Why cant you buy pro stocks

#1
Why dont manufacturers just sell pro stock rackets?
It seems a well known thing that players dont use the rackets they endorse.

Why dont manufacturers just make those rackets to the masses?
 

mhkeuns

Hall of Fame
#2
My guess is the retail frames are mass produced and produced with cheaper materials. The prostock frames maybe are built with better quality materials, strict QC and not mass produced, which could make them very expensive in retail. No matter how nice feeling the frame may be, I don’t think I would pay $500 or more per frame. Just my guess, though.
 
#3
I think the new Pure Drive VS is kinda like a pro stock. Sold with very close to matching specs and in pairs. They are also very expensive and a lot of people on this forum have called it out as a terrible idea. On the other hand, the Wilson Ultra Tour is pretty close to being a pro stock and its popular on these forums, but I don't see many real people using it. Head also tried a similar thing with the Head Prestige Revo where they released a light version but it was a total flop. I don't think many people want to customize their racquets and people certainly don't like paying extra money.
 
#4
Because the average consumer will pick one off the rack, swing it a couple times, say "That feels too heavy," and go off and buy a retail Pure Aero.

The whole light racket craze is consumer driven not racket manufacturer driven. The average tennis consumer thinks light is better, thinks the racket they are playing is the same as the pro and has no idea about the difference between polyester and nylon strings. So the manufacturers have gotten in an arms race to make lighter rackets that maintain the power of older heavy frames.
 
#5
Because the average consumer will pick one off the rack, swing it a couple times, say "That feels too heavy," and go off and buy a retail Pure Aero.

The whole light racket craze is consumer driven not racket manufacturer driven. The average tennis consumer thinks light is better, thinks the racket they are playing is the same as the pro and has no idea about the difference between polyester and nylon strings. So the manufacturers have gotten in an arms race to make lighter rackets that maintain the power of older heavy frames.
Precisely.
 
#6
My guess is the retail frames are mass produced and produced with cheaper materials. The prostock frames maybe are built with better quality materials, strict QC and not mass produced, which could make them very expensive in retail. No matter how nice feeling the frame may be, I don’t think I would pay $500 or more per frame. Just my guess, though.
Also, they probably do not have the manufacturing capacity to produce mass quantities at these stringent levels of QC.
 

mhkeuns

Hall of Fame
#7
Because the average consumer will pick one off the rack, swing it a couple times, say "That feels too heavy," and go off and buy a retail Pure Aero.

The whole light racket craze is consumer driven not racket manufacturer driven. The average tennis consumer thinks light is better, thinks the racket they are playing is the same as the pro and has no idea about the difference between polyester and nylon strings. So the manufacturers have gotten in an arms race to make lighter rackets that maintain the power of older heavy frames.
I totally agree. At one point, the pros played with what we could pick up off the shelves, like the Pro Staff Mid, Prestige Pro, POG and such, so it is doable. I wonder what were the top 10 selling frames of last year, though. I hope, at least, one or two player’s frames are in the list.
 
#8
Because the average consumer will pick one off the rack, swing it a couple times, say "That feels too heavy," and go off and buy a retail Pure Aero
Huh?? Everything I've read about prostock frames indicates they in fact are usually relatively light when sold, the heft coming after they've had all the silicone, lead and whatever added to them post-market to bring them to the desired specs.
 
#10
Because the average consumer will pick one off the rack, swing it a couple times, say "That feels too heavy," and go off and buy a retail Pure Aero.
My friend got his hands on a pro stock used by Jeremy Chardy. It had all sorts of lead under the bumper which I had to remove before restringing it. Without any lead, it was super light. It was designed to be customized to suit the player.
 
#11
Why dont manufacturers just sell pro stock rackets?
It seems a well known thing that players dont use the rackets they endorse.

Why dont manufacturers just make those rackets to the masses?
They are all different. Someone told me there are like 75 different h22's. A very respectable stringer here had 3 of feds when he was changing a few years ago. I got to hit with it, very soft and some flex, but good control.
 
#13
Lots of myths going on in this thread. There’s no reason other than it does not fit in with the marketing being used to sell racquets. Every 2 years you have to “upgrade” to the BS tech that doesn’t do anything. That’s how they sell racquets. It doesn’t fit into their marketing plan to sell 25 year old racquets to anyone.
 
Last edited:
#14
Lots of myths going on in this thread. There’s no reason other than it does not fit in with the marketing being used to sell racquets. Every 2 years you have to “upgrade” to the BS tech that doesn’t do anything. That’s how they sell racquets. It doesn’t fit into their marketing plan to sell 25 year old racquets anyone.
Agree with you about the loss of marketing and sales opportunities with the annual BS tech introduction, but can you imagine a new player walking into a tennis shop and seeing a wall of tgk231.1, tgk231.2, tgk 231.3, tgt###, etc. I imagine he/she would be mighty confused as to which one to buy.
 
#15
The myth of the Wilson Ultra Tour being a pro stock (H19) or pseudo pro stock probably will never die. More than half of the original UT thread was about it with one of the graphic designers and sales reps perpetuating that notion.
 
#16
Why dont manufacturers just sell pro stock rackets?
It seems a well known thing that players dont use the rackets they endorse.

Why dont manufacturers just make those rackets to the masses?
1. The very definition of a "pro stock" is a racquet not available to the public. What's more, it doesn't have to be a completely different frame, if there's a player who plays with a stock frame from 15 years ago, a company takes this layup, customizes it and sends him, it's a pro stock.

2. Pro stocks are usually a very light hairpin for customization. 99% percent of people would buy that and think it's what pros are playing with without any further modifications. It would be a mess, these people wouldn't benefit from it (even if they customized it further, more in next point) and it would turn out bad for the company either way. Pro stocks aren't magical wands, a huge part of the deal is being able to continue playing with a frame you've been playing for years and it's not being made anymore but you need new frames all the time while playing profesionally.

3. The other 1% of people who know what a pro stock is wouldn't really benefit from it either. What's more, if you read some threads here, this 1% consists of another 90% of people who play 3.0-3.5 level, "customize" their racquets by adding 50g weight and stringing kevlar at 500lbs, calculating some made up formulas and making up theories that make you feel ashamed just by reading. And yet, they don't bother to learn how to hit a ball without framing it. So yeah, anything other than a stock frame usually just makes it harder for them.

4. People who would actually benefit from a pro stock know how to handle their equipment and either get a pro stock from a company if they're at that level, know how to get their hands on a pro stock (if they really wanna have one) or customize their racquets.

In short: it's both unprofitable for companies and pointless either way.
 
#18
Lots of the answers make sense here.

I still think there is room on the market for those rackets. Manufacturers could sell them straight from their website so they dont need to make massive amounts to send to retail stores.
 
#19
Why dont manufacturers just sell pro stock rackets?
It seems a well known thing that players dont use the rackets they endorse.

Why dont manufacturers just make those rackets to the masses?
This is very very simple. and it is obvious. Pro stock rackets are in most part Heavier, more flexible, and much heavier swing weight and twist weight. While this is very appealing when hitting against 80 mph groundies and 130 MPH serves with 3500 RPM on them, it takes tremendous skill, precision and racket speed to be able to swing these rackets. 90 % of the amateur players simply can't handle these type of specs or want use them for that matter. So are you asking the racket company to cater to 10 % the market ?? That would be stupid business decision and fast track to bankrupsy.

You say why not mass produce these Pro spec rackets as well as those regular amateur oriented rackets ? Because it costs way way too much to also mass produce rackets that only 10 % of the amateur market will buy. again, Not smart business, and not cost effective.

Know this, racket company doesn't care about you. They ONLY care about making money. What is the best way to make most money by releasing new line of rackets or any line of rackets ? Think like the racket company and you will have your answer.
 
#20
Just to chime in: A pro stock is a hairpin that needs to be customized. Guess how many people would want to
- pay for professional customization on top
- customize the racquet(s) themselves
Those who want that either
- have a racquet contract or
- buy their pro stocks on the grey market. And even there you usually get asked about racquet specs, even though you can change them to whatever you like.
So in short, it's just not much of a business model to be had.
 
#24
Lots of the answers make sense here.

I still think there is room on the market for those rackets. Manufacturers could sell them straight from their website so they dont need to make massive amounts to send to retail stores.
Very well, let’s say someone listens to you. You can buy “pro stocks” used by XXX and YYY. And yet ZZZ used the same but with another string pattern.

So what happens? First of all, these frames you can buy stop being pro stocks (because you can buy them) and now ZZZ’s frame is a pro stock and people wonder why can’t you buy it and we’re back to square one.

Thankfully that’s just a thought experiment and it’s probably never gonna happen for the reasons in previous posts.
 
#26
Pro stocks are meant to be customized, and the company producing them is committed to selling them without change long term. Aside from that they aren’t magic.
Exactly, even the Pros customize their pro spec rackets after getting them. They add more lead at various positions and make adjustments even more. So there isn't a true exactly same rackets pro uses right off the shelf.

I still get so amazed at these teenagers that think somehow Magically they will play better if they had EXACTLY same spec racket certain pro is using... LOL
 
#27
Because the average consumer will pick one off the rack, swing it a couple times, say "That feels too heavy," and go off and buy a retail Pure Aero.

The whole light racket craze is consumer driven not racket manufacturer driven. The average tennis consumer thinks light is better, thinks the racket they are playing is the same as the pro and has no idea about the difference between polyester and nylon strings. So the manufacturers have gotten in an arms race to make lighter rackets that maintain the power of older heavy frames.
(y)

So true…
 
#28
Lots of myths going on in this thread. There’s no reason other than it does not fit in with the marketing being used to sell racquets. Every 2 years you have to “upgrade” to the BS tech that doesn’t do anything. That’s how they sell racquets. It doesn’t fit into their marketing plan to sell 25 year old racquets anyone.
What's your opinion of the new "Clash" that is suppose to have revolutionary technology? My take is that Wilson is taking advantage of the average tennis consumer trying to sell them "new" tech when they have been making frames with low flex ratings for years.
 
#29
Why dont manufacturers just sell pro stock rackets?
It seems a well known thing that players dont use the rackets they endorse.

Why dont manufacturers just make those rackets to the masses?
You can buy pro stocks from reputable sellers on fleabay and the pro stock site. But you will be delivering a truck load of cash.
 
#30
Just to chime in: A pro stock is a hairpin that needs to be customized. Guess how many people would want to
- pay for professional customization on top
- customize the racquet(s) themselves
Those who want that either
- have a racquet contract or
- buy their pro stocks on the grey market. And even there you usually get asked about racquet specs, even though you can change them to whatever you like.
So in short, it's just not much of a business model to be had.
besides if you really want, there are specialized firms who can make you customized grips and or tune your regular of the shelf racquets, which is more than enough i think. Pro stocks dont make you a better player. Better players may not even need pro stocks. There are plenty of heavier pure controls and head prestige, or heavy Wilsons racquets on the second hand market for sale, if you want.
 
#31
What's your opinion of the new "Clash" that is suppose to have revolutionary technology? My take is that Wilson is taking advantage of the average tennis consumer trying to sell them "new" tech when they have been making frames with low flex ratings for years.
Yeah, I think the marketing is hilarious. The most flexible racquet ever made lol:-D The marketing department has no shame. It has a flex of 55RA according to TW specs which are very credible. So it’s firm flex according to HEAD’s mid 80’s marketing department. But millennials have never seen a racquet that flexible just those Babolat’s and Babolat wannabe’s. So that BS marketing can be believable and it will also be believable to older people who’s arm is going to fall from stiff, light, wide body racquets, and poly.
 
Last edited:
#32
Agree with you about the loss of marketing and sales opportunities with the annual BS tech introduction, but can you imagine a new player walking into a tennis shop and seeing a wall of tgk231.1, tgk231.2, tgk 231.3, tgt###, etc. I imagine he/she would be mighty confused as to which one to buy.
231 is just the Radical. Babolat already does such a thing with the Pure Strike all painted exactly the same with different versions, Pure Strike 100, Pure Strike 98 16x19, Pure Strike 98 18x20, Pure Strike VS, Pure Strike VS Tour, and Pure Strike Team. That’s 6 different Pure Strikes, there isn’t 6 different TGK231.X Radicals.
 
Last edited:
#33
Yeah, I think the marketing is hilarious. The most flexible racquet ever made lol:-D The marketing department has no shame. It has a flex of 55RA according to TW specs which are very credible. So it’s firm flex according to HEAD’s mid 80’s marketing department. But know millennials have never seen a racquet that flexible just those Babolat’s and Babolat wanna be’s. So that BS marketing can be believable and it will be believable to older people who’s arm is going to fall from stiff, light wide body racquets and poly.
Someone had said that the flex rating is 50..but who knows. Its just another super light, super powerful racquet with gimmick technology just like the Spin Effect models.
 
#35
Yeah, I think the marketing is hilarious. The most flexible racquet ever made lol:-D The marketing department has no shame. It has a flex of 55RA according to TW specs which are very credible. So it’s firm flex according to HEAD’s mid 80’s marketing department. But know millennials have never seen a racquet that flexible just those Babolat’s and Babolat wanna be’s. So that BS marketing can be believable and it will be believable to older people who’s arm is going to fall from stiff, light wide body racquets and poly.
Well said.
(y)
 
#36
Because most people don't know what specs they need and play best with and don't know how to start with a bare pro stock and modify it to meet their needs. Heck most people don't even know how to pick a retail racquet that's best for them.
 
#37
Huh?? Everything I've read about prostock frames indicates they in fact are usually relatively light when sold, the heft coming after they've had all the silicone, lead and whatever added to them post-market to bring them to the desired specs.
true. i was thinking more of the post modification pro stocks than just the hairpin itself.
 
#38
Oh, btw, Head does sell pro stocks to the public, via their custom made program.
Exact same treatment as the pro players. They started with the Speed and then also had the Prestige MP available. Obviously, only two moulds (out of hundreds but a) you gotta start somewhere and b) you probably can't make them all available.)
Just checked and they're "working on an update", so I guess that was a real business success...
 
#39
What's your opinion of the new "Clash" that is suppose to have revolutionary technology? My take is that Wilson is taking advantage of the average tennis consumer trying to sell them "new" tech when they have been making frames with low flex ratings for years.
The Clash appeals to delusional players who think they can get better by using a fancy racket. Pro stocks also appeal to delusional players who think they can get better by using a fancy racket. There are more delusional players of the first type, so racket companies sell rackets like the Clash but not pro stocks. :)
 
#40
The Clash appeals to delusional players who think they can get better by using a fancy racket. Pro stocks also appeal to delusional players who think they can get better by using a fancy racket. There are more delusional players of the first type, so racket companies sell rackets like the Clash but not pro stocks. :)
Because at the end of the day, it’s not the racquet that makes a difference. It’s the shoes! :giggle:
 
#43
Let's say money is no object and you have access to pro stocks. You get it customized by P1 to your optimal specs.
Now...what do you think of your chance in beating a decent D1 player? Let alone ATP pros.
 
#48
231 is just the Radical. Babolat already does such a thing with the Pure Strike all painted exactly the same with different versions, Pure Strike 100, Pure Strike 98 16x19, Pure Strike 98 18x20, Pure Strike VS, Pure Strike VS Tour, and Pure Strike Team. That’s 6 different Pure Strikes, there isn’t 6 different TGK231.X Radicals.
I’ve seen a pro stock in P17 but no labels or codes on it and specs are so similar to retail. It’s on the Pro stock tennis. Any insight what is the difference between them and retail?
 
#49
What level? I play with Pro Stock racquets. It’s becuse I prefer the classic feel that’s no longer offered at retail. That’s the only reason.
Of course pro stocks are nice and they provide a consistent platform to customize from. I am glad you are fortunate enough to play with them. However, the reality is that they are not easily accessible to the general public. When you consider all the aspects needed to play good solid tennis, the racquet becomes a very small variable. For me, fitness and technique affect my game much much more than the racquet I play with. My approach is to work with what I have and not wish for what I want. That's just my opinion.
 
Top