Wilson 6.0 (95) and Wilson 6.1 (95)???

[Benjamin]

Until I started reading the review of the ProStaff 6.0 (85) I never even knew that there was a 95 sq. in. head version of this racquet. Whenever I heard people talking about the ProStaff 6.0 95, I always thought they meant to put the ProStaff 6.1 95 (which I have one of).

I see that the 6.0 95 is lighter and more flexible than my 6.1 95, but what are the differencse in play between the 6.0 95 and the 6.1 95?

Thanks for clearing this up.

Benjamin

 

[morten]

6.1 more stable,more solid in the upper hoop. 6.0 needs some lead at throat and at 10 and 2,then it has more control/feel then 6.1. IMO

 

[cbegap]

Since we are on the 6.1 subject, does anyone know what the si means if it is a 6.1si? Is this different from the 6.1? Which is generally considered the better racquet, the 6.0 95 or the 6.1 95 or the 6.1si 95 (assuming there is a difference)?

 

[Stitch626]

si= swing index

 

[kreative]

si = swing index, and no difference between 6.1 and 6.1si persay.

6.0 95" feels very headlight, and therefore unstable. perhaps some lead up there would make it more stable. feels great for S&V thou.

6.1 95" stiffer and more powerful than the 6.0, but still has good control.

 

[bcaz]

BB, with all the racquets you've tried (and I've tried a few, too), I'm flabbergasted you overlooked/were unaware of the PS 6.0 Classic 95! Maybe it's the One ...

 

[Hal]

I think you mean PS 6.0 "Original" 95 vs. the PS 6.1 "Classic"95.

Years ago, when switching from a PS 6.0 Original 85, I demoed both the PS6.0 Original 95 and the PS6.1 Classic 95. I have a very good two handed backhand, but I could not hit it at all with the PS6.1 Classic 95. However, I felt right at home with the PS6.0 Original 95. So, I've been the PS6.0 Original 95 for years, and can't find a replacement.

 

[bcaz]

my bad, hal ...

 

[Tenny]

6.0 looks cool vs 6.1 looks ugly

Do you guys like the cosmetic of 6.1?
I think it's really ... not attractive.
6.0 looks very professional on the contrary.

 

[kreative]

i like it, not my fave, but better than hps 6.1. 6.0 85 is a little plain for me personally, but it's nostalgic.

 

[jayserinos99]

i'm a big fan of the classic look of the 6.0. i like the way the paint is more of a matte finish.

 

[Gaines Hillix]

Kreative is right on with his assessment of these two. The 6.0 is more of and old school s/v racquet. Great for doubles play. Very HL, square frame profile. A lighter Sampras racquet, if you will. Still comes with the leather Fairway grip. The 6.1 has a more modern frame profile. It's has a relatively thin beam, but still more of a "widebody" profile. It's heavier and stiffer, therefore more powerful if you can comfortably handle the weight.

 

[PS61]

6.1 more power. 6.0 more control

I've played tennis for 12 years. I'd used 6.0 95 for my first 6 years. It was a very tension sensitive racket. I prefered lower tension. After demoing many other frames, including Prince Graphite II, Prince precision response Ti, Prokennex 5g, wilson Tour 90, Estusa PBB and Wilson HPS 6.1 95, I finally found Wilson Classic 95 is my perfect match. I currently strung it at 57 lb.