Wilson ProStaff RF97 Autograph

The thing so many people seem to fail to consider with the RF97 in seeking to use the same stick as Federer is that unless you string it with gut mains/poly crosses you may as well be using a different racquet to Federer. His string set-up has the effect of softening it massively, possibly dropping it 4 points on the RDC scale by feel/playability.

Seeing young guys playing with this string with full beds of RP Blast at my club - they would have been better off buying a PS95/95s (and leading it up) in most cases if they wanted to sort of easier power and softer feel Federer would be getting.
 
Last edited:
Bobby Jr said:
The thing so many people seem to fail to consider with the RF97 in seeking to use the same stick as Federer is that unless you string it with gut mains/poly crosses you may as well be using a different racquet to Federer. His string set-up has the effect of softening it massively, possibly dropping it 4 points on the RDC scale by feel/playability.

Seeing young guys playing with this string with full beds of RP Blast at my club - they would have been better off buying a PS95/95s (and leading it up) in most cases if they wanted to sort of easier power and softer feel Federer would be getting.
Click to expand...

Exactly......
 
Harry_Wild said:
I have read a lot of post here about the expectations of getting the RF97 Autograph and how great the racquet will be etc... Now I am reading that a lot of people for whatever reason cannot handle it's characteristics of this racquet mainly because they are not a tour pro player that plays all most everyday since they were 10 year old and is in the top 300 in ranking. So a 7.0 player probably would love this racquet but players below 5.0 seem to feel that it might be just the wrong type of racquet for their game? It seems like most of the RF fans wanted to have his exact frame; so they could go out and hit the ball similar to RF is doing. I guess you just have to work out in the gym and built up the arm muscles and leg muscles so that you can swing it jus the same fashion to enjoy the RF97 and the RF97 Autograph the same way as Roger!
Click to expand...

People on these boards change racquets like they change their t-shirts I'm not sure that means that a racquet is suitable for 5.0 players and above. This is crazy talk surely. I'm probably a 4.0 - 4.5 player and am using it and find it quite undemanding (after about 2 weeks of hitting). In some ways it tires one out less than a lighter racquet as you don't have to struggle to get depth or resort to muscling the ball. Far out, it's only an extra half ounce over a lot of racquets and a 330 SW is nothing new. There's a bit of an urban legend building up around this racquet that's quite at odds with reality. I would think that anyone from 3.5 up should be able to use this stick as long as they were in reasonable physical condition. There is a maneuverability issue but it's negligible and more than offset by the many advantages (serve, return of serve, easy depth/power, great stability, arm friendliness etc.) of this stick in my humble opinion. Granted I am in the honeymoon phase but at the moment all the indications are that I'll be staying with this thunderstick for quite a while.
 
Last edited:
Bobby Jr said:
The thing so many people seem to fail to consider with the RF97 in seeking to use the same stick as Federer is that unless you string it with gut mains/poly crosses you may as well be using a different racquet to Federer. His string set-up has the effect of softening it massively, possibly dropping it 4 points on the RDC scale by feel/playability.

Seeing young guys playing with this string with full beds of RP Blast at my club - they would have been better off buying a PS95/95s (and leading it up) in most cases if they wanted to sort of easier power and softer feel Federer would be getting.
Click to expand...

Agree that the frame is only PART of the equation. I tried the "Fed set-up" (literally identical, including hybrid string set up, power pads, and string savers a well as (purported?) tension and STILL found it hurt my arm. Gut is out the question, as I break too much string. So.................. :( BHBH
 
Geoff said:
I don't have the exact starting stock measurements. The goal was to find lower swing weights (unstrung under 300). Typically stringing adds 30 swing weight points. With removing the leather grip it allows for flexibility in the customization of your racquets (so static weight and balance can usually easily be changed). The desire was to get the strung swing weights to 330. Your first RF97 strung swing weight was over 350. I went to the local tennis shop with a tuning center in hand and measured unstrung swing weights of their stock of RF97s. One was found on the rack under 300. Since I knew that we were ok on static weight I knew that any RF97 under 300 swing weight would work. Grip size did not matter due to putting on the custom Asian K90 pallet. I did not note the unstrung static weights of the RF97s.

By removing the grip (BHBH plays with a tournagrip only on a bare pallet) this allows for 15 grams (20 gram leather grip minus 5 gram tournagrip) to play with when customizing. With the goal of making the frames more headlight (target was 12 puts HL), the majority of the weight was added to the pallet which would not affect the swing weight.

I do know that the stock static weights for the few RF97s I have strung have all been pretty consistent. The biggest variances I have experienced have been from a swing weight perspective on the RF97.

Hope this helps to clarify.
Click to expand...

How did you add these pallets to the RF97 and where did you get them from?
 
gambitt said:
Just out of interest, how many of you strong brahs handle heavy racquets like this? Arms get tired or no?
Click to expand...

I don't know that I'm that strong but I've been using heavy racquets for many years starting with the KPS88 when it came out. Well, I guess you could count my wood, aluminum and fiberglass days too.
 
gambitt said:
Just out of interest, how many of you strong brahs handle heavy racquets like this? Arms get tired or no?
Click to expand...
I actually found the RF97A to be too light. If I were ever to switch to that racquet I would put lead on it. Don't understand why TW and many others complain that it's too heavy. I certainly found the nCode 90 and KPS88 to be heavier.
 
BreakPoint said:
I actually found the RF97A to be too light. If I were ever to switch to that racquet I would put lead on it. Don't understand why TW and many others complain that it's too heavy. I certainly found the nCode 90 and KPS88 to be heavier.
Click to expand...

Very few people (can) use these racquets. The RF97 is heavy by most players' standards and they can't play with it. I don't see what your point is.
 
VoodooBoot said:
Very few people (can) use these racquets. The RF97 is heavy by most players' standards and they can't play with it. I don't see what your point is.
Click to expand...

... no? Virtually all real players' racquets back then had similar specs. It's actually quite the norm. I don't understand why people are complaining about this frame.
 
JoelDali said:
I love the new AmpliFeel of the RF 97. Heavy but rewarding.
Click to expand...

image.jpg
 
This might just be a generational thing: those over 35 pick up the RF97A and say 'ok, I can make this work', while younger players who only know very light sticks and extreme grips and incredibly long loopy swings, pick it up and say 'ain't happening.'
 
West Coast Ace said:
This might just be a generational thing: those over 35 pick up the RF97A and say 'ok, I can make this work', while younger players who only know very light sticks and extreme grips and incredibly long loopy swings, pick it up and say 'ain't happening.'
Click to expand...

I'm 29, uses an eastern/extreme eastern grip, grew up on Prestige Mids and now uses Pro Staff 6.0 lineage frames.

And at one point in my life, I used those super light/stiff frames, but who's to say one can't grow out of them? But instead, the whining ensues.

(Not to say your statement was invalid, just that, I don't buy it. That's all)
 
Haha that was a good one!
I think this frame is not to be underestimated. Playing with a PS90 for years, I thought weight would not be a problem. Well, I don't know il it is the weight or the mass but I think RF97a considerably harder to play with. It is hard to move it, especially at net. And my flat forehand has gotten worse than with PS90. I put a fairway to make it more HL, it feels also better, and recently leaded it at 3/9 because strangely, I didn't geek it so stable. It's better now, but if I could play an afternoon with a 90, I wouldn't be able play more than two hours with the new one! This baby weights 374 grams, that is just ridiculous... People, I'd advise to buy the 315 And to lead it up!
 
VoodooBoot said:
Very few people (can) use these racquets. The RF97 is heavy by most players' standards and they can't play with it. I don't see what your point is.
Click to expand...
The point is that the RF97A is not heavy at all. If you played with racquets like the nCode 90, PS Tour 90, or KPS88, you would have found those racquets to play even heavier.

Seriously, are grown men today weaker than 10 year-old boys were a few decades ago? Because back then most little boys used 14 oz. wood racquets that were significantly heavier than the RF97A. Play with a wood racquet for a few weeks and when you go back to the RF97A it'll feel like a feather in your hands.
 
Just cuz some of you feel that 13oz+ racquets are fine doesn't mean everyone else is wrong with their 10- and 11-ouncers, and must use a 13 or 14 oz racquet before they can be acknowledged as "grown men" or "proper players".

Modern topspin techniques indeed favour lighter sticks and this has been said countless times, especially since the vast majority of rec players don't have the efficient technique of the pros to swing a heavier stick with enough RHS. Giving them a heavier stick will just cause their technique to completely break down, and they will most likely arm the ball more than anything because not everyone will instinctively learn to use more leg drive and core rotation to accelerate the heavier racquet.

We all play with what we like and feel most comfortable with and we don't need TTW elites' acknowledgements or ridicule if we aren't playing to your spec. Different strokes for different folks.
 
BreakPoint said:
The point is that the RF97A is not heavy at all. If you played with racquets like the nCode 90, PS Tour 90,...have found those racquets to play even heavier.
Click to expand...
According the spec sheets the nCode 90 is both lighter and has a lower swingweight than the RF97. Ditto for the PS Tour 90.

I bet you thought no-one would bother to check.

nCode
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/WN61T/WN61TReview.html

PS Tour 90
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/WT90/WT90Review.html
 
BP I agree with you, but as Oble and some others say, The game has changed. And I was a kid, my teachers were leading to get the lightest frames possible. Now I understand it was maybe not the best thing.
Once again, I don't think it is about the wheight itself. PS85 is as heavy and still way whippier. I believe it is much more the mass of the racquet : beam width, head size, making it hard to use. If we get things compared, 10-15 years ago some Prestige were as heavy but PC600 and mid were just like PS90 and co (whippy), and the midplus that came later were never that hard to use. Bring your A-game with this frame!
 
Bobby Jr said:
According the spec sheets the nCode 90 is both lighter and has a lower swingweight than the RF97. Ditto for the PS Tour 90.

I bet you thought no-one would bother to check.

nCode
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/WN61T/WN61TReview.html

PS Tour 90
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/WT90/WT90Review.html
Click to expand...
If you think spec sheets are definitive then you must not be an experienced tennis player who has played with many hundreds of different racquets. The nCode 90 felt like playing with a log. In comparison, the RF97A is much easier to swing.

Static weight, swingweight, balance, and stiffness ratings are meaningless unless you actually play with the racquet. They can't/don't measure weight distribution nor where/how many places a frame flexes.
 
Last edited:
oble said:
Just cuz some of you feel that 13oz+ racquets are fine doesn't mean everyone else is wrong with their 10- and 11-ouncers, and must use a 13 or 14 oz racquet before they can be acknowledged as "grown men" or "proper players".

Modern topspin techniques indeed favour lighter sticks and this has been said countless times, especially since the vast majority of rec players don't have the efficient technique of the pros to swing a heavier stick with enough RHS. Giving them a heavier stick will just cause their technique to completely break down, and they will most likely arm the ball more than anything because not everyone will instinctively learn to use more leg drive and core rotation to accelerate the heavier racquet.

We all play with what we like and feel most comfortable with and we don't need TTW elites' acknowledgements or ridicule if we aren't playing to your spec. Different strokes for different folks.
Click to expand...
Well, what better way to learn to use leg drive, core rotation, and weight transfer than to use a heavier racquet that forces you to learn to hit the ball properly? :)
 
BreakPoint said:
Well, what better way to learn to use leg drive, core rotation, and weight transfer than to use a heavier racquet that forces you to learn to hit the ball properly? :)
Click to expand...

That will most likely make people lose interest in the game much faster than you think. Unfortunately, 99% of rec players will just take a few swings, say it's too heavy, put it back down and pick up their favourite lighter sticks. And if they can play better with the lighter sticks (which many can), more power to them. We can't just impose what we like on others and presume that everyone will grow into the heavier, "better" sticks.
 
oble said:
That will most likely make people lose interest in the game much faster than you think. Unfortunately, 99% of rec players will just take a few swings, say it's too heavy, put it back down and pick up their favourite lighter sticks. And if they can play better with the lighter sticks (which many can), more power to them. We can't just impose what we like on others and presume that everyone will grow into the heavier, "better" sticks.
Click to expand...
Well, that certainly didn't stop everyone from picking up 14 oz. wood racquets back in the 70's when almost everyone played tennis and tennis was much more popular than it is now in the U.S. So maybe it's the light racquets that have turned people off from playing tennis? :shock:

I mean the RF97A is only about 3/4 of a pound. That's lighter than a single tennis shoe, and you wear one on each foot and run for miles during a tennis match.
 
Yes you are right, it's not that heavy, but that doesn't mean the vast majority of rec players will agree. That's my point. We can keep saying that 12oz+ is not that heavy here on TTW, but that's not going to change the world. Everyone's different.

Btw, saying "maybe it's the light racquets that have turned people off from playing tennis" might be a bit too much of a tinfoil speculation..
 
BreakPoint said:
I mean the RF97A is only about 3/4 of a pound. That's lighter than a single tennis shoe, and you wear one on each foot and run for miles during a tennis match.
Click to expand...

That shoe would feel pretty heavy though, if you swung it at the end of a ten feet pole ;-)
 
I guess the funny part of it all is, that everybody knows it is a heavy racket and then still lots seem to buy one, only to find out that it is a heavy racket :shock:

I have not yet really tested the RF97, only hit a few balls with one and thought it felt a bit light. My go-to rackets are the different iterations of the 90s, with a Fairway leather, Wilson over grip, a bit of lead in the head and 2 dampeners, 1 at 12 and 1 a t 6.... so all in all my racket is a bit on the heavy side. However I do not workout in the gym and I think I am fine. Also I only play with such heavy rackets for 3-4 years - before I was on the slightly lighter side...
I must admit, that when I switched to the 90s, I had a bit of arm trouble in the beginning - I used a power-ball to improve my arm strength a bit and I am fine since then (or I was until I was fooling around with a Donnay Borg Pro a bit too much a while back...hello tendinitis) ...but I am certainly not a top-spinner. My strokes tend to me rather flat, so maybe that works better with a heavy racket, as some suggested.

But as others have said, I guess to each what they like in the end ;-) ... and if somebody is looking to give away their RF97s because they are too heavey, I am happy to let you know my address for shipping :twisted:
 
oble said:
Yes you are right, it's not that heavy, but that doesn't mean the vast majority of rec players will agree. That's my point. We can keep saying that 12oz+ is not that heavy here on TTW, but that's not going to change the world. Everyone's different.

Btw, saying "maybe it's the light racquets that have turned people off from playing tennis" might be a bit too much of a tinfoil speculation..
Click to expand...
Well, light racquets have to be stiffer to compensate for the lack of weight (don't forget that the weight of the ball remains the same), and light and stiff racquets cause more arm injuries. They also force you to use more of your body to hit the ball instead of using the weight of the racquet to do the work for you.
 
smalahove said:
That shoe would feel pretty heavy though, if you swung it at the end of a ten feet pole ;-)
Click to expand...
Well, you don't swing a racquet at the end of a ten foot pole either unless you have ten foot long arms? :shock: And I wear my shoes at the end of my legs which are longer than my arms and I swing both of my legs constantly when I run. :)
 
BreakPoint said:
The point is that the RF97A is not heavy at all. If you played with racquets like the nCode 90, PS Tour 90, or KPS88, you would have found those racquets to play even heavier.

Seriously, are grown men today weaker than 10 year-old boys were a few decades ago? Because back then most little boys used 14 oz. wood racquets that were significantly heavier than the RF97A. Play with a wood racquet for a few weeks and when you go back to the RF97A it'll feel like a feather in your hands.
Click to expand...

My RD-7s weigh 380-400g, I agree with you. But there are a handful of players nowadays that can use a racquet that's 330g+.

You've been in tennis long enough to know how things have changed. In addition, tennis is more popular today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. The bar is lower and most (new) recreational players don't even have the physics to play properly with a more demanding racquet. So they keep playing with their APD/PD sticks and change their copoly strings once every 3-6 months, when they break.

Heck, most men are pussies in not just tennis, but almost every other aspect of their life. That's how it is, unfortunataly.

Something on topic: the RF97 would have been an awesome stick if it weren't so stiff. 60 flex and I would have switched to it.
 
BreakPoint said:
If you think spec sheets are definitive then you must not be an experienced tennis player who has played with many hundreds of different racquets. The nCode 90 felt like playing with a log. In comparison, the RF97A is much easier to swing.

Static weight, swingweight, balance, and stiffness ratings are meaningless unless you actually play with the racquet. They can't/don't measure weight distribution nor where/how many places a frame flexes.
Click to expand...
So, let me get this right - you speciously cited and argued about spec sheets being accurate for about 3 months straight in terms of whether all the Tour/90s contained kevlar... but now they they don't support your argument you are not "definitive."? You truly are a world class tool.

Your claim counters the widely available data both on TW, the racquet spec sheets and reviews online so it's up to you to disprove it. But you can't because you'll just launch into a tirade of spurious dickery. As usual.

I want to see a video of you hitting. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are knowledgeable with playing characteristics of frames across the ages but I suspect you're a 3.0 or thereabouts.
 
Last edited:
Bobby Jr said:
So, let me get this right - you speciously cited and argued about spec sheets being accurate for about 3 months straight in terms of whether all the Tour/90s contained kevlar... but now they they don't support your argument you are not "definitive."? You truly are a world class tool.

Your claim counters the widely available data both on TW, the racquet spec sheets and reviews online so it's up to you to disprove it. But you can't because you'll just launch into a tirade of spurious dickery. As usual.

I want to see a video of you hitting. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are knowledgeable with playing characteristics of frames across the ages but I suspect you're a 3.0 or thereabouts.
Click to expand...
Um...no, that was YOU, not me. You're the one that provided all the links to all the specs, claiming that because the specs sheets don't mention "Kevlar" in the BLX 90 and BLX PS 90, they must not contain Kevlar, but since the PS Tour 90 and nCode 90 spec sheets mention "Kevlar", they must contain Kevlar. And I said you have to actually PLAY with the racquets to know how they feel and they all feel like they contain Kevlar, so the spec sheets are meaningless.

Thus, I am 100% consistent. Again, I am saying exactly the same thing here - the spec sheets are meaningless, YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PLAY WITH THE RACQUETS!

Based upon the TW reviews and what some others on this board said, I expected the RF97A to play heavy, but it was anything but heavy.
 
BreakPoint said:
Um...no, that was YOU, not me. You're the one that provided all the links to all the specs, claiming that because the specs sheets don't mention "Kevlar" in the BLX 90 and BLX PS 90, they must not contain Kevlar, but since the PS Tour 90 and nCode 90 spec sheets mention "Kevlar", they must contain Kevlar...
Click to expand...
No, you cited the spec sheets in regards to the kevlar thing - and conveniently chose only the ones which appeared to support you. You were deliberately inconsistent in you use of them for one reason: you're a muppet.

Notwithstanding, no part of my discussion previously claimed anything about the nCVode or PS Tour 90 containing (or not) kevlar. I specifically chose the more recent four iterations of the 90 sq in 'Federer' frame. You would remember that if you weren't so senile.
 
Bobby Jr said:
No, you cited the spec sheets in regards to the kevlar thing - and conveniently chose only the ones which appeared to support you. You were deliberately inconsistent in you use of them for one reason: you're a muppet.

Notwithstanding, no part of my discussion previously claimed anything about the nCVode or PS Tour 90 containing (or not) kevlar. I specifically chose the more recent four iterations of the 90 sq in 'Federer' frame. You would remember that if you weren't so senile.
Click to expand...
How quickly you forget. Who posted the links to old TW product pages for the BLX 90 and BLX PS 90 just to show that "Kevlar" was not mentioned in the composition (as if that's some sort of definitive proof)?

That would be YOU. Did you mention "senile"? :oops:
 
VoodooBoot said:
Why a dampener at 12? What does it do for you?
Click to expand...

ahh, that! nothing much actually...just an old habit. Many years back I developed a tennis elbow and tried lots of stuff to get ride of it - lower sting tension, additional dampeners etc. I just stuck to it. I removed them at some point as suggested by a coach, but it changed weight and balance etc...so I went back to my setup, as I was too lazy to add lead
 
BreakPoint said:
I mean the RF97A is only about 3/4 of a pound. That's lighter than a single tennis shoe, and you wear one on each foot and run for miles during a tennis match.
Click to expand...
Your legs are at least 5 times at strong as your arms - if not more - and wearing shoes requires next to no dexterity compared to an arm/wrist brandishing a racquet.

But continue. It's good to see you're back in your usual form so soon after the break.
 
BreakPoint said:
How quickly you forget. Who posted the links to old TW product pages for the BLX 90 and BLX PS 90 just to show that "Kevlar" was not mentioned in the composition (as if that's some sort of definitive proof)?

That would be YOU. Did you mention "senile"? :oops:
Click to expand...
The only links I posted were to show the opposite - that the specs on all the random websites you selectively used to back up your muppet story couldn't be relied upon definitively. You argued they could be but now that I have done a better version of it - relying on TW's own pages - suddenly they're all wrong.

Seriously, your only saving grace is you went off crying to the mods and your brother to get your most insane posts, or whole threads, removed.
 
frinton said:
ahh, that! nothing much actually...just an old habit. Many years back I developed a tennis elbow and tried lots of stuff to get ride of it - lower sting tension, additional dampeners etc. I just stuck to it. I removed them at some point as suggested by a coach, but it changed weight and balance etc...so I went back to my setup, as I was too lazy to add lead
Click to expand...

Interesting... cheers for the explanation.
 
Played with the RF97A again last night. Yup, still not heavy at all and still easy to swing but still very stiff as well. Even strung with a soft multi I could feel it in my wrist after just 15 minutes of hitting. It's really a lot like many other stiff/light wide-beamed modern racquets.

So again, the RF97A plays lighter than I expected, whereas, the KPS88 played even heavier than I expected.
 
Bobby Jr said:
Your legs are at least 5 times at strong as your arms - if not more - and wearing shoes requires next to no dexterity compared to an arm/wrist brandishing a racquet.
Click to expand...
If you're only using your arm to hit the ball, then you should take some lessons. The proper way to hit the ball is to use your legs, core, and shoulder.
 
Bobby Jr said:
The only links I posted were to show the opposite - that the specs on all the random websites you selectively used to back up your muppet story couldn't be relied upon definitively. You argued they could be but now that I have done a better version of it - relying on TW's own pages - suddenly they're all wrong.
Click to expand...
Nope, you were the first to post links to old TW product pages for the BLX 90 and PS BLX 90. I posted no links prior to that because I've actually PLAYED with every single version of the Tour 90.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Prostaff Prototype? (RF97 18x20)
Replies
27
Views
14K
RanchDressing
R
E
Pro Staff 97L as RF01 Pro alternative
Replies
3
Views
286
gino
gino
moon shot
Wilson Version Numbers
Replies
7
Views
5K
moon shot
moon shot
A
My Wilson Pro Staff RF97 Autograph & RF97 LS Review VS My Prostaff 85
Replies
19
Views
5K
big bang
big bang
Automatix
Wilson ProStaff 97 18x18 - Dimitrov
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
TW Staff
TW Staff
Back
Top