Wilson Pro Staff V14.0
- Thread starter DJTaurus
- Start date
gino
Legend
It has the same specs as the PS97 (beam width etc... all 21.5 box beam) so... im pretty sure its just a 100sq in PS97
mpournaras
Hall of Fame
almost certainlyIs it ProStaff X with "X" as in Malcolm X?
gino
Legend
good shout here. six.one 100 is 22.5mm so definitely not the same mold
longtimelurker
Professional
Aestheticsaboveallelse
Legend
I think it looks great, guess I'll stand out being the only one using this. Just hope its play is improved
How I felt when I bought my first Laver Cup RF97, the bright red (i think 2018) one.
Hard to miss on court, had to finally retire it. To heavy for me
Excited for this new PS97
Aestheticsaboveallelse
Legend
How do you know that?
the release dates are in the leaked catalog
Aestheticsaboveallelse
Legend
Did it also describe what new technologies it'll have? Like the v13 introduced the 45 degree braiding for more ball pocketing and stability
it does. its in Japanese, so auto translation may have errors but its called "Paradigm Bending" - "PRO STAFF V14.0 has PARADIGM BENDING technology that realizes a feeling reminiscent of classic PRO STAFF, and also has power and control performance that can be used for modern power tennis. In addition to RF, 97, and 97L, PRO STAFF X, which is 100 square inches and has excellent operability, is also newly introduced."
TennisHound
Legend
It would be nice if they went back to the V12 or earlier string pattern
Icsa
Professional
They will keep inventing names (45 degrees, paradigm bending etc) and colors and sell the same racquet for another 10 years until the masses start asking "who is RF?".
Aestheticsaboveallelse
Legend
Nope those design changes are real, I was very impressed with v13s stability and ball pocketing when I decided to buy one and I didn't even know about that. In hindsight that being a v13 tech makes perfect sense.
Besides if it was the same racquet every couple years everyone would've caught on that it always feels and plays exactly the same, but it doesn't. Playing my v13 and 2015 red black side by side is an extremely different feel and results
I'm not sure how you can seriously believe what you said unless you're just automatically super cynical and assume they're out to trick you
Literally can't wait for this one. I recently got a PS97 v13, and an RF97. For now I'm using the RF97 more, cause everything else after that feels a little hollow and meek. But I don't know how long my arm will be able to handle it.
Looking forward to trying the PS97 v14, and the Pro Staff X, as I guess the RF will be exactly the same.
Looking forward to trying the PS97 v14, and the Pro Staff X, as I guess the RF will be exactly the same.
Last edited:
Icsa
Professional
Many attribute the differences to Wilson's quality control variances. Quote from TW: " With the Pro Staff RF97 Autograph v13 Wilson updates Roger Federer's racquet with a new cosmetic but keeps everything else the same" [https://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_Pro_Staff_RF97_v13/descpageRCWILSON-97V13R.html]
1HBHfanatic
Legend
-i dont wanna steer you away from the w.RF, as it is one of the most SOLID sticks out there
-but you should also check out the yonex.ezone.98.TOUR, its my second choice after the w.RF
-as for the w.ps.97, softer polys tend to work well with it
I've demoed the regular Ezone 98 and had enormous expectations based on all the recommendations. It's a beautifully made racquet, the quality and craftsmanship are phenomenal obviously. That part I liked. But I couldn't possibly make it work for me. I can't put my finger on it but, as I have described in another thread, it felt like I was fighting the racquet, like it didn't want to play the way I wanted to play. Which is really a shame cause I really wanted to like it. Same with Pure Aero. I can't play with it. Although I'd like to try the 98 version that is supposed to come out soon as it will have a thinner beam. Maybe I should pay more attention to the Pure Strike line, and the Yonex Vcore Pro line cause I pretty much ignored those two.
For the PS97 I'm thinking of switching from ALU Power to 4G soft, Hyper G Soft, or LXN Smart. What soft polys do you recommend?
1HBHfanatic
Legend
-the list of strings you have are good
-thats the list i had in mind
-some additions : lux.element, yonex.poly.tour.REV, kirschbaum.FLASH, isospeed.CREAM
-any of these softer polys will work well with the stiffness of the w.PS.97
-the w.RF can handle a bit more stiffness from most strings, and tension as well
-the w.PS however is a bit touchy in regards to tension, so i dont go to high on them
Aestheticsaboveallelse
Legend
Exactly they tell you when an update is just cosmetic they don't make up imaginary technologies. Quality control variance is just a silly excuse to believe they'rw all the same
Thanks! I'll check those out. My string tension on both is 22kg in the crosses (ALU Power) and 23.5 in the mains (X-One Biphase). I tried to experiment with a hybrid setup. It's not bad at all, works better on the RF. But I will go back to a full bed of ALU (or ALU soft) on the RF (23kg) and one of the soft polys at 22 or 23kg on the PS97.
Say Chi Sin Lo
G.O.A.T.
Is it going to come in a thin (17mm) box beam? Because if not, they can call it whatever they want, but it won't have that "classic" Pro Staff feel.
Aestheticsaboveallelse
Legend
This is an interesting one cause normally technologies do something like increase stability or enlarge the sweetspot, I've never seen trying to emulate the feel of a past version of a racquet. But since its called "Paradigm Bending" you see what they're gonna try to do, let the frame bend at contact similarly to the classic pro staff without having such a thin beam
Honestly though, would it make sense to make a 17mm thin modern racquet? They should by all means modernize the line and make it work for the modern game and for the new generation of players. Keep the main line fresh and alive, and keep it going whilst retaining some of its original identity. They can make classic versions too for fans of legacy racquets, but the main line should IMHO move with the times.
Smecz
Professional
Smecz
Professional
you are right on the whole, but then what would be the appropriate thickness of the frame to keep the pro staff lines to some extent.
Because it's hard to recreate because it is a raw and very demanding racket for modern tennis where it plays very fast and top spin etc.
In the past, players would play more flat and cut balls etc. The first company to break this trend was Babolat (most companies made rackets for traditional tennis). Since the arrival of Carlos Moy and Fernando Gonzalez, Nicola Massu, and of course Rafel Nadala, tennis has changed to today's modern.
Now imagine those guys with Wilson pro staff 90 or 95, or Edberg or Courier with a Babolat racket, wouldn't it be a comedy on the court?
The final question is what would Wilson create a rocket to please both?
So I think this is an extremely difficult task, and we can only count on Wilson so what he does and somehow Wilson pro staff V 14 will keep its legacy and will continue to produce Wilson pro staff 90 and 95 with a different livery
Let me preface this by saying I personally own and love older, thinner-beam Wilson's, Prince Phantoms, etc. They're great for what they are.
That said, there's no way Wilson is going to crank out a sub-20mm beam Pro Staff in an all-new redesign, not if they want to keep it even semi-relevant in today's game. Ultra thin beams simply don't offer enough material physics usability for today's modern player or stroke. Period. It is what it is.
If Wilson do wish to modernize it, if they're smart, they'll morph into something more akin to a VCore Pro or Arma Pro 98 -- something that's still thuddy and meaty, but with a smarter material distribution, a hybrid beam shape between box, 5-sided and semi-elliptical, more width between 9 and 3 and a medium-open 16x19 spin/control pattern. Do that and sign a few top-level names to the silo, and it will re-invigorate the Pro Staff for another generation of players. Leave it as is, and it will likely stagnate into a heritage line only.
Both routes are doable for their own good reasons. I'd rather see them modernize it, but that's just me.
That said, there's no way Wilson is going to crank out a sub-20mm beam Pro Staff in an all-new redesign, not if they want to keep it even semi-relevant in today's game. Ultra thin beams simply don't offer enough material physics usability for today's modern player or stroke. Period. It is what it is.
If Wilson do wish to modernize it, if they're smart, they'll morph into something more akin to a VCore Pro or Arma Pro 98 -- something that's still thuddy and meaty, but with a smarter material distribution, a hybrid beam shape between box, 5-sided and semi-elliptical, more width between 9 and 3 and a medium-open 16x19 spin/control pattern. Do that and sign a few top-level names to the silo, and it will re-invigorate the Pro Staff for another generation of players. Leave it as is, and it will likely stagnate into a heritage line only.
Both routes are doable for their own good reasons. I'd rather see them modernize it, but that's just me.
Smecz
Professional
I used to play head prestige microgel 93 and wilson pro staff 95.
I will say this, with a beginner amateur I would have easily won, but the higher the level the opponent presented, the rackets became very difficult to control.
Well, with a low or medium ball, it was nice and good to play, while with the higher balls (top spin, lob) it was hard and clunky.
of course, playing balls from the top down (volleys smash) was cosmic,
unless there was a special difficult ball to play.
Today I don't play with these rackets anymore, because that would be nonsense.
Regarding your proposed specifications of the new Wilson Pro Staff 97:
I agree with the frame thickness from 20 to 22 cm, and the string structure in the racket should also be open.
On the other hand, I would not change the shape of the head, but I would like to know if you saw the frame profile or it does not make sense to follow the Wilson Pro Staff 85, 90 or 95. (Because the thickness inside the racket gave it stability and solidity)
Finally, I would like to add that nowadays tennis is becoming a game about who will raise more to the other side (Djokovic, Medvedev, Rublev) than to play magic on the court (Kyrgios, Dimitrov,
Wawrinka)
So creating new Wilson pro staff is quite difficult, but let's be optimists.
The new Ultra has a very good implementation of the 45 tech. My only complaint about it is that it's too fast through the air. Wilson has done a good job of at least trying to improve over the 1st editions of 45 tech. Think the statement above is very promising, and either the standard 97 or the 100 will be amazing.
Many threads going on about how the pro staff line needs an update desperately, but there aren't many thin beam, higher stiffness, stable, and head light rackets anymore (without getting into RF).
Last edited:
If you equate "thin beam" as <=22mm average between throat/mid-hoop/tip, "higher stiffness" as >=65RA and "stable" as a twist weight of >=mid14's, there are still plenty available, many of which are newer releases:
- Angell TC 90; 97; 101
- Babolat Pure Strike Tour
- Diadem Elevate FS Tour
- Dunlop FX 500 Tour
- Head Prestige MP; Tour
- Head Radical MP; Pro
- ProKennex Ki Q+ 5; 5 Pro
- Solinco WhiteOut 305; 290; 305 XTD
- Volkl V1 Pro
- Volkl V-Cell 10 300; 320
- Yonex VCore 98; 98+
Granted, by your personal definition I'm sure some of those are debatable, but I'm sure there would be quite a few left and I'm also sure I've left a few out.
My b I left out "head light". Everything is 4pts balance these days....
Even so, all of the following are at least 6pts HL, some 7pts (identical to many Pro Staffs):
- Angell TC 90; 97; 101 (customizable balance)
- Babolat Pure Strike Tour
- Diadem Elevate FS Tour
- Dunlop FX 500 Tour
- Head Prestige Tour
- Head Radical Pro
- ProKennex Ki Q+ 5 Pro
- Volkl V-Cell 10 320
- Yonex VCore 98
But I do get your overarching point here. The tide has been shifting.
Think I need to dabble in less prominent brands. What plays well out of those? Didn't care for the latest gen of the heads.
Also is mid 14s the sweet spot for twist weight/stability?
Last edited:
Smecz
Professional
Best Tennis Racquets for Spin
www.tennis-warehouse.com
I'm even there prince phantom 93 P, but with 14x18 strings.
So there must be the right profile of the racket and balance on the head, or it must be tightly open to play topspin.
I have a video here:
And the video shows that each racket can be played top spin, only whether it is a small or medium top spin, whether it will be flat topspin or high top spin etc.
Say Chi Sin Lo
G.O.A.T.
I think you guys are missing the point I was making...
I'm not saying Wilson should release another 17mm frame, I do feel like those days are gone.
What I was saying is that unless they re-release that same form factor of 17mm box beam, there's no way they can replicate the "classic" Pro Staff feel. The physics aren't there. No 20mm+ racquet will ever feel like a sub 20mm racquet. Especially box beam vs non-box beam.
I'm not saying Wilson should release another 17mm frame, I do feel like those days are gone.
What I was saying is that unless they re-release that same form factor of 17mm box beam, there's no way they can replicate the "classic" Pro Staff feel. The physics aren't there. No 20mm+ racquet will ever feel like a sub 20mm racquet. Especially box beam vs non-box beam.
This is a bit debatable. Generally the higher the skill level the lower the twist weight you can get away with, but it's also stroke and frame dependent as well. Higher static/swing-weight racquets can afford to be a bit lower twist weight, on average, than lighter-spec frames. It's also stroke-dependent, primarily on the backhand: if you've got a one-hander, I find upper 13's to 14-ish to offer nice stability, while being low enough to to allow for easier rotation of the arm in the shoulder socket plus the hand and wrist as you swing through; a two-hander has an easier time overcoming twist weight, so something like 14.5 to 15+ is more of a sweet spot. But again, this can/will vary with age and perspective. But that's just my take after studying and hitting a lot of racquets, with both style backhands, and playing all levels of players.
Power is the most direct correlation (all else held equal, including weight, wider = more powerful, almost always), then stability (however narrower beams that are more square/box shaped and heavier can still be stable), then lastly spin, which may be improved slightly if a wider beam allows for more aggressive drill pattern and/or grommet design, but that last relationship is much less obvious than the former ones.
Besides more power and stability per unit mass, though, what wider beams really give the player is the ability to sustain similar output at lighter weight and provide more constructed guidance on every stroke -- ie. an ability keep the whole system more structurally true to your intention, on more shots, more times in a row -- in layman's terms: easier to sustain longer and more intense rallies at higher racquet head speed, which is of course a huge part of today's game (love it or hate it), and thus why you see the proliferation of beam widths growing and weight being reduced, more or less across the board at every level of the game.
Absolutely. The physics calls for higher mass/density and boxier shapes in order to stabilize narrower beams. Different material engineering from an altogether different era of tennis.
Last edited:
Aestheticsaboveallelse
Legend
Just play v13 then, looks like v14 isn't trying to be a performance upgrade just changing to old school feel. Unless theres more than just that patadigm bending
Smecz
Professional
Myrko
Rookie
Hyper-G Soft is my standard string in 1.20mm for the PS RF97A. It's just a great fit.
I also want to try 4G Soft next.
Moveforwardalways
Hall of Fame
Spin generation is related to string spacing.
I don't think the technology itself is called Paradigm Bending, that's probably the description of the tech. Like, the technology that bends the paradigm, or paradigm shifting. But if it is indeed called "Paradigm Bending" somebody from the marketing team needs to be sacked cause that's a terrible name.
As for modernising the racquet. I feel like the v13 is already a modern racquet, but if they want to go all the way, among other things, they will probably need to get rid of the PWS. Perhaps it's time to move on. I could be wrong. But I don't feel like it will make it into v15 and beyond.
Last edited:
TennisManiac
Hall of Fame
True. All we need to do is add a bit of lead to 3 and 9 to make up for the weight loss that the PWS provided.
