Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by g_desilva, Mar 14, 2013.
If you allow false advertising/claims, then advertisers can say anything they want. Soda cures diabetes. Nikes make you run faster.
Tom Cruise playing TT members, Jack playing Wilson?
Read my post again.
He did use, so far as we can tell, the frame she claims in her case he didn't - the K6.1 Tour 90.... If she'd made a point of the disparity in generations of his frame her case would make more sense, but it doesn't in terms of the specific A vs B examples she makes. No-one has (here or elsewhere I've seen) been able to disprove to any level I'd trust that he didn't use the actual K6.1 Tour 90.
To add to that, he claim is that he uses an older model which was cheaper. It was not. He claims he uses an older model which is sold cheaper than the current frame. It is not even available via Wilson channels so she's on a hiding to nothing with that point.
The point I've made clear in my posts is nothing to do with the merits of the moral case, rather how poorly it has been explained.
You say you know people who own Wilson Pro Room 90 frames. So what? Are they actual Federer intended frames? If so, explain how... see - it's pretty much impossible to do, yet Wilson could front up with pages of docs showing those frames were for someone else (Dimitrov etc) to test or demos of future models to be sent out to Federer etc for feedback. There's just so many avenues the technicals of case can be obfuscated despite there being a mismatch between the marketing claims and reality.
I'm not involved in this litigation. You are not a lawyer. So stop pretending you are taking my deposition.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm just dispelling pointless off-topic points.
There are about four or five people in this thread who seem able to comprehend the key issues here.
Good for you! I was trying to explain to another poster how you can have 2 racquets from the same mold can be in fact 2 different racquets and have different playing characteristics due to the Layup. If you think it's off topic, I dont care!
Look -- I don't really care, but the bottom line in all of this is that PJs and the marketing of said frames is intentionally dishonest and deceptive advertising for purely monetary gain -- period.
It's been going on for a long time -- just that most people don't have a clue about it.
Now is this THE case and does this litigator have the talent and legal acumen to win or scare the industry to actually make a change to the way they do business? That remains to be seen. But it is actionable and something that will probably be dealt with sooner rather than later.
I can't believe I agree with the lawsuit, I'm a very personal responsibility do your own research or don't complain kind of guy.
What we call "Common Knowledge" is only common on this forum and limited in the general public.
Some DO THINK, based on advertising that the golf clubs they are playing with are the same as Tigers, or the PS BLX 90 IS Federer's. They don't study swingweight, balance, string tension and everything else like we do.
The thing that does upset me is when you go into say Big 5, you see these junk racquets for cheap, and it has Federer's face on it holding what looks like the same racquet. I saw some mom one time buying her son such a racquet, she thought she would get what that "Best guy" plays, that bothers me.
I do believe in personal responsibility, but I do wish with that Wilson and others will say at least on the junk racquets that it is NOT Feds racquet, or at bare minimum not show him holding what looks EXACTLY like it.
When you are a kid, your racquet is EVERYTHING. On the tennis team, this kid who loved Djokovich had what he thought was his racquet, I didn't have the heart to tell him he had a cheap piece of junk.
Never have a problem? Djokovic plays with a racquet with a flex rating in the low 50s. There is no way I can buy a racquet with those specs through a retailer, even if I am willing to customize it myself.
The truth is that we as consumers get stiff, bad quality sticks, whereas racquet companies have the production infrastructure to make the pro stock that professionals use.
Their marketing ploys are deceptive, they exploit workers in countries where wages are lower and their QC has gone down. But when someone stands up and says this is wrong, the good Americans just say: "This is United States' way of taking care of business."
Well, it is that way that got thousand of Americans unemployed, caused an international financial crisis, made banks and factories go bankrupt and makes United States one of the most indebted countries in the world owing billions of dollars to China.
But when someone says that a moral system should rely on honesty, the reply he gets is that deception is the norm? What world are we living in?
Am I annoyed at another lawsuit...yes, but if she genuinely felt robbed, then she has her rights. If she wins and I was Wilson I'd want one concession...which is she gets paid, but also she has to use nothing but Fed's actual racquet for now on.
Then she'll sue for not being able to play like him even though she has his racquet. The weight will fatigue her arm, she'll generate no pace with her rank amateur medium swing, her balls will drop short and easily be put away by a player using a quality stick made for intermediates.
Fact is if your average player was forced to use what a professional athlete uses they'd give up the sport.
what i don't understand is why you guys are 'annoyed' at a lawsuit that doesn't involve you?
I mean what interest do you have? Shares, bonds, employees of Wilson, suppliers to the company, etc...?
Or is corporate culture so strong that you have to be loyal to this ideology of companies should be left to do whatever the F' they want, including lie about their products?
IF thats True , Head might bankrupt LOL.... as all the head players never uses retail sitcks haha
Obviously....as proven by the millions of ridiculous lawsuits out there.
This was long overdue.
In most other markets this kind of false advertising would have been halted a long time ago. Only in the sporting goods market, for some reason, it was ignored and allowed to go on for this long.
Hopefully this lawsuit, and others to follow against Head and others, will put an end to this.
Paintjobs have been around since the days of wood racquets. Some pros' wood racquets were painted to look like other models. Laver even had his wood Dunlop Maxplys painted to look like aluminum Chemold racquets, if you can imagine that. Borg also used a paintjob since his Donnay Allwoods actually had graphite inlays in them which the retail version did not and it was rumored that his Bancroft Borg Pros were actually Donnay Allwoods with a Bancroft paintjob on them. And there's no way that McEnroe used a retail Dunlop Maxply. I'd bet paintjobs go back to at least the 1940's, if not further.
The truth is that Wilson never claimed that the racquet that Federer is currently using is the EXACT SAME racquet that you can buy at retail.
But Wilson NEVER claimed that using the retail Pro Staff Six-One 90 will make you play tennis like Federer.
If people saw how sausage was really made or how that piece of meat ends up on our plate, none of us would ever eat meat again. Same with corporations. Sometimes it's better that we DON'T know. It's for our own good.
We are living in a country where if Wilson manufactured racquets here, because of crazy taxes, devalued currency, blackmail organizations(Unions), racquets would cost $500.00 a piece and you would be calling them greedy, when in fact it's the FG.
As far as them "Exploiting" foreign workers, yea take away their jobs and let them starve, huh?
Sorry, it sometimes just gets frustrating listening to low information people stating falsehoods.
No, the truth is Wilson claimed that the racquet you can buy at retail is the EXACT SAME racquet that Federer is currently using.
Which pro has the closest to retail stock racquets?
How are the examples in your post "for our own good"?
If you're going to make a comparison with other industries/products at least use examples that prove your point.
You guys are worse then the guys I went to b-school with. Even they aren't this delusional.
Wow, your post is full of inconsistencies. First you don't want to pay a decent wage to people in your own country and then you try to portray outsourcing as some kind of generous act. You don't know zilch about paying taxes, go to a country where people pay 50% or more of their revenue in taxes and come and complain afterwards.
Oh yeah, and it were the trade unions that caused the financial crisis, not the bankers who left with millions they paid to themselves in bonuses while leaving their own institutions void of funds, creating real estate bubbles, hedgefunds and toxic credits.
I don't know where you got your information from, but it sure ain't the trade unions who brought U.S.A. down.
You must love the character of Gordon Gekko in Wall Street whereas I have more sympathy for Bud Fox.
They all stick with older tech, pretty much, for performance reasons. Which does not justify false advertising claims. But this is for the court to decide, of course.
I predict they will have to add an asterisk and fine print to their ads, which would read something like "Actual racquet used by a pro may be altered without notice due to immediate/ever changing requirements set forth by a pro"
Well ironically it was probably when Federer was using the K90! No doubt his was custom, but most people agree the retail K90 is very similar to his, and yet this is the racket mentioned in this lawsuit...mmm:shock:
I'm now very suspicious of this. If Wilson (or any racket company) were to choose a PJ case to fight, surely this would be it. Whereas other Federer PJ custom rackets are more different to the retail versions, and Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are using much more different frames than their retail versions (other racket companies I realise). This is ideal for Wlson, if it ever goes to court (which I doubt) they will clearly win, and this may set a precident and put off lawyers issuing other PJ lawsuits! See what I'm getting at?
I'm against paintjobbing by the way, as it is essentially conning the customers, which is wrong in my opinion.
But what if they did? Where would you stand?
Also, I the vsbabolat pointed out a few instances where Wilson did say Fed did play with the stick.
Where would this stop? Many things pro tennis players use are nothing like the retail versions: Fed's Vapor 9s, the balls used in tournaments, Nike pro wristbands... I'm sure there are tons of examples of false advertizing to be found
Great, so let's find them and sue them!
What's wrong with you people defending corporations' right to cheat on unsuspecting and naive customers?
Have they not been force feeding us with enough "new and improved" crap through the years, making it virtually impossible to find a decent product, still available to sponsored players?
^^ It's time to Relinquis this notion that something that doesn't involve you directly should not annoy you. Were you not "annoyed" (to use the mildest word possible) when a guy massacred school children in Connecticut? I suppose it didn't affect you directly, or perhaps not in any other way either. Does wasting of a court's time (and taxpayer money) by a frivolous lawsuit (not the suit being discussed here, necessarily) not annoy you? Do you consider yourself part of a community or society?
depends how you read what he wrote.
By "Any moral system" he could mean
1 - any system of morals - in which case you are correct in your statement.
2 - any system that the poster considers moral - in this case the system would have to roughly follow the posters morals in which he believes paintjobs are deception, deception is wrong, and therefore paintjobs are wrong.
Thanks for posting.
I don't think they are specifically mentioned.
Fed's racket is a unique case.
I would not say the same thing about Gilette or Lindt chocolates.
wow.. you could have used a more sensitive topic then killing kids when comparing it to the supposed "right" of corporations to lie to people and misrepresent their products. or, in your point of view potential frivolity of lawsuits. can't see how these are the same level of concern, but thanks for letting us know your incentive to argue this.
if the issue is court time wastage due to what you deem is frivolous lawsuits, lets see if you judges think the lawsuits are frivolous. obviously many paying customers don't think it is frivolous to be lied to about a product. especially when they're paying hundreds of millions of their hard earned cash, if not more, annually on these products.
I'm not going to argue with you any more. can't see what use can come from this conversation. believe what you want.
Omg, Fast Food Companies Use Pj On The Food They Advertise! Time To File A Lawsuit!
Omg, Magazines Airbrush Models And Celebrities On The Cover! Time To File A Lawsuit!
Wow, you know how Chinese think and what there moral system is? Ever heard of Confucianist values?
Also saying one wrong is right by pointing at other wrongs in the world doesn't seem a firm moral ground for a philosophical/metaphysic system. Deception is the norm? Maybe yours, not mine. And it is not because others do it that it makes it okay.
does this happen in golf?
Any thoughts anyone on my conspiracy theory?
But they say he uses one. And he doesn't. They are lying. DONE. Is that simple enough.
Where does it say he uses a retail one?
Read post #30.
Show us proof that Wilson claimed that the current white Pro Staff Six-One 90 BLX sold at retail is the EXACT SAME racquet that Federer is currently using in his ATP Tour matches. You won't find any.
Because if you actually bought a pro's actual racquet, you probably wouldn't even be able to swing it, much less be able to play tennis with it. So it's better that you didn't know that Djokovic uses a different racquet and just buy the retail version which is much more suitable for 99% of the recreational tennis players out there (most of which are 3.5 level and below). There a very good reason Head sells the much bigger, lighter, and stiffer version at retail - because it's much easier for most recreational tennis players to use, and Head needs to sell high volumes of each model to make a profit. They need to sell racquets to the 99% of recreational tennis players, not the 1%. If Head sold Djokovic's actual racquet at retail, which has a swingweight around 370 and no innate power at a low flex in the 50's, 99% of the people who buy it would not be able to hit the ball over the net with it and would probably quit tennis and never buy another tennis racquet. So it's better that you don't know what the pros are actually using. Just like it's better you don't know how cattle are slaughtered and their flesh is processed to make that hamburger in front of you. Just eat it and be happy.
The banks didn't create the real estate bubble. It's the greedy people who bought houses they couldn't afford using money they didn't have because they thought they could make a killing flipping houses that caused the real estate bubble. You can't have a bubble without greedy buyers willing to pay outrageous prices for grossly overvalued real estate.
The ONLY racquet that Wilson EVER claimed was the same one sold at retail as the one that Federer was actually using was the K90. They never made that claim about any of the other versions of the Tour 90 that were sold at retail.
It's called personal responsibility and using your own brain to make your own decisions. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a "new and improved" racquet. You made that decision all on your own.
5 posts in a row learn to edit
If Americans have the right to be stupid, then Americans also have the right to take advantage of the stupid. It's a free country.
If I offered to trade you my $20 bill for your $100 bill and you agreed, did I break the law?
How would editing prevent me from responding to each post as I read them?
Separate names with a comma.