´t. instead they released a racquet nobody actually asked for, but at least, like you said, put it in the right dress.
 
Last edited:

BDAZ

Professional
Oh, it was you that bought the last one! I hope @TW Staff will get more in.
Hahaha... yessir. I had the last two in my cart, but by the time I was finished putting my order in, one of them was gone and my items were then "backordered." I reduced the quantity to 1 and was able to complete my order. I just bought Prestige grommets, and considered snipping the bottom so they'd have a straight edge instead of the rounded. Haven't strung it up yet, though, so maybe I'll wait until I get my order this week and change them out. Why Head went to this newer CAP, I have no idea. They don't look nearly as nice. Dare I say the clear and red CAPs would look much better if they were squared off.
 
you aren´t allowed to critize the "rerelease", even if the arguments are valid. instead you should be thankful that head, after all these years of begging, finally brought the legend back, which they actually didn´t. instead they released a racquet nobody actually asked for, but at least, like you said, put it in the right dress.
So at this point I think it’s fairly obvious Head can’t rerelease the actual PT630 layup on a large scale for market. Especially now that we know that the PT57 is produced at Kennelbach and only sent to China for painting. Maybe @Howard H can add something to this but it seems that something about the OG layup just can’t be brought to mass production.

Now, like a lot of people I was frustrated with the increased RA when I first saw it as well. But after reading VS and DR’s positive feedback and thinking about the actual logistics of releasing a 25 year old layup that was perfected when mass production was in Austria and not China, I changed my mind. Admittedly I haven’t hit with the racquet yet, but I think I’ll be much more impressed with it over a crappier playing rip off of the original 630 spec. It looks like Head actually put a lot of thought and effort into this rerelease and I think we all need to hit with it first before we jump to conclusions and prematurely judge it. Hopefully it will continue to sell well and Head will keep it around for a while.
 

Hansen

Semi-Pro
But after reading VS and DR’s positive feedback and thinking about the actual logistics of releasing a 25 year old layup that was perfected when mass production was in Austria and not China, I changed my mind
i don´t doubt their assassement that this reissue is a good racquet in its own right, but that is not the point. also both of them already own pt57a´s and other prostock head-racquets; in this case it is easy not to be upset and welcome a "new" release. furthermore a 25 year old layup equals at least 25 years of experience in the industry; and yes the ra doesn´t tell the full story, but if your intentions are "pure" and you really WANT to get the rerelease as close as possible to the original and the result is a 7+ ra difference, then you are incompetent (which i don´t think they are).
everybody who bought the reissue should have fun with the racquet, but what drives me crazy are the comments like "thank you head for bringing back the legend", as if head really had listened to the wishes of the people and "honestly" delivered.
 

HeadClassic

New User
Even though others don't seem to think it's a big deal, I stand by my opinion:

Materials do matter. RA does matter. Obviously, because this is what make the PT57's have different flavors. The 2.0 is not the same racket and does not feel the same as the original no matter how much others justify it. And it is clear that this was meant to be an "update". If Head wanted to give us the closest thing to the original we would have seen them release PT57A's.

That being said, the 2.0 plays great. Of course it does because it's the same mould as all the great rackets over the years.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 

Lavs

Hall of Fame
Even though others don't seem to think it's a big deal, I stand by my opinion:

Materials do matter. RA does matter. Obviously, because this is what make the PT57's have different flavors. The 2.0 is not the same racket and does not feel the same as the original no matter how much others justify it. And it is clear that this was meant to be an "update". If Head wanted to give us the closest thing to the original we would have seen them release PT57A's.

That being said, the 2.0 plays great. Of course it does because it's the same mould as all the great rackets over the years.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
I think Head kept in mind the changes happened in Tennis for the last 30years and recreated Pro Tour that would be a competitor to today's market, at least on a paper (this can somehow explain the difference in Swingweight and Stiffness with Original PT630). Anyway, very good and wise step from Head Sport GmbH. Thumb Up!
 

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
Even though others don't seem to think it's a big deal, I stand by my opinion:

Materials do matter. RA does matter. Obviously, because this is what make the PT57's have different flavors. The 2.0 is not the same racket and does not feel the same as the original no matter how much others justify it. And it is clear that this was meant to be an "update". If Head wanted to give us the closest thing to the original we would have seen them release PT57A's.

That being said, the 2.0 plays great. Of course it does because it's the same mould as all the great rackets over the years.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
No one said it is the same and that was not even the target...as you pointed out...
Reasons were covered a few times...
I do agree - a great modern update
 
Top