Would the ProStaff 6.0 still be a classic if any particular player had never used it?

galain

Hall of Fame
I'm wondering if it would have achieved legend status like the Prestige Tour/Classic based on its own merits, or if its widespread endorsement by the very best of best helped the Pro Staff cement it's spot as one of the all time classic frames.

The Prestige was never really used by anyone at the top of the tennis tree, yet it's recognised as being one of the great frames.

The 6.0 was used/endorsed by so many big names, from Connors and Evert through to Sampras and even Fed. How many Grand Slam finals has this frame been in?

Do you think it would still be as highly considered were it not for its association with so many top players?
 

dak95_00

Hall of Fame
Say what? Plenty of professional players used both racquets. That’s why they are classics.

Let’s take the Dunlop Black Max. Very few played if any pro played it; therefore, not a desirable classic compared to the other two.

The value is based upon the desire of recreational players to own a piece of the pro tour. An easier description would be comparing the Dunlop Max 200g to the other racquets from that same mold. The 200g maintains value but the others such as the 400i pale in comparison.
 

lim

Semi-Pro
I think it would have fared like the 6.1 95/ blade 98. Both frames are just great playing sticks so they were bound to fetch a loyal fanbase but they don't have the cult status w/o all those GS winners attached to them. Especially SV PS85 cult status.
 

galain

Hall of Fame
Say what? Plenty of professional players used both racquets. That’s why they are classics.

Let’s take the Dunlop Black Max. Very few played if any pro played it; therefore, not a desirable classic compared to the other two.

The value is based upon the desire of recreational players to own a piece of the pro tour. An easier description would be comparing the Dunlop Max 200g to the other racquets from that same mold. The 200g maintains value but the others such as the 400i pale in comparison.
I don't disagree, but I think the PS85 has the reputation it has because it featured in the hands of so many top players. The Head Prestige was a dominant frame on the tour but in terms of Grand Slam profile it's not the same as the PS85.
 

dak95_00

Hall of Fame
I don't disagree, but I think the PS85 has the reputation it has because it featured in the hands of so many top players. The Head Prestige was a dominant frame on the tour but in terms of Grand Slam profile it's not the same as the PS85.
Must've been a good frame! How else does one get a reputation? It's got to get around. The best part of the story of the PS85 is that the intended user didn't like it much. Wilson has always been known for their work with Professional athletes and their Staff of them. Whether it was golf or tennis, the buyers knew it was designed with the help of the professional player. The Pro Staff series was known to be top quality. Have they held to that standard? That's another story. Of course, the original was just known as the Pro Staff. The Ultra was a different frame that was actually more expensive in their line. Is it popular?

There are many on this board that have an unhealthy infatuation with Head racquets. They're okay. I'm not a fan of the 18x20 pattern myself. I liked the 14x18 in the old days.
 

Grieeegoorr

Rookie
Must've been a good frame! How else does one get a reputation? It's got to get around. The best part of the story of the PS85 is that the intended user didn't like it much. Wilson has always been known for their work with Professional athletes and their Staff of them. Whether it was golf or tennis, the buyers knew it was designed with the help of the professional player. The Pro Staff series was known to be top quality. Have they held to that standard? That's another story. Of course, the original was just known as the Pro Staff. The Ultra was a different frame that was actually more expensive in their line. Is it popular?

There are many on this board that have an unhealthy infatuation with Head racquets. They're okay. I'm not a fan of the 18x20 pattern myself. I liked the 14x18 in the old days.
The great unanswered questions (maybe even unasked questions, as I haven't bothered to look it up) are why wasn't Jimmy brought in to the design process of more racquets and why did Wilson stop trying to build him a new racquet? If the PS85 was a Jimmy failure can you imagine what we would be playing with today if Wilson successfully produced a racquet that would have prized the T2000 from Jimmy's hands.
 

dak95_00

Hall of Fame
The great unanswered questions (maybe even unasked questions, as I haven't bothered to look it up) are why wasn't Jimmy brought in to the design process of more racquets and why did Wilson stop trying to build him a new racquet? If the PS85 was a Jimmy failure can you imagine what we would be playing with today if Wilson successfully produced a racquet that would have prized the T2000 from Jimmy's hands.
You’re asking for the Prince Mono!
 

retrowagen

Hall of Fame
When it was introduced, the Pro Staff midsize was quickly adopted by lots of serious players as an excellent racquet. It was the 1984 Racquet of the Year by World Tennis Magazine in the US, the one major American tennis magazine at the time who actually did lab- and play-tests of new racquets. I think main part of the appeal of the PS85 was that it was a very versatile top-notch racquet; in the hands of a good player quite suitable for topspin baseline play, or serve and volley. The model was cheaper and easier on the arm than Wilson’s other top model, the Ultra 2.

Initially, the only noteworthy pros who picked it up were Jimmy Connors (of whom Wilson ads made great mention, saying he helped develop the new frame), Chris Evert, and Stefan Edberg. Wilson corporate was probably heaving a great sigh of relief, as no consumer in his or her right mind wanted to buy the standard-headed steel relic Connors was using, or the standard-headed wood relic that Evert was using. The frame that Edberg had success with up to that point, winning a calendar year Junior Grand Slam, in fact, was the weird/heavy/fragile/expensive to produce Javelin 95. From a marketing standpoint, too, the PS85 was a winning product, easier to put a pro’s endorsement on, and sell like hotcakes, even if it didn’t (yet) have a newfangled plastic bumper guard!
 
Last edited:

dak95_00

Hall of Fame
When it was introduced, the Pro Staff midsize was quickly adopted by lots of serious players as an excellent racquet. It was the 1984 Racquet of the Year by World Tennis Magazine in the US, the one major American tennis magazine at the time who actually did lab- and play-tests of new racquets. I think main part of the appeal of the PS85 was that it was a very versatile top-notch racquet; in the hands of a good player quite suitable for topspin baseline play, or serve and volley. The model was cheaper and easier on the arm than Wilson’s other top model, the Ultra 2.

Initially, the only noteworthy pros who picked it up were Jimmy Connors (of whom Wilson ads made great mention, saying he helped develop the new frame), Chris Evert, and Stefan Edberg. Wilson corporate was probably heaving a great sigh of relief, as no consumer in his or her right mind wanted to buy the standard-headed steel relic Connors was using, or the standard-headed wood relic that Evert was using. The frame that Edberg had success with up to that point, winning a calendar year Junior Grand Slam, in fact, was the weird/heavy/fragile/expensive to produce Javelin 95. From a marketing standpoint, too, the PS85 was a winning product, easier to put a pro’s endorsement on, and sell like hotcakes, even if it didn’t (yet) have a newfangled plastic bumper guard!
Great history lesson!

I remembered that the Ultra II was more expensive and considered a stiffer frame from the players I heard back in the day playing it. The club I played at sold the Wilson line and the Prince line. Wilson only had the two racquets at the club and Prince was much more popular by the club players with the extremely expensive Boron, similarly priced to the Wilson lines were the Graphite 90/110, Spectrum 90/110, and then the Magnesium 90/110.

I owned a Sting 2 midsize and then traded it for the Prince Graphite 90 which I used for close to 30 years.
 

serveandvolE

New User
I'm just going to mention the Head Graphite Edge ( correctly if my wrong but it predates the Pro Staff by a few years) here because, if my memory serves me correctly, more club players were using it than the Pro Staff in my area but few actual pros used it.
 
Last edited:

John

Rookie
I'm wondering if it would have achieved legend status like the Prestige Tour/Classic based on its own merits, or if its widespread endorsement by the very best of best helped the Pro Staff cement it's spot as one of the all time classic frames.

The Prestige was never really used by anyone at the top of the tennis tree, yet it's recognised as being one of the great frames.

The 6.0 was used/endorsed by so many big names, from Connors and Evert through to Sampras and even Fed. How many Grand Slam finals has this frame been in?

Do you think it would still be as highly considered were it not for its association with so many top players?
You are really brain Dead to make this post and it just revealed that either you never had hands on a ps85( Chicago to st.vincent) or you don’t have a reasonable tennis skill.

ps make a remarkable serve cannon and precision volley. It is far more power and control than a prestige mid. But it’s also more demanding due to its weight.
there are more people can handle prestige mid than ps85 out there.
at my time, a lot varsity player uses ps85 way before the famous player endorse the racquet.
 

John

Rookie
ps 85 was selling $127 when ultra2 was at$199 or $219. ultra 2 was a way better weapon than ps 85 at early production but seems got lighter and less desire after Chicago.
 

galain

Hall of Fame
You are really brain Dead to make this post and it just revealed that either you never had hands on a ps85( Chicago to st.vincent) or you don’t have a reasonable tennis skill.

ps make a remarkable serve cannon and precision volley. It is far more power and control than a prestige mid. But it’s also more demanding due to its weight.
there are more people can handle prestige mid than ps85 out there.
at my time, a lot varsity player uses ps85 way before the famous player endorse the racquet.
Wow - that was friendly.....
 

John

Rookie
Wow - that was friendly.....
Well, I am sorry and no sorry. I would like to apologize for unfriendliness but I really out of words for people think ps85 is not one of the best racquet for serve and volley style.
the precise control is one of the best and the balance is just right for the single handed backhand.
those bumperless ones delivery amazing control and feel. early Taiwan version is ok and different but good feel. The China version and TW replica are good quality racquet but not the same. So please tee me have you ever hands on the Chicago or st. Vincent ones? Those 75-65lb or 65-55lb ones.
 

galain

Hall of Fame
Well, I am sorry and no sorry. I would like to apologize for unfriendliness but I really out of words for people think ps85 is not one of the best racquet for serve and volley style.
the precise control is one of the best and the balance is just right for the single handed backhand.
those bumperless ones delivery amazing control and feel. early Taiwan version is ok and different but good feel. The China version and TW replica are good quality racquet but not the same. So please tee me have you ever hands on the Chicago or st. Vincent ones? Those 75-65lb or 65-55lb ones.
Show me where in my original post that I said I'd never hit with a PS85 or that my tennis skill is sub par......
 
Top