Wilson Profile 95 - still going in 2022

[Grafil Injection]

I had to rescue this Wilson Profile 95 from Bay ignominy for £15, since I remembered the shock when it was released in the UK in late 1987 at £150. That was about £50 more than the typical players' frames of the day (MAX, POG, PS85 etc) cost. Marketed with the 110 and 125 as 'The Most Powerful Racket in the World', it certainly caused waves in the industry for the next few years. I was happy to get the 95sqi version as the 110 and 125 were considered to be uncontrollable.

Came with three crusty layers of TournaGrip and no original leather sadly, so in additon to a synthetic replacement I added 6g in the buttcap, which is one of the only ones that opens from those days. Otherwise the frame was fine with just a few chips and a small split in just the headguard. The minimum 10 years old Prince SynGut 16 seemed in good nick.

Resultant strung specs: 362g, 34.25cm even balanced! 26-32-23 beam. SW feels easily 350+. In fact, despite the record breaking RA of 84, the specs are quite similar to my Rossi F200 with it's 42 flex! Both are very cumbersome to manoeuvre, especially on serves.

There's no doubt this is a special frame though. The sweetspot is massive, with very little twisting off centre. The open 16x19 stringbed (1.525cm2 average cell size) is surprisingly consistent and facilitates great spin off both wings. The patented trick of a frame frequency so high that the ball dampens it, really works. Even without a dampener, you get very few vibrations. Although it is probably the most powerful racket I've hit, I don't think it's too powerful; similar to a Pure Drive today, there is some degree of control on this 95 version. The inescapable problem is the SW and balance. Yes you can adapt and eventually achieve good contact when serving or other overheads, but ultimately you need to be strong to use this for long periods. Switching back to my 370g MAX400i, felt like a 330g stick. Still certainly a keeper for my 80s collection.

 

[georgeyew]

Nice racquet for your collection. I have the Profile 3.6 95 with the 18x20 string pattern. I haven't quite figured out the optimal tension for mine yet. With the dense pattern, if the tension is too high it feels like a board but too low, the stiffness and power will launch the ball past the baseline.

Interested to hear how you are going to set it up.

 

[michael valek]

I bought one recently. Tried it once. Nearly detached my arm and shoulder completely. Like swinging an anchor on the end of a giant redwood.

 

[Grafil Injection]

I bought one recently. Tried it once. Nearly detached my arm and shoulder completely. Like swinging an anchor on the end of a giant redwood.

It is a beast. My 392g MAX 200G is far easier to swing.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Nice racquet for your collection. I have the Profile 3.6 95 with the 18x20 string pattern. I haven't quite figured out the optimal tension for mine yet. With the dense pattern, if the tension is too high it feels like a board but too low, the stiffness and power will launch the ball past the baseline.

Interested to hear how you are going to set it up.

Set up is done for now. The Prince SynGut seems in fine condition and since the recommended tension was 55-65lbs, I think it's still around mid 50s. Although, I might consider one day adding 20g to the handle to see if I can make it more manoeuvrable.

 

[kevin qmto]

Did any notable pros use the Wilson profile?

 

[coachrick]

Did any notable pros use the Wilson profile?

Tom Gullickson could hit a notable kick serve into the adjacent court using his Profile back in '90

 

[Grafil Injection]

Did any notable pros use the Wilson profile?

Not for long, except the Gullicksons and a couple of others. Even if you have the strength to swing it correctly, the 95 is still too powerful and lacking fine control for all-court use still practiced in the day.

 

[max]

I ran into a perfect condition one about half a year ago in a goodwill. Didn't need it, didn't buy it. My wide body experience was that for me they were rocket launchers.

 

[travlerajm]

Oh the stories I could tell about my decade using the Wilson Profile 2.7 110 in the ‘90s.

 

[georgeyew]

Oh the stories I could tell about my decade using the Wilson Profile 2.7 110 in the ‘90s.

I am sure you scared more than a few people at the net with that cannon.

 

[travlerajm]

I am sure you scared more than a few people at the net with that cannon.

I fondly recall the thunderous overhead smashes that hit the ceiling of the indoor facility after the bounce, and apologizing for my opponent having to fetch the ball into the baseball outfield on the other side of the fence after a smash.

It was more than a racquet. It was the wave motion gun of tennis (you have to be my age to get the reference).

 

[georgeyew]

I fondly recall the thunderous overhead smashes that hit the ceiling of the indoor facility after the bounce, and apologizing for my opponent having to fetch the ball into the baseball outfield on the other side of the fence after a smash.

It was more than a racquet. It was the wave motion gun of tennis (you have to be my age to get the reference).

Might have to get one for doubles play

 

[Captain Haddock]

No. Even if you have the strength to swing it correctly, the 95 is still too powerful and lacking fine control for any serious use.

Doubles player Jim Pugh used it to win grand slam tournaments.

 

[travlerajm]

Doubles player Jim Pugh used it to win grand slam tournaments.

Pat Galbreath too.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Pat Galbreath too.

I stand corrected, and wonder what their specs were. Going to have to try 20g in the handle now!

 

[travlerajm]

I stand corrected, and wonder what their specs were. Going to have to try 20g in the handle now!

I owned both the 110 (had 4 of them at one point, as I used for a decade) and also a 95 that was gifted to me by a friend. Both were about 345-350 sw, 12.5-13 oz, and balance around 12.5”.

The 95 I passed along to @Shroud after I had chopped it down shorter.

 

[kevin qmto]

I just had the opportunity to hit with one of these tonight. The tennis complex I visited had one on the wall as a loaner (3.6 Si version). Since I’d viewed this thread the racket was fresh in my mind I had to try it. God it’s stiff. Strung very tight with a full bed of synthetic gut. Seemed to have a low launch angle as well, don't know if others have found that to be true. I had just come from hitting with a POG and it’s just a totally different feel. Can’t say I was enamored with it.

I had considered buying one off the auction site, but I just removed it from my watchlist...

 

[Grafil Injection]

I just had the opportunity to hit with one of these tonight. The tennis complex I visited had one on the wall as a loaner (3.6 Si version). Since I’d viewed this thread the racket was fresh in my mind I had to try it. God it’s stiff. Strung very tight with a full bed of synthetic gut. Seemed to have a low launch angle as well, don't know if others have found that to be true. I had just come from hitting with a POG and it’s just a totally different feel. Can’t say I was enamored with it.

I had considered buying one off the auction site, but I just removed it from my watchlist...

The 3.6 is somewhat different, being less stiff (but still very stiff) and 18x20 pattern. No wonder the launch angle was low! Another post says it has a more acceptable 10pt HL balance, however. How was the SW?

 

[kevin qmto]

The 3.6 is somewhat different, being less stiff (but still very stiff) and 18x20 pattern. No wonder the launch angle was low! Another post says it has a more acceptable 10pt HL balance, however. How was the SW?

I'm really not the best at guesstimating things like SW. It didn't seem that heavy, my usual sticks are a Ti Radical and Adidas Barricade, which are nearly identical in static weight though they aren't that similar in any other way.

 

[big bang]

I believe Todd woodbridge also used the profile for a while

 

[retrowagen]

I have one of the original, St. Vincent-made, champagne-colored Profile 95’s—before it was renamed the 2.7 and a softer (3.6SI!) version joined the family—in my collection. It’s a landmark in racquet design, and it truly was a harbinger of a massive change in equipment, and, more importantly, in really allowing equipment to compensate for lousy fitness or tennis technique.

It’s almost silly how hard one can hit tennis balls with this club. However, I find that the extreme width of the frame lends itself to an extraordinary amount of mishits, on either heavy slices or topspin. Definitely a choice frame for the home run hitter!

Later widebodies were better (and narrower in beam!): the Yamaha Secret/Proto series, if you prefer a variable-width drill pattern, or the Fischer Vacuum Twin Tec or Elliptic models, if you’d rather have a more uniform string bed.

 

[travlerajm]

This thread motivated to dig out my Profile 2.7 110.
It’s actually about 104”.

Im going to weight it to my current favored specs and see what happens.

 

[Grafil Injection]

This thread motivated to dig out my Profile 2.7 110.
It’s actually about 104”.

Im going to weight it to my current favored specs and see what happens.

My distant recollection is that version is a bit easier to swing, but is even more powerful than the 95. Probably the one to go for, for doubles.

 

[travlerajm]

My distant recollection is that version is a bit easier to swing, but is even more powerful than the 95. Probably the one to go for.

I used to string it at 77 lbs with Problend, and eventually went up to 78 in summer.

 

[Ronaldo]

Used the Airshell Profile 3.0 95 for 5 yrs. 18x20 pattern strung with 17 gauge Prince Prism. Broke a string weekly

Also own a pr. of Profile Wannabees, Cartier Equipe

 

[travlerajm]

Used the Airshell Profile 3.0 95 for 5 yrs. 18x20 pattern strung with 17 gauge Prince Prism. Broke a string weekly

I took me about 20 minutes to break 16g syn gut in my Profile 2.7 110, and I was a serve-and-volleyer and not really a string breaker before that. The switch to Kevlar was necessary.

 

[Ronaldo]

I took me about 20 minutes to break 16g syn gut in my Profile 2.7 110, and I was a serve-and-volleyer and not really a string breaker before that. The switch to Kevlar was necessary.

Friend used 20 gauge vinyl coated steel strand in the mains. Would replace the crosses that broke. Eventually his elbow left the room

 

[Ronaldo]

My Profile 3.0 95 is only 13 oz strung

 

[Grafil Injection]

That's the same as my St Vincent 95. Think that's the standard weight. I imagine the 3.0 is not even-balanced though?

 

[Ronaldo]

That's the same as my St Vincent 95. Think that's the standard weight. I imagine the 3.0 is not even balanced though?

Certainly not. Have several Wilson 95" that weigh 12.9-13 oz Seems the go-to weight in the late 80s Early 90s

 

[Grafil Injection]

Certainly not. Have several Wilson 95" that weigh 12.9-13 oz Seems the go-to weight in the late 80s Early 90s

Yes, 12.5-13oz unstrung seems to be the standard 'light' specification in the early to mid 80s. Allthough so did 8pt HL strung.

 

[Ronaldo]

Yes, 12.5-13oz unstrung seems to be the standard 'light' specification in the early to mid 80s. Allthoug so did 8pt HL strung.

Mid 80s medium 13.4+ Recall a medium Ultra 2 with an 85" head.

May need to correct this. Discovered an Ultra 2 unstrung that only weighed 12.3 oz. Next to a strung Head XRC that weighed 13.1 oz. Faded watercolour memories of the 80s

 

[proman10]

I have 4 Profiles 95 Originals (from the Legendary St. Vincent factory) for sale. 9/10 Condition. Feel free to email if interested. jacktrent105@mail.com

 

[Grafil Injection]

The Profile came with a handy marketing flyer, of which these are the detailed pages. I always thought that the Kuebler Flex Matching concept, whilst interesting, surely must rely on a fairly precise string-tension, which would soon not be achieved.

 

[michael valek]

Very little shock is transferred to the arm

 

[Ronaldo]

Very little shock is transferred to the arm

My elbow & shoulder concurs!

 

[travlerajm]

Bumped into old friends this week who used to be on Jared palmer’s coaching team. He mentioned that Palmer played with the profile 2.7 95.

 

[michael valek]

I bought one a couple of years ago for 5 euros. Tried to use it. It was unusable. Like swinging a chair attached to the end of a baseball bat.

 

[georgeyew]

Very little shock is transferred to the arm

I think that is true. With the racquet being so stiff, it is like hitting the ball with a cinder block. But the weight and having to string it at really high tensions to control the power is what wreck people's shoulders.

 

[Ronaldo]

Pain, exciting and new, come aboard it's expecting you................................The Profile

 

[vsbabolat]

Bumped into old friends this week who used to be on Jared palmer’s coaching team. He mentioned that Palmer played with the profile 2.7 95.

Must have been for a short time because I don’t remember that. I remember him playing the Ultra 2, Pro Staff, Prestige Pro 600, back to Pro Staff in Classic paint job, actual Pro Staff Classic, Pro Tour 280, and finally PT57A

 

[Ronaldo]

Must have been for a short time because I don’t remember that. I remember him playing the Ultra 2, Pro Staff, Prestige Pro 600, back to Pro Staff in Classic paint job, actual Pro Staff Classic, Pro Tour 280, and finally PT57A

Anyone play with the PS Classic 85?

 

[travlerajm]

Must have been for a short time because I don’t remember that. I remember him playing the Ultra 2, Pro Staff, Prestige Pro 600, back to Pro Staff in Classic paint job, actual Pro Staff Classic, Pro Tour 280, and finally PT57A

I didn’t remember it either.

 

[tennistiger]

German Magazines tested it with real sensor measurements. Result was great shock absorption and little vibration! So with correct stringing shoulder and arm problems with this racket may be only from the weight or the mind of the player.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Very little shock is transferred to the arm

It goes straight into your brain.

 

[vsbabolat]

Anyone play with the PS Classic 85?

I hit with one in 1997.

 

[slipgrip93]

I have a pair of those monsters, the 110" version, that was given to me by an older, now retired coworker over a decade ago (his knees were gone). He had played with them plenty in mixed doubles local leagues in the years the profile came out. I still have them in a closet because I couldn't just bear to just give it to goodwill as he expected me to use or keep them initially, even though I've lost track of him since moving away. So I did a bit of stringing machine practice with them too.

I think that is true. With the racquet being so stiff, it is like hitting the ball with a cinder block. But the weight and having to string it at really high tensions to control the power is what wreck people's shoulders.

yes, the thickest awkward logs I ever tried to swing. The strung weight of the pair are 375,380g, and the thickest frame racquets I'd ever seen. I don't mind a heavier weight, but I just couldn't deal with the awkward blockiness of it and hitting with it feeling like 'bunting'. In comparison my kps88, while also heavy and stiff, still feels far more manueverable and a decent feel to me with its 17mm frame.

 

[Grafil Injection]

I've had two versions of the 95. Neither of them had the 2.7 label, which implies they are both St Vincent, but only one has a typical St. Vincent code (AHQ). The other is SAX, which I guess is Taiwan. So a few non-2.7 labeled versions seem to have been non-St Vincent too.

One is 364g, 34.25cm balance, which is probably the most beefy stick I have to swing, including various 400g+ standards. The other one is a much more acceptable sounding 358g, 32.75cm balance, but it is still too clunky after 30 minutes.

 

[Ronaldo]

I bought one a couple of years ago for 5 euros. Tried to use it. It was unusable. Like swinging a chair attached to the end of a baseball bat.

Just re-name it Sledgehammer!