Wilson Sting 2 (How it Stacks Up)

Freeze Frame

New User
So, I recently found an old Wilson Sting 2 at my local thrift store, and since it was it pretty good shape (minus the strings themselves), grommets and everything, I took it to my local pro shop. They said there should be no problems stringing it, so I asked them to string it up with a cheap syngut and I'd be back for it in a few days when I go back into town.
That being said, how does this racquet stack up to others from the era? How about against today's modern frames? What type of string setups are recommended? What else should just generally be known about this racquet (or any others of similar specs)
 

Steve Huff

G.O.A.T.
Well, it came out to compete against the Prince Graphite. In my opinion, Wilson was in a hurry to get it out and didn't do a very good job on the 1st edition. It was flexible in all the wrong places, which includes not being very stable. The Sting 2 may have been better, but by then, people were moving on to different frames. I don't have any sales numbers, but where I was (Tulsa), the Sting 2 didn't sell well.
 

RVAtennisaddict

Professional
My first racket was a Wilson Sting (1) bought at KMART, still have it and love it. Though as I "grew" up I transitioned to Dunlop Black Max and then the Prostaff 85 which I played with until 2007.

But that Wilson sting- sorta like that first car or girl. It is something that you never quite get over.
 

Sanglier

Professional
There were two distinct mid-size "Sting 2" models. The first one was trimmed in blue, like the regular "Sting", only with PWS added. It was quickly followed by a red-trimmed model without PWS, but featuring a bumper-guard. The blue ones (both the regular "Sting" and "Sting 2") were made by SanHoSun, while the red "Sting 2" may have been contracted to Long-Y. All three models co-existed in 1984, but only the regular "Sting" and the red "Sting 2" continued to be made after that. Later on, the SanHoSun-produced blue "Sting" was also given a bumper guard, along with PWS.

As far as I can tell, the largehead "Sting 2" only came in the red-trimmed variety. If a blue version existed at all (I've never seen one, not even online), it would have to have been made in St Vincent, which briefly produced the largehead blue "Sting" between 1983 and 1984 (these must have been among the first racquets made at the site; they were indistinguishable from the earlier California-produced examples save for the butt-cap code), at about the same time SanHoSun was making the blue mid-size "Sting 2", before Wilson decided to produce all "Stings" in Taiwan from 1984 onward.

The original largehead "Sting" was indeed designed to compete against the POG. It was initially made by the same California contractor that produced the POG from 1979 to 1983, using the same grommetless design and production protocol first developed at Fansteel. The mid-size "Sting" however was produced in Taiwan from the start, and was really a completely different animal under the skin. When the largehead "Sting" went to Taiwan in 1984, it too underwent some immediate changes, the most visible of which was the addition of individual grommets.

Personally, I like how the midsize "Sting" plays, and I really can't tell much difference between the blue and red versions, with or without PWS.

Of course, Wilson came out with the "Sting II" high beam model a few years later, which I like considerably less.
 

dak95_00

Hall of Fame
My first tennis store bought racquet was the Sting 2. It was the poor man's POG. The POGs were $159 and the Sting 2s were $89. I had the 85. I learned to play by watching others and taught myself a very loopy stroke and could never play a largehead.
 

swizzy

Hall of Fame
i like mine quite a bit.. not enough to have in my regular rotation..but i keep one in my trunk along with a can of balls and some sneakers in case i pick up a match unexpectedly... love chance matches and my sting 2 i play a ps90 and have no problem making the transition with this frame
 

jazzpanther

New User
Well, it came out to compete against the Prince Graphite. In my opinion, Wilson was in a hurry to get it out and didn't do a very good job on the 1st edition. It was flexible in all the wrong places, which includes not being very stable. The Sting 2 may have been better, but by then, people were moving on to different frames. I don't have any sales numbers, but where I was (Tulsa), the Sting 2 didn't sell well.

Steve, think you nailed it. Transitioned from the Kramer Pro Staff to the 1st edition Sting (100% graphite) and didn't really like it; never felt right and lacked consistency. Early '80s, everyone was eager to try these new racquets with the new technology and the Sting was one of Wilson's early attempts. By the time the Sting 2 appeared, I'd switched to the Jack Kramer Staff (Fiberglass and graphite) which for me was a far more consistent playing racquet. Here in NYC, don't think the sales were better either. Have a vague memory of Wilson trying unsuccessfully to resurrect the racquet but like its predecessors, it never caught on.
 

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
Found a minty Sting 2 with what looks like Sensation strings in good tension. 359g, 32.75 balance strung, no OG. Identical hoop to a PS85 in terms of 16x18 being normally spread for the middle 12 crosses, then really wide outer 6 crosses. But Sting is 1mm thinner than PS85 so it's like the 80/20. However, being '100% Graphite' the feel is closer to a PS85 compared to the other Wilson midsizes I've tried: solid and dampened (without dampener!), and there is virtually no flutter even off centre. Also easy depth and more spin than most. Played a good set last night, but then the weight took it's toll on serving. Wish it was a few points more head-light. Moved to a similar weight and balance 300i, and it was far easier to manoeuvre for some reason. Still very nice racket that seems closer to PS85 to me than it is to the lower midsizes like Matrix, 80/20, GTX-2000 etc. Can understand why John Lloyd used v1 for a few years.

Wilson-Sting-2.jpg
 

Sanglier

Professional
This is the blue "Sting 2 Mid" I mentioned in post #4 above, which is far less common (at least in the US) than the red-trimmed, bumpered version that was launched at the same time. Most of the surviving examples have a "G_S" buttcap code, indicating that they were produced in 1984 by SanHoSun. However, I have now seen a unit with a "J_S" code, proving that SanHoSun kept on making this model alongside the standard "Sting Mid" until 1986, when Wilson decided to put a bumper on it and make it the new standard "Sting Mid". My assertion in post #4 that these were only produced for one year was therefore incorrect.

Such confusion might not have arisen if Wilson hadn't used so many different contractors to make their products while giving the same names to non-identical racquets, and limited the distribution of certain models to only certain markets. Here in the US, this blue "Sting 2 Mid" isn't the only "Sting" model that is rarely encountered today; an equally elusive neck-brace-less version, also painted blue, also called "Sting Mid", and produced from 1982 thru 1983 by SanHoSun, seems to have only been sold in Europe and Japan. There may even be a pink version of this blue "Sting 2 Mid" towards the end of its run that was unique to the Japanese market, which has always been a magnet for "something completely different".
 
Last edited:

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
This is the blue "Sting 2 Mid" I mentioned in post #4 above, which is far less common (at least in the US) than the red-trimmed, bumpered version that was launched at the same time. Most of the surviving examples have a "G_S" buttcap code, indicating that they were produced in 1984 by SanHoSun. However, I have now seen a unit with a "J_S" code, proving that SanHoSun kept on making this model alongside the standard "Sting Mid" until 1986, when Wilson decided to put a bumper on it and make it the new standard "Sting Mid". My assertion in post #4 that these were only produced for one year was therefore incorrect.

Such confusion might not have arisen if Wilson hadn't used so many different contractors to make their products while giving the same names to non-identical racquets, and limited the distribution of certain models to only certain markets. Here in the US, this blue "Sting 2 Mid" isn't the only "Sting" model that is rarely encountered today; an equally elusive neck-brace-less version, also painted blue, also called "Sting Mid", and produced from 1982 thru 1983 by SanHoSun, seems to have only been sold in Europe and Japan. There may even be a pink version of this blue "Sting 2 Mid" towards the end of its run that was unique to the Japanese market, which has always been a magnet for "something completely different".
Yes, mine is GPS code. I thought for a minute it was GAS, and a warning about my addiction!
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
This is the blue "Sting 2 Mid" I mentioned in post #4 above, which is far less common (at least in the US) than the red-trimmed, bumpered version that was launched at the same time. Most of the surviving examples have a "G_S" buttcap code, indicating that they were produced in 1984 by SanHoSun. However, I have now seen a unit with a "J_S" code, proving that SanHoSun kept on making this model alongside the standard "Sting Mid" until 1986, when Wilson decided to put a bumper on it and make it the new standard "Sting Mid". My assertion in post #4 that these were only produced for one year was therefore incorrect.

Such confusion might not have arisen if Wilson hadn't used so many different contractors to make their products while giving the same names to non-identical racquets, and limited the distribution of certain models to only certain markets. Here in the US, this blue "Sting 2 Mid" isn't the only "Sting" model that is rarely encountered today; an equally elusive neck-brace-less version, also painted blue, also called "Sting Mid", and produced from 1982 thru 1983 by SanHoSun, seems to have only been sold in Europe and Japan. There may even be a pink version of this blue "Sting 2 Mid" towards the end of its run that was unique to the Japanese market, which has always been a magnet for "something completely different".
Wasn’t there also a standard size Sting? I seem to remember one from 1983?
 

kevin qmto

Hall of Fame
Standard head size of 65 sq.inches not 85
Ok, meant standard as in the standard Wilson Midsize mould. The shape that Wilson used for maybe 20 or more rackets for several years in the 1980’s.

I highly doubt there was a 65sq in Sting. If there was, it would have been an unrelated wood racket.
 

gold325

Hall of Fame
Ok, meant standard as in the standard Wilson Midsize mould. The shape that Wilson used for maybe 20 or more rackets for several years in the 1980’s.

I highly doubt there was a 65sq in Sting. If there was, it would have been an unrelated wood racket.

You sir are fortunately wrong - The Standard was smaller than the midsize. Pic below.

I spent months looking for one myself (didnt find one at a reasonable price and gave up)

PB038308.JPG
 

kevin qmto

Hall of Fame
You sir are fortunately wrong - The Standard was smaller than the midsize. Pic below.

I spent months looking for one myself (didnt find one at a reasonable price and gave up)

PB038308.JPG
Wow, never knew anybody made a graphite frame that was 65 that wasn’t a wood composite or mono throat.
 

mad dog1

G.O.A.T.
Wow, never knew anybody made a graphite frame that was 65 that wasn’t a wood composite or mono throat.
the original Head Graphite Edge had a pretty small head size, too. I think it might have been larger than 65" but definitely smaller than 85.
 

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
I got an NOS Max150G for my brother’s birthday a few years ago. Very good looking stick.

It certainly is, despite my dodgy camera-work. Was already planning to compare these two tomorrow. The 150G probably can't keep up with the Sting's spin shots, but it's great for warming up.

Sting-and-150-G.jpg
 

Sanglier

Professional
Wasn’t there also a standard size Sting? I seem to remember one from 1983?

Yes, you don't see too many of these, and 1983 is exactly the year during which they were produced (you never fail to amaze me with your memory!). The example I have is stamped with an "FP(S)" code, so it's again a SanHoSun product (before 1983, they used a two letter code that didn't identify the contractor; after 1983, they dropped the parentheses around the "S" because they had added even more contractors at that point, and decided to make the contractor letter code de rigueur). The handful of other "Sting Standard" I've seen so far are also stamped with the "F_(S)" code, so I am inclined to conclude that this model was dropped from Wilson's product line in 1984, possibly due to a lack of consumer interest. Spec-wise, the Standard is almost exactly the same as the Mid, just a tiny bit stiffer (66 RA) due to its smaller head. It sold for $15 less than the Mid; which wasn't enough to attract buyers, I suppose, as the Mid was not expensive either and was more forgiving.

Wow, never knew anybody made a graphite frame that was 65 that wasn’t a wood composite or mono throat.

The vast majority of first generation graphite frames (those made before 1980, such as the Àldila "Cannon", Tony Trabert "C6", DuraFiber "Graphite", Slazenger "Phantom", Dunlop "Graphite", Donnay 3SET "Carbone", Kneissl "World Star", Wilson "Ultra", etc.) had standard-sized heads, because "real men" back then refused to be seen holding anything bigger, even though the physical advantages offered by graphite only became truly apparent when combined with a larger head. However, that resistance from consumers had mostly vanished by 1983; which may be why the "Sting Standard" was doomed from the start - it was born at least three years too late to have made a difference, in a market that was undergoing a revolutionary transformation almost overnight.
 

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
Comparing the Sting 2 to the MAX 150G today: The Wilson without a dampener feels almost exactly in-between a (flexy-fibreglass feel) Matrix and a (solid-powerful feel) PS85. With a dampener, it feels a little closer to a PS85, especially on serves. No nasty vibrations at all. Similar to my Pro Matrix, it feels a little slow to move on serves, but not a problem if you are commited. Seems to play quite well on modern style topspin strokes, and is reasuringly solid on volleys and half-volleys. Would love to try the Standard size version.

The MAX 150G is amazing. Despite similar specs, it is more maneouvrable given the small head, and serving is just something everyone needs to try. Unbelievably plush, with great control, and it seems like the whole 68sqi is the sweetspot. Flat serves and volleys are ridiculously satisfying. Of course you have to focus to deal with fast spinny groundstrokes, but it's not too difficult. Every IMF aficionado should get one of these for the feel, and a perfect training racket as well. You really don't notice it's a 68sqi after a few minutes warm-up, and it's certainly much more useable than most Standard sized woods.
 

jxs653

Professional
I think I can play with old racquets but 150G looks daunting. Small head size is a hurdle hard to overcome. I have several 1980s racquets but they are all mid-sized or up.
 

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
I think I can play with old racquets but 150G looks daunting. Small head size is a hurdle hard to overcome. I have several 1980s racquets but they are all mid-sized or up.
I do agree that similar to most Standard size woods the 150G looks a little tricky to use, but in reality it's very easy. Bear in mind that the pure training rackets like the Wooden Spoon and the Sabre have a string-bed around 35sqi. The only 'difficulties' I find are with balls that would be challenging with any racket, like high and wide spinning shot to your BH. In half-an-hour play yesterday, I had not a single shank, and even off-centre hits are just as good as with bigger sticks.
 

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
other standard size graphite racquets are rossignol f200, wilson ultras 1&2, head xrc, kneissl maybe?
Rossi F200 is midsize (albeit on the small midsize size due to the inverted bridge), around 82sqi I think. But yes the others did have Standard graphite versions.
 

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
Coming back to the Sting 2, I think I choose the best way to approach using it as a heavier frame - start with something even heavier. Beginning with a 378g 150G, which is always great to get your eye in, then going to a 370g 300i, the 360g Sting 2 felt great for the last 30 minutes. Made a 350g 6.1 95 feel way too light in fact.
 

zhengmu

New User
You sir are fortunately wrong - The Standard was smaller than the midsize. Pic below.

I spent months looking for one myself (didnt find one at a reasonable price and gave up)

PB038308.JPG
Got my Wilson Sting Standard about a few months ago from a local Goodwell store, under 10 dollars.

Spec measured by myself
Weight with an overgrip and strung is 369g (13.02 oz)
minus the overgrip (~8 g) and string ~17 g, net racquet weight is 344 g (12.13 oz)


As a comparison, Wilson ProStaff 85 (replica version in 2015~2016 by Tennis-warehouse) has net weight of 341 g (12.03 oz)

Started to use it as a training racquet because I want to improve a few areas at baseline hitting:
1) focus/watch the incoming ball. With the small head size of 65 sq. inches, learnt from this thread, I have to watch the ball until it touches the racquet face; otherwise, have 50% percent of chance to mishitting, especially when the ball machine is set to top spin plus two levels


2) use a full swing pattern in all returns whenever possible. The Wilson Sting Standard racquet swings slower than PS 85, probably due to the middle bar. Without a full swing, the return from this racquet from baseline doesn't yield any good result ---- no power, no control, no spin, nothing.

Have to mention a negative side effort with this racquet. I use semi-western grip and often get friendly compliments from opponent for my top spin, with Wilson Burn 95. With the same swing pattern, the top spin effect from this Sting Standard is 50% less than the result from Burn 95. Because of that, the same trajectory topspin shots, with Burn 95 landed 2-feet in baselines, now will be out for 1 foot or 2. I have to intentionally lower the trajectory to keep the ball in, which reduces the net clearance height that topspin benefits me the most.

Last but not the least, Wilson Sting Standard is good for volley, if and only if I can hit a clean volley. While sacrificing the spin effort, it does have good control on direction. To my limited experience with 20+ racquets of different brands and models, Wilson Sting Standard's volley seconds only to PS 85.

Tried to update my picture. http://tinypic.com is shut down. Both http://imageshack.us and http://www.photobucket.com seem to charge fee after free trial. I uploaded to my microsoft OneDrive share folder. You can see the head size comparison among Wilson Burn 95, PS 85, and Sting Standard. The Burn 95 seems to have a huge head size, but actually it isn't that big. :)

 

zhengmu

New User
Those Sting Standards look about 68-70sqi to me. Love the almost evenly distributed 16x19 string-bed.
Agree, I don't think it is 65 sqi. By searching online, i found How to Measure a Tennis Head Size for a Racket.

===Step 3===

Multiply the width times the height times 0.785 to calculate the head size. As an example, for a tennis racket measuring 10 inches by 14 inches, multiply 10 times 14 times 0.785 to calculate an oversized head size of 110 square inches.
Here are the results from my tape measure:

Sting Standard: 11.25*8.25*0.785=72.8578 // 73??, this is way above 65.

PS 85: 12.125*9*0.785=85.6631 // very closed to the spec of 85

Burn 95: 13*9.5*0.785=96.9475 // this is almost 97
 
Last edited:
Top