Wilson Profile 95 - still going in 2022

[muddlehead]

never heard of this racket
oh wait
I've been using the 2.7 95 since 1990
lead to make it 13 1/2 oz - string tension 32

family portrait
2.7 has a 95, 110, and 120
3.6 has a 95 and 110

 

[travlerajm]

never heard of this racket
oh wait
I've been using the 2.7 95 since 1990
lead to make it 13 1/2 oz - string tension 32

family portrait
2.7 has a 95, 110, and 120
3.6 has a 95 and 110

Summer of 1990 was when I discovered the magic of the Profile. It changed the course of my tennis history.

 

[Grafil Injection]

A good thing about the Profile is, (similar to starting with a Standard racket), if you begin your session playing with one for 15-minutes, then anything you use afterwards is going to feel comfortable and easy to swing!

 

[Ronaldo]

never heard of this racket
oh wait
I've been using the 2.7 95 since 1990
lead to make it 13 1/2 oz - string tension 32

family portrait
2.7 has a 95, 110, and 120
3.6 has a 95 and 110

There is a 120" Profile?

 

[travlerajm]

There is a 120" Profile?

aka the beast.

 

[travlerajm]

A friend of mine had his Wilson Profile 2.7 110s custom-extended to 28” length.

I hit some of the most powerful serves of my life when he let me try it.

 

[muddlehead]

There is a 120" Profile?

yup there be
2.7 but not 3.6

 

[Grafil Injection]

Does anyone know which Profile 95 version this is? It has a metallic navy blue finish, an 18x20 pattern, a 50lbs recommendation, and says Dual-Taper on the neck but is otherwise very plain. Seems to have the same beam as the original 95 (26-32-23), and also says High Modulus Graphite (and no Kevlar). So it appears to be very similar to the first version, just with 18x20 and commensurate lower tension.

I think I can rule out the 3.6 as that was grey-blue metallic, the Tour version as that was grey, the grey-purple Aire Shell version, and the various Hammer versions and the SPS version as they have other graphics on them. I do have a very vague recollection of an advert showing the first gold version alongside a navy blue model, but I can't be sure. Have I forgotten another iteration?

 

[travlerajm]

Does anyone know which Profile 95 version this is? It has a metallic navy blue finish, an 18x20 pattern, a 50lbs recommendation, and says Dual-Taper on the neck but is otherwise very plain. Seems to have the same beam as the original 95 (26-32-23), and also says High Modulus Graphite (and no Kevlar). So it appears to be very similar to the first version, just with 18x20 and commensurate lower tension.

I think I can rule out the 3.6 as that was grey-blue metallic, the Tour version as that was light blue, the various Hammer versions and the SPS version as they have other graphics on them. I do have a very vague recollection of an advert showing the first gold version alongside a navy blue model, but I can't be sure. Have I forgotten another iteration?

Does it say “Profile” or “Prostaff”? The Prostaff 4.5si was black and shaped like that.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Does it say “Profile” or “Prostaff”? The Prostaff 4.5si was black and shaped like that.

It's a Profile:

Another thing I noticed is there's just an 'R' registered trade mark and a reference to the German patent office, rather than a 'TM' you see on other Profiles. I wonder if it's an early one produced with Kuebler assistance.

 

[tennistiger]

I wonder if it's an early one produced with Kuebler assistance.

It's not, it looks like a sample or a special edition european model for a shop group like Intersport today from the late pre swingindex era about 1992. And it seems to be the Aire Shell mold which started in 1992. So devinitely not an earlier model.

 

[Grafil Injection]

It's not, it looks like a sample or a special edition european model for a shop group like Intersport today from the late pre swingindex era about 1992. And it seems to be the Aire Shell mold which also starts in 1992.

What is the Aire Shell mould? I know the Aire Shell had different handles, and used a grey-purple fade, but is there something else that distinguishes them from the original 95?

 

[tennistiger]

I have to say the european Aire Shell model is different to the US Profile 3.0 which used the original Profile mold. In europe it was a new design width 29mm beam and a real 95 head, starting in 1992.

US:

Google Search

European, look at the different throat and beam width:

Google Search

 

[Grafil Injection]

I have to say the european Aire Shell model is different to the US Profile 3.0 which used the original Profile mold. In europe it was a new design with 29mm beam and a real 95 head, starting in 1992.

So for the US Aire Shells (which I guess this would be as it looks very similar to the original 95 mould), apart from the nylon jacket in the handle, are there any other distinguishing features?

All the Aire Shells I've seen (inc US ones) have two-colour fades and lots of graphics, so this one seems quite different if it were a demo. Perhaps it was a demo of the original Wilson 95.

 

[tennistiger]

The R (rightly reserved) was often used in Europe for TM (trade mark). So because of that and the mold/design/graphics it looks like an european model about 1992. I have every german Wilson Katalog from the 90s but that one was never a part so it seems to be a special model/sample.
If I must bet I would say it is simply a special edition model for a sport shop group in Europe and not part of the regular Wilson program that time.

 

[Grafil Injection]

The R (rightly reserved) was often used in Europe for TM (trade mark). So because of that and the mold/design/graphics it looks like an european model about 1992. I have every german Wilson Katalog from the 90s but that one was never a part so it seems to be a special model/sample.

Yeah, it's definitely not one I know either, other than a recollection of a picture of a gold next to a navy version. My gold coloured St Vincent 95s also say R rather than TM, but that seems to be fairly random as I can see some US Aire Shells with R for the Profile name too.

 

[ey039524]

Does anyone know which Profile 95 version this is? It has a metallic navy blue finish, an 18x20 pattern, a 50lbs recommendation, and says Dual-Taper on the neck but is otherwise very plain. Seems to have the same beam as the original 95 (26-32-23), and also says High Modulus Graphite (and no Kevlar). So it appears to be very similar to the first version, just with 18x20 and commensurate lower tension.

I think I can rule out the 3.6 as that was grey-blue metallic, the Tour version as that was grey, the grey-purple Aire Shell version, and the various Hammer versions and the SPS version as they have other graphics on them. I do have a very vague recollection of an advert showing the first gold version alongside a navy blue model, but I can't be sure. Have I forgotten another iteration?

This paint job looks very similar to my PS7.5 95s from the 80s. Same colors, primarily black w blue/purple accents, but in a different spray pattern.

 

[Grafil Injection]

This paint job looks very similar to my PS7.5 95s from the 80s. Same colors, primarily black w blue/purple accents, but in a different spray pattern.

Yes, quite similar paintjob. About half-way between the two versions of the 7.5 in fact, shown in the following thread. I guess you meant from the 90s, as they're 1992 and Wilson didn't start their S.I. figures until the start of that decade. Also similar to the Pro-Staff 5.5 Aire Shell, but this strange Profile has no S.I. numbers (and no PWS of course being not a PS).

Wilson 7.5 pro staff 95 ( the other one )​

Thread 'Wilson 7.5 pro staff 95 ( the other one )'

Aug 12, 2022

Ok ok so.. here is the deal I was debating with a fellow tt poster and I told him that there are 2 versions of this frame.
The blue one &
The black , green one .. different paint jobs . But I argued that they are both same weight same balance but the black and green one is even more flexible..
due to it being 50 graphite / 50 fiberglass
Where as the blue one is 70 graphite & 30 fiberglass…
The blue is RA-54
The black and green one is RA -??????? It’s gotta be softer right !?

• teachingprotx
• Replies: 43
• Forum: Classic Racquet Talk

Wilson did have some good glossy metallic paintjobs like everyone else in the early 90s, but interestingly, the matt finished PSC 6.1 95 is the most memorable.

 

[teachingprotx]

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

Oh the stories I too could tell about my wide body choices back in the 90’s.
I think personally if it hadn’t been for those I would not have ever started to obsess about tennis rackets . Specifically. How to control and tame them .

 

[Grafil Injection]

Precise details about this mysterious no-name Profile remain elusive.

However, as it looked like in the advert, I can now confirm it has the same (26-32-23) beam as the other 95sqi versions. The weight with just a 6g overgrip is 338g, so with a 22g Fairway it would be 354g, which is the same as my St Vincent original. There are no graphics other than the original version's. No S.I. numbers, no Kevlar, no Aire Shell writing or graphics; and it has a white butt-cap, whereas, I believe the Aire Shells had black ones. It also has a standard PU foam handle, like the original.

I have a feeling that when the Tour and Aire Shell were the top models in the catalogue, Wilson released a 'Classic' model, replacing the 2.7 and 3.6. Given the 18x20 pattern, I guess they were probably 3.6s, repainted, and probably a bit cheaper, being effectively a 'legacy' product by 1992.

It hits much like the original, only with a bit more control thanks to the 18x20 string-bed. Very stiff and hollow feeling, but also completely stable. The sweet-spot is enormous, so you don't have to even think about hitting the middle. Every ball goes back with decent pace. Although I like the original's gold paint-work, I have to say this one probably looks better. The dark colours are a touch slimming!

 

[michael valek]

And it will still send you to the elbow and wrist emergency admissions department.

 

[Grafil Injection]

And it will still send you to the elbow and wrist emergency admissions department.

Yep, I could feel my wrist buzzing after 45 mins! Luckily, a MAX 200G soon soothes the pain.

 

[teachingprotx]

Well I finally got a profile 2.7 95 for cheap off the bay.
During my lesson I pulled it out against the 5.0 dude whom I was teaching / hitting with live ball.
I hit for maybe 3 minutes. I felt like i could have hurt myself . I’m serious man. It was weird cuz it has like no vibrations like none . But the weight even though even balanced felt like the weight slid to the head while swinging it . Felt like I was swinging an axe sideways . With my non dominant hand / arm.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Well I finally got a profile 2.7 95 for cheap off the bay.
During my lesson I pulled it out against the 5.0 dude whom I was teaching / hitting with live ball.
I hit for maybe 3 minutes. I felt like i could have hurt myself . I’m serious man. It was weird cuz it has like no vibrations like none . But the weight even though even balanced felt like the weight slid to the head while swinging it . Felt like I was swinging an axe sideways . With my non dominant hand / arm.

Not your usual preference, but at least you can be sure you got the genuine article!

 

[teachingprotx]

Not your usual preference, but at least you can be sure you got the genuine article!

Oh I know . But I couldn’t pass up the price but truth be told when I purchased it I thought it was the junior 26 version which is waaaaaaay “ different “ ..

 

[Ronaldo]

Loved the Profile 3.0 95 with an 18x20 string pattern. Till all three had string pull-throughs.

 

[michael valek]

I bought one for 5 euros which was like new. It was like swinging the anchor from the titanic. Except stiffer.

 

[meltedsteam]

so the logic is that the stiffness and frequency are so high there is less shock? I’m still puzzled as to what specs are hard on the arm tendons. Swingweight? Stiffness? Static weight? How would a 70ra 13oz 350sw compare to a 55ra 12oz 320sw with same strings in terms of tendon damage?

 

[michael valek]

I guess there is a reason why you never saw anything like it again. Brutal for every part of your body.

 

[retrowagen]

so the logic is that the stiffness and frequency are so high there is less shock? I’m still puzzled as to what specs are hard on the arm tendons. Swingweight? Stiffness? Static weight? How would a 70ra 13oz 350sw compare to a 55ra 12oz 320sw with same strings in terms of tendon damage?

The design brief from Herrn Doktor Ingenieur Kuebler was a theory that if the frame could be stiffened to the point that the impact energy of an average hit (which by pure Newtonian physics is fairly constant, thanks to a regulation tennis ball weight and a fairly normal racquet weight approximating 12 ounces) would dissipate through the frame at a very high frequency (frequency and amplitude tend to be inversely proportional), when you hit the ball with the Kuebler Profile frame, there would be such little feeling of recoil deflection (the fluttery feeling of “flex”) that the ball would receive more of the overall kinetic energy of the stroke, as less would be lost in deflection.

The downside is that one winds up with either a ridiculously heavy racquet, or a ridiculously thick cross section to achieve this magical frequency tuning. The latter was the engineered conclusion, and Wilson bought into it around 1987.

It was a game changer, literally.

 

[Grafil Injection]

so the logic is that the stiffness and frequency are so high there is less shock? I’m still puzzled as to what specs are hard on the arm tendons. Swingweight? Stiffness? Static weight? How would a 70ra 13oz 350sw compare to a 55ra 12oz 320sw with same strings in terms of tendon damage?

As Retro says, it was mainly about getting power into the ball through matched flex timing with the string-bed (see post #35). However, if you think about that, an 82RA racket that flexes at say 220hz can only match the timing of the string-bed at one precise particular tension. As soon as your strings are probably no more than 1lb difference, the flex timing of the frame and string-bed must be slightly out, and that's assuming each type of string flexes the same. So that 220hz is going into your arm, retinas, teeth fillings etc.

That was the long-term impact of the Profile: pain not just in the elbow, but in all-sorts of strange places. Plenty of power went into the ball just through mass/sw and stiffness, the precise flex-timing idea with regards to increasing power and reducing arm shock, was mostly mumbo-jumbo.

The Profile was also supposed to be 32.5cm balance; however, many were more like 34cm balance, so the SW was rather more hefty than most rackets of the day, which would cause muscle issues for those not used to it.

 

[meltedsteam]

As Retro says, it was mainly about getting power into the ball through matched flex timing with the string-bed (see post #35). However, if you think about that, an 82RA racket that flexes at say 200hz can only match the timing of the string-bed at one precise particular tension. As soon as your strings are probably no more than 1lb difference, the flex timing of the frame and string-bed must be slightly out, and that's assuming each type of string flexes the same. So that 200hz is going into your arm, retinas, teeth fillings etc.

That was the long-term impact of the Profile: pain not just in the elbow, but in all-sorts of strange places. Plenty of power went into the ball just through mass/sw and stiffness, the precise flex-timing idea with regards to increasing power and reducing arm shock, was mostly mumbo-jumbo.

Short-term, the Profile was also supposed to be 32.5cm balance; however, many were more like 34cm balance, so the SW was rather more hefty than most rackets of the day, which would cause muscle issues for those not used to it.

Thanks! At that point adding a little weight to shift the balance would at least make it less cumbersome.

 

[kevin qmto]

As Retro says, it was mainly about getting power into the ball through matched flex timing with the string-bed (see post #35). However, if you think about that, an 82RA racket that flexes at say 200hz can only match the timing of the string-bed at one precise particular tension. As soon as your strings are probably no more than 1lb difference, the flex timing of the frame and string-bed must be slightly out, and that's assuming each type of string flexes the same. So that 200hz is going into your arm, retinas, teeth fillings etc.

That was the long-term impact of the Profile: pain not just in the elbow, but in all-sorts of strange places. Plenty of power went into the ball just through mass/sw and stiffness, the precise flex-timing idea with regards to increasing power and reducing arm shock, was mostly mumbo-jumbo.

Short-term, the Profile was also supposed to be 32.5cm balance; however, many were more like 34cm balance, so the SW was rather more hefty than most rackets of the day, which would cause muscle issues for those not used to it.

Do we even know what string or tension is supposed to be used to find that mythical balance lol?

 

[Ronaldo]

Do we even know what string or tension is supposed to be used to find that mythical balance lol?

Gamma Edge

 

[Grafil Injection]

Do we even know what string or tension is supposed to be used to find that mythical balance lol?

I assume gut at the middle 60lbs tension that was written on the racket for the 95sqi; although they changed that fairly rapidly to 55lbs, which blows another hole in the theory! The 110sqi was originally stencilled with 65-75lbs, but that also reduced after a year or so.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Couldn't resist this thrift-store Profile Aire-Shell (95) at £3.50, given that is was in reasonable condition and presented an opportunity to compare to my Profile Blue mentioned above. I can confirm, that the Aire-Shell has a slimmer dual-taper beam of 25-29-22mm compared to the Original and Blue's 26-32-23mm, both being widest at the bottom of the grommet channel. In the middle here:

What I hadn't anticipated is the Nylon jacket and foam layer that make up the Aire-Shell handle leads to a very HL balance. 30.75cm (11pt HL) strung. The handle hits the balance table with a real thud! Combined with its 345g weight, you'd think the hoop must be less solid feeling than the original, but there's not much difference. Still a huge sweet-spot, great stability, and it's definitely easier to swing. A more modern feeling Profile thanks to a swing-weight estimated to be in the 320s, with decent control from the 18x20 bed. The handle system does seem to reduce the harshness a touch too. Not a bad two-colour fade paint job either, though it's not as bling as the originals.