PDA

View Full Version : Head Pro Tour 630 vs Völkl C10


galain
04-28-2008, 02:13 AM
I know there are fans of both on these boards. I've been using a 630 for the last little while and have been enjoying it more than anything I've hit with in recent memory. I'd like to get another but the asking price for them is getting a bit ridiculous - especially considering they're almost always used - and with the new C10 out now I thought I'd ask the question to see if anyone can give me a quick comparison of the two.

The c10 seems to be the 'other' classic flexy frame -albeit with an open string pattern - but if they're new and readily available and similar to the 630 in play I might stock up.

Thanks in advance

Ross K
04-28-2008, 04:10 AM
GALAIN, EVERYONE,

I'd also like to hear how they match up.

nickb
04-28-2008, 04:17 AM
GALAIN, EVERYONE,

I'd also like to hear how they match up.

Ross,

I will be getting a C10 sometime this week in a trade!

Will let you know what I think...

Nick

Rabbit
04-28-2008, 04:22 AM
I played with the Head for a brief period. A couple of buddies of mine had them and were just ga ga about them. It was a good racket, but I remember that I just never could square the head on that frame. I never got used to it.

Pro_Tour_630
04-28-2008, 10:18 AM
they are close in a way in terms of feel and flex and somewhat similar grip shape but it stops here. The PT630 is more stable due to CAPS/denser string pattern IMO but more gauge sensitive, while the C10 volleys better and is tension sensitive. The head shape is very different which as a Head user could not adjust too. The same thing can be said about Volkl users how they can not adjust to HEAD. One thing for sure you can get the Yellow C10 pros new and stock up but it is harder to do so with the PT630,

galain
04-29-2008, 09:05 PM
Thanks for the replies boys. I've never had that much trouble adjusting from one company to the other. I played for some years with the C7 Classic (the red and yellow one) and then most recently moved from the Cat 10 to the PT 630 with little trouble.

Bumping this 'coz I'm sure more folks have had experience with both.

jxs653
04-29-2008, 09:31 PM
In my humble opinion, PT280 has more muted feel, while C10 Pro has more lively feel. Between the two, I liked the C10 Pro (and also C10 Pro Tour) better.

Deuce
04-29-2008, 10:28 PM
Thanks for the replies boys. I've never had that much trouble adjusting from one company to the other. I played for some years with the C7 Classic (the red and yellow one) and then most recently moved from the Cat 10 to the PT 630 with little trouble.

I've played with the Pro Tour 280 on and off for close to 10 years. It's a racquet I keep coming back to. I even re-bought a couple after having sold them. The only thing I'm not crazy about with it is the headsize. I've long said that what I'd really like is a Pro Tour with an 89.5 sq. in. head.
It's not the best volleying racquet around, but it's adequate. And it's hard to find a better frame from the baseline.

I, too, quite liked the Catapult 10, with its 'old style' feel. In giving it a couple of fairly thorough tests, I saw that with some significant weight added, it could be a very nice racquet.
But the C10 never did anything for me. I tried it only once, and was expecting really good things. I'd heard what a sweet and flexible feel it had - and that's my kind of thing - but after hitting with it for 15 minutes or so, I put it down, unimpressed. It wasn't terrible or anything - it just didn't do anything for me. To me, it seemed an average racquet, nothing more.

galain
04-30-2008, 03:15 AM
Thanks fellas.

You raise some interesting points. The C10 I hit with felt a little less flexible than my 630 - which I thought was surprising. It certainly felt different to the Cat10 - which I still do like very much, but the denser string pattern of the PT suits my game a lot better. I could always get the Cat 10 to do pretty much all I wanted it to, but the PT seems to have raised my confidence to a new level with the control I can get.

Just a shame they"ve been hyped to hell and cost far more than they're worth now.

Ross K
04-30-2008, 04:32 AM
Anyone find one more powerful than the other?

rorschack
04-30-2008, 07:44 AM
I've played with the Pro Tour 280 on and off for close to 10 years. It's a racquet I keep coming back to. I even re-bought a couple after having sold them. The only thing I'm not crazy about with it is the headsize. I've long said that what I'd really like is a Pro Tour with an 89.5 sq. in. head.
It's not the best volleying racquet around, but it's adequate. And it's hard to find a better frame from the baseline.

I, too, quite liked the Catapult 10, with its 'old style' feel. In giving it a couple of fairly thorough tests, I saw that with some significant weight added, it could be a very nice racquet.
But the C10 never did anything for me. I tried it only once, and was expecting really good things. I'd heard what a sweet and flexible feel it had - and that's my kind of thing - but after hitting with it for 15 minutes or so, I put it down, unimpressed. It wasn't terrible or anything - it just didn't do anything for me. To me, it seemed an average racquet, nothing more.

With regard to volleying with the PT280, are you referring to the actual PT280 or the PT630? Because the PT630 is too flexible and light to volley well, whereas the PT280 is noticeably stiffer AND heavier which allows you to volley a notch better. If it's too head heavy for you, then perhaps add some lead tape at the buttcap and bring it up to 8 points head light. It's normally around 4-6 points headlight strung with full CAP.

galain
04-30-2008, 09:30 AM
I volley just as well with my PT as I have with anything else I've used and I play the net a lot - never noticed any deficiencies there....

Ross - I thought the C10 was a fair bit more lively than the 630 - more jump off the strings and more power I think. Let me know if you want to part with yours, okay??

Chauvalito
04-30-2008, 09:42 AM
As PT 630 mentioned one of the advantages of the PT is its greater stability in the head due to CAP gromets.

IMO I think I have solved thr poblem. With little modifications the CAP like grommets from the Tour 10 Gen II will fit the C10.

The result is an extremly stable and powerful racket, if you want to bludgeon the ball with the C10, you should consider this an option.

Mind you, you must be good enough to get the racket around, as the CAP grommets due increase the swingweight of the racket. I have found the adjustment not to be as hard as I thought it was going to be.

Also, volleying manuverability is effected, but with counterwight in the handle, that problem would be solved.

Check out the pictures: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=189204

Chauvalito
04-30-2008, 09:44 AM
they are close in a way in terms of feel and flex and somewhat similar grip shape but it stops here. The PT630 is more stable due to CAPS/denser string pattern IMO but more gauge sensitive, while the C10 volleys better and is tension sensitive. The head shape is very different which as a Head user could not adjust too. The same thing can be said about Volkl users how they can not adjust to HEAD. One thing for sure you can get the Yellow C10 pros new and stock up but it is harder to do so with the PT630,

I know this is just my own experience, but I have not found any difficulty in going from a Volkl like head shape to a HEAD/Dunlop head shape, or even a Prince head shape for that matter.

I would think that for a good enough player, enough time would allow the change to be relatively easy.

Pro_Tour_630
04-30-2008, 10:07 AM
I know this is just my own experience, but I have not found any difficulty in going from a Volkl like head shape to a HEAD/Dunlop head shape, or even a Prince head shape for that matter.

I would think that for a good enough player, enough time would allow the change to be relatively easy.

it has been argued on the boards that if you are a good enough player you can play well with just about anything, go figure :confused:

for me little things bother me, one thing i do not like is the head shape (more oval) of the C10pro that I can not get used which is due to the lowering of the bridge that is a common trait with most volkls, also most of the heft is usually centered around the throat

so the weight distribution between the two are also different,

Klatu Verata Necktie
04-30-2008, 10:19 AM
I've long said that what I'd really like is a Pro Tour with an 89.5 sq. in. head.

Wouldn't that be very similar to the PC600?

Pro_Tour_630
04-30-2008, 10:22 AM
Wouldn't that be very similar to the PC600?

no he means the premier tour :)

Pleepers
04-30-2008, 11:09 AM
Wouldn't that be very similar to the PC600?

My thoughts exactly!

Deuce
04-30-2008, 10:51 PM
Wouldn't that be very similar to the PC600?
No - The Pro Tour and Prestige Classic Mid are very different frames. I have no idea why some people think they are near identical in everything but head size.
The iPrestige Mid is much closer to the Pro Tour than the Prestige Classic Mid is.

no he means the premier tour :)
Not quite.
I had high hopes for the Premier, as it was marketed as the replacement of the Pro Tour, and it was midsized (although it was larger than the Prestige Mids).
Man, was I disappointed when I hit with the Premier. Total garbage.

Pro_Tour_630
05-01-2008, 12:52 PM
No - The Pro Tour and Prestige Classic Mid are very different frames. I have no idea why some people think they are near identical in everything but head size.
The iPrestige Mid is much closer to the Pro Tour than the Prestige Classic Mid is.

.
how is the Pro Tour and Prestige classic Mid so very different? we know the obvious, that you would want a Pro Tour only in 89.5 ? if you mean you are used to a PT280 which does not have a CAP, there are standard non CAPed PC600 which I think is the closest to what you are looking for.

Deuce
05-01-2008, 09:14 PM
how is the Pro Tour and Prestige classic Mid so very different? we know the obvious, that you would want a Pro Tour only in 98.5? if you mean you are used to a PT280 which does not have a CAP, there are standard non CAPed PC600 which I think is the closest to what you are looking for.
So you think that if both the Pro Tour and the Prestige Classic Mid have CAPs, or both don't have CAPs, the only difference is the head size?
You think the Prestige Classic Mid is simply a smaller Pro Tour?
The fact is that they are two different racquets with two different layups.
I don't find them similar at all. I like them both, and I can play with them both. But similar? No.

As I said, to me, the iPrestige Mid is far more similar to the Pro Tour than is the Prestige Classic Mid.

we know the obvious, that you would want a Pro Tour only in 98.5?
Actually, I said I'd like a Pro Tour in an 89.5 sq. in. head size.

Pro_Tour_630
05-02-2008, 07:06 AM
So you think that if both the Pro Tour and the Prestige Classic Mid have CAPs, or both don't have CAPs, the only difference is the head size? well yes in a way, it is an obvious start which the difference in weight is very extreme between the two grommets. we are talking about these frames only not frames from other families like LM, FXP

You think the Prestige Classic Mid is simply a smaller Pro Tour? well yes depending on what you say, do you think an iprestige Mid is simply a smaller PT? if you say yes then yes and if you say no then no

The fact is that they are two different racquets with two different layups.

they both have twaron, can you tell me how is the layup SO different? where the layup of the iprestige mid is so much closer? I do not understand? this is the question

I don't find them similar at all. I like them both, and I can play with them both. But similar? No.

again how is an iprestige mid more similar or closer?


As I said, to me, the iPrestige Mid is far more similar to the Pro Tour than is the Prestige Classic Mid. HOW?!?!?!


.

Deuce you are not answering the question only posting more questions, obviously you have not tried a PC600 with non CAP because they are rare, I have a whole bunch of non caped grommets for PC600 that I will send you one for free and you slap that on a PC600 and see for yourself. not trying to be smart, just trying to help you out on your quest

You are generalizing when it comes to PC mid's, there are many variants as well as many variants to the Pro Tour and few variants of ipestige Mids (rubber and mat) But if you take an austrian PC600 and slap on a brown original non CAP'ed bumper and match the weight and balance to an austrian Pro Tour 280 without the CAPes, yes these two frames will play closer ( I am not saying similar) to one another than your iprestige mid which has CAPs. I have tried them all, one set up I have not tried is an iprestige Mid with non CAPed grommets since the iprestige Mid is very HL to begin with 31cm, it will be 30cm with noncaped bumper, I do not care what the layup is the difference in balance is going to be extreme

Pro_Tour_630
05-02-2008, 08:20 AM
Deuce it would be nice to know what your PT280's (whether austrian, old batch chinese or new batch chinese etc...) exact spec are ie weigh balance SW and possible flex, with what string gauge, tension? type of grip etc...

what are the specs of your dream "89.5" frame you are trying to seek?

it does not have to be exact but as close as possible to what you think you like.

Deuce
05-02-2008, 10:49 PM
When I talk about a frame, 99% of the time, I am referring to the feel of the racquet at impact. Because feel is the most important element to me.

The iPrestige Mid has a similar crispness to the Pro Tour. That is the similarity.
I never said that the iPrestige Mid is like a smaller Pro Tour. I said it was the closest thing to a Pro Tour that I've played with.

The feel of the Prestige Classic Mid(I've hit with a few incarnations of both the Prestige Classic Mid and the Pro Tour 280) - the feel of the Prestige Classic Mid is very different than the feel of the Pro Tour. The Prestige Classic Mid has a noticeably softer feel - more of a 'catching the ball' feel than the Pro Tour, which is more crisp.

As for Twaron, which is a form of Aramid - as is Kevlar - just because both the Prestige Classic Mid and the Pro Tour contain Twaron, it certainly does not mean that the Twaron in both racquets is in the same location within the frame, or in the same amount.
The location and percentage of Twaron is unknown to me (and likely to you, as well) - but I'll bet that the location and percentage is different in the Prestige Classic Mid than it is in the Pro Tour.
Because they feel noticeably different.

Pushmaster
05-03-2008, 05:34 PM
In my humble opinion, PT280 has more muted feel, while C10 Pro has more lively feel. Between the two, I liked the C10 Pro (and also C10 Pro Tour) better.

Same here. I thought the PT 280 was way too muted, couldn't feel the ball at all with it, sold it after one hitting session. I thought the C10 Pro had much more feel and feedback while still retaining that "buttery" quality. Never tried the Tour version but I bet it's pretty sweet.

NLBwell
05-03-2008, 07:52 PM
I played well for years with the PT280, but even though I tried several times to play with a Prestige (up through i.prestige versions) because theoretically it should be a good racket for me and it always felt nice. I would always get killed in matches, even against people I normally beat. Don't know what the difference is, but at least for certain people it can be a huge difference in results.

Pro_Tour_630
05-05-2008, 06:38 AM
When I talk about a frame, 99% of the time, I am referring to the feel of the racquet at impact. Because feel is the most important element to me.

The iPrestige Mid has a similar crispness to the Pro Tour. That is the similarity.
I never said that the iPrestige Mid is like a smaller Pro Tour. I said it was the closest thing to a Pro Tour that I've played with.

The feel of the Prestige Classic Mid(I've hit with a few incarnations of both the Prestige Classic Mid and the Pro Tour 280) - the feel of the Prestige Classic Mid is very different than the feel of the Pro Tour. The Prestige Classic Mid has a noticeably softer feel - more of a 'catching the ball' feel than the Pro Tour, which is more crisp.

As for Twaron, which is a form of Aramid - as is Kevlar - just because both the Prestige Classic Mid and the Pro Tour contain Twaron, it certainly does not mean that the Twaron in both racquets is in the same location within the frame, or in the same amount.
The location and percentage of Twaron is unknown to me (and likely to you, as well) - but I'll bet that the location and percentage is different in the Prestige Classic Mid than it is in the Pro Tour.
Because they feel noticeably different.
Like I said there are many variants of the PT, and the PT630 from austria which were the originals from 1995 were noodle like and very muted. The PT280's that came from the latested Chinese batch were a bit firmer but I would not go as far as saying that they are crisp like the cripsy iprestige, they are still muted/damp but a bit firmer than the noodle and very flexy PT630. It is just like the Dunlop Revelation 200G vs the MW200G they are both muted and damp but Revelation is just a bit more firmer than the noodle MW.

As for Twaron it is a layer, a "shell" that is distributed in the layup between the High Modulus Graphite throughout the whole frame on both PC and PT. Which acted as a dampening characteristic, the iprestige did not have Twaron, it was not muted nor damped but like you said it was crisp.

Anyway, there is a second option to your search which I have experimented with by manipulating the cross and the mains tension. I have elongated the head of my PT to match from half way to the top of the head that of the PC600. The top shape and the sides were exactly like the PC600 only the bottom where the bridge meets the throat it was more elongated ala volk and kniessl. The older EMF Head Edge were shaped like this from the early 80's as well. The frame was less the 1/4 of an inch longer, and it produced some amazing first serve bombs which was noticeably more accurate. The feeling I got was a PT that felt like a PC.

Pro_Tour_630
05-05-2008, 06:46 AM
Same here. I thought the PT 280 was way too muted, couldn't feel the ball at all with it, sold it after one hitting session. I thought the C10 Pro had much more feel and feedback while still retaining that "buttery" quality. Never tried the Tour version but I bet it's pretty sweet.

I never give up on a frame after one hitting session. Some people do that and know right away, I can't figure out how ;but strings and tension has way more to do with how a frame reacts in terms of feel than just the frame itself.
I know for sure that if I put a 16g Poly in my PT it will play like a dog for me and had I picked it up once with that setup it would have been a disaster. What is more important is if you like a certain setup it is not always true that it will perform well in another frame. the perfect example is the MOJO setup by the MOJO creator. He loved that setup in almost every frame but when he put it in a his favorite dense VOLKL it rendered it useless.

As for the tour version of the C1O called the pro tour it is a club. SW was 365 IMO with 33cm balance,very few people can handle such a BAT. It was nice but the weight kept on coming off as they went from the C10PT to DNX 10mid to the BB11 mid

Fed Kennedy
07-24-2009, 12:57 AM
I want to revive this thread because I am curious about these two racquets: c10 pro vs pro tour 630. they are both flexy and 630cm sq. different string patterns. I hit with a c10 tonight for a few hours and it felt really nice, especially on drop shots. I have never played a pro tour 630 but I have a radical 260 mp and I find it incredibly demanding. any thoughts?

Ross K
07-24-2009, 04:52 AM
I want to revive this thread because I am curious about these two racquets: c10 pro vs pro tour 630. they are both flexy and 630cm sq. different string patterns. I hit with a c10 tonight for a few hours and it felt really nice, especially on drop shots. I have never played a pro tour 630 but I have a radical 260 mp and I find it incredibly demanding. any thoughts?

2 of my fave frames ever and I've spent a lot of time with both since this thread was 1st posted a few years ago.

They are both absolute phenomenal and unique rackets that have their own devoted followers.

The PT 630 just swings so beautifully from the b-line, I'm not sure anything quite compares in this respect. It's balance, stability, lush feel and heavy ball is wonderful (and is surely connected to why so many pros continue to wield it?)

As for the C10 Pro, it also swings quite beautifully and has a balance and stability, as well as feedback and responsiveness, that is superb.

In terms of differences, I'd cite the better topspin I, personally, could get with the Volkl rod (they are of course different string patterns, with the Head being quite dense, wheras the the C10 is more open), though my C1o was always strung with Blue Gear (which might explain the massive topspin I was creating!)

I'd also draw your attention to the slightly more head-light balance of the C1O; which contributes to, for me anyway, the C10 being slightly better for a more all court style, net play etc. As I said, the PT 630 is just numero uno from the b-line though, and the control and power, the smooth feel, and the wonderful way the frames swings is just so special, it's incredible...

I may also mention many (my self included) felt the upper hoop was very mushy (who said 'noodle'?! :wink:) in the C10. Where as the PT 630, though very flexy too, had a 'richer' feel.

I'd confess I could never serve exceptionally well with either frame, though I was better with the PT 630... (this is absolutely due to 'operator error')... FWIW, I find the PT 630 a tad more demanding than the C10 Pro, but I'm not an advanced level player...

Lastly, imo, if you love tennis and tennis rackets etc, both frames have to be tried at least once in life!

Good luck!

R.

jrod
07-24-2009, 04:58 AM
Seriously, if you are going to talk about Volkl these days you cannot leave out their latest players frame: the PB10mid. This frame is unique in that it hits like a C10PT but swings like a APD. I have no idea how they did it, but you have to try it to believe it.