View Full Version : What's the diff between a 200g MW and HM?
03-10-2005, 03:35 AM
I was wondering this, and since I know all the posters here are so knowledgeable and helpful I thought I'd ask here... so what's the difference between a Dunlop 200g 95" Muscle Weave and a Dunlop 200g 95" Hotmelt? I seem to remember some threads where people indicated a pretty substantial difference. I've recently come to think the 200 HM is my new "holy grail" racket, after extensive demoing, but I'm wondering (since I can't demo it) if I'm missing out with the MW... since it's in the same line. Anybody that's played with both care to comment? You all are so informative... :)
03-10-2005, 06:21 PM
Surely somebody has some idea?
03-10-2005, 08:07 PM
the muscle weave is better in every possible way except power.
MW has better control, feel, weight, and it looks MUCH better
the HM has more power and thats it, oh and it feels like mush when u hit the ball.
i have yet to try the m-fils but it looks like it might be a winner or a tie to the MW
03-11-2005, 02:13 PM
Thanks, Ryoma, sounds like it'd be worth a try...
04-25-2005, 06:21 PM
I would appreciate any more opinions... ??
04-25-2005, 06:59 PM
Which one is the 200G sold at TW?
Technologies list both Muscle Weave AND Hot Melt!
04-25-2005, 09:05 PM
it's the hot-weave
ok just kidding.. it's the Hot Melt
04-28-2005, 01:09 AM
I played both and liked the HM more. It swing much easier, has better manueverability, better feel and much better spin!
Couldnt get why everybody is so hot on the MW as the HM is really a very nice racket!
Used it for a year - had to switch due to some arm trouble...
Now i play the Tecnifibre 325 which feels like a mix of 200G HM and Prestige Classic! Very nice...
vBulletin® v3.6.9, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.