Wilson Burn, What went wrong

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
#3
The stiffness. I mean, damn.

Stop trying to be Babolat and be Wilson. Wilson is better at being Wilson and will never be as good at being Babolat.

Wilson's Pro Open was a great frame and the Ultras are pretty nice too, but Wilson is most successful with frames that are clearly Wilson (see the Blades).
 

macattack

Professional
#6
Stop trying to be Babolat and be Wilson. Wilson is better at being Wilson and will never be as good at being Babolat.
Isn't the Burn 95 at 68 in stiffness? Same as the RF. And the 100 is at 73 which only a point higher than the whole 6.1 line starting with the PSC. So there's a healthy heritage of stiffer rated Wilson racquets.

It doesn't at all look to be like Wilson is trying to be Babs, especially with the 95 being nearly 12oz and a 335 SW. The 100 is a touch lighter, but still with a beefy SW. My problem with the Babolat tweeners is that they're stiff and light. That's just a tough combination for the elbow.
 

dmcb101

Professional
#7
I would disagree. A lot of players at my club play with/enjoy them. They are stiff but as @macattack said they do have a higher SW so it does not hurt the elbow/wrist much. I have played the tour line of racquets for a long time (H-tour, N-tour, K-tour, BLX-tour) and the Burn 95 is the heaviest of all of those mentioned. Really nice alternative to the 6.1 that disappeared earlier this year. The Burn 100S has a whole lot of pop and is surprisingly comfortable for its stiffness rating.
 
#10
Seems like it is like any other major racket that comes out. It's a matter of likes and dislikes. Look at the Babolat Strikes, you either love them or hate them.
 

moon shot

Hall of Fame
#11
Isn't the Burn 95 at 68 in stiffness? Same as the RF. And the 100 is at 73 which only a point higher than the whole 6.1 line starting with the PSC. So there's a healthy heritage of stiffer rated Wilson racquets.

It doesn't at all look to be like Wilson is trying to be Babs, especially with the 95 being nearly 12oz and a 335 SW. The 100 is a touch lighter, but still with a beefy SW. My problem with the Babolat tweeners is that they're stiff and light. That's just a tough combination for the elbow.
The burn 95 is a outlier, since it has heritage before the burn line going back to the hammer tour and was only renamed into the burn line.

I think most the criticism of the burn is leveled at the 100 sq.in models which are 70-74ra and 10-11.3oz, they don't have the mass to take the impact in the same way a 6.1 does, their balance (dancing on both sides of even) and weight distribution at the poles doesn't soften vibration.

When you take the criticisms and benefits of the Burn it overlaps with what people have been saying of the Pure Drive for a decade. Wilson fans hate on the burn because it isn't what they want their brand to be. Babolat fans hate on the burn because it is directly aimed at their pure drive. Head Extreme fans hate it because the burn is ever so slightly less ugly ;). I don't like it because it was one of the first frames I knew was a paintjob on tour.

Flex ratings can be deceptive if you read too much into it. It is measured by putting the frame over a bar around the throat and measuring how much the tip of the head deflects under load.
  • Wilson PS85 is a good example of linear flex. No point is more stiff than another, as you strike higher the frame flexes progressively more. TW averages its flex at 62.
  • Yonex Ai98 which gets the majority of its flex in the throat and has a stiff hoop you get a 62.
  • Head Flexpoint Radical MP had a stiffness of 63, but if their marketing is true all that flex was in the middle of the hoop.
So if you didn't know where they flexed you might think there would be some similarity in these frames. If all frames were linear, or flexed in the same way you this would be a useful value. As it is you get a rough value of a static load that doesn't directly translate to feel or comfort across brands.
 
Last edited:
#12
The Burn 100S is as close to my "holy grail" as I'll get. The 100 is pretty great too. Keep it up Wilson! Know a lot of people playing with the 100S's.
 

macattack

Professional
#13
The burn 95 is a outlier, since it has heritage before the burn line going back to the hammer tour and was only renamed into the burn line.

I think most the criticism of the burn is leveled at the 100 sq.in models which are 70-74ra and 10-11.3oz, they don't have the mass to take the impact in the same way a 6.1 does, their balance (dancing on both sides of even) and weight distribution at the poles doesn't soften vibration.

When you take the criticisms and benefits of the Burn it overlaps with what people have been saying of the Pure Drive for a decade. Wilson fans hate on the burn because it isn't what they want their brand to be. Babolat fans hate on the burn because it is directly aimed at their pure drive. Head Instinct fans hate it because the burn is ever so slightly less ugly ;). I don't like it because it was one of the first frames I knew was a paintjob on tour.

Flex ratings can be deceptive if you read too much into it. It is measured by putting the frame over a bar around the throat and measuring how much the tip of the head deflects under load.
  • Wilson PS85 is a good example of linear flex. No point is more stiff than another, as you strike higher the frame flexes progressively more. TW averages its flex at 62.
  • Yonex Ai98 which gets the majority of its flex in the throat and has a stiff hoop you get a 62.
  • Head Flexpoint Radical MP had a stiffness of 63, but if their marketing is true all that flex was in the middle of the hoop.
So if you didn't know where they flexed you might think there would be some similarity in these frames. If all frames were linear, or flexed in the same way you this would be a useful value. As it is you get a rough value of a static load that doesn't directly translate to feel or comfort across brands.
That's a fair and thorough rebuttal. I know the RA rating means very little, which is the point I was trying to make about the 6.1 and most of the Wilson's with high numbered flex readings. But you're right, for the Burn 100 the weight isn't there. Didn't realize the 95 was such an outlier.
 
#15
Plays stiff as a board, and I think some Wilson players recoil from too much orange on a racquet, as it's a color they associate with Head and Prince.
 

moon shot

Hall of Fame
#18
That's a fair and thorough rebuttal. I know the RA rating means very little, which is the point I was trying to make about the 6.1 and most of the Wilson's with high numbered flex readings. But you're right, for the Burn 100 the weight isn't there. Didn't realize the 95 was such an outlier.
If I remember right the Burn 95 came out about a year after the rest of the line. It is odd from a marketing perspective in that it has changed names as it bounced from line to line but several pros actually played with versions of it.

The flex rating often gets pointed to when someone feels pain, but as you know it can come from a variety of issues. I would guess the same people who experience discomfort from it would also from the pure drive or extreme as well. As I've been leading up my own frames I've noticed they feel much more soft, even on shanks, the heavier they get. I wonder if the light tinny frame is a good place to start if you want a heavy frame which doesn't end up super muted.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
#19
#22
Actually it seems that he's using a custom PJ. The lettering on the throat is gold and I'm not sure if the black on his frame is matte or glossy.
But the previous version of the ps97s had gold lettering as well right

Verstuurd vanaf mijn HTC One mini met Tapatalk
 
#24
Too stiff for godsake... Burn 95 is more comfy than Burn 100 but too much power for my current level. Can't control the ball run deep

Gửi từ Lenovo A7010a48 của tôi bằng cách sử dụng Tapatalk
 
#26
currently using the PS97 with leadtape in the hoop, thinking that the Burn 100 would give me the same swing weight as my modified PS97
as i think i can use more power, but probably sacrificing some control.
i actually like the older model, so they should be available at a good price

z
 
#27
Played a match with the Burn 95 FST. It has been over 20 years since I used a frame that small,short and heavy on a regular basis. 10 minutes in, it did everything I could do with my extended 110 frame. The extra weight, help when I had to defend.
 
#28
The stiffness. I mean, damn.

Stop trying to be Babolat and be Wilson. Wilson is better at being Wilson and will never be as good at being Babolat.

Wilson's Pro Open was a great frame and the Ultras are pretty nice too, but Wilson is most successful with frames that are clearly Wilson (see the Blades).
I still can't forgive them for forcing the Burn line down our throats while axing the PS90 / 95...
 
#29
Although Wilson QC is frequently mentioned on these forums, the specs on the Burn 95 are all over the place. I happen to like this frame and have 3 of them but they range from 328 gms static, 326SW to 339gms and 336SW. The balances are even worse and trying to match them is challenging.
 
#30
These racquet companies don't have a clue. They are all separate and disconnected from what actually plays well. The Burns were basically half-hearted trash. The same with just about all the Head racquets. It will only get worse, especially with economy and budget cuts.
 
Top