Hi!

I recently found out there's an old Jack Kramer frame in my house so (obviously) the very first thing I did was hit the court with it. Ground strokes were no problem at all, I was really impressed when I found the sweet spot. It made me feel like a better player. It did feel like the frame was going to crack anytime.

Then of course I realized all of the things I find difficult to do with my regular frame were almost impossible with the Jack Kramer.

Still, a pretty cool experience.

I'm surprised that that Federer's K Factor isn't on there. But then again, the acticle was in February and the K Six-One Tour has really picked up since then. On top of that, if we're talking about rackets throughout history, then this one still has a few years before we can make an accurate assessment(aside from sales).

Memories of rackets gone by:

Dunlop Maxply Fort-the most beautiful racket ever made-paintbrush of Evonne Goolagong Cawley
Wilson T-2000 (and 3000)-incredibly powerful for its time-J.S. Connors' workhorse
Wilson Jack Kramer-as classic as its namesake
Arthur Ashe Competition-revolutionary and flawed, forerunner of new technologies
Donnay Borg Pro-long grip didn't convince me to give up a one-hander

Thanks for the walk down tennis memory lane of over 30 years and counting

It seems whenever racquets are being mentioned there is always one being left out. In order to talk about all the frames we've come to love maybe we should just come out with an all-racquet issue. This way we can have categories for everything, we love to make lists and put things in an agreeable order. It's the little control we have in life. There should be 1)frames that changed the game from a technological standpoint (woody, ashe compitetion, graphite, speedport, ect.. )where the frame leads towards a trend of new types of racquets. 2)best playing frames of all time (maybe subsections for oversize, tweeners, midplus, and midsize. 3)most popular frames of all time (ones you see on the court everywhere regardless of skill level.) And my personal favorite; heritage racquets. There as a few special frames that find a way to constantly reinvent themselves, mostly because of the popularity of a few dominant players but sometimes they're just that good of a frame. We could look at the prince graphites, head radical and prestiges, the wilson pro staff and 6.1's , the dunlop 200's and I would assume that pesky babolat pure drive line is going to be hanging around. That in itself coule probably take up way more than one issue but I thinkg we'd all love to hear as much as possible about these beloved racquets, even if we'll never master using them. Thanks

Nice job in listing the significant racquets of the modern era.
Good point made about the Prince Pro - but as a player from the wood days - I don't see any really serious omissions.
Only thing about the Borg Pro - he played with the similar Donnay All Wood for most of his French and Wimbledon titles.
Ah! Mac and the old Max 200G - it seemed then like a halfway house between the woods and the graphites.
Philippoussis served with a wood racquet a few years ago in Australia and was only two mph slower than with his graphite frame. So it's not totally a night and day difference.

I LOVE playing with wooden racquets! Where can I find one of these??

I am suprised that the Head Prestige did not make the list

Hmm. Shouldn't it be `The GROAT' rather than `The GOAT Racquet'? ;)

"My second serve wouldn't even be acceptable for the WTA"--OUCH!
I know a couple of top junior players who regularly practice with an old Maxply that is freshly strung. They still crush the ball with it. It really emphasizes to me that despite the huge physical benefits of the modern rackets, the changes in technique since the 70's (kinetic chain, etc.) have had a huge impact as well.
I agree that the Prince graphite oversize has to be included.

I play regularly with the Wilson ProStaff 85 and the wood Dunlop Maxply McEnroe. Apart from the playability factors mentioned of wood vs. metal/composite/graphite etc., and the serve speeds not varying much (mostly true), there are a couple of other striking differences:

the return-of-serve suffers distinctly, especially at advanced-level play

the arm tires much quicker if one is going for heavy spin on ground-strokes (unless one is Borg, I suppose!)

(Ryan, you can try ebay and woodtennis.com)

people should forget about the wooden raquets..they're gone and never coming back!
the other thing i dislike is photographers using them in photo/fashion shoots.come on who's using a wooden rquet today?!

The Wilson Profile 2.7 should be included as Wilson started the widebody revolution by licensing Siegfried Kuebler's patent and producing this frame in the late 1980s. For recreational players, the revolutionary effect of the widebody frame was rivaled only by that of the oversize Prince frame.

Hi Jon, I seem to remember reading a piece a while ago (possibly on this site) in which Kuznetsova was handed a wooden racket and claimed she could beat some of the WTA players with it. Also what about that Yonex butterfly net that Martina used to beat Chris with in the 80s? It always seemed to me that Martina should have been obliged to wear a floor length Victorian tennis dress just to even the odds against Chris and her little wooden paddle.

I learnt to play with a wooden racquet in the 80s and then moved to a Head Professional. A few years ago I played match with a wooden racquet again and it felt great. I would switch to a "standard" head size if they were regularly available.

I dislike the overall tone of the article. The journalist writes as if "This is all you can get. If you don't like it, then don't read it".
I think this subject deserved a more enthusiastic writer, perhaps someone with more love to the tennis heritage.

Some people are missing the point as to the significance of the original Prince Classic racquet. The point is that it was the first oversized racquet that would revolutionize the game...just like Roger Bannister was the first to break the 4 minute mile or Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier. I bought a Prince Classic on eBay sometime back for it's historical value and not it's playability. I did grow up in the 80's playing with the Prince Oversize and Midsize graphites that are classics in themselves.

It's a shame premium wood racquets like the Maxply Fort and Wilson Jack Kramer Prostaff are no longer manufactured. There is no modern substitute for the flex and feel of a nice wood racquet. It's obvious detractors of wood racquets have no clue what that is.

I really like your comments about the Donnay Borg Pro, because a couple of months ago, I tried again, for half an hour with one old (but still almost new) Jack Kramer Autograph. I fully enjoyed the wood disvantages that you describe and forced me to be more "technical". By the way, I have played with five of the "top ten" rackets of the list. When I started to play, in Chile, at 13, I used to play with a Dunlop Maxply Fort; then I switched to the Head Arthur Ashe. In my senior High School year, I went to the States (NC) and played with a Donnay Borg Pro. Then, after I came back to my home country, I switched again, this time to the "woody" Wilson Jack Kramer Autograph. After I started university, had to stop playing tennis due to a very bad and painfull rotator injury. Now, almost 25 years later, I took tennis back, and I'm playing with a Babolat Pure Drive (plus). But, after all this time and changes, I still think that the most playable and enjoyable racket is that old artisans piece of art, the Jack Kramer Autograph.

Nelson,

Are you referring to the actual article in TENNIS magazine? Or this post?

I agree with Nelson that the article's depth and tone is disappointing for what should be a fascinating topic.

(Also it would be nice to know the NTRP rating of the writer, because that makes all the difference! He'd better be at least 4.0, otherwise all his comments are pretty pointless.)

Just want to add one thing... the Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 85 has won a TON of Grand Slams... Sampras + Courier + Edberg + Federer (until he switched). Not too shabby...

And when Sampras played Federer at Wimbledon, I believe they both had the same racket... the Pro Staff 6.0 85.

The prostaff 6.0 85 IS the n six one tour 90, which itself is the same as the k factor 90 thing that federer uses now

Deb,

The Prostaff 6.0 85 is not the n six one tour 90, nor is it the K factor 90.
The K factor Prostaff, with an 88 sq inch racquet head, will be on sale very soon, and that is the true successor to the 6.0 85.
It is true that Sampras play-tested the prototype and so the racquet is really according to his preferred specs, but the same can be said of the K factor 90, which was developed according to Federer's preferences.
The K Prostaff 88 is probably the closest successor to the 6.0 85.

Perhaps not a revolutionary design (as far as I know, used only by its namesake pro) the wooden Vilas signature racquet by Head was a nod to the future with its split shaft and laminated head weight. Beautiful, head heavy and capable of generating significant power. Vilas used to add additional lead tape. It was too much for my more ordinary arm and I switched to the MaxPly Fort.

Not much to say...

But... my favorite Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 95 for me the all rounder.

I have nice memories of my old Wilson Maxply McEnroe... the edge of wood...

Have a nice day.

About the photo, I don't know if anybody remember how hard Bjorn Borg had hi racquets stringed, 80lbs And his coach used to walk on the to feel if it was hard enought or not. Imagine a wood frame 80 pounds,

Zzzzzzzzz....

Someone wake me up when I'm done reading this.

What should have been an interesting topic was made painfully boring by someone with no writing skill.