The old school "ceramics" arm friendly????

onehandbh

G.O.A.T.
Another thought about the 80s ceramics: I play with 80s Prince frames a lot, and the Spectrum Comp is the only one I can stand having full poly in. (I mean only that I don't like the feel of full poly in any of the others, not that it doesn't perform well.)

how does the spectrum comp play vs the regular prince 90 or 93 sq inch graphite?
 

Don't Let It Bounce

Hall of Fame
how does the spectrum comp play vs the regular prince 90 or 93 sq inch graphite?
I'm not the guy to say, OneHandBH. I always played with the Series 110 (more like 107 for the Graphite and the Pro, 103 for the Spectrum/Mag Pro/Comp, and 101 for the Woodie) frames. I could make an educated guess that the biggest differences would be the Graphite's stiffness and the peculiar difference in feel that ceramic fibers give, but hopefully someone with real-world experience can chime in.
 
That Fiberglass Yamaha YFG 20 I had was a great racquet. At the time there was nothing like it.

I liked the Yamaha Ceramic 90 as well. You reminded me to take the time to restring it this weekend and play with it.
I have a Yamaha YFG 30 (black but they also had a nice looking red one) and I strung it at 40 mains and 30 crosses and I can hang with my peeps in doubles with it. I also have a YFG 50 that is nice and flexible. I have yet to re-string that one. My 90 plays great and moves well through the air and has a bigger head than the 30's and 50's. It should play well for you.
 

coachrick

Hall of Fame
"That Fiberglass Yamaha YFG 20 I had was a great racquet. At the time there was nothing like it."

The 20 was a cheaper version of the 30, more or less...with plastic flashing that was not trimmed and a cheaper looking throat piece. Rounder face was slightly larger as well. It never really caught on for us...maybe 10% of the YFG business at the time.
 
how does the spectrum comp play vs the regular prince 90 or 93 sq inch graphite?
I have a spectrum comp. to compare it with the original mid-sized prince graphite...If you win YOUR games by hard serves and aces and have powerful groundstrokes (like say Lendel) you would choose the Prince graphite. If your game resembled John McEnroe and you wanted nice perfect drop shots and lobs and won points with finesse and not pure power ; you would pick the Spectrum. In my opinion.
 

onehandbh

G.O.A.T.
I have a spectrum comp. to compare it with the original mid-sized prince graphite...If you win YOUR games by hard serves and aces and have powerful groundstrokes (like say Lendel) you would choose the Prince graphite. If your game resembled John McEnroe and you wanted nice perfect drop shots and lobs and won points with finesse and not pure power ; you would pick the Spectrum. In my opinion.
Interesting. Can't wait to string it up and test it.

I am hoping it won't feel to underpowered compared to my Yonex 95D. I'll try stringing with synthgut or poly at a low tension.
 
Interesting. Can't wait to string it up and test it.

I am hoping it won't feel to underpowered compared to my Yonex 95D. I'll try stringing with synthgut or poly at a low tension.
Opinion...racket power is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (wielder). If you played Conners or Borg you would probably say they both had super strong groundstrokes. BUT, with completely different rackets. The t-2000 ably would probably be considered the more powerful. Conners built his game around that racket when young. He got down perfectly every time, swung flat with good body twist and always hit the small sweet spot. Conners was not as strong as Borg so he needed the greater power of the t-2000. Borg had strength to burn but he needed control. So, he went wood and 80 lb string tension. Then he added big topspin for more control. So, pros and average hackers channel their games around their racket. Take Pat Cash a big powerful server. He used a 110 Prince magnesium. John McEnroe used control rackets of wood and the injected graphite say 70 sq in model. John increased his power by stringing low...45 lbs. So, again they built their games around their prefered rackets.
Let's take 2 recreational players and give them one of 2 rackets. A 75 sq in Wilson pro staff original (used by Sampras) and a 125 sq in Wilson pro staff graphite ( used by some older doubles players). Just about at the extremes of power and control but otherwise similar in materials and construction. I would say that the 125 user would be enthralled by the power but would start hitting the net and hitting long. So, he would start (over time) swinging shorter ,flatter and more deliberate.Probably using lots of underspin. Some would call that pushing. The 75 sq in user would , conversely (over time) enjoy his abundant control and would begin to hit harder, with bigger, longer strokes. Probably using greater topspin. So, racket power and player style sort of orbit toward the average.
A player needs know their own strengths and choose a racket and adopt a style. They may choose to max out their strength or pick a racket that gives them better strength / weakness balance. Take 2 great pro serve abd volley and all-court players... Pete Sampras and Stephan Edberg. They had both power and control and they both used a power/control racket -the 70 sq in Wilson pro staff.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
Opinion...racket power is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (wielder). If you played Conners or Borg you would probably say they both had super strong groundstrokes. BUT, with completely different rackets. The t-2000 ably would probably be considered the more powerful. Conners built his game around that racket when young. He got down perfectly every time, swung flat with good body twist and always hit the small sweet spot. Conners was not as strong as Borg so he needed the greater power of the t-2000. Borg had strength to burn but he needed control. So, he went wood and 80 lb string tension. Then he added big topspin for more control. So, pros and average hackers channel their games around their racket. Take Pat Cash a big powerful server. He used a 110 Prince magnesium. John McEnroe used control rackets of wood and the injected graphite say 70 sq in model. John increased his power by stringing low...45 lbs. So, again they built their games around their prefered rackets.
Let's take 2 recreational players and give them one of 2 rackets. A 75 sq in Wilson pro staff original (used by Sampras) and a 125 sq in Wilson pro staff graphite ( used by some older doubles players). Just about at the extremes of power and control but otherwise similar in materials and construction. I would say that the 125 user would be enthralled by the power but would start hitting the net and hitting long. So, he would start (over time) swinging shorter ,flatter and more deliberate.Probably using lots of underspin. Some would call that pushing. The 75 sq in user would , conversely (over time) enjoy his abundant control and would begin to hit harder, with bigger, longer strokes. Probably using greater topspin. So, racket power and player style sort of orbit toward the average.
A player needs know their own strengths and choose a racket and adopt a style. They may choose to max out their strength or pick a racket that gives them better strength / weakness balance. Take 2 great pro serve abd volley and all-court players... Pete Sampras and Stephan Edberg. They had both power and control and they both used a power/control racket -the 70 sq in Wilson pro staff.
The Max200G was 80sq.in
 

BorgCash

Legend
Opinion...racket power is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (wielder). If you played Conners or Borg you would probably say they both had super strong groundstrokes. BUT, with completely different rackets. The t-2000 ably would probably be considered the more powerful. Conners built his game around that racket when young. He got down perfectly every time, swung flat with good body twist and always hit the small sweet spot. Conners was not as strong as Borg so he needed the greater power of the t-2000. Borg had strength to burn but he needed control. So, he went wood and 80 lb string tension. Then he added big topspin for more control. So, pros and average hackers channel their games around their racket. Take Pat Cash a big powerful server. He used a 110 Prince magnesium. John McEnroe used control rackets of wood and the injected graphite say 70 sq in model. John increased his power by stringing low...45 lbs. So, again they built their games around their prefered rackets.
Let's take 2 recreational players and give them one of 2 rackets. A 75 sq in Wilson pro staff original (used by Sampras) and a 125 sq in Wilson pro staff graphite ( used by some older doubles players). Just about at the extremes of power and control but otherwise similar in materials and construction. I would say that the 125 user would be enthralled by the power but would start hitting the net and hitting long. So, he would start (over time) swinging shorter ,flatter and more deliberate.Probably using lots of underspin. Some would call that pushing. The 75 sq in user would , conversely (over time) enjoy his abundant control and would begin to hit harder, with bigger, longer strokes. Probably using greater topspin. So, racket power and player style sort of orbit toward the average.
A player needs know their own strengths and choose a racket and adopt a style. They may choose to max out their strength or pick a racket that gives them better strength / weakness balance. Take 2 great pro serve abd volley and all-court players... Pete Sampras and Stephan Edberg. They had both power and control and they both used a power/control racket -the 70 sq in Wilson pro staff.

Pat Cash never played with oversize racquet. His Prince named "Magnesium Pro 90".
Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 you call "originai" and was used by Edberg, Sampras, Courier, etc was 85 sq in.
 

BorgCash

Legend
Opinion...racket power is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (wielder). If you played Conners or Borg you would probably say they both had super strong groundstrokes. BUT, with completely different rackets. The t-2000 ably would probably be considered the more powerful. Conners built his game around that racket when young. He got down perfectly every time, swung flat with good body twist and always hit the small sweet spot. Conners was not as strong as Borg so he needed the greater power of the t-2000. Borg had strength to burn but he needed control. So, he went wood and 80 lb string tension. Then he added big topspin for more control. So, pros and average hackers channel their games around their racket. Take Pat Cash a big powerful server. He used a 110 Prince magnesium. John McEnroe used control rackets of wood and the injected graphite say 70 sq in model. John increased his power by stringing low...45 lbs. So, again they built their games around their prefered rackets.
Let's take 2 recreational players and give them one of 2 rackets. A 75 sq in Wilson pro staff original (used by Sampras) and a 125 sq in Wilson pro staff graphite ( used by some older doubles players). Just about at the extremes of power and control but otherwise similar in materials and construction. I would say that the 125 user would be enthralled by the power but would start hitting the net and hitting long. So, he would start (over time) swinging shorter ,flatter and more deliberate.Probably using lots of underspin. Some would call that pushing. The 75 sq in user would , conversely (over time) enjoy his abundant control and would begin to hit harder, with bigger, longer strokes. Probably using greater topspin. So, racket power and player style sort of orbit toward the average.
A player needs know their own strengths and choose a racket and adopt a style. They may choose to max out their strength or pick a racket that gives them better strength / weakness balance. Take 2 great pro serve abd volley and all-court players... Pete Sampras and Stephan Edberg. They had both power and control and they both used a power/control racket -the 70 sq in Wilson pro staff.

Also Cash wasn't so big powerful server like, say Lendl or Becker, his game was S&V, he was very strong volley player, so, like Edberg, his serve was mostly a prelude to a volley.
 
Pat Cash never played with oversize racquet. His Prince named "Magnesium Pro 90".
Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 you call "originai" and was used by Edberg, Sampras, Courier, etc was 85 sq in.
Yes and no actually. I greatly appreciate your comment. This forum is best for kicking around ideas and opinions. The YES part...the frame's nomenclature is ,as you say, Wilson PS 6.0. I don't know if the 6.0 was used in their 1st introduction of the frame. They may have added that to distinguish it from the later 6.1 That is a detail that is above my pay grade and about which I do not care. I was tired of typing and I was not interested in accuracy.
The No part.... The Pro Staff used by Sampras , Edberg and Courier( at 1st,later a 6.1) was Less than 85 in sq. In fact, after Sampras retired ,in exhibitions he went to the 85 sq in Pro Staff 6.0. He even commented that he would have had more tour wins if he had then gone to the bigger 85 sq in. frame.
Wilson made the 6.0 in 4 distinct sizes. Incidentally, I currently own ALL 4 frames(all play great). The 1st and smallest(which was the popular size among better players back then) was approx. 70 sq in. The 2nd frame was 85sq in. And that was stated in the fine print on the frame. It was advertised as a mid-size frame. Then there was the 110 sq in Pro Staff 6.0 intended to compete with the 110 Prince And it probably was more like 100sqin. There was also a 125 sq in Pro Staff which competed with the large Weed racket. ( I don't know which was 1st to market). And to summarize that would be my understanding of the original Wilson PS. Thank you.
 

BorgCash

Legend
Yes and no actually. I greatly appreciate your comment. This forum is best for kicking around ideas and opinions. The YES part...the frame's nomenclature is ,as you say, Wilson PS 6.0. I don't know if the 6.0 was used in their 1st introduction of the frame. They may have added that to distinguish it from the later 6.1 That is a detail that is above my pay grade and about which I do not care. I was tired of typing and I was not interested in accuracy.
The No part.... The Pro Staff used by Sampras , Edberg and Courier( at 1st,later a 6.1) was Less than 85 in sq. In fact, after Sampras retired ,in exhibitions he went to the 85 sq in Pro Staff 6.0. He even commented that he would have had more tour wins if he had then gone to the bigger 85 sq in. frame.
Wilson made the 6.0 in 4 distinct sizes. Incidentally, I currently own ALL 4 frames(all play great). The 1st and smallest(which was the popular size among better players back then) was approx. 70 sq in. The 2nd frame was 85sq in. And that was stated in the fine print on the frame. It was advertised as a mid-size frame. Then there was the 110 sq in Pro Staff 6.0 intended to compete with the 110 Prince And it probably was more like 100sqin. There was also a 125 sq in Pro Staff which competed with the large Weed racket. ( I don't know which was 1st to market). And to summarize that would be my understanding of the original Wilson PS. Thank you.

Ok, so you think that all these great players played with PS 6.0 that was smaller than 85 and was closer to 70? If you have this racquet it will be interesting to see it. Can you post a picture please? It will be nice if you picture it to PS 6.0 that is 85. Actually i never heared that there were 4 different head sizes of this racquet, i was 100% sure that there were 85, 110 and 125.
Thank you for your comment.
 
Last edited:

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
Yes and no actually. I greatly appreciate your comment. This forum is best for kicking around ideas and opinions. The YES part...the frame's nomenclature is ,as you say, Wilson PS 6.0. I don't know if the 6.0 was used in their 1st introduction of the frame. They may have added that to distinguish it from the later 6.1 That is a detail that is above my pay grade and about which I do not care. I was tired of typing and I was not interested in accuracy.
The No part.... The Pro Staff used by Sampras , Edberg and Courier( at 1st,later a 6.1) was Less than 85 in sq. In fact, after Sampras retired ,in exhibitions he went to the 85 sq in Pro Staff 6.0. He even commented that he would have had more tour wins if he had then gone to the bigger 85 sq in. frame.
Wilson made the 6.0 in 4 distinct sizes. Incidentally, I currently own ALL 4 frames(all play great). The 1st and smallest(which was the popular size among better players back then) was approx. 70 sq in. The 2nd frame was 85sq in. And that was stated in the fine print on the frame. It was advertised as a mid-size frame. Then there was the 110 sq in Pro Staff 6.0 intended to compete with the 110 Prince And it probably was more like 100sqin. There was also a 125 sq in Pro Staff which competed with the large Weed racket. ( I don't know which was 1st to market). And to summarize that would be my understanding of the original Wilson PS. Thank you.
Could you please post a photo of your 70sq Pro Staff. I’ve never seen one of those. I’m only familiar with the Pro Staff Midsize, Pro Staff Largehead, and Pro Staff 125. I have info when the Pro Staff was released in 1984 and Midsize, Largehead, and 125 are all that are listed.
 
Ok, so you think that all these great players played with PS 6.0 that was smaller than 85 and was closer to 70? If you have this racquet it will be interesting to see it. Can you post a picture please? It will be nice if you picture it to PS 6.0 that is 85. Actually i nrver heared that there were 4 different head sizes of this racquet, i was 100% sure that there were 85, 110 and 125.
Thank you for your comment.
I am not very proficient with things digital. I do not know how to post a picture. I could ask my wife...she knows. But she is away for a few days. Also I have about 60 rackets at our summer home in Tn. And about 60 here in Fl. So, I can't be sure if I have both the 1st 6.0 and the 85 here in Fl? I will work on that also there are some museum site that have pictures of classic and unusual rackets. I will try to get something.
 
Could you please post a photo of your 70sq Pro Staff. I’ve never seen one of those. I’m only familiar with the Pro Staff Midsize, Pro Staff Largehead, and Pro Staff 125. I have info when the Pro Staff was released in 1984 and Midsize, Largehead, and 125 are all that are listed.
I have to admit an error. On this site I put in PS 6.0 and a post by Antonis shows a picture of a PS6.0 that is 95sqin. So, I was confused. The 4 sizes must be 85,95,110 and 125. My bad!
 
I am not very proficient with things digital. I do not know how to post a picture. I could ask my wife...she knows. But she is away for a few days. Also I have about 60 rackets at our summer home in Tn. And about 60 here in Fl. So, I can't be sure if I have both the 1st 6.0 and the 85 here in Fl? I will work on that also there are some museum site that have pictures of classic and unusual rackets. I will try to get something.
I just entered Wilson PS 6.0 at this site. I made an error. Antonis shows a picture of a 95 sq in PS. The 4 sizes must be 85,95, 110 and 125. So sorry?
 
Top