Racket rant rag (RE: Pro Staff original)
Brad Holbrook
>>I'm looking for prostaff 85 originals.
>>Please reply for any good deals.
>
> If you're talking about the latest Wilson Pro Staff 6.0si,
> 85 sq in racquet, I bought mine from Tennis Warehouse
> for $117; it came with free stringing to my desired tension,
> and full racquet cover. But most importantly, they were
> wonderful with their helpful comments and answers to my
> questions via E-Mail. I got the racquet in 6 days;
> no one local carried it, and they said I'd have to wait
> a minimum of two weeks for it!!
>
Unfortunately Wilson no longer makes the *orginal* Pro Staff; the one that
they introduced in 1984 and has won a Grand Slam Tourney title every year
since.
Inexplicably, Wilson closed the St. Vincent production facility (where the
Pro Staff was made) a few years ago, feeling that its new Profile (remember
that $250 piece of rubbish?) was the future of its racket marketing
division. When the Profile bombed, Wilson came out with the Hammer and the
Sledge Hammer and the Ball Peen Hammer, trying to seduce the recreational
tennis segment into trading "up" for a newer technology racket at least
once a year. ("Can't hit a backhand? Overhead got you down? BUY an
improved game with our new Slicer/Dicer X-tra Long!!)
You can't fault Wilson for trying to come out with a "new and improved"
product every year (it works for automobile manufacturers), but the problem
is they hit on the perfect tennis racket in 1984 with the Pro Staff, and
then abandoned it, leading thousands of unwitting tennis souls down a path
of disappointment and despair ever since.
The list of pro players still using the <real> original kevlar/graphite Pro
Staff is long and impressive, and includes Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, Mary
Pierce and Stephan Edberg. Teaching pro's also covet and hold onto these
"relics" with a passion.
Once, about three years ago, Mary Pierce placed an ad in tennis industry
newsletters and magazines asking anyone who had a supply of <real>
originals to sell them to her. She was running out. Even as perfect as
this racket is, it will wear out after a few dozen times on the stringing
machine (the pro's string this racket higher than what we consumers are
told is the recommended range, causing more stress on the frame;
eventually the frame won't hold the tension anymore. Sampras, for
instance, strings his Pro Staff at 74 1/2 pounds). And they string them
much more frequently than the rest of us do, cutting out the string after
every few hours of use, since the tension decreases with every hit of the
ball.
While Wilson,and, to be fair, the other major racket companies were being
distracted by the "newer, wider, longer" technology of racket design they
completely tuned out the voices of a growing segment of recreational and
professional players asking for a return to the sanity of the 1984 racket.
For a few years pro shop owners were left to tell potential customers "No,
we don't have the racket Sampras uses, but wouldn't you like to buy this
neat-o keen-o wide body feather-lite assasinator with a silencer model
that's just been introduced?"
Eventually, Wilson started to wake up. Trouble is it couldn't re-open the
facility where the original Pro Staff was made. It then tried to capure
some of the "advantages" of light-weight, wide body, over sized rackets and
introduced the "Jim Courier Original Pro Staff" complete with stars and
stripes design. The racket kind of looked like the <real> original, but
its composites were different, and lighter, and the head a little wider and
bigger. Courier (who must've been paid a significant amount) played with
it for a while. I would love to know the details of why he eventually put
it down. Perhaps it had to do with him going from Number One to Number
30-something while using it. Today Courier plays with his old Wilson Pro
Staff (the <real> original from circa 1984) even though he must have a
warehouse full of the ersatz Pro Staff's with his name on them!
Most recent development: Wilson woke up a little more and brought out what
it called "the original Pro Staff" racket, complete with an endorsement of
its devotee, Pete Sampras. (Money talks.) Problem is, this racket is
still not the real thing. It's lighter and weighted differently than the
old ones. I'm not sure exactly why, but hold one of each in your hands and
you can easily tell the difference. I feel certain that Pete is still
playing with his '84 models and will continue to do so until the world's
supply of them finally gives out.
By the way, Sampras also lead tapes his racket to make, what by today's
wimpy standards is already a heavy racket, a good deal heavier.
So don't be misled by racket salespeople who insist that the 1996
*original* Pro Staff is the same thing that was created in 1984. It ain't.
And it's a crying shame.
Those are just a few of my thoughts about the complicity of racket
companies in the declining numbers of tennis players. Don't get me
started.
Richard Huddleston
*
* Unfortunately Wilson no longer makes the *orginal* Pro Staff; the one that
* they introduced in 1984 and has won a Grand Slam Tourney title every year
* since.
It *is* a shame. I've gone through a great deal of money trying to find
a racquet that I like even nearly as much as my one single solitary Pro
Staff 85--and I don't even have the St. Vincent model, I've got one that
was made a few years ago in Taiwan.
To anyone hoping that the Pro Staff "Original" 6.0 (the new one) will do
the trick: don't waste your money. I've had five of them, and I'd sell
the last one if someone would buy it from me. (C-H-E-A-P. E-mail me if
interested. Brand new condition.)
The PS Original 95 is not a bad-feeling frame, IMO. I just break the
damned things like crazy.
* Inexplicably, Wilson closed the St. Vincent production facility (where the
* Pro Staff was made) a few years ago, feeling that its new Profile (remember
* that $250 piece of rubbish?) was the future of its racket marketing
* division. When the Profile bombed, Wilson came out with the Hammer and the
* Sledge Hammer and the Ball Peen Hammer, trying to seduce the recreational
* tennis segment into trading "up" for a newer technology racket at least
* once a year. ("Can't hit a backhand? Overhead got you down? BUY an
* improved game with our new Slicer/Dicer X-tra Long!!)
The way I was hitting today, that's a pretty tempting marketing pitch...
...except that quitting the game seemed like a better idea, at least on
the ride home (I was playing a doubles tournament with a Head Prestige
Tour 300 that ABSOLUTELY SUCKS as a volley frame, and against some 2nd
round opponents who needed to win so badly that they cheated and used
extreme gamesmanship to do it. Not only that, but one of them ripped off
some equipment and a pager from my bag. I'm so sick of the human scum
you can meet in competitive tennis, I tell you).
* [...the rest of a very articulate rant, deleted to save space...]
* So don't be misled by racket salespeople who insist that the 1996
* *original* Pro Staff is the same thing that was created in 1984. It ain't.
* And it's a crying shame.
*
* Those are just a few of my thoughts about the complicity of racket
* companies in the declining numbers of tennis players. Don't get me
* started.
Actually, I'd like to hear it. Beats a Jay Kim monologue by a mile.
Richard
--
President Bob Dole: Rubber stamp for Newt "Let them eat cake" Gingrich
Yu Cheuk Kuen
:
:
: >>I'm looking for prostaff 85 originals.
My friend has one real original Pro Staff. I played it and I like it.
I then bought this new original Pro Staff and the feel is completely
different. I compared the two, new and old, and only felt sorry about
the new one.
: old ones. I'm not sure exactly why, but hold one of each in your hands and
Byron Rakitzis
Brad Holbrook <tenn...@nyc.pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>So don't be misled by racket salespeople who insist that the 1996
>*original* Pro Staff is the same thing that was created in 1984. It ain't.
> And it's a crying shame.
>
>Those are just a few of my thoughts about the complicity of racket
>companies in the declining numbers of tennis players. Don't get me
>started.
I loved your post. I bought 3 Pro Staffs before they were discontinued
(about 4-5 years ago now) figuring I would need to hold on to them for
a while, and I am glad I did. Now, I don't know how different they are
from the '84 model; I have heard that even the original model varied
somewhat from year to year.
The new "original" even looks different from the old one, maybe it's
*slightly* wider? And they also come in two headsizes, if I'm not
mistaken, the original head-size, and one slightly larger original head
size :-)
This is really a fine racquet. I refused and continue to refuse to play
the widebody game. It's not like I have the power of a Sampras and
could not benefit from a widebody in the power department, but I really
really like the feel of my racquets.
--
Byron Rakitzis Network Appliance
<by...@netapp.com> 319 N. Bernardo
(415) 428-5104 Mountain View, CA 94043
Kirk Leach
original)>, 'dav...@uxmail.ust.hk (Yu Cheuk Kuen)' wrote:
>Brad Holbrook (tenn...@nyc.pipeline.com) wrote:
>:
>:
>: >>I'm looking for prostaff 85 originals.
>: >>Please reply for any good deals.
later, bogus, models snipped>
Speaking of using older model racquets, I'd love to hear about anyone who
still uses a relic as their primary weapon. I still use a Dunlop Black
Max, a model that I started using in 1981 (as a successor to a Wilson T2000
- anybody still use one of those?!!).
I have tried the oversized, thick-framed racquets, but my game suffered
terribly.
Charles Lin
|| This is really a fine racquet. I refused and continue to refuse to play
|| the widebody game. It's not like I have the power of a Sampras and
|| could not benefit from a widebody in the power department, but I really
|| really like the feel of my racquets.
I have been using a widebody for the past year or two. I changed
because I wanted to add more power to my game. However, I must admit
that it can be a bit tough to control. I was using an aluminum
regular width racquet, and could really swing quite hard and keep the
ball in play. In fact, I had to swing quite hard to generate a
decent amount of pace. With the widebody, I have to be careful
about that because it is harder to control. I think part of it
is technique. That is, if I had better technique, it wouldn't
be such a problem. The other part is the racquet itself. Although
I like the feel of my racquet, and will probably keep it for quite
a while, I am tempted to go to a thinner racquet for my next
racquet.
--
Charles Lin
cl...@cs.umd.edu
GopalNatarajan
>Tour 300 that ABSOLUTELY SUCKS
Hard to believe, concidering that something like 25 out of the top 100
players are using it.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gopal Natarajan phone: (404) 206-1451 ||
334713 Georgia Tech Station ||
Atlanta, Ga. 30332-1580 e-mail: gt4...@prism.gatech.edu ||
||
URL: http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt4713c/ ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---Sir Psycho Saxy---
"Hey, you know what dey say. See
broad to get dat booty action, jus
lay 'er down 'n smakum-yackum!
Oh, got ta be! Sheeeiit!"
Jive Dudes from "Airplane"
Richard Huddleston
* >(I was playing a doubles tournament with a Head Prestige
* >Tour 300 that ABSOLUTELY SUCKS
*
* Hard to believe, concidering that something like 25 out of the top 100
* players are using it.
Of course, Copal, with your selective editing you have a point.
If you put back in what I really said, however--which is that the
racquet is less than ideal, IMO, as a volley frame--then you do
not have a point.
Dan N. Bernardo
|> On Apr 21, 1996 09:04:54 in article <Re: Racket rant rag (RE: Pro Staff
|> original)>, 'dav...@uxmail.ust.hk (Yu Cheuk Kuen)' wrote:
|>
|> Speaking of using older model racquets, I'd love to hear about anyone who
|> still uses a relic as their primary weapon. I still use a Dunlop Black
|> Max, a model that I started using in 1981 (as a successor to a Wilson T2000
|> - anybody still use one of those?!!).
I started using the Head Arthur Ashe Competition I in the late 70s. When
production of that model was discontinued, I switched to the Competition
III, which I still use.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan N. Bernardo | The opinions expressed
bern...@think.com | herein are not those of
http://www.think.com/users/bernardo/ | Thinking Machines Corporation.
Kimmo Kuusela
> My friend has one real original Pro Staff. I played it and I like it.
> I then bought this new original Pro Staff and the feel is completely
> different. I compared the two, new and old, and only felt sorry about
> the new one.
What is the difference in the following specifications:
- weight
- balance
- stiffness
- vibration
- visible differences
-- K.K.
Kimmo Kuusela
> a racquet that I like even nearly as much as my one single solitary Pro
> Staff 85--and I don't even have the St. Vincent model, I've got one that
> was made a few years ago in Taiwan.
Are there visible differences between your "Taiwanese" model and the current
6.0?
-- K.K.
Dai Feng
> tenn...@nyc.pipeline.com (Brad Holbrook) wrote:
> *
> * they introduced in 1984 and has won a Grand Slam Tourney title every year
> * since.
> It *is* a shame. I've gone through a great deal of money trying to find
> a racquet that I like even nearly as much as my one single solitary Pro
> Staff 85--and I don't even have the St. Vincent model, I've got one that
> was made a few years ago in Taiwan.
>
original original? This starts to sound confusing. What I mean to ask
is that you think the PS Original 85 now being made in China is not as
good as the old one made many years ago in Taiwan and the even older
one made in Sr. Vincent? I wonder what could be the difference if the
design, material and manufacturing process are the same (at least I
hope they are the same)? The first PS 6.0 I played with was from a
friend who has had it for a loooong time. It was old and beat up and
had different lettering on the frame than the new one I have. I don't
remember it being very different from the new ones. Can you elaborate
on what you think is the difference?
Also, do you think the racquets Sampras and Peirce used to win the
Wimbldon and AO last year were not the new original? From the
pictures Peice's racquet looks very much like the new one.
Anyway, I am thouroghly enjoying my _new_ PS Original. It is a way
better racquet than then the Hammer 5.0 and Yonnex RD-7 I had (I am
only speaking for myself here, and not making any general judgement on
the mention racquets).
Dai
Ron Yu
sampras, as always, is still using the st. vincent model this year, while
pierce has been toying with a new stick. at least she was down at lipton
(she was practicing a lot!!). one of my good friends, tom parry(director
of racket services at bollettieri, and on the babolat competition string
team), is pretty close to mary. we were in the hotel down in miami after
a tough day of stringing, and at 1 in the morning mary gives a call to
the room, so tom has to drive 3 rackets over to her!! well, from what i
saw, her rackets looked like head prestige tours that were painted all
black. i'm not totally sure, but you could always get in touch with tom
down at bollettieri if you're super interested. just tell him ron yu
sent you! :-)
as for the differences in the st. vincent models and the newer ones. the
difference is the stiffness. the st. vincent models had the graphite
braided differently so they came out slightly stiffer than the later
models. not that the st. vincents are superior, they just feel
different. i'm sure that some people prefer the new ones to the old
ones. for the pros though, when you've played day in and day out for
years with the same racket, its kind of disconcerting to switch from
what's been working well for years. thus, the scramble for the st. vincents.
interestingly, babolat makes a racket available in europe(though not in
the u.s.) that is braided like the old st. vincents. i was able to see
these down at the lipton and they looked pretty good. same head size and
shape as the head prestige tour. same string pattern and stiffness as
the st. vincent pro staff. i didn't get a chance to hit with it, but we
got some good feedback from some of the players who took it out for a
spin( arnaud boetsch, javiar sanchez, tim henman). too bad you can't get
these in the u.s., i'm sure some of you out there might like it. babolat
just figures that there's no way they can compete here against prince,
wilson, and head. if any of you try to find a way to get one, its known
as the "babolat pure control." they have a couple of other models, but i
wasn't too impressed by them. certainly not worth noting. luckily, i
have a couple of pure controls in my closet!! :-) i just don't know if
i'm ready to switch sticks after 9 years.
-ron yu
BABOLAT COMPETITION STRING TEAM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"if you understand everything, you're obviously misinformed."
youn...@acsu.buffalo.edu
>
> > It *is* a shame. I've gone through a great deal of money trying to find
> > a racquet that I like even nearly as much as my one single solitary Pro
> > Staff 85--and I don't even have the St. Vincent model, I've got one that
> > was made a few years ago in Taiwan.
>
> 6.0?
>
> -- K.K.
I have a Prostaff 85 which I've been using since 1985. I didn't buy
extra
Prostaffs for a while because I figured that there had to be new and
better
successors. I never expected the new raquets to go the way of brutish
widebody-style. I then realized that Prostaff Orig. 85 was to be THE
classic
which would never truly be replace by any other raquet.
But then the raquet was discontinued before I knew it (I heard one of the
reasons was that it was too expensive to manufacture). I desparately
waited
for its successor to no avail.
When the new batch of the Prostaff Orig. 85s - made in Taiwan - came out,
I
went ahead and bought one; but I was soon disappointed. I also tried the
China-model -- again to my dismay. They are very different from the
'real'
original.
The following are my observation of the discrepancies:
1. USA-made (St. Vincent??): my weapon of choice, well-balanced
2. Taiwan-made: my backup; rounder edges; shorter grip area (making the
whole
raquet shorter by about 1/4 inch); similar weight but different swing
weight;
bit softer; lacks punch; etc.
((I had to apply some lead tapes to make it behave similarly.))
3. China-made: substantially similar looks & dimensions; seems lighter;
faster
swing speed; head area lacks muscle & punch; accuracy is suspect; etc.
((I had to apply lots of lead tapes to make it behave similarly.))
I'm not even sure my USA-model is the same as the "St.Vincent" model.
I've
also noticed even that model is a bit different in cosmetics & whatever
to
subsequently manufactured Prostaff Orig. 85s.
I'm thinking about putting a local want-ad for the 'real' originals. I
think
I'll know what characteristics to look for to locate the true classics.
Young W. Kim
Mihail Iotov
>
> In article <4lcfne$k...@exp8.wam.umd.edu>, r...@wam.umd.edu (Richard Huddleston) writes:
> > tenn...@nyc.pipeline.com (Brad Holbrook) wrote:
> > *
> > * they introduced in 1984 and has won a Grand Slam Tourney title every year
> > * since.
> >
> > It *is* a shame. I've gone through a great deal of money trying to find
> > a racquet that I like even nearly as much as my one single solitary Pro
> > Staff 85--and I don't even have the St. Vincent model, I've got one that
> > was made a few years ago in Taiwan.
> >
> original original? This starts to sound confusing. What I mean to ask
> is that you think the PS Original 85 now being made in China is not as
> good as the old one made many years ago in Taiwan and the even older
> one made in Sr. Vincent? I wonder what could be the difference if the
> design, material and manufacturing process are the same (at least I
> hope they are the same)? The first PS 6.0 I played with was from a
> friend who has had it for a loooong time. It was old and beat up and
> had different lettering on the frame than the new one I have. I don't
> remember it being very different from the new ones. Can you elaborate
> on what you think is the difference?
>
> Also, do you think the racquets Sampras and Peirce used to win the
> Wimbldon and AO last year were not the new original? From the
> pictures Peice's racquet looks very much like the new one.
>
> Anyway, I am thouroghly enjoying my _new_ PS Original. It is a way
> better racquet than then the Hammer 5.0 and Yonnex RD-7 I had (I am
> only speaking for myself here, and not making any general judgement on
> the mention racquets).
>
> Dai
Can someone please describe the difference between the RD-8 and the RD-7 ? Lots
of women pro use RD-7 apparently with Date using RD-8. The RD-8 must be one of
the lightest racquets available.
Wilson also has a racquet called Pro Staff 7.0 Lite Classic which has
Graff's signature of approval on it, yet according to a local pro shop guy
this is not a "performance" racquet at all.
"perform
Mark Cheers
This is interesting. I had heard the same thing, so I called Wilson
Sporting Good in Chicago (I think) and asked them about it. I
specifically asked about the Wilson Pro Staff box frame original, that
was popular in the mid-80's. The rep on the phone assured me that it
was still in production. I pressed him again and made sure we were
talking about the same Edberg-esque racquet. He said yes, they've
never stopped making it. He said it was part T5914.
So I don't know what to think.
Cheers,
Mark
Richard Huddleston
Ron Yu <r...@kynda.isye.gatech.edu> wrote:
* [...Ron's usual information-rich posting...]
*
* interestingly, babolat makes a racket available in europe(though not in
* the u.s.) that is braided like the old st. vincents. i was able to see
* these down at the lipton and they looked pretty good. same head size and
* shape as the head prestige tour. same string pattern and stiffness as
* the st. vincent pro staff. i didn't get a chance to hit with it, but we
* got some good feedback from some of the players who took it out for a
* spin( arnaud boetsch, javiar sanchez, tim henman). too bad you can't get
* these in the u.s., i'm sure some of you out there might like it. babolat
* just figures that there's no way they can compete here against prince,
* wilson, and head. if any of you try to find a way to get one, its known
* as the "babolat pure control."
Well now, of course, I simply *must* have 3-5 of these babies. Sounds
like my dream frame. 4 5/8 grip size, if any dealer selling them wants
to get in touch with me via e-mail. (But hurry; I'll be moving in about
4-6 weeks.)
Anyone in the U.S. ever manage to get a Babolat frame, or know how to
go about it? I guess I could just get in touch with Babolat directly...
Brad Holbrook
In article <317fab00...@153.77.4.5>, Mark Cheers writes:
>
>This is interesting. I had heard the same thing, so I called Wilson
>Sporting Good in Chicago (I think) and asked them about it. I
>specifically asked about the Wilson Pro Staff box frame original, that
>was popular in the mid-80's. The rep on the phone assured me that it
>was still in production. I pressed him again and made sure we were
>talking about the same Edberg-esque racquet. He said yes, they've
>never stopped making it. He said it was part T5914.
>
>So I don't know what to think.
>
lying through his teeth at worst.
It's interesting that, more and more, Wilson is starting to feel the
negative repercusions of their decision to cancel the PS production line.
It took a few years, but I'm encouraged by the response I've seen here in
r.s.t. Actually the owners of Wilson, a Finnish company, didn't own Wilson
in 1984 (the short lived era of the original Pro Staff) and I'm not sure if
the new company actually had any hand in bringing about its demise.
Wouldn't it be great for us original PS fans if they got smart and <really>
manufactured that gem of a racket once again. The idea they try to pass
off the faux PS original as <the> original is insulting beyond belief.