Wilson Pro-Staff Classic 6.1 si for sale
Steve Barnard
Radhakrishna Hegde wrote:
>
> I am selling a Wilson Pro-Staff Classic 6.1si, 95 Sq inch head size,
> Tennis racket, 4 3/8 grip, fully strung. The racket is approx 10 months old
> and has been used about 6-7 times. The asking price is $80. This racket
> retails for $165.
>
> Please contact Krishna at (408) 447-3181 or ra...@cup.hp.com for details.
Good deal. Not my grip size, though, and I use the Stretch.
Steve Barnard
Radhakrishna Hegde
Hieu Dovan
I'd like some review on the Classic 6.1 si vs. the Stretch model. I've demoed
both and like both. Pro's & con's? How about tennis elbow? Thanks.
/Hieu/
Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
David Hoye
Hieu Dovan (hvd...@ucdavis.edu) writes:
> I'd like some review on the Classic 6.1 si vs. the Stretch model. I've demoed
> both and like both. Pro's & con's? How about tennis elbow? Thanks.
The Stretch has a slightly longer string bed, so there's a bit more give
in the strings. I've recently tried them both out, and can say that the
Stretch has a little bit more power and, I suspect due to the longer
strings, feel. It's harder to move around, though, and doesn't have quite
the same sharp crisp feel that's made the regular-length Classic so popular.
They're both very good racquets, so it really depends on what you want.
Serves are a bit stronger overall with the stretch, but you can't whip the
groundstrokes or the spin on the serves as quickly if that's what you like
to do.
For someone with fast, whippy strokes that involve a lot of brushing the
ball, I'd recommend the regular-length Classic. For people with flatter,
more conservative strokes I'd go with the Stretch. Serve-and-volleyers
should probably try them both out to see if the extra reach outweighs the
extra swing weight or not.
I suspect that last bit varies from person to person, depending on wrist
strength and so on.
Either way, I'd only recommend this stick to an accomplished player. It's
a precision tool: not very forgiving to the uninitiated, but rewarding in the
hands of a craftsman.
--
Mike Hoye
Donal Fagan
In article <5lg5vv$a...@vesuri.Helsinki.FI>, reis...@cc.helsinki.fi says...
>>I've recently tried them both out, and can say that the
>>Stretch has a little bit more power and, I suspect due to the longer
>>strings, feel.
>Maybe the stretch has some more power because it's streched. My guess is
>that your demo version had sloppy strings too.
My 6.1 Stretch with a recent synthetic gut stringing was definitely more
powerful than the Classic 6.1 with older stringing. On all strokes.
>>It's harder to move around, though, and doesn't have quite the same
>>sharp crisp feel that's made the regular-length Classic so popular.
I do miss that crispness; it's my only disappointment, though a minor one,
with the Stretch.
Donal Fagan
Predrag Rakic
David Hoye wrote:
> I was unaware that there was a difference between the North American and
> European frame drilling. I wouldn't think so, though, since they're all
> manufactured in pretty much the same place.
>
> --
> Mike Hoye
There is. I checked with the Tennis warehouse.
Regards, Predrag
David Hoye
Juhani Reissell (reis...@cc.helsinki.fi) writes:
> bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (David Hoye) writes:
>
>>The Stretch has a slightly longer string bed, so there's a bit more give
>>in the strings.
>
> I wonder how significant this is. Haven't seen or tried out the stretch,
> but I do know that the stretch has more strings in it than the (US
> version) of the non-stretched classic. This usually should result in
> _less_ trampolining, a more solid feeling string-bed. Me thinks you're
> seeing the effect of lower string tension, different string quality or
> the phase of the moon.
Same string, same tension. Same afternoon too, and it didn't feel like any
cosmic forces were aligning to thwart me.
I calls it like I sees it.
>>I've recently tried them both out, and can say that the
>>Stretch has a little bit more power and, I suspect due to the longer
>>strings, feel.
>
> Maybe the stretch has some more power because it's streched.
My, that's quite the leap.
>>It's harder to move around, though, and doesn't have quite
>>the same sharp crisp feel that's made the regular-length Classic so popular.
>
> Lead tape the swing weights of the classic shorty (European version, with
> more string) and the classic stretch to approx the same and you should
> have pretty similar frames. Pretty good ones too. Better spin with the
> strech, I'd guess.
Woody Jin
In article <337CA7...@compuserve.com>, Predrag Rakic <"102032,3150"@compuserve.com> wrote:
>David Hoye wrote:
>
>> I was unaware that there was a difference between the North American and
>> European frame drilling. I wouldn't think so, though, since they're all
>> manufactured in pretty much the same place.
>
>There is. I checked with the Tennis warehouse.
As far as I know there is no difference.
I was also told that European version has one more main (or cross),
and that Corretja was using European version. But I actually
counted the number of mains and crosses of Corretja's racket,
compared the string pattern from the TV recording (his matches) with mine
(PS 6.1 - should be NA version if there is such), but there was absolutely
no difference.
>
>Regards, Predrag
--
Woody Jin
Juhani Reissell
bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (David Hoye) writes:
>The Stretch has a slightly longer string bed, so there's a bit more give
>in the strings.
I wonder how significant this is. Haven't seen or tried out the stretch,
but I do know that the stretch has more strings in it than the (US
version) of the non-stretched classic. This usually should result in
_less_ trampolining, a more solid feeling string-bed. Me thinks you're
seeing the effect of lower string tension, different string quality or
the phase of the moon.
>I've recently tried them both out, and can say that the
>Stretch has a little bit more power and, I suspect due to the longer
>strings, feel.
Maybe the stretch has some more power because it's streched. My guess is
that your demo version had sloppy strings too.
>It's harder to move around, though, and doesn't have quite
>the same sharp crisp feel that's made the regular-length Classic so popular.
Lead tape the swing weights of the classic shorty (European version, with
more string) and the classic stretch to approx the same and you should
have pretty similar frames. Pretty good ones too. Better spin with the
strech, I'd guess.
>They're both very good racquets, so it really depends on what you want.
>Serves are a bit stronger overall with the stretch, but you can't whip the
>groundstrokes or the spin on the serves as quickly if that's what you like
>to do.
>For someone with fast, whippy strokes that involve a lot of brushing the
>ball, I'd recommend the regular-length Classic. For people with flatter,
>more conservative strokes I'd go with the Stretch. Serve-and-volleyers
>should probably try them both out to see if the extra reach outweighs the
>extra swing weight or not.
>I suspect that last bit varies from person to person, depending on wrist
>strength and so on.
So do I.
>Either way, I'd only recommend this stick to an accomplished player. It's
>a precision tool: not very forgiving to the uninitiated, but rewarding in the
>hands of a craftsman.
I wouldn't know.
jussi
Kimmo Kuusela
wj...@cs.uh.edu (Woody Jin) wrote:
>I was also told that European version has one more main (or cross),
>and that Corretja was using European version. But I actually
>counted the number of mains and crosses of Corretja's racket,
>compared the string pattern from the TV recording (his matches) with mine
>(PS 6.1 - should be NA version if there is such), but there was absolutely
>no difference.
No, Corretja plays with PS 4.2. As far as I know, PS 4.2 has never been
available in Europe.
PS 6.1 (normal length) has string pattern 18/20 in Europe, and 16/18 in
America.
-- K.K.
Woody Jin
In article <3382aa5...@news.utu.fi>, ki...@utu.fi (Kimmo Kuusela) wrote:
>wj...@cs.uh.edu (Woody Jin) wrote:
>
>>I was also told that European version has one more main (or cross),
>>and that Corretja was using European version. But I actually
>>counted the number of mains and crosses of Corretja's racket,
>>compared the string pattern from the TV recording (his matches) with mine
>>(PS 6.1 - should be NA version if there is such), but there was absolutely
>>no difference.
>
>No, Corretja plays with PS 4.2. As far as I know, PS 4.2 has never been
>available in Europe.
He was using 6.1 during the US-Open 96.
I know that he switched to 4.2, and I don't know exactly when.
--
Woody Jin